By John Ballard
(According to Twitter our man Steve sent out this tweet "about two hours ago."
It's five-thirty in the morning where I am, so Good Morning, Steve. You're up with the chickens.)
This is a good, thoughtful post by Raymond Bonner from the Atlantic to start the day, reflecting on whether the US should be at war in Afghanistan. The comparison with Vietnam is unavoidable.
Read the whole piece. It's short. But let this part play in the background as you read.
Some months ago, I heard Rory Stewart -- one of Britain's leading voices on Afghanistan, and now a member of parliament -- make the case against complete withdrawal. First, he proffered, NATO withdrawal would lead to civil war. Second, he said, "maybe" the United States and the West in Afghanistan had national security interests in Afghanistan, which required a military presence. Finally, he argued, American credibility was at stake: withdrawal would embolden its enemies and undermine its allies.
It was a compelling argument, made at a conference in London co-sponsored by The New York Review of Books and The Guardian. But there was something disquieting about it. First, is it in America's interest, or its duty or obligation, to prevent a civil war in Afghanistan? Second, isn't it Foreign Policy 101 that a country decide whether or not it has security interests before making a decision about going to war? Third, during Vietnam, when all was going from bad to worse, over and over, we were told that America's "credibility" was at stake. We eventually withdrew, most ignominiously, and Vietnam became Communist. If America's credibility suffered, it wasn't for long: when Europe was troubled by the turmoil in its own Balkans neighborhood, it begged the United States to come to the rescue. No one questions that America is the most powerful nation in the world, with the most credible military.
�
Less than fifteen minutes ago I started my day as usual listening to Morning Edition on NPR. This morning's spotlight feature is an interview with Amrullah Saleh, former head of security for the Afghan government, recently discharged from that position by President Karzai because of his unwillingness to negotiate with the Taliban.
Why are we continuously calling the Taliban our brothers? They are our killers. I don't need that type of brother. I am not anti-peace. But I am anti-Talibanization of Afghanistan. We were fighting the Taliban before NATO and if we see our history, our life, our principles are compromised in a deal with the Taliban, we will fight again.
My bold, not the tone of his voice. Anyone who wants to understand this conflict fully should listen to this man's quiet, clear words. He not only refuses to negotiate with the Devil, he refuses to shake hands. And I don't blame him.
These were my thoughts as I listened. His command of English is impeccable. Without raising his voice he explained in easy-to-grasp language that the Taliban is to Afghanistan what the KKK is to America, a retrograde, blindly toxic perversion of politics and faith, no more deserving of "negotiation" than that ignorant preacher in Florida that received so much unnecessary attention last week. The late Ahman Shah Massoud was killed about forty-eight hours before the World Trade Towers were attacked in 2001, a victim of an Al Qaeda suicide bomber. Massoud (later nominated for a Nobel Peace prize which cannot be awarded posthumously) is buried nearby. Any transactions with the Taliban profane the memory of this man, a true martyr and favorite son of Afghanistan.
The tomb of Ahmad Shah Massoud is a domed structure that towers over the Panjshir Valley.
It was here that Massoud and his warlord militia managed to carve out one of the only places in Afghanistan that has kept the Taliban at bay � both in the 1990s and today.
As the sun rises each day on Massoud's tomb, its shadow nearly hits the boyhood home of Amrullah Saleh. Saleh was a foot soldier for Massoud � also a clerk, a translator, and an aide.
"I was not a very important person when he was alive," he said.
�
I cannot say enough about the excellence of NPR's journalism. This morning's "story" is a must-hear example. And Steve, thanks for the link.
Vietnam might be the closest case in terms of how the US got itself into the the quagmire in Afghanistan, but it may not be the closest one in terms of how it will be getting out of it. Maybe that will be Korea, with the distinction that the US will underwrite the northern entity controlled by the Northern Alliance, while the Taliban will rule the Pashtun-dominated south.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but this is just political blather. 1. There are plenty of "civil wars" around the world that we haven't or don't care about. He is ignoring the fact that the "NATO" presence is the biggest source of violence and doesn't speculate what degree of "worse" it can get if we do go. What he really means is we have pissed off the populace to the point the side we don't like is likely to take power. 2. Please point out these "national security" interests by explaining exactly what Afghanistan can do to any western country based on Afghani history of aggression. 3. What do you mean by "credibility?" All we are proving, even by doubling down on what the Soviets did, is that we cannot control a "stone age" civilization that is happy with what they have and don't like foreigners. I haven't enough space to discuss the disregard for heretofore "civilized" behavior the US adopted. Using Viet Nam as a comparison is probably good. I am a veteran of that war and I know people who are still fighting it. I always get static when I point out that we actually lost that war and cite the current status of Viet Nam vis-a-vis the US with a "and what is wrong with that?" end. As for the Taliban being the "bogeyman," that is a construct of the US. A quick check of history will show we once dealt with them. The point here, is Americans cannot accept the fact that there are many places on earth with hundreds, even thousands of years of civilization and changing them into a clone of the US in a couple of years at the point of a gun doesn't work. My final point is the amount of treasure we are throwing away. There is a massive fiscal crisis going on in much of the world, especially the US, and we are following the script of the Romans. Can anyone give an honest cost/benefit analysis.
ReplyDelete@SRW1
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea. The Northern Alliance (whatever that is) was an entity I read about years ago, a few months before Massoud was killed. When the WTC was attacked my first reaction was to link that event with Massoud's assassination which I had just read about the day before, but those thoughts quickly got lost in the ensuing madness leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
Karzai clearly has problems with Amrullah Saleh, which is a worst commentary on Karzai than his former security chief.
@Blakenator
I have read your comment several times trying to make sense of it but I can't. My denseness, I'm sure. Sorry.
A small proposal: Why not erect a large statue honoring Massoud on the World Trade Center site? Just a little sign that perhaps Americans can tell heroic friend from foe.
ReplyDelete