President Obama recently spoke to an audience of the Veterans of Foreign Wars where he stated with some force that, “We must never forget this is not a war (Afghanistan) of choice. This is a war of necessity.” This is worrying language for some who believe that this conflict is not one we are fused to and who feel that we would be lighting the fuse to our own self-defeat if we label it as such. A recent slide show of similar conflicts may make perspective a bit clearer.
As the molten rubble began to collect on the eleventh of September 2001, the Bush administration was in hot debate about how to respond to the war that was just launched on us. The verdict was to enter Afghanistan and introduce the Taliban to the full measure of American mean. We did just that, as we necessarily had to in order to protect our homeland security. In a mere two months we were able to rout the Taliban by way of hyper-kinetic blunt force trauma. The clusters of these militants lost their nucleus and these “students” of radical Islam spread apart like sticks in the wind.
This was no war of choice. This was, by definition, a war of necessity for the simple reason that a single answer was demanded of the U.S. government by its ward and its enemy. We had been molested of the sanctity of our safety and the only way to punish this act and prevent future ones was to proceed with violent prudence to cripple our adversaries in self-defense. Wars of necessity must involve critical national interests and must not allow for options, other than military, to meet those critical interests. Afghanistan in 2001 was such a case.
Now many would say that the door to the Iraq invasion was forced open by the boom of our victory in Afghanistan; this could be literally true since many militants were reported to have fled to Iraq from Afghanistan to reassemble and hold steady ground there. But no matter what, the fast and strong victory in Afghanistan most definitely served as a momentum builder for our initiative to go into Iraq. The debate raged, and flapping rhetoric was used by both wings (as well as the torso of the bird) when voicing support and opposition to this shift in focus. However, it is almost axiomatically the case that the motivation from a victory to pursue another victory makes a situation a war of choice, not necessity.
The Gulf War of the early nineties was considered a war of necessity because Saddam Hussein’s annexing of Kuwait, the near erasure of the borders, his attack on the Kurds of the northeast, and what it would have meant if he was able to get away with it. The U.S. and UN were bound to confront such a situation which they did with great ken and speed. The Korean War is considered by some to be a war of necessity. After the 38th parallel was developed, the North’s invasion of the South prompted the enrollment of the United States in the conflict. Once the North was pushed back behind the 38th parallel, China registered its help with the North. Although the North was already driven off of South Korean land, the U.S. wanted to puncture the potential of the North (and China) by going deeper into Northern territory to rout these rouge actors. However, the opposite resulted and as a result of the aggressions, the North was able to push back down to southern territory. With some luck, the U.S. and the UN were able to push the North Koreans back exactly where they were during the first rounds of battle, unfortunately losing 30,000 troops in that repetitive process. It was when America’s eye was bigger than its stomach that the war was arguably no longer one of necessity but rather one of choice. What was originally a means to defend the borders of a nation and secure the global containment of communism turned into the unnecessary use of resources that cost thousands of lives and millions of dollars.
But this is what a war of necessity insists: the protection of vital interests by any means necessary for as long as it takes. This is the worry that fixes America’s face in a mask of concern. Yes, concern. Long gone are the days when there was a Niagara of patriotism post-attack, where each flag on each front door represented an undeclared acts of submission by America’s citizens to the will and decision making of the government. “We are hurting. Do something!” said the American collective. No longer. Now we see these statistics; the number of deaths from suicide bombings and the inflated expenses of warfare. We hear Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that the situation in Afghanistan is “serious and it is deteriorating. The Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated. Their tactics, just in my recent visits out there and talking with our troops, certainly indicate that.” We read reports that General Stanley McChrystal believes the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan. We read that the number of soldiers there is insufficient and that a total of 68,000 troops will be in Afghanistan by the end of 2009, and even that may not be enough. We hear that every month that we’re in Afghanistan costs the American tax payers $4 billion during a recession. We hear echoes, not of the “change” we were promised during the election but from the rhetoric of a past president (Bush) who we were supposed to be free of.
Then we hear the word necessity. It’s a potent word, full of persuasion, authority, confidence and muscle. The critics of the war in Iraq must be critical of this war in Afghanistan, and especially of the “necessity” married to it. We want to keep the government of Afghanistan strong and unmolested by the Taliban. We want to make sure that Al Qaeda does not have a nesting ground in a weakened Afghanistan in order to launch attacks and training facilities. However, we must remain balanced and clear-headed in order to make sure our resources are not wasted and used in the areas where they will be most effective. Many believe Pakistan is the real war of necessity, if we ever get around to going there with some punch. That is where Al Qaeda is based and where Osama Bin Laden is purported to be. All operations, including joint Taliban and Al Qaeda ventures, happen through the Northwest territory. Pakistan is nuclearized and an Al Qaeda breach of the weapons factories can bring about an immediate apocalypse. The military measures we make in Pakistan are slight, mainly drone attacks which not only cause massive civilian casualties, but they also ineffective in killing the enemy.
Many commentators are calling Afghanistan Obama’s Vietnam. I certainly would not go that far since Vietnam was, according to Chomsky, a totally illegal operation of American terrorism against South Vietnam. I think, most appropriately, the war in Afghanistan should be called Obama’s Iraq, and let us hope the end result is as positive. Carl von Clausewitz said, “Action in war is like movement in a resistant element. Just as the simplest and most natural of movements, walking, cannot easily be performed in water, so in war it is difficult for normal efforts to achieve even moderate results.” I, for one, agree. War is going to be difficult and hellish and punishingly difficult most of the time. For this reason, let’s not muddy said water with category errors which will simultaneously sentence us to life as well as death.
