- M. Ashraf Haidari, Political Counselor, Embassy of Afghanistan (“Assessing Afghanistan’s Present and Future,” Washington Post, September 7, 2009.)
Dear citizens, it has been, as you are unnecessarily reminded, eight years. I suspect you are all well aware of the anniversary and recall with painful clarity the horrific attacks all those long years ago. How could you forget? How could anyone forget? Yet, it appears some have. It is not that most Americans have forgotten the name Osama bin Laden or agree with the sentiment “I truly am not that concerned about him” expressed just six months after the 9/11 attacks.1 However, as this eighth anniversary arrives, we read repeatedly that American support for the war in Afghanistan, even among those who supported the war in Iraq, is slipping.2 This we must not allow because a loss of support for this war can lead to the loss of our best chance to defeat al Qaeda and to satisfy the demand for Justice that should still sound like a shrill and incessant siren in the ears of each of us.
We have lost most of these eight years. For over six years, our focus has been on Iraq, a nation that despite the success of the last administration in convincing a large majority of Americans was involved in the 9/11 attacks, actually had no role. No one should have believed that Iraq was involved.3 During this period that our focus was diverted, the establishment of a democratic Afghan government has moved only hesitantly forward on the efforts of many Afghan patriots. They had inadequate support. Across the border, the dictator Pervez Musharraf was helped to the bitter end by the Bush administration and protected with protestations that our dictator was “doing all that he can” to help us against al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. It is often impossible to gauge whether one is doing all they can to support us and not merely what they must to placate us. What we do know is that a Pakistan Taliban emerged as a threat to Pakistan and the United States while Musharraf was in power. And we know that the performance of the democratic government in Pakistan is dramatically more effective and helpful than anything dictatorship provided to the Pakistanis and us.
Dear citizens, while others are pessimistic about the situation on both sides of the Durand Line, I am more optimistic than ever. We have an advantage now; we can ally ourselves with two democratic governments engaged in civil war against an enemy we all share. We can, for the first time, ally ourselves with the Afghanistan and Pakistan peoples to achieve a shared aim. And in this effort, we stand our very best chance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and the rest of our al Qaeda enemies. We have never had it so good.
Let me start by stomping down some of the pessimism. Yes, as noted, we are eight years into this with less to show than we would like. Again, that comes from want of focus, so we should expect that if we try harder, we may accomplish more. But that concedes too much to those who argue things in northwestern Pakistan and (all around but primarily) southeastern Afghanistan are hopeless. We must look afresh at the images we are presented and interpret them more accurately. We know that in Swat valley and in parts of Afghanistan the Taliban have been attacking little girls on their way to or from school. It is hard to imagine a more repulsive act, especially if one includes the specifics of the attacks.4 We also recoil in disgust to learn that Taliban nihilists have responded to the recent election in Afghanistan by amputating fingers.5 We succumb too soon, however, if we stop there. The attacks on schoolgirls happen because Afghan and Pakistan families (read, fathers) have decided and, importantly, continue to decide that their daughters must have an education no matter the threats from modernity’s enemies. Afghan voters lost fingers, and perhaps more according to some press reports, because Afghans determined that their future should be decided by them in a Democracy, not decided for them by gun-wielding thugs. That is, the picture is not just of thugs and their violence. These are the minority that attacks a majority they find they cannot control. Schools and voting booths exist despite the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s best efforts. The criminals are losing. It would be great if we were defeating them. It is even better that Afghans are Pakistanis are.
I am marveling over an image that I expected did exist but for which you and I had no proof. Now it is here. While we are accustomed (read, conditioned or trained) to picture Afghanistan as brick or mud-walled buildings all an invariable dusty brown, now we see pictures of Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission counting votes. They are doing this in a carpeted room with rows of desks covered in computers under fluorescent lighting.6 It is an image of modernity. And, who can argue that the Afghans are not doing a better job of handling their election and its attendant fraud accusations with more success than the Iranians who have more experience with the process? We see and perpetuate a story of a country, Afghanistan, that cannot help itself, that is hopeless without us. Our help is important. But the vital effort—that of the local citizens—is hardly as absent as we might perceive. We are not alone in this fight.
Some months ago, we were alarmed that the Pakistan Taliban had conquered the Swat Valley, secured their hold there in an agreement with the Pakistan government, and were pressing into Buner District, a mere seventy miles from Islamabad. Control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could not be far away. We were not the only ones alarmed. The democratic government of Pakistan, supported by its military and its citizens have responded forcefully. The reversals dealt to the Taliban are severe. Some worry the Taliban will return, but the Pakistan government is not merely pushing them back; it is killing them, pressing its advantage of artillery, tanks, helicopters, and fighter planes, to destroy a group that the citizens of Pakistan now widely view as an enemy to their state and their security.7 The Pakistan government is destroying al Qaeda’s safe refuge and threatening to push them back over the border into Afghanistan, where we are today.
Dear citizens, some are arguing that we must not send additional troops to Afghanistan or arguing we must leave. When George Will, Chuck Hagel, Carl Levin, and Russ Feingold all seem to be saying very similar things, we would be quite foolish not to listen up whether we agree or disagree with their position. It is likely that adding more US and western troops is counter-productive. The recently added 21,000 may even be an error. However, it is a problem that is recognized. US General Stanley McChrystal is planning to enlarge the Afghan Army of 40,000 today (a number that points to our lack of focus and effort) past the 134,000 that had been planned and on to 240,000. Senator Levin will boost his effort.8 This is very important because it provides a necessary Afghan face to an effort that is too foreign now. It allows western forces to move to the back. (It provides an additional potential benefit that will be described later.) But, getting to 240,000 will take time even with a renewed focus. We cannot allow the Taliban to advance in the meantime. If stopping the Taliban requires more US troops now (and it does), then we must provide those troops. Failing to stop the Taliban is not a safe or reasonable option for us, and it is not a fate we should allow the region.
When I graduated from high school in a very small town (not a single traffic light even today) in the center of upstate New York, I had very few prospects in life. So, when an Air Force recruiter called that summer, I reluctantly agreed to sign up. My mother was rather unhappy, but at least I would learn a skill that would improve those poor prospects I had been dragging along. Indeed, besides providing me with sorely lacking discipline and a reinvigorated love of country, I was taught a valuable skill. In fact, I was taught dozens of skills over the twenty-four years I eventually served. I was hardly unique. During my career, the Air Force and I have done the same for hundreds of thousands of Americans who are eagerly hired by companies that desire those qualities time in uniform imparts. Afghanistan should be so lucky.
We are fighting a battle for hearts and minds, we are often reminded. That is true, but the Afghans (and the Pakistanis) need not love us. They need only love their nation—their Afghanistan. That is, Afghanistan needs Afghan patriots—citizens who put their nation’s success ahead of themselves and ahead of parochial interests. These patriots can form the core of a democratic Afghanistan that admits a vibrant, spirited debate of ideas and that blocks and eventually destroys the efforts to dominate the political sphere with guns and bombs. Moreover, as my training in telecommunications and the training of others in medical fields and plumbing and electrical power generation and myriad civil engineering fields, in accounting and personnel management, and on and on, increased the pool of professionals, Afghan professionals graduating from military careers will push ahead the nation building which we find unappealing but absolutely necessary. The Afghan Army, then, needs the same type of professional and technical training schools that have benefited our nation. It has often been asserted that where the roads in Afghanistan end, the Taliban begin. As the Afghan Army pushes forward across the country, they should have the skills to bring with them roads and wells and electricity and communications and mosques and schools. The Afghan Army, not ours, should contract for this construction to the limits of the local economy, and it should encourage its members who have served their tours to start their own companies to provide these services or to join already established companies.
Dear citizens, as the Afghanistan Army and roads and electricity and schools move forward across the country, they must take with them something that you enjoy every day—a national rule of law. The Taliban is not a monolith. Each member is not a cloned copy of some original “perfect Taliban.” The regional leaders competed and argued when they controlled much of Afghanistan. They stand, like all of us, in a continuum between their most violent and their most peaceful. Afghans and Pakistanis need a means to allow the more peaceful of the Taliban to “opt out” of the fight against their country, their countrymen, and their neighbors. I suggest that, as the Pakistan government moves forward and as the Afghan government takes over duties at the front from American and coalition forces, they implement laws that enable peace. First and foremost, no foreigner who is not part of a fighting force allied with and sanctioned by the central government should be allowed within the immediate vicinity of any weapon. Second, no citizen should be allowed to travel with a weapon. That is, all weapons must be kept at home. Some will quickly note that weapons are needed for protection while traveling. But, that is true only where the rule of law is weak or nonexistent. Once an adequate force is in place to protect the population, an adequate force is in place to enforce the prohibition on the movement of weapons. In fact, the two are complementary.
Behind this effort must be an adequate but subdued US military presence and a robust and unyielding financial backstop. But we need not go it alone in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Nations around the world face a threat from al Qaeda hiding amongst the Taliban. This criminal gang has a goal that is little more than to disrupt and destroy groups and nations that are more comfortable than they. There seems to be no barrier to being placed on their list of enemies. Western nations must contribute, of course, but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which recognized the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, must now commit to financing and delivering the defeat of the Taliban-allied al Qaeda on both sides of the border. This should be a simple decision for both. Saudi Arabia was al Qaeda’s first target. Pakistan is its latest. The Afghan and Pakistan Taliban provided, provide, and plan to continue providing a sanctuary for their al Qaeda allies. This sanctuary must disappear. This menace must be destroyed.
The war in Afghanistan has gone on for too long. But we have ourselves to blame for that. It is just as inappropriate that we walk away from this essential task as it is to forget the events of eight years ago that brought about our incursion. We must not waiver, and we must not fail. Our goal should be not merely to make this al Qaeda’s and Osama bin Laden’s Waterloo. This must be their Carthage. Vibrant, self-sustaining Democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be a full and lasting revenge that will serve as dramatic justice for the victims of 9/11. We will need many years to reach this goal, but we must settle for nothing less.
- Alan Howe, September 11, 2009
1. “Media provides false ‘context’ for Bush quote on bin Laden,”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200410140007
2. George F. Will, “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan,” Washington Post, September 1, 2009
3. “Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged,”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
4. “Afghan Girls, Scarred by Acid, Defy Terror, Embracing School,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/world/asia/14kandahar.html
5. “Taliban ‘cut off fingers of two Afghan voters,’”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/22/afghanistan-election-taliban-fingers
6. “Karzai Maintains Lead in Afghan Vote Count,”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/26/afghanistan.election/
7. “Poll: Pakistanis oppose Taliban, still revile US,”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_unpopular_taliban
8. “Levin presses for training, not troops,”
http://www.thehill.com/homenews/senate/58339-levin-presses-for-training-not-troops
2 Comments, Comment or Ping
Greg
Why do you think that defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan will defeat al Qaeda, since they have followers in many countries? Even if Osama bin Laden is captured or killed there will be someone to take his place. Staying in Afghanistan for this reason is sure folly.
And this effort is looking more and more like Vietnam every day, e.g. keep fighting and dying, but achieving nothing. I have to wonder how hard it should be for a major military power to defeat a ragtag, ill-equiped group like this. What is really going on here? It smacks of theater and deception. Can the UN and the US really not take control of what it wants?
I, as many others, am appalled by the news of the schoolgirls being attacked, and I condemn this repressive and cowardly act. However, realize that this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years and it cannot be changed quickly. But we can slowly change it if we do it in the right way.
Sep 13th, 2009
Alan
To your first question, leadership matters. It is Osama bin Laden’s image that was widely sought among al Qaeda sympathizers, not his number two or anyone else. Recall, for example, the enthusiasm and success of our Civil Rights movement before and after the loss of Dr. King. No one could fill his shoes. Bin Laden is legendary because he led al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. His successor would have to be equally effective to gather a following. Moreover, note that the al Qaeda efforts in other countries merely appended the brand to existing movements like the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria. Adding “al Qaeda” to their names have made them only minimally more effective at best. Local populations tend to turn against foreign fighters. They even unite against them. “Al Qaeda,” whatever its appeal to some, is a foreign brand. Al Qaeda is often referred to as a “franchise.” Okay. Imagine the fate of McDonald’s restaurants if the company collapsed. How many individually owned restaurants would survive? How “powerful” would they be if their core, their main support, was destroyed? Osama bin Laden and his enterprise along the Durand Line must be eliminated. We must be there to ensure it happens. So, too, must the rest of the world.
The earlier British and Soviet Union attempts in Afghanistan were attempts at domination. Our effort in Vietnam was the same in that it continued French colonialism while the French withdrew to focus on retaining Algeria as a colony (also unsuccessful). That is why it is vital that we support the Afghans and Pakistanis in their efforts to control their territory rather than try to control it ourselves. Nations have a sovereign right and responsibility to exert a monopoly on violence inside their borders. Our aim should not, must not extend beyond that goal. That accomplishment will meet our goals. Had we focused on this, we might be done by now.
The Taliban and al Qaeda are new phenomena. Conflict that occasionally saw expression in violence is not new to the region, of course. It is not new, or rare even, anywhere. See Ireland or Spain, for example. However, violence is an unnecessary means to resolve conflict in the modern world. It is only among those who reject modernity (a very few) and those who reject Democracy (slightly more) that violence is important. That Afghanistan and Pakistan are advancing Democracy as a means to manage conflict is to be applauded and is complementary to our goals.
Sep 13th, 2009
Reply to “A Full and Lasting Revenge”