FictionThatMatters.org

A few weeks ago, I posted my thoughts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Namely, I don’t understand what we’re doing there.

Today, President Obama spoke in Cairo and specifically addressed the issue. (Read his speech here.) I am even less convinced than before that we should have a significant military presence in either country.

My solution to the problem remains the same. Mr. Obama should take a weekend to read The Photographer, by Emmanuel Guibert and Didier Lefevre, a landmark graphic novel about Afghanistan in the 1980s. Until that happens, here’s why I disagree with him:

Obama’s argument is that we cannot tolerate Muslim extremists that vow to annihilate America, and that an unprecedented trauma was inflicted upon Americans during September 11. I do not dispute the trauma. I ride the subway every day and think about it. It affected the U.S. in every facet of society. I also agree that violent extremists cannot be tolerated if they declare war on America, and threaten to take American lives.

But we have beefed up domestic security, as I’ve said before. And we had already spent $712 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan before Obama even entered office. Several hundred thousand civilians have been killed since the invasion of Iraq, some of them by American forces. Civilians also continue to suffer at the hands of NATO bombings in Afghanistan. This violates the principle of proportionality, which is fundamental to international law. Any act of retribution must be a proportionate response.

Here are the President’s words:

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

So how do we measure the disappearance of ‘violent extremists’? At what point, exactly, will a victory be declared? If a harmless cook declares himself a member of Al Qaeda, and all he does is sell pancakes, is that enough? He is now a ‘violent extremist’? Come on, now! (One detainee at Guantanamo fits this profile, according to the Seton Hall Guantanamo Project.)

Mr. Obama also highlights the nearly $3 billion in development costs that Congress is offering to Afghanistan, but again, compare that to the $712 billion that has already been spent on fighting. The number is less than 1 percent.

The only other argument that a friend told me is fear of another failed state. If Al Qaeda was hatched form Afghanistan, then it could be launched again if Afghanistan crumbles, and so too with Iraq. I have not heard Mr. Obama provide this justification. Certainly not directly. And it immediately calls attention to Somalia, in which the theory can only be applied with mixed results. (Pirates!)

The rest of the President’s speech in Cairo is, of course, flawless. Nuanced and full of the considered words that make him such a delight to listen to.

But two wars! (Or, three wars if you include Pakistan, and Mr. Obama explicitly does so in his speech.) They have already cost the U.S. nearly $1 trillion and thousands of American lives.

I do not want attacks to occur against the U.S., or any nation for that matter. But why pull out of Iraq in 2012? That is three years from now, and far too late. The timelines need to be sped up. Otherwise the wars are merely ideological. That’s not good enough for me any more.

–Deji Olukotun