I find your article, while particularly relevant, important and valid, quite ironic considering your last editorial.

In the same media outlet that you use to object to the United States extending precious resources to support problematic, troubled nations like Iraq and Afghanistan because we have other problems to deal with (Yemen), you’re advocating for us (and other countries) to extend our resources to countries who have problems. Do you see a logical disconnect here? I do.

You only want the United States to employ the use of resources when it’s in dealing with countries who present threat to the US, i.e., the brewing problems in Yemen. In contrast, countries in Africa, particularly the ones who are suffering from issues with AIDS, are suffering because of the lack of institutional resources and proper government structures, meaning their threat to the US is no where near as relevant or severe. By your reasoning (from your previous article), really we have no reason to assist. Those countries don’t present a significant threat to us, and neither does Haiti, for that matter, and therefore, our obligation is non-existent. If we apply your reasoning to the perspectives of other countries, *no one* has an incentive to help countries in Africa, and therefore we should allow countries like Niger, Botswana, Lesotho, Kenya, Malawi and the like to simply suffer, because there’s no personal gain from expending resources to a country we have no obligation to.

Simply put, if you cannot support the US extending aid to a country we are already occupying, why would you support the US giving money to a country that has nothing to do with us?

And additionally, I’d like to ask you where exactly you would like to place Haiti on our radar after it turns into another poverty stricken country and were more removed from the recency earthquake–when the media stops covering poor images of impoverished children, should the US even continue to care once the global spotlight on their good deeds burns out? And what about the rest of the world? From where does this moral and ethical responsibility for nations like the US and multi-national governing bodies like the UN (which, as a personal aside, I know you don’t even respect or support!) originate from?

Best,
Ms. Chowdhery

PS: I think you’re referring to the international “conscience” in your last paragraph.

I agree that it’s irrational to put a price tag on the War in Afghanistan. Complaining about the costs of the wars means critics are losing sight of the catalyst that caused us to go to war in the first place. It reflects either a conscious oversight or an unconscious dismissal of the terrible events which occurred on September 11th. However, by remarking upon wasted resources later on in your article, you contradict your original complaint.

To begin, one must look at the differences and similarities between the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war. In 2003, when the war began, both the United States and the UK agreed that the intention was to search for WMD after Iraq failed to abandon its nuclear and chemical weapons development program. Iraq was in violation of U.N. Resolution 687, which the US used to justify its invasion. When it was determined that WMDs did not exist within that country, and that nuclear and chemical weapons programs had not been in operation since the 1980s, suddenly, we were involved as assistants to the overthrowing of dictator Saddam Hussein. As a result of assisting in the destruction of that country’s government, we were now escalated to the role of caring for that country and helping Iraq during this transitory period of shifting to a democracy. In response to our invasion and subsequence assistance was a lot of opposition–during which Al Qaeda took advantage of the country’s turmoil and decided to entrench itself within some of the country’s more lawless territories. Put quite simply, you break it, you buy it–as we both have mentioned in countless debate rounds and arguments. Our role in Iraq became a responsibility due to our previous actions.

In contrast, the invasion of Afghanistan took place immediately after 9/11, with the purpose of fighting terrorism and squelching Al Qaeda. This evolved into a complete counter-insurgency effort as Al Qaeda once again attempted to take advantage of a country undergoing serious turmoil.

Both of these countries run the risk of becoming failed states. Iraq in particular is ranked number 6 on the Failed States Index, which is a yearly study collaborated between Foreign Politics and The Fund for Peace, an independent research organization. As much as Mr. Brimer may not want to acknowledge it, by interfering in those nations, we now hold an inarguable moral obligation to continue to support these countries; this is to be done both in fear of losing the progress we have made if for some reason we decide to evacuate the nation completely, and in accordance with the moral obligation the United States holds as being one of the “better” countries in this world.

So ultimately, my point is, that our primary objectives for intervening in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are no longer our only objectives–and that a targeted approach of capturing and killing Al-Qaeda will not satisfy all of our obligations within either country. You are right when you say that “The human rights violations and draconian policies of governments such as the Taliban are terribly but ultimately the US does not have the resources to invade and reconstruct every nation with an evil government”…however, we’re not talking about invading every nation–we’re talking about providing repair aide for the actions we have taken against the people in these regions–the innocent people who did nothing to us. I refuse to allow the United States to jeopardize our reputation in the world by invading a country and then abandoning those to which we ourselves have caused much strife and damage to. The British did this with imperialism, and I continue to admonish them and their government for their irresponsible actions. Many of the ethnic conflicts and issues within Africa as well as between Pakistan and India, and other regions in the middle east today can be traced back to the irresponsible actions of the British. I refuse to allow America to continue down the same path, only to find out in a hundred years that our irresponsibility is the root of continued turmoil within these two countries.

Therefore, our current strategy of attempting to create order and government in a region which has never had much of either (but is now placed in an even more critical, instable state because of our actions) is both purposeful and responsible. If Yemen is really the threat that it seems to be turning into, then the United States needs to act carefully and responsibly when evaluating their decision to interfere in this country as well, because once again, we will be faced with the responsibility of helping this country if things go south. Perhaps we should consider involving other nations to help us, so that the responsibility falls on more than one country, and resources are not considered as “wasted” if/when reconstruction becomes a necessity. Once again, the rule applies: You break it, you buy it.

Sincerely,

Shanaz F. Chowdhery