Last Sunday the Obama Administration and the Afghanistan government finalized an “agreement” that commits the U.S. taxpayer to financially support the Afghan people for 10 years after the withdraw of American troops from Afghan soil at the end of 2014. According to U.S. and Afghan officials the pledge of U.S. support will be finalized when both Afghan president Karzai and President Obama sign the document.
Naturally both sides claim the agreement is in the best interests of the U.S. and Afghanistan. The Afghani’s will get about $2.7 billion a year to build infrastructure, train their security forces, and maintain democratic institutions. The U.S. will get a stable nation in an unstable neighborhood and a reliable friend in the fight against international terrorism. At least that is what the party line is from both sides. Of course one doesn’t have to look to hard at historical examples where our foreign aid actually had the opposite effect on a situation.
Now, in the first place this “agreement” is indicative of how far we have moved away from being a constitutional republic. In essence, the Obama Administration has negotiated a treaty with Afghanistan. Dictionary.com defines a treaty as “a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. Granted this is an open-ended definition, but I would lump what this agreement does with Afghanistan into the alliance category (against terrorists) and into other international relations (foreign aid). Thus, why is the Senate not required to ratify this treaty as specified by Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
Beyond the illegality of the agreement, it also just doesn’t make sense for our president to commit us financially or otherwise to Afghanistan. On Sunday, U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker told Afghanistan’s national security council that the United States was pledged to helping Afghanistan as “a unified, democratic, stable and secure state”. The question is when has Afghanistan ever been “a unified, democratic, stable and secure state”? After over a decade of American occupation She is still crippled by sectarianism, nepotism, instability, and corruption. The agreement looks more like a scheme to prop up the Karzai government as the only long term option American policymakers have for Afghanistan. This tactic has been repeated over and over again with American foreign aid all over the world. It’s never worked effectively. Why do we think it will be different this time? Why do we think that our money won’t end up in the Swiss bank accounts of Afghani officials or even Karzai himself?
Entering into a long-term agreement with Afghanistan will simply bog us down in another no-win situation in that country. It will no doubt contribute to more hostilities toward America and inflame the resolve of our current enemies. Americans will be called upon to pay even more to prop up the frail Karzai regime or worse yet sacrifice their lives for this unworthy cause.
It is past the time for the United States to cut its losses in Afghanistan. Financially, physically, and mentally we can no longer continue to support this historical lost cause. What we couldn’t accomplish in the last decade with boots on the ground we will not be able to achieve with money after the boots have gone home. That is a historical fact. It’s time to turn off the lights and close the door on this part of our nation’s history.