President Obama, read Mencius!

The Afghanistan decision is disappointing.  I agree with my friend Marc Lynch that it is hard to see how continued US occupation and assault will bring about a good outcome there.  What is needed in Afghanistan is state-building, and that cannot be accomplished by an external power wielding military might, it must be constructed from within.  Afghanistan is not Germany or Japan after WWII; it is closer to Iraq now, the obvious differences notwithstanding, where our efforts at state-building have yet to succeed and will most likely produce a reignition of civil war. More war in Afghanistan will most likely produce just that: more war in Afghanistan:

So the war launched as a prequel to Iraq now becomes its sequel, with little of substance learned in the interim. To double down in Afghanistan is to ignore the unmistakable lesson of Bush's thoroughly discredited "global war on terror": Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.

Mencius describes a situation that I have often related to Iraq.  He is talking with the emperor of Ch'i, who has just invaded a neighboring country, Yen, but is now facing a possible counterattack by other countries.  Mencius says to  him:

Now the emperor of Yen tyrannized his people, so you attacked him.  The people thought they were being rescued from fire and flood, so they welcomed you with baskets of food and jars of wine.  How can you justify killing elders and taking young people captive, tearing down temples and stealing sacred vessels?  The power of Ch'i was already feared throughout all beneath Heaven, and now you've doubled your territory without making your government Humane.  No wonder all beneath Heaven is up in arms.

Hurry!  Send out orders to release the old and young, to leave the sacred vessels where they are.  Consult the people of Yen, appoint a new ruler, and then leave.  There's still time to prevent this invasion.  (2.11; 1B.11)

"Killing elders and taking young people captive," can be understood, in the current moment, as the civilian casualties and black jails the US is responsible for in Afghanistan.  "Tearing down temples and stealing sacred vessels" can be understood as the cultural destruction that comes of occupation.  These kinds of practices have facilitated inhumane government, which breeds its own destruction. Thus, Mencius offers clear advice: stop killing civilians, close the black jails, quit the cultural destruction, consult the people of Afghanistan, appoint a new ruler and leave....

Comments

[isha]

“The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very
quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can
occur so quietly; any other loss — an arm, a leg, five dollars, a
wife, etc. — is sure to be noticed.” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/the-greatest-deception-in-the-history-of-finance/

By the above mentioned definition, O is a lost soul. Laozi's advice might be even more suitable for his situation.

Isha
Isha

[ZZ]

Professor,

I do not disagree with your sentiment that this recent decision was not an ideal one. I would, however, be interested in hearing how you would advise the president to "consult the people of Afghanistan, appoint a new ruler and leave.... "

I feel that your post, while interesting in drawing on Mencius for advice, has an inkling of the conveniently vague rhetoric popular media favors; in simplifying such a complex task as consulting the country and appointing a leader, you neglect to address just how difficult it is to successfully establish legitimate leadership in a country like Afghanistan. Furthermore, within the context of the rest of your post, your solution to this issue is deceptively presented as quick and easy. The narrow perspective of your post not only reflects poorly on the depth of your own opinion and understanding, but also could be seen as disrespectful to your readership (such as Isha above).

I hope in the future you will provide a more balanced opinion on this situation, one that better embodies your reputation (which we give you, and know you deserve) as a professor on campus.

Sincerely,

A student

[Sam]

ZZ
Yes, it is a complex problem. And blog posts are not really the venue to analyze such things in depth (which is probably why so few of my colleagues blog...). My only point here was to suggest Mencius might have something to say on the matter. As to what appointing a new leader and leaving Afghanistan would entail, I think the point is that an external force cannot be the primary political dynamic. The US has been in Afghanistan for over eight years now and the government there continues to have legitimacy problems. The US cannot provide that legitimacy; indeed, in its actions (killing civilians, etc.) and by its mere presence, the US may be doing more to weaken the legitimacy of the Afghan government that helping it. These are the points made by the other posts I linked to above, Lynch and Basevich.
As to Isha's point, I think that Laozi, and Zhangzi, would disagree with Kierkegaard: losing oneself is not a hazard; not losing oneself is the hazard... As Zhuangzi said: "there can be no loss."

[ZZ]

Dear Professor,

Thank you for the response, I look forward to reading more of your posts ("Any Chinese Culture Here" was great).

All the best