Does this scenario sound familiar to you?
Tucked away in the heart of Middle Eastern traditionalism is a country run by a corrupt and dangerous government. The country harbors great animosity towards the United States and its government even provides refuge for some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. The liberation of the people in this country will not only be a victory for the United States, but will be a victory for democracy throughout the Middle East -- a possible precursor to progressive reform and liberalism. The country is, of course, Afghanistan.
A little more than a year ago the Bush administration had given the people of Afghanistan the assurance that their cause would not be abandoned. Promises were made to build infrastructure, end poverty and hunger and provide the authority to finally rid the plagued nation from terrorist insurgency. This optimistic vision was made when Arab leaders and intellectuals began to question whether repression of dissent had fueled extremism. Conveniently for us, we have not been held to our promises. Recently there have been reports of increased violence in the Afghani countryside, continuing denial of gender equality, growth of warlord armies and only mild economic improvement. The Bush administration's response: they forgot to include Afghani aid in the newly released budget! The mistake was rectified, but our compassion for the Afghanistan struggle might not be.
Afghanistan's president Hamed Karzai recently implored U.S. Senators during a Senate hearing to not abandon the needs of Afghanistan for military strikes in Iraq. Hoping to elicit greater aid and attention for his country, Karzai pleaded with reporters and President Bush: "Don't forget us if Iraq happens." Why is our humanitarian aid to Afghanistan now jeopardized? Because president Bush and his staff have made the same exact promises -- the ones they could not deliver to Afghanistan -- to the whole of the Middle East.
Speaking at the American Enterprise Institution on Feb. 26, the President stated: "Success in Iraq could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training."
The Bush administration is arguing that the overthrow of Saddam could spread the seeds of democracy across the Arab world. The president's vision of a new Middle East has all the makings of an overarching justification for the use of force to achieve his goals. It's a vision most people would like to see occur, but one that is drenched in idealism and impracticality. One need look no further then our impending failure in Afghanistan to understand that this administration is in for short-term payoffs, not long-term commitments. The Bush Team's argument is based on subjective and compromised history rather than construction plans, theories or even cost projections (which Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz refuses to even release).
For instance, later in his speech Bush stated: "America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments."
Yet, the Marshall Plan must be viewed as a unique success that is historically incomparable. The end of World War II marked the beginning of the Cold War, and the potential fall of Western and Eastern Europe to the rising Soviet superpower ensured a multi-decade long commitment to reconstruction. For every Marshall Plan there have been failures around the globe; next is Afghanistan.
The Bush administration is hiding behind idealistic rhetoric and incomplete information. Estimates can be made about both the costs and casualties of war and its aftermath. Yet this administration is refusing to speculate. Instead they have painted a rosy image of a new Middle East -- democratic, rich with oil and willing to be our allies. The Arab world should be skeptical of whether a qualitative change can be triggered by an external force -- if our interests will ever coincide with the demands of progressivism. After all, we continue to support Saudi Arabia and the Prince of Qatar, governments that have never treated constitutional rights with the same enthusiasm as oil drills. We labeled Iran, one of the most democratic countries in the region, as part of the "axis of evil."
Our attempt to bring liberty to Afghani citizens is close to becoming a one-year trial run. President Bush needs to stop playing the humanitarian card when it's convenient and start producing tangible results. The dangers of post-war abandonment must be realized. As war looms with Iraq, Hamed Karzai is forced to wait and hope that his country is not forgotten. The threat of a terrorist reemergence looms in the Afghanistan countryside. We abandoned the Afghani rebuilding process before: in the 1970s, the control of the government was turned over to a group called the Taliban.
