Leaving Afghanistan Will Not Make Us Safer

It is dangerously naïve to think that if we leave Afghanistan today, then tomorrow the terrorists will be grateful and leave Poland alone.

President Obama’s recent speech announcing the beginning of America’s retreat from Afghanistan was, by and large, undoubtedly motivated by the looming United States presidential campaign. However, that is not a sufficient explanation: The Polish have nothing to be happy about.

Indeed, there is satisfaction that can be detected in the comments of General Stanislaw Koziej in his article in the Gazeta Wyborcza. I value the author enormously but I am at odds with him over this issue.

Fast, Cheap and Wrong

The important issue at hand is not the lofty slogans that Obama uses to justify his decision but the fundamental belief that belies this change in strategy. Koziej notices, quite correctly, that the beginning of the process of pulling out from Afghanistan will result in some terrorists groups persevering. He also recognizes and postulates that “any attempted attacks on the outside world will have to be nipped in the bud.”

That was wonderfully said, but how will we be able to do that once NATO pulls out of Afghanistan? Is Koziej endorsing arbitrary American strikes against a sovereign nation in the future, without any sort of international consensus?

Every problem has a quick, easy and wrong solution. Another example of such a solution was the idea, espoused by the same general some years ago, of dividing Iraq into Sunni and Shiite zones to ease sectarian violence. The idea that we can retreat from Afghanistan, leave the Taliban in charge, and still control their behavior is in the same category. The dilemma facing the European nations is, in reality, quite different.

When the “Great Satan” Leaves

The United States’ retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan will signify a new era of American isolationist foreign policy. This new phase of isolationism will not be like the one we saw in the interwar period. The United States will not leave the United Nations or other international organizations. They understand that their problems with Islamic extremists do not stem from a domestic persecution of Muslims, but from the active role that attitude plays abroad.

Europe, on the other hand, does have a domestic problem with radical Islam. If the “Great Satan” retreats, terrorists will not transform into civilized members of the political process. They will instead focus their efforts on Europe, where they will blend in much more easily with the angry Muslim immigrant population.

For now, Western Europe will bear the brunt of the problem, but our house is not as immune as some may think. When the problem does reach us, our declarations of “decisive defense in the face of direct threats” won’t do us any good. Alone, without the United States, we will not be able to engage the Taliban in their Afghan/Pakistani bases. They will find us, first in Paris and then in Warsaw.

It is extremely naïve and dangerous to think that if we leave Afghanistan today, then tomorrow the terrorists will be grateful and leave Poland alone. They won’t because they see us as part of Europe, and an interesting part to boot, since we are not as well defended as the majority of the European nations.

The Politically Motivated Decision

It is interesting to note that it was the civilians, not the military brass, who urged that the United States pull out of Afghanistan. However, the leadership of the American military never advocated military action in the first place. Generals like military exercises and parades, but not actual combat: No one knows the suffering that war inflicts better than they do.

When the Americans were debating whether to intervene in the Balkans, it was Madeleine Albright, a civilian, who demanded that the generals use the soldiers, on which the government spent so much money. This is why Koziej is wrong when he writes that “Obama’s decision means liberation from a militaristic approach toward Afghanistan and replacing it with a political alternative.”

The decision to go into Afghanistan was a political decision, motivated by the desire to shield the world, and the United States, from terrorism. The decision to leave Afghanistan is political as well, as it is carefully calculated to maximize the security of the United States, while leaving Europe exposed.

Obama’s speech must be analyzed against the backdrop of his presidency as a whole. When he was still a presidential candidate, Obama promised to consult more with European allies, and everyone on the Old Continent was happy to hear it. However, most did not see that, along with consultations, Europe would be also saddled with greater responsibility to implement these mutual agreements. This is why most European politicians were not ready to meet Obama’s expectations in terms of strengthening their NATO contingents in Afghanistan to secure greater funding.

Closing Time?

Instead of meeting the challenge, the European leaders were content to simply debate the prudence of mutual defense and the need to strengthen NATO. This debate was hollow, as all the arguments and counterarguments have already been made time and time again. Apparently they like these kinds of discussions, of which there is a predetermined outcome.

We all know the financial condition of the United States, but we are afraid to draw the logical conclusions. The United States must cut back on expenses. Should they spend their money on their health care system, retirement and education, or should they indulge every Frenchman with a month-long vacation, pay for the German social welfare program and care for Italian orphans? These governments can only afford to be so generous toward their own citizens because the cost of defense is shifted onto the back of the American taxpayer.

As it has recently come out, European alliance members do not even have adequate supplies of bombs and missiles in their arsenals for a mini-war with Libya.

Another strong indication was a speech by Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defense, in Brussels. It is hard to imagine a more explicit way in which the United States could have announced the end of military aid to Europe. Gates’ address could be dismissed as something that every outgoing defense secretary says. The problem is that things are different now, a fact not lost on NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. While Gates’ words might have been dismissed, we cannot dismiss the train of thought behind his message. To do so would put national security at risk.

Some time ago, a group of reasonable people formulated the idea that NATO is either “out of area or out of business.” Either we learn to take action where the alliance is needed, even if the interest of the members is not under direct threat, or it’s closing time. Of course, when the above maxim was put to the test, instead of seeing what went wrong, the theory was simply discounted. Afghanistan was NATO’s trial by fire, and NATO failed. It was not able to facilitate a unified response, and was not able to forge common security interests. America tried to make Afghanistan a cause that would reinvigorate NATO, but Europe was not interested.

As a result of America’s retreat from Afghanistan, NATO will never again be able to conduct such military actions in the future.

Poland in the Lead

To be fair, the Europeans did muster a response to the American challenge. They assembled a committee of elders, in order to plot the direction in which NATO should go in the future. Full of good will, they worked together and managed to draft a declaration of intent. Thanks to this text, we now know what the alliance is not doing.

America is losing interest in allies who like to write and debate but not act, and especially in those who like to avoid paying their fair share. Poland, at least, is a shining example to the contrary.

When the question of the Libyan intervention arose, the prime minister said that Poland will join the effort as soon as the international community establishes rules of conduct for the conflict and an enforcement mechanism in case these rules are broken. In other words, Poland is not helping, and is not planning on helping. This is because we feel safe, and Libya is not a direct threat to Polish security. We do not foresee the need for help in the future, and hence, we will give none.

For good measure, Koziej adds that we cannot waste our precious resources on Libya, because they might be needed elsewhere. At least we now know why we spent a fortune on secondhand F-16s. God forbid they actually fly in combat, especially when Gadhafi has no means by which to shoot them down. No one can seriously think that a handful of jets will protect us from an invasion by a much larger foreign power, even with help from any eventual Patriot missile batteries.

At least Polish strategists are consistent. A few years ago, at a NATO conference in Warsaw, the advisor of the defense minister, currently the president, announced to a shocked and bewildered audience that Poland does not have global interests and that it is not interested in being active in any part of the globe.

Even if that were true, that is only one side of the story. If we are not interested in others, then why should others be interested in us? Because we’re Polish? Because we toppled communism? Because Europe would feel incomplete without us? These types of arguments exist, but the thinking behind them is dangerous for national security.

We Should be Afraid

One could ask why should we be afraid, and what should we be afraid of? Maybe we should learn from Libya. While Italy and France do not fear Libya itself, what will Poland do when Belarusian refugees start showing up on our doorsteps, either willingly or at the request of an unfriendly government? Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic will probably close their borders with us and watch while the Bureau of National Security handles the problem. If we continue acting the way we have for the past couple of years, this problem will be handled by us and us alone.

Whether or not one is a supporter or opponent of our military presence in Afghanistan, the abandonment of the mission by the United States has to be worrisome for everyone who is concerned about Polish national security. Regardless of who will win the next American presidential election, whether it be President Obama or Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney, one thing is for certain: None of them will reverse the trend of American detachment from European defense.

It is then that we will have to face the choice of cutting defense spending in favor of social programs or cutting social programs in favor of defense spending.

The choice is looming in the near future.