Afghanistan has long been a place of struggle. Known from ancient times as the “Graveyard of Empires”, it has seen the hindering and or demise of such people as Alexander the Great, the Mughals, Safavids, the Mongols, the British, and most notably, the Soviet Union. So why would the US continue to remain militarily active in the harsh, unforgiving, and many times hostile nation? The reason we got involved in the first place was to hinder the Soviet’s advance in the 1980’s. We armed local guerrilla forces such as the Mujahideen with advanced weaponry to stop the spread of communism into the gateway nation of Afghanistan. We re-engaged in the region in a retaliatory strike against the Taliban, who were harboring Al-Qaeda after 9/11. American special forces quickly and efficiently performed their task of deposing the Taliban and working with the local tribes of Afghanistan. That’s where the problems begin. As America attempted to establish a new government, the local tribes became extremely competitive and many times hostile to one another in an effort to secure power. The US then had to resolve the political situation in the nation while still mopping up the local insurgents that constantly plague the countryside. Recently eclipsing Vietnam as the longest US military conflict, many ask why we are still there. The reason is because of power vacuums. Just as ISIS rose after the removal of Saddam and withdrawal of many US forces, analysts and strategists believe that a similar event could occur in Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan has much regional importance, and to sacrifice it to an extreme Islamist group that may be favored by Iran or Pakistan would be folly. However, I am not completely arguing for constant US engagement. I believe the best course of action would be to let the highest non-Taliban warlord take control. Democracy doesn’t seem to work with these exotic nations and to spend billions of American dollars for another failed attempt would be foolish. I think the US should take a hard line approach: The leader of the new government will not get out of line (flirt with Iran or Pakistan, develop WMDs, commit genocide, etc.) or else the US will make a quick and punishing strike to get them back in line. The leader, desperate to remain in control, would most likely comply and the US would not need to continue to sacrifice lives for a non-vital war effort. Of course, I don’t know all the facts and this approach may be the worst decision ever, but from the perspective of history, we appear to be making the same mistake as countless empires before.
