All were held hostage in Pakistan for over 7 months, before he and his translator escaped. The story is a chilling portrait of the mindset of the fighters and a discouraging look into the political realities of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The story is fascinating for many reasons, but it is also timely given the tipping point that the U.S. seems to be at with its battle in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan this year, and more already on the way, which will bring the total there to 68,000. And the general in command in Afghanistan has requested more troops, up to 40,000 more. Meanwhile Afghanistan is trying to hold a runoff presidential election, and Pakistan seems to actually be taking on the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda that has taken over parts of Pakistan.
It's tempting to read stories like this hostage one, remember that a US soldier is being held hostage there, see the mounting deaths of Americans and Afghanis, military and civilian, and just say, "Get us out of there."
How do you weigh the cost of staying against the cost of leaving? Yes, the reality is gut-wrenching with unyielding anger and senseless violence, and maddening with its futility of political partnerships and inconsistent Western involvement. But there are also those, like the translator held hostage, who are the larger part of the population and who would partner with legitimate and consistent efforts to bring peace to their families. I saw it put this way recently:
The hell of withdrawal is what kind of drama would fill the vacuum, who would re-emerge, who would be empowered, what Pakistan would look like with a newly redrawn reality in the neighborhood, what tremors would shake the ground there as the U.S. troops march out. It is the hell of a great nation that had made a commitment in retreat, abandoning not only its investment of blood and treasure but those on the ground, and elsewhere, who had one way or another cast their lot with us. It would involve the hell, too, of a U.N. commitment, an allied commitment, deflated to the point of collapse.
The hell of staying is equally clear, and vivid: more loss of American and allied troops, more damage to men and resources, an American national debate that would be a continuing wound and possibly a debilitating one, an overstretched military given no relief and in fact stretched thinner, a huge and continuing financial cost in a time when our economy is low. There is no particular guarantee of, or even a completely persuasive definition of, success. And Pakistan may blow anyway.
The debate is over which hell is less damaging in the long term, which hell is more livable.
So which hell is the better choice? Or is there an alternative? Are the only choices abandoning the vulnerable population or waging an ugly and violent war?
2 comments:
I believe one of the main problems in Afghanistan remains Iraq. The later has betrayed the former twice. First, after the initial invasion, Afghanistan seems to have been moved to the back burner so the focus could shift to Iraq. Mere maintenance became the strategy for the Afghanis.
Jump to this moment, and much of the American public seems to perceive that the effort in Iraq is largely complete. US troops have pulled out of the cities and turned military and political power over to the democratically elected government. (Seems like Bush can finally put up his "Mission Complete" banner.) However, 141,000 troops remain in Iraq today. Additionally, there are 130,000 US-funded civilian contractors on the ground, including a massive private army. For the second time, Iraq betrays Afghanistan by giving the appearance that it requires MUCH less than it actually does and then absorbing the resources so desperately needed by the Afghanis.
Perhaps the choice should not be between staying and leaving Afghanistan. Perhaps it should be between staying in Afghanistan or Iraq. I would choose Afghanistan.
David Rohde was interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air" today.
Post a Comment