Aussie analyst Benjamin Schreer concludes his critique of American policy on Afghanistan at RealClearDefense by quoting Robert McNamara:
I deeply regret that I did not force a probing debate about whether it would ever be possible to forge a winning military effort on a foundation of political quicksand. It became clear then, and I believe is clear today, that military force—especially when wielded by an outside power—cannot bring order in a country that cannot govern itself.
We are presently in Afghanistan because no president has been able to bring himself to be characterized forever after as “the president who lost Afghanistan to the Taliban”. The inherent contradiction of being logistically dependent on a Pakistan that’s in collaboration with the Taliban does not appear to have occurred to anyone.
Not only can Afghanistan not govern itself, it does not have the financial ability to support a military capable of ousting the Taliban who are, after all, Afghans. I’m also beginning to wonder if military force wielded by an “outside power” incapable of governing itself can form the foundation of a “winning military effort”.
Not to mention that when you feel the need to quote Robert McNamara, you’re in real trouble.
The sad thing is that the fundamental issues were identified long ago. People tried to figure out how to solve them but nothing worked. We have a new generation asking the same questions as if they were new.
In this case McNamara is actually correct.
Steve
“We are presently in Afghanistan because no president has been able to bring himself to be characterized forever after as “the president who lost Afghanistan to the Talibanâ€.”
Sounds too simplistic to me. Those presidents know the score. They know historians know the score. Who, who matters, are they fooling? There has to be more to it.
Jackpot!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/afghanistans-dollar1-trillion-treasure
1. I really hate stupid generalizations. I don’t think the continent of Australia was particularly well governed when the British showed up in the 118th Century, but something akin to military force has managed to prevail there. And I wonder a bit about German in late May of 1945 — did outside military forces establish rule in that benighted location? And is that because the indigenous governing power of Germany was so well established across the land? Or so weak?
2. It’s been darn near universally agreed since the middle of the 19th Century that (a) Afghanistan is unconquerable, and (b) Afghanistan is not worth conquering. Nothing seems to have changed in the past two centuries.
“Sounds too simplistic to me. Those presidents know the score. They know historians know the score. Who, who matters, are they fooling? There has to be more to it.”
What is the alternative explanation?
We’re there for a number of additional reasons. One Donald Trump publicly stated: they’ve got mineral wealth and the Corporate Lords want their share.
Another is so we have forces available to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons should the government fall to radicals.
Another is to physically threaten Iran.
And finally our forces are there so as to maintain close proximity to China’s “One Belt” trade route through Eurasia, should the U.S. ever decide to interfere.
Afghanistan was as well governed as could be expected, with a king and a tribal council, until King Zahir Shah was overthrown in 1973 in a communist coup. The Soviets intervened in 1978 to support the regime in Kabul, and it’s been downhill since.
It’s probably too late to reestablish the monarchy, but it’s not too late to cut and run. No one cared what happened in Afghanistan for hundreds of years, until foreigners began meddling. No one will care after we leave.
I wrote something very similar to that 13 or 14 years ago right here. We’re still in Afghanistan.
Ben,
Our presence in Afghanistan actually does the opposite in all those cases. It is entirely a strategic anchor around America’s neck.
Unless you think we’re going to seize those resources (I don’t) what we’re actually doing is preparing the way for the Chinese (or Indians, depending) to exploit them. Neither outcome is in our strategic interest or worth one American life.
The resources in Afghanistan aren’t going anywhere, they are far too expensive and risky to extract and then get to market.
Actually, the resources are going somewhere, largely illegally:
Neither the United States nor the country of Afghanistan benefit from it.
No one knows how much these small producers are exporting. They are local, small and in many cases artisanal operations. The government can’t track or crack down on these firms because of corruption and a lack of security.
There is no way a western firm could replicate or profit from what they are doing. Afghanistan lacks the conditions necessary to bring in a professional mining outfit, extract the minerals at scale, and export to the world market and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
I agree with that. Any opportunities presented by Afghanistan’s mineral resources are likely to be for either Iran or Pakistan with the main beneficiaries being China or India.
Neither outcome is in our strategic interest or worth one American life.
You aren’t seeing through the eyes of the American foreign policy establishment. To you, the security of the American people is the strategic interest.
To them, projecting American power is in the strategic interest. In this view the social costs are irrelevant. Once we understand this our presence in Afghanistan makes perfect sense.
What we’re projecting is the limits of American power.
What is the alternative explanation?
We went in because of 9/11 and the need for revenge. The problem was, and is, what should you do once you get there?
My preference would have been to go in, kill all of the al Qaeda and Taliban goons that we could, find the last two stones standing on top of each other in that shithole, and knock them over. (Failing to find two stones stacked on top of each other, we should have put one on top of another and then nuked the son of a bitch.) Then declare victory and go home. My preference would have had the advantage of being at least somewhat achievable, and would not have required anywhere near as long as the current situation. The downside is that it would have left Afghanistan off at least as bad as it was before.
So, the geniuses running the country decided instead to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland. This was a bad idea. The foreign policy establishment, however, has become wedded to the idea, and the political movers and shakers can’t get free of them for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with domestic politics.
TL;DR: The answer to the question is that the people in charge just can’t think of anything else to do.
And that’s why we’re still there, and will probably still be there in 40 years, when my daughter is approaching my age. Barring that the US doesn’t fall completely apart in the meantime, which would be my own bet.