What does it mean to win the war in Afghanistan, in order to make life safer for Americans at home?
On one side, there is a physical theater of war with real consequences at home.
President Barack Obama devoted a significant part of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to clarifying this, in the wake of controversy over receiving the prize while the U.S. was engaged in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of the threats to the American people. For, make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations could not convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed the subject in early December, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He noted that a loss will empower our enemies, just as they were empowered to attack the World Trade Center several years after driving the Soviets from Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has indicated as much in statements like the following one from senior figure Adam Gadahn.
So America’s might, in addition to being exaggerated, is strictly physical, and, thus, ultimately beatable. And I’ll back that up with an example from recent history: the Soviet Union. Before its collapse, the Soviet Union was considered virtually unbeatable by Americans and the world… But the Afghan jihad, which was waged by a small group of lightly armed but faithful and steadfast Muslims wiped the USSR from the world map.
So, although Afghanistan may be half a world away, the war being fought there is about American survival.
Let’s say the U.S. defeats its enemies there decisively. Will that end the threat posed to Americans at home? Will we be safer? Thomas Friedman writes that it’s important, but not enough. There’s another war that needs to be fought. Read more…