Why is the U.S. in Afghanistan, again?

By Bill Creasy

Afghanistan has become the longest American war. Meanwhile, the reasons for the war and the definition of success have gotten harder to understand and justify.

The war started after 9/11 in order to destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. The camps were destroyed and the government of the Taliban was removed from power, in short order, by Special Forces troops and local allies. Then the U. S. was left with the policy that Colin Powell called "You broke it, you bought it." Nation building and long-term battles against Taliban rebels were the only way to preserve the gains and hold onto territory. This policy continued in spite of the Bush Administration's ambivalent ideas about nation building, and their loss of interest in Afghanistan to start another war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda members withdrew to Pakistan. That included Osama bin Laden, who withdrew to the infamous compound in Abbottabad near the military academy, where he was found and assassinated. The Pakistan government seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward restraining al Qaeda. Some parts of the Pakistan government provide intelligence and turn a blind eye to the Predator drone bombings, which have increased under the Obama Administration. Other parts of the government may see Al Qaeda and the Taliban as a cash cow for getting U. S. aid, or as potential allies against their historic mortal enemy, India.

The current U. S. position is difficult to rationalize in any military or moral sense. It is unfortunate that the Bush Administration started this war with no exit strategy, and even worse that the Obama Administration has continued similar policies. Obama has promised to begin troop withdrawals, but there appears to be no clear plan for how fast withdrawals will happen.

It would be nice for the U. S. to have a military presence and a trusted government in Afghanistan. But occupying the entire country risks American lives, costs a huge amount of money, and there is no sign that the Taliban rebels are ready to give up. The U. S.-supported government of Hamid Karzai is corrupt and unpopular.

The indefinite occupation of the entire country is unacceptable. It is too much like colonialism. With modern weapons, or even primitive IEDs, in the hands of the rebels, an occupation will lead to many lives lost.

One solution is not to try to occupy the entire country. The U. S. should carve out a city-state protectorate area as a miliary base around Kabul. The rest of the country should be left to the local people. That approach has the following advantages:

1. The U. S. could occupy this small base of operations with much less personnel than the entire country. The civil operations could be assigned to the Afghans, with support only if needed.

2. The protectorate would give the U. S. military a base for air survellance to prevent training camps from being established. They could obtain intelligence from local people. This would fulfill the real requirement to protect the U. S. from further attacks.

3. The rest of the country of Afghanistan would be unoccupied and allowed to run its own government. This eliminates the need for nation building, and removes the oxymoronic effort to impose a democracy on a people who don't seem ready or able to run it.

4. It would free up U. S. military personnel to focus on other areas of the world that are becoming terrorist sanctuaries, like Yemen, Somalia, or the Sudan.

5. The U. S. protectorate in Afghanistan would give a place of sanctuary to Afghans who fear for their lives from the Taliban. This approach should alleviate the kind of religious civil warfare that caused massive loss of life in Iraq, as neighbors of different religions attacked each other, and educated professionals were forced to flee the country. Women or children who are threatened by Taliban policies could seek refuge. This effort would require U. S. support for the refugees, but it could still be less expensive than occupying the country. At best, these refugees could be the basis for an educated economic oasis in a poor, rural landscape. It could also be a model for securing refugee populations in countries like Somalia.

For these reasons, it seems advantageous to abandon most of Afghanistan back to the inhabitants, and hold only a small area of land around the capitol city.

Of course, no one wants to see another Taliban-led Islamic theocracy. But it seems safe to say that the U. S. can't tell them that it will be a bad kind of government. They just won't take our word for it, until they try it, and they have to face the problems and resistance for themselves. The "safe zone" would give a refuge to people who are victimized, until a better system develops.

Comments are welcome.

Bill Creasy is on the board of WASH and coordinator of the Baltimore chapter.

Holy Terror

Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab a Pakistan state, was assassinated on January 4, 2011 by one of his bodyguards. He was opposed to the Pakistan's blasphemy law. There was a Christian woman in his jails who was condemned to death for blasphemy. He expressed his support for her and he was contemptuous of those who disagreed with his position. He publicly deemed them to be illiterate. He called the blasphemy laws black laws. He was an immensely courageous man who paid for his courage with his life. In Pakistan there are 500 “religious scholars” who are asserting that the government is at fault for not acting sooner against the governor. There were mobs in the streets demanding that the assassin, who was one of the Governor's bodyguards, should be released. There were rose petals strewn in the path of the assassin as he entered a courtroom.

Pakistan's only Christian governmental minister was killed on March 2 by gunmen. Shahbaz Bhatti was the Minister for Minorities. It was generally seen as a governmental role with very little power or influence. However, he did argue against the blasphemy law. He was also the head of a committee to review the country's blasphemy laws. This was a combination that could not be tolerated by the Islamic extremists.

We might look at the de facto abolition of free speech by vigilante action in Pakistan with a certain degree of horror. However, we fail to realize that the same terror is alive and well in our country. Molly Norris is the creative cartoonist who inspired “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.” She drew a whimsical cartoon that had a teacup and a domino and other objects each claiming to be the true image of Mohammed. She immediately voiced her desire to minimize or disown the resulting viral response to her cartoon. She had a wonderful sense of humor and became very unhappy when she was informed of the anger from the Islamic community.

A fatwa against her was declared by the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The 2010 Winter edition of Al Qaeda 's Inspire magazine quoted him saying, "This snowball rolled out from between

her evil fingers. She should be taken as a prime target of assassination along with others who participated in her campaign. This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans joining their European counterparts in going out of their way to offend Muslims worldwide."

Molly Norris has moved and changed her name. The FBI said that she could not be protected and they recommended that she “go ghost.” She obviously could no longer make a living as a cartoonist resulting in a huge disruption in her life.

They have instilled terror within our country. Everyone who drew a cartoon is now on the hit list. In Pakistan no one now wants to even talk about the blasphemy law because they have to live there.

What would be the most rational way to end this madness? It is an extremely complex phenomenon but I think there is a path which is more likely to succeed than others.

Let me start by suggesting that Osama bin Laden was brilliant in his move to precipitate our ill-informed “war on terror.” It instantly elevated his stature and the respect within Islam of the Al Qaeda group. It explicitly said that it was worthy of “war” from the greatest military power on our planet. If instead we used the term “criminal” and had a much more limited notion of how to pursue those criminals we would be much more likely to succeed.

The use of “war” is more appealing to religious thinkers who worship a fierce, judgmental father figure. These people are contemptuous of those who approach complex phenomenon with a stance of critical inquiry and a desire to more fully understand the underlying dynamics. We are seen as weak and ineffectual by those who have saturated their minds with the fierce ideology of fundamentalist Christianity. The absurd and disgusting iconography of the crucifixion is indicative of the insanity that is the starting point of this type of religiously inspired thinking. They actually think that a supremely sadistic event can create positive outcomes for humanity and they worship a “God” who supposedly is telling us that we are saved because of this sadistic nonsense.

A rational foreign policy must start from data on the ground concerning the psychology of those with whom we are relating. In Pakistan we are told that we have a ally in the “war on terror.” However, roughly sixty percent of Pakistanis view America as an enemy. They feel that the war is a war on the religion of Islam. I don't have such data on the various ethnic groups in Afghanistan but it is highly likely that the views are similar or worse. Similar views are common in virtually every Islamic country and it is certainly true for all of the Islamicists who have committed terror attacks in America and Europe.

I think the supporters of the “war on terror” would be hard pressed to show that we have derived value from that effort that is worth the trillion dollars plus that is already invested. That does not count what is likely to be another trillion dollars in the future care and support of soldiers and their families and the costs to repair our military preparedness that should be included in the actual cost of this ill conceived “war.” If the government is to spend tax money for some purpose shouldn't the central question be have we derived value that is equal to the money invested?

The war in Iraq was a massive mistake. Sadam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda for a number of reasons, including the fact that his regime was deemed to be secular by the Islamic militants.

The occupation of Afghanistan is also a massive mistake. Perhaps there was good reason to bring our military forces into the country because the Taliban had a strong alliance with Osama bin Laden. We managed to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. This display of military might sent a strong message to the Taliban concerning what we could do in support of justice. If thereafter we just provided training and weaponry to the groups with whom we could have a positive relationship then a central message that criminals need to be brought to justice would eventually be understood throughout Afghanistan and our costs would have been lower by an order of magnitude. The Taliban historically is not monolithic. It is almost certain that we could have created communication and positive relationships with some Taliban related groups.

We need to understand that for the people that we are fighting we are the terrorists. We are committing a Crusade against their religion and they see their religious duty to be one of fighting the Satanic evil that we represent. We create the “holy terror” that we despise because of the ham handed ignorance of our foreign policy.

I am certainly not arguing against the use of military force. I am saying that we need to be more thoughtful and selective in how and where we use that force. I am also saying that the most important part of any action we take against terrorists is the psychological understanding of the other actors with whom we are interacting. If we can sell the notion that we are after a few criminals and nothing more then we can create the alliances required to get those few criminals.

I am also saying that the mind numbing stupidity of our foreign policy in regard to terrorism is tightly linked to the fierce emotional aspects of fundamentalist Christianity. The critical issue is whether those with power in government can process empirical data and calculate whether or not given actions will work. The secular perspective is required if we are ever going to ever get away from the preposterous stupidity of our current policy. Until we get rid of the mindless stupidity (holy terror) on our side if we are never going to get rid of the mindless stupidity (holy terror) from the other side.