Democrats: Don't Make Afghanistan Your War

Democrats: Don't Make Afghanistan Your War

 

By Katrina vanden Heuvel

AlterNet

August 30, 2008

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/96740/

 

Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose

the war in Iraq , he argued for the need "to end the

mindset that took us into" that war. So it is troubling

that a man of such good judgment is now ramping up his

rhetoric about how we need to end the war in Iraq to

focus on what he calls the "central front in the war on

terror" -- Afghanistan .

 

In his convention speech Wednesday night, Vice-

Presidential nominee Joe Biden sounded hawkish notes --

not only in flagrantly misrepresenting the Georgia-

Russia crisis but in talking about Afghanistan . (This

holds true not just for the two Senators, but for too

many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like,

that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional

troops to serve in "the right war.

 

Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded

in an important report that the very notion of a "war

on terror" is counterproductive, and that intelligence

and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our

strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom

Friedman -- no milquetoast when it comes to using

military force -- criticized the Dems' position on

Afghanistan as ill-conceived "bumper sticker politics."

Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan

expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul , Stewart

explains: "A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan

nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than

we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the

insurgency areas is declining ... The more sponsibility

we take in Afghanistan , the more we undermine the

credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government

and encourage it to act irresponsibly."

 

Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes

clear that the temptation to throw more military forces

at the problem may do more harm -- to our security, to

the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting

civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region

whose underlying conflicts require political resolution

not more US or NATO troops.

 

If elected, Senator Obama has the possibility of re-

engaging with a world repulsed by Abu Ghraib and

Guantanamo. His election, allied with smart and more

just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and

destructive policies of mad men. But extricating the

U.S. from one disastrous war to head into another will

endanger that possibility -- while posing grave risks

to the domestic agenda he has laid out. Before the new

Democratic ticket of Obama/ Biden make a commitment to

this new war, consider the sobering fact -- confirmed

by the U.S. military -- that attacks by militants

against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan have

risen 40 percent this year, compared with 2007.

 

In a recent statement, the British humanitarian

organization Oxfam urged a change of focus: "Unless the

next American President ... builds on the existing

commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of

extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be

impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace..."

We need to think beyond the reflexive response of troop

escalation and begin the necessary, tough search for

sane alternatives. If Americans are given a clear

choice, how many would support bleeding more lives and

resources in another failing occupation as an effective

strategy of combating terrorism and promoting our

national security?

 

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

 

(c) 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.