The Peace Movement Needs a Strategy For Afghanistan

The peace movement was moving full-throttle during the primary season to confront the presidential candidates on the war, and can take credit for helping to shift the momentum from Hillary Clinton -- who voted for the invasion of Iraq -- to Barack Obama -- who opposed the invasion. And we have certainly contributed to the momentous shift on the need for a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have also moved into high gear to prevent a war with Iran, and so far, have been holding our ground on that front.

But in Afghanistan the peace movement has been missing in action. This has come back to hit us in the face during Barack Obama's Middle East trip, where he called for sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. John McCain, not to be one-upped in putting our young men and women in harm's way, is also calling for an escalation of the Afghan war.

My first trip to Afghanistan was during the height of the U.S. invasion in 2001. I was horrified to see the number of innocent civilians killed and maimed by our "smart bombs." As I sat in makeshift hospitals watching children bleed to death, or saw the craters made by our bombs where homes used to be, or visited farmers whose limbs were torn off by our cluster bomblets, I wondered where this military adventure would lead.

Seven years later, we see the results: Innocent Afghans continue to be killed and maimed, more US soldiers are now dying in Afghanistan than Iraq, the Taliban have gained new strength, opium production has soared, and Osama bin Laden has not been found. The Afghan people continue to be among the poorest in the world, women are still oppressed, and the U.S. government reneged on its promise of a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild Afghanistan.

Now we have the two major presidential contenders -- Barack Obama and John McCain -- advocating the exact same "solution": Send more troops. But more troops will only mean more violence, more suffering, more killing of innocents, and more recruits for the Taliban. This war will drag on and on, for there is no way to conquer tribal forces in a vast, rugged, thinly populated country like Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Just ask the Russians. With nearly twice as many troops as the U.S./NATO forces and with three times the number of Afghan soldiers, they left defeated after 9 years of fighting and 15,000 dead.

It's time for the peace movement to come up with a position on Afghanistan. We know that war is not the answer, but what is? It's not enough to simply say "Troops out now." Should we be calling for talks with the Taliban? In Iraq, the U.S. government not only talked to Sunni insurgent groups that killed U.S. soldiers but is now allied with them.

How can we stop Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan from being a training ground for militant fundamentalists? How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war? Should we advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and if so, based on what criteria? How can we work with the peace movements in NATO countries to have a more unified and effective position?

What should we call for in terms of development aid to Afghanistan? How can the Afghan economy be weaned from opium? How can we truly support Afghan women? What will happen to them if the Taliban take over again?

This debate is long overdue. We can't put it off anymore and knee-jerk slogans won't work. We, the peace movement, need to come together and develop a strategy before our troops are sent from the "bad war" in Iraq to the "good war" in Afghanistan.

Medea Benjamin ([e-mail]) is cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange

Comments

[bystander01]

I don't think it would be all that great if we left and allowed the Taliban to take over again. They will kill many more innocents than we have.

[codyak1984]

Obama is not merely proposing more troops. He's also pushed for a substantial increase in development aid for Afghanistan and dialogue with Pakistan. A short-term troop increase is definitely a necessary step, unfortunately. In addition, however, I propose a rigorous DDR (disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration) program. This would include brokering a powersharing agreement between the Taliban and the current government (excluding compromises on women's rights and other issues that are non-negotiable), followed by a development for arms program. This would offer individual villages aid for development projects of their choosing in exchange for surrendering small arms, light weapons, and ManPADS. If they want a school, we build it. If they want irrigation systems for their crops, we build that. In Pakistan we could implement a similar position where we provide development aid and construction projects to villages and tribes in exchange for the capture of members of the Taliban and al Qaeda (instead of money to individuals like we do now). We should also scale the rewards to the number of insurgents turned in, so the tribal leaders are less likely to keep some captives in the wings like they do now to make sure the money keeps flowing. All of these programs have seen a decent amount of success in post-conflict African countries, and that's without huge support from the U.S. With a sustained, substantial, good-faith effort in these programs, I believe we could help Afghanistan stand on its own as a stable democracy.

[111]

I don't agree that there was a lot of genuine support there has been for the anti-war movement.

The way to fight terrorism is for us to withdraw all of our troops and bring all those people who have openly supported and sympathized with the US here. End all covert activities around the world, e.g. Iran. Bring all prisoners into our penal system and give them real trials with real lawyers. Stop torturing people. Stop holding political prisoners for other countries, e.g. China. Stop special rendition. End the secret prison system. Apologize to the world for all of the havoc we have wreaked. Make reparation to any country we have harmed, e.g. Haiti, Iraq, Vietnam. Stop stealing other countries resources. Stop sponsoring state terrorism around the world, e.g. Suharto. Then there will be no need for 'freedom fighters' or 'liberators' to try to protect their citizens from us.

We don't need to fix Afghanistan or any other country. Don't impose our values on others. We don't arrest tobacco growers for producing their poisons that kill millions, why should we stop the opium growers? If any country asks for assistance, give it otherwise leave them alone and let them heal.

Obama has promised to continue the warmongering by redeploying

[ebbtide]

Dear MB

There is NO peace movement in this country that I can see. Bush, either by cheating or by actual votes got his second term and continued on. Hillary Clinton voted to let him, get this country into a brutal occupation, that really cannot be called a "war". It is an occupation. One which has made the privatized contracters extremely rich. This is what a "war" does when a country becomes an occupier, kills hundreds of thousands of people, so we, the great empire, can seize thier stuff.

But, there is NO peace move,emt that I can see. I see many ill informed, or low informed voters, still with the fear their children's nursery school will be hit by the "terrorists" We are currently fighteing, if you want to call it fighting, three wars. One in Afganistan, one in Iraq, and the magnificient "WAR " on terrorism.

But, I still see NO peace movement at all