By How Many Days Can We Shorten This War?

Recently I watched the 2007 Lebanese film "Under the Bombs."
The movie tells the story of the U.S.-supported Israeli invasion of
Lebanon in the summer of 2006, wrapping the historical events inside a
fictional narrative. Watching the movie reminded me of Just Foreign
Policy's efforts with Jewish Voice for Peace and others to stop that
war.

At the time, it seemed clear that the war could not go on
indefinitely; the international community would not allow it. But how
long would it be allowed to go on? If we could shorten it by one day,
innocent civilians would live and not die. The 34-day conflict
resulted in 1,191 deaths, the UN Human Rights Council reported.
Using this figure, on average, each day of the war killed 35 more
people; each day we shortened it saved 35 lives.

Afghanistan has now held the first round of its presidential election.
Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear from the campaign: the
majority of Afghans are sick and tired of war. "There is broad
agreement the war must end," reports
Carlotta Gall in the New York Times. There is broad
support in Afghanistan for negotiations with insurgents to end the
war. The debate inside Afghanistan is on what process negotiations
should follow, and whether the Afghan government is really following
through on its stated commitment to negotiations.

Americans, too, have apparently had enough. Fifty-four percent --
including three-quarters of Democrats -- say they oppose the war in
Afghanistan, CNN reported
this month. A Washington Post-ABC News poll
now says a majority of Americans see the war in Afghanistan as not
worth fighting and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent
to the country. Majorities of liberals and Democrats solidly oppose
the war and are calling for a reduction in troops. Two-thirds of
liberals and six in 10 Democrats are against a troop increase. A
majority of women say troop levels should be decreased.

But our leaders in Washington, apparently, are not yet sick and tired
of war in Afghanistan. For almost a year, Western officials have been
conceding that the war will not end without a political solution that
involves negotiations with insurgents. But, these officials say, the
West isn't ready yet to make a deal. "Reconciliation is important, but
not now," one Western diplomat told
the New York Times. "It's not going to happen until the
insurgency is weaker and the government is stronger."

So, there's going to be a deal with insurgents; that's a foregone
conclusion. The question that remains is how many more people will die
before that happens -- and whether, from the point of view of the
interests of the majority of Afghans and the majority of Americans,
the deal we can get 5 or 10 years from now is likely to be so much
better than the deal we could get in the next year as to justify the
deaths that will be the guaranteed result of postponing meaningful
negotiations.

An amendment in June requiring the Pentagon to tell Congress what its
strategy was for ending the war failed in the
House, 138-278. But in an important milepost for future efforts, it
was supported
by a majority of House Democrats.

In the Senate, we're much further back: a bill calling for an exit
strategy from Afghanistan has not even been introduced. But a path to
eventually getting out of Afghanistan has to eventually also go
through the Senate.

In our ally Britain, which has far fewer troops there, the question of
how long their troops will be in Afghanistan is openly discussed. The
head of the British Army said Britain will have to keep thousands on
troops on the front line in Afghanistan for up to five more years, the
Telegraph reported
this week. But this question -- how long will our troops be there? --
is not even being asked in the U.S. Senate.

The Senate is now in recess; but the recess is a time for Senators to
hear from their constituents. Now is the time to urge your
Senators to demand an exit strategy from Afghanistan.