WHY SHOULD THERE BE AN AFGHANISTAN?
Last week, we learned that Afghanistan is The Doormat of Empires. Yet the ignorant myth of the mighty invincible Afghan keeps getting repeated - even by conservative writers who really ought to know better.
Washington Times columnist Jeff Kuhner is an example, who has proclaimed (6/24) that Petraeus is "doomed to fail," that "the jihadist iceberg is about to sink the American juggernaut," because:
Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is the graveyard of empires - a nation whose rugged terrain and collection of disparate warlords and tribes is ideally suited for guerrilla warfare. The vaunted Soviet Red Army was crushed in the 1980s. Imperial Britain was defeated - not once, but twice - during the 19th century. The reason: They got dragged into protracted wars of attrition. Eventually, the fierce, primitive mountains, caves and fighters of Afghanistan wore down much superior forces, slowly bleeding them to death.This is ridiculously not true. Kuhner has obviously neither been to Afghanistan nor studied its actual history but is simply repeating memorized slogans. Thus he asks, "Who lost Afghanistan?" as if this is preordained. Let's ask a different question instead: "Why should there be an Afghanistan at all?"
Afghanistan is a problem, not a real country. It is a pain in the world's ass. The solution to the problem is not a futile effort of "nation-building" - that effort is doomed to fail - it is nation-building's opposite: get rid of the problem by getting rid of the country. It's a salvage operation - carve the wreck up and parcel it out to its neighbors. Here's how to do it.
