General David McKiernan — the guy Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mistakenly referred to as “General McClellan” during her one debate this fall with vice president-elect Joe Biden — has recently said some interesting things about what “success” means in terms of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. In an address to the Atlantic Council, McKiernan framed his definition of success in terms of what he thought the Afghani people want: (Note: when he says “next slide,” it’s because he’s moving through a PowerPoint presentation.)
As I go around to different provinces and different localities in Afghanistan, I always try to gauge if I were an Afghan, what would I say winning means in Afghanistan? I mean, I could say it is COM ISAF is the future of NATO, or regional stability, or affects homeland defense. None of those would mean much to an Afghan. But when I ask Afghans, what does winning mean to you? What’s success in the future, it generally runs along those three lines there. A sense of security, where they can move about their own country, whether it’s their own valley, or drive from Kandahar to Kabul, or see family across the border or across the Duran line, whichever you’d like to refer it to, in the tribal areas. They want a government that they can trust that will meet their expectations, and they are willing to defend and die for it. And they want some progress and some hope for their families. Not a lot, not as much as we would want, but they want to sense some progress for the future.
Democracy is not about voting just because they want to elect their own government. It’s about voting because there’s something in it for their future. Next slide.
So I always like to say that this campaign is not going to be decided militarily, and that’s difficult sometimes for a guy in uniform to say. It’s not going to be decided militarily. We’re not going to run out of bad people in Afghanistan that have bad intentions, and we’re not going to kill and capture so many of these bad people that it’s going to break the will of all the insurgent groups that operate in Afghanistan. Ultimately it’s going to be people that decide that they wanted a different outcome in Afghanistan. It’s going to be a political outcome.
The most important idea I take away from the quote above is that McKeirnan believes — or at least claims to believe — that this war is in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan, that we are fighting for them in a meaningful way. In McKeirnan’s mind, there’s a way of looking at this war in terms of what’s at stake for the Afghani people: their freedom to live free from fear and violence, their ability to shape their own destiny. By the way of thinking, our purpose in Iraq is to help them get what they want.
Of course, Americans want the Afghani people to achieve these goals. We want the Afghani people to be able to visit their relatives without being shot. We want the Afghani people to have a government they can support. In fact, we want the Afghani people to thrive. In part, we want these things because a free, safe, stable, prosperous Afghanistan won’t harbor terrorists — but we also want these things because our commitment to the same values — “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — is what unites us as Americans.
The next question is: Is our military presence in Afghanistan helping them achieve these goals, or is it actually a hindrance? In order to answer this question, we must ask two others. First, do the Afghani people want us there, “helping” them, or do they want us to leave? In Iraq, for example, most Iraqis seem to want us gone — and this means our presence is more agitating then pacifying. The second question is, are we at all effective in our efforts to help them?
McKeirnan argues that the Afghani people want our help:
The people in Afghanistan do not feel secure in many areas in the south and the east. They don’t feel like they have freedom of movement. They are dissatisfied with their government. But on the other hand, the vast majority of the people in Afghanistan do not support the Taliban, they do not wish the Taliban to re-emerge in power in Afghanistan. And they accept the presence of foreign forces on their soil to help fight for their security. Now that’s not just me saying that. That’s polling data that’s been taken from across Afghanistan. So the glass is half-full.
McKeirnan also suggests that progress is being made, in spite of the recent surges in violence. But far more work it needed:
I don’t have to tell you that the estimates are over 6 million Afghans go to school today. That number was in the couple hundred thousand back in 2001. It is still, and will remain, a largely agricultural society, but the glass is half-full. There is progress in many areas of Afghanistan. There are places where security allows freedom of movement, where there is some governance at the local and district and provincial level that is in the right direction and it’s positive for the future.
There are areas where socio-economic programs are taking place, where reconstruction and development are occurring. Now there are a few places where all three of those come together, and there are still many areas of Afghanistan, as I said before, where people do not feel like they have freedom of movement and they don’t see a better future for their children, and they don’t get to go to school because the schools are intimidated, burned, teachers are not allowed to teach, or curriculum is changed to be what the Taliban would like it to be.
Finally, this is McKeirnan’s assessment:
So this is a very uneven campaign, but at the end of the day the glass is half-full. The reason first and foremost I say it’s half-full is the people of Afghanistan are absolutely worth fighting for, and they want a better future. They want basic security and a better life for their children. They do not want any of these syndicated insurgent groups in power in Afghanistan.
I’m sure my readers agree that the people of Afghanistan are worth fighting for. Indeed, most left-wing critics of the war in Afghanistan believe the people there have value as human beings. In fact, they subscribe to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states that all human beings are “created equal.”
I found a link to this speech in the middle of an article in The New York Times that began this way:
WASHINGTON — One of the most difficult challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team faces is Mr. Obama’s vow to send thousands of American troops to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.
After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.
American intelligence reports underscore the seriousness of the threat. From August through October, the average number of daily attacks by insurgents exceeded those in Iraq, the first time the violence in Afghanistan had outpaced the fighting in Iraq since the start of the American occupation in May 2003. Almost half of the insurgents’ attacks were directed against American and other foreign forces, while the remainder were focused on Afghan security forces and civilians.
I’m assuming that McKeirnan, the General in charge of our war in Afghanistan, believes “an effective counterinsurgency campaign” is neccessary to acheive “success” in Afghanistan. And most military analysts believe more troops are required to mount a successful counterinsurgency campaign.
So here’s what I’m saying: I want freedom, stability and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan, and that’s why I support sending more troops there, as Barack Obama proposes.
I ask this of the many bloggers and commentators who have suggested we should pull our troops out of Afghanistan: If we abandon the Afghani people, won’t we be responsible for what happens to them when we’re gone? The violence? The poverty and crime? Isn’t this one of those rare situations where our selfish interests in killing terrorists is in sync with our larger commitment to promote peace, freedom and democracy in the world?
Shouldn’t we help them win this war, for our own sake and for theirs?