What occurs to me is that United States involvement in Afghanistan needs to end quickly. Now, that's clearly as obvious a statement as anyone could make. If you consider only Afghanistan, that no other country has succeeded in ruling there, going back to Alexander the Great, that the US has spent 10 years trying to bring a democratic, all-inclusive government for the Afghanis, and then read about the continuing failures to bring a unified government into the country, the only logical conclusion is to leave. If you only look at the costs in lives, US military and our NATO allies, Afghani combatants, civilians, weighed against the gains, why are we still there? And if leaving were so easy, what's the problem? It seems pretty easy to weigh the pros and cons. After all, the reason we went in the first place, Osama bin Laden, is no longer an issue.
I have two concerns about a simplistic approach to leaving. First, for ten years, we have faced the prospect of a safe haven for terrorists just across the border in Pakistan. Although the Pakistanis are supposedly our ally, there has been an uncomfortable relationship with the military there, as demonstrated by the presence of bin Laden in a Pakistani military community perhaps for years. Add to that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of an unstable government threaten the region and the world. Can we seriously consider abandoning the region when we know that the nukes are in unpredictable hands? We know that there is a less than friendly relationship with India, which also has nukes. If we are concerned about Iranian development of nuclear weapons, how can we ignore a place where they already exist? My second concern is for the civilian population, particularly the women, in Afghanistan. We have brought 21st Century customs to a culture tottering on the brink of return to the 14th Century. If we leave, do we condemn the women there to a culture which will eliminate the freedoms which we had hoped to bring to this population? When we leave, we must do so with the full knowledge that we are resigning the Afghanis to the Taliban. Some will say that isn't our problem, that the government is corrupt, that they should choose their own way of life. On the other hand, remember the US fought a war in the early 1860s to prevent one section of this country from choosing their own way of life.
Prior to World War I and then again, prior to World War II, the United States, protected by oceans, was content to let the rest of the world do what it would. We learned after the Second World War that it was to our advantage to participate in world affairs. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was the only "super power" remaining which was capable of dealing with international problems. Yet, we have been attacked over those protective oceans, so we must remain vigilant, or it will happen again. Today we face new potential threats, such as growing economic powerhouses in China, India, Brazil. We are confronted with a growing belligerence in Russia. We are watching with crossed fingers as the "Arab Spring" expands, hoping that we aren't watching a scorching "Arab Summer". What about our ally, Israel, which has for more than sixty years, been surrounded by countries dedicated to its eradication? Every man and woman in Israel has learned to look over their proverbial shoulder, every minute of every day. We must be cognizant of how our actions will be interpreted by Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians. Is our political rhetoric, especially from Republican candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or John McCain's affinity for bombing everything, undermining efforts to end conflicts?
If you look at pictures of the Middle East or Afghanistan, you are confronted with an image that could be a moonscape. Deserts and mountains, with limited water, overwhelming poverty and illiteracy, wealth gaps of monumental proportion are the rule, not the exception. Corrupt governments, many of which we have supported, have failed to provide for their people, but help perpetuate US financial and business interests, and won us the title, "Great Satan". Can we allow war as an instrument of foreign policy to guide our relations with the rest of the world? Can we afford to be the "policeman of the world"? Should we follow a policy of supporting governments which oppress their own people so we can obtain their natural resources, like oil? These are questions we all must ask ourselves because the answers influence the choices our politicians make.
Bill Maher said the other night that the next time we go to war for oil, we should get some oil. Perhaps the next time we go to war, we should have a really good reason.
Foreign policy is a maze, and we have made constant wrong turns. Because our democracy causes a change in leadership on a regular basis, we bring different views and policies to bear on the international stage. That can be both good and bad, especially when dealing with entrenched despots. We have kept the Karzai government is place in Afghanistan, which has not proven to be in our interests. But if we leave, or when we leave, we must accept the fact that the Afghan people will revert to a way of life we may not want to see. The same can be said of Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. We already have a problem with Iran.
In case you are unsure of what I'm getting at, let me say simply that I would like the US to leave Afghanistan tomorrow. And that in spite of what I would like, I'm not sure that is a good idea. If I'm not able to be definitive, imagine how the experts and policy makers must feel. There are more than two sides to this coin. This won't be the last time I wonder what to do.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment