Crossroads in Afghanistan

Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYT links together the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan by relating a story about bank robbers. What happened, he explains, is that people connected to the Iraqi vice president held up a bank for $4.3 million in cash. But, in a twist, some of the robbers were found, arrested, tried and convicted. Although the judicial process was less than perfect, Friedman notes that this might be a sign of a new political culture "of democracry and the rule of law." Iraqis, he says, are like battered children. They grew up under the brutality of Saddam and now, as many battered children do, have the potential to grow into battering adults. This bank robbery illustrates the conflict of two political cultures clashing. It's similar in Afghanistan. Afghanis grew up under the Russian occupation and then during the brutal Taliban rule.

These broad outlines raise many practical, logistical and philosophical questions about our presence in Afghanistan. Violence has spiked recently (See: : "A wave of attacks engulfs Afghanistan," NYT Sept. 13) and our troop levels are at an all-time high. But it still seems we don't have enough there to help secure peace so democratic institutions can flourish. We face similar questions in Afghanistan that we did in Iraq before the surge. Are we willing to commit thousands more troops in order to undertake a slow, painful and bloody nation building struggle? As Friedman points out, what we've accomplished in Iraq is "at a huge cost, we have given a chance for a more democractic political culture to emerge in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world." It seems more and more that we're going to need a surge-like increase in Afghanistan if we're going to even have a remote chance of success there.

There are doubts we're going to get it. First, as the NYT pointed out on Sept. 11 ("Obama is facing doubts in party on Afghanistan," A1), support is going to be hard to come by. Leading Democrats are questioning whether it's a good idea to send thousands more troops to help the painstakingly slow process of nation building. Another thing complicating the matter is that the American people don't really seem to be engaged on Afghanistan any more — and if they are, they're against sending more troops. The war ranks near the bottom of issues most important to people in tracking polls (Obama's squandered summer, NYT Sept. 13). And those who do have an opinion seem to be against sending more troops — a CNN poll released on Sept. 11 found that 57 percent of people oppose the war and oppose sending more soldiers (Obama's squandered summer, NYT Sept. 13).

We seem to be having some success in Iraq post-surge. Yes there's still violence, corruption and bloodshed, but we slowly seem to be helping Iraqis build democratic institutions. As the situation moderately improves there, it seems to be slipping away from us in Afghanistan. Should we remain committed there to the process of nation building? It almost seems that our position of limbo now is the most harmful. While we're wavering on whether to send more troops, the situation is deteriorating and violence is increasing. If we're going to commit, Friedman says, "President Obama has to be as committed to any surge in Afghanistan as President Bush was in Iraq, because Mr. Obama will have to endure a lot of bad news before things — might — get better."

Tough choices to make abroad as we're engulfed domestically by the economy and health care. These are mostly logisitcal questions so far. But there are deeper philosophical ones as well that I'm not sure we've sorted out about, among other things, the possibility of building democratic institutions. Many tough choices to come.