By Andrew Brimer
February 7, 2010
Filed under Opinion & Editorial
Ms. Chowdhery,
To begin, thank you very much for sharing your opinions on this highly controversial issue. I very much appreciate that you would take the time to respond to my editorial. That being said, I believe you have misunderstood my contentions regarding “Wasted Resources”.
Essentially, I disagree with the manner in which the war in Afghanistan is being conducted, and the allocation of funds and 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theatre of operations, not the actual conflict in Afghanistan itself (which is one front in our GLOBAL war on terror).
Your eloquent usage of the Colin Powell quote regarding the Pottery Barn Rule (“you break it you buy it”) applies quite aptly to our situation in Iraq; however, it is not applicable to Afghanistan. When we invaded Iraq we overthrew a government which, while totalitarian and disgusting, was at least fairly stable. The sectarian violence and insurgency which arose and was exacerbated by Al-Qaeda is undoubtedly due to our interference, and thus we have an obligation. By contrast, in Afghanistan there was no stability that our interference destroyed. Al-Qaeda did not attempt to take “advantage” of a country in turmoil when it came to Afghanistan; it was invited in and sheltered by the Taliban, a government which was fighting its own war with the Northern Alliance.
When the U.S. intervened in Afghanistan, we intended to fight and destroy Al-Qaeda in what was already a failed state, not a state in danger of failing. Our creation of a government in Afghanistan and democracy there was just as much to benefit our mission as it was to help the Afghanis. Using your reasoning, a developing nation’s best course of action would be to harbor terrorists, attack the United States, and then claim we have a responsibility to their nation when we invade- thus entitling them to countless resources.
You compare the U.S. to British imperialists; however, we have never caused strife or harm to the people of Afghanistan that they were not already likely to receive due to regional conditions. The United States did not venture into Afghanistan in hopes of empire; we were forced to invade in response to attacks on our soil. If anything, the Afghan people enjoy a greater opportunity with a U.S. presence in their nation than ever before in that country’s existence. The role of nation building in Afghanistan was not one that the U.S. needs to pursue out of obligation or mission necessity, but rather it was a politically expedient role that cowardly policy makers used as an excuse out of fear of stating the truth: We are in Afghanistan to fight and kill terrorists and those who harbor them.
In our Global War on Terror we must be intelligent about how we allocate resources and consider the best interests of the United States, rather than enslave ourselves to an imaginary moral obligation to help people who have already benefitted from our presence.
You stated, “Our primary objectives for intervening in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are no longer our only objectives.” This illustrates the crux of why your argument is wrong. Your good intentions help promote mission spread. If we continue to create new objectives of questionable necessity and tack those new objectives on to our primary objectives, the primary objectives chances for success become marginalized. This is why the U.S. must pursue the death of Al-Qaeda operatives rather than nation building in a region which has never had a true government to begin with (through no fault of our own).
Sincerely,
Andrew Brimer
This Editorial Response was in response to the following comment:
Dearest Mr. Brimer,
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
Loading ...
Comments
All comments are subject to approval by the adviser to The Knight Times.
Leave a Reply