Afghan Flag

Afghan Flag

In light of deteriortating conditions in Afghanistan and its border area with Pakistan, both Obama and McCain have called for additional US combat forces. Progressives have been debating the merits of more US troops versus other strategies for dealing with the situation.

I’ve outlined a series of questions to help frame a discussion, starting with the least controversial and evolving towards interventionist policies. One can see how a different answer at any point could lead to a different set of policy choices. Consider the following:

1. Do we hold a group which we call "al Qaeda" and bin Ladin responsible for 9/11 and other attacks on the US, and do we believe they will attack us again if not stopped?

2. If so, do we believe that group’s core leadership is based somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan border region?

3. Do we believe the US has a right to bring this group "to justice"? As in capture/kill them etc? And if so . . .

4. Does that justify a military intervention for that purpose? Is that the best response?

5. Do we believe the "Taliban" either were harboring this core al Qaeda group, or would harbor them if the Taliban could return to power in any significant portion of Afghanistan/Pakistan?

6. If so, does that justify a military intervention to keep the Taliban from seizing military and/or political control over these regions?

7. If yes, do we believe the US should intervene unilaterally, or intervene only in concert with others (NATO, UN)? (e.g., within some established international legal framework?)

8. Even if none of the above were true/relevant, do we believe military intervention in Afghan would be justified on humanitarian grounds; that is, to remove and keep the Taliban from power on the grounds their regime’s treatment of its people was intolerable?

Answering these questions provides one possible framework for debating the merits of expanded military intervention in Afghanistan and even into Northwest Pakistan. Most of the disagreements I’ve seen start with different answers somewhere along that chain of questions, but without stating the implicit beliefs. US policy appears to have answered all these question with "yes," even accepting unilateral intervention if needed.

Even if one gets through 1-6, accepting unilateral intervention is a sticking point for some both because of a preference for a framework of international law to guide/limit such interventions, and because the US record in unilateral interventions – Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Fallujah, etc — is not good.

Whether US forces are disciplined enough to implement a “protect the population” strategy is debatable; daily news stories and Suin’s posts remind us we have been careless/reckless of life in Iraq, even though Petraeus and McCain claim we are there to protect the population and "know how to win wars." The civilian casualty lists and the repeated incidents where US troops (and contractors) are not held accountable are not encouraging, and our record in Afghan seems no better. Is it realistic to expect a foreign invading army to avoid this trap and stay true to its claimed objectives?

I think the argument for #8 – humanitarian interventions – is morally stronger than 1-6, which while premised on self defense seem more based on revenge or retribution. I believe there are regimes whose treatment of their people is just too horrible to be allowed. But I’m not sure how we wind up intervening in Afghan and not many other places. If this argument is to be the justification, it becomes even clearer that intervention should be a multilateral obligation, under international law and oversight, not a unilateral US decision.

I’ve often avoided posts debating whether the "surge" worked because I was prepared to concede that it is possible for a large nation with a huge military backed by massive air power to crush a local population and subdue it for a period. We had to "destroy the village to save it," so we crushed Fallujah, and that became an implicit threat in Basra and Sadr City.

Here’s a final test: consider what happened two weeks ago, when nine US soldiers were killed, their position overrun by forces crossing the border near their outpost. It’s pretty obvious we didn’t have enough troops to watch everything without exposing our troops to intolerable risks. The US subsequently drew back, leaving that route open. Discussions about what to do in Afghanistan need to address that incident: would you leave that outpost open? or reinforce it?

The questions above are just one way to facilitate a discussion. And if you only get so far on the list, then you face another line of questions that starts, "okay, if not that, then what?"