We've all been watching carefully as the Obama administration tries to decide how to move forward on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. And we've been listening to the arguments and counter-arguments being offered. Religious leaders in particular have been paying close attention to both the political and moral arguments that fill the air.
Contrary to Dick Cheney's accusation that the administration is "dithering," many of us feel that a period of discernment is clearly called for in Afghanistan. We know what Cheney wants America to do -- he never dithered, even when there were no facts to support his case for more war. Dick Cheney always wants to fight. But Cheney's foreign policy was an embarrassment for America, and a tragedy for the rest of the world. And not to follow his advice is always a good first step of moral wisdom.
But we need more than that. What we need is a whole new approach in Afghanistan. The argument in Washington, D.C. is far too narrow. Two points of view are contending inside the Obama team, and on Capitol Hill. One supports a robust strategy of counter-insurgency, requiring a substantial escalation of troops that would bring the total number of U.S. forces to as many as 100,000. The other prefers counter-terrorism, relying on the most sophisticated technology and Special Forces precision to focus on the most dangerous operatives who are the greatest threat to us.
Of course these are all old arguments. Counter-insurgency increases the massive American footprint in Afghanistan, which is clearly one of the primary causes of our failures in that country thus far. Add in a corrupt Afghan government, a radically decentralized society, and a physical terrain that has confounded every other occupier in history there; it doesn't make many of us hopeful, and painfully reminds us of a history that deeply formed us. The laser-like precision of our counter-terrorist missiles and unmanned drones may cost less in American lives and treasure, but they often don't just hit the bad guys. They have resulted in serious civilian casualties, even further alienating the populace and producing more angry young recruits for terrorism. And the solution that may be emerging in Washington could be a confused combination of the two strategies, bringing us the worst of both worlds.
We need a whole different approach.
We should know by now, and most of those on the ground in places like Afghanistan do, that what re-builds a broken nation; inspires confidence, trust, and hope among its people; and most effectively undermines terrorism is an old and proven idea -- massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development. And it costs less -- far less -- than continued war. Perhaps this was best put by Richard Stearns, the U.S. president of World Vision, at a recent meeting of President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in Washington, D.C., when he said, "The best face of America for the world is a baseball hat and not a helmet."
Many of us have advised the president that the people who know places like Afghanistan the best are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs doing relief and development work who have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military or their mercenary friends.
So here is the new approach. Lead with what works -- development. Yes, effective development needs security, and when you massively intervene in a country as much as the U.S. has in Afghanistan, you can't responsibly just walk away -- as has tragically happened to this country too many times before. But we should lead with development now, and only provide the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country that is urgently needed -- and that kind of security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need in Afghanistan, even from Arab and Muslim countries.
And here is an idea of how to do that. Bring to the White House the international organizations who know Afghanistan well because they have been there so long -- such as World Vision, Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam, Tearfund, Christian Aid, Church World Service -- and many others. Ask them what U.S. policy would best work, and what kind of security they would need to really do the kind of development in Afghanistan that is most needed.
Let the non-military strategies lead the way, rather than the other way around, which often just makes aid and development work another weapon of war; but then provide the security needed for that work, and make it as international as possible. Also bring in some of the religious and other nonprofit leaders from the Obama Advisory Council and others, to focus on the deeply ethical and moral issues that are at stake in our decisions about future policy in Afghanistan -- legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism, defending women from the Taliban, developing a diplomatic surge, genuinely supporting democracy, and saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war -- to name a few.
The conversation is much too narrow right now on Pennsylvania Avenue and at the U. S. Congress. It's time for a deeper look and a whole new approach. Stupid people might call that dithering; smart people would call it discernment.
Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
William Bradley: Afghanistan, Again: The Thicket Obama's Not Getting Out Of
We can't afford to build a nation in Afghanistan. We have one reasonable goal there, and everything else, no matter how seemingly noble it may or may not be, is a luxury.
Needless to say the Taliban have also moved on and many of their new leaders are not only younger but far more fanatical. When you deal with fanatical Muslims you quickly are made aware that you are the enemy, and your life span has absolutely no interest to them.
Christian NGO's would not stand a chance in Afghanistan if the miltary left them to it.
Many NGO's in Iraq did not want the military to support them as it made them a target and did not inform the military of their activities in some dangerous regions, which caused problems when they were callously "informed on". Even Muslim NGO's such as AKDN have to be very cautious in Afghanistan.
Now I hear Abdullah Abdullah will not take part in the elections in Afghanistan since it will be the same old corrupt election as before.
Obama IS dithering - for good reason - he does not have good political advisors, nor the wisdom / vision / political experience to see a solution through the fog of disinformation, vested interests, bias, corruption, and party politics.
His weakness will be taken advantage of by much more experienced and Machiavelian politicians in Israel, Afghanistan, Russia, China etc.
Obama, as a new incumbent, DOES have the opportunity to pull out of Afghanistan with only relatively minor damage to his reputation - this was not an option for Bush. Think on it.
He showed by his willingness in going to Dover to admit that war takes lives, unlike the shameful hypocrite who preceded him, that he can also face up to telling it like it now is to deal with where we are in a realistic manner and get the hell out . Leave it to the draft dodgers , like Cheney,and other right wing cowards to point the way to the battlefield.
I do not depreciate the courage of our troops or propose that they die to no end. It is a voluntary force, and Afghanistan is a training exercise and a warning to the world that we can defend ourselves. When it becomes an offense to our moral stature, a mere killing exercise, it is our sense of honor that indicates it is time to stop.
Why are we there, it is a business, billions dollars disappears. Where does it go, no one know. No body talks about Japan and Germany anymore and do not compare Afghanistan to them. Who are the bad guys? Why do we have to bring Arabs and Moslems from other countries to help Afghans? Why can’t we let the Afghans select their own local leaders (warlord or a bad guy) and we, the donors, should deal with the local elected leader and help the Afghans needs in that locality. At the beginning there will be problems, but finally the people will take over their government. To bring to many people with different ideas, nothing get solve but blaming each others.
Karzai was forced by UN and the West on Afghans in Bonn and the elected by fraud as he used this time. I can’t understand if 200 employees are dismissed because they followed his and his head of election committee’s order and he and his head of commission are still holding their jobs.
Afghans are human beings and appreciate what people do for them as they say,” if you give an apple to some one and he/she doesn’t appreciate it, you can give him/her the whole garden and he/she wouldn’t appreciate it.” The Afghans are very loyal people.
We can try to buy support with aid. This is not a hopeless idea. It puts us at the table where we might support those who have committed to our causes, possibly at great personal risk. Perhaps, this is the most of a victory open to us, that we show a little loyalty to our friends while showing some respect for the national wishes of the Afghan people. Now, that the oil pipeline is no longer seen as feasible, and while China and Russia have restored their influence in central Asia, , we have no interests to be served there.
The war of hot pursuit is also destabilizing Pakistan, a country of much more significance.
Unless we are willing to declare all-out war on Afghanistan, we should abandon those slum lords.
A new path to our leaving Afghanistan IS THE ONLY WAY, a path that should've been taken a long time ago. Originally I thought the plan was to take out those who attacked our country, which we did and then rebuild their country with new ways of supporting their families and farms. I thought that we would were to replace their optimum farming with new crop(s), which would have a been a win-win for all concerned...BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED, WILL IT HAPPEN NOW? If a new way is found, it will take years to complete, but it would be wonderful to see a new Afghanistan rise from the ashes of the old. A self sustaining economy for the citizens. I'm not sure that we're up to the task without the help form other countries which surround Afghanistan or the UN.
The McChrystal surge is primarily a training surge, meant to triple Afghanistan's own security forces to about 400,000 in 18 to 24 months. McChrystal's plan is for NATO forces to withdraw to the large population centers where they can conduct COIN training for Afghan police and soldiers and also expand NATO's engineering and reconstruction efforts. After the initial training period Afghan troops and international construction teams will move into lesser population centers.
Also, while I have no problem diverting some resources from the military to civilian projects(roads, schools, etc. in Afghanistan), aren't our own roads, sewer systems, electrical grid, bridges, levees and dams, subway systems, etc., in a deplorable state?
I think documentary appearing on History Channel entitled "The Crumbling of America", should be a wakeup call for Americans.
Overall, I think it is tragically mistaken to maintain a sizable military presence in Afghanistan in order to supposedly thwart the return of Al Qaida. Al Qaida can set up shop anywhere, and our mission to root it out militarily is spilling over to Pakistan, destablizing that nation, and enraging the Pakistani people.
What government are these relief organizations supposed to work with, the demonstrably corrupt and illegitimate Karzai regime? It is ridiculous to believe that anything can be done to improve the lives of Afghans until the military occupation of that country comes to an end. India is currently trying to do what Wallis is suggesting, much to the dismay of the Pakistan government next door. This will only lead to more instability.
As long as the U.S. government is involved in Afghanistan, and relief or reconstruction activity will be used as cover for the real reasons for its involvement there — reasons we can only speculate upon, but reasons for sure that have more to do with energy resources than goodwill. Like in Iraq, how is it that Americans can trust the U.S. government to do the right thing in Afghanistan after it has done so much damage. Since Obama took office, the drone attacks have only increased, killing hundreds of Afghan civilians. To trust an invader of a country to rehabilitate that country is like asking a rapist to counsel his own victim. Preposterous.!
Taliban's source of funding would eliminate the Taliban's ability to wage war, at least to the
point that the local countries could deal with them, wouldn't it? If these poppy fields were in Mexico or South America, we would already have destroyed them. CNN reports that Afghanistan
President Karzai's brother is a drug lord, and is on the CIA payroll, which seems like the reason we
haven't destroyed the poppy fields. Is the CIA up to it's tricks, and US soldiers as well as Afghani and Pakistani soldiers and civilians are dying because of it.
You have nailed it, sir!
In addition, thanks to the corruption of our banks and Wall Street, the United States needs to get back to its own democratic ideals before trying to impose them on others.
Air power may be over estimated. Studies of the effectiveness of bombing in WWII sometimes indicated otherwise. A heavy raid against a German ball bearings plant did not close down the plant but its production actually increased. Machinery was salvaged and the plant went on a 24 hour schedule. One problem seems to be that those killed have no further say while those left alive are motivated to resist. Bombers do not take surrenders, so resistance is all that is left.