Pulling out of Afghanistan is best option

It’s pretty bad when Donald Trump’s new Afghanistan plan seems to be an improvement on existing strategy, and neither conspicuously deluded nor wilfully offensive. But it’s not immediately obvious that lowering the bar dramatically can solve such problems.

I don’t mean Trump. I mean Afghanistan, now America’s longest war ( and Canada’s when our 12- year combat mission ended). It has not proved as divisive as Vietnam, partly because casualties are far lower and partly because, believe it or not, America is not as divided today as half a century ago. Yes, also under “believe it or not,” Vietnam vets are now as old as First World War vets when I was a kid.

Anyway, as nearly as I can understand it, the Trump plan is to stay and fight until we win. Which beats fighting while announcing the date we’ll give up and go home, or fighting indefinitely without seeking victory. But not by much, because if we were going to win, through military force, nation-building or both, we would have by now.

In situations like Afghanistan where all options are unsatisfactory there’s a tendency to cycle between them because changing problems feels like progress. But it’s not. Including trying “diplomacy” as an alternative to fighting.

There’s no magical process whereby reasonable, intelligent people take over from belligerent morons and, by the soothing reasonableness of their words, cause enmities to melt, incompatible positions to merge, and peace, love and trust to erupt uncontrollably. Secretary of State John Kerry was deeply committed to diplomacy with the Taliban, who were deeply committed to killing stinking infidels.

When Jack Layton advocated diplomacy in Afghanistan in September 2008, I asked what proposal he would offer the Taliban and he had no answer except “all major conflicts are resolved ultimately through peace- oriented discussions,” which was obvious nonsense. Both World Wars, the Cold War, the Napoleonic Wars and countless others ended with a defeated foe staggering forth to surrender.

Unfortunately, the Taliban can’t be beaten that way. As in Vietnam, we’re fighting an organization and support network already broken by any rational standard, so we can’t win by breaking them again. And we’re certainly not going to wage a war of extermination, which the Soviets tried and failed anyway.

So what would victory look like? If you have no answer, you’re like the chump staying in at the poker table with no idea what card you’re even hoping for. Except you’re gambling lives and strategic credibility.

As for “nation building,” the problem is not that we shouldn’t. It’s that we can’t. Even Indigenous regimes with significant popular support face prodigious obstacles changing the political culture of a country, never mind deeply resented foreigners.

My recommended alternative unfortunately involves the punchline “I wouldn’t start from here if I were you.” But we are here and must do something. Namely leave.

I supported the original 2001 intervention to oust a Taliban regime sheltering terrorists who’d launched a major attack on the free world. But I wanted to take them out then get out, leaving an unmistakable warning against provoking the West sufficiently. Ditto Saddam Hussein in 2003. And even belatedly and to less effect it remains the best plan.

Can a Victorian doctrine of “butcher and bolt” solve all problems? Of course not. Nothing can, in life generally or geopolitics specifically. But it removes the most dangerous regimes that don’t control big countries or have weapons of mass destruction, which is very worthwhile. It also scares other maniacs, again worthwhile. And it helps sustain the military, economic and moral capacity to act decisively against the next threat instead of becoming exhausted and demoralized by endless missions.

We don’t want Afghanistan to become a base for international terror again. But Afghanistan isn’t particularly special that way; it could happen in any number of places. What matters is how we react each time it does, presuming the place is not beyond our reach by virtue of protection by a hostile superpower.

I’m fed up with Canada’s lack of heavy lifting in the world. It would be easy to say let’s join Trump in kicking some Taliban butt, for its own sake and to regain credibility with our allies. But if the mission isn’t a good idea, joining probably isn’t either, even if your friends appreciate it. What we need is less emphasis on feel-good peacekeeping and nationbuilding and more on rapid response, both as a response to specific crises and a blueprint f or rebuilding our armed forces.

Western armies have been in Afghanistan for 16 years now. If there were a way to win, militarily or politically, we would have found it by now. Leaving to the accompaniment of jeers sounds pretty bad. But nobody has a better plan.

Not even, and it’ sincongruous but I’ ll say it anyway, Donald Trump.

WESTERN ARMIES HAVE BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN FOR 16 YEARS NOW. — JOHN ROBSON