Victory in Afghanistan Is Critical

The Obama Administration has been continuing most of the War on Terrorism policies of the Bush Administration, despite its rhetoric. Like the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration deserves credit for continuing to have kept the homeland of the United States from being attacked by terrorists on a scale like the September 11, 2001 Attacks, which the U.S. has now been successful in doing for eight years – a feat most would have thought impossible after September 11.

Alas, as I note in earlier posts, President Barak Obama has departed from some Bush Administration policies, which may increase U.S. vulnerability to attack.

Nevertheless, one critical Bush policy that Obama is following is the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Taliban and other Islamist militants and terrorists, including al-Qaeda. The Taliban must not be allowed to return to power in Afghanistan, which would make that state a safe haven for terrorists like al-Qaeda again. It was al-Qaeda, which was openly harbored by the Taliban regime that controlled all but the northeastern part of Afghanistan, who committed the September 11 Attacks.

After overthrowing the Taliban in 2001, the U.S. has been successful in removing nearly all al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. However, al-Qaeda, like the Taliban, is able to hide across the mountainous Afghan border with Pakistan, whence it continues to operate. Although the Pakistanis have been fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, they lack the capabilities of American forces to be as effective. Afghanistan has thus become strategically important as a base against al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Pakistan, for it is from Afghanistan that the U.S. launches missiles from unmanned aerial drones against Islamist militant targets. The Obama Administration has continued this Bush Administration strategy vigorously. Preventing such militants from taking over Pakistan is strategically vital because that state possesses nuclear weapons.

Moreover, military victory against Islamists in any fight is the strategy the West must follow, as I note in my post, Obama’s Standard for Justification for War Troubling. As Islam rose in the 7th Century in large part through a series of military victories, it appeared as if God were favoring Muslims, as if to confirm the truth of Islam. It was not until centuries later that Christendom reached a turning point against Muslim conquests. By the 20th Century, it was clear that the West, led by the United States, was ascendant militarily. The spectacular success of the September 11 Attacks made it appear as if Osama bin Laden might be the new leader favored by God whom militant Muslims have been hoping would be powerful enough to unite them in order to defeat the West.

Defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else, therefore, would prove that bin Laden is not favored by God, which would cause him to lose his appeal to militant Muslims, whereas a withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan because of a few hundred fatalities would suggest that he is. Withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, which has become a popular idea, would lead to the collapse of the Afghan representative republic that is allied with NATO in the War on Terrorism, which would allow the return to power of the Taliban and turn Afghanistan into a safe haven for terrorists like al-Qaeda again. Furthermore, because the Afghan-Pakistani Theater of war is where bin Laden his likely hiding, a defeat by his Taliban allies of the greatest power on Earth would add to his prestige even more than a defeat of the U.S. elsewhere.

Moreover, such a major defeat for the U.S. would also suggest that a guerrilla strategy that focuses more on killing American troops in order to decrease popular support for the war than on gaining control militarily of territory would be successful, which would leave the U.S. vulnerable to defeat through guerrilla warfare by any other enemy. American enemies would be emboldened to fight the U.S. instead of deterred from doing so. I have warned of this danger in regard to Iraq in earlier posts, but it is even more of a danger in Afghanistan. Because it was the place from where the September 11 Attacks were plotted, Afghanistan was seen as more of a defensive war than Iraq. Therefore, popular support for the war in Afghanistan was always higher than for the Liberation of Iraq. Indeed, it was the withdrawals of U.S. troops from Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia because of a loss of popular support – not because of military defeat – that emboldened bin Laden to attack the U.S. on September 11. He was especially encouraged by the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia because al-Qaeda had armed the Islamist militants that fought the Americans; they Somali militants were routed by the Americans but by killing just 19 of them, President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. troops to withdraw. As in Iraq, the U.S. must be willing to prove it has a tolerance for casualties high enough to defend itself sufficiently. In short, military victory leads to peace, while military defeat leads to war.

U.S. and NATO troops must continue to remain in the fight against Islamic militancy in Afghanistan. Only once enough Afghan troops are trained to defend their country, can the West declare victory and even begin to consider a withdrawal. The U.S. success in Iraq suggests that it can also succeed in Afghanistan, despite the particularly difficult challenges of that state. Let us continue to be grateful to our American troops and their allies in the Afghan-Pakistani Theater of the War on Terrorism for defending our liberty!