4 Responses to “She Didn’t Help at All!”

1. RCAR says:

   February 18, 2009 at 12:58 pm

   I agree we can win. We could have won in Korea&Vietnam. We did win in Desert Storm. We did win in Iraq.*

   So in Afghanistan,what are the costs,and what are the actual benefits to victory? Are the benefits worth it?

   *Some skeptics have a wait and see on that.
2. Maine's Michael says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm

   It seems many successful democracies of late passed thru a phase marked by corruption in government. Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, even post war Germany to a more limited extent. Iraq is curretnly in that phase.

   Perhaps as long as a democratic framework is in place, this is a necessary phase, required to create a level of material affluence and economic and educational trickle down sufficient to build a critical mass of people who then agitate for less corruption and increased democratization.

   The key may be having the institutional and legislative framework in place to build upon, the absence of which is why most islamic kleptocracies do not seem to progress.

   Or, maybe, there’s just something about Islamic societies . . .

   Where does Afghanistan fit in?
3. james hunt says:

   February 18, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   Maine’s Michael Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 1:50 PM
   It seems many successful democracies of late passed thru a phase marked by corruption in government. Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, even post war Germany to a more limited extent. Iraq is currently in that phase.

   +++++++++++++++++++

   Good point. It’s tempting to add ” … and so is post-1968 Chicago” but I’ll forgo muddying a serious discussion with snark. Carry on.
4. Oldflyer says:

   February 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm

   Good article.

   I have posted elsewhere that time and initiative were lost in Afghanistan because we turned the problem over to NATO. By the time we learned that NATO is a hollow drum, the insurgency had regained momentum.

   Many commentators have made the point that Afghanistan is a much different problem than Iraq because of terrain, tribal relationships and history. I do not doubt this. But, we learned a lot from the experience in Iraq and I have confident in the people who turned that situation around. I just hope they are allowed to do their job.

   Maine’s Michael also has an excellent analysis in the sense that it takes time–and demonstrated results to change culture and expectations. Obama, not surprisingly I suppose, has been denigrating Karzai without knowing a thing about him or what he is dealing with. That is exactly the opposite tact he should take at this moment.
5. shmoopy says:

   February 18, 2009 at 4:43 pm

   Victory in Afghanistan in my mind would conist of killing Al Qaeda and the Taliban we can not negotiate with and leave a country with no safe havens for terrorists. No More Nation Building. Afghanistan is where empires go to die. Can this be done? Hell if I know. Also, it would be nice to catch or kill Bin Liden.
6. nacl says:

   February 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm

   In his Commentary Web essay Max Boot inveighs against Ralph Peters’ suggestion of leaving Afghanistan and just, periodically Daisy Cutting the Taliban when they become too threatening.

   He thinks, that’s as if we left Iraq after ejecting Saddam and says:

   “The terrorist safe havens that have been established in Pakistan will migrate across the border and U.S. prestige will suffer a crippling blow — just as the prestige of the Soviet Union suffered from its defeat in Afghanistan. Bad as the situation is in Pakistan today, it will get worse if the U.S. is chased out of the region.”

   Boot admits here that he knows of no strategic reason for the US to remain in Afghanistan. He does not identify a single vital US national interest there.

   1. Those safe havens would not be more dangerous located in Afghanistan instead of Pakistan. Al Qaeda shifting its HQ would not make the US less safe. To the contrary, our drones, Special Forces and Daisy Cutters would have an easier time attacking those safe havens without the worry of stepping on Islamabad’s toes.

   2. The Soviet Union with a direct land border and easy logistics operated a tank army of 120,000 men in Afghanistan for 9 years. They lost hundreds of tanks and helicopters in return for an estimated 20,000 body bags.

   We showed in Iraq that when the going gets tough and it is in our interest to fight, we are not driven off. It has not gotten tough in Afghanistan. Our 30,000 infantry have suffered only slight casualties and have lost no armor, no aircraft. We showed in 2002 that we can lick the Taliban easy. We would leave now because, if Afghans don’t want to fight for themselves, we have no reason to fight for them.

   3. Loss of prestige matters if people in a region, previously impressed or afraid of us lose respect and change their orientation and allegiance. Thus, withdrawing from Iraq would have sparked other Islamist insurgencies and undermined friendly govts from Egypt and Jordan to the Gulf states. But if we withdraw 30,000 men from Afghanistan, instead of reinforcing them, who would change their allegiance in that region?

   However, if instead of withdrawing, we double our commitment in Afghanistan, as a show of determination, and don’t prevail, we will soon be reinforcing those 60,000. Moreover, the more of an army we have to support there, the more we will put ourselves into the hands of Pakistan, and the south Caucasus, where Russia has much influence. They will have us by the throat.

   4. And, again, for what? What are our vital interests in Afghanistan? The oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Europe runs through Georgia. It is there that we should base those those 30,000 men. The Taliban are a concern of Iran, they almost went to war against them in the 1990s. The Russians want the Taliban defeated because they inspire the Chechnya militants and are insidious for the south Caucasus which Russia considers its sphere of influence. Why should we spend our money and blood on behalf of Russia and Iran?

   Maybe there is one sound reason, all the above not withstanding, for keeping our modest commitment in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a nuclear power, and Iran may soon be one. If things go wrong in either place, we may need a base from which to proceed against them. That is the one possibly valid argument Boot might offer, except, he does not.
7. Unamerican says:

   February 19, 2009 at 12:25 am

   #7 “We showed in 2002 that we can lick the Taliban”.

   To which the Taliban would say ‘ I did not get licked by those men”.

   Thanks Bill.