U.S. weakening Pakistan by staying in Afghanistan

Scores of national security strategists have implored that the U.S. cannot withdraw from Afghanistan anytime soon (if ever) because if Afghanistan falls into the hands of the Taliban it would lead to the further destabilization of Pakistan; and if Pakistan is destabilized, nukes would fall into the hands of al-Qaeda. However, I agree with Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold that reality on the ground has proven the indirect what-if postulates of foreign policy clairvoyants wrong, and it is time for the United States to begin a phased withdrawal.

Let me be clear: if anything is causing conditions to deteriorate in Pakistan it is the U.S. war in Afghanistan, which is driving malicious jihadists across the border. Senator Feingold deftly argues this point in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, in which he called for the U.S. to exit Afghanistan and focus resources on defeating terrorists where they are actually located.

Perhaps Senator Feingold is an avid reader of the Chicago Geopolitics Examiner because I recently outlined a similar case for extracting forces from Afghanistan because not only have the costs outweighed the fruits of the bloodletting, but it has impeded the U.S. from keeping its eye on the ball, which should be fighting terror in Pakistan. I wrote:

...I wonder what would happen if we draw down forces in Afghanistan and focus exclusively on partnering with Pakistan to help them win their war against militants, instead of such a disproportionate focus on Afghanistan in terms of the risks it itself poses versus the scant benefits.

A few days later, Mr. Feingold wrote:

Some may argue that if we leave now, the Taliban will expand its control over parts of Afghanistan and provide a wider safe haven for al Qaeda. But dedicating a disproportionate amount of our resources to the military occupation of one country is not the most effective way to combat the terrorist threat we face.

The Senator agrees with other policy gurus that we cannot afford Pakistan to crumble because, in Feingold’s words: “Pakistan is a nuclear power beset by poverty, sectarian conflict, ineffectual government, instability and an inconsistent record of fighting militancy.” Feingold’s argument is compelling and smashes the rationale for war in Afghanistan and buttresses his case for a phased withdrawal. He hammers home the following key points:

• Obama campaigned against the Iraq war because al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan.
• Well now al-Qaeda operatives have been captured, killed or crossed the border into Pakistan.
• The nation- building “experiment” in Afghanistan has distracted us from fighting al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa and other terrorist sanctuaries.
• A timetable does not mean we should stop targeted strikes on Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders.

Feingold then says that we shouldn’t just take his word for it, all we need to do is ask a few people “in the know”:

During hearings in May at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, whether our troop increases might worsen instability in Pakistan. Adm. Mullen candidly said he shared that concern.

Mr. Holbrooke went even further. "You're absolutely correct," he said, "that an additional amount of American troops, and particularly if they're successful in Helmand and Kandahar, could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability.

Yet, I do depart with Feingold’s polemic on one point - his advisement of continuing U.S. civilian intervention: “we should step up our long-term civilian efforts to deal with the corruption in the Afghan government that has helped the Taliban to thrive.”

I think it's ultimately up to the Afghans to root out corruption within their own government, plus, the unctuous clamoring of U.S. politicos loses legitimacy in the eyes of many because we should not cast stones. Political legitimacy and purity is an ideal to shoot for and an evolving process. The Karzai administration might be the equivalent of Tammany Hall, but eventually voters will grow weary of graft and reform movements are likely to sprout. But this will take time. Afghanistan must crawl before it walks, and the United States isn’t positioned to export a model of chaste civics or above-board electioneering anytime soon.

Feingold closes:

It is time to ask the hard questions—and accept the candid answers—about how our military presence in Afghanistan may be undermining our national security.

Case closed – we gotta get out of this place. We need to let go and see if Afghans can trudge the path towards democracy on their own free will, as we fix our eyes on Pakistan and other terrorist states. Allowing Afghanistan to regress back to the seventh century would be a shame; however, allowing our number one enemy to acquire nuclear weapons would be a crime.