George F. Will, a man who keeps a bust of the late Sen. Scoop Jackson, the patron saint of foreign-policy hawks, in the foyer of his office, has called for the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from Afghanistan. Will now publicly joins the 57 percent of Americans who told CNN pollsters that they oppose the war in Afghanistan.
If those of us who still support the war are to overcome public skepticism, we’re going to need a better answer than, “Hey—no fair changing your mind!” Unfortunately that’s the first answer that Will has received from conservative writers, including my friend and one-time White House colleague Pete Wehner.
The U.S. supposedly won its Afghan war more than seven years ago. Yet today the Taliban is active in more than one-third of the country. The West’s goal of extending freedom is undermined by the insecurity, corruption, and misgovernment that plagues most of the population.
President Hamid Karzai’s brother is the biggest drug dealer in the country. The runner-up? Probably Muhammad Fahim, the country’s former defense minister and still perhaps the most influential figure within the Afghan military establishment.
Effective police are indispensable to successful counterinsurgency. By all accounts, the Afghan police are feared and disliked by the population. Police ignore Taliban activities when they do not collaborate with them. They extort money from the population and collect pay from local drug lords.
The Afghan army is rather better than the police, but for an unreassuring reason: while the insurgency is ethnically Pashtun, the army leadership comes from Afghanistan’s other nations, especially the Tajiks. For them, the war continues a conflict that long predates America’s arrival in Afghanistan. When I visited an Afghan military training school last year, I asked the recruits about their motives for enlistment. Every one of the dozen men I interviewed had lost a relative in civil wars dating back to Soviet days. Every one of them used the word “Taliban” interchangeably with “Pashtun.” U.S. trainers speak optimistically of transforming this ethnic force into a true national army to serve all Afghans. Here’s hoping.
Afghanistan is a very difficult place for anyone to govern, outsiders most of all. Its population, estimated at more than 32 million, is larger than Iraq’s. Kabul is a city of maybe 3 million, maybe 4 million. Afghanistan is often described as a country bigger than France. In terms of kilometers, that’s true. But with its shoddy infrastructure and unforgiving terrain, Afghanistan might as well be its own planet. It can take longer to travel by road to the next town than it takes to travel from Paris to New York. The much-ballyhooed circular highway around the country remains unfinished and unsafe even where it has been completed.
Afghanistan’s illiteracy rate exceeds 80 percent; even senior army officers often cannot read. The prevailing political philosophy was bequeathed to Afghanistan by its former Soviet occupiers: “He who does not steal from the state, steals from his family.” Even the emancipation of women—the finest American gift to Afghanistan—is visibly corroding, as girls’ schools are closed by terrorist attacks.
So: quit now?
No—and here’s why not.
American and NATO prestige has been pledged to Afghanistan. A collapse of Afghanistan into warlordism or a narco-state (the likeliest outcome of U.S. withdrawal) would be very costly. And the fact that the West has not done very well in Afghanistan to date does not doom us to failure forever.
As bad as things are, over the past six months we have had our first hopeful news since the heady days of 2002. Not only are more American troops arriving, but U.S. pressure on Pakistan is at last paying off. After years of disengagement or even complicity with the Taliban, Pakistani authorities have belatedly joined the fight to deny them sanctuary.
On Sept. 2, Pakistan reported a major military operation near the Khyber Pass, consisting of an attack on four bases belonging to the Lashkar-I-Islam militant group. These operations are sometimes exaggerated in the retelling, but there’s no question that Pakistan has launched an unprecedented level of attacks on Taliban areas this year—one of which succeeded in killing the chief of the Pakistan Taliban on Aug. 23.
Since 2002, the western world has followed a “development first” strategy in Afghanistan, hoping that if the country recovered economically, the remnants of the Taliban would fade away. This year the U.S. is shifting to a new approach, the “security first” strategy that worked in Iraq. And unlike Iraq, there is now hope that the insurgency in Afghanistan will at last be denied a neighboring safe haven in Pakistan.
Our goals in Afghanistan are properly modest. Nobody is looking to elevate Afghanistan into a model anything. Those who serve in Afghanistan all understand the concept of “good enough.” Next door, Tajikistan is the second poorest country in Eurasia. Yet its population is literate, and it does not host international terrorist groups. Tajikistan is not much of a democracy and it has suffered from civil war, but it has groped its way to stability and it has not been accused of the kinds of human rights abuses committed in Uzbekistan. We can look to that kind of future for Afghanistan, if we get the military strategy right.
Is the new strategy right? I won’t predict. But it is new, and it deserves a trial before we reach pessimistic conclusions. Wars are ugly and expensive. But losing wars is worse, and worse in ways often impossible to predict in advance. That’s a lesson I learned as a young conservative back in the 1970s—in very large part by reading the columns of George F. Will.
42 responses so far
1 Churl // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“Hey—no fair changing your mind!” is certainly a legitimate criticism from Afghans worried about being abandoned to the mercies of the Taliban (or someone like them) if the Americans scuttle out.
Conservatives shouldn’t forget this.
2 brutus1791 // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Mr. Frum,
You are much nicer to George Will than Pete Wehner was for sure. I think Wehner’s attack on Will was uncalled for. Michael Gerson has a decent rebuttle in the Washington Post, but it is honestly shallow and full of rhetorical fluff. We need to wait for this supposed “Doubling Down” that Mr. Will is going to do and address each of his concerns appropriately.
His prescription: SF, Tomahawks, bombs from afar… hackneyed response that has been proven ineffective when one looks at the original goals of the Operation. Frankly, people throw around Special Operations far too often without fully appreciating what SF-like units do best: force multiplying, Civil Affairs style, and Foreign Internal Defense. Direct Action is second tier. They are not the be-all end-all answer when used as just DA element. Besides, isn’t this the route we took with Clinton? Is Mr. Will advocating Bill Clinton’s foreign policy? Yuck.
3 DFL // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Al-Qaeda is virtually wiped out as a terror force. Osama bin-Laden knows that if he ever appears out from his basement or cave, he will be a dead man. Afghanistan itself is of no strategic value and has no strategic resource. We should get out.
As for concern for NATO prestige, I would maintain that NATO lost its purpose for existance when the Cold War wound down and the communists surrendered power in Russia. NATO should go the way of the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Boston Braves.
4 ConArtist // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yet you may never learn that you can no more win a wore than win an earthquake as Jeannette Rankin said. Many positive developments can happen in Afghanistan through education, peace-building and negotiation. American military involvement will only perpetuate the forever occupied territory that is Afghanistan as well as give the Afghans a false sense of security that will shortly disintegrate after withdrawal.
I somehow, find myself agreeing with Barker’s comments here. Those who promote war should be personally bound by it. Of course, it’s okay for Frum to besmirch the peacekeepers or pacifists while cowardly promoting a war he’ll evade. There’s nothing more disturbing than reading a cavalier, irreverent piece like this when the author is devoid of responsibility. It’s this cocksure attitude, the Dick Cheney grin that Frum must’ve learned while his time as a war hawk in the White House.
The lord works in mysterious ways though, and he may not evade the most important judgment.
5 MFarmer // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Once we are trying to win for prestige, we’ve already lost. Clean it up and move out.
6 sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm
David Frum sez: “American and NATO prestige has been pledged to Afghanistan. A collapse of Afghanistan into warlordism or a narco-state (the likeliest outcome of U.S. withdrawal) would be very costly.”
In the “Pentagon Papers,” then SecState Dean Rusk had stated that the main goal of fighting in Vietnam was to avoid a “humiliating U.S. defeat.” We should have learned the hard way that you don’t fight a war just to avoid losing it.
So I come back to what should be our true main objective: How does our continuing involvement in Afghanistan help weaken Islamist terrorism? How many Islamist terrorists who want to attack America are left in Afghanistan?
7 Chekote // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:57 pm
sinz54
How many 9/11 and other terrorist attacks need to happen until you realize that failed states are a problem? We already had a failed Afghani state and witnessed the results of it. You want? Let’ s give Sinz what he wants. Let’s withdraw our troops from all over the world and place them along our borders to the North and South. Let’s see what happens.
8 ConArtist // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Yes, Chekote, I concur. Or perhaps maybe we’ll continue to invade nations senselessly which results in thousands of US troop deaths and innumerable amount of human casualties for people abroad. This is surely making us safer. Noting how we’ve exacerbated the problem and now face multiple fronts from neighboring nations as a result of US imperialism post 9/11.
It’s a challenge to remain civil with such imbecilic drivel from some of the comments.
How many more troops and civilians need to die Chekote to satiate your blood thirsty desire for more? I’m spraying elephant spray by my house btw to control the stray elephants. Can’t you see the correlation? You’re provincial attitude and hawkish dogma is tiring and flatly, wrong. Instead of using your emotional incense to justify any/all further killing, try actually working to alleviate or reduce the amount of pain and suffering and violence in the world. Or, pick up the bible and read about Jesus.
9 Chekote // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:18 pm
conartist
I thought attacking Afghanistan was justified since the 9/11 attack was staged from the and the Taliban refused to turn over BinLadin. I guess not. We should never fight back because it will only make the enemy mad.
Or, pick up the bible and read about Jesus.
Hey buddy. If you bothered to read my posts you would know that I am secular.
10 ConArtist // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Good to know my friend, your posts prove you are secular by your lack of reconciliation and understanding. So once again, it would behoove you/all the more reason to read about Jesus.
Attacking a country is in itself a moronic notion. If you cannot see that, I pity you. And for good measure, it often isn’t prudent for a nation to enrage or incite the ‘enemy’ as you so refer.
11 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:08 pm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09032009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_afghan_woes_187815.htm
If this is true…
BILL
12 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22128
What can I say…? I’m on a bit of a reading jag today. (Yes… even more so than usual.) (*SMILE*)
BILL
13 blake.seitz // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Hate to nitpick, but…
Barker13: “the Korean War ENDED”
The war never ended–it’s on hold after NK / China and the UN signed an armistice. That’s why the DMZ exists today (well, technically you could argue it’s because of the nuclear-capable lunatic across the border, but…).
14 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Re: Blakeseitz // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm (#14) –
(*GRIN*)
Ya got me. Technically we’re still at war. And of course we still have thousands of troops there serving as a trip wire.
Still… you no doubt got my point.
(*SMILE*)
Hey… obviously even if all U.S. forces from around the world returned stateside and our navy never went beyond 200 miles off shore we’d still suffer casualties via training accidents, criminal activity, suicides, illnesses, etc.
Any thoughts on Afghanistan?
BILL
P.S. – And btw… in all seriousness… I appreciate the nitpicking.
15 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I find it hilarious that the “New Majority” crowd is gangbusters on an unpopular war.
The ultimate in hilariousness!
I just cant take you people serious anymore.
16 blake.seitz // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Yeah, I figure we might as well KNOW our history if we’re going to argue about it. Looks bad otherwise: the whole ethos thing.
And anyway, it gives me something to do–I don’t know enough about the situation Over There to warrant (intelligent) comment.
17 Chekote // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Attacking a country is in itself a moronic notion. If you cannot see that, I pity you. And for good measure, it often isn’t prudent for a nation to enrage or incite the ‘enemy’ as you so refer.
I don’t find FDR attacking Japan and its allies moronic at all. What is moronic is thinking that you can achieve peace by appeasing evil. Bible reading would be good for you. But reading history books will help you more.
18 Chekote // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I find it hilarious that the “New Majority” crowd is gangbusters on an unpopular war.
I find it hilarious to see one liberal drone after another repeating the talking point that “we are not any safer’” and never proding any evidence to back up the assertion. More importantly, completely ignoring the fact that we haven’t been attacked since Bush’s policies were adopted. In the 1990s, we had the firt World Trade Center attack, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Embassies in Africa. Ever since 9/11 not one attack. Yet day after day the liberal drones repeat “we are not any safer, we are not any safer” as if just repeating it makes a fact.
19 sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:29 pm
chekote:
How many failed states do you want the U.S. to invade?
The magazine Foreign Policy lists the following failed states, in order of failure, from most worst to least worst:
Somalia
Zimbabwe
Sudan (Radical Islam is spreading like wildfire in Africa)
Chad
Congo
Iraq
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Guinea
Pakistan (a NUCLEAR failed state)
Ivory Coast
Haiti (a failed state just a couple hundred miles from Florida)
Burma
Kenya
Nigeria
Ethiopia
North Korea
Yemen
Bangladesh
East Timor
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings
That should keep U.S. armed forces busy for many years to come.
BTW, that plot to blow up ten transatlantic jetliners inbound to America with liquid explosives was hatched by Islamists living in Britain. Last I checked, Britain is not a failed state.
But Britain gives shelter to proponents of a failed ideology: Radical Islam. That these Islamists were living in the world’s oldest successful democracy, with free markets and a high standard of living, didn’t impress them–or dissuade them–one little bit.
20 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Im pro Afghanistan and Iraq war. I am very aware of not only the Islamist Terrorist threat, but the Islamic threat to Western Civilization, particularly Israel and Europe…..and everyone on the planet in general, and I mean everybody, with perhaps the Latin Americans the most insulated, but not totally from them at least for the time being.
The humor I see here, is that of people advocating forging a New Majority by advocating Gay Marriage (which is opposed by 70 percent of the US population), Abortion, which over 70 percent of the US population think should be more restricted than it currently is, and Bashing Christianity, of which over 80 percent of the population are….and then topping it off with a hard line pro unpopular war stance.
Its borders on crazyland talk.
21 sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Chekote:
That is true.
And the Bush Administration deserves credit for that–especially since after 9-11, most Americans had resigned themselves to the inevitability of a so-called “second wave” attack.
The question is, just which policies were most effective at stopping terrorism, versus which ones were relatively ineffective?
The most effective thing we did was: BECOME ALERT, and be prepared for the worst. Prior to 9-11, there was a real mindset, both in and out of government, that the chance of a massive terrorist strike in the heart of America was “remote” (that’s what the Bush 41 administration had said). And prior to 9-11, the U.S. Government was spending more money on drug interdiction than on counterterrorism. Needless to say, 9-11 changed all that. Fighting terrorism has become the top priority of both the FBI and CIA.
In 2001, destroying the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (which had been operating for a number of years while the U.S. did nothing) certainly hurt al-Qaeda badly. But al-Qaeda is at most a badly fragmented force in Afghanistan now. Yet they continue to operate from other countries, including Pakistan and Somalia. So why don’t we go after them where they are in force, rather than remaining stuck in Afghanistan where they are not?
22 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:29 pm (#20) –
I made that point in my post #4 — “Following that logic we should immediately move to expand our military to AT LEAST 30,000,000 strong and occupy much of the globe.”
Frum didn’t answer me.
I doubt Chekote will answer you.
(*SHRUG*)
We’ll see though.
BILL
23 anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Well, Bill…I agree with you. (This is getting scary)
To the pro-Afghanistan war bloggers: At what point do we reach a saturation level of exhaustion for these troops of which some are so casually eager to send out to wage ‘war.’ And if al Quaeda decides to move from the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan and set up shop in other countries, what then?
Follow them around the globe? How many ‘tours’ do you think a soldier needs? 2, 3, 4? Read about the rising suicide rate among soldiers? Even Caesar’s great armies eventually evaporated. The billions we are spending spreading our forces all over the globe, would be better spent in increased vigilance (much more to do ), and a focus on networked intelligence-gathering with allies. Allies, yes.
Maybe they ought to put more money into anti-cyberterrorism and rehire those gay Arab men who were fired because they were gay, but who could translate Arabic terrorist code? Now there’s an idea….
24 anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:58 pm
btw: Frum admits it could be a ‘quagmire.’ That’s a word that never should be again be put out there for the American soldier. I lost my boyfriend of 22 y/o, one year out of West Point in ‘68. He was one of the 58,000 who died in the jungles in Vietnam and who came home in a sealed box. When I occasionally visit the Virtual Vietnam Wall, my remembrance note to him there, is the only one next to his commanding officer’s thank you for his sacrifice. No one remembers this young man.
Sending young men and women to war is hellish business. We had better not make the same mistakes we made before in our history. We owe it these young people and their families to make sure if they are sent out to ‘win’ they can ‘win.’
Can we ‘win’ in Afghanistan, Pakistan?
25 anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:15 pm
sinz54: “How many failed states do you want the U.S. to invade?”
Agree. (getting scarier by the minute)
I guess this is the same ‘failed states’ that Chekote and others would prefer we engage in with more ‘oil wars.’ This next generation is aching to do something constructive…..give them the jobs, the initiatives, to get us off oil, instead of digging more of their graves for it.
26 anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:52 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090202856.html?sub=AR
Hagel is not only gutsy, he’s nailed it.
27 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:38 am
The real trouble with leaving Afghanistan and Iraq and having them descend into killing fields (just as with any other US intervention particularly Vietnam)….is that it says to any future potential ally of the US, that the US is not a reliable partner….thus making our future engagements more difficult.
Basically in the US, the Left undermined the US efforts in Vietnam, eventually cutting off funding and leaving the South Vietnamese that allied with us and put their trust in us….to be slaughtered by the North Vietnamese Communist regime.
Now that let others around the world know that the US is not a reliable ally and has a strong Leftist contingent in the US that will actively seek to undermine US interventions abroad, especially as regards Cold War conflicts with Communist Revolutionaries. Thus making it harder to get cooperation from allies and potential allies.
For example the North Vietnamese were very distraught after the Tet Offensive was such a resounding defeat. However they read news reports in the US and the Left on the Streets and in Congress….saying what a dissaster it had been and demanding the end of military presence in Vietnam. So instead of making plans for negotiation, they renewed their faith and their tactics became working US public opinion at home, knowing that the media and the Left would eventually grant them victory.
Its classic.
28 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:44 am
We have a very long war with Islam, beginning a new phase of it, to deal with. We should be concerned about who is going to be willing to ally with us, if we let our Afghan allies get slaughtered in the killing fields.
29 greg_barton // Sep 4, 2009 at 1:56 am
God, I love seeing conservative hawks to the fishy fishy flip flop. Now if they express their hawkishness it supports Obama, so they’re more than happy to throw America under the bus just to oppose the president. Seeing their true colors displayed is really a hoot.
30 hsb3 // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:18 am
Why not declare victory to being this, so we can just go already: Returning Afghanistan to the way it was before its civil war in the 70s’. Instead of a strong central government, let’s suggest a quasi-democracy based on tribal politics and the Swiss model. Have a bunch of different regions with their own leader, with some being democratic, and safe for women, and men who don’t like having a beard; and others unfortunately not like that, but tribal. Have a figurehead central president, and a governing executive body much like North Ireland’s which includes everyone. And we leave!
31 Chekote // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:53 am
Sinz
I never said that we should invade every failed state. Stop the strawman. But there is a history with Afghanistan. A recent one. The last time we abandoned Afghanistan, we provided a place from where AQ staged the 9/11 attack. If we leave it again as a failed state, the Taliban will take over. Making the same mistake would be unforgivable.
32 Chekote // Sep 4, 2009 at 3:03 am
This next generation is aching to do something constructive…..give them the jobs, the initiatives, to get us off oil, instead of digging more of their graves for it.
H0w do you that the next energy source won’t cause more wars?
33 Chekote // Sep 4, 2009 at 3:09 am
Hagel also opposed the surge in Iraq which has been a stunning success. I have no use for him and don’t trust his judgement. And I have absolutely NO USE for conservatives who all of the sudden think it is okay to “cut and run” just because a Dem is in the White House. Hypocrites. They disgust me.
34 barker13 // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:14 am
Re: Anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm (#24) –
“Well, Bill…I agree with you.”
(*GRIN*) (*CONGRATULATORY PAT ON THE BUTT*)
(Hey… it’s almost football season!) (*WINK*)
Re: Anniemargret // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:58 pm (#25) –
“I lost my boyfriend of 22 y/o, one year out of West Point in ‘68.”
I’m very, very sorry.
Re: Escapevelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:38 am (#28) –
“…Afghanistan and Iraq…”
Just for the record… I don’t equate the two.
Now I don’t want to have large numbers of troops in Iraq (or the Middle East period) much beyond Obama’s first term…
(Let’s see if his campaign promises come to pass…)
…but nor do I believe Iraq and Afghanistan are like situations.
Escape’s points concerning Vietnam and his inferences concerning Cambodia ARE on point to an extent. That said, they don’t really apply to Afghanistan and don’t apply all that well to Iraq. We’re talking far different cultures… different heritages.
Re: Chekote // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:53 am (#32) –
“I never said that we should invade every failed state.”
But that’s the ultimate LOGIC, the ultimate intellectually consistent end point, of your “defense” of the present Afghanistan War strategy.
Chekote. When Sinz, Annie, and myself are all basically on the same side…
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
35 sinz54 // Sep 4, 2009 at 11:09 am
Suppose in the near future, there is another terrorist attack against Americans, by terrorists who come from Africa.
It’s a real possibility: A U.S. embassy was already bombed in Kenya in 1996, so it could certainly happen again. Radical Islam is spreading like wildfire in sub-Saharan Africa, providing lots of possible recruits to Islamist terrorism. The slaughter in Darfur shows what the Islamists of Africa (Janjaweed in this case) are capable of.
What would you suggest? That we then invade sub-Saharan Africa to build modern democracies in Eritrea and Sudan?
You’ve given us a prescription for endless nation building, as a response to any large-scale terrorist attack against us.
You are unconsciously embracing the old “White Man’s Burden” argument, in which it becomes our mission in life to go out there and civilize the benighted parts of the world–by military force. That is, in fact, what Bush came to believe: That a worldwide organization like al-Qaeda could only be repelled by civilizing the entire world to reject terrorism.
You’re not quite there yet yourself. But it would take only a couple more terrorist attacks against Americans, one from Africa and one from Indonesia (the world’s largest Muslim state), to put you there.
36 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 9:15 pm
That said, they don’t really apply to Afghanistan and don’t apply all that well to Iraq. We’re talking far different cultures… different heritages. — barker
Not at all, the level of distrust and hostility we had/have to overcome in Iraq can be directly drawn from Pappy Bush leaving them to the killing fields after encouraging them to rebel during Desert Storm.
37 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The deal is that we have to deal with the Islamic threat. That is the deal, it isnt going away.
I propose a Cold War strategy in which the US allies with those fighting the Islamics or the Moderate Islamics and Liberal Islamics vs the Islamic Right. This would include a policy of containment. Furthermore we should promote the Islamic Left similarly to the way the Soviets promoted the Left in the US and Western Europe, via clandestine and otherwise monetary support networks, basically a culture war from within Islam, to destroy Islamic culture from the inside. All the tricks are well known, lawfare, demonstrations, infiltration of institutions, promoting minority rights at first in just rational ways, then promoting minorities over the majority, with affirmative actions, re distribution of wealth, special rights and priveleges, etc Focus on the younger generation, educatino systems and schools/universities. Turn the children on their parents….the future belongs to them. Then they will march through the institutions of Islam and promote cultural suicide from within….hamstring any efforts abroad. These young people need to have a base of decent or well paying operations, NGOs, and political activist groups, identity political action, etc….these organizations need seed money to fund the cultural revolution and the backing of Western intellectual prowess, the transfer of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory into the young, new, educated, well paid Leftwing Islamic radical.
38 Austin // Sep 6, 2009 at 1:41 am
Afghanistan: A Quagmire Worth Fighting For
comedy gold!
39 sinz54 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:28 am
escapevelocity:
We are NOT at war with Islam.
It would disastrous not just for American conservatism, but for America and the whole world, if the War on Terror became framed as “Christianity vs. Islam.”
We have millions of American Muslims living their lives peacefully.
The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the U.S. Government to make war on the religious faith of any of its citizens.
40 sinz54 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:32 am
escapevelocity:
In the end, the Soviets lost–and collapsed.
I don’t think copying their strategy is a good idea.
41 cwillia11 // Sep 7, 2009 at 10:37 am
If we need to fight imperial wars (and we do) we need to be ready to reassess what we are doing and back out when the costs exceed the strategic benefit. It is not clear to me why it would be a catastrophe for Afghanistan to descend into warlordism or into a “narco-state.” You can do business with warlords and drug dealers. The goal in Afghanistan is to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing bases there. It would be preferable to deal with warlords to accomplish this rather than the Taliban, but it might even be possible to work with Taliban. We need secure bases within the country, a puppet regime in Kabul and working relationships with local warlords. There is very little we need from them. If they cooperate in keeping out al-Qaeda they get enough support to make them secure. If they cross the line, swift and brutal retaliation.
42 George Will Sparks Healthy Afghanistan Debate « Verus Politics: Truth and Reason // Sep 7, 2009 at 11:33 am
[...] is good debate taking place, thanks to Will’s column. Some other views to read are those of David Frum, Michael Gerson, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Fred Kagan (and here), Robert Kagan, Rich Lowry, Michael [...]
You must log in to post a comment.