The Inside Scoop on the Congressional Afghanistan Hearing

After waiting in line for hours to be the first in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Afghanistan war strategy, I can assure you that being close to the action does not make it any more comprehensible. Exciting, yes, but logical, not so much. I'll admit I was hoping that being mere feet from the distinguished Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen would somehow increase my chances of making sense of Obama's Afghanistan surge. (That's me on the left, by the way.)

In the end, though, I was only convinced that the administration was trying too hard to win over the hearts and minds of Americans without offering a strategy that will work. And if Obama can't win my heart and mind on this plan to escalate the war to 100,000+ U.S. and NATO troops, how is he going to "win the hearts and minds" of Afghans, as the line goes?

Several things stood out to me as I listened to the witnesses' testimony before the Committee. I was struck by the way that Mullen and Gates spoke as if this was a brand new war that they were starting "fresh," as if their enthusiastic focus back on fighting the Taliban was going to "turn things around." The Republicans in the committee suggested that announcing an 18 month goal to begin withdrawal was giving the Taliban and insurgents notice that they just need to wait the war out. But I can see that everyone is just waiting the U.S. out, whether it's one year or ten. After all, it is the Afghans' country, and they will be vested in it long after the U.S. is gone.

Also, I was dismayed at the lip-service paid to civilian components of Obama's plan, because I know that local development and civil society initiatives would be the most helpful parts of the strategy, as all three of Obama's top aides emphasized. Yet, Clinton proudly proclaimed that they would be tripling the number of coalition civilian personnel on the ground in Afghanistan to...wait for it...974!! Wow, 100,000 soldiers and less than 1,000 civilians--if they can find that many who speak local languages and can do the critical work that's needed in agriculture and governance. That sounds like making a "civilian surge" a priority.

Being interested in regional initiatives and diplomacy in the middle east, I was quite distressed that there was little concern with promoting engagement of Afghanistan's neighbors. Of course, there was patronizing banter about making sure Pakistan behaves, but the question of whether the U.S. would promote peaceful dialogue between Pakistan and India was shirked. Additionally, Iran was briefly mentioned as "not a player" at the moment in Afghanistan, with the suggestion that Iran could become problematic for the U.S.'s interests. This indicated to me that the administration is not looking hard enough at the opportunity to build regional peace through engagement with Iran.

Lastly, I felt that Gates and Clinton were backpedaling significantly on Obama's promise to withdraw soon--qualifying the 18 month mark as merely a beginning of a transition--and they more or less indicated that if there is still no U.S. confidence in the Afghan security forces at that time that the U.S. would not leave. Given their aim to construct an army and police of 400,000 Afghans from thin air, I'm afraid it could be long after Obama's term before the U.S. gets out of Afghanistan.

Not a lot to be optimistic about in the hearing, but it was still a thrill to see the key policymakers in action at this historic time. Sitting just behind Hillary Clinton for those two hours reminded me that FCNL is in a position to make the Quaker voice for peace heard on Capitol Hill. (Check out Matt eying Rep. Ackerman, before he makes his move and shakes hands with Secretary Clinton.)

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Protesting Policy: Time for Change

As we approach the beginning of the United State’s ninth year in Afghanistan, groups of activists from different perspectives converged on the White House, expressing everything from concern to disgust.

It is hard to believe that eight years have passed since former President Bush launched the Global War on Terror and Al Qaeda; yet after hundreds of billions of dollars and untold loss of life, what can we identify as “success?”

Perhaps we can say there has not been another attack in the United States. But have the extreme voices in the Middle East not been emboldened and empowered by the military actions which have devastated multiple countries?

Despite any grievances—right or wrong, valid or invalid—that have been expressed by these extreme voices, the United States has not made itself safer as a result of the multiple, simultaneous major theater wars it is now engaged in; rather, these wars have divided the country, indebted its people, and discredited its sound international reputation.

The United States has a long and tumultuous history in the Middle East: the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq, support of Saddam Hussein and the Mujahedeen in the 1970s and 1980s, the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1970s, the 1991 Iraq War and over ten years of sanctions which followed, to the present campaigns, to name just a few instances. One cannot help but observe that after all this involvement, the United States seems less poised to have favorable relations with many of these governments than ever before.

This begs the question: if what the U.S. has done has not improved its standing, why, then, does it continue the same egregious and ignominious policies of years past?

Military actions in the name of “American Interests”—which seem to create hostility toward America—have only deteriorated U.S. standing in the Middle East, hence it is time for a policy change.

The protesters who came together at the White House yesterday understand this, though they all have different ways of expressing it. The way of the Friends Committee on National Legislation is to say, “War Is Not the Answer.” But FCNL doesn’t stop there. The next message is to engage Congress and tell them to change policy.

Civil disobedience is effective in its own way, but without pressure on the legislative branch, it is difficult to keep government accountable and responsive. Elected officials need to hear logical arguments—even if they do not agree with them—so that it is clear where their constituents stand. After all, it is the principle concern of a member of Congress, second only to making law, to get reelected, which would not be possible without the votes of valuable constituents.

Do not hesitate. Tell Congress enough is enough and it is time for a policy change in the Middle East. More troops will not translate into more stability in Afghanistan. There are ways to stabilize Afghanistan without increasing U.S. military presence there. Check out these points: FCNL's Afghanistan De-escalation Flyer.

Let us see then what diplomacy can do.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Admiral Mullen: Some Sense on Afghanistan

This morning, in an amazing feat of post-Bachleorette party strength (It takes a lot of stamina to celebrate your friends important life moments, doesn't it?), I read this article in the Post.

And boy was I glad I did.

In it, Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out what FCNL has been contending all along - more guns and war will not help Afghanistan thrive:

"Combat operations are not the answer here," Mullen told a group of about three dozen U.S. troops after his meeting with the governor last week. "The answer is development so that people have a way to sustain themselves."

This is great stuff. But the article also points out that people with specific skills like engineering and infrastructure development don't want to work in Afghanistan right now. (Be honest, would you?) Perhaps we should start thinking about how we can remedy this problem. Why is it that only the military can seem to get people in the region? Is it because we think of the mess we created in Afghanistan as solely a military problem?

Perhaps we should begin to think about our commitment and responsibility to Afghanistan outside of the military box. Don't civilian Americans who have skills that could help the foundering nation owe just as much as members of the military do? The mistakes in Afghanistan were made on behalf of all of us. And they will continue to be made if don't rethink the situation.

If we agree that war isn't the answer in Afghanistan, we have to offer an alternate solution.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

It's not enough to just be against the Iraq war.

If you've been keeping up with the intern blog for the last few months, you know that FCNL has been putting a lot of time and energy into protesting the increase of troops in Afghanistan.

I have noticed that conversations with my friends and neighbors around my work and peace activism has shifted since President Obama has come into office. "But President Obama wants to get the US out of Iraq!" people tell me, "The administration that got us in these wars is long gone." However, even when I point out that redistributing troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not the same as bringing them home, I am confronted with the fact that even among some people in the peace movement, the war in Afghanistan is seen as the 'good' war, and dissent has fallen out of fashion again.

So, imagine how excited I was to read this in The Nation today:

There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders abroad and at home (including Democrats and Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger movement to shift U.S. policy.

So, folks, lets build that movement! After the election, we frequently heard that President Obama was the first president that won on a peace platform. If that's true, then the peace movement has an obligation to tell him that Afghanistan needs diplomacy and development, not more troops.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Review...Even More Troops? Really?

Today Obama announced the results of the Afghanistan Strategy Review that he asked for when he first took office. And the plan he laid out said some very good things. He is committed to regional diplomacy and development. He understands that a healthy and safe Afghanistan will require robust diplomacy with Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Iran. About increasing development, he recognized: "To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers."

And yet, Obama is asking for another 4,000 troops on top of the 17,ooo that he just asked to be deployed.

This statement summarizes Obama's Afghanistan plan: "A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone." This sounds great, expcept for the last word, which may undermine the entire rest of the sentence, Obama's whole plan, and Afghanistan. Apparently Obama didn't read FCNL's message that More Troops Won't Bring More Peace. That wasn't just a catchy slogan. It is true.

Jim Fine, the resident expert on everything Middle East at FCNL, said this of today's announcement: "President Obama’s new strategy includes constructive commitments to regional and international diplomacy and civilian development. But the president has also committed the U.S. to aggressive new military tactics and a wider war that could easily spiral out of control and overwhelm the constructive elements of his plan."

If everyone realizes that real peace in Afghanistan is going to come from development and diplomacy, why is the U.S. wasting so much money and risking so many lives sending even more troops? Why not use these resources on diplomacy and development? Someone asked me yesterday, but how do we keep aid workers safe? Here's a novel idea...what if we used local people? Another novel idea...what if the increased troop presence is actually stregthening the Taliban?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

"Rethink Afghanistan"

I just discovered this online guerilla documentary about the dangers posed by Afghanistan, and sending more troops into Afghanistan. It follows on the themes that we chatted about in our podcast.

Check out the trailer below, and see the whole documentary (they are releasing it slowly, in parts) on the website. See also: New York Times review.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Six Years Later: Looking Back at the Iraq War Podcast

On the occasion of the 6th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq Maggie and I present a very special podcast.

This week we talk with Dan Smith and Bridget Moix, both of whom worked at FCNL in 2003. They reflect on what the war means after 6 years, and how we can prevent another almost decade long war in Afghanistan. This is a good one. Listen in.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

It's Official--Obama's War Funding Plan

The numbers we have been waiting for and have been speculating about for months are finally out...and I am disappointed. Obama's first budget includes a 4% increase in the Defense budget. It also includes $130 billion to expand the war in Afghanistan and continue the war in Iraq and is topped off with a $75.5 billion war supplemental to continue the fighting.

Now it is up to Congress to help the President reprioritize.

You can see the full budget at the White House website.

You can also go to FCNL's website to find a preliminary analysis of Obama's budget.


Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Shifting the Paradigm: Epic Afghanistan Podcast

Ok - My title may scare some people off. But this podcast is epic is the best way! It's full of Kate and Stephen's passionate explanations about why troops will not bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. And they convinced cynical old me, so they do a good job. Enjoy!

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Afghanistan: More Troops Won't Bring More Peace

An increasing number of people are rightly questioning the War in Afghanistan. However, it is amazing to me that so many people are still silently following along with the Obama Administration's plan for a troop surge of an additional 30,000 troops. War wasn't the answer in Iraq, and it is not the answer in Afghanistan. We cannot let Afghanistan become the exit strategy for Iraq. We need to push the peace community to rally behind efforts to prevent the troop surge in Afghanistan, advocating instead for the diplomacy and sustainable development that will actually create peace in Afghanistan. Take action here!

Check out this video by the Brave New Foundation and the entire serious on the War in Afghanistan.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

The Ups and Downs of Obama's First Days

Sometimes I am still amazed that Barack Obama is my president...It still feels a little too good to be true. But he is. And he is taking action! President Obama has done a lot in his first weeks in office: he set in motion the closing of Guantanamo and secret detention centers, called for ending torture, and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to better protect against discrimination. These actions represent years of advocacy, activism, protesting, and genuine hard work by the peace & justice community coming to fruition.

However, President Obama also ordered (or at least approved) two drone attacks in Pakistan, killing 22 people, three of which were children. This story didn't get hardly any press. As a matter of fact, when I was trying to find it again to write today, I found mostly stories about Obama's view of Pakistan in the campaign. Well he said it then and he is doing it now: Obama is going to use military force to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

Obama is positioning himself to carry out another campaign promise--a troop surge in Afghanistan. There is talk that soon he will approve another 3 brigades, 10,000-12,000 more troops, to fight in the war in Afghanistan. Admittedly, there is also been a lot of rhetoric about the "smart power" that Obama and Clinton are going to use in Afghanistan. But Obama is still planning to send 30,000 more troops to the endless war in Afghanistan. When will we learn that War Is Not the Answer? When will we realize that there aren't enough troops we could send to Afghanistan to solve the problems there? The Soviets learned that lesson the hard way. We learned that lesson the hard way in Vietnam and Iraq. Are we doomed to keep repeating the same failures over and over again?

I don't think we are. I think there is hope that Obama will realize sooner than later that the answer is not war, but the smart power that he and Hillary Clinton are talking about--diplomacy and development. I think they will recognize this when the public convinces them. Where's the public outcry about the bombing of Pakistan? Where's the outcry of the proposed troop surge in Afghanistan? We have to make our voice heard!

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

On this anniversary of the seemingly endless (yet forgotten) war

No--not that one. The other one--today marks 7 years since the invasion of Afghanistan. Robert Naiman from Just Foreign Policy sheds light on the British recommendation that it is high time to negotiate with groups affiliated with the Taliban to improve what is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian catastrophe.

A stark difference from both of the major presidential candidates' nearly identical policy on Afghanistan.

2008 has been the deadliest year of the war and occupation of Afghanistan for both US troops and Afghan civilians.

And yet--the most contact that most Americans will ever have with the people of this country is from magazines like the National Geographic. One of its most famous images was the photo of this Afghan woman--Sharbat Gula. Thousands of Americans wrote to National Geographic asking to either adopt or marry her.

In 2003 National Geographic went back to Afghanistan on a search mission looking for the woman with the penetrating green eyes--and found her.

I wonder if they let her know how many marriage proposals she has received for her beauty when she was a young girl. Since many Americans have seen all Pashtus as Taliban affiliated, and since many Afghans have interpreted the war in Afghanistan as being against the Pashtu people rather than the Taliban, I can only imagine what her perception of Americans would be.

Imagine if your only experience with Americans was being hunted down by photographers 17 years after they stole a shot, approached by thousands of marriage proposals by people whom you had never met, and then their country invades and occupies your country for seven years and yet 88% of its young people--the same demographic going off to fight there-- cannot find it on a map...

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook