in his latest New York Times column Thomas Friedman, quoting from his journal, explains how people like Sen. Biden and himself who knew nothing about Afghanistan or, indeed, the region got the U. S. to spend 20 years on a fool’s errand in Afghanistan against the advice of people who actually understood the country, its circumstances, and its history:
I was not surprised that Joe Biden decided to finally pull the plug on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Back in 2002 it was reasonable to hope that our invasion there to topple Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies could be extended to help make that country a more stable, tolerant and decent place for its citizens — and less likely to host jihadist groups. But it was also reasonable to fear from the start that trying to graft a Western political culture onto such a deeply tribalized, male-dominated and Islamic fundamentalist culture like Afghanistan’s was a fool’s errand, especially when you factored in how much neighboring Pakistan never wanted us to succeed because it could wrench Afghanistan from Pakistan’s cultural and geopolitical orbit.
Biden was torn between those hopes and fears from the very start. I know because I was with him on his first visit in early January 2002 to postwar Afghanistan. It was just weeks after the major fighting had subsided and the Taliban were evicted from Kabul.
It was always a fool’s errand, as people like, for example, Rory Stewart, attempted in vain to explain.
After quoting a number of passages from his diary of his and Sen. Biden’s visit to Afghanistan he concludes:
Our nation’s effort there was worth a try; our soldiers and diplomats were trying to make it better, but it was never clear that they knew how or had enough Afghan partners. Yes, maybe leaving will make it worse, but our staying wasn’t really helping.
Our leaving may be a short-term disaster, and in the longer run, who knows, maybe Afghanistan will find balance on its own, like Vietnam. Or not. I don’t know. I am as humbled and ambivalent about it today as I was 20 years ago, and I am sure that Biden is too.
All I know for sure are: 1) We need to offer asylum to every Afghan who worked closely with us and may now be in danger. 2) Afghans are going to author their own future. 3) It is American democracy that is being eroded today by our own divisiveness, by our own hands, and unless we get that fixed we can’t help anyone — including ourselves.
I agree with his conclusion. But you didn’t need to fly to Kabul via Bagram Air Base and spend a week basking in the poverty and misery of Afghanistan’s largest city to realize that committing to staying as long as it took to “get it on its feet again” presumes that it was ever on its feet in the first place. Doing what Mr. Stewart did—walking across the country—would have proven that to them. Staying in the U. S. Embassy? Not so much. And you didn’t even need to go to Afghanistan. A quick glance at a map should have shown the impossibility of the task.
From what I recall, it was not a nation building exercise, initially, or at least, it was not advertised as such. I still have no problem with the counter-terrorism action. In my opinion, it was perfectly executed, but then, …
It has the feeling of the dog catching the car. Iraq was similar. If the US were to invade Syria, the result would be the same, but you can never convince these idiots. Long ago, I used to ask what the US would get for “winning Vietnam”. Now, we know.
Finally, it is amusing that Mr. Friedman has no problem with imposing Western values on non-Westerners, but if these same people were in the US, it would be an outrage.
“, it was perfectly executed”
It is my understanding, from memory, that when they had bin Laden trapped in the caves they asked for extra troops to cover for the possibility of escape but they were denied extra troops which I think came from pretty high up. (Cheney?) I think they also erred in offering such large bounties as it lead to a lot of people in Gitmo and other prisons who never should have been there. Other than those pretty well done.
Steve
@steve
The Green Berets and other special forces embedded with the Northern Alliance fighters, and they destroyed the terrorist camps and ousted the Taliban – Mission Accomplished.
A small force could have been left, but Afghanistan was not going to become a western democracy. After 20 years of wasted time, money, and lives, it will return to what it was, and unless the Afghan people decide they are willing to fight, the Taliban will be back in charge.
Finding Bin Laden was always useless. Until the NY Times exposed how the US was finding terrorists, the network was being uncovered through the banking system. Each time a terrorist wired money, the recipient became a new node, and the web was discovered.
Like Pavlov’s dogs, you have been conditioned to give the Democrat response whether or not Toro Boro or Gitmo is mentioned. I know Bush=Hitler, Trump is racist, Sen. Byrd is a Civil Rights icon, blah, blah, blah.
If only that were the end of it! To be a failed state, you need to have been a state. It takes a lot of hand-waving to characterize Afghanistan as a state. Deeming it one has been a convenient fiction. The truth is that there is a large swathe of ungoverned territory that reaches from the Hindu Kush to the Bosporus, dotted here and there by city-states. South of that swathe and north of it there are some bona fide states.
The Kabul government has never enjoyed the support of most Afghan people. It will never be able to support the sort of force it would take to put down the Taliban once and for all. It will never be able to support the sort of force it would take to prevent terrorist groups from setting up shop in its territory. It will never be able to support the sort of military that the U. S. could train with material effect.
We did have choices in Afghanistan but none of them was particularly appealing. Leaving isn’t particularly appealing, either, but it is overwhelmingly popular among Americans. As I have contended, isolationism is the default position of most Americans.
As you noted in a previous post, the small force that Sen Graham and others are amenable towards should have been proposed 20 years ago, and it might have been doable. The US has small counter-terrorism forces in many countries. I would prefer we not be in those places, but they are small.
Isolationism is rarely defined. If it means not invading other countries, producing most goods domestically, staying put of other country’s domestic affairs, building roads and schools in the US instead of every shithole around the world, I am an isolationist.
My neighbors are nice, but I am not interested in getting into their business. When my next door neighbor’s house alarm goes off, I go make sure she is not being raped and/or robbed, but if she is having a sex orgy or planning a bank heist, I could care less.
Until the opium trade becomes legal, Afghanistan will be a shithole, with or without the Taliban, and I do not care. If they start to care, I may be persuaded to care, but until them, blowing up terrorist camps is the extent of my concern.