After the Peace Prize, Give War a Chance

Today, in the wake of his Nobel peace surprise, President Barack Obama should call Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and ask if he really needs tens of thousands more troops in Afghanistan. Then, in the truest spirit of his new status as a peace laureate, Obama should ask McChrystal what America could achieve by doubling, tripling or quadrupling his proposed troop increase.

My last sentence may seem Orwellian. But it isn't. Here's my premise: It fundamentally harms the long-term cause of global peace if America permits itself to move through history in a remorseless, irresponsible cycle wherein a Bush-type leader launches reckless wars and an Obama-type leader yanks our troops out. No matter how much we want our troops home, it is immoral to throw a country into chaos and then walk away simply because we grow weary of that chaos.

Counterinsurgency -- the broad, innovative, flexible portfolio of tactics aimed at keeping civilians safe and earning their trust and cooperation -- offers the best hope I've seen for attempting to make things right in Afghanistan. (For a basic, digestible, and occasionally funny introduction to the principles of counterinsurgency, watch Jon Stewart's 2007 interview with Lt. Col. John Nagl. For an assessment of what counterinsurgency might and might not achieve today, read "Crux of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?" in the New York Times."

That Times story summarizes the opinion of counterinsurgency experts like this:

They say a large American-led NATO ground force is needed to clear Taliban-held territory and hold it while instructors train sufficient, competent Afghan soldiers and police officers to secure those areas. The allied force, the argument goes, will buy time and space to help the Afghans build more effective local, provincial and national governments, and create some semblance of an economy. Since many polls in Afghanistan show little support for the Taliban, a stable, peaceful country would not be likely to become a home for terrorists.

Even under the rosiest of military scenarios, Obama would not be able to forge lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan without achieving a wide range of diplomatic successes: with our NATO partners, with Russia, with Iran, with rival Afghan tribes, with Democrats, with Republicans, and -- crucially -- with nuclear-armed Pakistan and nuclear-armed India.

In reading that last sentence, in considering both the difficulty and scope of what needs to happen, I hope it is clear why Afghanistan represents the opportunity for Obama to serve the American people brilliantly and, along the way, demonstrate that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

I just want to repeat the premise of what I've written here. Because it's crucial to understanding why Obama's effectiveness as a stabilizer and a peacemaker may ride on his willingness to endure the irony-laced headlines of the future. Imagine "Nobel Peace Laureate Escalates Afghan War" as a headline, for example.

So again, here's my premise: It fundamentally harms the long-term cause of global peace if America permits itself to move through history in a remorseless, irresponsible cycle wherein a Bush-type leader launches reckless wars and an Obama-type leader yanks our troops out.

America -- like any nation -- eventually pays for reckless actions.

We pay if we run away and try to forget.

We pay if we admit errors, take responsibility, make sacrifices, do our best to make things right, and come to understand the true cost of vengeance-fueled invasions.

Huffington Post blogger David Quigg lives in Seattle. His recent Afghanistan-related post for Big Think -- "Coping With Pakistan's 'Paranoid Style'" -- is here. His personal blog is here.

Comments

[outnow]

John Lennon would not have liked the title of your article, "Give war a chance." Yet, strangely, I agree with many of your arguments, even though I am anti-war.

Karzai says that the US is killing native sons of Afghanistan. The Taliban are numerous and exist because of the vacuum of pwer left after the Soviets withdrew.

We need to talk to the Taliban and protect the innocent people in Afghanistan while some kind of federal government with an army can be put into place. Iraq had very defferent dynamics and colonial history. Afghanistan has never had a strong federal government. There are still warlords and strongmen. The hope was that Karzai would be defeated and a better leader would emerge. That didn't happen so we need to try something new, not just withdrawal. Much good can be done.

[Neal Jansons]

You're so right! Instead we can have a cycle where war-mongers start wars and then when the country comes to its senses and elects someone with a three-digit IQ, we STAY in the useless wars because it would somehow "hurt peace" to NOT keep bombing and attacking people. That way we can have constant war! WOOPEE!

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

Just to clarify, I wouldn't even consider a robust counterinsurgency if I thought it would amount to "bombing and attacking," If you watch the Jon Stewart interview, you'll see that counterinsurgency specifically sees bombing runs as a sure-fire way to turn bystanders into enemies. As for the notion that the country has come to its senses, I hope you're right. I really do. I'd just point out that more than 58 million people voted for McCain and Palin.

Finally, thank you for taking the time to read my post.

[MajorKong]

"counterinsurgency specifically sees bombing runs as a sure-fire way to turn bystanders into enemies"

True. Sledgehammers make very poor flyswatters.

[Neal Jansons]

Bombing runs aren't the only problem. Constant presence, constant surveillance, constant pressure to conform to some other culture's narrative...even if we fail to bomb them out of existence we instead consign them to some Kafkaesque hell, all because we inexplicably think their business is our business.

Essentially, we need to stop seeing it as an option to use our military to force other nations to exist according to our ideals and narratives and bring everyone, including the troops still in Germany (Germany!) home.

As for whether the nation has come to its senses...well, I'm more of a believer in differing narratives. Since the 60s we have been changing narratives, and since it is a slow social change instead of a fast militaristic change (like a revolution or conquest), it takes the form of a culture war.

So I don't think it is so much a questions of anyone coming to their senses, per se, just the narrative shifting more and more as some people die and others come of age or change their minds. I like my narrative more than theirs, sure, but (typical of my narrative) I don't presume this narrative to be somehow "better" or "more correct" in some objective fashion. I consider that whole notion to be part of the narrative being replaced.

Finally: Your welcome...write good stuff and I will read it :) . I might not agree, but I will read it and address the points honestly.