Over time, the world has grown to over ~167 different countries because people have actively (by declaring independence) or passively (by accepting existing rule) chosen to prioritize different objectives and values. As a US citizen, it is easy to assume that the values and government we prioritized should be desired by all. As a superpower, it is an easy extension to assume it is our obligation to extend our way of life to others or assume we must personally come to the aide of any nation in need. This philosophy, however, is problematic as exemplified by the recent situation in Afghanistan:
- Misallocation of US resources: As mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution, the purpose of the US government is to form a more perfect union for ourselves and our posterity. When we act as a single entity to push our values and principles, US tax dollars are diverted from American education, infrastructure, social programs and other key initiatives which do not sustain our way of life. Looking specifically to Afghanistan, the US has spent over 2 trillion dollars (~10% of the 2021 GDP, or ~7% of our national debt) in the past 20 years. This alone is significant, but the disproportionate nature of US spending also globally handicaps our country. As context, comparable UK and German spending (2nd and 3rd largest presence in Afghanistan) were just $30 billion (1.1% of GDP) and $19 billion (0.5% of GDP), a fraction of the US investment. This concept is not limited to war, it also applies to humanitarian aid – we cannot and should not be an army of one, it is simply unsustainable.
- One size does not fit all: Democracy is delicate and cannot be forced upon a country who is not ready for it (of note, just 57% of the 167 countries have a form of democracy in place). Despite the 20 years spent in instilling a new Afghan democracy, establishing infrastructure, and stabilizing the country, it took just 4 months for the Taliban to take control following the announcement of US withdrawal. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, if you aren’t willing to fight for your own freedom, you have no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of others. It is not sustainable for the US to continuously be the “others” fighting for something a country or world doesn’t support.
- Unintended consequences: Samuel Johnson once said “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Looking back at the history of Afghanistan, foreign intervention doesn’t appear to have achieved aspirations and has potentially even made the situation worse:
- The Afghan Monarchy of 1933 brought stability and expanded social reforms.
- The 1973 Republic of Afghanistan further modernized the country and drove additional social reforms.
- A 1978 coup led to an ultimate invasion from Russia.
- The US arms the Mujahadeen with modernized weapons to support the fight against Russia and communism (circa 1986).
- Two years after a 1989 peace treaty, Mujahadeen overthrow the government.
- By 1995 a Taliban controlled government takes over Afghanistan (in part with weapons supplied by the US), institutes Islamic law, and reverses most social reforms.
- Following the 9/11/2001 attacks, the US reenters Afghanistan for a 20 year, ill-defined mission.
- A hasty 2021 US withdrawal leads to hundreds of thousands fleeing the country out of fear for their safety.
- 4 months after formalizing US withdrawal, Taliban seize control of the country and $83 billion in US weapons and equipment provided to the Afghan Army to use as they see fit.
Despite trillions of dollars, years of effort, and endless good intentions, is Afghanistan any better off? Is the US better off? Will others exploit the situation?
Global bodies and NGOs were put in place to address global issues. If the agency is broken, fix the agency. From humanitarian aid to global conflicts, circumventing recognized organizations polarizes the US, damages foreign relations (how many leaders or polls have critiqued US efforts), and minimizes contributions/accountability from other nations.
This doesn’t mean we don’t fight when attacked, it doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to human rights violations, it doesn’t mean we don’t help our neighbors, and it doesn’t mean we become isolationists. It does, however, mean we stop assuming our way is the right way for everyone, stop interjecting as a single nation, and stop bearing the brunt of costs for global causes.
If global organizations aren’t enough for an individual or group, NGOs like the Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross provide additional outlets. We must demand American politicians stop interjecting as a single nation. Global bodies must be the primary vehicle to address global affairs.
