Again, Why are We in Afghanistan?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has complained again about U.S. interference in Afghan affairs, at one point even threatening to join the Taliban resistance as a consequence. As frustrating as Karzai's posturing is to American policymakers and military leaders, it does serve an important purpose nevertheless: It forces us to ask ourselves again, why, exactly, are we in Afghanistan?

That is, why are 100,000 or so American troops posted to this otherwise godforsaken corner of the globe? Is it because that's chiefly where al qaeda is located? If so, is our objective to frustrate al qaeda there and in Pakistan or to destroy it altogether? Insofar as the Taliban supports al qaeda, is it to frustrate and/or destroy it as well? Is winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people essential to either of these efforts? If so, is Hamid Karzai the right man to assemble and assure that public support? Might some other fellow be better suited? Or, perhaps, none at all?

These questions and more need to be asked and answered again and again. And especially so when our presence in Afghanistan is challenged in the manner done so by the current Afghan president. Confronted by what is at the very least an expression of profound ingratitude on Karzai's part, we in the U.S. have a tendency to react by considering whether or not it might be best if we were to effectively take our ball and go home. And that kind of sentiment is even more likely to be expressed if we have come to think that our chief purpose in Afghanistan is to somehow bring a better life to those unfortunate people.

Is that why we're there, to save the Afghan people? I think not. Our continued presence in Afghanistan can, and must, be justified only by a hard-headed appeal to American interests first. Can it be justified by such an appeal? I think so. And if so, then whether or not the Afghan president appreciates our efforts in his country is only important insofar as it helps or hinders those efforts.

This kind of clear thinking is even more important when we are led by a liberal administration. The old saw is that liberals can only feel good about American foreign interventions when they can convince themselves that no vital national interests are at stake. For them, the presence of vital interests somehow sullies the endeavor, making it less noble, less pure. That purity of intention is what they believe will make the world, and especially the people of the country in which we are intervening, not only understand, but actually cheer the intervention.

It's ridiculously naive, I know, but it's the way many of them think. But more to the point, one very serious disadvantage to this kind of thinking is that can lead to an overly emotional reaction when challenged. When charged that the U.S. is not so noble after all, liberal thinking will too often encourage one of two responses. Our national psyche wounded by the allegation, a liberal may be tempted to pursue ever more extravagant gestures to demonstrate the purity of our intentions, hoping thereby to placate Karzai and his minions. Or, provoked to indignation by the accusation, it may prompt him to stubbornly reassert our essential national innocence and effectively, as I say, take our ball and go home. Neither response is likely to be the wisest course for the country.

A far wiser course is likely to be the one suggested by our very first president, who, when he said farewell, advised that we should always pursue a position in which "we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel." Interests first. The rest is distraction.