“We have been at war for your entire life,” I told my classes of mostly 16-year old students a couple of years ago in a unit focused on American involvement in the Middle East. Most of them weren’t that surprised. The truth, at least according to Andrew Bacevich in America’s War for the Greater Middle East, is that we’ve also been at war for my entire life as well. Indeed, plenty of academics would make the case that the current iteration of the American Empire requires a low-grade state of constant warfare not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.
This state of low-grade warfare became far more significant in the aftermath of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and since 2001 three differents presidents have deployed almost three million American soldiers to those states. With the Biden administration’s shutdown of the last American military base in Afghanistan two weeks ago and the withdrawal of troops coming to a close, the official war in Afghanistan is coming to an end.
Of course, 650 troops will remain to protect the American embassy, and the US will continue to use drone strikes to support the struggling Afghani government. And our involvement and entanglements throughout the region will continue to persist Indeed, Bacevich argues:
Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect. One day the American people may awaken to this reality. Then and only then will the war end. When this awakening will occur is impossible to say. For now, sadly, Americans remain deep in slumber.
Obviously, this is a complicated situation. If America completely withdraws, what happens? Does the Taliban take control of Afghanistan or does it lead to a humanitarian crisis? Does the Islamic State or an al-Quaeda franchise rise anew? My students over the past years have been conflicted. On the one hand, they see Bacevich’s point that American involvement perpetuates anti-American sentiment and radicalization. In one discussion, a student asked another, “How would you feel about the US if you came home one day to find that your innocent family had been killed by an American drone strike?” At the same time, they had strong feelings about the Trump administration’s abandonment of the Kurds in Syria and the “America First” platform championed by President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Nevertheless, a number of students, despite cringing as they defended the Trump administration, argued that at least “America First” was honest. Whether or not it is framed this way publically, most of the class that went down this discussion path agreed that the history indicated that “America First” is an accurate characterization of American foreign policy throughout modern American history. Although their sense of the overall context history is somewhat limited, they made some good arguments capturing the realist view of foreign policy: states are fundamentally self-interested actors.
In today’s New York Times, David Brooks argues that to fight Trumpian authoritarianism, the US must continue to defend liberal ideals and human dignity abroad. It is true that the US has defended these things internationally and positively impacted the lives of countless people (at the cost of a tremendous loss of human life and significant financial investment). However, it is also true that in defense of liberalism and human dignity, the US has violated these ideals. Foreign policy is complicated and there are no easy answers, which helps to explain that despite the promises of withdrawal from President Obama and President Trump, the war in Afghanistan persisted into the Biden presidency.
What does life look like for the people of Afghanistan after the American withdrawal? Brooks suggests a humanitarian disaster, and alluding to Malala, says, “It may not be too long before Afghan girls get shot in the head for trying to go to school.” Unfortunately, he is likely correct. The danger of withdrawal is forgetting about our responsibility for the consequences of our actions. From 1989 to 2001, most Americans never thought about Afghanistan at all, and I worry that our official withdrawal will allow Americans to forget entirely about Afghanistan’s existence as American involvement persists in a state of low-grade warfare throughout the Middle East, pushing on the edges but otherwise having a relatively insignificant impact on conflicts throughout the region.
Like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan may end up unconsidered and undiscussed by American students who have much to learn about America’s power and influence, and role in the role through engaging these conflicts. As Bacevich suggests, only when Americans awaken to the futility of our current approach to the Middle East, will we be able to cooperate globally and develop and support the institutions required to meet the challenges posed by global issues like climate change.