Is "Escalation" the Right Word?

For months, I've been hollering to my friends and colleagues about how progressives must not simply reboot the language and tactics for protesting the Iraq war to protesting U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. "No protest without a policy alternative" I've lectured... "If you want "out now" and you still feel obligated to the Afghan people, then come up with a set of options so you will be heard"...etc. etc.... Having worked on Capitol Hill during the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, I witnessed how informed critics were shunned into silence by the White House and their cronies in Congress. We can't let that happen again.

But we now supposedly have a non-military plan and many of us remain confused and conflicted. Seeking an alternative to the word "escalation" to describe U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, I communicated with deployed or recently back friends (who range from politically agnostic to progressive, civilian and military. All big picture types. All government experienced) and they each offered a different answer. As someone who supports a long term commitment to Afghanistan, I've realized that the most I can do to improve the critical public debate is to organize and relay their first-hand perceptions. The only thing that is clear to me right now is this: How Afghanistan policy is being explained is not how it is being experienced.

Question: Is "escalation" an accurate description of our policy? And six responses

1. It is definitely the wrong word. It is not a meaningful military word without a detailed discussion of strategies and tactics. It seems to be used as a put down -- by those who aren't familiar with any of the substance or details. The issue in Afghanistan isn't escalation and the number of troops, the issue is what you do with them once they're there. The difference between what we we're doing in Iraq (before the change in command and the surge) and what we will be doing in Afghanistan is both absolutely critical and nearly invisible to those who don't have a sharp eye focused on the details.

2. I am in all-Pashtun area and more U.S. troops will kill us. The "light footprint" of the earlier days is gone. How would you feel if you woke up and there were 20 forward operating bases with foreign solders... MRAPS and Strykers coming through your village? We are creating insurgents by our presence... and even more so since the current government is seen as fraudulent. Are we going to side with the occupiers and the corrupt government? We are feeding the Taliban's information campaign -- everything from wild parties at the U.S. Embassy to bombing those stolen tankers. As for the "civilian surge?" It is a joke. The State Department is just throwing warm bodies in and buffing up their statistics. There is no accounting for special needs and skills. In 2002 and 2003 I went everyplace, working closely with Afghans. Now for me to go to a meeting it takes four MRAPS or similar tank-type vehicles with a platoon of soldiers for protection. This is not going to lead to substantial reconstruction and development.

3. What the Congress and public need to know is that the ground situation in Afghanistan a few years back was a mission agreed to by the international forces -- the job was stabilization (which is more about building institutions) But the situation has dramatically deteriorated...many ideological opponents and home grown insurgents are gaining ground. And the US policy changed, to dismantle, disrupt Al Qaeda etc. What we are seeing with this new strategy is initial reassessments of the ground requirements. The request for more troops are to meet these new requirements. It will take more of everything i.e. loafers and boots -- to see demonstrable effects. Is this an escalation? I think, yes. Because this approach and its quality and quantity requirements will take more of everything... The difference in opinion of the mission between the U.S. and NATO and the United Nations, btw, is a great source of disunity. Allies still see long term development as the goal.

4. "Escalation" has politicized the military... note the small "p". It is not their fault, it is because there is no political counterpart, no comprehensive political plan and not enough people on the ground to do it. We need a new framework altogether and since the only agency with any wherewithal is the Defense Department, the American public understands the problem through a counterinsurgency lens... this will have to be undone... it takes six years to create a special operations soldier... we need their equivalent on the civilian side, but we don't have six years.

5. I think "escalation" is the wrong word because it denotes a primarily military solution. And that's not what we need. In Afghanistan, we need an aid worker for every soldier. And we're nowhere close to getting that -- despite a focus on development promised by the administration. We're still relying on airpower. I still think the mission in Afghanistan is a good one, but I'm losing faith that the U.S. government, the U.S. military and NATO have the ability and will to conduct a successful counterinsurgency campaign. We need to commit to a full blown counterinsurgency mission, a limited counterterrorism mission, or leave.

6. The complicating factor is that as you bring more troops in -- even if the intent is to radically change the approach to civilian protection -- you get an increased level of violence. As you seek to protect the population, those who seek to control them come after you, or you are presented with opportunities to go after them. From the outside looking only at levels of violence or casualties, it looks like "escalation" is an accurate description. Even if its not.

So is "escalation" accurate? 2 no. 2 yes. 2 maybe. This is going to be a tough political season.

Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly

Comments

[YewNeekId]

I don't know what to call it, but our soldiers are still coming home in boxes.

This must end. Obama should honor his promise made during a videotaped interview, October 27, 2007.

OBAMA: I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.

[lastpost]

Are those who suggest a violent solution, willing to make a wager on the effectiveness of their plan? By betting their own life on it? If so, then by all means let them go. If not, then their apparent enthusiasm would appear to be somewhat superficial.


What is the leader of the Taliban attempting to do, and why.
If that can be ascertained, then the logic of the reasoning applied might be brought into question.
A single example:
Is his intention to secure converts? If so, is his only available means through a use of force? If so, then it follows that it must be justifiable to impose ideology using violence. Therefore, anyone who can impose their will by strength of arms, is acting legitimately. Thus he must welcome whatever the outcome of the conflict might be. Because it will effectively demonstrate who is in the right.

[GrainOSand]

A deepening of commitment to an important job deemed -- unfinished, calling for all manner of support to insure conceived of success. Success is conceived to be a nation that does not allow its radical element to kill within and beyond its borders...­a nation in control of itself.

[masher]

Ok, here is the simple question: Is this war worth the live of an innocent child? Is this war so important that you would kill a child with your own hands? If you can't then its not worth it because we are, by accident or not, killing children there right now. It happens in ever war and we are responsible for it.

[masher]

I don't feel obligated to the Afghan people. We need to get out now.

That part of the world is a mess and always, yes always, will be. At least in our lifetimes.
They have to make their own way. Americans have no clue how to "fix" a society like theirs. We are consumer culture...­we have no tools that work there.

Get out now. Just leave.

[Kittyfire]

Don't you feel cheated that the candidate that conned you with promises of peace is doubling the troops in Poppystan? There were several REAL peace candidates, you know: Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, both fierce truth tellers, too.

[Pantleg]

I think the word should be tatical escalation or ad hoc

[CarbonCreditSeller]

The process consists of rising to the challenge, standing tall at rapt attention. Then through vigorous activity, thrust, then thrust again.

[eciaccio]

The right words are "waste", as in waste of lives and resources, and "quagmire", as in Vietnam redux.

[skantea]

Afghanistan IMO is and and always has been about its being crucial middle eastern oil and gas pipeline territory.
The U.S. wants to control and then build, plain and simple.
Al Quaeda and Bin Laden are just boogeymen, and effectively more like the keystone cops than a truly organized terrorist group. At least outside of the middle east they are.
We're still working off of the Bush/Cheney explanation of events which every one must know by now possessed not the slightest kernel of truth.

Face it folks, it's part of the energy war, and we aren't leaving until we come up with alternative energy sources readily available to the masses.
Which means we'll be there for another decade.

[noneIn2008]

Yep, it is a brave new world. Simply keep on going war and call it a police action. Call it foreign aid. Call it a humanitarian action. No matter what you call it, Americans still get killed in increasing numbers and the cost continues to rise. Let's not look to the thesaurus for change, lets see action. Let's stop making excuses and get out.

[Artos]

So you are the one who is supposed to be directing our new Strategic Security Initiative. Sounds like a nice fancy title. Try this one for size Director of Yet Another Strategic Security Blunder. That would be more appropriate. It never ceases to amaze me how in a country that prides itself on so many institutions of higher learning, that we can put into positions so many people with the same lack of real world knowledge and savvy. Have any of you folks up there begun to realize that we are in a financial mess. Did it escape your attention that America is now 9 Trillion dollars + in debt. Ever heard of an entire nation going bankrupt because the people running it think that the people who are it's citizens can no longer ante up the bucks, especially since many are without jobs. Just how much deeper into the hole do you folks think we can afford to get before this whole thing blows up in all of our faces. I expect this kind of idiotic thinking coming from Republicans and their blowhard redneck lower echelon cousins, but I had hoped for more common sense from Democrats. Oh yeah, I forgot about Johnson there for a moment. Good Luck with your new Vietnam.

[Sportster2005]

Isn't the key question "Why does the U.S. believe it is important to fight in Afghanistan?" Use the "Five Whys" to get at the real underlying answer to actions. From Wikipedia -The 5 Whys is a question-asking method used to explore the cause/effect relationships underlying a particular problem. Ultimately, the goal of applying the 5 Whys method is to determine a root cause of a defect or problem. If an action cannot stand the "Five Whys" test, you are being deceived.

[fmerati]

Whose more afraid of Taliban? Russians, Chinese, or even Iranians or US, All of the others have more Internal Moslem dissent than we do. There is more danger for them specially in their border regions from Taliban taking power than us. Why are we doing them a favor. Lets deal with Taliban and turn them towards Russians and Chineese and then they would be more willing to cooperate with us on this Important regional problem. As it stands now we are cleaning their neighborhood with our blood and dollars, while Russians are leading a coup in Tehran and chineese are building their economy as fast as they can, are we stupid?

[Ellen2]

Just my opinion, but the word is just a word without definition of what Type of escalation you are talking about.
If you really want to fix things over there, try using Rangers as platoon leaders of other soldiers to teach the proper way to interact with the locals and protect them from the radicals (in every village) (at the schools) etc.
Call it a Focused armed force for Good , and send a Lot more Rebuilding Contractors, equipment and materials to build with over there. Do Not give the locals the money to rebuild as it tends to just get absconded with...... (too bad :/ .
If the government can't take the money and make it disappear, then there will be less corruption. If Our contractors do the guarding of the materials and building of the sites, maybe it will actually get done (seeing as we could cancel their contract if the designated road or building isn't built). We Could purchase the building materials from the locals that are available from the local area as long as the price is Reasonable (no extortion allowed). Plus, contractors, whose lives might be threatened if they don't get along with the locals probably won't alienate the locals by being thuggish.