Michael Steele may have trouble staying on message, but sometimes it takes a political fool to speak the truth. Here he is on Obama's Afghan strategy:
Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.
Andrew Sullivan:
Amen. . . .
If the GOP leadership were not still controlled by the neocons eager to re-live the glory days of Bush and Cheney, the Republican party would be reprising its role as the realist reminder of the limits of government power in America and across the world. But they have long since abandoned realism for the fantasies of neoconservatism. And so we have two neo-imperial parties and a presidency reeking of fear and paralyzed in the face of the toughest decision any president has to make: conceding that a war is unwinnable on his terms before others determine it for him - on theirs'.
Obama's strategy in Afghanistan may be flawed, but it is simply NOT TRUE that "everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed." The British and Russians failed, but a host of medieval and early modern groups conquered Afghanistan quite handily, including the Arabs, the Saljuqs, the Mongols, Timur, and many others. There also seems to be a myth that Alexander failed to conquer Afghanistan; where did that one come from? Actually, the Greek successor dynasties held out there as long as they did anywhere else. Obviously none of this is an argument for or against the US being in Afghanistan. But the myth of unconquerable Afghanistan simply isn't true.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on what you mean by "conquer." All those medieval and ancient emperors were content to let the Afghan hill people live however they wanted as long as their overlordship was recognized. I can't imagine that rule by Alexander and his successors has much effect of most Afghans, except those whose land was taken for Greek colonies. I think what we are trying to do -- build an Afghanistan that will join the world economy, respect the rights of women, hold elections, etc., requires a different level of control.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Michael Steele probably doesn't understand this.
Of course you're right. Islamization might be a big premodern exception, which in Afghanistan I know very little about. In most places, Islamization of the natives took centuries--and it's worth noting that one region (Nuristan--the famous "Kafiristan") was still pagan in the early part of the last century.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think any place is unconquerable. I think American commentators use this logic as a way to soften the real truth, which is that the US doesn't really have an imperial vocation. As we've said before, if Americans were willing to put up with universal conscription, many dead sons, high taxes, and much, much vaster slaughter of their enemies--that is, if they wanted to be the Romans of the Republic--they could probably conquer themselves quite an empire. But it's not going to happen, for which I am heartily glad.
That said, it is perhaps worth mentioning that in the case of Afghanistan, their guests attacked us.
And the Taliban are thoroughly bad. Surrendering the country to them will make life awful for many, especially women. But there comes a time when we have to be realistic about what we can and should do. My hope is that once American troops are gone, non-fundamentalist Afghans will step up and fight for their own interests. If they won't, well, the world is full of suffering, and we can't fight all of it.
ReplyDeleteYou may well be right. But the prospect of leaving Afghanistan fills me only with bitterness. We were attacked, and we should have destroyed our enemies. I can never forgive Bush for that, and it is amazing to me that so many Americans no longer seem to care.
ReplyDeleteHow Roman of you! I much prefer the model of Vietnam, in which we stop fighting and eventually make friends with our enemies. I think we have made the point that we will not be attacked without consequences.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be kidding. Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda are not an enemy like the Vietnamese. The war in VN was a stupid mistake made because LBJ was convinced he couldn't pass the Great Society if he didn't go. The Vietnamese were not our enemies in any profound sense, strategically or morally. Al-Qaeda attacked us, and the Taliban abetted them. We should never make peace with either. This is not because the Taliban deny education to women or because their legal system includes public flogging or anything else like that, but because they aided and abetted a major attack upon us. Tragically, the Bush administration hijacked this process. The historical moment for the just reckoning I desire has very likely passed beyond recovery. Perhaps it is time to bring the boys home. But I say this in bitterness.
ReplyDelete