[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]
On the Fourth of July, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he is optimistic that, unlike the Soviet forces that were driven from Afghanistan 20 years ago, U.S. forces can succeed there.
“The Russians were sent running as they should have been. We helped send them running. But they were there to conquer the country. We’ve made it very clear, and everybody I talk with in Afghanistan feels the same way: they know we’re there to help and we’re going to leave. We’ve made it very clear we are going to leave. And it’s going to be turned back to them.”
Leahy, as a senior senator, is normally very much in tune with Obama administration policies, but if this position accurately reflects President Barack Obama’s policy, and the rationale behind it, the president is on shaky ground.
Why the Soviets and America got involved in Afghanistan is clear. The Soviets were there at the request of the then-ruling government of Afghanistan, the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan to fight against the Islamist mujahideen resistance, which was trying to take over Afghanistan. The Soviets did not enter Afghanistan to conquer it, they went in to destroy the government’s enemy and maintain the PDPA in power. They failed.
And why are we there?
America first invaded Afghanistan because much of the planning and training for 9/11 was carried out there. We have just recently stepped up our troop levels and military aggressiveness in order to conquer the current government’s enemy (the Taliban) and turn the country over to its current leaders (Hamid Karzai and Co.). We probably will fail.
From the Afghan perspective, apart from the fact that we represent democracy and the Soviets represented Communism, there is no difference in our motivation. We both invaded for our own political reasons. After “victory,” we and the Soviets planned to hand the country over to our respective “friends.”
The situation is complicated by what Afghans and other Middle Easterners think really motivates us. They are used to having Russia as a neighbor. It’s déjà vu. As a country with no winter access to the oceans because it has only northern ports, Russia has been trying for centuries to force its way into warm water ports to its south.
America is a totally different matter. With very little history of military involvement in the region, suddenly we are seen invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The only conclusion Islam can make is that America is the new crusader. This is simply because the most memorable and formative thing that has come at them from Europe and points west has been the Crusades of the 12th and 13th centuries.
During the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, there was much discussion in Republican and neoconservative circles about bringing democracy to Iraq. What do you suppose the difference is between a Muslim being brought Christianity in the first crusades and democracy in the current crusade? There is no difference. Make no mistake about it, the prevalent opinion in Islam, specifically including Afghanistan, is that Americans are the new crusaders.
The real question here is why we think we are going to be successful when no other country has succeeded in conquering Afghanistan? Anyone who reads history knows the odds against success are unlimited. There are a lot of reasons for that history: inhospitable terrain, tribalism, xenophobia, corruptibility, bellicosity, and more.
All those foreign invasions of Afghanistan over the centuries failed because they were undertaken for the benefit of the invaders, not the Afghans. Ours is no different.
Historically, counterinsurgencies seldom win because the insurgents hold most of the cards. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says we will require a five- to 10-year timeline to defeat the Taliban insurgency. Any U.S.-run and financed counterinsurgency is viable only as long as American voters support it. That support will require visible, sustainable progress of the type we are unlikely to see.
American public support, weary after six years of questionable military involvement in the region, will wane. All the Afghans have to do is successfully avoid final defeat, which they certainly can do.
Like George W. Bush, all this president will have accomplished is to kick the Afghan can further down the road for a future administration without solving anything.
That cannot be a legacy President Obama would seek.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe, the Middle East, as chief of the counterterrorism staff and as executive assistant in the director’s office. He lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 