On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terrorist network that operated out of Afghanistan. What ensued is what should have happened: the United States issued an ultimatum to surrender the terrorists deemed responsible and invaded once that ultimatum was ignored. Thus was born the War in Afghanistan. The conflict focused on two particular groups: Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. The idea was simple enough, to dismantle Al Qaeda, uproot the Taliban regime, and essentially give the country back to the Northern Alliance rebels.

Somewhere along the way, the clarity of our mission dissipated and we got stuck in nation-building. It did not happen overnight especially because of the Bush administration’s initial resistance to the idea, but as of now, we are knee deep in sending not only troops but specialists and advisers. The Obama administration has made it a point that success in our campaign cannot come only through military means, but through other factors:

“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.

This is the very definition of nation-building, though it seems that the administration will be content with leaving some shell of a “sustainable society” as opposed to making sure that the institutions we help establish will last. Which brings me to my point, how does “terrorist attack on American soil” eventually lead to “providing security, political stability, and economic development to Afghanistan?” In a bar fight, how many times does the winner drive the loser to the hospital, pay their bar tab, and make sure their car gets driven home safely? Yet this is exactly what we are doing and plan to continue doing in Afghanistan, a place that has never had a strong national identity nor strong civil institutions to match. Afghanistan is a made-up place whose national character has not developed yet and, in truth, may never develop. The problem with nation-building in Afghanistan is that we must build the nation out of whole cloth, not simply prop up or re-inflate certain parts of it like we did in Iraq. In Iraq there existed more of a “nation” than in Afghanistan and so we only needed to reinforce those parts of it that were necessary for stability. So when people wonder why the conflict in Afghanistan has taken so long, the answer is right before our eyes: insurgencies are a way of life for the Afghans and when regular Afghans see the Afghan flag, not enough of their eyes fill up with proud tears.

To reach victory in Afghanistan, we must not insist that whatever government take its place be democratic or ideal, it might be corrupt (like it is now), it might be a little authoritarian, heck, it might be a little bit of a militant Islamic state, but the absolute truth is that we cannot impose the centuries of political and philosophic development of the Western world on this “country.” What we need is to be pragmatists in foreign policy, unlike Bush and unlike Obama. This means that maybe we tolerate their opium economy but make sure that it is not in the wrong hands. This means we make the tough choices, the choices that a morally repugnant, the choices that lead to other problems in the short-term, because at the end of the day we must choose our battles. Do we fight the evil that killed almost 3,000 that September day and their allies, or do we worry about drug trade, the corruption, the human rights abuses, etc. prevalent in Afghan society? My vote is to stomp out Al Qaeda and the Taliban first and worry about the stability of their society second… ultimately, their national shortfalls will be regional threats but to leave Al Qaeda a safe haven would be an international threat.

The best way for America to spread freedom around the world is two-fold, defend freedom when under attack and serve as a role model for the world. We currently have an administration that is not so keen on doing either. My positions above are a bit cold, but in the end, they are the best ways to defend against Al Qaeda and get us out of long-term counterinsurgency campaigns that only cost blood and treasure. For a bit of perspective, the Colombian armed guerrilla conflict started in 1964 and only now is showing signs of abating… guerrilla wars are a long-term proposition, McCain knew that and seemed to have the stomach for it, but I do not want more Americans to die needlessly. We can accomplish our goals and come home, we just have to cast aside those silly ideas about nation-building that may take centuries to work.

-AG