With the endgame near for large-scale U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Americans have already begun to debate the broader implications of the conflict. Many have painted it as a failure, even a strategic fiasco. But it is not. Given the dynamics of the conflict and its wider strategic context, Afghanistan should be considered a win, albeit one that came at a much greater cost than was necessary.
In the emotional turmoil following the Sept. 11 attacks, there was little consideration of the ultimate strategic goals of a U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan. The focus was instead on destroying al-Qaida and its infrastructure. The brutal and barbaric Taliban regime governing the country only became a target when it decided to support its terrorist allies. The Bush administration believed that once the Taliban had been removed from power, Afghanistan would be put under some sort of international control. This reflected the administration's wider preference that fighting be left largely to the United States, with someone else taking care of cleaning up afterward. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: To Deter Adversaries, U.S. Military Must First Understand Their Fears
- The Realist Prism: U.S. Outreach to Iran, Cuba Still Lacks Broader Strategic Framework
- As U.S. Draws Down, Afghanistan’s Women Weigh Uncertain Future
- Strategic Horizons: Iran Deal Opponents Have Forgotten the Logic of Arms Control
- World Citizen: U.S. Cuba Policy, Human Rights Vie for Spotlight at Americas Summit