Here’s a report on a working draft of a Kabul-Washington deal on the U.S. Afghan mission after 2014:
Taken as a whole, the document describes a basic U.S.-Afghan exchange. Afghanistan would allow Washington to operate military bases to train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda after the current mission ends in 2014. For that foothold in this volatile mountain region wedged between Pakistan and Iran, the United States would agree to sustain and equip Afghanistan’s large security force, which the government in Kabul currently cannot afford. The deal, according to the text, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2015 and “shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond.” It could be terminated by either Washington or Kabul with two years advance written notice.
Many, on the right, in the center, and especially on the left will call this a new form of imperialism. I don’t think so, although it certainly is empire-like.
I suppose many will quote George Washington’s Farewell Address against it too. Understandable, but when such quotation gets particularly dogmatic about the “no entangling alliances” maxim, it misreads what Washington and (his “co-author”) Hamilton were broadly for.
My initial opinion is that this agreement will be better than nearly-full abandonment, which is pretty much the only other option ever since Obama said in 2009 we’d be leaving in a few years. Such abandonment would likely put the Taliban or other Islamists back in control of all or much of the nation, with fatal consequences to every Afghan who has stood with us there. No, we should not invite a massive influx of asylum immigrants from Afghanistan. Nor should we just let those people be slaughtered if we are not willing to take them in. Nations are moral actors, and God will judge us if we simply leave them to perish.
With the words “2024 and beyond,” all those Afghans who are keeping their heads low now for fear of a Taliban return have reason to recalculate.
But as no-one’s been discussing Afghanistan in the media for a long time, like many I haven’t been putting much thought into the issue or doing much reading on it. The previous two paragraphs contain more of a gut opinion than a judgment.
So what do you think?
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…