The League of Ambivalent Columnists

Perhaps we should just invade Pakistan, too. /rolls eyes

If the U.S. doesn't remain engaged in Afghanistan, the civilian government in Pakistan--already an incredibly shaky enterprise--will probably fall.
-
Maybe, but it's not obvious how our presence there stabilizes the Pakistani government.
-
What's more, when we have nothing but bad options, as you say we do here, I'm hard-pressed to see why "not occupying and not sending military aid" isn't our default. We supported the Shah, then supported Saddam when he fought the Shah's successors (and sold arms to them too, but whatever), then fought Saddam, and then fought Saddam a second time.
-
Sometimes, it almost seems like supporting dodgy regimes in the interest of momentary expedience is self-defeating in the long term.

There is no question that destabilizing Pakistan is a serious danger. Unfortunately, it is not evident that leaving would destabilize Pakistan more than staying does.

Unsurprisingly, the dumbest argument put forth by Kaplan is the "message" argument: that if we leave:

it would signal, correctly or not, a huge victory for anti-American forces generally. If we left Afghanistan to the Taliban (and, by extension, al-Qaida), especially after such a prolonged commitment (at least rhetorically), what other embattled people would trust the United States (or the other putative allies in this war) to come in and protect them from insurgents? None, and they could hardly be blamed.

A. People who are embattled by insurgents are beggars not choosers. In the future, people might not trust us? What choice would they have?

B. If the Afghan people don't want us in their country, why would that affect some future group of people who do want us in their country?

C. How is it a "huge victory" for Al Qaeda or the Taliban if we spend nearly a decade in the country and only leave when our overwhelming military might becomes counter-productive by killing too many non-Al Qaeda and non-Taliban civilians?

Let's get real. If we had killed bin Laden and Al Zawahiri back in 2001-2002, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would be "Mission accomplished. Now let's get the f--- out."

Echos of Viet Nam. All will be lost if we abandon the corrupt quagmire. News flash: the idiot killer Islamists are spread throughout the world. We can't control that, and it wouldn't be a surprise if after over 60 years of control, these religious creeps unleashed the unthinkable. Russia will be very interested in the scenario you describe. Maybe we should stay in very close touch with them. And end the unilateral chicken little routine.

If a civilian government in Pakistan can only exist with a huge military presence in Afghanistan, then maybe the US should encourage a miltary coup.

9/11 and Iraq should have taught the US that it is not possible to interact with the rest of the world purely on its own terms.

"There is one argument for continuing the fight that I would add,.."

That neither JK nor JK's innocent loved ones (nor Israelis) are dying in there - by droves - day and night ..

Um, if Pakistan is who we need to be helping--and given that they have nuclear weapons, that seems perfectly reasonable--then what are we doing in Afghanistan, Joe? Land war in Asia? Graveyard of Empires? Is this ringing any bells?

Why so few of the commentariat appear to recognize that Aghanistan is Vietnam with impassable mountains substituted for impassable jungles (and McChrystal for Westmoreland, and the shaky Kabul government for the shaky Hanoi government, the Taliban for the Viet Cong, and so on and so forth) completely baffles me.

Our war in Afghanistan is and has been terrible for Pakistan. What a terrible way to justify staying there. First we pushed all kinds of bad guys into Pakistan. Now we want to push more into Baluchistan. This is helping Pakistan stabilize?

What Micheal Moore said.

Pakistan. If the U.S. doesn't remain engaged in Afghanistan, the civilian government in Pakistan--already an incredibly shaky enterprise--will probably fall.

Oh sure, having an occupying army next door carpet bombing your border country must be an enormously destabilizing influence.

Certainly, the Pakistani Army will be further empowered and will likely bolster its support for its Taliban allies in order to prevent India from establishing a foothold in Kabul.

That might not be a desirable outcome - but you just did a sleight of hand! That point has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Pakistan's government is stable or unstable. Stable governments often do things we don't like.

The possibility of a Pakistani Army coup scares the bejeezus out of expert like Bruce Riedel.

Bruce Riedel (Saban Center at Brookings) gets paid to be hysterical about Muslims. He is not an expert on South Asian culture or history.

It's not impossible that it would be an Islamist takeover. (Indeed, it's happened before: the coup that brought Zia al-Haq to power in the 1980s.)

This is sleight of hand. Evasive phrasing like this makes it sound like the Taliban will take over the place. But Pashtuns are a small minority in Pakistan. The kind of military-Islamic leaders Riedel is getting the vapors over have been in charge of Pakistan more often than not since indepence, so it's not like it'd be unknown territory.

This is assuming, of course, that staying is more likely to prevent a coup and leaving more likely to hasten one. But that's only true in Opposite Land.

How is our government quantifying success now?

Is it improving the standard of living for the Afghans? Are we pretending they can adopt western-style democracy based on limited interaction with our troops?

Are we saying that if X amount of girls receive an education that a goal has been met? Are we still pretending we can stamp out the "enemy of the moment"?

Are we assuming that accidental bombings of civilians are gaining us an upper hand with the local population?

I'm sure the President will say something interesting this evening, but even in corporate America the CEO has to have a target for the company to meet.

What has been our fixed and final target? Saying that the government will collapse if we are not there is rather nebulous. I suspect that Iran, Pakistan, India and China could, and should, take up the slack should things get out of hand.

Our government enjoys the pretense that we are wholly indispensable, indestructible, and our resources are infinite. However, the fact is 6+ billion people on this planet can and will do fine without our rancid interference.

Unless success is quantified in concrete numbers, dates, and a realistic agenda is defined, this killing affair (war) with the east is a continuing disaster.

We have to pull out. Let's leave the local population to decide their own fate. This cannot go on indefinitely. It should not go on indefinitely.

[...] chroniqueur du magazine Time, Joe Klein, se dit lui aussi hésitant sur la question. Il ajoute : Si les États-Unis se retirent de [...]