Reply #25: Agree and disagree

[MH1]

I agree that the State Dept should be the leader in nation-building. I disagree that the military has no role. The military should be there to protect the aid teams. Also, the military has civil affairs units, which are trained in some aspects of nation building. I agree though, they should be working hand in hand with State Dept people.

I disagree strongly with this statement: "War is engaged in because there is no other way to bend an enemy to reason or to your will." I think war is engaged in because someone sees a way to profit and manages to convince enough people that they are in danger from "the enemy" and there is no way to protect them from "the enemy" except going to war. You may have sizable support coming from people who think war is the only way to remove an evil regime that is terrorizing its own people. But I doubt that group alone would ever - even in WWII - be sufficient to cause the military to fully engage. (I honestly never thought - from the moment he did it - that GHW Bush really went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons.)

I'm fine with paying to develop robotics for what they're good for (mine clearing and other things). I just think that for Afghanistan we'd better, real quick, get the mission straight or get the hell out. I think getting out may be even less of an option than it is in Iraq. (Last I heard we aren't getting fully out of Iraq, and I'm okay with that.)

So what do I think the mission is in Afghanistan? Stabilizing as much of the country as possible with some government less awful than the Taliban, preferably a government that allows women to go to school and participate in the economy independently of a slavemaster. Just this morning I heard yet another development expert pointing out that it's only when women can go to school and function somewhat autonomously, that birthrates and poverty go down. Overpopulation is driving environmental problems as well as directly driving global conflict (which is also driven by environmental problems, in a vicious circle); poverty of course drives conflict, and terrorism especially. So if we allow Afghanistan to revert to Taliban rule, we will not only see a lot of misery there, but they will once again be in a position to export misery to other countries, including us.

So I think we should stay in Afghanistan for now, but get it right. Getting it right means making sure people can make a living and have security for themselves and their families without turning to the Taliban. I do not believe that blunt, poorly directed use of military force can achieve those goals. I do believe that there is a place for specialized and high quality military operations, in addition to and in coordination with sensible, well-funded, compassionate development efforts.