Thread by @asymmetricinfo

I try not to have strong opinions on foreign policy. But I do have strong opinions on the thesis of this column: if you think intractable realities of culture or human nature made Afghanistan unwinnable, you should probably think fighting there was nonetheless inevitable.

https://twitter.com/PostOpinions/status/1428015939581267975

The Taliban sheltered a terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans. Human nature, plus the fact that we could, meant that we were going to respond with overwhelming force, not a few airstrikes. Americans are also prone to human emotions, and culture-bound.

Yes, there were people who opposed the war. Well done! But there was no scenario in which we didn't invade Afghanistan. Maybe an ultra-wise dictator would have chosen differently, but we had a democracy that responded to the 90% of the public who wanted an invasion.

For deep-rooted cultural reasons, we immediately made the war be about freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy are very fine things, but a bit abstract, making it hard to definitively say you've gotten there, or that you've failed and never will.

Once we were in that situation, various cognitive biases kicked in that kept us keeping on keeping on for decades. Because humans are bad at reasoning about sunk costs, perversely, the more money and lives we poured into the conflict, the harder it got to cut our losses and leave

This was exacerbated by the fact that America now has a technology-heavy, all-volunteer military. There was no corresponding counterpressure like we saw in Vietnam, because there was no draft, and casualties were low (though every casualty is terrible, of course).

If you believe that Afghanistan was doomed because religion, ethnic conflict, tribalism, bad institutions, etc are too intractable to permit a reasonably well-functioning liberal democracy--especially one built at the behest of a foreign power--you're probably right.

But take that argument seriously enough to assume that it applies to all human cultures, not just Afghans.

American policy is not infinitely malleable. It takes place within its own cultural and institutional context that limits the possible solution set.

Good politics, and policy, respects those boundaries, rather than imagining them away.

Iraq is a whole 'nother story, of course--and a lot of the postgaming about the Afghanistan invasion is displaced anger over Iraq. Which, fair enough.

But try as I might, I don't see any situation in which US policy was very different--even though I suspect the invasion's critics are probably right that there wasn't any scenario where this worked out well for Afghanistan, either.