AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan is not and never has been a nation, by any legitimate definition of the word. For some time it has been an entity with borders and a capital city and someone who claims to be its king or president. Nothing resembling national institutions and services exist. Warlords and tribal chieftains only comply with national laws and regulations when it suits their needs and wishes. Virtually none of these local strong men pretend to be loyal to the government in Kabul or to the changing alliances they enter and leave as their needs dictate.

This condition is a normal pattern that has prevailed for centuries, rather than the aftermath of an unfortunate colonial experience. While its challenging, mountainous terrain explains some of its never becoming a nation, its lack of anything to anchor its economy explains even more. It has always been important for its geographical location. It was important to prevent enemies from using it for a base of attack or a avenue for supply. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not invade in 1980 to annex the area but like the Russian Empire before it to provide a possible outlet to the warm waters of the south. Its strategic location attracted numerous invaders that Afghans learned to play like virtuosos. In doing so, they did what Afghans do best: survive.

The United States became heavily involved in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to thwart Soviet long-standing desire to thrust southward. Its close association with bin Laden and his mujahadin was a simple mini marriage of convenience, which neither intended to sustain after repelling the Soviets. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1987 U.S. interest essentially ended. That approach was no longer possible when the intrinsic weakness of Afghanistan resulted in the Islamic militants of the Taliban established a training center for Islamic jihadists to prepare for attacks on the United States.

The Obama administration states a commitment to winning a war in Afghanistan, which he characterizes as the real American interest, rather than Iraq, which his predecessor pinned his reputation upon. President Obama indicates he is ruthless in his efforts to achieve every goal he espouses. The large increase in American forces in Afghanistan indicates he is dedicated to winning “his” war.

American forces can accomplish any goal and win any war when they are free of political restrictions. Winning the war in Afghanistan depends on the defining victory in that country. An all out American effort can kill the existing Taliban and their replacements.

Nation building in Afghanistan is a different story. One could say the United States built a new nation in Japan and played the largest role doing the same in Germany following World War II. Achieving the same in Iraq is much more viable than trying to achieve a functioning nation in Afghanistan. Japan, Germany and Iraq had in common that they had unquestionably been nations. While one might doubt the accuracy of calling Iraq a nation, it had centralized institutions, a very sound economy and a single language and sense of heritage from the 1920’s. Creation of a nation in Afghanistan in a short period of time, even covering two Obama terms, would be a monumental achievement. Would anything short of that constitute victory?