What is emerging is a search for a new definition for winning the war in Afghanistan that would allow most U.S. forces to leave the war-torn country without the risk of having the Taliban and al Qaeda quickly fill a vacuum.
Building an Afghanistan that is “a shining city on a hill … is not going to happen,” Ryan Crocker, the veteran diplomat hand-picked by President Obama to serve as ambassador to Kabul, told senators Wednesday at his confirmation hearing.
Instead of trying to fashion a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan, Crocker said, the goal should be “sustainable stability.”
That means “good enough governance” that allows Afghan officials to prevent groups like the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Haqqani network from setting up shop there, Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
That first part is disturbing, the part where we want to redefine victory "without the risk of having the Taliban and al Qaeda quickly fill a vacuum." So if the Taliban and al Qaeda fill the vacuum after a decent interval, it won't count as defeat? Really? That's what we have in mind for "the good war?"
That is outrageous and anybody making that argument should be ashamed.
Now, if the redefinition is from a Vermont-style democracy to good enough governance, I'm fine with that. As I've said for many years now, my goals for Afghanistan just aren't that high. As I wrote 2-1/2 years ago:
The end result in Afghanistan, if all goes well, will be a nominal national government that controls the capital region and reigns but does not rule local tribes and which actually helps the locals a bit rather than sucking resources from the locals, who in turn do not make trouble for the central government or allow their areas to be used by jihadis to plan attacks on the West. We press for reasonable economic opportunities, with bribes all around (I mean, foreign aid), to keep a fragile peace.
And we stick around this time, unlike after the Soviets left Afghanistan when we ignored the place, for a generation or two to see if we can move Afghanistan into the 19th century (hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves).
Democracy in a fringe area of Islam does not have the impact of democracy in Iraq (or in Egypt or Syria). And the level of development in Afghanistan is so low that the effort required to achieve a democratically governed state of Afghanistan is too much. So if some have started to reconsider an objective that I think is too ambitious, that's great. Decent governance will work for our purposes.
But if the goal is just a decent interval to avoid being held responsible for defeat, that's will be a sad and tragic end to what our anti-war side said for years was our "good war." Is it really too much to aim for victory--with a credible definition of victory--when we go to war and not just try to argue that what we settle for is victory?
UPDATE: Perhaps we can judge victory based on the administration's objectives for Afghanistan before the last surge of troops:
Achieving our core goal is vital to U.S. national security. It requires, first of all, realistic and achievable objectives. These include:
--Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.
--Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support.
--Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.
--Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.
--Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN.
And if our objectives are now different--as they could be--why are they different now?
