The war in Afghanistan has been nearly invisible to the American public since its initial combat phase ended in early 2002, but it has rapidly come once again into view. Indeed, the war is now poised to become perhaps the most controversial and divisive issue in U.S. defense policy.
Managing this war will pose difficult problems both in Afghanistan and here at home. The strategic case for waging war is stronger than that for disengaging, but not by much: The war is a close call on the merits. The stakes for the United States are largely indirect; it will be an expensive war to wage; like most wars, its outcome is uncertain; even success is unlikely to yield a modern, prosperous Switzerland of the Hindu Kush; and as a counterinsurgency campaign its conduct is likely to increase losses and violence in the short term in exchange for a chance at stability in the longer term.
But failure is not inevitable. The U.S. military is now a far more capable counterinsurgency force than the Soviets who lost to the mujaheddin in the 1980s; the Obama Administration is committed to reforming a corrupt government in Kabul that the Bush Administration mostly accepted; and perhaps most important, the United States has the advantage of a deeply flawed enemy in the Taliban. The stakes, moreover, are important even though indirect: Failure could have grave consequences for the United States...
Much more at The American Interest.
Comments
It may be worth questioning one of the premises of the article, expressed in it as follows: "The United States invaded Afghanistan in the first place to destroy the al-Qaeda safe haven there--actions clearly justified by the 9/11 attacks."
As I understand the facts, the US was not attacked on 9/11 by the government or state of Afghanistan, but by a private group (Al Queda) operating within it to commit this illegal act. After 9/11, the US made a formal demand on the government of Afghanistan to extradite Osama bin Laden and others responsible. This is a legal act covered by world wide extradition laws. The Afghani government responded in proper legal fashion, in the same manner as the US government does to requests for extradition of its residents, by asking the US to provide legally sufficient evidence for its demand. This request was done entirely legally. The US, however, refused to provide evidence or to meet even the minimum for an extradition request, but instead took Afganistan's legal and proper request for evidence as a refusal, and decided to invade. Based on this set of facts, the invasion of Afghanistan was not legally justified. It could not be legally justified until the US met the requirements for extradition (which it has never attempted to do), after which Afghanistan refused. Even in that circumstance, the US would have to prove that it faced "immanent attack"--from Afghanistan. Not even the 9/11 attacks came from Afghanistan, but from air pilot training schools in the US. So, it ought to be factored into the analysis whether the US had any legal right to attack Afghanistan in the first place.