As I read the heart of your argument, koan, it's based on your notion of moral grounds. We, you argue, have a moral commitment to Afghans who helped us and to Afghans who counted on our presence to preserve new liberties. Those of us supporting Biden's withdrawal simply misunderstand the moral basis.
But there is a counter moral argument. Several elements:
- The absence of serious conflict in the past few months was heavily due to Trump's agreement with the Taliban--in return for a commitment from the US to leave in May, the Taliban would not attack US troops. So staying beyond Biden's commitment to leave at the end of August would seriously endanger any remaining US and coalition troops. The moral commitment, thus to stay in Afghan, meant troop sacrifices. Perhaps large.
- That would entail a commitment to stay long term. With the absence of a workable, legitimate Afghan government, US troops would have be the only guarantee. Thus, creating much more loss of life from US troops.
- With no end in sight. Particularly, given Dexter Filkins argument in his New Yorker piece, that Afghanistan is essentially, not accidentally, tribal. There is no basis for centrality. Nor is there likely to be.
- Thus would have to leave some time. And some level of chaos would ensue when done.
- Better to leave now than sacrifice more US military lives.
- As for the chaos of the exit, I think it was minimized. I'm very impressed by the ability of the American military to get as many Americans and Afghans out as they did. The only comparison that comes to mind is the one from South Vietnam. This one was extraordinarily better.
|
