Unfashionable foreign policy

Friday, President Obama announced that he would pull the last remaining troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. But Associated Press polls determined that in 2012, a greater percentage of Americans will be voting more on Obama’s economic policies, of which they disapprove, than on his foreign policy, of which they approve. It follows that the president’s overall approval ratings are especially low—46 percent.

Accordingly, Columbia students are more likely to occupy Wall Street than protest the war in Afghanistan. They care more about their parents’ foreclosed houses and dwindling pension funds than a distant war. Bailout money turning to bonuses and CEO’s being given golden parachutes after illegal reckless activity all fit a simple, salient, moral narrative.

The war in Afghanistan does not. In the beginning, our Afghan campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, was justifiable. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. It had established a base of operations in Afghanistan under the auspices of the native Taliban. It was imperative that America disband al-Qaeda by invading this safe haven.

But after 10 years, with 70,000 troops still deployed and in harm’s way, it seems in the vein of Columbia’s anti-war history for students here to re-evaluate these justifications.

President Obama asserts that we cannot allow the Taliban to regain footing in the region and once again provide al-Qaeda with a training ground. There are a few problems with this reasoning.
To an extent, the dissolution of al-Qaeda has already been accomplished, rendering our continued occupation of the region unnecessary. Many of its leaders have been captured or assassinated. The latest terrorist plots on our soil have involved lone actors equipped with little financial support and technology. Remarkably, Leon Panetta, former director of the CIA, is quoted as saying that the number of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is now under 100. The decline of al-Qaeda is undoubtedly a result of American troops in the region. But a 70,000-troop occupation in order to eradicate double digits of al-Qaeda is blatantly disproportionate.

It’s also counterproductive. Our presence in Afghanistan now only serves to push the little al-Qaeda that remains into the Waziristan region of Pakistan. This is a de facto safe haven for the terrorist organization, as the U.S. must respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. From there, al-Qaeda executes countless attacks on Pakistani cities. This destabilizes the country, and with a weak, corrupt, and nuclear-armed government, a Pakistan containing al-Qaeda is not in America’s best interests.

Strategically, neither Obama nor his close advisers have shown any evidence that counterterrorism is less effective than counterinsurgency. Our ground troops are not responsible for the deaths of terrorists bin Laden and Alawi. Unmanned drone attacks and precise counterterror operations were. More efficient, both involve less money and manpower.

Also, counterinsurgency arouses anger abroad. It perpetuates the image that America is an empire, constantly looking to expand by exporting its ideals and institutions. We see our occupation of Afghanistan in light of 9/11, as a measure of self-defense. The Arab world sees it as imperialism veiled in democratic rhetoric.

Moreover, the Taliban, while markedly anti-west, is not in and of itself a proponent of global terror. It desires local, not global, domination. The Taliban did allow al-Qaeda to operate freely pre-9/11. But if the last 10 years of deposition from power and constant, tiresome gunfights with American forces don’t serve as a disincentive to harboring terrorists again, I don’t know what does.

We cannot justify our occupation with humanitarian reasons. Yes, the Taliban is a vile regime that represses women with egregious retributive punishments like stoning. But if this is the sole justification for an entire counterinsurgency operation, then America should be in Darfur and North Korea as well. Ideally, America would police the world, intervening wherever human rights crimes are committed. Unfortunately, we have our own problems to take care of.

These wars are expensive. Our generation will have to front the $5 trillion bill accounting for Iraq and Afghanistan. Our institutions at home—infrastructure, schools, and economy—are crumbling beneath our feet. We need to stop the nation from building abroad and begin doing so at home.

It seems more pertinent at Columbia, surrounded by Wall Street aspirants and pre-professional money-grubbers, to take a stand against corporate greed rather than over-extension abroad. America has no draft, and so the often-uneducated lower socio-economic strata of society go to war, cut off from the rest of us. But students need to let the White House know that fulfilling Bush’s time line for withdrawal from Iraq isn’t enough, and that income inequality, lack of upward mobility, and shamefully high unemployment won’t be reversed until we refocus our resources inwards. So just remember that while you are taking the 1 line down to Liberty Park, our soldiers have been shipped abroad in droves to fight another occupation, one that also involves failed policy and wasted wealth. Unfortunately, this one also involves the loss of human life.

Jesse Michels is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in history. He is a member of the debate team, CUSP, intramural basketball, and dodgeball. Politics as Pertinent runs alternate Tuesdays.