There are reasons to be dissatisfied with an Afghan situation without foreign troops meddling in that place, but that degree of dissatisfaction would not be much different from the degree of dissatisfaction with the meddling or the degree of dissatisfaction with other problems in the world.

The contrast of resources spent between AFG and other troubles is not justified by the contrast of the troubles themselves.

It’s basically as Bacevich says; AFG is not of vital interest, Mexico is. You would be called a fringe nut if you proposed only half as much effort in regard to Mexico as is being spent in AFG.
And that’s just one example. Keep in mind that Saudi-Arabia, not Pakistan, is the ideological breeding area of AQ and Sudan waged a genocidal war way beyond TB brutality for years.

There’s simply no good reason for the focus on AFG.

First off, it was difficult for me to explain such a complicated policy for such a complicated issue in one blog post. I did my best and it obviously was not as thorough as I would have liked it to be.

@micraig & Sven - The Taliban and AQ are definitely separate groups, but there are clear links between them and these links are dangerous to US national and international security. I have no doubt that if the Taliban were able to cement control over the Afghan south and east, and they very well could Sven, AQ would be able to have more wiggle room. In my opinion, this is too big of a risk to take. Obviously AQ is mainly based in Pakistan, but that is largely because they pushed out of Afghanistan when the US invaded and took down the Taliban. Sven seems to believe the two groups are unrelated, especially in regards to 9/11, and this simply is not true. The Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar knew Osama was housed in his country, knew his goals, and protected him after the 9/11 attacks. This being said, like most things in life, the Taliban as a group are diverse, in fact there are three major strands that are only somewhat connected. But I know enough about their most extremist and powerful members that I would not trust US security to them being in control of anything.

Sven, you criticize the US ‘moral authority’ in this fight. It is indeed true that the US is friendly with many abhorrent authoritarian regimes around the world. Realpolitic and national interests demands this at times. But in my opinion, since the US had a hand in disposing of the Taliban rule over Afghanistan and started to help them build a more pluralistic, open government, we have an obligation to help it survive, and hopefully one day thrive. Following your argument, one would think you almost support these authoritarian regimes. Just because the US can’t solve all the worlds totalitarian problems, does not mean we should ignore one right in our face. The separation between promoting our beliefs in a free living society and our national interests is a challenging one. It is so easy to just point out dictatorships the US supports and ignore the societies we have helped in the past and the ones that we can concentrate on helping today.

Eoindor,
Not much to say, I agree.

There’s next to no AQ in Afghanistan and AQ doesn’t need Afghanistan. Its cells are all over the world and its celebrities found safe havens elsewhere.

“Secondly, the Taliban, specifically their more radical elements, cannot be allowed to control the central government again.”

They are just one player in a paused civil war. We don’t need to fight in AFG to keep them from power, others can do that with our support.
There’s also the question why we need to prevent the Taliban from re-gaining power and spent hundreds of billions on this task while we ignore (and even befriend) similarly atrocious regimes elsewhere.

“Fourthly, the stability and integrity of the Pakistani state must be maintained and strengthened with a special focus on their nuclear weapon system.”

That doesn’t seem to be positively connected with a Taliban defeat in AFG. A Taliban defeat in AFG would motivate the Taliban to focus on efforts in Pakistan. The border to AFG is Pakistan’s overpressure valve.
Western faithless troops that close are a good recruiting argument for holy war - we make the Taliban strong.

“Lastly, there is also a moral aspect to this conflict. The attacks of 9/11 …”

Yes, but the Taliban are only very indirectly linked to 9/11. They’re basically the scapegoat that got beaten up because the real offender, AQ, was more elusive.

“Another ethical aspect is the fact that the US removal of the Taliban in 2001 freed millions of Afghans from one of the most repressive, backwards, and violent regimes in modern history.”

Actually, it’s not that much worse than the Mujaheddin of the 1980’s/90’s which fought against human rights, modernization, central government, modern schools with the support of the CIA/USA (Reagan).
We ignore atrocious regimes in many places - that certainly questions the relevance of the ethical pro-Afghan War argument.
It’s not credible if you’ve got reasons for 30 actions, yet jump only on one, ignoring all others.

Sorry, but in my opinion you didn’t do much original thinking on this. You did merely assemble the typical half-baked pro-war arguments.

I still worry about that role however, because if the US becomes over-extended it may lose more of its ability to act in that role. And suppose the people of a country want to be led by a theocracy, does the US then have the right to insist on a form of government more democratic in nature?

I believe that the role the US took with regard to Nazism and Communism was correct. In fact, the US may have entered into WWII a little later than it should have. The US did not however accomplish those victories alone. All of the other countries of the free world shared in their commitment and were of a single mind. Where I become concerned is when the we are alone in our endevours. This doesn’t bother me in the least with regard to terrorism; we should fight that no matter who supports or doesn’t support us and no matter where it takes us. But going it alone brings its own set of problems. To further individual rights, might not a more diplomatic role stand a better chance of success? (not in the case of genocides you understand, but in less blatant cases)

I would also love to think that we could right the many wrongs when it comes to the rights of individuals. I just don’t know if that is realistic. I am also concerned about how those rights are defined. Certainly many Arab countries don’t believe that women have any rights and that they are lesser citizens. That doesn’t coincide with the views of most of the free world, certainly not with my own views, and especially not my wife’s views (lol), but do we have the high moral ground when it comes to dictating to other sovereign countries? Maybe, but I don’t think the answers are very simplistic.

You do have a valid point with regard to creating a power vacuum in a country while we are pursuing our own national security. I will have to ponder that.

And finally I agree with you on the effects of the latest two appointments made by the EU. Selecting a low profile economist for the position of president, no matter how effective he is as an economist, sends a message that the EU is a major economic player, but not ready to become a major political power. Maybe someday, hopefully someday, but not right now.

Thanks for your well thought out perspective!

@Micraig: As a European mindful of the American role in freeing Europe of Nazism and Communism in WWII and during the Cold War, I am afraid that I must voice disagreement with you.

US power may be waning but her power still far exceeds her nearest rival especially in terms of military power and the ability to project this worldwide. In such a position the US has a responsibility to the free world to act as a global policeman. If you don’t do it who will?

As a proud advocate of European Unity I hope that one day we will be able to act on our own and share some of the burden but if the US goes into a country, like Afghanistan, and creates a power vacuum by pursuing its national interests (in this case national security) then she has a responsibility to both the people of the country and to the principles that Americans subscribe to, to ensure that the power vacuum is filled peacefully and stably.

I dread the day when the US takes a backseat from her role in policing the world. Recent EU appointments have left me skeptical as to our ability to formulate a viable alternative policeman.

For instance: If AQ attacks us from bases in Libya are we then going to go after AQ there and take on the Libyan government as well because of the abuses that government forces on their population? If AQ trains in camps in China, are we then bound to redress the wrongs of the Chinese Government? And even more importantly, suppose we discover that many of the terrorists were trained in Saudi Arabia and are hiding in Saudi Arabia, is the US going to come into conflict with the main suppliers of US oil?

I am not advocating ignoring the actions of AQ just because they are based in difficult places. But wouldn’t a better strategy be to tell nations that are harboring those forces that we are going to attack terrorists wherever they are, no matter where they are, and if those nations choose to support and defend AQ then all bets are off and the US does what is necessary to secure the safety of our citizens? My guess is that because of those consequences and that most nations don’t want the US interfering in their governments, the safe havens for AQ would disappear. Wouldn’t it then be better to leave the nation building and trying to redress civil rights to a more diplomatic process?

I fear that it is difficult to bring peace to countries that have been at war for a thousand years. Not that that wouldn’t be a wonderful thing to do, but does the US have the capability of accomplishing that task?

Fighting to win against AQ or any other terrorist group is an absolute must. And for the most part I support McChrystal’s requests, but also let us not forget that the military men in this country do not and should not be making foreign policy. That is the road to a military takeover of a government. The US elects a President and Congressmen to make policy decisions. So taking a good hard look at his ideas before approving or amending them is a positive move.