Loory: The United States is fighting two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. The latter is considered by many to be a good war fought for worthy reasons: to destroy the worldwide terrorist organization al-Qaida and to do away with domination by the ruthless, backward-looking Taliban of Afghanistan. The so-called good war has always had problems. Much of the al-Qaida enemy is holed up in areas in Pakistan where President Pervez Musharraf does not have the political will or the logistic support to fight al-Qaida. The Afghan people have never tolerated foreigners who seem intent on colonizing the country. The British, who fought four wars there, have failed over the centuries. The Russians failed in the 1980s, and now the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, led by the U.S., has perhaps come to grief. Still, the idea persists that this good war can result in a rebuilt, functioning Afghanistan where al-Qaida is at least neutralized if not destroyed. The New York Times ran an article detailing how the good war in Afghanistan was going bad. It also ran an editorial saying that this bad war was still winnable. Is this a good war, and is it still winnable?
Nation building not happening in Afghanistan
To read the full article, please sign up or login.
Get full access to the Columbia Missourian on your computer, phone, and tablet for just $5.95 per month. Or click here for full access for one day for only 99 cents.
* All the high-quality, in-depth journalism of the Columbia Missourian and Vox Magazine, updated 24/7
* Your news. Your device. Your time.
If you'd like to read more about the value of being a member, read this column from the Missourian's executive editor, Tom Warhover.