Worse Than Vietnam

"We did the Cole and we wanted the United States to react. And if they reacted, they are going to invade Afghanistan and that's what we want … . Then we will start holy war against the Americans, exactly like the Soviets."  -- Mohammed Atef, military commander of Al Qaeda, in November of 2000

November 23, 2010, 9:00 pm
Worse Than Vietnam
By ROBERT WRIGHT

"We did the Cole and we wanted the United States to react. And if they reacted, they are going to invade Afghanistan and that's what we want … . Then we will start holy war against the Americans, exactly like the Soviets."
­ Mohammed Atef, military commander of Al Qaeda, in November of 2000

You have to give the people at Al Qaeda this much: They plan ahead. And they stick with their goals. If bombing the U.S.S. Cole failed to get American troops mired in Afghanistan, maybe 9/11 would do the trick?

You might say. Last week at the NATO summit President Obama pushed the light at the end of the tunnel further down the tracks. By the end of 2014, he now tells us, American combat operations in Afghanistan will cease.

It's not as if we need those four years to set any records. At just over nine years of age, this war is already the longest in American history. And this Saturday we'll eclipse the Soviet Union's misadventure in Afghanistan; the Soviets brought their own personal Vietnam to an end after nine years and seven weeks.

Is Afghanistan, as some people say, America's second Vietnam? Actually, a point-by-point comparison of the two wars suggests that it's worse than that.

For starters, though Vietnam was hugely destructive in human terms, strategically it was just a medium-sized blunder. It was a waste of resources, yes, but the war didn't make America more vulnerable to enemy attack.

The Afghanistan war does. Just as Al Qaeda planned, it empowers the narrative of terrorist recruiters ­ that America is at war with Islam. The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There's no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We're creating them faster than we're killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over ­ in South Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

Hawks sometimes try to turn this logic to their advantage: It's precisely because our enemies could remain dangerous after the war that we have to deny them a "platform" ­ an Afghanistan that's partly or wholly under Taliban control; Communists weren't going to use Vietnam as a base from which to attack America, but we saw on 9/11 that Afghanistan can be used that way.

Actually, we didn't. The staging ground for the 9/11 attacks was Germany ­ and some American flight schools ­ as much as Afghanistan. The distinctive challenge posed by terrorism is that the enemy doesn't need to occupy much turf to harm us. (For a good deflating of the various catastrophe scenarios that would supposedly unfold after American withdrawal from Afghanistan, see this handy list of myths about the war, part of a highly sensible report published recently by the Afghanistan Study Group.)

Both the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars were fought in the name of a good cause. There was indeed a hostile force that had to be kept at bay ­ communism and terrorism, respectively. And in each case the mistake was overestimating the intrinsic power of that force.

In the case of communism, this mistake became vivid to me in 1990, when I walked into the finest department store in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), went to the home appliance section and saw no washing machines but only stacks and stacks of washboards. Our enemy had wed its fate to an economic system that was bound to drag it further and further behind us. All we really had to do was stay vigilant and wait for it to self-destruct.

So too with jihadism; Al Qaeda's ideology offers nothing that many of the world's Muslims actually want ­ except, perhaps, when they feel threatened by the West, a feeling that isn't exactly dulled by the presence of American troops in Muslim countries.

There are, of course, people who say that it wouldn't have been enough to let communism self-destruct. This view, which credits Ronald Reagan with turning up the heat on the Soviets in Latin America and Afghanistan, has a grain of truth: imposing costs on a crumbling economic system can hasten the crumbling.

But look at the price we paid for slightly accelerating the inevitable. In Afghanistan, we now realize, our proxy war against the Soviet Union ­ our support of the mujahedeen ­ helped create Al Qaeda. In retrospect, this was a kind of segue between the cold war and the war on terrorism, and it illuminates that crucial difference between the two: when you're dealing with state-based communism, nonessential intervention is wasteful; when you're dealing with non-state-based terrorism, such intervention can be actively counterproductive.

Of course, wastefulness is a pretty bad thing in its own right. Spending on Vietnam helped fuel inflation that was eventually subdued only with a stiff monetary policy that brought much unemployment. And the cost of the Afghanistan war already exceeds the cost of the Vietnam and Korean Wars combined, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. At $100 billion a year (seven times the gross domestic product of Afghanistan) this war is feeding a deficit that will eventually take its toll in real, human terms. I encourage Tea Partiers and other fiscal conservatives to ponder the tension between deficit hawkism and military hawkism.

All told, then: in terms of the long-run impact on America's economic and physical security, the Afghanistan war is as bad as the Vietnam War except for the ways in which it's worse.

Still, the strategy in whose name both wars were launched, containment, makes sense if wisely calibrated. A well tuned terrorism containment strategy ­ dubbed containment 2.0 by the foreign policy blogger Eric Martin ­ would require strong leadership in the White House and in Congress. It would mean convincing Americans that ­ sometimes, at least ­ we have to absorb terrorist attacks stoically, refraining from retaliation that brings large-scale blowback.

That's a tough sell, because few things are more deeply engrained in human nature than the impulse to punish enemies. So maybe the message should be put like this: Could we please stop doing Al Qaeda's work for it?

Postscript: Patrick Porter of King's College, London has made a very acute assessment of the dangers of an overactive containment policy in the war on terrorism. And the aforementioned report of the Afghanistan Study Group can be found in PDF form here. The Study Group's blog is here. And here is a new Afghanistan report from the Center for American Progress. The quote from Mohammed Atef at the outset of this piece is sometimes attributed to Osama Bin Laden, but apparently that attribution is erroneous, as the original source, Peter Bergen's oral history "The Osama bin Laden I Know," attributes it to Atef (p. 255). And, finally, my calculation of the duration of the Soviet-Afghanistan war, whose endpoints are subject to interpretation, takes Dec. 27, 1979, as the beginning and Feb. 15, 1989, as the end.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/afghanistan-and-vietnam/