Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Afghanistan, a false binary

Displaced Afghans

Displaced Afghans from the northern provinces rest after they arrive at a makeshift camp near Kabul on Aug. 10.

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
Molineaux is president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, and Nevins is its co-founder and board chairman. They are co-publishers of The Fulcrum.

The horrific scenes we have watched the past few days from Afghanistan are unbearable to watch. How did we get here? And what can we learn?

As we watch the unraveling of 20 years of work, hopes and dreams, what options do we have to help? For veterans or active duty service people or peacebuilders, it is especially difficult as they measure what they see against the sacrifices they have made. For regular Americans who wanted us out of Afghanistan, there are still mixed emotions.

Yet here we are, safe and sound in our homes, and as so often happens our national leaders move from empathy and caring to the political game of taking advantage of a situation; the blame game starts. In Afghanistan, there is enough blame to go around.

Along with the blame game is the usual oversimplification of an incredibly complex situation. That is what we do as Americans. We oversimplify. Our leaders reduce complex situations into easy-to-grasp catchy soundbites with binary choices that do nothing to solve the problem. Nothing.

On Monday, President Biden said: "I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I've learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces." He admitted that his administration miscalculated and took responsibility by saying "the buck stops with me." Yet this will do little to change the nature of the ensuing political battle.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

And who can blame the Republicans from taking advantage of the situation to paint Biden as weak and ill prepared when we all know that the Democrats are just as quick to take advantage of strategic errors by past and future Republican presidents.

This is the way our system works. Or doesn't work.

But a problem like Afghanistan is not black or white, good or bad, smart or dumb. Our nation's 20-year history in Afghanistan is complex, nuanced and contradictory. And how much easier is it for each of us individually and for us as a nation to turn to our conditioned use of binary choice-making. No critical thinking required. No questioning of the choices offered.

"The dualistic mind pulls everything down into some kind of tit-for-tat system of false choices and too-simple contraries," says Fr. Richard Rohr of the Center for Action and Contemplation.

The world we live in is more complex than ever. In the midst of multiple existential crises, we need to change the manner in which we solve problems and face the future. We need to handle complexity differently; not by dumbing down to binary choices, but by expanding our ability to think in nuance and accept paradoxes. We must have a holistic approach that investigates all factors that could lead to multiple outcomes; to see systems and to connect with others. To restore our humanity, we must wean ourselves of simplistic binary choices and avoid the blame game.

Ask yourself what are your choices to help the Afghan people? With whom do you have influence? While we are dealing with feelings of guilt, loss, shame, et al., people in Afghanistan are trying to survive. Our immediate focus should be on helping people, not devolving into the blame game of binary thinking.

As the Afghanistan crisis fades (and they all -- including Vietnam, Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia et al -- fade with time), what are the lessons we learned? How can we respond differently next time?

What is the role of the United States in the world? If China were to take over Taiwan or Russia were to invade another country in the former Soviet bloc, what would we do? What are the national interests that will guide us in an increasingly hostile political world? How might we be better prepared to address the complexity of situations involving the U.S., inside the boundaries of other nations?

As civilians, we will not know the extent of the complexity the military and diplomatic corps are facing. We do not know the delicate negotiations that have taken place. The blame game further erodes our trust that the professionals are doing their job, the best they know how. The media is exacerbating our outrage and fear by feeding us images of suffering.

For average citizens there is nothing for us to do as individuals beyond expect more from our leaders. Our leaders must not demonize their political opponents at this moment. Bold leaders will grab this opportunity to take political risks and develop long-term solutions. This in turn will help define the United States' responsibility in the world for generations to come

We as citizens deserve better than tit-for-tat politics.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less