by Roger Bourke White Jr., copyright September 2018
The United States has had troops in Afghanistan since 2001. Based on the theories of international politics and foreign policy in Chapters 2-3 (pages 37-113), which theory or theories, in your view, provide the best explanation as to WHY the United States invaded and remained in Afghanistan? You may provide a short background to the events surrounding the war/aftermath and summarize the essence of the theory or theories you choose but most of your essay should focus on your explanation.
Afghanistan is a land located between many significant ancient and modern cultures. It is northwest of the Indus river, northeast of Persia, west of China and south of Russia. As a result it has a long history of being fought over by ambitious rulers, and, when the locals get their act together, producing its own spectacular but short-lived empires. But few, outsider or insiders, have been able to keep the peace in the region and keep it organized under a single government so it has picked up the nickname of "graveyard of empires" (Pillalamarri) -- referring to those outsiders who have tried in the last couple centuries and produced expensive failures. When Afghanistan is not being dominated by a single ruler it is a "failed state" a region dominated by warlords, not a single government.
The most recent contestants trying to install a single stable government have been the USSR, Pakistan and the UN. The most recent reason for the UN being there is Afghanistan becoming a major base for terrorist organizations, first Al-Qaeda and then Taliban.
It is a place with a messy and confused history.
Afghanistan first got on US radar in recent times as a way President Reagan was making life difficult for the USSR. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan started secretly supporting resistance to that move. Ironically, one of the people he supported was Osama Bin Laden. The Russians were added to the "graveyard" list in 1989, and shortly thereafter the USSR dissolved.
Then came the Gulf Wars.
The First Gulf War (1990) is a fine example of doing a war right. Iraq provided the perfect excuse for starting a war (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait for selfish reasons) and George H. W. Bush, Reagan's successor, responded perfectly. He organized allies well and set limited and reasonable goals for both the military and the diplomacy to achieve. The war ended quickly with those objectives achieved. One hallmark of a well done war is people on the winning side tend to forget about it quickly, and this has happened to the First Gulf War.
The Second Gulf War (2003) is a fine example of getting everything wrong. The war was started as part of the suite of Blunder Responses to the Panic induced by the 9-11 attack. (Panic and Blunder are terms I define here (White)) As a result the military and diplomatic goals were badly defined, and as a result of that the war and aftermath went badly and went on for years, not weeks like the first Gulf War did.
The US getting into Afghanistan was part of the Second Gulf War helter skelter of activity. It made some sense at the time because Osama Bin Laden was living there and Al-Qaeda was headquartered there. In fact, getting into Afghanistan made a lot more sense than getting into Iraq. But, as with Iraq, getting out proved a lot more difficult than getting in. The difficulty happened in part because the US did not coordinate with Pakistan and there were many Pakistani organizations that had powerful interests in Afghanistan. (many still do)
Afghanistan is a good example of a failed state -- the tribal allegiances of the people are much stronger than their national allegiance and tribal matters have much more influence on day-to-day living. This it has in common with Somalia. This means that "fixing the state" is not going to make much difference in the lives of the people, or its national neighbors, because the tribal-oriented institutions make the big differences not the nation-oriented ones. This is why three generations of foreign interventionists in modern times have made so little difference.
The US is in Afghanistan to try to control terrorists. As long as the Taliban is powerful there and considered a terrorist organization, the US has an interest in the region.
This means there are two possible solutions to getting the US out:
o get the Taliban out, as in, defeat it and get some other mix of warlords and central government in control of the region
o declare that the Taliban is no longer a terrorist organization, as in, say that they have morphed into something else so they no longer need to be on US terrorist radar
Solution One has proved difficult. If the US wishes to continue pursuing it, perhaps the best way would be to provide support to competing warlords, as in, let the locals work on the problem rather than outsiders.
Solution Two involves changing the goals of the Taliban. If they gain a vested interest in becoming "legit" then they can deal with their own internal factions and solve the terrorist problem with self-censorship. An example of this style solution that is currently in progress is an agreement signed in 2016 between the government of Columbia and FARC, the decades old guerrila group that has existed in its interior.
This 23 Aug 18 Economist article, Many Afghans are ready for an end to conflict. Is the region? Pakistan, India, China and Iran are jockeying for influence but would benefit from peace by Banyan, gives an overview of the state of the conflict in 2018 and how it has evolved over the past few years.
From the article, "The steep drop in violence over those days [two ceasefires] allowed an all-too-brief sense of normality in a war-ravaged country of 35m. The truce proved, as the International Crisis Group (ICG), a think-tank, puts it, that the domestic constituency for peace runs deep."
This 2 Sep 18 WSJ article, U.S. General Takes Over Afghan Military Effort at Uncertain Moment New chief faces unclear political scenarios in Washington and Kabul with no apparent path to talks with Taliban by Craig Nelson and Ehsanullah Amiri, talks about the US changing its top leader in Afghanistan. Next we get to see if that makes any difference.
From the article, "“The world recognizes that Afghanistan can’t be a safe haven for terrorists. The world recognizes that we cannot fail,” said Gen. Miller in remarks after he received the military coalition’s green flag, becoming the 18th commander here since 2001.
The transfer of authority comes amid an unusually high level of uncertainty about how much progress has been made in the multiyear, multibillion project to build an Afghan military that can stand on its own and to bring Taliban insurgents to peace talks. It also comes at a moment of turmoil in the upper echelons of Afghanistan’s security establishment as it tries to gauge the interest of its militant foes in talks."
The US has added itself to the "graveyard of empires" list. It hasn't fallen, but it has gotten entangled in Afghan affairs, not resolved the issues it came to resolve, and not figured out how to extract itself from the situation.
Two possible ways out are to either find some organization that is local to Afghanistan that can fight the Taliban, and win, and stay won, or to find a way to transform the Taliban into an organization that is no longer terrorist-oriented and let them stay on as successful warlords in failed state region that is Afghanistan.
Whatever solution finally works it is going to be messy and its going to take many more years to work out.
Banyan, 23 Aug 18. Many Afghans are ready for an end to conflict. Is the region?. The Economist
Craig Nelson and Ehsanullah Amiri, (2 Sep 18). U.S. General Takes Over Afghan Military Effort at Uncertain Moment. The Wall Street Journal
Pillalamarri, Akhilesh. Why Is Afghanistan the 'Graveyard of Empires'?. The Diplomat
White, Roger Bourke Jr., (2007). Panic Thinking and Blunders. Cyreenik Says
--The End--