As President Barack Obama reassesses our strategy in Afghanistan, it is past time for him to level with the American people about why a counterinsurgency is in our vital national interest.
Military intervention continues to be explained in terms of protecting our homeland from al-Qaida. This rationale accurately represents the motives that originally drove us to intervene militarily in 2001. But so narrowly defining success in Afghanistan minimizes what have become our long-term interests in the region.
Our hunt for Osama bin Laden and his associates was of course our major preoccupation for several years after 2001, and bears much responsibility for the under-resourced development and disregard for poor governance that allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. Any decision in Washington suggesting that the United States will back away from a strategy intended to protect and aid the Afghan people will inevitably signal an early exit of international forces. Most Afghans will conclude that they will soon again be living under Taliban rule, and that continued loyalty to the Kabul government or cooperation with the foreigners is dangerous.
Massive desertions from the Afghan army and police, on whom we have staked the country's future security, are bound to follow. Once this occurs, international forces will be left with no choice but a hasty, disorderly departure.
Never miss a local story.
Those who argue for minimizing international presence in Afghanistan doubt the likelihood or significance of al-Qaida and like-minded organizations setting up shop in Afghanistan. Practically, there is probably no better piece of geography for those groups intent on launching terrorism regionally and internationally.
To contend that the Afghan Taliban have only nationalistic aims and would be unwelcoming to al-Qaida and its allies is to ignore their close working relationship over more than a decade and the ideological changes the Taliban's leadership has undergone over that time.
Curiously missing in the debate about U.S. strategy regarding troop levels and deployment of forces are America's geo-strategic stakes and the fate of the Afghan nation and its people.
Where is the discussion of the consequences of an almost inevitable civil war, and the resulting humanitarian crisis brought on by hundreds of thousands of refugees and massive retribution against those who cooperated with NATO forces and the Hamid Karzai government? What thought has been given to the effective division of the country as Iran establishes a sphere of influence in the West; Russia and its central Asia clients exert their influence in the north; and Pakistan's Taliban proxies create a security belt in the south and east? India is certain to take sides as is Saudi Arabia.
As Pakistan's Taliban insurgents find strategic depth through their Afghan cohorts, how long will it be before these extremist forces together turn their attention to bringing down the Islamabad government? What becomes of our strategic partnership with Pakistan and how vulnerable is its nuclear arsenal to nonstate actors? Will a Talibanized Pakistan threaten India and increase the chances of a major war and nuclear confrontation?
And with Islamists everywhere crowing that they have dealt a mighty blow to the United States and the West, can we pretend that American regional and global interests will not be impacted by these developments?
The counterinsurgency strategy outlined in April may not succeed. It is already late in the day for objectives that were so much more attainable just a few years ago. But for all the risks in proceeding, turning back now is far riskier. The aim of the Taliban and their friends has always been to wear down its adversaries until they lose heart. With this debate over Afghanistan, the Taliban have never had more reason to feel confident in that strategy.
Weinbaum is a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Department of State and a current adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute; Web site: www.mei.edu.