A Missed Opportunity in Afghanistan

In a televised address last night, President Barak Obama outlined his new initiative for the war in Afghanistan: 30,000 more troops will be deployed there in early 2010. He spoke of a "full review" of options before coming to this decision, and stated his belief that our national security depended upon bringing this conflict to a successful end. His plan includes an orderly exit within 18 months, and said that some of our allies have also committed troops to this purpose. The question is, of course, will it work?

If history is any indication, it will not. Obama spoke of other superpowers failing in this regard, yet still reached the decision to send more of our troops into this maelstrom. Last week, administration officials told the McClatchy Newspapers that the strategy included "greater anti-corruption efforts and political reforms" as well as a troop surge in an effort to stabilize the country. An article by Aram Roston in the November 30 issue of The Nation, however, paints a much different picture.

The article describes a complicated web of corruption, bribery and profit-making by a host of participants in the Afghan conflict. U.S. military contractors, using Pentagon dollars, regularly pay private military security firms to protect trucks carrying supplies to U.S. troops. One of the largest of these firms, Watan Risk Management, is run by president Hamid Karzai's cousins, Rashid and Rateb Popol, the latter a former mujahedeen. Another is NCL Holdings, based in Afghanistan but with an office in Washington. This company was awarded a military contract worth hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. To keep supply trucks safe, insurgents are paid, according to the article, "hundreds of millions of dollars" not to attack them. An American military official told the author that this translates into "a big part" of the Taliban's income. All this is done, of course, with U.S. knowledge and complicity.

Is this what Obama plans to stop? It seems unlikely. Like any people up against it, the Afghans have learned to make a profit from the unending conflict that permeates their country. Escalating the chaos will only increase profits for those already getting rich from this war. People get used to living a certain way, no matter how distasteful it may seem to onlookers, and become loathe to change it. Will 30,000 more troops make them want to end their lucrative situations, and move toward peace? Not at these prices, it won't.

Toward a Greater Understanding of Afghanistan

The Today show featured an interview with New York Times reporter David Rohde, who, with two other colleagues, was kidnapped seven months ago by the Taliban and was just recently liberated. Rohde has published a 5-part article in the Times recounting his months of incarceration. At the start of the interview, Rohde attempted to get right down to business. He spoke of western misconceptions regarding Afghanistan in general and the Taliban in particular. Unceremoniously, he was interrupted by Ann Curry so that she could ask inane questions such as, "Did you miss your family?" and, "Were you afraid you were going to die?" As usual, a news program zeroed in on the fatuous and insipid rather than make use of information that would benefit its viewers. Not only did Rohde have such information, he was just bursting to share it but, of course, was not allowed to.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being of several years duration, have not brought us any closer to understanding the people of either country. We are not alone in this, of course. Neither the British nor the Russians, both of whom suffered stunning defeats while attempting to vanquish Afghanistan, did any better than we. Why did we not learn from their mistakes? The simple fact of the matter is that no one ever wins in Afghanistan. In an article reprinted in the November issue of Harper's, Andrew J. Bacevich writes, "Not for nothing has (Afghanistan) acquired the nickname Graveyard of Empires." He goes on to say that, as Americans, we tend to learn everything the hard way, due to an egocentric notion that only we are capable of putting the world to rights. So far, not a good attitude to hold, yet still we persist.

Could it be that a new posture toward Afghanistan might help bring about the changes we desire? President Obama has been receiving flak in recent weeks as he tries to make sense of the muddle we have created in Afghanistan before deciding on the next course of action. He has been accused of being wishy-washy and indecisive, among other things. But, perhaps he is on to something. What's wrong with trying something else, when what you've been doing has only made the situation worse? Invasion, violence and repression have never worked in Afghanistan (or anywhere else, for that matter), so let's try a new tact. As the song goes, what's wrong with peace, love and understanding?