Osler's Razor

I think #1 is the only feasible option at this point. Terrorist attacks have increased, the Taliban (judging by the number of attacks) is just as strong as ever, and no one seems to be able to articulate a clear policy objective for continued military occupation of Afghanistan. Couple that with the fact that a centralized, modern state has never existed in Afghanistan, and many question whether such a government would be effective in such a decentralized state. It seems clear that until we can articulate identifiable policy goals, and until we can effectuate a strategy for implementing and seeing those goals through (without costing billions more dollars and lives), cutting our losses and pulling out is the most practicable solution.
 

Captain Hoh's perception doesn't represent all Afghans -- many are happy that we're there; many feel like we're committed, so we need to stay, at least as a stabilization force. This, at least, is what my Afghan friends tell me.

It would also be pretty disastrous to allow Al Qaeda a space they don't have to defend.

I don't think we can say Obama has embraced any path. He is wisely consulting a wide range of people and will decide something in the coming weeks or month. (And if anyone subsequently uses the word "dithering" I'll be disappointed. Taking a month or two decide the fate or tens of thousands of troops and millions of Afghans isn't much for an inordinately complex situation that is 8 years old. If only the previous administration had take any time, with any major decision...)

While I trust Obama and all those around him to make the best decision based on the information they have -- much more than I do -- I would lean towards what I've read Biden to suggest: draw down the total number of troops, redirect the mission towards Al Qaeda only, and provide a lot more money and effort towards development of infrastructure and civil society in those areas that are friendly to it (many, from what I understand).
 

To summarize one of my recent posts at Reinventing the Right, option 3 is the only real choice.

When we "surged" in Iraq, there was some room for debate as to whether it was worth our sacrifices to secure the country. But we went into Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban because it was the epicenter of radical Islam and Wahhabi jihad. And we know that if we leave without finishing what we started, we're leaving the door open for the Taliban to regain control, to launch more attacks against the West, and to continue to threaten Pakistan's stability.

This is an all or nothing problem, and we've got the tools to solve it. It is beyond me that Obama is taking so long to "deliberate" on this issue, and seems to indicate that his thoughts are more on poll numbers than on strategic objectives.

JT- We've got a strategy, and objectives. If we didn't, what was GEN McChrystal talking about when the Obama White House tried to rein him in earlier this month? Our armed forces know what to do, and they need our support to do it.

Septimus- You're right in that Hoh's perception is at least half wrong, but your solution (and Biden's) is potentially disastrous. What you describe is essentially more of the same. Since we took the major population centers in 2001-2002, our forces have pursued combination of traditional and counter-terrorism tactics. The problem has been (as GEN Petreaus identified in Iraq) that counter-terrorism doesn't work well in a region you don't really control politically. The better idea is to replace counter-terrorism with counter-insurgency, as we did in Iraq, and focus on the "take, hold, build" strategy that can affect real change.
 

I am amazed by the analysis, and subsequent conclusions that are reached by persons that rely on the media for there source data. Justin T. has concluded that the Taliban "is just as strong as ever," and that terrorist "attacks have increased...." Why not stick to opinion rather than wartime analysis? Maybe you just say that you don't like people dying, and money spent on what you consider a effort that has an unachievable goal? That I would respect.

Jesse Davis, on the other hand, has used enough Western media labels in just his opening paragraph to demonstrate his ignorance on the subject. The use of "epicenter of radical Islam" and "Wahhabi jihad" are laughable. Additionally, the tone of your writing suggests the President was wrong to "reign" in General McChrystal because our "armed forces know what to do." General McChrystal is a military commander that serves the civilian Commander-in-Chief. What you seem to imply is that civilian control of the military should just rubber-stamp the opinion of our war machine because they know best. You are entitled to your opinion that the fight is worth it, and that we should win at all costs, but be careful how you get there.

Thank-you Septimus for stating your own opinion, based on interaction with your Afghan friends. You make clear that your opinion is based on your strong faith in our Executive branch leadership. I respect your position.

Additionally, I don't believe your statement conflicts at all with Captain Hoh's - he was part of a PRT that was forward deployed from the larger cities that are trying hard to benefit from a society that has been freed from the chains of the Taliban.

My own personal observation from my time in the Middle East is that we tend to view the big picture: democractic governments, free markets, womens rights, etc. My impression was that the average person there could care less if they are dealing with Americans or Iranians, as long as the individual quality of life is acceptable. The people of Afghanistan that hated the Taliban did not base this hatred on a lack of democracy. The hatred stemmed from the harsh living conditions and the inability to earn profits in a free market. While many will read this and make the intuitive leap that if Afghani's want better living conditions and free markets, they must want the same thing as us. This is just a wrong.

Lastly, I guess I should state where I stand: Justin, Septimus and Jesse are all correct. A centralized, modern state has never existed for ALL of Afhganistan, stabilization forces and infrastructure development could provide the security needed for the large urban areas, and your damn right we cannot let the Taliban regain its foothold.

Have fun criticizing me.
 

Jesse, I think you are leaving out the people of Afghanistan in your assessment: what's best for them? It isn't only what's best for us. I think you would probably want what's best for them, too, wouldn't you?

I would also take issue with the statement that we went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. If that's what we wanted to do, we could've done it a hell of a lot sooner, because the whole world, including us, knew the atrocities they were committing against women and pretty much anybody who looked at them the wrong way.

We went into Afghanistan because Al Quaeda attacked us, and we bombed their country back to the stone age in the process.

I can't say that I know what the solution is. I do think, as Septimus says, that there are many views, including those of the Afghan people, to take into consideration. I also applaud Obama for taking the time to consider it carefully, although I have to say I think he's perhaps bitten off too many things to get done in his first year, like maybe health care, when the economy and the wars are going on . . .

I think we at least have a responsibility to rebuild the country we bombed the hell out of as we searched for Al Qaeda who happened to be there. We did not go to Afghanistan for any kind of altruistic motive. So maybe we do as Septimus suggests: focus only on getting Al Qaeda and rebuilding infrastructure.

I would like to think that we could just leave, Justin, but I think we've screwed the Afghan people long enough and I worry that just cutting and running would make things worse for them. I am trusting people who know more than I do to look out for the ordinary people of Afghanistan; I hope they are.
 

Half-assed never worked; nor for Gen. George McClelland, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq and not in Afghanistan.

#3 is my choice, but I could go for #1 too -- "Go Big or go home."

Having said that, I do buy into the theory that the current deliberations (or dithering) exhibited by the Obama team are designed to put pressure on Karzai and on the Pakistanis. Karzai and his cronies needed to agree to the run-off and the Pakistanis needed to step up and go after the terrorists.

But at some point we need to implement a new strategy beyond deliberation. I hope its Go Big. But if its Go Home, that's fine. But again, don't do it in a half -assed "Vietnam in 1973-75" manner.
 

Anon 12:48-

Thanks so much for the anonymous personal attacks, and my apologies for using simplistic and concise terminology to convey a message in a blog comment. More to your point, I've never heard the "western media" has never use the term "Wahabbi jihad," probably because it sound like what Osama likes on his sushi. Are you denying that Afghanistan was the prime training ground for jihadis until we cleared most of them out, and that bin Laden preaches an extreme form of Wahhabi Sunnism?

And I don't imply that Obama should rubber-stamp the military's decisions, only that McChrystal's press appearances make clear that there's more under discussion right now than folks would like to believe.

Why don't you clue us in on your super-awesome "time in the Middle East" sources, so we can all play along? Otherwise I guess we'll continue to "rely on the media," since my Delta flights to Kabul keep getting canceled.

Swissgirl- I think that at this point, our interests align with the Afghanis'. We've brought them medical care, schools, and equality for women, and all that goes away if we pack it in now. If the Taliban was half as bad as you seem to accept, how have we made the country worse by our presence? And I didn't say we went in to topple the Taliban, only that we did. We went in because Afghanistan had become the staging ground for terrorist attacks, the most visible of which was 9/11.
 

The real problem is going to be when Al Qaeda moves most of its operations to Pakistan, where they will be exponentially more difficult to control due to the relationship between that government and our own.
 

Pakistan? Al Qaeda in Pakistan is worst case scenario. They have nukes. The Pakistanis are getting the idea they need to help in this fight. The answer is eliminating the Taliban. Going across the border international law be damned and finishing the job, then returning to Afghanistan and getting out of the Afghans way to decide their own way of government that works(which may not be like ours) and providing basic security where we can.

Go big or go home IPlawguy said. Go big. Finish the job. We are in Afghanistan because we were attacked.

The real problem with Afghanistan is the drugs. It is the whole economy. This is why there is corruption, and this is the financial bloodline for terrorist extremists. This is a big job to fix. Schools, infrastructure, all that-- why is this our job? B'c we took down the Taliban? The UN needs to step in and provide support, a safer Afghanistan helps make a safer world.

But we can just quit because it is easier. It did work out decent w/ Vietnam.
 

By the way Tapp, Taliban are in Pakistan already. Not a question of when, just a question of how much they control.
 

Some interesting discussions here. Let me clarify my distinction.

For me, the key is that we don't let Al Qaeda have any staging ground; that means coordinating with and pressuring Pakistan to the extent possible, and driving them out of Afghanistan.

I agree with Swissgirl that we cannot abandon Afghanistan, at all. But I also don't think we can fight the Taliban -- they are, in theory at least, a political party, one that in a truly democratic Afghanistan might get elected again, unless the citizenry has the legitimate alternatives that a more developed state and civil society can offer. So I advocate money towards development not only because we owe it to them, but also because it is in our national interest -- a more developed Afghanistan is an Afghanistan that won't allow the Taliban space to return. That may be perceived a naive, but I believe it to be more than the potential of fighting the Taliban into submission or nonexistence.

The other thing I take issue with is the simplistic idea that it's an "all or nothing" affair, a "go big or go home." Big does not have to equal more troops. Big is an ambiguous term. Could it mean bigger infrastructure? Bigger sums of money? Bigger WHAT? So I don't think we need bigger numbers of troops, but rather "bigger strategy." (And now I've beaten this word into submission, so I'll stop.)
 

"We went into Afghanistan because Al Quaeda attacked us, and we bombed their country back to the stone age in the process."

Umm, doesn't bombing someone back to the stone age require that they exited the stone age at some point?

"I am amazed by the analysis, and subsequent conclusions that are reached by persons that rely on the media for there source data."

As opposed to what exactly? I mean, if your argument is that the only way you can make an argument is to have 1st hand knowledge and experience then this blog, and frankly my entire life, is going to get very boring. Seems awfully elitist to say that those of us that haven't had the privilege of going to the mideast or to afghanistan can't have an opinion on the issue.

"Why not stick to opinion rather than wartime analysis?"

Just in a technical sense, isn't it possible that wartime analysis would include opinion? I'm just saying...

"Western media labels..."

HIPPIE ALERT! HIPPIE ALERT! NOAM CHOMSKY IS IN THE BUILDING!

"What you seem to imply is that civilian control of the military should just rubber-stamp the opinion of our war machine because they know best."

Well, either fight the war and listen to the generals or end the war. You seem to value 1st hand experience and on the ground knowledge, so it seems to me you would have to agree that the generals are in the best position to understand the situation and what is needed to succeed, yes? You know, being there and all...

"You make clear that your opinion is based on your strong faith in our Executive branch leadership."

Translation: You made it clear you were down with Obama, so whatever you said sounded good to me.

"My own personal observation from my time in the Middle East..."

Isn't Afghanistan in Asia? Just saying....

"The people of Afghanistan that hated the Taliban did not base this hatred on a lack of democracy."

Really? You sure about that? Not a single person in Afghanistan hated the Taliban because they took away their right to self-determination and freedom? Not one?

"While many will read this and make the intuitive leap that if Afghani's want better living conditions and free markets, they must want the same thing as us. This is just a wrong."

Actually, sounds just a right to me. I like free markets. I like good living conditions. Sounds like me and the citizens of Afghanistan are in agreement.

"Lastly, I guess I should state where I stand.."

I fully expected the next sentence to read, "which is somewhere in fantasyland."

"your damn right we cannot let the Taliban regain its foothold."

It is "you're", just to be technical, and I agree.

Sorry, I just read your post and it made me laugh really, really hard, so I thought I would have some fun.

Now, where is all caps conservative guy to follow me up....
 

The problem with the Taliban is that they are a political party, like Hamas, whereas Al Qaeda is a terrorist network, which doesn't have the same structure and hierarchy as a political party, and is inherently more difficult to identify, isolate, and destroy. The other issue is that Pakistan is nuclear, and our relationship with them, while currently peaceful, isn't exactly BFF, and growing influence from Al Qaeda and the Taliban may cause things to go south very quickly.

I think it comes down to identifying who we are fighting and why. Are we primarily fighting the Taliban because of their oppressive government and harboring of terrorists? Or are we primarily fighting Al Qaeda as an intricate network of terrorists and insurgents with bases all over the world? I think the answer can't be both, because each requires a different approach, and the collateral consequences of fighting each one is drastically different. Until we identify our primary objective (not just "fix Afghanistan"), we're going to continue going in circles without making continuous headway toward the policy objectives that we've defined. We have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan, but we also have an obligation to let them know why we're there and what we're doing there. I don't think we've done an effective enough job of this, and it sounds like Obama is still gathering information to make decisions rather than the shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach of the previous administration.
 

I think an important issue is that what we generally term "taliban" and "al queda" also includes every angry Afghani who's upset at: having no job, the US accidentally killing one of his family, the US burning his poppy field and telling him to grow a crop that is worth less to him, seeing some GI piss near a holy shrine, hearing about how the US tortured some Islamists a while back etc. etc.

The point is, there are lots of reasons many of these "fighters" have for opposing the US forces. Targeting just "al queda" and "taliban" isn't going to solve your problem.

Seeing soldiers on every corner and having a job to go to will stop most of these guys from doing anything drastic.

Likely dying vs. having a paycheck to feed your family will, more often than not, be an easy choice to make. While many will still fight for the reasons I mentioned, when you flood the area with manpower and a desire to quickly improve infrastructure, you will accomplish a lessening of attacks as most potential fighters will pick the least violent option.

My vote is for the president to give the guys on the ground more than they ask for, and any troops unused can be assigned to training afghani security forces to guard the new water treatment plants, schools, roads, etc that we will build there in the next year.

It seems to be working in Iraq...but then again, that's based on what I see on TV!
 

Dallas_ADA-

I agree with your idea, but the problem with Afghanistan is that it's way farther behind than Iraq ever was before the US invasion. Even if we got Afghanistan back to where it was before the Taliban took over, it's still not going to look anything like the post-Saddam Iraq that we've helped accomplish. I fear that it's a much more uphill battle than Iraq was.
 

definitely agree that Afghanistan is far removed from the country it was before the Taliban took hold. But in those sitations it seems like it would be actually quicker and cheaper to spread the wealth with jobs and infrastructure build outs. Getting the basics makes people happy and keeps them from picking up an AK47 out of anger.

Lets all remember that it took decades and billions of dollars before Europe came back from the devastation after the war.
Mind you in those countries, security wasn't an issue because we had hundreds of thousands of troops to ensure peace and justice and common bonds with the populace.
Though people forget that there were pockets of resistance even after V-Day.
 

JT and Septimus- I'm confused when you say there is no strategy, or ask for more clarification as to what the strategy is, or what BIG thing is going to happen. It's all out there. We send more troops, they do the same "take, hold, build" number that they did in Iraq (i.e. Falujah and Ramadi), and then we draw back down. Take and hold are pretty simple concepts, so I guess it's "build" that's unclear. That the part where we work with tribal leaders, train local forces, build schools and hospitals, etc. Hearts and minds kind of stuff. How is this not a clear strategy?

Dallas ADA- I disagree that we're wrapping average disaffected Afghanis into our definition of "insurgents," or "fighters," or whatever. That might have been true in Iraq, where we dealt with several different sects fighting between themselves and everyone was generally ticked off. But in Afghanistan, the Taliban was always a minority government that ruled by oppression, and now they're even more in the minority. Afghans are not all on the same page, and there are many different groups and points of view, but most are aligned against the Taliban and al Qaeda. We've got a much more definite enemy in Afghanistan than we ever did in Iraq. They're just harder to root out.
 

WE JUST NEED TO BOMB THOSE CIVILIAN HIPPIES. I KNOW THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE "MUSLIMS" AND "AREN'T TRYING TO HURT US", BUT AMERICA HAS ALWAYS, FROM THE TIME OF GEORGE WASHINGTON TO THE TIME OF GEORGE BUSH (TWO GREAT AMERICAN LEADERS!), BEEN ABOUT TWO THINGS - TORTURING TERRORISTS AND NUKING HIPPIES.

-ALL CAPS GUY
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

RRL makes a good point - yes we bombed Afghanistan, but they had already been bombed into the stone age after years of war with the Soviets. We have just added a little icing on the cake.

~*~*~*~
Let us not forget that the US propped up the Mujhadeen in their fight against the Soviets. We supplied them with munitions. bin Laden was one of the leaders at the time.

This is a tribal/nomadic society when you move away from Khandahar and Kabul. Yes we have made in roads in the 'cities', but outside of that... Does western civilization really have a good track record in dealing with any type of tribal community?

The Afghani's have known nothing but war and disruption to their tribal lifestyle since 'at least' the 1980's. We could stay there forever and somethings would not change despite what 'we' think is best for them. How do we know? How do you teach people to trust again after so much physical and mental destruction has occurred in their lives?


The US focus needs to be the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan - this is where the Taliban and Al Queda strongholds are. We can continue to help 'police' the cities. So as much as I would like to see the US just pull up stakes and come home, they still need to focus on this region. I don't know if this is what the General's are recommending or not. We need to articulate our goal and stay on course.

And lets not forget they are going to have a Presidential election run-off in a few weeks. VP Biden and John Kerry had to go over and tell Kharzi to mind his manners i.e. don't stuff the ballot box again.

Isn't the world a great place...
 

When do I get to vote for All Caps Guy? The nuke all the hippies platform is the only political ideology I 100% agree with.
 

Everyone here ought to read Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll.
 

Everyone should read "The Dirt" by Motley Crue. Trust me on this.
 

Of course the Taliban need to justify their actions to the Afghan people, and also to rally some support/sympathy. To do so, they claim that Afghanistan is under occupation and that Taliban are the only force resisting the occupying forces. I agree with SEPTIMUS that there is a pretty strong approval/legitimacy to the American presence among the mainstream Afghans. Though, the support for Americans and the West is waning because the war just seems to drag on. But to make clear, even a corrupt and crippled government, just like the incumbent, is preferred to the Taliban. All Afghans are sure that they do not want the Taliban, NOT AT ALL.
It is understandable why Obama is not rushing into making a commitment soon. The underlying reasons are that a) the troop surge should be matched by equivalent decrease in Afghan corruption. That is why the run-off is considered to be yet another window of opportunity. b) Everything seems to go back to Bush Administration somehow. If the Taliban were bracketed as the ‘against us’ in Bush’s approach, then the last thing you can do is to reconsider that stance from a weakened position. By only military force this problem will not dissipate, but one would like to negotiate with cards in favor of the US and Afghan government. Fine if the focus is to be on Al-Qaida, but how different are the Taliban from Al-Qaida? (Except, the Taliban are not international actors, yet – that is if we exclude Pakistan from their sphere of influence.) Soon the former will fill the shoes of the latter! Framing it in terms of Biden vs McChrystal, I strongly support McChrystal’s approach, which focuses on protecting the people in a bid to revive “winning hearts and minds” campaign. If suppose Biden’s approach is to be pursued, who is behind the attacks and instability in Pakistan? Is it the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? And following the same logic, Taliban are the biggest threat to the combined security of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US interests. The Taliban seem to be completely destabilizing a nuclear Pakistan.
A reframing of the point is that Biden is to be implemented at Macro level and McChrystal at micro level in order to get closer towards success (however loosely defined).
In Afghanistan however we have to be more realistic than anything else. Whatever the result of the run-off – a harsher Karzai back; a tricky half-Pahstun, former Northern Alliance leader Abdullah emerge (giving the Taliban a great propaganda tool to trigger pashtun Nationalism); or an amendment to the constitution which in the first place is asking too much of Afghanistan i.e. a coalition formed between the two and lesser control for the President, shifting more power to PM and the Parliament – there needs to be more focus on building a bigger ANA, better trained ANP, improved Judiciary and clear progress and development in the lives of people very soon. Security cannot be tackled without tackling other outstanding issues that unfortunately abound at this time.

What makes things worse is that Pakistan is the very important piece in this triad of ‘shared destinies’. If Pakistan stumbles, so does the entire region. And I think, at this moment, especially after Hillary’s recent comments, the US is pushing it too far to continue to accuse Pakistan of not doing enough. Don’t we all see that they are in a civil war with the Taliban? This kind of rhetoric will further deplete the trust deficit between the US and the Pakistani military
 

I had to many characters, so here is the bottomline.

The bottom line is that the US has not put enough into Afghanistan yet (comparing it to Iraq war and how important this war is). And now is the time to do so. So dither not. The US and allies need to be clear and coherent in their mission instead of shifting strategies year to year – it has only been one year to the Af-pak strategy and it has not only failed but triggered chaos in Pakistan.
Though, it may sound inconsistent in logic, but along with strengthening the Afghan central government militarily, there should be an equal push to decentralization of services and service providing agents. This is harder to implement because the Afghan government wants its authority to spread throughout the local structures, which thus far has failed. That what is at the periphery should not be utterly dependent on the circumstances of the core. There should be genuine, even if ‘primitive’, rural apparatus that can be self sufficient.
Pakistan should be dealt with cautiously, and the US needs to win that public opinion before doing anything else. The perception of the US are so dim that even the Kerry-Lugar bill, drafted in support of Pakistan, is seen as undermining the sovereignty of Pakistan by the Pakistani Public.
 

It is gauche of me to mention colonialism? Because that's what's going to answer this conundrum. But that might get me branded as an egghead intellectual, or worse, a hippie.

Look, it was wrong to occupy a country in the first place and act like we knew what was best. Working with the Afghanis to flush out Al Qaeda, treating them as equals, etc., would've been a better strategy, no bones about it.

But we didn't; we rolled in like Billy Badasses and now we're stuck with a country destabilized by the intervention of a foreign power.

Ooops.

Withdrawing is bad, as we saw when Europe withdrew from its colonies throughout the last century. The US has historically been pretty poor at nation-building during its efforts, so Option #3, to put more troops on the ground to enforce American will in Afghanistan will work only so long as we have the manpower and willpower to put down the resulting insurgency.

You have a choice, then, between the terrible, the bad, and the disastrous... I'd choose the bad, personally. We need to maintain a presence until we can rebuild the trust of the Afghan people, work with them to create a legitimate government, rebuild infrastructure (with no strings attached) and in general, show them that we consider them a partner and an equal on the world stage.

That's what the US misses in its arrogance in foreign policy, and the ignorance of many of our foreign service officials in the history of colonialism in the West.
 

I don't think "colonialism" should be regarded so negatively. I think that is exactly the approach we should foster, though I think the ideas about self governance obviously have to be worked out, lest we repeat some mistakes of the past.

The self governance aspect has to be the hardest to accomplish. Telling people what we're gonna do is easy. Letting the citizens make decisions for themselves is where every colonial power has hit a roadblock. Whether it be here, Africa, or Eastern Europe, colonialist powers can't ever get it right.

So where does the middle ground exist? Having your forces on the ground, paying for everything, all the while actively trying to let someone else make all the decisions? Just how do we accomplish that? I think that whomever solves that problem in a way that will always work DESERVES the Nobel Peace prize.
 

Colonialism is not a bad thing? Imperialism and the imposition of foreign will upon sovereign nations is OK as long as you're the one doing the imposing? Well!

The balance has to be struck in not treating Afghanistan like a nation-building project, but instead treating them like what they are: our equal. Ditch the American arrogance. They are a sovereign nation that was gracious enough to host our forces on an international policing mission to break up a terrorist network entrenched in a part of their country. In doing so, we have destroyed great swathes of it, occupied their land, and killed their civilians (despite the legitimacy of some of those kills, as Afghani civilians were undoubtedly part of that terror network). We do not have some vested natural right to do this; by acting as if we do, and then leaving (or, Odin forbid, make it worse by doing it more often and more vigorously), what will we foster except the same feeling that the United States views foreign, sovereign nations as resources to be exploited when convenient and dumping grounds for our own imperialist overflow?

How about instead of marching in and telling the Afghanis how things are going to be, we work with them to rebuild what we messed up, make as good of reparations as we can for malfeasance on our part while on their soil, commit to working together for the mutual benefit of both our nations in the future, and provide them training and manpower to establish a functional government and national police force against insurgents?

Think of it this way: if we found out Al Qaeda was hiding in Germany or Scotland instead of Afghanistan, how might our approach have been different? Would we have been so quick to rush in, guns blazing and bombs ready to fall, if the subject nation had been highly industrialized, wealthy, and politically powerful enough to make problems on the international scene? Or are our actions justified because Afghanistan is militarily weak, economically poor, but rich in resources we would desperately love to have?