Oh, we've got options in Afghanistan, just no good options. It's too late for that. And that's all our fault.
We had plenty of good options before we started the war - and the war, with even less justification, in Iraq. After all, we were attacked by a mere handful of religious fanatics on 9/11. The whole point was to provoke an overreaction.
But Osama bin Laden knew his enemy. The Bush White House viewed the attacks as a political gift. They were just as eager as bin Laden to spread fear (Republicans still are), and they were just as willing to overreact as bin Laden was eager to encourage it. Well, that's the best way to accomplish your goals, giving your enemy what he wants, isn't it?
A smart, courageous America would have refused the trap. We would have viewed 9/11 as a criminal act (which it was) and enlisted the rest of the world, who were eager to help during that initial outpouring of sympathy and support, into tracking down the other criminals responsible. True, Afghanistan wasn't willing to hand over bin Laden, not at first, but we had a lot of good options then.
We could have maintained our honor and our reputation. We could have held onto our moral leadership. We could have kept thousands of young Americans - and hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians - alive and uninjured. And maybe we wouldn't have destroyed our own economy or, nearly, our own military in a foolish adventure with no clear exit strategy.
But no, George W. Bush wanted to prance around in a flight suit, playing "Commander-in-Chief," rather than acting as our constitutional president. Republicans, who inevitably love war as long as they don't have to fight it themselves, wanted to watch as our lovely bombs exploded amongst enemies (any enemies, they're not particular). Right-wing ideologues wanted to push through their political extremism, with "a time of war" being their excuse. And the rich wanted deficit spending and tax cuts.
We had good options back then, but we consistently chose the bad ones. Well, as I say, bin Laden knew his enemy. The whole nation was "roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice," as Ralph Waldo Emerson once warned America, and almost no one was courageous enough to stand up against the mob. We chose the bad options - the worst of options, in fact - and we consistently continued to do so for years.
Now, Osama bin Laden is still at large, respected more than ever, heading up an al Qaeda which has become the worldwide symbol of resistance to America. George W. Bush got re-elected as planned, and now he's out of office, peddling his memoirs and attempting to rewrite history. Republicans are capitalizing politically on the bad economy they caused, the huge deficits they created, and the endless wars they started. So everyone is happy, huh?
But in Afghanistan, America is left with no good options. That's our fault - in a democracy, we the people pretty much get what we deserve - but no one wants to blame himself, right? Well, there's always Barack Obama to blame. Luckily, we have no long-term memory at all, so two years might as well be prehistory, for all we know.
These days, there are many issues where we still have good options. We don't seem to be taking them, but they do exist. If we suddenly wised up (I don't expect it), we'd still be able to do some good. And I have strong opinions about most of those issues. But I don't have any idea what we should do about Afghanistan. We're long past the point where we have any good options there.
As with our current economy, we're paying the price of poor decisions made years ago. (Yes, there is a price to be paid for our poor decisions, and much as you'd prefer to push it off onto your children and grandchildren, much of it inevitably comes due in our lifetimes. But don't worry, your children and grandchildren will also be paying for them, and paying dearly, too.)
I don't see any good options when it comes to Afghanistan, none at all. At this point, our options are all bad. This is our fault. In particular, this is the fault of Republicans who supported George W. Bush and of Democrats who timidly went along with it. And it's especially the fault of people who couldn't be bothered with their civic duty at all. But in a democracy, we make decisions collectively, so this is our collective fault.
Of course, we'll almost certainly blame someone else, won't we? We left Barack Obama with no good options, but he'll certainly be blamed for the bad ones, whatever he does. I'm not going to suggest anything in this post, because I see no good answer to this mess now. Maybe if I had a time machine...
But no, forget the fantasy. This is the real world. In the real world, we must live with our mistakes. In the real world, no one rescues us from our own idiocy. In the real world, we can only do the best we can, and when we screw up this badly, vow to do better in the future (that, at least, shouldn't be hard).
I agree with you Bill. Immediately after 9/11 I was very worried about the prospect of an invasion of Afghanistan, since throughout history those have always ended badly. I was in favour of precise, limited strikes against the AQ bases there, using special forces.
ReplyDeleteIn the attack which happened I have to admit that I was astonished that the Taliban were kicked out so easily, I had not expected that. We were then provided with a great opportunity to capitalise on the success by supporting an effective anti-Taliban government and pouring in resources to help the country's development. Did we? Err, no...
Then when the talk of invading Iraq started up, I was appalled. I did assume that Iraq had WMDs (after all, they certainly did have them before - and used them against Iran and their own people) but I didn't believe that they posed a serious threat to the region, with US-led air forces cruising overhead ready to stomp Saddam if he stepped out of line.
Furthermore, I never believed that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 (all the evidence pointed the other way), despite the frankly despicable efforts by the Bush administration to make that link in the public mind (they never actually stated that Saddam was involved, just kept mentioning Saddam and 9/11 together in speech after speech).
I didn't doubt that a military vctory over Iraq would be quick, but I never anticipated the chaos which would be left behind, with no US planning at all for what to do afterwards.
I did worry that an invasion would act as a spur and a focus for all the many US-hating Muslim extremists out there, and would stimulate more terrorism, which indeed came to pass.
But most of all I felt that the concentration on Iraq would let Afghanistan slide back into turmoil, which is indeed exactly what happened. We have been paying the price for that for the last few years.
It gives me no satisfaction to be right, but I can't understand how a high-powered US administriation could make so many mistakes and leave us with such a mess to deal with. As you say, the only "success" left for us in Afghanistan is to make an orderly withdrawal and hope that the Afghan government doesn't immediately collapse.
America attacks Taliban and Taliban attacks America is realy dog eat dog, but I back the American bulldog as that is prote4cting us from the Taliban.
ReplyDeleteJohn Christopher Sunol twitter.com/Johnsunol
ReplyDeleteActually it wasn't the Taliban which attacked the USA on 9/11, John, it was Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were minding their own business running Afghanistan. Their one big mistake was to offer hospitality to Al-Qaeda, which was and remains a very small group of terrorists. For that the entire country was invaded and we've had nine years of warfare with no victory possible. And quite probably, once we've gone the Taliban will soon be back in charge again.
ReplyDeleteJohn Sunol's opinions are typical, I think, Tony. A handful of religious fanatics attacked us, but since they weren't white Christians, we don't see them as individuals. Instead, most people see them as indistinguishable from a larger group - all Muslims being the same, you see.
ReplyDeleteWe'd never make this mistake with people who are exactly like us. If a white Christian commits a crime, he's just a criminal, not a representative of his race, religion, or nationality. After all, we know that we are not all alike, don't we? But among Muslims, even Sunni and Shiite are divisions we simply ignore. Who cares about details like that? We can't be bothered.
Re. your last point, Tony, you're not an American, so maybe you don't see our right-wing's distrust and dislike of "elites" - meaning anyone with education and expertise. The Bush administration was filled with right-wing ideologues, people so firmly convinced of their own beliefs that knowledge and experience were immaterial. If they asked any questions at all, they simply ignored answers they didn't like.
These people don't listen to scientists, because scientists don't tell them what they want to hear, what they "know in their heart" is true. They don't listen to experts on the Middle East for the same reason. These people simply believe what they want to believe, and no egghead is going to tell them any different. I'm convinced that this is the fundamental problem in America today.
It's very sad, Bill. I wish the best for the USA, which has led the world in so many ways, but what I now feel most is enormous frustration that such huge talent and resources are so badly misled and misapplied, so often.
ReplyDelete