Occupying Afghanistan Is Making Things Worse

President Obama is coming under attack from the Right for his reluctance to grant the request of General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, for more U.S. troops. On the other side of the equation sits the majority of the American people, who are against sending more troops and in fact oppose this seemingly endless war that has now entered year nine.

Obama should go with the people and set a timetable to get our troops out of Afghanistan as soon as is practically possible, which should be less than one year. Their presence cannot contribute to bringing peace and security to that country, nor does it contribute to the security of the United States. In fact, the occupation of Afghanistan is making things worse on both counts.

With regard to the people of Afghanistan, my colleague Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy presents the most compelling piece of recent evidence that the occupation is a complete failure. Five years ago, 70 percent of eligible voters participated in the Afghan presidential election. This year it was down to 38 percent. This is mainly because the security situation has deteriorated over the last five years. It also represents a political failure: the inability or unwillingness to negotiate a political settlement that would have allowed many more people to vote.

The United States has also helped put together a government that is dominated in key positions -- especially military, police, and intelligence -- by Tajiks, the ethnic group whose para-military leaders were the first to strike a deal with the invading forces. Not surprisingly, this contributed to the nationalist fuel for the insurgency among the Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group. This contribution to ethnic conflict is a common mistake, or sometimes a tactic, of occupying powers that helps drive lasting and violent civil wars. The United States made similar moves in Iraq that contributed massively to horrific sectarian violence against civilians there, most of which was committed not by suicide bombers but by the occupation-supported government and its allies. More than a million Iraqis, according to the best estimates, are dead as a result of the Iraq War. Do we need to do the same in Afghanistan in order to "save" that country?

With regard to the United States' national security, there is no legitimate reason for continuing this war. Most experts are in agreement that Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan for Pakistan. President Bush wanted to send ground forces into Pakistan, but the Pakistanis said no. Fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when they have left for Pakistan is reminiscent of the old joke about the drunk who is seen looking for his wallet under a streetlight. When asked if he lost the wallet there, he says "no, but this is the only place where there's enough light to look for it."

In any case the greatly feared potential "haven" for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan turns out to much less important than previously imagined, as a potential threat to the United States. As Paul R. Pillar, a former top counter-terrorist official at the CIA recently noted, "The preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."

There is also a moral dimension here that is overlooked by the pundits. It is wrong to kill people, including civilians, and bring mayhem and destruction to other countries simply to "save face" or fend off political attacks from right-wing politicians. Thank God there are millions of Americans who understand this much better than their elected, appointed, and self-appointed leaders. If they keep up the heat, this war will end.

This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on October 8, 2009.

 

 

Comments

[alexa07]

"It is wrong to kill people, including civilians, and bring mayhem and destruction to other countries simply to "save face" or fend off political attacks from right-wing politicians. Thank God there are millions of Americans who understand this much better than their elected, appointed, and self-appointed leaders. If they keep up the heat, this war will end."

Mark,
I could not agree with you more. The vested interests & big foreign lobbies promoted the war on Iraq; now they are busy promoting more war on the Afghan people & now it appears also on the Iranian people. The old colonial tactic of "divide & rule" is immoral, of course, but it also proved to be a dead-ender. Where are the European colonials now? The Obama people need to get off the war track, literally & to modify their recent actions at the UN.

[califlefty]

On this topic, we diverge. There is no Afghani will to fight for their own self-interest, and no amount of American power can ever fill that political vacuum. The mistakes of Vietnam apparently have not been learned. Shall we win their "hearts and minds"? Will we "Afghanicize" the war? How many more troops in a futile attempt at....what? These doctrines won't work without a true local win to fight and win, and the Afghani culture is the last place you will find those values. The most realistic effort would be a real stranglehold on their money and arms suppliers (The Europeans and Arab dealers) to the Taliban, and a low level "wet war" against their leadership. Undercut their political base by supporting competing local strongmen and use stand off weapons for surgical strikes against pockets of strength when they build up. I prefer they have chronic chaos at their expense then a futile attempt at nation building at our expense.

[MosheDayanHero]

"There is no Afghani will to fight for their own self-interest,"

Obviously you never heard of the Northern Alliance which defeated Taliban, with some American help.

[califlefty]

the Northern Alliance held the Northeast corner of the country (about 10%) because they were Tajiks, not Sunnis. If they "defeated" the Taliban, I must have missed it.

[mommamia526]

Well, let us get real, shall we? What is the cash crop in Afghanistan? Where are the markets for that cash crop? What usually happens with turf wars about similar cash crops? Take a look at facts and data for Mexico, please. As with Mexico invading into the U.S. to expand the illegal drug cartels' territories, so this may be the case with the Taliban in Pakistan. Is there any solution feasible in the decades long drug wars in the U.S.? Did we employ troops to fight that war? Would that measure work in Afghanistan? Where are the markets for the opium Afghanistan exports? Any history on the trade routes, for example, into China, for those opium crops? I am just asking. These situations are demand-driven. The crops and product are illegal, and therefore we have gangs and terrorists. But, do not take my word for it, give me a better idea of what is really going on. Can we really solve a problem if we have not properly defined it, and the means to solve the problem? We see all the associated problems with terrorism that we see with any other crime syndicates, murder being one of those problems.

[MosheDayanHero]

The world community must NOT abandon Afghans YET AGAIN to the tender mercies of Taliban and foreign Jihadists.
It would illogical, strategically disastrous and highly unethical thing to do so.

[dogman44]

Please expound on your statement.

[MosheDayanHero]

When Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan, all the countries ( U.S. China, U.K. etc) that armed and trained enouraged the warlords and various Islamic Jihads and mujaheddin pulled out as well. And abandoned Afghanistan to the resulting civil war between secular socialist government, various Islamicist warlords, Al Qaeda and Talibs.
Study the subject.