Afghanistan

[H2O Man]

(1)“As I have already told you, if at times we seemed to prefer justice to our country, this is because we simply wanted to love our country in justice, as we wanted to love her in truth and in hope.” – Albert Camus

I've found myself reading through “Make Gentle the Life of This World,” which is selections from Robert F. Kennedy's private journal from the 1960s, edited by his son Maxwell. In a curious way, the book details the progression of RFK's thinking, as he evolved from the hard-nosed Attorney General into the iconic advocate for the poor and oppressed.

Senator Kennedy believed in the social programs that were known collectively as “The Great Society.” But he was strongly opposed to the increasing US military adventure in Vietnam. He recognized that not only could that war never be won, but that it would cost the lives of thousands of American youth, and destroy and possibility for social justice in the United States. And so, he eventually entered the 1968 Democratic Primary contest, knowing that his doing so would cause many to question his motives.

Last year, I decided to support Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary contest, because I believed that he had the potential to move our nation in the same direction that Senator Kennedy hoped to. My decision was not entirely popular in that time of feuding DU camps. A few of my friends even questioned my motives. And some former D.U.ers, who were apparently unfamiliar with Lennon's song
“Instant Karma,” actually wanted me banned from this forum. I'm glad that I am still here, with this opportunity to talk about my thoughts on President Obama's policy in Afghanistan, even though this is a sometimes controversial topic on DU:GD.


(2)“I love my country too much to be a nationalist.” --Albert Camus

During both the primary and general election campaigns, I invested time and money to support Senator Obama. I was glad to have the opportunity to do it then; I'm happy now that I did; and I'm pleased to still be a supporter of President Barack Obama. Perhaps nothing better explains why I feel this way today, than something that happened yesterday: my 12-year old daughter, home sick from school, made me a poster that reads, “Barack Obama – Yes, We Can, and Yes, We Will! 2009.”

Yet, during the 2008 Democratic Primary and general election, I wrote several times on DU that I was opposed to Obama's position on Afghanistan. More, I said then, as I have said since he took office, that as a human being, an American citizen, and as a democratic supporter of this president, I must publicly express my opposition to his policies in Afghanistan.

In taking this position, I can certainly respect the fact that not only can other good earthlings, citizens, and democrats think differently, but I recognize that many of my friends here do exactly that. Now, that is the way it should be, for we can have very different opinions and beliefs, and still be friends who respect those differences.

At the same time, there are Americans supporting the war in Afghanistan, who I do not respect. Likewise, there are some opponents of the war who my friends who support President Obama's policy probably do not respect. Again, this is fine. It is the way it should be.


(3)“This is what separated us from you; we made demands. You were satisfied to serve the power of your nation and we dreamed of giving ours her truth.” – Albert Camus


Recent news coverage has brought into question the tactics used by the last administration in Afghanistan. If the goal of getting those who attacked our nation on 9/11 had been pursued, there was opportunity to achieve victory early in the war. That opportunity, as Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) pointed out, was consciously avoided, in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Both of these wars – in Afghanistan and Iraq – were unquestionably left to the current administration by the Bush-Cheney forces. I have never believed, for a second, that the Bush-Cheney administration had any desire to work towards the goal of a just America. Their goal was limited to “power” – the ability to gain riches by controlling resources, and to crush and kill anyone in their way. This included occupying strategic parts of the Middle East with large US military bases, and using their private armies to do the administration's dirty work.

In committing the crimes they did on a global scale, the Bush-Cheney forces trampled our Constitution. And just as it would, in theory, take years to do the nation-building required to create a “democracy” in a foreign land that has been torn apart by warfare, it will take years of effort for us to repair the damage done to our Constitutional democracy here in the United States.


(4)“It is better to suffer certain injustices than to commit them even to win wars, and that such deeds do us more harm than a hundred underground forces on the enemies' side.” – Albert Camus

I saw a national security person on television this week. He said the US can “win” the war in Afghanistan, by applying a lesson learned in Iraq: buy off the local leaders, rather than fight them. Genius! Perhaps we could simply offer a bounty on Usama bin Laden. Or, is it possible that not everyone is motivated by the same greed that defines so much of US foreign policy?

Many of us here are old enough to remember when political machines came into poor, often non-white neighborhoods, and tried to buy votes by simply paying off local leaders. It did not bring democracy about then, and it will not now. It does, however, bring about corruption, and it is fair to say that intelligent people in the US have reason to question if the current policy in Afghanistan is more likely to result in democracy and security, or corruption and more violence.

It is in asking these types of questions, on internet forums, in public, and of our elected representatives, that we replant the seeds of democracy on our own lands. These are much the same questions that Senator Kennedy was asking, not only of Washington, DC, but of the American public in 1968. His including these quotes from Camus in his private journey suggest that they both influenced and reflected his beliefs in those days. I think they are worth considering again today, as we consider what type of future we want, and are willing to work for.

Peace,
H2O Man

[mmonk]

1. Excellent.

I was unaware of the Camus quotes but they were apropos in the time and events Robert Kennedy was dealing with and are also today as much so.

[H2O Man]

16. Thanks.

I think that the quotes fit quite well. And I think that we have to use every available resource to convince those elected to represent us that our nation needs to take a different course of action in Afghanistan. We are not limited to but two options -- increase the violence, or withdraw completely. The best option is not found in killing, or in ignoring the poverty and suffering in that land. It is found in peace.

[mmonk]

53. True. And not improving their lot in life will make escalation

and occupation more tenuous a situation. What is your opinion on the tapi pipeline there and do you think it could make life better there or become an exploitation as in Iraq? I'm thinking we have to recalibrate our actions and make sure it doesn't remain a failed state.

[grantcart]

2. Excellent post

I would challenge one small point.


Sunni tribesman who switched from supporting AQ to joining the Americans and the Iraqi Government didn't do it for money. They had become convinced that AQ had a longer term agenda about staying in Iraq and convinced that the Americans were in fact interested in leaving. They also were genuinely horrified at the gruesome viciousness of AQ suicide missions and the efforts to start a Shia/Sunni war. Leaders of the 'Awakening' have paid for it with their lives, they were not mercenaries. It is true that large numbers of unemployed fighters were then put on the payroll and put in charge of security in their own areas. A prudent policy that has demonstrated significant results. Hopefully the government in Iraq will retain Sunni support and they will continue to be integrated into national security.


In Afghanistan it is estimated that 1/3 of Taliban supporters do not support Taliban ideologies and are engaged only to do so for economic reasons. Many of these are opium farmers that have been displaced by eradication efforts.

It is in our and the worlds interests to reach out to the average opium farmer. The most significant thing about opium farmers is not the opium but that they are farmers. They only farm opium because it has a certain market and higher profits. The US should not try to forcibly eradicate opium production but should buy the crop. This keeps farmers and their families tied to the land and out of the insurgency. Of course not all the opium would come the way of US forces but eradication doesn't wipe out all of the opium either.

Once relations have been established with opium farmers it is then possible to provide them with free seed and other farming assistance to wean them off opium production. Forced eradication doesn't have a big impact on production but does destabilize large numbers of farmers who end up as fighers. Some will consider this 'buying them off' but I think it is a prudent policy of creating viable economic future for people who are vulnerable to recruitment into war due solely to economic reasons.

[bigtree]

4. There's still a problem with the militias we trained, armed, and funded

Lot's of reprisal attacks on rivals from those we armed there.

And, as you allude, the 'Awakening' is motivated by their own needs and ambitions. Those may well one day lead them to fight against the Iraqi regime.

[grantcart]

9. While there have been problems with militias and I expect that there will

be some in the future the big story, IMHO, was the degree that key religious figures were able to eventually moderate the militias response to AQ bombings of Shia shrines and their overall use in the past few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_Mosque_bombing

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, especially the major ones in Baghdad, and calling for seven days of mourning.<30> He hinted that religious militias could be given a bigger security role if the government was incapable of protecting holy shrines.

On February 25 <2> Sistani called for Iraq’s powerful tribes to be deployed to protect the country’s holy places after three attacks on Shia shrines in four days: "Ayatollah Sistani, who received a tribal delegation from Kufa, asked that the Iraqi tribes reclaim their role of protecting the shrines,” said an official in Sistani’s office in the Shia clerical center of Najaf.... After the crimes against the places of worship, including the blowing up of the mausoleum in Samarra and the attacks against the tombs of Salman the Persian and Imam Ali bin Mussa al-Rida, the tribes must take a stand and claim a role in the protection of these sites."

Muqtada al-Sadr condemned the attack and called for calm. Having called to stop mutual attacks, Sadr ordered members of his militia to protect Sunni mosques in majority Shia areas in southern Iraq. He called for Iraqi unity and warned against "a plan by the occupation to spark a sectarian war". He called on Sunni groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars to form a joint panel and ordered his militia to defend Shiite holy sites across Iraq.

On February 25<3> Sunni and Shiite clerics agreed to prohibit killing members of the two sects and banning attacks on each other's mosques in an effort to ease tension between Iraq's Muslim communities following sectarian violence after the bombing of a Shi'ite shrine. The agreement was made during a meeting between representatives of radical Shiite cleric Sadr, Shiite religious leader Jawad al-Khalisi and members of the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars at the Abu Hanifa Mosque, a Sunni place of worship.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged Shi'ites not to take revenge on Sunni Muslims for the attack on the Samarra shrine.

According to Juan Cole,<4> three Iraqi clerics all employed their influence and authority among the Shiite rank and file to make the Samarra bombing work for them politically. Sistani expanded his militia and stayed at the forefront of the movement by encouraging peaceful rallies. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim used the explosion in Samarra to bolster his own authority. He remonstrated with the American ambassador, saying it was not reasonable to expect the religious Shiites, who won the largest bloc of seats in parliament, to give up their claim on the ministry of interior, and that, indeed, Khalilzad had helped provoke the troubles with his assertions to that effect earlier. Muqtada al-Sadr used the incident to push for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, something he has wanted since the fall of Saddam. Abroad, Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei blamed Bush and his Israeli allies, an allegation widely believed to be true in Iraq.

I think Al-Sistani should have received the Nobel Peace Prize for it. Afghanistan's Sunni (and some Sufi) population don't have the same kind of religious hierarchy that the Shia has and this makes it more complicated there with lots of local commanders appointing themselves as Mullahs with questionable religious authority.

[bigtree]

10. I think the interesting thing

. . . was how the violence began to subside after Sadr went to Iran.

[H2O Man]

18. "Any time two people

think exactly alike, it means that only one is thinking." -- Malcolm X

The process of discussing, and even at times debating these issues allows us the advantages of all DUers' insights. I definitely appreciate your insight and perspective. Thank you for sharing it with me, and everyone else reading this thread.

[Usrename]

40. But isn't that the thing we should be most afraid of?

The hit lists that have been sanctioned over there?

Reagan's war on drugs meets Bush's war on terror.

It's a freaking nightmare on wheels.

All this extra-legal stuff will leave no one's rights intact. We are actually creating a new sub-species of non-humans that have no rights at all, not even the most fundamental human rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102303709.html

[eridani]

43. Buying the opiium crop would make too much sense

Which is why it won't happen.

[bigtree]

3. very good

The pay-offs are worrisome. Invariably this strategy will also lead to some sort of NATO support for armed militia-type groups (ala Iraq) which I think is just folly. Never, in my entire life, have I believed that arming one group within a divided country would lead to peace. All I can see for the future in this is more corruption, as you say, and more violent attacks between groups - many using our support for one or the other as a catalyst for their violent resistance. I believe that most of the violence, mines, and suicide bombings are desperate expressions of self-determination and resistance to the U.S. abuse of their homeland (and Karzai's by extension) which our military forces regard as mere obstacles to their consolidation of territory and influence behind the central regime.

But, the money . . . no way to achieve any lasting, meaningful influence there.

[H2O Man]

19. Right.

There is a strange process going on, on this planet of ours. At the same time the world is getting "smaller," in the sense of the global economy and instant communications, there is an opposite drive taking place: those entities known as "nations" and "states" are fracturing, and there is increasing tension between the groups within (and overlapping parts of) the countries.

If, for example, an outside force came to our country, and began arming various groups like the tea-baggers and Palinites, I would not view it as an attempt to bring about democracy or peaceful resolution to conflict.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. K&R n/t

[H2O Man]

20. Thanks!

[ClayZ]

6. K and R

[H2O Man]

21. Thank you.

[Gregorian]

7. I'm unclear whether Obama is following his plan or that of the "machine".

This is what worries me. All of what you said echoes how I feel about what Obama does versus what the Bush admininstraion did. Two different contexts, and resulting levels of trust.

I keep thinking that Obama is being forced to do things a certain way, or risk heaven knows what. We have seen the consequences of politicians who don't follow the "rules".

So is Obama playing a game of poker with Pakistan, at the cost of our soldier's lives? Is he doing this escalation to appear a certain way, and gain Republican respect (as if such a thing even exists)? Is he thinking that by capturing Bin Laden he might one up Bush/Cheney? There are many thoughts that we're all wondering.

I am quite sure he is not a man of war. He is not a "war president". God I hated Bush.

[H2O Man]

23. In my opinion,

Barack Obama is finding that he has limited options as president. That might sound odd. But, I think a president has far more "power" to do harm, than good. Some jobs are like that.

[zeemike]

44. I think that is true....he does not have as much power as we think

I remember Jimmy Carter in an interview when a reporter asked him what surprised him the most about being president and Carter said that he was surprised by how little power he had.
The real power lies in the military industrial complex and the shadow government that pulls the strings.
And Obama is just as smart as Carter was...so it is my guess that he figured it out too.

I know it may be considered radical to say this but his life and the life of his family are at stake...I think that they demonstrated to him that security breaches could happen and that going along was his only choice if he wanted to make it through this intact.
No one wants to believe this because it shatters the illusion that we have that we are a democracy and that polices are the work of a Democratic government. When the truth may well be that our democracy ended with a shot from the grassy knoll in 1962.

[Gregorian]

50. The only real power a president has is the power to persuade.

He can't pass legislation. Yet I am appalled by how powerful the last administration was. At least some of what they did was illegal. Enter the unitary executive. I think this explains how I feel about Obama's escalation. He's not invading, but rather the opposite. And in fact it's probably not his favored choice.

[zeemike]

51. The real power in government is in the judicial and infrastructure.

Sure he is commander in chief but if there are people that are loyal to the last administration they can cause some problems for him....like having AF1 fly low over NYC or just dragging their feet when given orders.
And if there is a right wing fascist element in the military then they are probably piloting much more than just dirty tricks.

[NJmaverick]

8. You get a rec for this. I don't agree with your view on the war

but I respect the excellent way you present your position.

[H2O Man]

24. Much appreciated.

I'm glad that you posted what you did. People can disagree, but still respect the other person/people's point of view. Thank you for this!

[Me.]

11. KR

[H2O Man]

25. Thank you, Me!

[Me.]

49. Well If That's The Way You Feel About It

I think I'll just do it again. The K anyway,

[stevedeshazer]

12. Recommended.

Thanks. Your essay was thought provoking, and we need more of that.

It's been said in the media recently that spending $30 billion to send 30,000 troops works out to $1 million per soldier.

It's also been said that there are about 100 al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan today.

Ostensibly, we're doing all this to rout them out at $300 million each. That would pay for a whole lot of political machining!

Obviously much more must be at stake on so many levels.

[H2O Man]

26. One might suspect

that someone, somewhere, has a vested interest in keeping this war going. I mean, that is a lot of money.

[mike_c]

13. the "...greed that defines so much of US foreign policy....:"

Thank you for recognizing this-- sometimes it seems like an uphill battle against the exceptionalism that prevents so many here from understanding that wars that arise as a consequence of greed and avarice, whether for money, power, or more often, both, are inherently evil and unworthy of a great nation. We forfeit our greatness from the very beginning when we murder the innocent and destroy nations for profit.

[H2O Man]

29. I'm reminded of

something Vine DeLoria, Jr., used to say: the US government declared war on the Lakota/Sioux people, so that they could invade the Black Hills. They dug gold that was buried in the Black Hills, and took it Fort Knox. There, they again buried it, and had the military keep guard.

Nations that have invaded Afghanistan have generally had their long-term goals buried there.

[G_j]

14. K&R

very good

[H2O Man]

30. Thank you.

Is that a picture of Karl Rove, wearing Mickey Mouse ears? I never knew that he was in Yellow Submarine!

[G_j]

47. I think this might be Karl

(still a fun movie)

[Blue_In_AK]

15. Happily recommended.

[H2O Man]

31. Thanks!

[janx]

17. Well written post, Waterman.

How is your health? :hi:

[H2O Man]

32. Good, thanks.

I had yet another medical appointment yesterday. I do not have to have either of the other surgeries at this time. The doctor joked that it's safe for me to ignore those possibilities, at least for now.

[BeHereNow]

22. A cool drink of water from H2OMan... K&R

I always rejoice when I come across one of you threads.
Just wanted to tell you.

BHN:hug:

[H2O Man]

33. Thank you!

I do appreciate that.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Well said.

:toast:

[H2O Man]

34. Hi, Will

If you have the opportunity, watch Paul Williams' fight on HBO tomorrow night. He has a lot of talent, and puts on exciting fights.

[ShamelessHussy]

28. Afghan Policy: Likely to result in democracy and security, or corruption and more violence?

Would love to see a poll on that of the american people... the recent figures I've heard seem to indicate that americans have lost patience with the war.

But just like health care, and other important issues, many of our leaders (on both sides) don't seem to care much about what we may think or want.

Ain't 'democracy' grand :P

Thanks for sharing your insightful, and (as always) kind thoughts, H2O Man :toast:

[H2O Man]

35. Earlier this week,

there was a poster on the door of the local gas station/store. It was in regard to an up-coming public meeting, which includes information about the true cost of the war in Afghanistan. When people -- both democrats and republicans (and others) from small towns like this one turn against the war, the government has to take note. It doesn't mean that they will stop the war soon, certainly not on their own. But they know they are losing the support of average Americans.

[bleever]

36. Recommended.

Thank you for a thoughtful look at some of the other levels of political and philosophical dynamics at play here.

Do you know what Camus book the quotes are from?

[Usrename]

37. I really don't understand what Obama is supposed to do now.

It seems like there are no good alternatives except to get the hell out, and that does seem to be his new strategy. I'm certainly no expert on fighting and winning armed conflicts, but the way I understand it there are currently a lot of people in the population centers over there that have been collaborators with the US occupation. I don't see how we can get out easily at this point.

It appears a lot worse than the Vietnam quagmire. My understanding is that when we left Vietnam there was some sense of nationalism there which doesn't exist in Afghanistan.

I guess you can call me naive for being gullible enough to actually try and examine what kind of benefits might be contained in Obama's solution. I know that if I had all those lives in my hands I'd certainly try to get it right. Frankly, I don't buy into all the "war on terror" bullshit he spewed in his speech, but there is a real civil war brewing over there between the collaborators and the resistance (anti-US factions) and this is what is spilling over into Pakistan..

[Mithreal]

38. Enthusiastic K & R

[bertman]

39. Excellent post, H20 Man. "It is in asking these types of questions . . . that we replant the seeds

of democracy on our own lands."

I agree with that, but my question is "when we ask those questions over and over again, and try to replant the seeds of democracy over and over again, yet only see those seeds trampled into the ground and salt sown on them, what will our harvest be?"

[Swamp Rat]

41. k&r

[tekisui]

42. Great post H2O Man, knr.

[TexasObserver]

45. Good stuff.

[louis c]

46. You have expressed my feeling, too.

I campaigned for Barack Obama (albeit after Hillary dropped out). I, too, have differences on his Afghanistan policy.

But I am and will continue to be an ardent supporter of this President because of all the issues I agree with him on

[Bluenorthwest]

48. An excellent post as usual

[bulldogge]

52. Lots to take in

There are so many opinions on the situation and it gets a bit overwhelming at times. I listen to the reports almost daily the one common thread that I hear mentioned by individuals actually attempting to exist as citizens within the country itself is the obscene levels of corruption. Most notably by the provincial governors and then of course straight on down the line. From what I have been hearing the Afghan army has a reasonable reputation with the locals but the police are crooks. So you go and send more troops in to uphold and support a corrupt government. I'm not sure the focus is in the correct spot. Maybe they should focus on creating an ethical government...but that is like the pot calling the kettle black is it not? Another interesting theory I heard is that the Afghan army are some of the best combat soldiers in the world, the problem is their army is one of the worst in the world because they are being forced to fight in a traditional western army. If they were allowed to fight the Taliban in a squads that were more militia style in format...which was how they beat the Russians ...they would have greater success.

What a mess, when Obama was running and talking about Afghanistan I honestly thought he was doing it to get the independent/conservative vote, I thought he would be much more creative in his attempt at a solution...I was wrong. I will put it to you this way, I would vote for him over McCain/Palin without hesitation if I had to do it again but on some issues, such as this, it makes me think of the old saying "Meet the new boss same ass the old boss".

[avaistheone1]

54. Thoughtful piece.

[spanone]

55. k&r

whenever du goes insane i look to your posts for thoughtful reflection

thanks

edit: Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[hfojvt]

56. late to the party, let me just kick this back to the top