Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here
A Senior Seminar Editorial by Emily Mcknight, MHS 2010
If there was ever a quagmire, Afghanistan would be it –specifically the “what do we do next?” part. Peter Bergen and Leslie Gelb offer their differing views on how the conflict in Afghanistan should continue. Bergen supports staying in Afghanistan, while Gelb prefers a middle ground between ‘win’ and “going home.’ Gelb’s argument is the stronger of the two, offering a detailed plan of what he thinks the best course in Afghanistan should be. In particular he deals with The US’ role as a nation builder; the probability of attack from the Taliban should the US leave, and dividing and containing the Taliban.</p> <p>Though Bergen aptly notes that after having overthrown the Afghani government in 2001 the US has a certain obligation to leave the country in good condition, Gelb argues that any counterinsurgency strategy that involves a complete reworking of an already chaotic country is madness. He understands that a country filled with such problems of corruption, poverty and violence is not going to be fixed by just the US. Especially since the recent economic recession the US can hardly think to offer advice to other countries on how to prosper.
Another strong argument that Bergen, and other supporters of continuing in Afghanistan, make is that should American troops leave, Afghanistan will fall right back into the hands of the Taliban. Bergen’s piece mentions one Afghani politician who believes if the US troops leave the Taliban will make it to Kabul in 24 hours. Gelb’s argument includes this view, as he understands that there is “no chance of simply pulling out of Afghanistan.” Instead his middle ground stance supports a smaller American presence aimed at training the afghan army and arming the warlords and tribal leaders. In this scenario, should the Taliban invade or attack, Afghanistan would be amply able to defend themselves.
Gelb’s plan goes even further than Bergen’s explanations about misguided generalizations about Afghanistan. His article proposes two further points in attempting to help Afghanistan. First he proposes to divide the Taliban by offering deals that would split the moderates and the extremists, and offering to pay more to Taliban fighters than could be received from the Taliban. Next he proposes a containment plan that involves US alliances to countries surrounding Afghanistan. These points help conclude why a middle ground policy will be more effective than sending 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan.
There will be no easy answer for those deciding the future of Afghanistan. Gelb’s scheme however seems to be headed in the right direction. His middle ground views don’t involve the US barging in further and unfairly dictating to the Afghani people how to make their country more like the US. Rather, he prefers a smaller US presence that focuses on perfecting the Afghani army, dividing the Taliban and containing the issues through a series of alliances.