At this writing, President Obama has let it be known that his long-anticipated decision about new troop deployments to Afghanistan will be announced shortly after turkey day. As is his wont, he has, for months now, made things look as if he were delaying and dithering, just to allow himself to get out of the way while the pot boils out there in the country and some sort of out-of-Beltway consensus can form. He has followed this same strategy on health care and any number of economic issues, and it may very well in the end prove to work to his advantage. Obama has the most sophisticated and sensitive political antennae of anyone in Washington today and probably of any President going back to FDR. He is well aware the the country is looking inward, that the country regards every dime spent overseas as a dime not spent in Oakland or Boise or Peoria, that after eight years the end of the country's patience is well and truly in sight. And of course, he knows the arguments for staying and escalating. Many of those arguments are no doubt powerful and compelling. Nonetheless, if he escalates, without at the same time making some kind of irrevocable moves towards getting out, he will make a fatal mistake both for his Presidency and for the country.
There is no good choice but for America to get out, and get out now. What we are doing is plainly no good for anyone but overpaid pirate contractors and corrupt Afghans. All the cautionary horror stories of the consequences of a rash pullout -- that the region will be destabilized; that the Afghan nation will fail and fall into the hands of tyrants and genociders; that jihadis worldwide will be emboldened -- are valid(to the extent that they are true) whether we are there or not. The only difference is that if we are gone, we won't be not dying and paying to be there. If could influence events to our liking, we would surely have done so by now.
Does anybody have a satisfactory answer as to what we are doing there? Looking for Osama? Killing Taliban? Making a perfect nation in our image? If we don't have a clear idea of what our mission is -- and we do not -- we have absolutely no business being there. And certainly no reason to spend the money we are spending.
World War II ended in 1945, and our troops are still all over Europe. The Korean War ended in 1953, and we are still there. Is there any doubt that in the event of victory in Afghanistan or Iraq, our troops would be there for sixty, seventy, eighty years or more? Other than inertia, what the hell is going on? Why do always have money for this, but not for health care, student loans, or basic research? What are we doing, trying to be the world's cop? Are we trying to make the world safe for itself? How did the world get along without us? Who do we think is going to lend us the money to keep traipsing about to make things perfect? Are we insane? Suicidal? Psychotic?
This is increasingly the majority view in this country and Obama and every Member of Congress all know it. There is so little public support for our foreign adventures that it is almost politically dangerous to even bring the subject up for discussion.
The Soviet Union and Britain learned the hard way about overextending empire in Afghanistan. So are we. No amount of earnest study and careful thought will change the basic fact: they live there, and we don't. Kinda like Vietnam. It cannot reduce from that.
This is an opportunity for Obama to become the American Gorbachev. A principled and orderly withdrawal could provide a prelude to American Glasnost and Perestroika. Perhaps that is wishful thinking, but this much is certain: the end of the money is in sight, and no money, no adventures.
Most empires in history have ended when they ran out of money or military capacity. If we chose to walk away from an entanglement before we are chased off an Embassy rooftop, grasping at the legs of a helicopter, we will have done ourselves and the world a great favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment