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

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