A key part of each Presidential candidate's foreign policy is recommitting to the conflict in Afghanistan. That's good at first glance because of the area's key strategic importance and the humanitarian problems there. But the conflict Afghanistan is worryingly reminiscent of Iraq, and we shouldn't forget about the terrible quagmire the Soviets found there in the late seventies and early eighties -- see Juan Cole via Andrew, or this piece.
I e-mailed Caroline Wadhams, an Afghanistan expert, and asked her why escalation in Afghanistan would be different from Iraq or the Soviet experience. One factor that jumped out at me is the polling [PDF] -- 65 percent of Afghans still view the U.S. favorably, even as the increase in Taliban strength has led to a decline in our popularity there. Wadhams also points out that this is a much more international effort and is perceived as such. Further, many programs are Afghan driven, from the National Solidarity Program to the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, a five-year plan developed by the Afghan government in consultation with the Afghan people. And finally there has been some development success there in terms of getting children in schools, increasing health care and improving infrastructure.
Wadhams also writes this: "We know what happened when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1996. All of the same forces are at play in the region in 2008. Why wouldn't another September 11th happen again?" Hopefully we have better security in place now to prevent a similar terrorist attack from around the world, but it doesn't seem wise to let Afghanistan revert into a failed state-terrorist nest.
--Tim Fernholz
