# 122 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday August 20)
Good morning!
THE END OF THE ROAD IN AFGHANISTAN
The war in Afghanistan is finally over, after 20 years of trying to thwart the Taliban, ensure the country would not be a breeding ground for terrorists, re-establish women’s rights and nation-build in a nation that never has been a nation, per se. In the process thousands of lives have been lost and trillions of dollars have been spent. And while there have been some gains, to wit, the death of bin Laden and rendering Afghanistan incapable of being a haven and training ground for terrorists that intend us harm (at least while we were there), it is hard to rationalize the blood, treasure, reputation and moral authority expended in this adventure.
I say that Afghanistan is not a nation in the sense that it has never succumbed to a strong central authority. One need only look at a topographical map of the region to appreciate that it is, in fact, a collection of loosely connected valley fiefdoms separated from each other by distance and mountain ranges. The British and Russians learned the futility of trying to maintain a long-term presence in the 19th century. To understand the fascinating history of the region and their failure to subdue the area, I suggest one of the most compelling histories I’ve read, The Great Game, by Peter Hopkirk.
And if the experiences of two great 19th century powers weren’t enough, the Russians ignominiously exited the killing fields of Afghanistan after its ill-conceived, poorly executed, and ultimately failed war in the 1980s. There are striking similarities here to Vietnam. In each case, we witnessed a significantly superior conventional fighting force (in southeast Asia before American involvement, it was the French) humbled by a home-grown guerilla movement that had the patience to wait out the foreign interloper. And yet we jumped in, full force and full of American idealism that we would succeed where others had failed. The result, as we have seen, is a quick collapse of any meaningful opposition to the Taliban and an exit of Americans, their allies and cooperating Afghanis that resembles the escape from Saigon over 45 years ago. Only this time it felt more haphazard, with less planning and the abandonment of more American supporters than were left to the North Vietnamese.
What does the Taliban have on the Afghan government and us? Quite simply, we were there in a “prevent defense” to stop terrorism and try to prop-up a central government doomed to failure. Meanwhile, the central government was trying to run a country without a history of central governance with no central unifying mission or strategy, while engaging in widespread corruption. But the Taliban had things we both lacked. They have an overriding ideology that appeals to broad swathes of the underclasses with little hope of prosperity in a poor country. The Taliban offers hope and religious fervor to young rebels, which has traction with disparate peoples and populations lacking in hope and purpose. They also have tons of weapons and little regard for the niceties of the Geneva Convention.
THE SHAME OF IT ALL
While I have praised Joe Biden for his many successes, here he is presiding over what is not just a humiliating retreat by American forces, but a completely mismanaged exit and the abandonment of the mission and our friends. People will die because of his desire to pull out in a manner that left little in the way of stabilizing influence.
Much has been said about there being little else to accomplish in Afghanistan and there have been strong elements in both parties clamoring to exit, but what we did these past several weeks is shameful. We have left supporters in that country with nowhere to turn. We have, through what I believe was a cold calculus of local political considerations, left an entire region without leadership and setting up the country for a violent theocracy without regard for women’s rights.
To be clear, Mr. Biden isn’t alone. Mr. Trump signed an order that troops be pulled out in 2020. There will be those (including Mr. Trump himself) who will suggest that he wouldn’t have pulled out (which is inconsistent with his statements otherwise) or would have done a better job of it (a claim that can neither be proven nor disproven). That said, today Mr. Trump isn’t president and Mr. Biden is. So, in allocating blame and shame, he must take the brunt of it.
WHY NOT LIKE KOREA?
I am perplexed with why we didn’t leave troops to stabilize the area. We still have troops in Europe and over 15,000 troops in Korea, “peacekeepers” designed to ensure stability and safety. This strategy of remaining as a source of stability and a force to train local military has worked wherever its been employed. It is difficult to understand how that same thinking wouldn’t apply here.
WE WILL BE BACK
My prediction of the day is that things will devolve in Afghanistan. People will be executed. Women will be confined to their homes. The country will become a breeding ground for terrorists. And we will be forced to return in some capacity.
I WISH I THOUGHT OF THIS
We are in the midst of a national debate on taxes. What are the right marginal rates? Shouldn’t capital gains rates be raised to historic levels that are closer to ordinary income rates? Which loopholes should be or can be closed? Are people paying their fair share? Should taxes be even more progressive? There is a lot on the table and the debate will be intense (fueled and shaped by interest groups that will attempt to further their own selfish interests).
Ben VandeBunt says we need a “marketing reset” on the payment of taxes. Paying taxes needs to carry with it a sense of pride and patriotism. Mr. Trump went out of his way to pound his chest about being so “smart” and avoiding taxes. We are learning that Mr. Trump went beyond that which is legal or defensible to manipulate the tax code so he has contributed little to our national well-being. Meanwhile, the left is to blame for demonizing wealthy people. It’s time to bring honor to paying taxes.
Ben suggests (only half tongue-in-cheek) that we start naming streets after the highest taxpayers—honor the folks who contribute the most. He says “it needs to be like giving money to a school or a project that matters, combining mission and ego.
I’d go a step further and try to publish the names of those who don’t pay a meaningful tax burden. Why not shame them publicly?
The Marshall School of Business almost didn’t have that name. But the president of USC insisted that Gordon give his name to the school, not only to honor him but to provide a model for others. It is proven in development circles that identifying donors creates a “spirit of giving” and encourages others. I think Ben is on to something. Honor those who “give” to our common welfare, rather than those who exploit loopholes to avoid taxes.
Have a good day,
Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: