Lying About Afghanistan – Does Anybody Care?
On December 9th, the Washington Post revealed that documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request showed three successive administrations – Bush, Obama, and Trump – have misled the public about progress in Afghanistan, the nation’s longest war. The Post shared direct quotes from interviews by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). John Sopko, SIGAR’s head, told the Post that “the American people have been consistently lied to” on Afghanistan. As Ret. Gen. Douglas Lute, a top advisor on the war for Bush and Obama, said in one of over 600 interviews, “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn’t know what we were doing.”
Perhaps as disturbing as these revelations was the silence that followed. Media coverage dropped the story almost immediately. There were scant signs of outrage from Congress. The House Foreign Affairs Committee waited over a month to hold a hearing, which also received little media coverage. Congress and the public seem docile in the wake of the fact that an estimated $1 trillion has been spent on the war with no victory and a “democracy-building” project that has failed.
Contrast that with the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, which demonstrated that four administrations – Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson - had lied to the public about the war in Vietnam. Those revelations were extensively reported. Congress held hearings. Already strong opposition to the war grew stronger, and public trust in government fell.
Admittedly, this is a misleading analogy. In 1971, there was still a military draft, exposing millions to fighting in a war most did not support. The armed forces included about one percent of the population. In 2020, there is an all-volunteer force which is just one-half of one percent of Americans.
Yet, perhaps these differences reveal why the “Afghanistan Papers” have been met with apathy. Wars are easier to sustain today because young Americans are not forced to fight them. The technologies of war (e. g. drones) also enable smaller fighting forces to have significant impact and, thankfully, limit American casualty rates.
There are other differences too. Wars now are paid with debt. During Vietnam, tax increases helped pay for it. Since the war in Afghanistan began, we have had three major and several minor tax cuts. In 1971, there were just three major networks, and they brought the war’s images into every living room. Independent reporters focused on the carnage, both military and civilian. Now there are scores of news sources. Embedded reporters provide a more contained and less worrisome picture of war. Today, “breaking news” pushes stories off the public’s radar unless they have great entertainment value. There is nothing entertaining about Afghanistan.
Wars now reside in the background of most Americans’ lives. White House, DOD, and State Department press briefings are rare. Social media, cable channels, smart phones and web sites are often designed to titillate and increase the time we stay tuned in and on them. When achieving revenue enhancing behavior is a central goal, accuracy, depth and extent of war coverage suffer. The rapid-fire news cycle, with one “bombshell” after another, quickly relegated the “Afghanistan Papers” to yesterday’s news.
Perhaps we also pay less attention to the “Afghanistan Papers” because we doubt we’ll find truth. The politicization of “truth” encourages people to question the veracity of anything that purports to contradict acceptable sources. Indeed, “truth” now seems to rely not on objective fact but on who reported it. Faced with misinformation, disinformation, withheld information, and biased reporting, who has the time, energy or even cares to sift out reality?
Nor does warfare today exist in ways that allow ready comprehension. The Vietnam War was a battle of state-supported forces mostly confined to Vietnam. In 2001, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (the AUMF) gave President Bush power to use the military against any he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored them. Interpreting this very broadly, three presidents have used the AUMF against nations as geographically widespread as Afghanistan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and most recently Iran. The AUMF is so overwhelming in its scope and application that Americans seem unable or unwilling to track its use and demand accountability – or have just become anesthetized to ongoing war.
When so many Americans have been mentally and physically insulated from war and have psychologically retreated from the responsibility to hold their government accountable, this is not good for republican government, which depends on an informed, engaged citizenry. It enables the President and Congress as well to take a back seat. Our troops have no back seat. They are still dying there. We owe them, and the thousands of Afghanis also losing limbs and lives, more.
Photo Credit: Department of Defense
