Pentagon Papers II

What's the difference if they have their bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

 

Pakistan has nukes.

 

So we should go ahead and pull out and let them back into Afghanistan.

 

The difference is that the Pakistan Government and military was supposedly on our side and helping us combat them, whereas in a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan they will have an absolute safe haven with aid and assistance of the Government.

The other issue is that, having now gained a stronger foothold in Pakistan, enabling them to also seize control over the Afghan govt and military machinery (what there is of it) would provide even more leverage for them to attempt to seize control of the Pakistan Government and nuclear arsenal.

Withdrawal doesn't mean that they'll give up what they've gained in Pakistan, it'll only means that they now have Afghanistan AND a solid chunk of Pakistan, and with no more American troops around to impede them from advancing further in a country with stored nukes. Yet another reason why withdrawal is a far dicier issue here than it was in Vietnam.

 

The Powell / Weinberger Doctrine

# Is a vital national security interest threatened?
# Do we have a clear attainable objective?
# Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
# Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
# Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
# Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
# Is the action supported by the American people?
# Do we have genuine broad international support?[

 

Several million dead Cambodians disagree.

 

And it's 1-2-3
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop's Afghanistan.

Be the first next one on the block
To have your boy come home in a box

 

This was widely available to to be read by American decision makers in the fall of 2001, was it not? In fact, wasn't Powell himself reading the fucking thing aloud in meetings with the President?

 

Problem is the Powell/Weinberger doctrine is meant as guideline factors to consider BEFORE invasion, not after you've already done it, been there for nine years, and still haven't achieved any of your war objectives. There's a whole new set of collateral consequences to consider once you're already there and pulling out will leave a power vacuum sure to be filled by the bad guys.

And it's a doctrine that we violated more with the Iraq invasion than Afghanistan. I don't know how we could've avoided invading Afghanistan after 9/11. After the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, we kinda had no choice given the mood of the country at the time. The American public would've lost its collective mind if we hadn't. Nobody seemed particularly concerned with how to get out back then because we thought it'd be easy--storm in, crush Taliban, catch Bin Laden, install friendly government, come home to triumphant victory parades--it was the great superpower vs. primitive cave dwellers, how could it not be easy?

 

Yeah, it's pretty easy to Monday Morning Quarterback going into Afghanistan right now but the fact is we had no choice at the time.

 

I actually like this idea. But back to reality: all we'll get is the current president blaming the former administration for all the problems there when this was his priority war when he took the job.

 

Of course we did. That's why we're in the no-win bind we're in nine years later.