An Alternative to Sending in Troops

[Lydia Leftcoast]

After 8 years of lobbing mortars at villages and strafing wedding parties, the U.S. has no credibility in Afghanistan.

The time has come to recognize that, not only is a military solution not possible, but seeing things in military terms is a mistaken approach.

Afghanistan has been at war continuously for 30 years. An entire generation has never known what it is like to be at peace, and foreign troops have occupied the country for all but 13 of those 30 years. However, eight of those 13 years involved civil war among the mujahedin factions, and the remaining five were under the Taliban.

The people of Afghanistan need a breather. The last thing they need is more foreign troops.

But what is the alternative to spending a $1 million per month per soldier (That's $30 billion per month) and $400 to ship a gallon of fuel?

Think about it.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and less dangerous for all concerned to bring in some of the more liberal Islamic nations and pay their NGOs to do development work in Afghanistan?

First, buy up the opium crop, give the pharmaceutical companies what they need, and destroy the rest.

PAY the Egyptians, Tunisians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Bangladeshis, Malaysians, and Indonesians to build schools, build roads, build houses, set up health clinics, and teach alternatives to farming poppies and methods for setting up businesses. Until these programs are in place, just keep the U.S. troops in a holding pattern, able to fight back if attacked but not going looking for trouble. In addition, the aid workers would demonstrate that you don't need to live in the Middle Ages to be a Muslim. (The current situation encourages people to think of modern ideas as being "anti-Islamic.")

Then start an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops.

[Robb]

1. I like the idea.

I wouldn't particularly want to work for the NGO that's willing to head in without U.S. troops on the ground, if I'm honest. But there are probably braver folks out there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. But if they're clearly fellow Muslims and not Westerners or Russians?

Maybe the sponsoring countries could send bodyguards for their NGO workers.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to work for an NGO WITH U.S. troops in the country because the U.S. troops would be targets.

[Go2Peace]

7. People don't even want to hear other ideas here. Amazing, they are unrecing what is just an idea

[maxsolomon]

3. there's lots of idle SE asian muslims in Dubai

i don't know if you'd find many muslims, muslim NGOs, or muslim governments willing to associate themselves with the NATO/Murkan occupation in any way

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. How about coming in as the good guys after the Americans have left?

:-)

[maxsolomon]

6. well, thats more realistic

but i don't know if the islamic world has "good guys" capable of rebuilding afganistan under taliban &/or warlord harassment. maybe i'm wrong.

[NoSheep]

5. That's a pretty good idea. I wonder if corruption is why it isn't considered an option.

[BeFree]

8. Makes sense

Certainly continuing and even escalating what we know is a failure is insane.

If we really want to solve what some consider a problem worth throwing troops and trillions of dollars at, then the decision should be one that has all alternatives considered. And it wouldn't hurt to do it in an open and democratic way.

What does hurt is to have this crammed down on us as is being done.