Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops, in Afghanistan
USA Today reports that Gen. McKiernan - top U.S. commander in Afghanistan - "has asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000 soldiers, Marines and airmen" to augment U.S. forces. McKiernan says U.S. troop levels of 55,000 to 60,000 in Afghanistan will be needed for "at least three or four more years." He added: "If we put these additional forces in here, it's going to be for the next few years. It's not a temporary increase of combat strength."
We should have a vigorous national debate before embarking on this course. Contrary to what one might think from a quick scan of the newspapers, there are knowledgeable voices questioning whether increasing the deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan is in our interest, or is in the interest of the Afghan people.
Bestselling author and former longtime New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer argues the opposite in this five minute video:
Kinzer argues that sending more U.S. troops is likely to be counterproductive. It's likely to produce more anger in Afghanistan, and more anger is likely to produce more recruits for the Taliban. A better alternative would surge diplomacy instead, reaching out to people who are now supporting the Taliban.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are very different forces, argues Kinzer. The Taliban has deep roots in Afghan society. Many of the warlords allied with the Taliban are not fanatic ideologues.
Afghanistan is a place of fluid loyalties, Kinzer notes. A warlord allied with the Taliban may not be anti-American, or if he is today, he need not be tomorrow. We should take advantage of these fluid loyalties, and try to follow the diplomatic solution that Afghans and Afghan leaders are advocating.
Almost all the money in Afghanistan fueling the insurgency comes from the Afghan poppy crop, the source of most of the world's heroin, Kinzer notes. We're trying to crush that poppy-growing culture in an impossible way, Kinzer says. Burning and spraying poppy fields will never achieve that goal. All that does is impoverish Afghans and make them more angry at us.
The entire Afghan poppy crop is worth four billion dollars a year. We're now spending $4 billion a month on our war in Afghanistan. Let's take one of those months, and buy the entire poppy crop, suggests Kinzer. That way we're not impoverishing Afghans, we're putting money in their pockets instead of shooting them and burning down their houses. We'd use some of that to make morphine for medical use and we could burn the rest.
If we continue to act as if there's a military solution in Afghanistan, we're just going to get further dragged down into quagmire. There is a way out, Kinzer says. We can follow a much more sophisticated diplomatic and political strategy in a way that will reduce the ability of the Taliban to attract young recruits. What we're doing now is the opposite, fueling the insurgency. Sending fewer troops to Afghanistan, not more, is needed to stabilize Afghanistan.
If you agree with Stephen Kinzer, why not send a note to that effect to President-elect Obama?
21 Comments so far
Show AllKinzer argues that sending more U.S. troops is likely to be counterproductive. It's likely to produce more anger in Afghanistan, and more anger is likely to produce more recruits for the Taliban.
I doubt anyone in the U.S. government or military is listening. Same ol' same ol' with these people: our street cred is on the line and somehow we have to appear to achieve Victory in Afghanistan without anyone seeing us scrape the shit off our shoes. Ergo, thousands more troops. A report I read yesterday said the Talibandits have Kabul nearly surrounded. We got 'em just where we want 'em. Embarrassing, isn't it?
This article only deals with one of the reasons that we are in Afghanistan.
US troops are there not only to support the Afghan government (UN-mandated and NATO-led) but also to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, our declared enemies in the 'war on terror'.
No account of the impending 'surge' of more troops into Afghanistan has yet explained whether the troops will be put under the NATO command or be used in the US-only war whose goal is to 'prevent future terrorism'.
IMHO, the new troops will not be put under NATO command but will be added to the US-only fight, thus proving that the 'war on terror' is the only fight, the only war, and everything else derives from it.
---
"We should have a vigorous national debate before embarking on this course."
Indeed we should. I would really like for someone to explain how the military is going to 'prevent future terrorism' (Congress's words, not mine). We shouldn't be waging a war that tries to accomplish the impossible.
"We shouldn't be waging a war that tries to accomplish the impossible."
We're not. Killing enough people in the Middle East to take control of their oil is well within our capability.
If you're still thinking in terms of "War on Terrorism" you've been reading too much MSM!
More troops to the US mission in Afghanistan (and close to Pakistan) rather than to the NATO mission (to rebuild the country) will show clearly to many (but not to all, evidently) that it is the war against al-Qaeda that trumps all our other concerns, keeps our people in far-away lands protecting 'our' resources from said 'terrorists' and keeps our 'national security' Homeland in a state of war rather than be a nation at peace.
Everybody reads too much MSM. Mostly because progressive voices still aren't allowed in our government.
-----
Here's a good one -
"On the Afghan front in America's so-called "war on terror," the White House and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) are currently reviewing new approaches..."
from the Huffington Post, Dec. 1, 2008
So HuffPo is MSM, is it?
I don't read Huffington, so I won't say one way or the other, but you'll notice they put "war on terror" in quotations, and called it "so-called". Obviously they know something about it's name is not quite right.
Osama is not the target! The reason the Taliban are one of our targets has to do with their wanting to keep us out of their country, not that they support terrorism.
Did you know that there are military medals awarded for service in the War on Terror?
War on Terrorism Service Medal
War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Wikipedia says this - Currently, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal may be awarded for approved operations performed in any of the following geographical areas:
Read how many places are listed after that. This is a global war but Americans still don't understand what that means.
Go on and tell someone wearing one of those medals that they fought in a war that didn't exist. Tell us how that conversation goes.
Osama is indeed again a target. Mr. Obama re-listed him recently.
The Taliban is our enemy for two reasons, which adds to even more confusion in our 'fog of wars'. One, they do indeed contest our control of their country. Two, they are supporters of al-Qaeda.
NATO (with some US troops) is fighting the first conflict and the US fights the second one alone, not even a coalition of willing to keep it company.
BillofRights
Indeed? Wikipedia, really? Now I am SURE you know Exactly what happens, WoW!
WTF, wikipedia? Try EFFector.org, Deeplinks, bordc.org, ACLU.org, ccrjustice, actually truthful sites. they aren't even editable! Research, learn, try, there is another source, "The Qur'an", read it. The Hadith for Shi'a. If you or any other 9ot there Taliban numbered about 50% now 87%, this is much about "The Poppy", al Qaeda is fully Unionized with Medical by now.
President ELECT is 'gonna withdraw and redeploy, WTF let him see if he can Stop Loss X 18....
Let me also take this opportunity to repeat that the Congressional legislation that started this whole mess used as its victory goal the phrase "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism".
So the declaration of war mentions terrorism and the MSM and even HuffPo talk of it, yet it doesn't exist for some people, evidently. The government and the military are fighting this war, whether you are involved or not.
Since nobody else will, the American public must call for a debate about the 'war on terror'. I personally have a few questions for the fools in charge.
How do we know when we've won the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban? When will someone declare victory? (I'm absolutiely positive that nobody is thinking of admitting defeat, although the charge will come up sooner or later).
It's been seven years so far for this war and that's not a good sign that it will ever stop unless we the people, as we were advised to do, pressure Mr. Obama to confront the issue so he can bring us this 'change'.
Sioux Rose
I guess Americans viewing the laws of martial gravity as portrayed by both Russia and Britain, seem to think these inevitabilities do not apply to them. Must be kind of like football to the military brass, losing so overtly in Iraq, they desperately need proof they can win something... ravaging the land they said they'd bomb back to the stone age is not enough for them; nor was the lesson of guerilla warfare learned from Vietnam.
It is stark raving madness to have to witness our nation, already bankrupt, not caring for its hungry, homeless and newly unemployed, to waste yet more blood and treasure on what cannot BE won. The very definition of "winning" with respect to any elected conflict MUST pass out of mankind's lexicon, starting with how the USA does business. Close the bases! Stop building bombs and bomblets and cluster bombs, and all the other efficient tools of destruction; and learn to live peacefully with our fellow mankind. OR America's weather patterns, water patterns, and finances will continue to manifest absolute chaos. Life is a shared destiny, and we cannot claim OUR security or right to happiness when our efforts go towards stealing these from thousands and thousands of others. I pray that OBAMA find the courage to break this paradigm, or it will break U.S.
Buying the poppy crop would be a great solution, but it would send the "wrong message".
We know those two little words will automatically make conservatives spend trillions.
I sent my note to Barack, and thought I'd send along a few thoughts on the domestic politics of the moment.
Yes, Bush took his eye off the ball big time, blundering off into Iraq believing blind faith in American exceptionalism and hi tech militarism would reorder the landscape of the entire Middle East. The antiwar segment of the Democratic grassroots who provided Obama much of his margin in the early primaries have good reason to be disturbed by the recent signs that the apparent plan in the works for Afghanistan is 3-4 years of an even bigger US military presence there to "buy time" until the Karzai government is able to "keep the Afghan people safe" from the dramatically escalating violence fomented there by a multiplicity of regional evil doers in reaction to the foreign troops' presence.
All this sure looks a lot like John McCain's call simply to let General Petraeus transfer his highly touted, "successful" counterinsurgency surge tactics from Iraq to Afghanistan. The American electorate saw through this wishful thinking hyperbole about victory on the horizon the moment it was uttered. It also looks a lot like Nixon's strategy of bombing our way out of the dilemma America's own policies created in Vietnam, supposedly to enable Saigon to win over their people's hearts and minds. It didn't work then. It won't work now.
Most folks are more than ready to move on from using militarism as an antidote for terrorism past and future. What we really need is for the new President to announce that the lessons of superpower hubris have actually been learned. We already live in a multipolar world. We need to start making creative use of diplomacy and international law.
Open a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban (and any other Taliban-like faction in the area) that revisits Mullah Omar's 2001 offer to the Bush White House that in exchange for a halt to US military operations, Osama bin Laden, Zwahiri, and his al Qaeda network would lose their guest sanctuary status, and be turned over into the custody of a "neutral Muslim state."
Bush perfunctorily rejected that olive branch when the Taliban extended it seven years ago, preferring to go in with B-52's and suitcases full of bribe money. Let's put that offer back on the table (as they like to say in Washington), and see what happens.
Pledge a complete withdrawal of all NATO forces within 90 days of al Qaeda's ouster, with a trial ultimately to be held later in an international forum. A lot of people might be surprized at how positive the response might be. In contrast, escalating and perpetuating the present military approach to Afghanistan and the global war on terror is precisely what al Qaeda wants. That is change we can most definitely do without.
Bill from Saginaw
"Pledge a complete withdrawal of all NATO forces within 90 days of al Qaeda's ouster" - Bill from Saginaw
A wonderful idea and I heartily chirp my applause. Progress in Afghanistan can occur if we first focus on ending this insane 'war on terror' against al-Qaeda which has no victory, only an enemy.
America needs a national debate on the 'war on terror'. Any talk nowadays focuses on the strategies that are touted to lead to victory and nobody will admit that the goal of 'preventing future terrorism' is militarily unattainable.
The usual military strategy in such case is more of the same, and that's what we see in Afghanistan both vertically and horizontally with both added troop strength and expansion of theater (into Pakistan).
Solve the Gordian knot of the 'war on terror' and you can stop the surge into Afghanistan and finish the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, change the paradigm from 'national security' to a nation at peace, and from there many more things progressive are possible.
You have to be fucking kidding me.
You have to pull out all our forces and our people from Afghanistan before you make this dumb move.
You think that buying the crop will stop them from blowing us up? Do you thing that there will be some love for us once we have made it so much easier for them to move this stuff without ensuring the saftety of the soldiers and our Unocal allies? You must be nuts. These people are going to take our money and still blow us up, and still devise new ways of harming us. Fragmented or otherwise, they see us as their enemy and cause for war. We move out, they hang Karzai by his balls and skin him alive. And give them the money? Sheesh.
Love
Zero
Locust - I agree. "Preventing future terrorism" is not just militarily unobtainable. The use of militarism itself (like Predator drone strikes across international boundaries against civilians) creates more terrorism than it deters. It is flat-cout counterproductive.
Preventing future terrorism is much like preventing future bank robberies. You focus on catching the perps, giving them a scrupulously fair public trial, and then locking them up for a long time (unless the prisoner has some legitimately useful information to trade off in exchange for sentencing leniency). It deters the immediate wrongdoers from future crime absolutely if the sentences are long enough. It deters similarly-inclined bad guys imperfectly, but succeeds much better than just rounding up a posse and lynching a handful of likely suspects.
In mainstream culture, a cottage industry has grown up disparaging this deterrence approach out-of-hand as a wimpy "law enforcement model", a tactic unworthy for real, testosterone-laden patriots to invest much faith or effort in. We should revisit the sanity and effectiveness of using a rule of law approach.
The perpetrators of 911 should be brought to justice before an international tribunal - perhaps even tried under Islamic law. The deterrent effect upon those we wish to deter would be far better advanced by lopping off Osama bin Laden's head in downtown Riyahd after he's had his day in court in accordance with the Koran than by stringing him up in Times Square.
Bill from Saginaw
Get off the Osama bin Laden kick. Bush, Cheney and their co-conspirators should rightly be tried under Islamic law.
Well said Sioux Rose. If only. Drop "war on terror" b____ sh____ and let's get our troops, guns, bombs, etc. out of all these countries. Let's talk about peace. Do our leaders realize this is what people want???????
Was just listening to a discussion where Wilhelm Reich is talking with a group of doctors about the distinction between scientific methodologies and theories.
As is per usual here, and more so in the general public, we get stuck in an endless array of theories without being consciously aware of our methodology, and thus have not developed as yet a broad based methodology of investigation and discourse; a discourse that can lead us away from collectively lying about WMD while dumping half of a million pounds of oxidized uranium into the environment...but of course that last part is just another better bigger boy/girl look at me theory without much substance and probable little traction.
Let's try buying the whole poppy crop. A thoughtful idea.
Obama's Wallstreet and War Masters are allowing him to play President as they pursue domination and accumulation dreams. No matter how many sages, seers, prophets, gurus and saviors seek to inspire, those who possess a need to dominate and accumulate rise to positions of power. Apparently the Alpha principle holds sway no matter how altraistic the human soul may be. The change will be from the bottom up, the Alphas rule the upper reaches.
I'm not sure I agree with Mordecai Shiblikov's assertion that no one in power will listen to the good sense of Mr. Kinzer and others who speak out (NOW!) against an inevitable new quagmire in Afghanistan and renewed spate of anti-American terrorism around the world.
Barack Obama has declared his intention to increase the number of troops in that mountainous country for a long time. Despite this Bush-influenced, anathematizing view, I joined the Obama-Biden website because I thought Obama MIGHT listen. Can we afford to have any other view?
Recently I received a very nice invitation to attend the party for all such bloggers in Washington on Inauguration Day.
I'll boycott it on the grounds, along with the huge moral considerations Kinzer outlines, that $4 billion in Afghanistan and $10.3 billion in Iraq is $14.3 billion a month when we have an economic crisis (did you hear about it?) and pressing American problems.
Mr. Kinzer is different from me in that he doesn't want to insult anyone's intelligence. Me, I want to say that unless Obama and his allegedly brilliant new team of Department heads and advisers work together to build on his enlightened but tepid view of gradually reducing troops in Iraq, they are no brighter than the incompetent louts who preceded them.
Living in the moment is a human and animal virtue. There are new exigencies. So-- OUT of Iraq, OUT of Afghanistan.
Those countries might or might not survive; but, they are not OUR countries. We have our own country which we need to make survive.
And the world, despite the daily rave of our Hennie-Pennies, will be a much safer place for the precise reasons that Mr. Kinser gives.
abdosoliman46
does any body remember south east Asia aka Vietnam war? Does any body remember the christmas bombing? did Barack like to talk tough to who ever want to talk? what ever general who wants did they read what Robert Mcnamara said about his role in Vietnam war? Does Barack Obama think that most American people will be upset if he send B52s loaded with educated diplomates instead of poor American kids or gang ho synchopatic mercenaries ?