A couple of thoughts on The Afghan Papers as someone who observed a tiny slice of the inside history:
1. Sort of amazed (but maybe not) this isn't getting more play. Would be a true shame if it passed w/o prompting a renewed soul-searching debate.
wapo.st/afghanistan-wa…
1. Sort of amazed (but maybe not) this isn't getting more play. Would be a true shame if it passed w/o prompting a renewed soul-searching debate.
wapo.st/afghanistan-wa…
2. I still think "lying" is the wrong frame; it misses the crushing complexity of decision making for these wars. They start with a mix of urgent need + enthusiasm, and a clever scheme to make it work. This entry point then fuels path dependence + political barriers to leaving.
3. What then emerges--motivated reasoning--is a huge problem, but a different one from outright lying. The result is the same: misleading about what's going on. But the commanders & officials truly and sincerely believe their own rhetoric about projecting strength and progress.
4. Then, once you're in, it's really hard to get out. Credibility said to be on the line. Partner lives + human rights at stake. Can-do spirit of US gov't in full flower. Honesty in progress won't reliably extract us from endless wars: The key choice is the initial one, for war.
5. We absolutely need to stop these fruitless adventures. But getting there isn't about an end to lying. It's about a national choice: We will no longer try to remake other societies, no matter how tempting. Evidence like these documents can help us make the choice stick.
