America does not need a ground presence in Afghanistan. Violence and heroin trafficking are bad, but they happen in numerous other places in the world without it provoking American intervention. Much like our efforts in Vietnam, the escalation movement is convincing, except for the fact that it desperately needs to define its terms.

What is “success” in Afghanistan? Stable, efficient governance? We enabled the most fair election we could in this country—and if we forcibly alter the results, how legitimate will this election, or any other, appear? Perhaps if we encourage stability, leaving the Karzai administration intact, that will allow for the efficiency to build naturally.

Personally, I am dubious that Afghani literacy rates dropped during American invasion and occupation. Although unfortunate, it is not necessarily our responsibility to bring Afghani reading levels up to a first-world level (an implicit goal in Mr. Chapman-Smith’s remarks). 

Similarly, bringing Pakistan into the equation is of limited value. If we are concerned with the possibility of soured Pakistanis nursing anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan, we are slipping into a domino-style cold-war mentality, one that assumes that if one country turned against us, its neighbor must also. This neglects, among other things, the possibility that neighboring countries don’t get along well (as countries are wont to do), or that they operate independently from each other.

The primary motive for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the Taliban foothold there. Mr. Chapman-Smith has already pointed out that Americans are more popular in Afghanistan than the Taliban, and it seems to me that in enforcing their exile we have been fairly effective. If we wish to make their governance up to American standards, we would probably have to do so via American occupation. 

To address each problem Mr. Chapman-Smith raises would be inordinately expensive, and have unclear benefit to Americans. At that point, we must ask ourselves: why Afghanistan? Why is only this country selected for the literary, technological, and governmental benefits of transplanted American life? We could as easily deal with the prevalence of cocaine in South America, or any of multiple African or Eastern European countries.

Yes, Afghanistan is wracked with problems and inefficient government. But for American interests, an acceptable standard would be: leave the country in at least as good condition as we found it, minus the Taliban presence. That is achievable, because the country was still led by corrupt warlords before we invaded. The bottom line is that there must be an end point, a realistic goal which we set, and to leave after it is achieved.

Related posts:

1. The U.S. Must Increase its Military Presence
2. Obama’s War of Necessity
3. The War in Afghanistan Has No End in Sight
4. Marco Rubio: Republicans’ Obama?
5. Boxing Remains an American Legacy