If a nation fights wars only in the interest of rebuilding its economy, that nation fights often for very bad reasons and never for ones that are just. We can certainly debate whether invading Afghanistan 8 years ago was necessary and justified. I hope we all still remember why George Bush thought it was. There weren’t many things I agreed with him about during his tenure as President, but that happened to be one of them.
I’m certainly open today to better ideas that would let us withdraw our troops without risking additional 9/11 style devastating attacks or destabilizing important allies. But to precipitously withdraw after urging the Government of Pakistan to confront the radicals within its borders strikes me as deeply dangerous. It’s easy for talking heads to go on television and say that there are only 100 or so Al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan now. But that ignores how they got from Afghanistan to Pakistan. They walked across the border. It would be moronic to assume they can’t or won’t walk right back if conditions improve for them on the Afghan side.
That would leave Al Qaeda right back in their safe haven under Taliban protection in Afghanistan once again. Not only could they launch attacks against us and our allies from there, they could strike at the Pakistani Government at will, then retreat across the border into safety. If they succeed in destabilizing Pakistan, there are nuclear weapons there that will likely end up in Al Qaeda’s hands.
Now, to the other half of your question. How economically sustainable is the war effort? As hideous as war is, it’s one of the few things humans do with such gusto that it generally bolsters the economy. It puts a million or more people to work, and their work is never done, because we blow up so much of what they build. Remember, WWII put the final nails in the coffin lid of the Great Depression
Don’t get me wrong, here. I am certainly not an advocate of war for the economy’s sake. I denounced such at the beginning of this response. But remembering why we got into this war, and what the stakes are should we abandon it un-won. We have to look at the sustainability of taking continual hits like 9/11 or worse when we calculate the cost and whether we are willing to pay it or not. I suggest that if Al Qaeda ever managed to get their hands on nuclear weapons and long-range launch capability, the costs in blood and treasure to the West would be so much higher than this current war that it pales in comparison.