The Ethics of Promoting Democracy
Jean Bethke Elshtain, ethics professor at the University of Chicago, Chris Seiple, the president of the Institute for Global Engagement, and Will Willimon, bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church, discuss whether the U.S. should stay militarily involved in Afghanistan.
There's No Choice on Afghanistan
We're already there. Now we have to deal with it.
Jean Bethke Elshtain
It is irrelevant to debate whether the United States should be in Afghanistan; we are already there. The important questions must deal with the realities of the situation.
First, remember why we are there. We entered Afghanistan with the United Nations fully behind the operation after the attacks of September 11, 2001, an act of aggression that necessitated a response. U.S. entry into Afghanistan was an act of self-defense.
The notorious misrule of the Taliban came to an end, and the operation of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan ceased for the most part. We did not intervene to end Taliban rule per se, but to put an end to Al Qaeda operations. At this point, a return to Taliban control would be a disaster—first and foremost for the people of Afghanistan.
Under the Taliban, those who suffered the most were women. Women were driven out of universities, and girls were not allowed to go to school. Women were denied all legal rights and were not permitted to go out of doors unless escorted by a man. Anyone who defied regulations was beaten or stoned. Women had to be seen by female physicians and remain covered during medical examinations. This meant, in effect, little medical care, as female professionals fled Afghanistan in droves when the Taliban took over.
We must contend with these realities now. Leave aside our own security concerns: Are we content to watch Afghanistan fall once again under Taliban rule? What on earth do people think would happen if we packed our bags and left the country tomorrow? That we would see the lion lie down with the lamb?
We would watch as women now in school were denied an education, and other women were beaten and executed. We would stand by as those who signed on with the prospect of a constitutional Afghanistan are slaughtered. The border with Pakistan, now the site of Taliban operations, would turn into a Taliban stronghold from which they could threaten the security of the entire region. Afghanistan sits astride one of the most dangerous zones in the world. Terrorist entities hanker to generate dirty nuclear weapons with which to threaten all "infidels," whether Jews, Christians, or the wrong sort of Muslims.
We might pack our bags tomorrow, but we would return as the situation went completely downhill. No American president wants to see Afghanistan lost when so much is at stake. So our present dilemma is not whether we should be there or not, but how we can best secure the situation and eventually withdraw.
We have adopted a difficult counter-insurgency strategy for the sole purpose of trying to spare civilian lives. If this strategy does not succeed, it will mean a much longer U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Let us hope and pray—for the sake of the Afghan people, and in order to somewhat minimize the horrors of this world—that we succeed.
Afghanistan is the New Normal
It is in America's interest to use "practical pluralism" to bring people together in Afghanistan.
Chris Seiple
The U.S. will be involved militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of our lives. This is not unusual; it has been involved militarily in Europe and Japan since the end of World War II, and in Korea, since the 1953 armistice. We are still in the Balkans. Unfortunately, this is how stability and the opportunity for positive change come in a fallen world.
Star Trek Into Darkness

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).












Comments
Displaying 13 of 30 comments
See all comments
Larry Bassett
Continuing with concerns regarding misleading characterization of the war that Bishop Willimon protests, "Now we are in a war with over 1,000 American military deaths and so many more Afghani casualties, mostly women and children..." Andrew Roberts, "Graveyard of a Cliche, " National Review, 09-20-10, points out that while "every individual death is a tragedy" we have lost 1,139 soldiers during the same amount of time that over 58,000 died in Vietnam and the Soviets lost 15,000 in Afghanistan. The Taliban is NOT the elected or unelected government of Afghanistan. It is the primary killer of the "mostly women and children" regarding whom Willimon leaves the impression are victims of US and NATO forces. To the contrary, our military personnel place their own lives at risk so as to avoid civilian deaths. That they are not always succesful is one of the horrors of war. 9/11 events and continuing civilian murders by Taliban radical terrorists in Afghanistan are the price of withdrawal
Jerry Rectenwald
I wonder what Jesus would say to a nation that determined to: rid Afghanistan of the scourge of the Taliban; rebuild infrastructure; foster and support a fledgling democratic government; and give its people real hope for the first time in God knows how long – what would He say if that nation suddenly decided the cost was too great and they just had to renege? Jesus certainly did say to turn the other cheek. But He also commanded us to never turn a blind eye. How Christians work these two principles out (in their personal spheres and as citizens of a nation) will continue to be challenging; and it will be the topic of vigorous debate until He comes again. The Bishop obviously misses the good ol’ days of the previous administration and the previous war (where he and colleagues issued condemnations on a regular basis). It apparently is quite frustrating that their (progressives) man in the White House has turned out not to be as dove'ish as they had hoped.
just an inkling
The author contends that, "It is irrelevant to debate whether the United States should be in Afghanistan; we are already there. The important questions must deal with the realities of the situation." But right and wrongs cannot be so easily pushed aside, especially for the people living there. It is pure folly to base foreign policy on the realities of the present without an analysis of realities that brought us to the present.