The Woodward Report
Why Afghanistan?
October 8, 2009
by Jack Curtis
Why are we pouring lives and money into Afghanistan? Combat deaths passed Iraq’s in May; economic drain is expected to do likewise in 2010, in a landlocked, less than Texas-sized collection of mountains and desert. Over half the people live below the poverty line, 40% are unemployed and 80% percent who work are in agriculture on 6% of the land, of which 12% is farmable. Annual GDP per capita is about $800 per the available data. Yes, there is some oil, gas and minerals- but no roads or security for development. What is the attraction?
It gets worse; the people are mutually antagonistic speakers of several languages and include opposing versions of Islam and numerous contending tribes. The government governs Kabul (at least, during daylight) but its writ declines with distance and it must reckon with warlords. Corruption is naturally top-of-the-world class. What can we possibly want from a place like that?
If those look bad, consider that the country borders areas of Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and China and therefore includes numbers of people whose languages and tribes are split between countries. Anyone capable of making a stable polity from all that can undoubtedly pacify the Middle East in spare time. Oh, I almost forgot, the bordering Pakistanis and Iranians are active meddlers. So, what do we expect to gain by dumping lives and money into that?
President Bush said we needed to expunge al-Qaeda and its Osama bin Laden who were being protected by the Taliban Afghan government. We invaded; the villains ran next door to Pakistan, a nuclear-armed place resembling Afghanistan where the government also does not govern a large chunk of the country. Under Pakistani protection and with Iranian help, the Taliban has come bouncing back, bigger, stronger and better organized, to take control of large parts of Afghanistan away from us while challenging us for the rest. Our resident military boss wants another 40,000 soldiers, effectively doubling the U.S. force before he will agree that he has a chance to succeed. Our President Obama said we were wrong to fight in Iraq; the real war we needed to win was in Afghanistan and he would, if elected, correct that priority. Now, he is thinking it over before giving our General MacChrystal an answer.
Did President Obama say why Afghanistan was important when he complained of President Bush’s secondary priority there? I don’t remember. I do remember that we haven’t done too well when we have been limited to one country and the enemy can run back and forth between the fighting and neighboring safe havens. We send drones into Pakistan but we don’t need to put an army into Afghanistan to do that. We started there in October of 2001; the Taliban and al-Qaeda ran and hid; today, we are worse off with no prospect of success per the General unless we double his manpower and of course, the cost. I don’t recall that he has defined what success will be, either. So, Mr. President: Why are we in Afghanistan? What will constitute “success”? How will that justify the lives and money? How long will it take?
