New Pressures Affect War in Afghanistan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-01/new-pressures-affect-war-afghanistan
In December 2009, President Obama set this July as the month when troops would begin to withdraw from Afghanistan. But as the date nears, debate continues over how many troops to bring home and how to do it. Afghan president Hamid Karzai complicated the discussions yesterday. He demanded an end to U.S. led coalition strikes against civilians. As the price tag for war grows, many Americans say they are ready to see troops come home. Others say the U.S. is making gradual progress and should stay. New pressures on the U.S. in Afghanistan and continuing debate over withdrawal plans.
Guests
Stephen Biddle
senior fellow for defense policy, Council on Foreign Relations; author, "Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle"
Phyllis Bennis
director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies; co-author author of "Ending the U.S. War in Afghanistan: A Primer"
Ambassador James Dobbins
director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, and former special envoy to Afghanistan.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
DRShow could have been combined into one two hour segment today with David Ignatius because that's what it's all about, the killing of innocent people, and about the killing of indigenous culture. There would be no Taliban if a sizable portion among the ethnic divisions of that region were not afraid of losing a way of life and a set of values that way of life used to support. Here we had a truly undeveloped area at the crossroads of Asia. It might have been a much better picturesque place if not for colonialism and the Cold War. Development was thus skewed toward extraction, militarism and confrontation when it didn't need to be.
Once I tried painting and I was not very good. I had plenty of oil and acrylic paints. All my effort and frustration was poured into one large canvas that became a garbage dump of color and was discarded into the dumpster. The USA is like a bum who took that canvas from the receptacle and tried to rework it. It was too late for outside interference a long time ago. We owe the Afghans some reparations and the opportunity for self determination, maybe several opportunities. Predators and reapers don't solve anything, but pick at infected sores we inflicted. This is one of the greatest human shames of all time, and it was caused by greed and power madness by the Oligarchs of the "developed world."
I'm very proud of our Canadian troops which are now after many years of heavy fighting pulling back. I agree with P.M. Harper that the real threat now is in Pakistan. American forces running around the hills of Afghanistan are doing nothing to win the hearts of the people when they continue killing innocents. It really doesn't matter how long NATO forces are there because the Taliban will never leave. Both wars like nearly most wars accomplish very little. The world's emerging economies are moving forward without having to kill scores of people even though many face the same threat of terrorism. But they know that full scale wars will never defeat evil it just contributes to it.
Quick facts: Total GDP for Afghanistan is $30 billion, with per capita income $1000 for about 30 million Afghan citizens.
Another quick fact: Last year US Govt paid $130 billion for war in Afghanistan.
Question: Wouldn't paying each Afghan citizen a full years wage to sit out the war for 2012 for $30 billion and saving $100 billion for the US budget be easier than the current course?
Daniel Bennett
Washington, DC
To truly test people's appetite for continuing these wars, let's institute a special tax (progressive, of course)) to pay for them.
jack
Bottom line, until the people in this area of afghanistan and pakastian are not educated in madrases and by religious fundamentalists we will not change how they feel about us and it will not end. Education separated from religon is the only way, that includes our fundamentalists Christians in this country.
One of your guests used drew a reference to Alexander the Great being defeated in what is modern day Afghanistan (Bactria). The analogy he used was built upon a historically incorrect assertion. Macedonian advances began to decline after the Battle of the Hydaspes, which was located in modern day India. He faced relatively no resistance from the Bactrians.
There is nothing in the historical record to dictate that the situation in Afghanistan is inherently hopeless.
Senator Jessie Helms saved money by cutting the budget to the Peace Corp. Now we spend a fortune each day because of the pennies we saved. I support winning the war because religious groups are like Communist. They don't stop they are You are one of us or we will kill you.
Do you think that undercover activities in Afghanistan could be a more effective and efficient approach to the war? And, if it is, does the appointment of General Petreyaus ??? as head of the CIA may have to do something with it?
The use of force will be useless unless those using it are seen as having the right to use it legitimately; otherwise, it will only be effective as long as it's in constant use.
Fortunately, this also applies to the Taliban; however, we have the disadvantage of being (at least theoretically) stronger than the Taliban, so our victories don't mean as much, whereas as theirs tend to be seen as indicators of the rightness of their cause.
'They want us there.' 'We're there under UN resolution.' What hogwash. We created both of these positions for our selfish interests. What Afghan politician wouldn't want our presence since it comes with $$billions of American dollars and provides them free personal protection? Duh!!
To your panelist's alternatives for measuring risk of withdrawal, I vote 'irrelevant.' We can't protect against all threats from all places, both internationally and domestically. What a stupid flawed rationale. Plus, when did it become our nation's responsibility to ensure that Afghan women are educated or life expectancy increased in that one specific geographic area?
I BEG to differ: Humanitarianism IS served by the ending of the US occupations overseas. We have nothing admirable to export to these places, but only greed and callous business and violence when our wealthy class doesn't get what they want. To say the kids will keep fighting when the bully is expelled from school misses the greater truth: Why are there no adults in this ugly world?
The show is very much about risk and prevention. How about the risk that the US is actually destabilizing Pakistan THROUGH its very activity in Afghanistan by enraging and radicalizing the people in Pakistan?
One of your guests compared the number of civilians casualties in Afghanistan and the number of homicides in Wash DC.
How do you legitimately compare the actions of individuals to the actions of our country?
It is rather disengenious for one of your guests to suggest that there's ongoin polling of the peopl of Afghanistan. As a research and statistician, I would like to know how this polling is being conducted considering that over 90% of the population is illiterate and there aren't comprhensive means of reaching representative urban, suburban, and rural centers. It the polling is restricted to the educate part of Kabul, then it isn't valid, or reliable.
I want to thank Ms. Bennis for being a voice for peace against the all too habitual argument for warmaking as a preventative measure against unqualitative and often incalcualable future risks.
Iran could develop a nuclear device and attack the US - shall we invade Iran, how many US and Iranian lives, treasture, traumatic stress are worth this risk?
Terrorists from Yemen could attack the US (again) - shall we invade Yemen, how many US and Yemeni lives, treasure, traumatic stress are worth this risk?
Terrorists from Pakistan could attack the US (again) - shall we invade Yemen, how many US and Pakistani lives, treasure, traumatic stress are worth this risk?
North Korea could launch an attack against the US or South Korea - shall we invade North Korea,how many US and Korean lives, treasure, traumatic stress are worth this risk?
Thousands of women are raped and killed in the congo's civil war - shall we invade to stop this? Would more US and Congolese lost life, treasure spend and induced traumatic stress be worth the risk of continuing no military action?
Mexican drug cartels could smuggle WMD/terrorists into the united states - shall we invade Mexico,how many US and Korean lives, treasure, traumatic stress are worth this risk?
Iraq could pose no direct threat other than perception and heightened fears after 9/11 - were the US and Iraqi lives, treasure, and traumatic stresses a worthy price?
If we left Afghanistan, terrorists could use that country to attack the US - are thousands of US and Afghani lives, billions of dollars and immeasurable quanitities of traumatic stress that will last generations worth this risk?
If country X could, just maybe support an attack on country Y in the future, shall country X invade at a lost of hundreds, thousands of lives, billions of dollars and immeasurable quanitities of traumatic stress that will last generations?
Fear, fear, fear makes the war machine go. What' going on?
@ origen01:
What about the Great Game? An entire century of territory conflict in Afghanistan between Russia and Great Britain...both of their failures at least partially due to Afghanistan's inherent tribalism that undermined an already frail leadership. This model of strong individual warrior/civilians (tribalism) and easily usurped puppet governments (frail leadership) continued until the Soviet occupation, where it again contributed (at least partially) to the failure of the occupying force.
I think, considering the last 200+ years in Afghanistan, there is historical record to suggest the situation in Afghanistan is 'inherently hopeless.'
Please have Phyllis Bennis on the program again, and more frequently. She would
be terrific on recent Middle East events.
Since when does killing make peace? It never has. Are we willing to risk the loss of a single life, "American" or otherwise, in the execution of unattainable foreign policy objectives? Have we already forgotten Vietnam and Central America? Morality has been banished from the conscience of America. We should be ashamed of our actions.
There is a difference between the narrative used to justify the war, and the actual motives of those elements of U.S. political economy who are actually asserting their influence to continue this war. For example, you've spent many minutes talking about the wellbeing of Afghans, and likelihoods of civil war if the U.S. military withdraws. To my mind, this is utterly disingenuous. The actual votes in congress are driven by an arithmetic of power and money in US domestic economy. Would you please try harder to describe the real thing, and spare us from repeating the propaganda and PR which is used to sell the war? When you engage in the propaganda milieu, such as the Global War on Terror framing, the Osama bin Laden, etc. you take yourself out of the policy debate into what is essentially a fictional world.
"Our military is made up of people who have been forced by lack of other opportunities, lack of money for school,lack of jobs, into the military"
I'm not entirely sure what Phyllis Bennis is talking about here, but she is clearly mistaken. Although it is true that the benefits that the military provides attract a lot of people, they are by no means the only reason we serve, nor are they a forcing factor for our service. When we say we are an all volunteer force, it's not just BS. Every single member in the U.S. armed forces serving today has had a chance to not raise their right hand and swear to defend the U.S. constitution, and every single member has raised their right hand and sworn to defend the U.S. constitution. In fact, there are LBGT Americans fighting today to have the honor of serving their country, and I applaud them for that. I find her comment here very disrespectful to those who give so much of their own time and energy, and sometimes even their lives, in the defense of our nations interests both here and abroad.
I cannot speak for every other member of the military, but if I had given my life in a foreign country that is trying to establish a democracy, I would not want my life to be given in vain. No, an Afghan life is not worth any less than mine, or any other American, but the pursuit of democracy is worth all of our lives combined. It would be a tragedy if all of the lives lost in Afghanistan were disregarded because we couldn't hold out and continue to provide a growing nation the security it needs to flourish. For the Afghan people, war is hell, but the alternative could be much worse.
They give the Peace Prize to a guy fighting two wars and carrying out killings in other countries. What's peace?
You wear the Afghan people on your sleeve as if you cared for their livelihood, but you fail to realize that it is the Taliban themselves who are killing the majority of Afghan civilians. Yes it is true that U.S. and NATO forces are responsible for civilian casualties, and this is very tragic, but consider the alternative. Consider a country without the U.S. military or their NATO allies. Consider the huge power vacuum and subsequent loss of life after we depart. Do you honestly think that a war stops when the big players pack up and leave?
I highly doubt you are aware of our mission in Afghanistan, and I cannot blame you for this. It hasn't been accurately portrayed in the media since the early 2000's. We are in Afghanistan to provide their government with the security they need to do their job. Our role is not, as you seem to think of it, one of conquest and murder. On the contrary, if you visit a base in Afghanistan you'll find more of their own civilians employed there than our own military members. As a modern armed force, our mission is two fold. Yes we do deal in the business of death, but we also deal in the business of stability as well. Take a look at South Korea for example. If not for the brave men and women on the U.S., South Korean, and NATO sidelines who stood up against an invading force, North Korea would be a whole lot larger than it is today.
No one in the military is under the illusion that military might is the answer to our problems in Afghanistan. No one believes that if we eliminate the Taliban, all will be sunshine and lollipops. But we do believe in the mission that has been put before us. We do believe that the Afghan people deserve the right to rebuild their society, and we do take pride in the opportunity we have to bolster a new government that is barely a decade old. There's no fear here, just the principles that entitle you to your oblivious opinion.
hainc wrote:
'They give the Peace Prize to a guy fighting two wars and carrying out killings in other countries. What's peace?"
It would be interesting to hear what the Nobel Committee would say today, but it is noteworthy that the left and the Nobel Committee is indeed that, has a strange way of making all kinds of excuses why it's different when it's one of their own.
For the sake of peace for the world it just might help when the U.S. declares bankruptcy.