Now He Tells Us

In his column at the Washington Post Michael Gerson restates for the umpteenth time his argument for a perpetual military commitment in Afghanistan:

There is an unavoidable logic to a medium-footprint approach. Terrorist havens can’t be left in peace for jihadists to prepare and increase their technical sophistication. But striking from afar with drones and planes (as we’ve seen) is not enough to destroy these havens. American troops are needed on the ground to gather intelligence, provide reconnaissance and embed with local partners. And these troops, in turn, must be adequately protected.

But will Americans accept — will President Trump accept — what amounts to a limited but indefinite, forward military presence in the Middle East to preempt emerging threats? Will Americans conclude that the resulting military casualties are worth it to prevent potential terrorist murders of civilians?

This would require people to view commitments such as the one in Afghanistan in a different light — not as a war that will eventually end, but as the farthest outposts of homeland defense. And as the terrible price of security in a hostile world.

because there are some ideas so stupid they can’t be repeated often enough. Contrary to Mr. Gerson’s implication the history of our Afghanistan adventure has not been “the patient accumulation of successes”. It’s been at best one step forward one step back. Most of what could be accomplished there was accomplished in the first six months.

As I pointed out back in 2001 the only successful strategy in Afghanistan over the period of the last 3,000 years has been Alexander’s—settle a population there. How about you and your kids, Mr. Gerson?

We should have known. Some of us knew. If people like Mr. Gerson had been saying 17 years ago what they’re saying now, would we have invaded Afghanistan at all? I like to hope not.