Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Letter to the Editor: Lefts and Rights columnist misses mark on Afghan war

Class of 2013, Undeclared

Published: Friday, March 5, 2010

Updated: Friday, March 5, 2010 00:03

Mr. Goodwin's article on the Afghanistan War contains a major historical inaccuracy. He claims the group we are fighting presently is the Mujahideen. This is incorrect. The U.S. is fighting the Taliban. The Mujahideen spilt into different warring factions and plunged Afghanistan into civil war after the Soviet withdrawal.

The Taliban formed in the 1994 due to the violence of the civil war and wrested control of Afghanistan from the warring factions who after losing Kabul united against the Taliban as the Northern Alliance.

Furthermore, the situations, combatants and tactics of the current war do not parallel those of the Afghan-Soviet War. The Soviets invaded solely to prop up the communist government. The U.S. invaded to destroy al-Qaeda for carrying out the attacks of Sept. 11. The Soviets tried smash resistance through military force alone, even indiscriminately killing citizens. The U.S. has scaled back its use of air strikes to prevent citizen deaths. The USSR had to fight an insurgency that had popular support from the Afghan people and international funding. The U.S. is facing an insurgency that is unpopular and feared by the populace and has no support among the international community.  

Also, what is this "Democracy may not fit/get out of everyone's business" nonsense Mr. Goodwin goes on about? Does he really think the Afghan people would prefer the brutal rule of the Taliban to the government (for all its flaws) that is now in place? Has he even considered the consequences of a withdrawal from Afghanistan? Another civil war, a rejuvenated al-Qaeda, potential destabilization of Pakistan, and a morale boost to Islamic fundamentalists worldwide. The United States must stay until the Afghan government is able to secure and govern Afghanistan on its own. Counterinsurgency work is never quick or easy, but we cannot let history repeat itself once again.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Nicholas Azarian
Wed Mar 10 2010 15:30
That is not only an oversimplistic explanation of my personal beliefs of the American government and the Afghanistan War, but also an incorrect one. One of the purposes of government is to ensure the safety of its people. That is what the government is doing in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda can do nothing with American and NATO soldiers on the ground and Predator and Reaper drones in the sky, but should we leave before the Afghan government can secure the country on its own then we are giving the Taliban and al-Qaeda the opportunity to take Afghanistan back. That is an unacceptable threat to the security of the United States and the safety of its citizens.
Anonymous
Tue Mar 9 2010 20:26
The underlying difference is that you have belief that the US government is noble, I don't. And I don't think we should nation build in any situation, you do.
Nicholas Azarian
Sat Mar 6 2010 21:22
1. I think you are the one who needs to do some research on the people that we are fighting. These are not the same folks as those who resisted the Soviets. They were formed from mostly of Afghan refugees who had studied at Islamic religious schools in Pakistan and received training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence. Not the United States.

2. I got my information from a poll taken by the BBC. Question 10 in the BBC poll asks, "who would you rather have ruling Afghanistan today?" Overwhelming it is 82% for the current government, 4% for the Taliban, 10% Other. Question 11 of the poll asks, "Which of the following do you think poses the biggest danger to our country?" 58% say it is the Taliban. Not only is the Taliban unpopular, but what the Afghan people also say is that the two biggest problems facing them are lack of jobs and violence from lack security. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf

The Afghan National Army has a manpower of about 108,000, so I don't think your argument about the US not being able to find recruits is on base. As for the lack of general discipline is the Afghan Army you should keep in mind that this is a brand new organization made up of members that have never before been part of a formal and structured military. As the 60 Minutes piece notes we are training people who can't even read or write yet are training hard and working well as one Green Beret comments. Seriously, this isn't the Revolutionary War where all a solider had to do was stand in a line and shoot. Training a solider, especially training commandos as in the 60 Minutes piece, in modern tactics isn't a simple thing.

3. I believe I stated the reasons for not leaving Afghanistan in my article. Allow me to repeat them: "Another civil war, a rejuvenated al-Qaeda, potential destabilization of Pakistan, and a morale boost to Islamic fundamentalists worldwide." Also since when has al-Qaeda been destroyed? Crippled yes, but not destroyed. To withdraw from Afghanistan will give them back to safe haven they once had to plan out attacks without interference. We must make sure the Afghan government has secure control over the country and the ability to combat domestic and foreign terrorist groups before we can withdraw.

4. This part of your argument holds no water as we did not put in place the current government of Afghanistan. They picked this style of government. It was decided in Bonn, Germany in December 2001 during the Bonn Conference by Afghan regional leaders and anti-Taliban allies who under the resulting Bonn Agreement set up the Afghan Transitional Administration with the mandate of elections along with the Afghan Constitution Commission which drafted the current Afghan Constitution that was approved by a loya jirga in 2003. The current government is based on said constitution. Do not try to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam. These are different wars against different enemies. The Vietcong didn't want to export the revolution outside Vietnam's borders, but those couple hundred guys hiding in caves do. They have shown were are willing and capable of doing so as we've seen with the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the 2001 9/11 attacks, the 2007 Algiers bombings, the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, and the 2009 Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bombing attempt. Also the "whole no one died after the Vietnam War" over looks the fact that 643,000 Vietnamese died in the aftermath of the Vietnamese War. 95,000 died in re-education camps, 48,000 died through forced labor projects, 100,000 were executed outright, and 400,000 died trying to flee the country. Not the best example to make.

Anonymous
Sat Mar 6 2010 10:57
1) While we may not be fighting the Mujahideen as they were during the Soviet invasion, but the same folks are fighitng and the same weapons/training we gave them are being used just under a different banner. You can look that up if you'd like.

2)If the insurgency is so unpopular, then why is the US military having such a hard time getting people to even sign up for the new Afghan Army? We raised an army with a large, evil force threatening torture and death during the Revolutionary War so why can't they? And even the people who do sign up don't train hard or seem to care at all about the bigger picture. There are many outlets to check that fact, but if you will not take my word for it, there was a great piece done by 60 minutes entitled "The Quiet Professionals."

3) You say "the US invaded to destroy al-Qaeda for carrying out the attacks of Sept. 11." We've accomplished that. I don't see anywhere in your explanation of why we went to war that we needed to nation build after we destroyed al-Qaeda. You inadvertently justified leaving Afghanistan with that comment because we have accomplished what we signed up to do.

4)Once we defeated the Taliban, there was no option as to what government the Afghani people were going to pick; we told them they were going with democracy. That's not our right, we don't know any better than they do and in fact we most certainly know less about their country than they do. It is outrageous to assume that what Mr. Goodwin is trying to get at is that the Taliban government is better than democracy, but you must understand that it is more imperative and meaningful if they do this stuff on their own and for themselves without us holding their hand like a new born baby. If they've really had enough of what's going on, they should be on the edge of their seat trying to fix it. It should be their responsibility to fix it. We are not the world police and we are not better than everyone else. This same scare tactic was used during the Vietnam War. It was all about "Oh my God, if we don't stay and build Southern Vietnam up more people are going to die and we can't have the Soviets color another part of the map red." In case you don't know, more people didn't die, zero Americans lives were lost, and the Soviets didn't gain anymore power after we left. I'm not afraid of a couple hundred guys who hide in caves all day.







log out