Newspapers across the country churn out editorials every single day. Most of them aren’t worth reading. But there are times when an editorial is so horrific, so dishonest, and so blatantly exaggerated that you feel compelled to respond.
Congratulations to the editorial writers at the Washington Post: You now have our attention.
In an August 19 editorial titled “Trump risks turning a chance for success in Afghanistan into a shameful failure,” the Washington Post editorial board asserts that a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan without an ideal peace agreement with the Taliban would be a Trumpian version of President Barack Obama’s 2011 troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The reference to the Iraq departure is meant as an insult; in the conventional wisdom of the political and foreign policy establishment, the 2011 Iraq departure provided a golden opportunity for a then-newly depraved terrorist group called the Islamic State to storm Iraqi cities like the German army blitzed through Western Europe in 1939 and 1940.
The real reason for the Islamic State’s blitzkrieg through Iraq, of course, is far more complicated and multifaceted than that — the predatory behavior of Iraq’s Shia-led government and the civil war in neighboring Syria were much more important variables in ISIS’s rampage than the departure of American soldiers. But for many in the Beltway, the easiest answer is often the most convenient one to make.
According to the editorial, “Though most Americans wish to end the Afghan mission, there is little reason to abandon the country in haste.” The word “haste” is an interesting one to use given the fact that U.S. troops have been fighting, training, advising, and throwing money at the problem for the last 18 years. If getting out after an 18-year commitment in “haste,” then the Post’s editorial board has literally changed the definition of the word.
The U.S. should only leave, the editorial lectures us, if the Afghans can arrive at a political settlement. This recommendation sounds reasonable enough until one remembers that this is Afghanistan we are talking about — a country riven by backbiting and selfish warlords, ethnic and tribal-oriented factions, and insurgent commanders who have been fighting and killing each other for decades.
Afghanistan has been dominated by war and violence for 40 years, a period where grievances and resentment have only piled up. If the conclusion of an inclusive Afghan peace accord and the transformation of Afghanistan into a terrorist-free oasis are the barometers for success, the United States will always fail.
Washington’s elite won’t like to hear this, but the people they are supposed to be serving are sick and tired of spending tens of billions of dollars a year on maintaining a violent stalemate with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. The Washington Post may refer to escaping this situation as a horrible defeat or a “shameful failure,” but the average man and woman on the street would call it sanity and cutting your losses.
It’s important to remember why the United States used force in Afghanistan in the first place. It wasn’t to establish a transparent, responsible, and democratic government in Kabul. It wasn’t about re-engineering Afghanistan into an economic power. It wasn’t about opening schools and paving roads across the country, nor was it about promoting women’s rights — however desirable these goals are.
The mission was straightforward: Hit the terrorist group that conducted the worst attack on American soil and punish the Taliban government that sheltered it. Those missions were largely achieved in early 2002. But instead of pulling back, Washington made the stupid decision to embrace hubris and shift to grander and elusive objectives.
We are still paying for that decision today. Apparently, the Washington Post editorial board is just fine with our military digging itself deeper into the black hole.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
