Has Afghanistan been worth it?

September 16th, 2009 by Jim Arkedis

A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 51 percent of Americans believe that the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits.  It’s a staggering number.  Once you account for statical error, it’s safe to say that about half of this country has forgotten the reverberating costs of September 11, 2001.

First, it is vital that we remember why we’re in Afghanistan.  While President Bush had a grand vision of bringing democracy and prosperity to the Afghan people, President Obama realized that Bush’s vision was impossible to achieve.  President Obama has redefined America’s goals in the region, saying during the 2008 campaign that, “Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region.” Once he became Commander-in-Chief, Obama reiterated that approach:

I can articulate some very clear, minimal goals in Afghanistan, and that is that we make sure that it’s not a safe haven for al-Qaida, they are not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened on 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest.

In other words, our mission in Afghanistan is clearly linked to preventing the re-occurance of a massive terrorist attack.

With that in mind, it’s worth reviewing the costs of those attacks to remind the American people why we’re trying to prevent another attack.

First, a few numbers:

2,973 individuals were killed in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA.

– In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that 146,000 jobs were lost.

– In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that the total economic impact on the city was $94.8 billion, including personal wealth, lost wages, rebuilding costs, and others.

– In the three days after the attack, the Federal Reserve injected $300 billion into the economy in various forms.  They were actions that were “essential to cushioning the terrorist effects on the economy.”

– The Congressional Research Service found long-term negative economic effects as per capital real income growth would slow.

It’s well-and-good to break down the attacks’ effect in cold, stark numbers, but it’s also worth remembering the price we paid in other ways:

– Recall the emotional trauma you - as someone possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away with no direct connection to the tragedy - experienced to understand what happened and why?

– Remember how our key aspects of infrastructure were blocked?  And that life didn’t return to normal for months?

– Remember how the Bush administration undertook highly questionable security measures like torture in the name of national security?

– Remember how the Bush administration quickly turned a moment that should have sponsored national unity into one that leaned heavily on the politics of fear?

– Or remember how the Bush administration pivoted off military action in Afghanistan to gin up ultimately dubious charges against Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction?

This is hardly an exhaustive or scientific list.  Furthermore, I’m hardly saying that all of these outcomes will come to pass should another massive terrorist attack occur on American soil.  For one, I believe President Obama owes his election to presenting a decidedly different version of national security from President Bush.

However, when Americans say that they don’t believe the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits, I’d say this:  Remember that we’re in Afghanistan to prevent another massive terrorist attack, and that the costs of those attacks were enormous to Americans’ lives, our economy, and our national identity.

Posted in Afghanistan, DoD, PPI, US foreign policy, al Qaeda, military, obama, spending, terrorism

3 Responses

  1. Michael

    You make some very good points that I agree with completely. There is however, an important question that needs to be asked when it comes to being in Afghanistan.

    (In case it needs to be said, I agree with your second to last paragraph and not making an argument for or against anything you said, just trying to bring up a point that I think adds to the discussion… to prevent possible misunderstandings since my following post gets a little into it… :P)

    Is our action in Afghanistan actually preventing another epic-scale terrorist attack?

    I do not think there is either an easy or obvious answer to that question. One often made retort is: Yes, because we have not been attacked again in 8 years. To me, this is a poor answer. Looking at only foreign terrorist attacks on US soil proper (not embassies, which are subject to a foreign security environment) prior to 2001, the last major foreign based terrorist attack on US territory was 1993. Prior to that, 1975 and 1920 (source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html - not the best, but handy in my coffee-deficient state). Using that data, the frequency of major foreign based terrorist attacks on US soil is every 27 years. If, for the sake of argument we include the Oklahoma bombing, the mean time between attacks drops to 1 attack every 20.25 years. I admit that there are serious problems with this method of conceptualizing the data, not the least of which is that is simply is not enough data… but that is part of my point. In order to claim that US action in Afghanistan has stopped or delayed epic scale terrorist attacks on US soil, you have to be able to show a change in the expected rate of epic scale terrorist attacks on US soil - meaning they are more frequent, less frequent, or the same. To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown this or even has decent data on it. And more importantly, since terrorist attacks on US soil are infrequent and epic scale attacks require long-term planning, it is simply too soon to make a conclusion that action in Afghanistan is protecting us from a terrorist attack on the basis that we have not been attacked since 2001 on US soil. That rationale is not supported by the evidence in any way.

    However, I think there is a much more legitimate claim, and that is that we are reducing the effectiveness and capabilities of the UBL-centric portion of Al Qaeda. Additionally, we are making significant progress in (indirectly, the Muslim community is doing the “heavy lifting”) calling into question the entire Wahhabist conception of jihad and terror-based policies (http://www.jihadica.com/a-first-look-at-the-lifg-revisions/). And to me, that is why we stay in Afghanistan.

  2. All Our Might » Blog Archive » Thought of the day: What if Bin Laden was captured?

    [...] the President’s goals.  Congressional Democrats, nervous over poll numbers indicating 50 percent of the country doesn’t think the war effort is worth it, have become more ever more [...]

  3. Norman Vester

    maybe we should of made stronger cockpit doors saved alot of lives to this day

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.