HOME / foreigners: Opinions about events beyond our borders.

Should We Still Be in Afghanistan?Yes—and Obama must make the case on both sides of the Atlantic.

By Anne ApplebaumPosted Monday, Sept. 7, 2009, at 8:01 PM ET

Perhaps this summer's bloody and tragic fighting season did it; or perhaps it was the disappointment of the election, with its low turnout, accompanying violence, and allegations of fraud. Whatever the reason, the Afghan war is suddenly at the center of political debate in several Western countries. At stake are not merely tactics and methods but a far more fundamental question: Should we still be in Afghanistan at all?

RSS

Given how different the political cultures of North America and Europe are sometimes alleged to be, the arguments are strikingly similar. In the United States, George Will has just pointed out that the Afghan war has now lasted longer than World Wars I and II combined. In Germany, the defense minister caused an uproar by predicting that German troops might be in Afghanistan for another decade; opposition leaders immediately started calling for a much faster withdrawal. Faced with public disapproval, the Canadians have had to promise to withdraw troops by 2011. The Dutch are supposed to pull out in 2010. At a conference I attended in Amsterdam last weekend, a large audience cheered when a panelist denounced the war. Demands for a time frame—"two more years and then out"—can be heard almost everywhere.

Equally universal (and bipartisan) are the complaints that the war's aims are unclear or unrealistic. A British defense official resigned last week on the grounds that he no longer believed the nation would accept the government's justifications for the war, which have ranged from "fighting terrorists" to controlling heroin exports. Tom Friedman demanded to know "what it will cost, how much time it could take, [and] what U.S. interests make it compelling." Others grumble that we should be focused on the "real" problems, such as Pakistan, or on an "achievable" solution, whatever that may be.

Which is, when you think about it, all rather strange, since the goals of the war have never been in doubt in any European or North American capital. "Winning" means we leave with a minimally acceptable government in place; "losing" means the Taliban takes over and al-Qaida comes back—and no one has ever pretended success would be easy. But this is a war that has never been properly explained to most of the populations fighting it. For years it has simply been "the good war," as opposed to the "bad war" in Iraq, and so no one felt the need to argue further.

The results of this silence are most visible in those European countries where the public has thus been conned into believing that their troops aren't really fighting in Afghanistan but, rather, participating in an extensive armed charity operation. Germans, for example, were deeply disturbed to learn that a German commander had called for the NATO airstrike that killed as many as 90 Afghans in Kunduz last week. This news surprised those Germans who thought their troops in Afghanistan were doing reconstruction work. Yet Americans also seem shocked to discover that the Marines were fighting this summer to retake previously safe areas, that the elections were not going smoothly, and that the government of President Hamid Karzai was corrupt. All of that has been clear for some time. But who was talking about it?

Following the lead of one of the region's most clairvoyant experts, Ahmed Rashid, I would argue that the Afghan situation is not yet hopeless. As I wrote on the eve of the election, there is still a definite Afghan majority in the country that wants not only peace but some version of democracy. The central government still has a modicum of legitimacy, though it may not last for long. The plan to increase troops in the near future in order to give the Afghan army time to grow stronger in the long term is neither stupid nor naive, particularly if accompanied by sensible investments in roads and agriculture. But such a plan cannot be carried out without public support, and public support will not be forthcoming unless politicians agitate for it.

This, then, is the moment for Barack Obama to demonstrate that he knows how to persuade. One or two quick trips to Europe and another behind-the-scenes plea for "more troops" aren't going to do it: The European public may still like Obama better than Bush, but they don't yet believe he's any more committed to Afghanistan than his predecessor was. Nor will Americans be convinced by a speech or two, however high-flown the rhetoric and however elegant the turn of phrase.

On both sides of the Atlantic, Obama needs to convince and cajole, to produce plans and evidence, to show he has gathered the best people and the most resources possible—to campaign, in other words, and campaign hard. If the health care debate will determine his domestic fortunes, the outcome in Afghanistan will make or break his foreign policy. He has said many times that he supports the Afghan war in principle. Now we'll see whether he supports it in practice.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Anne Applebaum is a Washington Post and Slate columnist. Her most recent book is Gulag: A History.

COMMENTS

Thank you for once again stating some hard truths pretty clearly.

Despite public approval for the war in Afghanistan in the immediate post-911 period (which was not only commonly held but deserved, since after all the US had been attacked by terrorists under the protection of the Taliban government) the 'allies' of the US, that is, the NATO participants, have never really had much stomach for the war, and preferred to think of it as some sort of development project. The Iraq war provided them with a giant red herring to slap America around with. Hence we have Germany, Canada, and it seems, sadly, Britain, bailing out in the middle of a war.

Every war is ugly and has tragic loss of life, but that is the deal, I am afraid. The US public is unfortunately once again getting infected by the defeatism proffered by our European-leaning MSM leaders, who respond with a visceral and laughably 'over civilized' revulsion to any war where any lives are actually lost. Oddly enough, this is an opportunity for Obama to have his finest hour -- by making the case for continuing the fight, and for not letting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda back to run a country of 38 million impoverished people. Even with the war raging, Afghanistan is actually a force for stability in the region -- especially compared to the effect that a collapse back into pre-911 barbarism will have on Pakistan and the other neighboring states. It was once said that only Nixon could go to China -- so this is an excellent opportunity for Obama to make it clear that Afghanistan is a war that needs to be seen through -- by the US alone, if necessary.

As for our NATO allies, well, the hell with them. Obama was elected on vision of a more multilateralist world -- and now the Europeans are managing to show, yet again, that they can't be counted on which the chips are down, the inevitable result of which will be more unilateralism on the part of the US. It isn't just the 'bad' wars that Europeans shy away from. There isn't much we can do about that, or for the Europeans, except to provide a decent example of how not to run away in the middle of difficult fight.

-- Freetrader2
(To reply, click here)

During the election campaigns, Obama defined Afghanistan as the "good, necessary" war in order to be able to continue to use the Bush administration and their unpopular Iraq adventure as a club with which to bash his opponents, all the while keeping up a strong "national security" front. So, now his unwavering supporters are stuck and must rush in to defend this war which is every bit as misguided and senseless, and probably even more "unwinnable" in order to not hurt the Democrats chances in future elections.

I say let the Taliban have it. Or let the Afghans run them out. There is nothing we can accomplish there beyond trying to prove that our stubbornness and arrogance are mightier than that of the Soviets.

It's a simple matter of vigilant border security to keep "terrorists" out of our country. A little polite profiling can go a long way towards keeping the baddies out. Let them run around in the desert and train for all the good it will do them if they can't make it through customs in any target country with so much as a fingernail file. We cannot afford this war, nor do we need it.

-- screwjack2008
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES