The Great Debate: Is Afghanistan the Right War?
Journalist: Paul Pillar
CNAS Author: Dr. John A. Nagl
Original Post: The Great Debate: Is Afghanistan the Right War?
Type: CNAS Commentary
February 23, 2010 —
Below is an excerpt from "The Great Debate: Is Afghanistan the Right War?" To read the full article, please click here.
Yes - John Nagl
The United States is “at war against al-Qaeda.” So said President Obama in the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing of Northwest Flight 253, and so we are, and so we are likely to be—for many years to come. Afghanistan is one of the critical battlefields in this war; while winning in Afghanistan would not by itself defeat al-Qaeda, losing in Afghanistan would materially strengthen it and prolong the fight, potentially at the cost of many more American lives.
This was not a war we planned to fight. Many ignored the early warning signs of a violent threat that would soon pull us deep into conflict.
Yet, the war had arguably been going on for years. It started with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. It continued with an attack on the USS Cole docked off Yemen in 2000. And it became unmistakable on September 11, 2001. America’s subsequent counterattack on al-Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan pushed al-Qaeda’s leadership into Pakistan, where it remains today. We have diminished its ranks through drone strikes and an increasingly aggressive Pakistani counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign.
Now, al-Qaeda has only a minimal presence in Afghanistan, perhaps one hundred or so fighters, which leads many to question why the United States needs to pour more money and more troops into this war effort. Indeed, it is the Taliban—which rose to power in Afghanistan in the late 1990s and provided the shelter from which bin Laden’s group planned and executed the September 11 attack—that is now America’s main adversary on the ground in Afghanistan. But were the Taliban to regain control of the country, al-Qaeda would simply have more room in which to entrench itself.
Unfortunately, being at war with a nonstate actor like al-Qaeda gives war fighting a whole new complexity for a great power like the United States. Al-Qaeda holds no permanent territory. Its soldiers do not wear uniforms or obey (or even acknowledge) the laws of war. And it specializes in attacking innocent civilians in spectacular displays that attempt to change our behavior through shock-and-awe tactics.
Thus, despite substantial progress, the war is not over. One of the lessons of the past eight years is that al-Qaeda will take advantage of safe havens wherever they arise; were the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda would once again have an entire country potentially at its disposal from which to train, plan and operate.
The United States is at war with al-Qaeda, and with those who support al-Qaeda. Success will take a toll on us and our Afghan partners. However, the cost of failure in Afghanistan would be even higher.
Before we decide to abandon the nascent democracy in Kabul, we should give the new commander in Afghanistan a reasonable opportunity to put time-tested counterinsurgency techniques to work.
America must not make the mistake of abandoning Afghanistan again—the stakes are far too high.
Related:
Topic(s): Regional Security Challenges, Terrorism, Irregular Warfare and Crime, Development and Diplomacy, U.S. Military Forces & Operations, U.S. National Security and Defense Policy
Project(s): Afghanistan and Pakistan
People: Dr. John A. Nagl
