-
The CEO of Canterbury
April 12, 2013 | 9 comments
-
An Oasis of Tolerance
March 26, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Black Punches Back
February 25, 2013 | 31 comments
-
At Work and at Prayer
December 15, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Religious Stirrers
November 27, 2012 | 51 comments
High Spirits
Hear, Hear
Examination of conscience is always a challenging task — no less so when the issue is the Afghanistan war.
When a respected conservative magazine becomes an anti-war magazine its readers and writers should sit up, take notice, and examine their consciences. That was the reaction of your High Spirits columnist to the coruscating editorial attacking “Obama’s War” (TAS, October 2010) by our distinguished publisher, Alfred S. Regnery.
Examination of conscience is always a challenging task. It is particularly difficult when reassessing the reasons for having given instinctive support to one’s country fighting a war. Yet there are well-tried tests for such an exercise using theological and historical tools to make the examination.
I have been trying to apply these tests using the ancient spiritual writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on the theory of the just war, connecting them with two illuminating books published this fall: Obama’s Wars by Bob Woodward (Simon & Schuster) and Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History by Thomas Barfield (Princeton University Press). The net result of burning the midnight oil on these tomes is that I have swung firmly behind the pessimistic viewpoint on Afghanistan championed by our publisher.
Like the present administration’s foreign policy, Christian theology on the doctrine of the just war seems rather confusing in 2010. Yet the original questions asked by Augustine and Aquinas still have validity. Is there legitimate authority for waging war? Is there a just cause? Is there a right intention?
These simple moral issues became obfuscated when the Obama administration was making its biggest decisions on Afghanistan. Here is Bob Woodward’s account of one pivotal NSC meeting, chaired by the president, at which the legitimate authority of the Kabul government was discussed:
“I understand the government is a criminal syndicate,” said General Petraeus, “but we need to help achieve and improve security.”…Biden broke in for a question. “If the government’s a criminal syndicate a year from now, how will troops make a difference?” No one recorded an answer in their notes. Biden was swinging hard at McChrystal, Gates and Petraeus. “What’s the best-guess estimate for getting things headed in the right direction?” he asked. “If a year from now there is no demonstrable progress in governance, what do we do?”
No answer.
Vice President Biden is portrayed throughout Woodward’s book as a garrulous old uncle who keeps barging in at White House meetings on Afghanistan with embarrassing questions and monologues that the rest of the key figures ignore. But theologically Biden was right on the money with many of the points he kept making. For the most up-to-date pronouncements on the theory of the just war were formulated by the U.S. Catholic bishops in 1970. In their doctrinal statement they built on the foundations set by Augustine and Aquinas and added extra conditions. The two most important were: (1) that war must be a last resort. (2) that war must have a reasonable possibility of success.
Neither condition is anywhere near being fulfilled in the latest moves in the Afghanistan war. President Obama and his team had plenty of options before they raised the stakes by committing an extra 33,000 troops. The idea they were doing this as a “last resort” looks nonsensical. Even the basic mission statement of the United States has been oscillating between “defeating” and “degrading” the Taliban.
As for the “reasonable possibility of success” test, I was initially hesitant about accepting our publisher’s harsh judgment in his editorial that “Obama’s Afghan war is a fool’s errand with virtually no chance of success.” Now, after reading Woodward, I think Al Regnery has understated his case.
The amoral dysfunctionality of the Obama administration’s decision-making process on Afghanistan is exposed to look like a bad episode of The West Wing. All the big players come out poorly. The military’s top brass fight against each other and leak to the Washington Post (a.k.a. the ubiquitous Woodward) with a ruthlessness that leaves the politicians shambling around like rank amateurs. They in turn think only of elections. The story (so far) ends with the commander in chief surrendering to his generals by giving them more than three-quarters of the 40,000 extra troops they demanded. However, to appease his political aides, Obama’s killer twist is to announce that he has set a date for starting the withdrawal of those troops-July 2011. This electioneering gesture is a virtual guarantee of military failure, ensuring that an unjust war will become an undisguised debacle.
EXTRAORDINARY THOUGH IT SOUNDS, there is not a single mention in Woodward’s pages of the Afghan people. The tribal chiefs and chiefs of staff in Washington appear to be far too busy with their own internecine feuding to bother with the history of the complex tribes whose lands they are fighting in.
Thomas Barfield makes no such mistake in his historian’s picture of Afghanistan. He reminds us that the country is a complex patchwork of Pashtuns, Pathans, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Aimaqs, helpfully adding, “but ethnic group definitions are based on multiple criteria that are often locally idiosyncratic.”
I have some ancestral understanding of these idiosyncrasies. In the heyday of the Raj my maternal grandfather, Sir John Maffey, was governor of the North West Frontier Province of British India. My mother was born in his official residence overlooking the Khyber Pass. From both of them I heard many stories about the tribal terrorists who created chaos in the region that is now partly Pakistan and partly Afghanistan. The essence of those tales was that most of the tribes were cruel and corrupt double-crossers. Brutal in their hostilities against each other, they were nevertheless serpentine in their conspiracies with each other when it came to undermining any foreign invader or occupying power.
The British came to understand this all too well after the losses suffered in the Anglo-Afghan wars. But, alas, the first lesson of history is that the politicians of the present rarely learn from the mistakes of the past. Today the mix of chaos-creators around the Khyber Pass is far more lethal than it was in my grandfather’s day. He too had to deal with the taking of Western hostages, booby-trap bombs (made with barrels of gunpowder!), and arms financed by profits from the opium trade. But the stakes today are immeasurably higher because of Pakistan and Islamic extremism-two elephants in the situation room that did not exist when the leaders of the British Empire made their military decisions.
About the Author
Jonathan Aitken, The American Spectator’s High Spirits columnist, is most recently author of John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace (Crossway Books). His biographies include Charles W. Colson: A Life Redeemed (Doubleday) and Nixon: A Life, now available in a new paperback edition (Regnery).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jonathan Aitken
More Articles From High Spirits
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/09/hear-hear
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Public Nuisances
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Harry| 12.9.10 @ 7:12AM
I don'tknow if the war is "unjust and unwinnable." The difficulty of campaigning in Afghanistan has been exaggerated and mythologised for various reasons by various parties. But a towering, astounding fact which virtually no-one seems to have commnented on is the lack of any real anti-war movement, compared to Vietnam, where we were protecting a group of countries from direct communist aggression.
I have not heard of a "peace movment" of any size regarding Afghanistan, although ot would be easier to make an argument againt the war there than against the war in Vietnam. The reason? The "Peace movement" was never anything but a Soviet puppet. No Soviet Union, no "peace" movement.
sjay| 12.9.10 @ 8:09PM
Don't presume zebras when you hear hoofbeats --- no draft, no peace movement.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 8:26PM
Exactly.
That's what these Archie Bunkers can't get: the anti-war activists they despised from '65 to '72 were created by conscription.
Why would they have wanted to fight LBJ's suicidal war?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.10 @ 7:53AM
Mr. Aitken,
Thank you.
I commented on Mr. Regnery's. article at the time.
You have reflected my thinking ...a lot.
Reagan Loyalist| 12.9.10 @ 1:37PM
Along with Old Texan, Mr. Regnery, George Will and many others, I cannot see a win nor can I see justifiable reason for this too long massive ground war.
Thanks for this piece.
George True| 12.9.10 @ 8:49AM
There is no easy or simple solution in Afghanistan. There may be no solution at all. The mission we originally went there to do, removing the Taliban from power, was accomplished in 2002. Since then we have unfortunately been operating by Colin Powell's doctrine of "You break it, you own it". While this is generally good policy, I do not believe it necessarily applies in every circumstance, especially this one. My inclination would be to declare victory and get out fast.
Except for one thing. If (when) we leave, the Taliban will most likely resume control and turn the country back into an Islamic theocracy in very short order. Then they will devote their efforts into destabilizing and overthrowing the marginally secular government of their next door neighbor Pakistan. When they do, they will install a similar theocratic government there, perhaps with the Taliban calling most of the shots. We will then have an Iran-style Islamic theocracy in possession of 70 nuclear warheads. That is the real risk of our failure in Afghanistan.
ncatty| 12.9.10 @ 9:40AM
We are wearing down our military in a place where we no longer have any national defense interest.
George True| 12.9.10 @ 10:16AM
Neatty, consider the scenario I outlined in my comment just about yours. Would that constitute a legitimate national defense interest? I am not necessarily saying we should stay in Afghanistan. But if we get out, we need to be very clear about what the ultimate consequence of that decision may be.
Since the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle 65 years ago, only rational governments have possessed nuclear weapons. Regardless ofthe fact that the Soviets and the Chinese were totalitarian regimes, they are nonetheless rational. Mutual assured destruction was more than sufficient to deter them from ever launching a nuke, the same as it was for us. And the governments of England, France, Germany, Israel, India, and even Pakistan have always been rational regarding the non-proliferation and non-use of nukes because they are all secular governments.
But now we have a new situation the world has never seen before, namely non-rational, fanatical, theocratic governments about to get their hands on nuclear weapons. How would you feel if the Taliban gained possession of Pakistan's 70 nukes? What might they decide to do with them? Might they give a few of them to Iran, or perhaps to Al Qaida?
If I were president
George True| 12.9.10 @ 10:24AM
Sorry, computer glitch. As I was saying, if I were president, I would tell the Iraqis, "Boys, we've given you a republic, if you can keep it. Now we're outta here". At the same time, I would tell Karzai, "You can be corrupt, or you can be a leader. If you choose to be corrupt, you will end up fleeing your country in the near future, because we are outta here". Then I would bring our forces home by way of Pakistan, and take their nukes while we were passing through.
But that's just me.
Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 10:42AM
It seems history will show that Biden was the smartest figure in the Obama administration. The military derided him by calling him "biteme" because he asked questions they could not answer. Conservatives are making a mistake being gung ho for the Afghan War. After nine years what are we still there for? If Obama wants to leave July 2011, why not leave now?
Roger McKinney| 12.9.10 @ 12:01PM
Maybe the British couldn't conquer Afghanistan, but Alexander the Great did and so did the Persian empire, which held it for centuries. Nevertheless, I agree with Aitken that the current was is a complete waste of men and money. The Afghan Northern Alliance drove the Taliban out with just a little help from our Special Forces. So why do we need to be there now? If they can drive out the Taliban they can keep them out and don't need decades of training costing millions. We should merely provide them with weapons and some aerial support and nothing else.
Pat| 12.9.10 @ 1:03PM
When it comes to waging war, Washington is much like Las Vegas in certain respects. You’ve no doubt heard it said: “the House always wins” – and you probably know that means some lucky soul, face lit by an enormous grin, will hit the Big Spin jackpot every so often, but over the long term the Casino will come out ahead – in fact, must come out ahead, it’s preordained. So it is with our wars, Washington always manages to come out ahead. You can protest in the streets against the most recent “forever war”, you can even march on the Pentagon in vast numbers to stop the present “war of liberation” we’re waging against some third world pest hole.
You can vote for the guy who swears on the souls of his children he will “end the war” if elected, but, even when you do, more young soldiers continue to die. Were you taken in by slick talk and sincere promises? Were you manipulated by a politician and a political party into casting your vote in their favor but, all the while, the politicians know that once elected the situation will suddenly become much more “complex” meaning our poorly paid, self-sacrificing soldiers continue to die in “service to their country”.
Like the House in Vegas parlance, Washington always wins – there’s nothing you can do to actually stop these wars, no amount of words or waving signs or group chanting helps – the power to put an end to “forever wars” doesn’t reside in us everyday citizens.
We’re forced to agree, reluctantly or otherwise, that we must maintain a strong military to “defend American interests” – but, once that agreement is obtained, the decisions are no longer our own, it’s out of our hands, wiser heads will decide where those “interests” lie and how much force will be applied. And once those “wiser heads” decide, the commitment isn’t easily revoked, mistakes aren’t readily admitted to, the dead and wounded are honored for their sacrifice but the war goes on – and on.
Maybe the third world pest hole we should be cleaning out lies on the banks of the Potomac.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 3:17PM
America's most just war was the war against the Confederacy. Thankfully, the witch Dixie was flung to the dirt where she belongs.
And today her memory is cursed in both Heaven and Hell.
May the Confederate flag burn in a smoke-filled Hell forevermore.
George True| 12.9.10 @ 3:33PM
Stop mincing words, Alan. Tell us how you really feel.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 3:54PM
Alright, then (since you ask), the South has the lowest crime rate, the highest standard of living, and all those Confederate monuments remind us of a better time, before the Confederacy was so rudely interrupted in the wicked year of 1865.
I'm sure Red Phillips would agree.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 3:55PM
...ALRIGHTY?
W| 12.10.10 @ 7:18AM
Alan, try to focus on the year 2010, not 1865,
Rob| 12.9.10 @ 4:11PM
If we surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban, it may not be long before Pakistan also falls to them--and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Wouldn't prevention of this from occurring be a just cause, even if the process of preventing it benefits some criminals, provided that they are less criminal than the Taliban? Ugh, what terrible choices.
Helen| 12.9.10 @ 6:24PM
If I had been an adviser to Bush, before his sent the first troops to Afghanistan, I would have urged him to pick up his direct line to Moscow and ask the Russians if they would like to join us. American and all of the West would be safer with the Pakistani nukes in Russian hands.
Together, America and Russia could have crushed both the Taliban and the Warlords.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 8:31PM
The Russians suffered too many casualties in Afghanistan. The Russians invading Pakistan would be comparable to America re-invading Vietnam.
bluecollarbytes| 12.9.10 @ 10:19PM
What we here call corruption is just 'business' in Afghanistan. We knew that from the early days after going in. It, corruption, was used to supplement the relatively smaller numbers of forces we'd committed as a means of changing the reality on the ground.
There is still an arguably-legitimate reason for being there with regards to terrorist plots against us and the world, and the threat to control over Pakistan nukes. Whether these can be handled in a better way, it probably won't under Obama.
It would take a president who is willing to actively lead , taking calculated risks- with a willingness to adapt to miscalculation when needed, like in war.
Korengali| 12.10.10 @ 12:42AM
Going back through the article, I believe that it is important to note that no country has conquered Afghanistan post "just war" as per Aquinas et. al- the Oceanic Ruler G. Khan and Alexander waged a historical form of total war that would have emberassed Hitler. I'm simply making an observation and absolutely not making any recommendations- my humanity has its base in the protection of innocent human life. For everyone's sanity let's fish or cut bait here. I've spent my post 9-11 life in trade for the taxpayers money as a soldier by chance smack in the middle of some of the most significant fighting of both theaters. I was there taking back Fallujah and I was there in the Korengal valley- my team and I will very likely play a significant role in the Korengal's retaking! On the flip side, I was in Iraq for the elections in 2005 and in Afghanistan for the 2005 and 2010 elections, these are the most significant direct fruits I believe my fight has borne. Just like my fellow servicemembers, I will faithfully execute the lawful orders of my leadership, but for God's sake Pershing sent his soldiers over the top after the armistice was signed in 1918, and if we're done here so be it! Guys- I'm no whiner and I believe we all want to fix this and depart with honor. The decision to leave, although gut wrenching, must be discussed. Every American should take this discussion very personally.
-K
For the 1,400 lost, please never forget them in this.
Korengali| 12.10.10 @ 12:47AM
//embarrassed// indeed.