"Winning" the War in Afghanistan is Impossible

It is not possible for America to "win" the war in Afghanistan for several reasons. First, one must define what "winning" is. This is not an easy task. One of the reasons why some people will not voice their concept of "winning" is because it sounds so ludicrous. Yes, we would all like Afghanistan to be a country where there is more than a couple of paved roads, where women have more rights, where officials are elected democratically, where opium is not pumped out in metric tonnage - in short we want Afghanistan to be much more like America and the rest of the West. This is not going to happen for at least a few centuries on the inside.

Some may have a more modest view of what "winning" is. Some envision a governing council made of tribal chiefs, or perhaps a despot, that at least keep out terrorists. For starters this is still too ambitious. In many ways Al Qaeda got its start in Afghanistan. "The Base" is a group of hardened fighters from the Afghan war with the Soviet Union (granted many or most are not Afghans). Second, what passes for "moderate" in Afghanistan is too ideologically close to the ideology of the foreign fighters to ever establish a country that any self-respecting country could be proud to have installed. Seriously, when will the US learn that backing dictators and oppressive regimes (the enemy-of-my-enemy) is still wrong, and only backfires in the end? The USA has tried this before in the Middle East - most notably with the Shah in Iran.

Americans need to understand the reality of what happened on Sept. 9, 2001. That is not a typo, I mean Sept. 9. On that date in Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated, probably by Al Qaeda agents. Who was Ahmad Massoud? Well, probably the most honored and revered Afghan in modern history. He lead many Afghans in a successful campaign against communist forces. He became a general in the new government until it fell in the early to mid 90's. He helped to organize and lead a resistance to the Taliban (one backed by many countries) that continued until his death on Sept 9, 2001. That date is now a national holiday in Afghanistan.

What is the point in bringing up Ahmad Massoud? It shows the deadly and chaotic nature of that area of the world know as "Afghanistan". Loyalties change frequently, and right now they are directed at America. For all the good America has done and could do in Afghanistan (like helping them out big time in their war with communists) America is the outsider and will remain so. America is a nation of "kuffirs", unbelievers in Islam, and that makes the USA an outsider and an enemy. The USA is an outsider with vastly different mores that will never be adopted by the Afghan populace anytime soon.

You don't believe me that the Americans are considered outsiders? Consider the overwhelming support, mostly paid for by the CIA, that the US had with many Afghans in the months following Sept 11. That changed. Afghans will not allow someone else, no matter how nice or well meaning, to ever introduce non-Islam to their country. Case in point - communist Afghans. Many Americans are unaware that the Soviet Union did not just invade Afghanistan on a whim. Communist Afghans staged a successful coup and knew they could not hold the government. They had to call upon their communist comrades to help them out. The rest is history.

Or you could consider Ahmad Massoud. Ahmad got killed by the same intra and inter tribal violence that has plagued Afghanistan throughout history. It is a way of life most westerners cannot fathom because it truly is foreign to them. One cannot impose what America has (had); a democratic republic must have certain cultural and ideological things in place before a nation even has a chance at such a system of governance.

Let me drop another name on you - Abdul Rahman. He is the famous Muslim convert to Christianity that was almost killed for doing so. The Afghanistan clerics, who subscribe to the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, unanimously declared that he must either re-embrace Islam or die. Many of these clerics were of the "moderate", anti-Taliban variety that the world has heard about. Abdul is an Afghan, Ahmad was an Afghan, and the communists were Afghans. Do you get the picture? Afghanistan is a chaotic place where death is often the penalty for being on the wrong side. And the US wants to try to win the "hearts and minds" of these people in order to make it place where terrorist camps do not exist?

Suppose for a second that a large swath of the Afghan populace really wants America there, and is bent on establishing a viable democracy. The US wants and needs this so the Afghan military and police can fight terrorists without its constant aid. Supposing (again another huge supposition) that this fledgling government has the will to combat terrorists, where is this government going to get the money to pay for such fighting forces? This is a country with no industry, and where narcotics distribution is probably the most lucrative endeavor its citizens participate in? You want this dirt poor government to combat its enemies who have loads of drug money coming in, as well as wealthy financiers of international terrorism? Look at how hard a time wealthy nations have in combating terrorism, and you think that this broke nation will do the same, or better?

Also, consider what such a government would look like. Afghanistan is classic case of the weak verses the strong. Children, women, religious minorities, get the shaft in this nation even on its best day. I cannot call that "winning".

Consider even further that if the wildest fantasies of the interventionist left and right do come true, what then? Even if America and its allies completely eliminate terrorist camps in Afghanistan, the ideologues who use terrorism as a tactic (the war against "terror" is a deceptive term) will just go to one of the many countries that have conditions similar to 20th century Afghanistan. In fact, they are already there. So, America will spend billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, on one nation? This is supposed to make the USA safer? How many Americans have died in Afghanistan since Sept 11? Fewer than those who would have died even if America had a few terrorist attacks on its soil. Al Qaeda is worldwide and America is focusing on just a few countries. It does not make sense, it does not work, and it is not "winning".

The only way the USA will "win" in Afghanistan is if it gets genocidal and wipes out the entire indigenous population and then colonizes it with non-Afghans. Americans do not have the stomach for this; indeed, Osama Bin Laden was right - America does not have the stomach for a real war. Most Americans would not call this "winning" either. So what is America to do?

The answer is - leave. It may not be an option that sits well with American pride but there it is. Nation building and playing world cop is incredibly expensive in both human lives and resources. It is just sheer hubris to continue in such a hopeless quest. Afghanistan is not post-war Germany, or post-war Japan. The domino theory is bunk and it does not make America safer. America could have obtained victory in Afghanistan if it did what it in the months following Sept.11, kept a few informants on the ground, and then left while declaring victory. There is no substitute for eternal vigilance, but it is a much nicer prospect when one does not have to occupy a third world nation, and then try to turn it into Switzerland. There is no shame in not being able to bring a backward nation (if Afghanistan is not "backward" then no nation is) a civil society with order and justice.

America get out - or more Afghans and Americans will needlessly die.