President Obama says his decision on a new strategy for Afghanistan will "give clarity to the American people about what we're doing, how we're going to succeed, what's the end game... (and) how much this thing is going to cost."
The cost of war in dollars alone requires a choice not only to stop sending troops but also to withdraw all U.S. military forces and invest in civilian-led development of Afghanistan's devastated communities and for jobs and real security here at home
Consider: It costs $1 billion to send 1,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
That's $1 million per solder for one year, according to the Pentagon. In total, it is millions more than the entire revenue collected last year by the Afghanistan government -- $890 million.
That $890 million is also the cost of providing health care to 550,000 U.S. children or to the cost to keep 16,000 teachers educating the next generation of Americans.
And that $890 million is dwarfed by the more than $44 billion spent yearly on U.S. war funding.
Given that staggering cost, it's clearly time to reconsider "what we're doing." Investing in support for strong civilian institutions and in humanitarian aid led by civilian aid workers is more likely to create a stable Afghanistan than continued warfare. Spent here at home, it could help lead us out of our jobless economic recovery.
To "succeed" in Afghanistan should be defined as helping Afghans build better lives and peaceful futures for their children and their nation. That's why we support a strategy of diplomacy, the rule of law, accountability and development that meets the U.S.'s moral obligations both to American soldiers and to Afghan citizens.
Specifically, we call for: No more troops to be sent. A timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and for diplomacy and dialogue with all parties to the conflict - without preconditions. Providing development aid by civilian-led organizations, not the military. And redirecting the more than $44 billion spent on war to human needs in Afghanistan and at home.
Only a comprehensive diplomatic process with all parties involved in the conflict can begin building a peaceful future in Afghanistan. Only a commitment to end the war and for the withdrawal of U.S. troops can jumpstart the process of bringing all parties to the table to talk - and thus signal the administration is serious about "success."
While much is unclear about "the end game" in Afghanistan, the path we walk now has led only to escalating violence, destruction and death. This path will not lead to a good "end game" for Afghanistan, for the region, or for the United States.
We have seen that end game before. President Obama will do well to avoid recreating Lyndon Johnson's tragedy, sacrificing reform and development on the altar of war. Only by choosing a path away from military involvement and towards civilian-led redevelopment and inclusive diplomacy will the U.S. be able to help lead Afghanistan out of three decades of war and into a more peaceful and secure era.
We urge the President to remember that the path to peace is the one most likely to succeed.
Having read a war story the conversation eventually turned to politics and Afganistan. I listened as the intimate group of a dozen or so women in this very conservative city voiced concern with the war. I felt increasing amazement as many indicated a desire to "get out" and almost all questioned the whole mid-east/Iraq involvement from the beginning. There was very little argument.
The significance? 18 months ago bringing up the war was practically forbidden in this group; being an advocate for peace was barely tolerated.
While President Obama carefully determines the best plan of action in Afganistan, or "dithers", the tide of public sentiment is clearly shifting. More and more Americans are fed up with our outsourcing of treasure over there while people are struggling to survive over here. Perhaps for some the motivation is based on mistrust of the new administration. And perhaps our president knows just how to use that to help him accomplish what could not be accomplished a few short months ago...I quite believe he does.
This I know, in bookclub this week the concensus was for peace and resolution in Afganistan - and I didn't say one word.
The G.I. who gets sent back for a 3rd or 4th Tour feels like he's being punished and tortured!
Far to many are easing the pain of being sent back to fight in a war his Countrymen do not care about. Because American citizens are not involved in what the Government is doing, pushing overworked G.I.'s far beyond the limits of Mental and Physical pain endurance, our soldiers are killing themselves to escape from becoming third-world psychopathic killers motivated by self preservation and fear.
Why?
Why are we spending enormous sums to create legions of psychopaths who have a need for as much ammunition as they can carry, sleep with a loaded weapon, shoot at anything that might be a threat; to get sent home for a few weeks and live as a stranger among his loved ones. Who realizes he wants to be unplugged from the war machine which will not release him until he is dead; so he pulls the pin on a Grenade and holds it up to his hear and listens to hear the fuse.
The two wars we wage are obscene.
Our troops are exhausted and they are committing suicide in record numbers. Declare victory and bring them home.
In 8 years the US has taken apx. 844 casualties.
NATO as a whole has taken around 1500, over an eight year period.
*This is important*, look where the majority of casualties occur.
here is a map: http://icasualties.org/oef/ByProvince.aspx
Almost half of them are concentrated into several provinces in the South East (af-pak boarder area).
Especially the provinces of Kandahar (206) and Helmand (333), this is also where the grand majority of combat operations are taking place.
Here is another thing to consider along with that.....compare with a map showing what is actually in Afghanistan (towns, villages, resources, ect)....The area to to south and east of HWY 1 (where of casualties and fighting is occuring, and the region where combat actions are actually increasing) is dirt farms, and Its rather sparsely populated.
And by doing so, the ISAF would be able to actually secure the population centers, thus making those goals possible.
That, in my opinion is the biggest problem with our current operations, by neglecting the population centers in much of the country, we also make them less secure, and therefor open to Taliban infiltration, as well as undermine our overall mission
With the highest infant mortality rate in the world, Afghans need food, schools, medicine and hospitals. They do NOT need bombs, bullets and occupying soldiers. Let's harness our tremendous wind and solar energy capabilities, reduce or eliminate our need for oil (as well as gas, coal and uranium), and start spending money and lives on real needs both here at home and abroad. This bloody lust for profit cannot continue to define US foreign policy!
Thank you Peter for your timely and essential observations.
"providing development aid by civilian-led organizations, not the military. "
How will those civilian led organizations be able to work without an International security assistance force?
No kidding. Air drop distributed supplies.
Food, medicines, phones, computers, defensive non-lethal weapons.
It's worth a try.
Honestly. You are going to airdrop schools and clinics? Airdrop modern civilization and infrastructure? How much do you really think is going to be able to be 'airdropped'?
Even basic humanitarian aid, would be worthless, leaving aside the give a man a fish premise, you really think the guys with the most guns wont just horde the stuff, ala Somalia.
I guess I would suggest, if serious about a plan of that sort, it will need to be a little less naive.