Afghanistan Debacle May Have One Silver Lining

 Afghanistan Debacle May Have One Silver Lining

By Jonathan Bernstein 

Bloomberg

3 min

View Original

jonathan bernstein

Progress.

Progress.

Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.

A week into the rescue operation in Afghanistan, I think it’s time for a bit of good news about a war that just about everyone agrees went terribly wrong for the U.S., even if they can’t agree on what went awry and what should’ve been done about it.

The good news is that our post-Vietnam deal mostly held.

After Vietnam, many on the antiwar side decided that they had treated the front-line troops who served in that conflict unfairly, blaming them, sometimes harshly and in person, for policies they hadn’t made. They determined not to do that again. And with very few exceptions, almost none of which were mainstream political figures, they didn’t.

That Vietnam-era protesters turned against the troops wasn’t all that surprising. While a draft was in effect, young men who avoided serving were risking their futures and disrupting their lives — and it was perhaps understandable that they blamed those who made other choices for the situation. It no doubt seemed straightforward; if only everyone would do what they were doing, the war would soon be over. Only later — and after draft resisters were pardoned — was it easier to see that policy makers were the proper target for protests.

The good news is that the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s weren’t repeated this time around. Perhaps the volunteer army made all the difference, but I like to think that those who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan learned something from the movement against the Vietnam War. Yes, one result has been perfunctory “thank you for your service” performances, but that’s a lot better than Vietnam-era protests. 

The bad news, in my view, has been a more overt militarization of U.S. culture. It’s not true that patriotism in the U.S. is mainly about celebrating the military — but it’s a lot more true now than it was 20 years ago. That’s a real loss. I’m also unsure if we’ve made progress since Vietnam in treating antiwar protests and sentiments as legitimately patriotic. I’m not aware of any studies judging the two time periods, but my sense is that we probably did somewhat better this time, while still falling short of good democratic practices. (And I can’t ignore that Trump-era Republicans regularly attack their many opponents as traitors or worse.) 

To tell the truth, I’m of two minds about all this. On one hand, I think civility is a virtue, and I’d rather political debates avoid personal invective. On the other, political participation is also something a democracy should value, and very few of us get involved in politics for dispassionate debates that stick only to abstract policy considerations. So … I’m not saying that a little hate speech is fine, but I’m reluctant to police political speech too closely. That said, I do think opposing wars without opposing the troops who fight them is probably a step in the right direction.