[T]hough Vietnam was hugely destructive in human terms, strategically it was just a medium-sized blunder. It was a waste of resources, yes, but the war didn’t make America more vulnerable to enemy attack.
The Afghanistan war does. Just as Al Qaeda planned, it empowers the narrative of terrorist recruiters—that America is at war with Islam. The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Could we please stop doing Al Qaeda’s work for it?
Wright also includes a link to a document on “Myths and Realities in the Afghan Debate” put out by his New America Foundation. It offers lots of pragmatic reasons why the war in Afghanistan is untenable: economic reasons, strategic reasons, human-rights reasons.
Left out, inevitably, are moral reasons. Left out is the repentance we’ll need to give up on our rather deadly pride and our quixotic search for Nixonesque “peace with honor.” But, in the meantime, pragmatic reasons can’t hurt.
As the left increasingly focuses on electoral politics, a new framework is emerging for how candidates who win should partner with social movements.
As autocrats become savvier in using technology to repress dissent, activists are striving to preserve the benefits of digital activism and mitigate the risks.
Environmental activist Evgeniya Chirikova once helped save a forest in Moscow. Now she’s trying to give voice to Russian activists and journalists resisting Putin’s regime.