Things Worth Fighting For in Afghanistan
Josh Marshall did a very thoughtful and interesting post this morning following up on some of my earlier doubts about the focus on the idea that preventing an al-Qaeda “safe haven” in Afghanistan should be the ne plus ultra of American national security policy.
Since Josh’s post will probably kick attention to this issue up a few notches, I thought I might add that I think there are other perfectly good issues for the United States to remain in Afghanistan. For one thing, I’m enough of a squish that I think “not abandoning the population of Afghanistan to civil war and Taliban rules” makes perfect sense. And it’s also very reasonable to see the situation in Afghanistan as tied in with the situation in Pakistan and to see preventing the collapse of the Pakistani state as an important American policy goal.
But if these are our real objectives, then certain things follow from that. Consider air strikes. If you define the goal as “eliminate safe havens” then maybe airstrikes that accidentally kill Afghan civilians aren’t that big a deal. By contrast, if we’re there to help Afghan civilians, then killing Afghan civilians is a very big deal.
27 Responses to “Things Worth Fighting For in Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“maybe airstrikes that accidentally kill Afghan civilians aren’t that big a deal. ”
I guess that’s the way the big boys talk, the ones in power. Or maybe that’s the way the little boys talk, who think they’re talking like the big boys.
Either way, it’s disgraceful, Matthew. You are talking about innocent people dying terrible deaths. Children dying.
You’re better than that.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Tristero: You must have tried pretty hard to ignore the words around the ones you quoted, thereby mistaking Matt’s point. It couldn’t have been easy.
Matt: Ne plus ultra? Don’t you mean sine qua non?
May 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Matt: Ne plus ultra? Don’t you mean sine qua non?
“ne plus ultra”–nothing more beyond.
“sine qua non”–without which not.
“ne plus ultra” seems more correct to me, although the less-used “summum bonum” might also work.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Actually, now that I think about it, “summum bonum” isn’t appropriate here at all. Actually, I think I’d just write “ultimate goal” and save the Latin for some other occasion.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
It seems to me that there are greater and lesser objectives in Afghanistan. First and foremost, it must be our goal to ensure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not fall into the hands of the Taliban. Second, we must ensure that there are no Al Quaeda safe havens. Then, assuming it does not interfere with objectives 1 and 2, we should try to advance the welfare of Afghan civilians.
That said, the question is not really so much whether we subjugate the welfare of Afghan civilians to objectives 1 and 2, it is whether we are willing to incur the costs of advancing objectives 1 and 2 without harming Afghan civilians. The use of drones is really a transfer of risks and costs from American soldiers to Afghan civilians. Since our military is at no risk of existential defeat (as opposed to withdrawal based on increased costs), it seems indefensible to kill Afghan civilians because we are unwilling to place our troops in harms way to advance our objectives in the region.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
The civilian deaths from drone attacks aren’t such a big deal if you intend to stay in the country policing the safe havens forever. But won’t we eventually depend on Afghan civilians (that is, the people we’re killing for the sake of some greater mission) taking up the fight? Those deaths must hurt our credibility. Without local support, how do you ensure that once the safe havens are gone they don’t spring up again? Perhaps there are certain situations in which civilian deaths could be justified, but it seems at the moment that the overall effect of the civilian deaths from drones on Afghan attitudes is not be something to scoff at. If torture was effective recruitment propaganda, I would imagine indiscriminate drone attacks might be as well. The distinction between “help Afghans” and “eliminate terrorist safe havens” is merely rhetorical.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I’m mighty sick and tired of hearing people talk about what things might be “worth fighting for” in Afghanistan without talking about how, exactly, those things are supposed to be accomplished. What exactly are America’s goals in Afghanistan? It’s not to set up any kind of democratic government. It’s not even to set up a stable, American-friendly dictatorship. Both of those are pipe dreams. So what’s the mission – to “defeat the Taliban”? To “eliminate safe havens” for the Taliban? How, exactly, do you do that? Is the US going to kill every Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Kill every Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan? There is no coherent mission here, and no coherent goal, other than “kill a bunch of people, then kill a bunch more.”
May 24th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
And really, for god’s sake, why the hell are we in a protracted, decade-long war with the Taliban anyway? Are we really killing thousands of people and destabilizing a nuclear-armed state over the Taliban? The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11. The Taliban are not al Qaeda. There were no Taliban on those airplanes. I am sick to fucking death of the shameless conflation of al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is every bit as disgusting as the conflation of al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and every bit as destructive.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Also, even within the context of this post, this is a really dumb statement:
If you define the goal as “eliminate safe havens” then maybe airstrikes that accidentally kill Afghan civilians aren’t that big a deal.
How, exactly, do you “eliminate safe havens” for the Taliban if you’re constantly creating sympathy for them – and earning deep, abiding hatred for the United States – by blowing up dozens of children in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a regular basis?
May 24th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I was going to say that Central Asian food can be quite delicious (like north Indian food but with more fenugreek) even if I’m not sure it’s worth fighting for.
But my cat (a large Maine coon) brought in a half-dead lizard he caught to play with. I guess I shouldn’t have been bothering him about not catching anything.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Seth @5, after reading Juan Cole, I think it is a serious mistake to think of Pakistan as being on the brink of falling to the Taliban. Only a couple of percent of Pak citizens support the Taliban, and not too many more support radical Islam. About the only thing that could accomplish that is a defacto US-Pakistani government alliance against the Taliban, complete with drone attacks on civilian targets. Sometimes I think that our foreign policy types dream up worst case scenarios, and then invent strategies to cause them to happen.
I agree very much with strasmangelo above, we seem to have taken upon ourselves an impossible and unenviable task. All because, having been tramatized by 9-11, we can no longer think clearly. I submit that the real reason for our continuing policy over there, is that no political player dares admit the task is hopeless, and pointless. That proposing to cut our losses is tantamont to surrender. We also have the problem of admitting we have spent military lives in vain. Reversing failed policy is equated with no honouring our military casualties. Therefore, because of sound-bite politics/analysis we cannot contemplate a realistic course of action.
Question: are we doing drone attacks within Afghanistan? I had thought those were reserved for the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the political risk of having a manned aircraft shot down is so much greater. Within Afghanistan I thought manned bombing was the preferred mode of delivery. Of course either method only drives the people into the arms of the Taliban. The sooner we learn that we just can’t control that part of the world -and that absent those controlling activities, and knee-jerk support for nearly anything the Israeli hawks want us to do, they would leave us alone.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
1.5 hours later I’m still not sure if Afghan food is worth fighting for (you should try one of these yogurt-marinated chicken sandwiches in homemade naan though) but the cat just brought in a huge mouse or rat in through the cat door.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
The misadventure in Afghanistan is a prime example of mission drift. The US went in there chasing AQ and now its still there attacking Afghani domestic political parties.
If the Afghanis like Taliban governance, let them have it.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“For one thing, I’m enough of a squish that I think “not abandoning the population of Afghanistan to civil war and Taliban rules” makes perfect sense.”
In which case, I have to wonder why you were so hot to get out of Iraq starting in 2005/2006; they were staring down the same barrel at the time.
At least the people who opposed that war from the beginning were consistent
May 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Both Josh and Matt make the usual mistakes here.
First, Bush’s attack on Afghanistan had nothing whatever to do with Al Qaeda and everything to do with energy, specifically pipelines, just as his attack on Iraq had nothing whatever to do with WMDs and everything to do with oil. Yet every single time Matt comments on the subject, he ignores this well established fact.
Second, Matt’s comment: “I’m enough of a squish that I think “not abandoning the population of Afghanistan to civil war and Taliban rules” makes perfect sense.”
On the contrary, this makes no sense as other have mentioned above. It’s not the US’s business to be concerned about how the Afghan people run their country. We’ve got enough problems worrying about the assholes running OUR country. Afghanistan has been in a state of “civil war and X rules” for generations.
Matt’s other comment: “And it’s also very reasonable to see the situation in Afghanistan as tied in with the situation in Pakistan and to see preventing the collapse of the Pakistani state as an important American policy goal.”
Again, as others have pointed out, where is the HOW in this statement? Obama doesn’t have one and neither does Matt.
Which makes it all bullshit. It’s saying, “I want a pony”.
Yglesias makes these stupid statements all the time, and he expects to be taken seriously as a wannabe pundit. Maybe he can be a pundit like Bill Kristol – a complete idiot who’s always wrong. With statements like these, he’s well on his way.
Get a fucking clue, Yglesias. There is absolutely NOTHING the US can do about Afghanistan and Pakistan except make matters worse. Unless Matt is advocating spending a hundred billion dollars or more a year and a million NGO personnel in EACH of those countries for the next ten to twenty years to improve those societies? And that’s assuming somehow the militants can be suppressed enough WITHOUT killing civilians to enable that program to function?
Matt and Obama: Either come up with a PLAN to make any of that possible or shut the fuck up and get out of the region.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:12 am
“not abandoning the population of Afghanistan to civil war and Taliban rules” makes perfect sense
It also makes perfect sense to stop invading and occupying foreign nations.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Things Worth Fighting For in Afghanistan
Keep on thinking of good reasons to fight. It is good for the military-industrial complex, particularly now that the financial complex has collapsed.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:27 am
One of your most disappointing postings in a long while. What on earth makes you think that Americans in Afghanistan are making Afghan lives better?
Air strikes create safe havens for the Taliban.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:33 am
I think “not abandoning the population of Afghanistan to civil war and Taliban rules” makes perfect sense
I’ll pay for your tin hat, rifle, and a plane ticket – if you promise to get on that plane and do this “not abandoning the population” thing.
If not, you’re obviously lying about it making “perfect sense” to you.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Concur with Abb1. The “squishy” part is a 28 year old male advocating the sacrifice of US soldiers in an unnecessary war — and doing so from a safe armchair in Washington DC.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Not too late for you to join the Marine or Army infantry , Matthew. Would give you some street cred. Go and read Plato’s account of the Socratic dialogues. Socrates was a vet.
Thucydides, on the other hand, is a definite morale killer.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Actually, it shouldn’t be the US military; the US has no jurisdiction to intervene in internal Afghan matter, but unassociated individuals like Matthew can do it just fine.
In the 1930s plenty of people all over the world decided that it makes perfect sense for them to go and fight fascism in Spain; they went to Spain, joined Spanish Republican forces, and fought. Matthew and his friends should do the same.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:24 am
What total fucking moron James Robertson forgets is that there was no Taliban in Iraq and that the civil war was 100% the fault of blundering by brainless twits like him who imagined that merely murdering the bad guy was sufficient to get everyone a pony.
Fuckwits like James “kill them all, they have oil I want” Robertson want to pretend that those who want the United States to stop murdering Iraqis “for their own good”, are as stupid as he is. Sure, if it were up to this mindless goon, leaving would mean a pure abandonment. In reality, those desiring that the Iraqis be given a chance were willing to spend money to help get people in to help out the Iraqis. The kind of people who knew the culture, the kind of people who knew the fucking language.
But no, when you are an apologist for mass murder like James, you want to spread the blame for genocide as far as you can, so your own monstrous lack of morals seems less, well, monstrous.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:30 am
It is sinful to misuse “summum bonum” the way these commenters do. To associate that with the killing of civilians makes one grieve for the world. All these hipsters who think the Arian heresy was about Nazism can’t even grasp the iniquity of their use of language.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I agree with tristero, Seth, strasmangelo jones, Richard Steven Hack (despite the gratuitous insults), Lupita, Chris Dornan, abb1 and Hector. To their comments on the Af/Pak situation, I would only add that it was the US invasion of Afghanistan that destabilized Pakistan in the first place (see my post here for analysis of this point).
But there are two more points that need to be raised: 1) Is Yglesias going to respond to the valid complaints about his support for the US occupation? It seems that the overwhelming majority of his readers oppose his position; I think he owes them a reply. 2) What does Yglesias’s support for the occupation, and the support of Obama and the entire Democratic party for it, say about the Democratic Party and liberalism more generally? If liberal Democrats can not be counted on to oppose the war, does that indicate that there is something wrong with their political ideology as a whole? I would say the answer is yes, and that the solution is revolutionary socialism. If you’d like to hear more, check out the Socialist Worker newspaper and the International Socialist Review, and check back at my blog for continued criticism of liberal support for imperialism and capitalism’s other failures.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
You didn’t learn a fucking thing from being wrong about Iraq. Here you are, once more, completely wrong about another foreign policy issue.
Here’s what you never ask yourself. What good are you doing? What good has America done in its overseas interventions? You murdered millions in Vietnam, for what? Ditto Iraq. It’s still a fucking hell on earth. You idiots never learn. Here’s what the rest of the world knows that seems to escape you fuckwits: the world would benefit if America just stayed home.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
R.S.Hack – I concur. American exceptionalism has always been and continues to be pure lunacy.