Social engineering in Iraq: why not Yemen? Cuba? Iran?

...Americans are dying, not only in the war on terror, but also to codify Sharia law. Brooks claims that, in Iraq, "The role of women remains surprisingly circumscribed." (Surprisingly?) Actually, that's just a polite way of saying — and I quote directly from the Iraqi Constitution — "Islam is the official religion of the State, and it is a fundamental source of legislation."

That's one reason many of us regret our support of the Iraq war. Though I am not reflexively isolationist, I am reflexively suspicious of social engineering. And nation-building is social engineering on the grandest of scales.

Decent people, no doubt, are pleased to hear that the Iraqi people are doing well. If war makes us more secure, why only Iraq and not Yemen? Or Iran? Or Cuba? Doesn't everyone deserve to live in freedom? Do not all people deserve to own cellphones and have a decent garbage disposal system?

Or do we reserve those perks for those who pretend to have WMDs?

The question isn't whether nation building can work. It probably can. The question is was it worth it.

After 8 years of pursuit, Afghanistan remains an unbuilt nation

Announcing that Gen. David Petraeus would replace the defenestrated Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama was emphatic in saying that this was a change in people, not in policy.

That policy, which Obama described in a February 2009 interview with Jim Lehrer, was "that is that we make sure that [Afghanistan is] 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." And that was George Bush's goal. The strategy Bush chose to accomplish it -- and the one Obama is continuing -- is nation-building, also known as "counterinsurgency" in military lingo.

By the end of August, over 100,000 U.S. troops will be engaged in the counterinsurgency campaign and in less than a year the final curtain will begin to fall on the greatest wartime mistake America has made since Lyndon Johnson put Robert McNamara in charge of the Vietnam War: the strategy of nation-building.

Though he campaigned against it, President Bush embraced nation-building in January 2003 when he chose a nation-building plan for post-war Iraq authored by Colin Powell and George Tenet over the plan for a brief invasion written by Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers. And, by default, nation-building was decided upon for Afghanistan as well.

We are now close to the end of the ninth year of our counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan and success -- as defined by Bush and Obama -- is nowhere in sight.

Nation building requires a nation; Afghanistan isn't

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible."

(snip)

"...forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered."

Mission creep is again at hand in Afghanistan

"The U.S. military's top uniformed officer expressed concern Sunday about eroding public support for the war in Afghanistan and said the country remains vulnerable to being taken over again by extremist forces.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said President Barack Obama's new strategy for defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida was a work in progress as more U.S. troops are put in place."

Here's a hint: the phrase "work in progress" means mission creep is again at work in Afghanistan.

The initial American invasion was fully justified. Afghanistan's Taliban regime had provided a base for the fanatics who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The American military destroyed that base, while doing heavy damage to the regime. At that point, mission creep took over, and the U.S. and its allies took up the "nation building" phase. We're still engaged in that mission, but be alert for the next effort by the Pentagon's phrase makers.

It isn't easy to make a nation out of people who are still killing each other over events that took place in the 7th Century.