An Arbitrary End Versus No End in Afghanistan
05/27/14
Paul R. Pillar
Afghanistan Terrorism, South Asia
The
United States has a hard time ending wars—at least any wars beyond the
limited category of those whose size and shape appeal to Americans'
appetite for clear-cut victories over evil-doers. The American
involvement in the civil war in Afghanistan, at twelve and a half years
and counting, is a prime case.
Our
understanding of this war has not been helped by the repeated coupling
of it in public discussion with the misadventure in Iraq. How the United
States got into each of these wars was vastly different. One involved a
manufactured and illegitimate rationale; the other was a legitimate and
understandable response to a direct attack on the United States by a
terrorist group that at the time was resident in Afghanistan and in
alliance with the regime that ruled most of Afghanistan. The United
States could have and should have concluded its mission in Afghanistan
once it rousted the group and ousted the regime, which it did in the
first few months of its involvement. The Afghanistan War came to
resemble the Iraq War only after it became an endless involvement with
insurgency and civil war, with an inability to identify an obvious
off-ramp.
The
United States does not have any significant or direct interest in
nation-building in Afghanistan or in the internal social and political
arrangements of that country. The Taliban, who became our opponent, have
no interest in the United States except insofar as the United States
interferes with the Taliban's ambitions for those social and political
arrangements. Even the U.S. counterterrorist interest in Afghanistan is
nothing like it was before al-Qaeda was pushed out of its
once-comfortable home. There is nothing unique about Afghanistan as a
potential origin of anti-U.S. terrorism, and anyone who has paid
attention to the evolution of international terrorism over the past
decade realizes that other lands are at least as likely, and probably
more likely, to be points of origin in this regard as Afghanistan is.
The United States, having affected events in Afghanistan for so long
(actually going back to stoking the insurgency against the Soviets in
the 1980s) may have some responsibility under the Pottery Barn rule to
extract itself in an orderly rather than a precipitate manner.
Read full articlehttp://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/arbitrary-end-versus-no-end-afghanistan-10547
No comments:
Post a Comment