With every breaking news story or expose that comes out of Afghanistan, it is unequivocally clear that America is immersed in a foreign policy quagmire of epic proportions. Some foreign policy analysts and media pundits are dubbing this the “Vietnam of the 21st century.” Is this really appropriate? It must be noted that although the two wars bear striking similarities, they possess an entirely different set of complex historical, cultural, political and geographical dynamics that could never be underscored in comparison. However, juxtaposed to this, there are surely lessons that we can draw from our involvement in Vietnam. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan may not be the shining example of a free democratic and prosperous society that we are hoping for it to be.
Furthermore, the difficult questions of ‘what do we do?’ and ‘how to do it?’ have become more difficult in light of Afghanistan’s recent fraudulent elections, widespread government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban. This war can’t be cast in the black and white terms of either "we're leaving or we're staying, which is often propagated in the press. Many are disappointed that President Obama has not ended the war,as rapidly, as he had promised during his campaign .However, the circumstances and issues surrounding the war and its end are more complex, than Obama himself may have even realized while campaigning. Sitting in the Oval Office as a president with a legacy and foreign policy at stake, has plunged Obama into a different reality from being a candidate who had a wealth of popularity for his stances and ideas on foreign policy. If Obama is to heed any advice from former President George W.Bush, it should be on this very issue concerning popularity and decision making which is that “popularity is fleeting.”
After all, the issue of reconciling action with legacy is at the core of this quagmire and is something that is not solely exclusive to the Obama administration in terms of dealing with it, but for the U.S and it's government as a whole. If we prematurely leave and Afghanistan completely unravels and falls to the corruption and Taliban resurgence, would we have sacrificed time, money and more importantly, the lives of U.S. servicemen and women for almost nothing, not to mention having damaged our credibility and reputation further in the international community. However, if we stay the long road and help foster a democratic society and friend in the midst of a hostile region, perhaps we can say that all we sacrificed has been worth it in the name of freedom, democracy and justice. Then there is the possible scenario, that we could stay the long road, invest more time, money and troops and still have the country fall into corruption, chaos and tyranny. All three of these scenarios are obviously more complex than as simplified here but this highlights the dilemmas we are facing.
Aside from all the questions we are seeking answers for, there is one question that is irrelevant at this point. That question is ‘Why did we go to war in Afghanistan in first place?’ It is water under the bridge. Like Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan will stand before the judgment of history which will reflect on such questions after all is said and done. Right now one can say that we have current and historical evidence that can serve as grounds for our predictions of the turn-out, which maybe true. However, one can never underestimate the capricious events that take place within war or diplomacy. As dissatisfying and generic as it is, we may simply have to chalk it all up to the clichéd phrase “only time will tell”.
Comments