On Anniversary Of Bombing Afghanistan, We Need A Surge In Diplomacy

Seven years ago today we held a memorial service for my brother-in-law in his hometown of Anamosa, Iowa, four weeks after he was killed at the Pentagon on 9/11. As I walked out the door from the service, I glanced at the television and saw ominous green flashes on the dark screen. My heart sank. That day, I realized, the day we started bombing Afghanistan, was another family's 9/11, a day when something fell out of the sky and crushed their innocent loved ones whose only crime was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Only this time, it was my own government, not al-Qaeda, that had decided that the loss of these lives in Afghanistan was justified, in the name of a greater good.

Tonight, as our presidential candidates debate, it is time we start demanding bold new leadership on the disaster that is the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. It seems too simple a sound bite for the candidates to offer more troops as a solution. Tragically, increasing troops will not solve the problems of Afghanistan or the U.S., but will only compound them.

In January 2002, I traveled to Afghanistan to witness the direct effects of the U.S. bombing campaign. In and around Kabul I met with families whose homes were destroyed, and whose children were killed due to the US bombing. These were not Taliban or al-Qaeda supporters, they were ordinary people, just like 9/11 victims, that are the ones who always suffer when political leaders choose war and violence as the answer. In January 2002, there was much hope among people in Afghanistan. The people I met expressed a deep desire for an end to the violence. Most saw the U.S. bombing as a mixed blessing. They were angry about civilian casualties, but relieved that the Taliban were out of power and hopeful that twenty-three years of war were coming to a close. This sense that maybe, just maybe things were going to get better, has unfortunately evaporated over the years.

Seven years later, the violence has only increased. Every year the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan, more civilians and military are killed. 2008 has been the most violent year since 2001. Civilian casualties by US and NATO forces have sparked little-reported protests led by students, tribal leaders and ordinary people across the country. Polling data now indicates a majority of Afghans want U.S. troops to leave their country. It is time that we start listening to the will of the Afghan people, and formulate our policy accordingly.

Instead of a surge in the war, something Afghans have experienced repeatedly over the past three decades, how about a surge in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and support for grassroots democratic forces in Afghanistan. As the RAND corporation points out in a recent study, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. If we want to help build a stable and democratic Afghanistan, we should drastically revamp our humanitarian aid to assure that it goes to projects identified by Afghans as crucial and supports the local economy by employing local workers, not high-priced foreign contractors.

It is time to reconsider exactly what the mission is in Afghanistan and develop strategies that help us meet that goal. Are we there to capture bin Laden? Seven years of military action doesn't seem to have made much progress. Are we there to liberate the people? Then let's listen to the words of Malalai Joya, a young woman who was kicked out of the Afghan Parliament for standing up to the warlords and drug lords in the chamber. Speaking in Canada, she said "no nation can donate liberation to another nation." A quick examination of our own history -the revolutionary war, the women's movement, the civil rights movement, tells us she is right.

What we as the U.S. can do in Afghanistan is learn to be friends with the Afghan people as they liberate themselves. We need new leadership in Washington that understands military escalation will lead only to more memorial services for both Afghans and U.S. troops. It's time to break with the Bush war tradition and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Comments

[gritona]

Great article. Thanks Kelly

In John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, there is a chapter about Afghanistan. He had been visiting a couple villages that had been bombed by the u.s. In Kabul he visited a bombed high school, where the students were trying to carry on in makeshift classrooms of cardboard and plastic sheeting. The headmaster explained to him that the kids could no longer remember their lessons, that everything had to be repeated over and over.
"...because the young have been emotionally invaded and left with only anguish. They constantly worry about shells or bomb attacks, or stepping on a mine; they are terrified of aircraft. These wars have taken away our minds, and the spirit of our lives, and left us with only the shells of our bodies."

That is the most eloquent statement I know of what may be the most horrifying part of what we are doing. What do you imagine it might be like? Say you were six years old back in 2001. Now you are fourteen and all your life you only knew bombs and missiles and mines. How could your head be ok after all that? This is about the people who did not get killed yet. About the entire surviving population of Afghanistan."Emotionally invaded and left with only anguish...."

[gzfp]

Kelly's article points to one of the greatest lessons that Afghanistan has to offer -- that force does not create peace. If it did, after 30 years of warfare, surely Afghanistan would look much different than it does today.

Like Kelly, I spent time in Afghanistan when Afghans still held out hope for US support of their own self government and rebuilding of their own country. In the years since my 2004 visit, the Afghans I met have become increasingly distressed by the number of civilian casualties caused by US bombings and our lack of commitment to reconstruction efforts.

Kelly is correct to call for forward thinking leadership in Washington. We need leaders who will stop pretending to experts on what should happen in Afghanistan. Afghans are already experts on what should happen in Afghanistan. We need leaders who will back these experts.

Meg Bartlett
Ground Zero for Peace - 9/11 First Responders Against War

[gzfp]

Kelly's article points to one of the great lessons Afghanistan can teach us -- that force does not create peace. If it did, surely 30 years of warfare would have created a much different Afghanistan than the one that exist today.

Like Kelly, I spent time in Afghanistan when many Afghans held out hope that the US would support their efforts to self govern and rebuild their own country. Every year since my 2004 trip, the Afghans I met have become increasingly distressed by the number of civilian casualties caused by US bombings and our lack of commitment to reconstruction efforts.

Kelly is correct to call for forward thinking leadership in Washington. We need leaders that will stop pretending to be experts on what should happen in Afghanistan. Afghans are the experts on what should happen in Afghanistan. We need leaders who will be allies to these experts.

Meg Bartlett
Ground Zero for Peace - 9/11 First Responders for Peace

[asemeco]

A couple of months ago the Afghan ambassador in the US recommended a "surge in competence" within the current administration. Embarrassing, but true.

[Revslaw]

I just finished reading "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson which certainly speaks to this wonderfully written article by Kelly Campbell. Greg is trying to make a difference in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) one school at a time, with a powerful message of peace in action. If you have not read this book, find it now and you won't put it down!
I will share Kelly's letter far and wide with others as this is the voice that needs to rise above all the clamor of more violence in this world. May we be blessed with peace in our world!

[abcooper]

I was talking to a friend this morning and mentioned that it was the seventh anniversary of the US's bombing of Afghanistan. We noted that that was almost one third of our lives and that we wouldn't be surprised if the US bombed Afghanistan for another seven years.

Kelly beautifully illustrates why we need so desperately to build an anti-war movement in this country formidable enough to challenge the atrocities our government and military are committing across the Middle East and around the world. The movement needs to be unapologetic in its criticism of the war in Afghanistan, especially in the face of an election in which life for Afghanis will get worse - no matter who is elected.
Thanks Kelly

Alex

[messy]

You mean you support that the Taliban's war against women? Obama was right about getting after the bastards hiding in Pakistan.

[Harveyt]

Way to go Kelly. We've had two presidential administrations now leading with military might. The US Constitution has been flagrantly ignored, especially, article 6.2 on treaties. The US Congress has allowed our democratic government to be increasingly replaced with a unitary executive. The common sense of US citizens and world opinion has been ignored. We"ve allowed ourselves to reach the greatest debt ever as we increasingly squander our resources on needless violence.

It"s past time for a surge in diplomacy.

Harveyt

[121Contact]

Right on, Kelly. The application of violence will, in fact, generate change. Violence may not generate exactly the change you plan for; it may kill inordinate numbers of innocent civilians (between 50-100 times the number of combatants killed...and vastly more innocents wounded), it may stimulate the war-machine part of your economy
but
violence will generate depths of hatred lasting generations
violence will kill and maim the aggressor as well as the occupied
violence will bankrupt a nation easily

and it is not the only way.
Wake up, please, in your bastions of power. Listen to the voices of the innocent who cry for your compassion.

Take the dollars you spend on violence and put them to peaceful uses that spread love and understanding, not hatred and death.

In loving kindness,
Bruce