WASHINGTON–So we went into Afghanistan, looked for the bad guys, and helped the country build a new government. Sounds nice of us. But with our national debt sitting at more than $14 trillion, why is the United States using its own resources, and money, to help other countries?
While we will never really know whether or not the Bush Administration had an exit plan to get out of Afghanistan (or Iraq), we certainly can ask about their reasoning to go to war, and the failings to prepare for a way to get out.
It’s kind of like booking a round-trip ticket. You expect to go home.
Let’s start in September 2001 when America was attacked on its own soil by a foreign entity for the first time since Pearl Harbor. Of course the U.S. was going to retaliate. Al Qaeda became an overnight buzzword after killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on Sept. 11. When the Taliban refused to turn over those responsible for the attacks, the U.S. sent in the military.
“In his speech on October 7, 2001, when military action [in Afghanistan] was initiated, President Bush stated the purpose of U.S. attacks was ‘to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime,’” said Col. James Helis, chairman of the Department of National Security and Strategy at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.
But when the Taliban lost control, the area became devoid of a government, and in turn, a cesspool for anti-Americanism.
“After the fall of the Taliban the focus in Afghanistan shifted to establishment of a new government and reconstruction and development,” Helis said. “The thought process was the best way to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe haven again was by establishment of a legitimate, representative government and starting the rebuilding of Afghanistan. For the first few years, levels of violence were relatively low and progress was made in establishing a constitution and holding a first series of elections for the presidency and the legislature.”
A recent tweet going around the internet sums it up, “The USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the population by building roads, bridges and putting locals to work.”
Too harsh? It does make you think about what would have happened if the $4 trillion dollars, as reported by Brown University’s Cost of War program, the government has spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had been spent on interests at home.
And as members of Congress debated this summer about Washington’s open checkbook, one must think the wars, and the resources needed to rebuild these countries, lead to the question, ‘What about an end strategy?’
“I personally do not like the notion of an end state or exit strategy,” Helis said. “The U.S. will be engaged in and with Afghanistan and the region for a long time. The U.S. has a plan for reducing its military presence in Afghanistan between now and 2014. As we transfer responsibility to the Afghan government, the U.S. role will evolve. I expect we will still be engaged with support to the Afghan security forces, in the form of equipping, training and advising, after 2014. We will continue to be engaged diplomatically and in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan.”
Reconstruction and development, did the U.S. government think we’d get involved in that? Well, it’s likely.
Documents like President Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directives 56 and 71 show a government interest in interagency developing strategies for nation building following military intervention (i.e. we bombed you now let’s help you. Keep in mind, however, the U.S.’s military intervention usually has reason. In Afghanistan, it was to retaliate against a group who attacked us. In Iraq, it was, we think, to take out a dictator who allegedly was plotting against the U.S.).
The directives were terminated at the end of Clinton’s second term. Then Sept. 11 happened, and you know what came next.
The Bush Administration implemented a similar device, National Security Presidential Directive 44, in 2005, which was put in place, according to the document, “to coordinate and strengthen efforts of the United States Government to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization assistance and related activities in a range of situations that require the response capabilities of multiple United States Government entities and to harmonize such efforts with U.S. military plans and operations.”
One of these entities is The United States Institute of Peace. It works to prevent and resolve conflict and post-conflict areas. The institute has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq to grow new governments and communities.
With the recent budget negotiations, the Congressionally-funded USIP could be wiped off the table, leaving the question of who will be a major voice in the reconstruction of country that pose a threat to U.S. interests, and then, if an American president decides to again, invade. This February, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pull all of USIP’s funding from the federal budget, and with Congress looking to cut, USIP may be on the chopping block.
USIP recently released the first doctrine for peacekeeping missions, a document called the “Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction.”
It is a practical roadmap for helping countries transition from violent conflict to peace. For decades, militaries have been equipped with doctrine that guides their decisions and actions. Civilian actors, however, still operate today without any unifying framework or shared set of principles to guide their actions in these complex environments.
But with Washington tightening its budget, could the USIP be no more?
Maybe, according to USIP’s Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Beth Cole. But she also said the institute is prohibited from raising private funds precisely.
But the question still remains. Without a federal entity like the USIP, who will have an interest in post-conflict stabilization? Surely the federal government cannot worry about another country’s issues when there’s enough to deal with at home, and ten years after invading Afghanistan, Americans are looking at the work that needs to be done on our soil. And with a bill increasing by millions of dollars everyday, the issue of the cost of peace in an exit strategy is certainly a bargain.
