Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rethinking Afghanistan

Posted by Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation at 10:51 AM on July 24, 2008.


Obama is showing sound thinking on Iraq, so why does he continue to talk abou tescalating the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan?
21obama600
Obama with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get War on Iraq in your
mailbox!

 

If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo -- but by the democratic ideals to which we aspire. His election, allied with smart and humane policies, could help restore this country's global reputation -- and turn a page on the reckless and destructive policies of mad men.

Obama has shown how capable he is of good judgment. His original opposition to the war and his still-firm commitment to an expeditious withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq -- a war which long ago lost any strategic purpose -- are both good measures of that judgment. (His position on keeping residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq is one The Nation disagrees with.)

So it is troubling that as he shows sound thinking on Iraq, Obama also continues to talk about escalating the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for Senator Obama, but for most Democrats in Washington, who argue mantra-like that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in Afghanistan.) Shouldn't serious thought be given to how Senator Obama's necessary agenda for healthcare and progressive economic reform might be sacrificed to yet another trillion-dollar war without end?

That's why I would urge Senator Obama to read three documents and think long and hard about the dangers to his agenda -- both domestically and internationally -- of extricating the U.S. from one disastrous war and heading into another. I believe there are alternatives which need to be explored at this critical juncture before such a commitment is made, and some of those ideas are found in these documents.

A statement from the international relief and development organization Oxfam America urges both Senators Obama and McCain to expand the debate regarding Afghanistan beyond a discussion of troop levels, examining the importance of targeted development, sustainable aid, and the danger of increasing civilian casualties: "Alleviating poverty and protecting civilians from violence are essential components of a strategy to bring peace and stability to the country. Unless the next American president... builds on the existing commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace...."

In a Financial Times article, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser and a supporter of Senator Obama, warns the U.S. of the trap of another Soviet-style occupation in Afghanistan -- and he should know, given that he's the guy who set it. "It is important for U.S. policy in general and for Obama more specifically to recognize that simply putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the entire solution," he said. "We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made ... Our strategy is getting in deeper and deeper."

Finally, an editorial in the Guardian writes of, " ... the temptation ... to throw more military forces at the problem in a replication of the Iraq 'surge' ... For many, it is becoming clear that it cannot be won, framed in military terms." The editors go on to argue for targeted micro-financing used towards sustainable rural development.

There is no easy answer here, but certainly we need to think beyond the almost reflexive response of troop escalation in order to find sane and humane alternatives. When Senator Obama met with President Hamid Karzai, the talks focused on Al-Qaeda, no discussion of sustainable development, no discussion of poverty, or how record opium production is fueling the warlords. Military escalation will increase civilian casualties and further tarnish the nation's reputation internationally. It's time to do some tough thinking before we are bogged down in another occupation and we continue to bleed more lives and resources.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, obama, healthcare, afghanistan, al-qaeda, hamid karzai, military escalation, economic reform, agenda

Katrina Vanden Heuvel is the publisher of The Nation


U.S. Security Firm Indicted for Fraud in Afghanistan
The company, called U.S. Protection and Investigation, is accused of getting paid "inflated" amounts for its work on behalf of USAID.
Post by Bernard Hibbitts. October 6, 2008.
Iraq to Give 82% of Proven Oil Reserves to International Oil Companies
Oil companies to benefit from war? Say it ain't so.
Post by Staff. October 5, 2008.
The Hidden Cost of War: Watch How Fast $3 Trillion Adds Up
GOOD Magazine's animated look at the ballooning dollar signs.
Post by ZP Heller. October 3, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The people of Afghanistan don't want us there either
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 24, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people of Afghanistan don't want us there either... they know the behavior of the groups we support already.

I can't imagine sending thousands of heavily armed and heavily traumatized US troops to Afghanistan. I understand that there are things Obama needs to say and do to get elected, but I hope that the Afghanistan escalation will not be the massive 100,000+ force we have in Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok so what do you brainiacs suggest...
Posted by: chuckjs on Jul 25, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to put down a resurgent Al-Qaida and Taliban. There obviously are not enough troops there to begin with otherwise there would not be a resurgent enemy?

Do you just let them rebuild and attack again? Or do you suggest that maybe we talk the warlords into giving up a multi million dollar crop to be shit poor!

What about Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation? Al-Qaida is hiding out there with the same freedom to roam they had in Afghanistan just before 9/11. Al-Qaida also had ISI backing before 9/11.

All the talking, negotiating, and alegiances in the world has done anything to change the Pakistani attitude towrds American Imperialism.

So pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and lets see what those bleeding hearts get in return.

You know sometimes WAR IS NECCESARY! So is the proper amount of troops to fight it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Are "They"
Posted by: curiousdwk on Jul 25, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who are the al-Quida in Afghanistan?

Who are the Talliban in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is a country run by various warlords. The head of Afthanistan doesn't have any power or control outside of his city. The elections were a farce because there was so much danger, the candidates couldn't travel around the countryside.

Afghanistan is a country occupied by the US. As occupiers, we have nothing to "win". We've already won all that we will ever win. How would "success" be definited? Like in Iraq - there is no definition for success in a country that you occupy and have already set up your own puppet govenment. The insurgents aren't fighting the various warlords as much as they are fighting those that promote the US occupation. As long as we are occupiers, there will be insurgents. You'll never whack all the moles as they will keep springing up.

What progress has our occupation made in the last two years? What progress will it make in the next two years? There is no progress in a continued occupied State.

As occupiers, we need to define our strategy in terms other than "how many enemies did we kill today?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Are "They" Posted by: umrayya
Perhaps the answer is not more troops, but..
Posted by: djnoll on Jul 25, 2008 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a strategic group of experts, like the Seals or the Rangers, using intelligence from several sources to enter the area where we know Al Quaeda and Bin Laden are located, and extract him and his top lieutenants. Once that is done, dead or alive really does not matter, we tell the Pakistanis to clean up their mess or the Taliban will take their country just as they once did Afghanistan.

As for the warlords of Afghanistan and their opium crops, we have several options, none of them particularly good - burn them out, invade them, or just let them fight amongst themselves and destroy their own crops. I know of several units of the Army who have been working with NGO's to help local farmers and communities to transition from warlord dominated agriculture to sustainable agriculture, but it is slow work and not safe a good deal of the time.

The DEA and FBI have been working for decades to stop the flow of drugs from this part of the world without success. Many of these warlords are protected by US policy and therefore, are untouchable. Sending in troops to wipe them out will not work, and I believe Obama's main concern is not a war like Iraq, but rather bringing those who caused 9/11 to justice (or if you believe in the conspiracy theories, clearing their names and putting the blame where it belongs)and helping to undo some of the ravages of this forgotten war. I do not believe he has ever said that we should protract this war, but rather finish what was started in 2001 - finding and bringing to justice those responsible for the deaths of 1000's of citizens. It has never been his intention, as I understand his policies, to keep American troops there any longer than it takes to accomplish their original mission - stop Al Quaeda and bring Bin Laden to trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More reading
Posted by: CJC on Jul 25, 2008 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vanden Heuval might have also referred Obama and us to a piece in Time Magazine this month by Rory Stewart. Stewart walked across Afghanistan in January 2002. He then resumed his career in the British Foreign Office and was in Iraq from August 2003 to late spring 2004. Then he moved to Kabul.

His piece is entitled "How to Save Afghanistan" -
not with guns. It can be found here -
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1823753,00.html

For more in depth reading there is Ahmed Rashid's invaluable book "Taliban" published in 1999 and his 2008 "Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia."
Also Steve Coll, 2004, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001."

I hope someone on Obama's foreign policy advisory staff will read all these books post-haste if they have not already done so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]