Should we leave Afghanistan?

October 21, 2007 5:45 AM

Should we leave Afghanistan?

I know that our reasons for going to war with Afghanistan were flimsy at best. But now that the war is a reality, what should be done? I am interested in informed opinions and well thought out online articles to read. Most things I read seem one sided, I find it hard to form an opinion because there is so much propaganda from both sides. My primary concern is the people in Afghanistan, I don't think us being in Afghanistan does anything to prevent terrorism.

posted by davar to Society & Culture (23 answers total)

I linked this one-hour video of a talk with Q&A given to a media club by Lt Col Stuart Tootal. He wascommander of the UK's 3 Para Battle Group in Helmand. He gives reasons why he thinks we should stay and why the Afghan government wants us to stay.
I find the coverage at openDemocracy thought-provoking and informative. Here's the most recent article by Paul Rogers; the site publishes contributions from various writers.
posted by Abiezer at 6:11 AM on October 21, 2007

Best answer: I assume by "we," you mean the Americans. Part of the problem is that it is a little more difficult to work with a homogenous "people of afghanistan." Will there be local power interests who want the U.S. to stay? Sure. We can always find a puppet willing to get rich and relatively-powerful by serving as the local manager. But, for regular people, we should pretty much leave.

We've funded and supported both of the most recent warring camps, the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, and we played perhaps a critical role in fostering the long war with the Soviets. While it is tempting to think "well, we could stay there as peacekeepers," or something like that, the reality is that the U.S. has no interest in staying in Afghanistan for any reason other than maintaining regional control. And any democratic initiatives, while they may be trumpeted domestically as gains, will almost definitely not be tolerated as possible threats to the U.S. plan. This will almost certainly be the case as well if the Democrats are elected in '08.

But that's just an American's take. If you want to know what Afghans think, read what they write. Before the war, one of the biggest sources of Afghan criticism was through RAWA (www.rawa.org). They're pretty explicit about what it is like on the ground beyond the Bush's, the British, and Karzai's rhetoric. There's also "The Afghan Women's Mission" (http://afghanwomensmission.org/). For non-afghan voices, there's also the writer Natasha Walter and, of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Chomsky (for just one example: http://www.zmag.org/lakdawalalec.htm - some people slander Chomsky with ad hominems, but never speak to his solid sourcing and lucid analysis).

A final note. It's easy for political conversations to get heated and become trolling, but there's sort of a weakness in America thinking right now which can be summed up in the statement "there is so much propaganda from both sides." We all have political agendas, pronounced or silent, and while RAWA and Chomsky may announce theirs at the outset, corporate media has its own deeply ingrained political orientation. In my opinion, the goal of finding the journalism without a political orientation is not only impossible, but the wrong one. We should instead be reading everything as critical thinkers who can look beyond the surface ("we report. you decide.") and be able to both consume the news offered while understanding the positions of the server. My two cents. Good luck.
posted by history is a weapon at 6:57 AM on October 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

>I assume by "we," you mean the Americans

The OP seems to be Dutch. Dutch troops are in Afghanistan protecting Australian engineers. As I see it, the answer is "to get NATO brownie points", though perhaps it's a simpler "to get US brownie points".

(having said that, I believe this is chatfilter of the highest order)
posted by pompomtom at 7:11 AM on October 21, 2007

Bugger. Got that backwards.

To rephrase....

Should we leave Afghanistan?

Only if you don't mind forfeiting a bunch of NATO/US brownie points.
posted by pompomtom at 7:13 AM on October 21, 2007

Response by poster: I assume by "we," you mean the Americans
No, I am in Europe, actually. But I don't think that really matters, or does it? By "we" I meant the "allied forces", I guess.

In my opinion, the goal of finding the journalism without a political orientation is not only impossible, but the wrong one. We should instead be reading everything as critical thinkers who can look beyond the surface
Yes, that is a very good point. The reason I asked here is that I hope to get multiple articles, from different viewpoints. But even then, I prefer articles that are written with the understanding that this is a difficult problem and that there are pro's and cons to both leaving and staying.

I understand by the way that our real reason to be there has nothing to do with helping the people. But helping people could be an unintended side effect that would make it worthwile to stay anyway.

I'll check out your links, thanks Abiezer and history is a weapon.

On preview, about the chatfilter thing: I have a real world need to ask this question. My local peace group holds vigils for Burma and against the war in Afghanistan. This is one vigil, there are signs against the war in Afghanistan and attention is drawn to the situation in Burma. I am all for standing still for Burma, but I am still uncertain about Afghanistan, hence the question.
posted by davar at 7:25 AM on October 21, 2007

Davar, as a fellow Dutchie (and Utrechter btw), I'm asking myself the same thing.

I'm trying to recollect where I read that analysis that pointed out that any involvement in Afghanistan should be a UN effort instead of a US led NATO-like one.
The point being that a UN effort could involve forces from Muslim countries too. As a result the aims of the involvement would be less suspect and the moral authority a lot greater.

If I remember where I read this I'll notify you.
posted by jouke at 8:22 AM on October 21, 2007

A secure, stable Afghanistan would be in the Western allies' interests because it wouldn't become a lawless haven for terrorism like it was before 2001. It would be in the Afghans' interest because they've been living in a war zone since the late 1970s.

That might have been possible if the Bush administration had led a Marshall Plan-level rebuilding of Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. (One of the stated reasons for invading Iraq was to install a showcase democracy in the Middle East; Afghanistan would've been close enough.)

I think we need a bigger commitment, not a smaller one, but the commitment should be more international and less military. Leaving now would repeat the mistake of abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:18 AM on October 21, 2007

"I know that our reasons for going to war with Afghanistan were flimsy at best."

I'm not sure how one comes to "know" this without buying into the 9-11 conspiracy theories. You probably need to reexamine your basis for this assumption before you can develop an informed opinion on the latter question.
posted by Manjusri at 10:37 AM on October 21, 2007

Have an ex that did a tour in northern Afghanistan and the work they did there was strictly humanitarian.

At least some parts of Afghanistan are way better off now than they were 6 years ago and the western forces there should stay because they are helping people.

As for the southern parts where they mostly seem to be killing people I don't know...
posted by uandt at 12:35 PM on October 21, 2007

Best answer: There's plenty of opinions about the subject here in Canada. So I was surprised to see the result of a CBC Poll which suggested that a majority of Afghans want the troops to stay.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:46 PM on October 21, 2007

Response by poster: Jouke: I'm trying to recollect where I read that analysis that pointed out that any involvement in Afghanistan should be a UN effort instead of a US led NATO-like one.
That does seem logical to me, but that still leaves me questioning whether being there now is actually worse than not being there. Please let me know if you find the article, or other good ones from a Dutch point of view. (BTW: small world, but I don't live near Utrecht anymore)

Thanks for the answers so far. I am now leaning to not going to the anti-Afghanistan-war protests, but I will be keeping an eye on and reading more from the sites that history is a weapon mentioned.
posted by davar at 3:31 PM on October 21, 2007

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm

I'd suggest reading this to at least get a different opinion from a lot of people in this thread. You may call it one-sided, or propaganda, but people's tendency to do that generally depends on what they already believe.

Personally, I'm of the (apparently minority) opinion that the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop supporting it. There are many brutal regimes that the U.S. gives full support to. Read up on the human rights record of Uzbekistan if you want a recent example, an ally in the "war on terror."

And for the guy above lumping in opposition to the Afghanistan war with 9/11 conspiracy nuttery......9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that the U.S. government is bordering on omnipotent. Their message (free from the inconvenience of logic and physical possibility) is one of futility. They take the easy way out. Most in opposition to the Afghanistan war, I believe, are more discerning than that. Conspiracy implies secrecy. And there's plenty of information out there about U.S. foreign policy that is not a secret. And this information, weighed against the network news I'm bombarded with ever day, has convinced me many times over that this war, and the reasons behind fighting it, is/are horseshit.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 4:03 PM on October 21, 2007

Response by poster: Thanks Idiot Mittens. history is a weapon also referred me to Chomsky. I skimmed through the articles now, but I will read more and will read your article as well because I agree that it is good to read strong opinions from both sides. For now, reading that only 15% of all Afghani's want us to leave immediately, makes me think that maybe their opinion is more important than mine at the moment.
posted by davar at 4:59 PM on October 21, 2007

"Forty-three per cent of all Afghans surveyed say that foreign troops should stay as long as it takes to get the job done. Only about 15 per cent of all Afghans surveyed want foreign troops to leave their country immediately, and the rest want time limits."

Seems to me to be saying that 57% of Afghanis want us out now, or soon. Surveys, and the reporting of them, can be very malleable things.

And for those who want us to stay, it probably has something to do with repairing the infrastructure the U.S. bombed the shit out of.

An argument can be made that the Afghanis are better off now than before we invaded, much like an argument can be made that Africans were better of as slaves (better food, clothes, shelter) than beforehand.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 5:31 PM on October 21, 2007

Seems to me to be saying that 57% of Afghanis want us out now, or soon. Surveys, and the reporting of them, can be very malleable things.

Sure, I also look at that statistic as a "mixed" review. The more definitive question was this:
"As well, 51 per cent said they feel their country is headed in the right direction, compared to 28 per cent who responded that it's headed in the wrong direction. The remaining interviewees saw no change or didn't know.".
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:58 PM on October 21, 2007

Was that the more definitive question because it told you what you wanted to hear? Like I said, malleable.

But rather than grasp at survey results, why don't you explain to me (and to yourself) why we invaded a country in the name of democracy while supporting other governments that suppress it. And why, if we are serious about saving lives and reducing poverty, don't we spend a tiny fraction of the money we spend on weapons on health and education in Africa, where we could easily (easily!) save millions of lives. It doesn't make sense. However, it will make a whole lot of sense if you change your assumptions, or get rid of them altogether.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 9:25 PM on October 21, 2007

Was that the more definitive question because it told you what you wanted to hear?
You could be accused of the same, Idiot Mittens.
If you watch the video I linked in my very first comment, you can hear a senior soldier giving some cogent reasons why we went in and why we're staying. I'm anti-war, but I also like to hear what the other side is saying, in public at least. Particularly when it is a more thoughtful response in a longer format and facing informed questioning.
I have also read and heard plenty from credible Afghani sources that makes me think a majority want the coalition to stay until government is more firmly entrenched.
The article at the second link (by a professor of peace studies, not some hawk) closes by indicating that in fact the Western presence is being stepped up - the UK troops coming out of Iraq are being sent to Helmand and the US is building a large and permanent base at Bagram.
So that seems to be the reality for the near future - that Western forces will remain in Afghanistan. The UK are talking of a ten or fifteen year commitment.
Strategic and geopolitical goals are quite obviously in play. I do not entirely discount that at some level this war does what it says on the tin. I don't agree with the premise of the "war on terror," but those who do and who plan wars might actually also be sincere by their own lights. The "whatabout x-y-z dictatorship/humanitarian horror-show" is essentially meaningless in this context. We know that foreign policy is not in fact driven by noble goals, but perhaps they can be tacked on when they don't get in the way of whatever larger target they have in mind.
posted by Abiezer at 10:38 PM on October 21, 2007

Best answer: More on the Afghan view of the war: Ahmed Rashid, June 2006.

The start of an American withdrawal in the midst of a vicious Taliban resurgence naturally infuriates Karzai and his government; it is particularly disillusioning for millions of Afghans who, unlike their Iraqi counterparts, still equate a sizable US military presence with security, continued international funding, and reconstruction. In Iraq practically the entire population wants the Americans to leave, however pleased they are about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But the survival of the new Afghan government has depended upon the leadership of the US and its ability to convince the rest of the world to rebuild the country. The US needs to contribute money to carry out its promises and show it is willing to stay the course. It is doing neither.

To me, the key question is whether success--that is, the establishment of security under a stable central government--is achievable or not. As long as it's still achievable, I think the US and its allies should stay.

The poll cited by Popular Ethics also notes that Hamid Karzai's government is surprisingly popular: More than 70 per cent of Afghans surveyed said they think Karzai is doing a good job. In his home province of Kandahar, the positive reviews jump to 77 per cent.

Of course public opinion changes over time. Where can you find reasonably objective information about the situation in Afghanistan? I'd suggest the International Crisis Group.

Previous discussion of Chomsky.

Besides the concrete question of whether the Western objectives are feasible or not, there's a broader question of political philosophy: how should the West use its power abroad, especially in the Third World?

One possible answer is that the West should use its power in a disinterested way, working to improve the lives of people in the Third World without attempting to further its own interests.

Of course, there's a danger here: this claim can be used to justify an unlimited degree of intervention (as indeed the Bush administration has done). Stanley Hoffmann, writing in 1969:

What Vietnam proves, in my opinion, is not the wickedness of our intentions or objectives but the wickedness that results from irrelevant objectives and disembodied intentions, applied by hideous and massive means. It has its roots, intellectual and emotional, in elements of the American style that I have been at pains to analyze in detail. The Americans' very conviction that their goals are good blinds them to the consequences of their acts.

George F. Kennan points out another problem:

... foreign aid, to be really effective as a gesture of Christian charity, would have to be understood as such a gesture by the recipients as well as by the donors. But most foreign peoples do not believe that governments do things for selfless and altruistic motives; and if we do not reveal to them a good solid motive of self-interest for anything we do with regard to them, they are apt to invent one. This can be a more sinister one than we ever dreamed of, and their belief in it can cause serious confusion in our mutual relations.

Foreign aid has a place in our foreign policy; but the favorable possibilities for it are more slender than people generally suppose. The less it consists of outright grants, the better. The less we try to clothe it in the trappings of disinterested altruism--to view it as Christian charity--[and] the more we can show it as a rational extrapolation of our own national interest, the better understood and the more effective it is going to be abroad.

There's an older American tradition in foreign policy, usually called realism, but which might be described as enlightened self-interest: the pursuit of one's interests with prudence, restraint, and due respect for the interests of others. In this view, the objective of foreign policy is not to save the world, but to advance one's interests--if the US doesn't look out for its interests, who will? The key is to understand that other countries are also pursuing their own interests, and to take this into consideration.
posted by russilwvong at 11:01 PM on October 21, 2007

Yes, we should leave Afghanistan. Here are some reasons.

1. Morality

The invasion was a horrible war crime in the first place. Every day we continue makes it worse. The standard argument is that we invaded in order to capture or kill Al Queda, the people who attacked us on 9-11, in self defense. However, that's bullshit. Afghanistan offered to turn those people over to another Arab country. If the pursuit of Al Queda had been our primary goal, we would have used the offer as the basis for negotiation and, given that we were in a position of incredible strength and could have had all manner of support from our allies (even those in the middle east) and that the Taliban was probably terrified of a military invasion, the prospects for a favorable outcome for the US would have been quite good. Since we did not even consider pursuing this opportunity, it's safe to conclude that we were actually interested in making an example of Afghanistan; demonstrating what would happen to any other middle eastern country that didn't wholeheartedly support US foreign policy. And, in fact, our actions since then have confirmed this. In the view of many, it's morally reprehensible to continue an occupation under these circumstances.

2. It would further the cause of democracy.

Afghanistan is not a democracy. Indeed, Afghanistan doesn't even have a government, properly speaking. The organization headed by Hamed Karzai doesn't have much control over anything. It's hard to call something a government when it doesn't govern. (though even if it did, it would merely be a puppet of the U.S.)

The U.S. military is, by far, the single most powerful force in the country right now, but they don't do a whole lot of governing either. For the most part, they've left that to the Warlords. Nothing the military is doing will change this situation. So as long as the US occupies Afghanistan, a bunch of petty dictators will run the show. If we leave, it's possible they'll move towards democracy. So if we want to support democracy - or at least stop actively suppressing it - we should end the occupation.

3. It's helping to ramp up the tensions in the region.

Obviously, a US occupation of any middle eastern country is going to make everyone in the area very tense. In this particular case, we've helped bring the situation in Pakistan closer to a meltdown. Also, we've probably given The Taliban and like minded movements within Afghanistan a huge boost. The potential for destabilization, chaos, and bloodshed is pretty breathtaking. If we're opposed to such things, we should end the occuapation.

4. It would save lives.

I think this one is self explanatory.
posted by Clay201 at 2:04 AM on October 22, 2007

Was that the more definitive question because it told you what you wanted to hear?
You could be accused of the same, Idiot Mittens.

You can accuse me of whatever you want. But I didn't cite the survey, I just responded to its misuse.

As usual, Clay201 more exhaustively and articulately explained my point of view.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 5:13 AM on October 22, 2007

Response by poster: Maybe it mattered more for this question that I am not from the US than I thought. I did not ask whether this war was justified six years ago, and not whether we should leave eventually. My question was purely: should we leave now, because this is a political issue here right at this moment. I do see many of the problems with the war that you describe as well, and I despise our imperialistic tendendencies, but still. It is difficult. What makes it more difficult is that there is not much room for a nuanced opinion. The question in my country is not "what should we do with Afghanistan". The question is purely "should we retract our troops now".
posted by davar at 5:27 AM on October 22, 2007

FWIW, I signed a petition back in 1998 or 1999 demanding that the US cut off relations with the Taliban and, if I remember correctly, push for UN action in Afghanistan. I would not directly connect that to the current situation, but I think it's worth evaluating the fact that it was recognized in some camps that international intervention might have been needed long before the events of September 11, 2001.

I don't understand the idea that Afghanistan would "move toward democracy" should all international troops pull out. The Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan for five years, and was one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world at the time. While I think the initial invasion of the region was questionable and that it should be a UN effort and not a NATO one,

Trying to pawn off Pakistan's standing issues as an effect of the NATO forces in the region seems at best lazy and at most malicious. While I'd buy the argument that some issues are exacerbated by the NATO presence, I don't believe it's the driving issue, especially with the current election issues and the bombing related to Bhutto's return.
posted by mikeh at 7:54 AM on October 22, 2007

Another good resource
posted by Abiezer at 1:47 PM on October 23, 2007