By Jim McGovern and John Isaacs
President Obama never wanted an endless war in Afghanistan, but that is exactly what America is currently facing.
Just last week, the Washington Post reported that “Top U.S. military commanders…are now quietly talking about an American commitment that could keep thousands of troops in the country for decades.”
President Obama previously promised to have American troops out of Afghanistan by the time he left office, but last October he announced that the U.S. will keep close to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through most of 2016 and retain 5,500 soldiers there by the time he leaves office. Now, keeping substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Afghanistan indefinitely is on the table.
After decades of war, the United States learned the hard way that we could exit Vietnam and be stronger for it. A perpetual war in Indochina ended when we were chased out, with helicopters rescuing Americans from rooftops.
Today in Afghanistan, we are at a crossroads similar to the one we faced in Vietnam. We must remember the lessons we learned and stop Afghanistan from becoming another endless war.
Click here to read the full post on Huffington Post.
Jim McGovern is a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts and John Isaacs is the Executive Director of Council for a Livable World.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
The point is well taken – there indeed cannot be an endless war in Afghanistan. There is little reporting going on about this war, and we’re not told really what is happening on the ground – and have not been for a while.
The question I would ask, however, is how realistic is it to expect a political solution in Afghanistan. ‘Political solution’ was the plan for Iraq, and for Syria. What are we proposing for Afghanistan that will be different than for Iraq and Syria?
Nobody should be looking for easy answers; indeed, it’s no good to fight eternal war for eternal peace.
But Pakistan is right next door to Afghanistan. There’s a huge Pashtun tribal minority in Pakistan – in fact, one can argue that one of basic problems in AfPak is that the Pashtuns don’t have their own country. Holding different tribes together, in that part of the world, is the real reason why Islam remains so strong – it provides for unity that crosses tribal borders. Then, there’s huge contrasts between towns and country sides in AfPak. Really, there’s multiple cultures coexisting – and each culture has its own special interests.
How will this world hold together if the US withdraws?
Which of the regional powers will step into the void – as they did in Syria, destroying that country completely?
All complicated issues to which I don’t have an answer to.
jconway says
Doesn’t seem like you two see eye to eye on this one Jim.
merrimackguy says
I thought he was elected to get us out of these things. Why are we still in Afghanistan? That country is hopeless.
SomervilleTom says
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It also has an unstable government with tenuous control over the many factions that comprise today’s Pakistan. Many of those factions are sympathetic to the Afghan Taliban, and vice-versa.
The situation in Afghanistan is, in fact, not remotely comparable to — for example — the situation in North Vietnam in the early 1970. A strengthened anti-US anti-Israeli movement in Afghanistan leads to a strengthened anti-US anti-Israeli movement in Pakistan. One of the things that happens when we push harder in Afghanistan is that the other side moves across the border into Pakistan. When we (or the Afghan government) push less hard, the other side moves back.
If we push too hard in Afghanistan, and the Taliban becomes too strong in Pakistan, then we risk destablizing the Pakistani government. If the Pakistani government falls, the Pakistani nuclear weapons end up in the hands of the Taliban.
This is a time for our foreign policy and diplomacy to be driven by hard-nosed realism about what we can and cannot do and about what the other side can and cannot do.
I agree that America cannot afford an endless war in Afghanistan. I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not we are willing to afford the consequences that unfold when we pull OUT of Afghanistan.
jconway says
I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment Tom:
It was unfortunate Jim Webb ended up being such a dud, with the exception of his asinine opposition to the Iran deal he had been consistently right on most of the major security issues of the day and brought some refreshing realism to the fore. I think Hillary has moved in that direction when it comes to defeating ISIL, containing Putin, and working with allies to ensure Iranian compliance. I do wish more realists could come out of the woodwork in the IR academy and FP practitioner establishment to weigh in on these challenges and how to solve them.
merrimackguy says
Pakistan is a country run by the military for the economic benefit of the military. They like having civilians as figureheads though as it reduces scrutiny of them. They have one enemy, India (and they’ve not been held accountable for their role in the Mumbai attacks). All their dabbling with the Taliban, both inside and outside their country is part of their geopolitics. Do they have extremists within their country? Sure, but I think the military will take the means necessary to quell that. Note what happened in Egypt when Islamists threatened the military’s grip on power. Afghanistan disintegrates after we leave. It’s just what that country does. I don’t see a spillover.