Stephen Walt on Afghanistan

Ahh, sometime there's nothing like a relatively mainstream realist to make a good argument. Here is Stephen Walt's recent blog post on Afghanistan, and his Democracy Now appearance on it today (take your pick).

Writes Walt:

At an appearance before the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday, President Obama defended U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, calling it a "war of necessity." He claimed that "our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals -- to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies," and he declared that “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

This is a significant statement. In effect, the president was acknowledging that the only strategic rationale for an increased commitment in Afghanistan is the fear that if the Taliban isn't defeated in Afghanistan, they will eventually allow al Qaeda to re-establish itself there, which would then enable it to mount increasingly threatening attacks on the United States.

Walt goes on to argue why that's just not correct -- why even if you're 100% focused on stopping Al Qaeda from being able to attack the United States, this isn't a good, or certainly not very cost effective route.

He says that there is of course a separate humanitarian argument for U.S. involvement, but that Obama is not making that because it would be nearly impossible to sell a huge war to Congress and the public based solely on that. walt doesn't really get into the humanitarian part, but talks about how there are some things we can do well (like building roads and bridges) and lots of things we can't.