Political Effects of a Decade of War in Afghanistan

COMMENTARY | Afghanistan was supposed to be the “noble” of America’s two southwest Asian wars. The struggle in Afghanistan, beginning shortly after the twin towers collapsed, seemed clear-cut: We had a clear opponent, clear justification for our use of military force, and the support of the international community.

We routed the Taliban and began to rebuild one of the world’s poorest nations, hoping to turn it from a terrorist home base to a stable democracy.

Ten years later we seem to have accomplished little: The mission is not complete. Al Qaeda and Taliban forces still launch attacks against American targets. America has had little success in enlisting quality support from within Afghanistan itself — many Afghan soldiers and police officers are poorly trained and poorly supervised, according to GlobalPost. A quick Internet search about internal security problems within Afghanistan, especially regarding the condition of its struggling military and police forces, reveals scores of news reports that detail confusion, incompetence, and lack of clear mission objectives.

Millions of dollars in government money to Afghanistan has gone missing, according to the Huffington Post, perhaps even into the pockets of the Taliban itself. Money that is accounted for is often used inefficiently or used for questionable purposes.

Every so often members of the Afghan military, supposedly firmly allied with the United States, kill American servicemen and their European counterparts. A news report from ABC news details a particularly troublesome attack and highlights several other similar incidents, indicating that such “friendly fire” incidents are not likely to stop soon.

In sum, things are bad in Afghanistan. What does it mean, politically, here at home?

Most immediately, the ongoing troubles in Afghanistan have caused the introduction of a new political problem: Pakistan. This heavily populated Islamic nation has a large and powerful military, is armed with nuclear weapons, and, on the surface, is our international ally in the fight against terrorism. In reality, this nation, which borders troubled Afghanistan, has proven to be a nuisance: It is home to untold numbers of Islamic extremists, has proven to be a less-than-reliable ally, and, according to a CNN news report, may be complicit in some pro-Taliban or pro-al Qaeda goings-on.

Pakistan is now a political issue. What will America do about this notorious frenemy? People will want to know each 2012 candidate’s stance on Pakistan and ascertain who is, and is not, willing to go the distance if military intervention seems necessary. The ongoing war in Afghanistan has brought Pakistan to our political forefront, and the stakes are extremely high. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan is a nation with a large, nuclear-armed military…it forces us to ask questions we prefer to leave unspoken.

A second political quagmire involves the sheer cost of the war. With the Great Recession refusing to go away, defense spending has become a thorn in everyone’s side. According to CNBC, the cuts to military spending will affect funds related to training Afghan troops and providing security within Afghanistan. How will such cuts be viewed by veterans of the war in Afghanistan? Will it be seen as “giving up” on the struggle to stabilize the region and fight back against dangerous Islamic extremism?

Undoubtedly, many defense hawks will make those points, arguing that cutting defense spending related to Afghan operations is akin to disrespecting the sacrifices of American troops, essentially “rolling back” their hard work.

A second uncomfortable question: After ten years of elevated military spending and ten years of devastating wars, will budget cuts mean that veterans’ benefits be reduced? Medical benefits included? These questions will be asked of 2012 candidates and will likely be some of the most difficult questions of the campaign cycle.

A third political issue the war has wrought is the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell debate. DADT has been repealed, according to the Department of Defense, allowing homosexual military personnel to serve openly without fear of dismissal or punishment. The war in Afghanistan, bringing about increased strains on the U.S. military and its personnel requirements, undoubtedly contributed to the drive to end arbitrary restrictions on who is allowed to serve in the armed forces.

Nevertheless, the DADT debate has not proven quiet and settled: The issue of homosexuality in the military has been raised recently in a GOP 2012 presidential candidate debate, according to ABC News, when a gay soldier asked a question via videotape to Republican candidates for president. When the audience responded with boos, sparking an outraged President Obama to comment, the DADT issue seemed like it was still kicking with controversy…

This issue will likely hit all 2012 contenders at the podium, as will the preceding two. These are just three ways the ongoing war in Afghanistan, about the reach its 10th anniversary, has affected politics here at home.

Pakistan, defense spending, and DADT — listen for them at a presidential debate near you!


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *