We are fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama argued that the use of force is at times necessary, even though violence can engender great tragedies of its own.
Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms, he said.
Though both of these affirmations are no doubt true, were both of these threats comparable in nature? Did they require the same response?
The danger posed by German belligerence intensified in the 30s precisely because the Western European Powers, namely France and Great Britain, had lost the will to confront it.
Their stamina and determination had withered in the trenches of Verdun and northern France.
That low and dishonest decade aptly demonstrated that appeasement does not forestall war, but merely renders inevitable.
One can safely say the formidable United States Army saved the civilized world.
There was no other alternative but to destroy the Third Reich, and the Japanese Empire, if the world ever wanted to live in peace again.
The United States achieved the signal feat of crushing both simultaneously…
All those who believe in the values of civilization shall never cease to be grateful for this…
But what of al Qaeda?
That it is an evil organization with little regard for human life was made abundantly clear one cloudless September morning.
It had killed scores before, and many since, but the 9/11 attacks are unlikely to be forgotten, and certainly not by those who experienced them, vicariously or otherwise…
Yet, does al Qaeda constitute a threat similar in nature to Nazi Germany?
What arms, those they have refused to lay down, is the President referring to?
The 9/11 hijackers needed but box cutters to perpetrate the most hideous terrorist attack in history. True enough, al Qaeda has used bombs and various devices in its numerous dastardly attacks, but its effectiveness is not conditioned on the quality of its arsenal, negligible at best.
Al Qaeda has no army, does not control any state, and its vital economic and military resources.
As such, are we truly dealing with an existential threat, much as Nazi Germany constituted in the 30s and 40s?
The answer is clearly no.
It is a dangerous movement, and in all likelihood, will remain one for decades to come.
It will perpetrate other terrorist attacks wherever and whenever it can, killing and maiming the innocent without the slightest qualms.
But, will it ever impose its will on the United States, Great Britain, France Germany, to name but a few of its enemies?
Its leaders dream of establishing a caliphate throughout the Muslim world, and imposing shariah law on all continents. But it is only that, a dream, a figment of their distorted imaginations…
Al Qaeda is not an army, a national liberation movement, a hostile, threatening nation. It is primarily an idea, a way of interpreting the world, a vision for restoring an Islam purified of all baneful, modern and Western influence, and proffering it to the Muslim world, much as the Prophet did himself fourteen centuries ago…It a movement at war with modernity, and all those who symbolize it.
Bullets, the 82nd Airborne and Apache helicopters shall not destroy that vision.
They seek to restore an Islamic world that never existed and can only be imposed by violence and mayhem.
Al Qaeda’s false prophets shall never sway those who have faith in life, and believe in the idea of progress.
What we should be waging in fact, is an ideological, cultural war.
Al Qaeda’s program boils down to this: jihad and martyrdom, a better life, but only in the next world, where Allah and seventy virgins are awaiting with open arms.
What are we offering? Globalization, connectivity, freedom, knowledge, empowerment and hope for a better future.
Chances are, if we are willing and able to compete with the Islamists on their playing field, we should enlist more recruits then MM. ben Laden and Zawahiri ever will.
It is on that battlefield, and not in the mountains of Helmand Province, that we should be waging this war.
Instead of bombing and attacking Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line, why not seek to educate their youth instead?
As the NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof recently pointed out, for the cost of deploying one soldier for one year, it is possible to build about 20 schools.
This idea should have been worthy of discussion during President Obama’s policy review, for our best ally in the competition against al Qaeda is education.
A youth who has received a decent education is more likely to find a decent job, paying a decent wage, allowing him to raise a family and be independent.
Furthermore, an educated youth is unlikely to plant roadside bombs on dusty Afghan roads, or detonate his explosive-laden vest in the lobby of the Islamabad or Djakarta Marriott. Needless to say, it is just as critical to ensure that girls are afforded the same educational opportunities.
In essence, can we truly claim to be fighting the just war, Mr. Obama’s term, in Afghanistan?
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Augustine, true religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.
The initial 2001 campaign to overthrow the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, who was harboring Osama ben Laden and al Qaeda, is no doubt faithful to this definition.
What about now, after eight years of occupying a foreign, Muslim country? Can we still make that claim?
Can a just war be fought or muddled through for eight long years and remain one?
Time, countless raids and civilian casualties, and the absence of progress in improving the lives of Afghans, have chipped away at our moral authority in Afghanistan. What is left of it? Will President Obama’s good intentions suffice to restore it?
On what grounds can we possibly continue occupying Afghanistan, to prevent one faction of the Afghan people from taking power?
The Pashtun nationalists will still be there long after we have left. Afghanistan, after all, is their home. Some sort of accommodation with this faction is inevitable. Why not sooner rather than later?
We claim that our principle objective is to eradicate all al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. That goal is virtually attained…
It can be persuasively argued, furthermore, that the Pashtuns are only fighting us because we are still there, on their soil, eight years after the start of our just war.
Is it really a silly notion to suggest that the war might end, on the whole, were we to withdraw and go home?
The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war, Augustine continued.

We have strayed off course. We are no longer fighting a just war, but attempting instead to impose our will on a nation that refuses to be cowed into submission, or support a corrupt and inept government imposed by foreigners on a people renowned for their fiercely independent spirit.
I know there is nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King, the President said in Oslo.
Hence, we should be helping the Afghans help themselves, and not be supporting one side in what resembles a civil war.
Let us devote our resources to educating the youth of the Muslim world, and to promoting democracy and justice there. There is so much to be done...
We have no business increasing the size of our military footprint, so resented and reviled, in foreign lands…
(the photograph above is by John McConnico AP)