A few weeks ago, I was riding my bike home past the White House. Out front, a group of activists gathered to protest a US troop increase in Afghanistan. I stopped to read the signs and was encouraged by one held aloft by an older, white-haired gentleman. It said: "No to Troop Increase: Yes to Regional Peace Conference." This half-wonk, half-activist message is significant. To me, it meant that many concerned Americans are willing to move beyond a purely oppositional stance and engage in the debate about policy options. It signified a willingness to commit in a new way, an intention that is not reflected in the confusing public debate. The left and the right are too often defaulting to Iraq-era talking points for Afghanistan. On the right, Vets for Freedom is running anti-Obama ads, using the Iraq surge as a bludgeon against him. On the left, the California Democratic Party just adopted a resolution calling for increased humanitarian aid along with a military withdrawal.
But what if you can't have one with the other? The consequences of a complete withdrawal would leave a violent, chaotic hole in the middle of a tense neighborhood. The US would deal a potential death blow to the world's premier military alliance (NATO) and crackpot messiahs across the globe will claim credit. Troops need to be in the mix. Most Afghans want us there. They overwhelmingly dislike the Taliban. Girls attending school has risen to 44% since we've been present. Far more Afghans have access to basic health care. We need to start seeing these benchmarks as part of a broader set of objectives -- all thus far achieved with the help of American troops.
Afghanistan is not Iraq. Obama is not Bush. We are not the Soviets. And this is not Vietnam. Historical analogies must be very carefully considered.
If conservatives really want to help forward the policy discussion, they would point out that the 2007 "surge" of US military troops in Iraq coincided with game-changing political breakthroughs and negotiations. These diplomatic changes had just as much to do with the reduction in violence as an increase in troop levels.
If progressives really want to help forward the policy discussion, they should develop a set of alternatives premised on enduring commitment and solidarity with the Afghan people (local grants through the National Solidarity Program is a good example), and not pose them as a tradeoff for troop levels. Heck, even the commanding general in Afghanistan says this conflict has no military solution. Take that and run with it. But doing so means exercising forbearance when talking about the military presence. Uniforms are going to be part of the picture for a while. What the alliance is actually doing on the ground will determine the outcome. Tactics are already changing. But prioritizing civilians will mean that soldiers bear more of the risk. We need to come to terms with that. Any success must also include a significant shift in resources and coordination to make sure Afghans actually receive support to own their future. This kind of partnered consultation can start despite Karzai in office. The Afghan people know who isn't corrupt. We need to go national and local at the same time because promising upstarts exist at both levels. The goal is a process -- and so will be tough to measure, which is why a commitment is important. All sorts of policies here at home provide illustrations. From building the national highway system to public education, broadly distributed achievement through time take time. The laser-focused message the Afghan people need to hear is "we're on this path with you." We need to commit.
America's over-reliance on the military in Afghanistan is not desirable, but it is explainable. It reflects a challenge here at home. Over the past two decades, we've lost our institutional memory. We've hollowed-out our personnel ranks for economic development and diplomacy, for legal and technical advice. Our military has only slowly adapted to peace and stabilization activities. Privatization is a problem across the U.S. Government. Private security companies like Blackwater may have grabbed headlines, but commercial interests have invaded every aspect of U.S. security policy to an unhealthy level. Progressives should demand that most of these skills and funding return to the American people via the U.S. government so our policies are premised on public goods, not private profits. As a country, we need to face up to the fact that we've shattered our own government -- the military is really the only healthy public institution left, which is why we use it for everything. This is not smart for any self-respecting democracy.
The president will put forward his decision soon. It will involve a troop increase. If progressives stay in full opposition mode, they will exist on the margin of the debate right when we need them setting the agenda. Exit to the sidelines will also undercut future efforts to advocate a new strategy for US security. We are moving from a time when we could contain threats to one where we must minimize them. This can only happen through sustained engagement. It will require mass adaptation of policies and tools that place the safety and health of people in the center. And this kind of security won't come via uniformed presence alone. The fact that the military's activities in Afghanistan dominate the news reflects our obsolete belief that security is still about armed forces. Our obsession exposes a much deeper challenge for the USA: how do we change our presence in a world that is beyond the protection of the military? How do we set forth in a world where killing people loses the war? How do we move from a definition of security that was linear, technical and rational to one that is random, chaotic and very human? A commitment strategy for Afghanistan will help us answer these pivotal questions.
Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly
It is time for people from our embassy and troops on the ground to go village by village and ask."what do you need?" and "How can we help?" While we are helping them build roads we need to help them build donkey tracks, camel paths and foopaths between villages in these mountanous regions. Until there are passable roads through their mountains provide them with the donkeys, horses and camels that are the traditional means of travel in their country.
Provide micro loans to build local businesses. provide windmills, and wells for the mountainous towns and villages.
While we are helping them into the 21st Century, help them do what they need with the limited resources they have in the way they are accustomed one village at a time, one community at a time.
~;^}>
We need a international, committed partnership to the region.
We can do it like Great Britain and save whats left of the economy or like The Soviet Union and have chaos.
Its up to you Obama, quit appeasing the GOP and do whats best for America.
I don't knowo how to spell committment.
We went into Afghanistan back about 1981 - long before the Taliban or Al Queda. We supplied American arms to the indigineous people resulting in losses so costly to the Soviet Army that they simply pulled out and abandoned Afghanistan just like the US abandoned Vietnam. The US failed to follow up on that Afghan victory and establish diplomatic and economic relations with the people. Over the next 7 years the Taliban and Al Queda moved in and eventually attacked America using Afghanisatn as the staging ground. Bin Laden directed the operation from there but AMERICA WAS NOT ATTACKED BY AFGHANISTAN.
Fools think that if we throw in a few more troops there it will secure the peace. Did throwing more troops in Nam in 72 result in victory in 75? NO. Just because the troop surge got America a band-aid temp fix in Iraq it did not END the problems in Iraq. The minute you divert troops and attention to Afghanistan Iraq will flare up again.
One thing is certain, if America simply leaves, just pulls out like we did in Nam in 1975 the results would almost certainly be the same for America.....NOTHING. No more threat, no less threat just a whole lot more money not being wasted on a worthless country that has nothing of value or interest for the American people.
Maybe Progressives "exist on the margin of the debate" only when viewed through the prism of the Inside-the-Beltway foreign policy elite, whose views are actually on the right-wing fringes of American society.
Perhaps it is time that the foreign policy elite stop giving itself so much credit and adjust it's view to match those of the country at large instead of vice-versa (especially given the current economic conditions)?
Would such a level of humiliy be possibe from the Washington foreign policy elite, Ms. Kelly?
Cybercorrespondent http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com
Our government's missions of "liberation" on behalf of other people around the globe have got to stop.
I don't care about the Afghan people and their political fate. Let them worry about that, and all the nations in their neighborhood.
America needs to hunker down and start fixing things at home instead of squandering taxpayer dollars on forever wars in faraway places supposedly on behalf of other people most of whom have no idea about wanting democracy. They just want food, jobs, and education, which they ought to fight for themselves.
You cannot go from tribal to democracy in a few short months or years. Stupid idea, stupid strategy, cannot be won.
We will be in the streets next year at this time, just like the 60's.
"Most Afghans want us there." That's impossible to measure. I doubt they want infidels telling them how to behave at the barrel of a machine gun.
"...leave a violent, chaotic hole..." That's what Afghanistan has been for centuries: an Islamic paradise on earth.
"...death blow to ...(NATO)..." This is long overdue. NATO is obsolete. Why are Americans paying for the defense of a Europe that is collectively richer than the United States?
"...crackpot messiahs ...will claim credit." Oh no! You've named the right wingnuts' worst fears-come-true. The rest of the world doesn't respect the American military.
I have to wonder what is it about we want our troops out of there and we no longer desire to pay for your war do you not understand? No matter what is purposed or accomplished, as soon as we pull out whether it is 2010 or 2020 they will soon return to the warlord tribal system and Radical Islamic local theocracy...
The only guarantee's coming out of DC concerning Afghanistan is billions of dollars needed here at home will continue to be wasted and more young Americans will die...
Afghanistan did not attack America, but we are dropping bombs by the thousands on their people...cha ching...cha ching, and all those rounds of amunition being used by the guns shooting into invisable targets in the desert, and on the farmers tending their goats on the hillsides...cha ching...cha ching.
President Obama should be ashamed of himself for continuing to feed the BIG LIE. We voted him into office, because we wanted a CHANGE of thinking from him.
General Petraeus and the other commanders should give a lot more public lectures, talks and interviews and go into the details. The only persons against what Obama is doing are stubborn Republicans who will object no matter what he does.
It is going to take a lot longer to straighten out the problems left behind by previous presidents and Congress. Another big point to keep in mind is that there is a gloom and doom mentality being promoted by Republicans and much of the media. Someone wrote a book and audio tape about how American media has developed a culture of fear. See also:
NO TIME TO THINK-- The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle, (2008) Howard Rosenberg and Charles S. Feldman
They do, but they are trying to keep a low profile right now. McCrystal's speech in Europe caused a lot of accusations that he was trying to "pressure" the administration. Actualy it was quite benign, but the reaction shows that the climate is very tense right now. The way its supposed to work is the political leadership develops the strategic objectives- with military advice. Since Obama hasn't articulated them yet, the Generals have to be very careful not to get ahead of the political leadership. It doesn't help that Petraeus is seen by many (cough...Moveon.org) as some kind of Bush administration appendage. When and if President Obama makes his decision, he should make a very clear argument explaining what the objectives are. The the Generals can go aout explaining what that means on the ground in military terms.
Let us turn the conversation to the FINANCIAL end of the Afghanistan debate, and not get into being unrealistically reasonable about how many more troops we need!
But Obama put himself in this trap and double-downed on it with his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 17th.
What will he do? IMHO he will take the rode most likely to win re-election 2012, telling himself that once he is re-elected three years from now he can do the right thing instead of just speaking the right words.
NOW WE ARE SUPPORTING A NARCO-STATE ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
WE NEEED TO EXIT TOMORROW.