Afghans: Question Of More US Troops Beside The Point
US soldiers head out on a mission (photo by P.J.)
Ever since the McChrystal memo asking for more soldiers leaked to The Washington Post, I have been wanting to weigh in here at The Desk about a possible increase in US forces.
Some western pundits are for the increase and some are against it.
But reading these, and other well-reasoned opinions, left me unconvinced either way. What was missing, I realized, were the opinions of the only people who really matter in this debate: The Afghan people.
So I conducted a few interviews with Afghan parliamentarians, big-shots and people on the street. I also interviewed a few foreign NGO workers, because the work they do could potentially be critically affected by tens-of-thousands more US soldiers here.
What I found surprised me, though by now it shouldn’t have.
When asked about the proposed U.S. force increase, most Afghans say they think it’s a good idea, but the first words out of most their mouths have nothing to do with insurgents, IEDs or Pakistan.
“[The new forces] have to concentrate on establishing a new government, an accountable government, and a committed government with a strong management ethic, chosen by direct elections,” says S.M. Rahmanoghli, a member of parliament from Faryab. “If the only reason for adding new forces is military, it will only make Afghans hate the coalition more than they already do.”
“We appreciate and gladly accept these new troops,” says Sayed Ishaq Gailani, head of the National Solidarity Movement political party and scion of one of the most prominent Afghan families. “But I think that these new troops will not solve the problems here. Our problems are political problems. First of all we need to make our government responsible for all the people of Afghanistan, not just a few families…”
In addition to the desire for a legitimate government, Afghans are also concerned about other issues that will arise if and when tens-of-thousands more American soldiers arrive here.
“If more forces come to Afghanistan,” says Homayoun Hamidzada, spokesman for President Hamid Karzai, “we will welcome them. But they must limit civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. If they can do that, we will welcome them. [McChrystal’s] is a good strategy, but only if they decrease civilian casualties.”
This last sentiment was also echoed by average Afghans I spoke with in bazaars across Kabul. They’re not against more US soldiers, unless more US soldiers means that civilians will get hurt or die.
Not surprisingly, the International Committee of the Red Cross feels the same way.
“From our point of view” says Markus Cott of the ICRC, “it would raise concerns about increased fighting. Increased fighting means increased casualties of citizens.”
After speaking to these Afghans, and many others, I’ve come to believe that the question of whether the US should add more troops or not is in fact beside the point.
Afghans have no interest in large-scale military operations, like we saw in Helmand this summer, if those operations result in regular Afghans being forced from their homes by violence and aerial bombardments. And a strong central government matters not at all to Afghans, if that government is rife with corruption and seemingly incapable of providing clean water, decent roads and reliable electricity.
The US and NATO should focus on improving Afghan government services and keeping civilian populations safe. If that means more soldiers, fine. But I’m skeptical that many of those men and women in uniform will be government advisors or specialists in sewage disposal and electrical grids.
The Afghan people will not turn fully away from insurgents until rampant official corruption ends and the Kabul government begins to provide basic services. Such change may be impossible in Afghanistan. Because of that fact, people in the west should think long and hard before signing any checks toward an expanded occupation and in fact, if they want to be here at all.
What I do know for sure is that if the US ramps up its military presence without a commensurate increase in governance and infrastructure programs, the insurgency will only grow. Especially if those armed foreigners show up and turn even more villages into battle fields.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Can someone explain how Afghanistan continues to be the world’s leading producer and exporter of opium and heroin….while all these U.S. troops are present and satellite probes inspect the countryside?
How long does it take afghan heroin to reach America, and by what routes does it leave Afghanistan?
Isn’t what you describe “nation building”? I don’t know if U.S. soldiers or U.S. money can do that successfully anywhere at any time or if even should try to do it at all. If a unified government is what the Afghan people want and if the Americans and NATO and everyone else would get out of the way, would the Afghan people choose to work together to create the government that they want and deserve?
Rocky,
Actually the term-du-jour in the NGO community is “capacity building,” but same difference, no matter what you call it, everybody is terrible at it.
And while I think that many here desperately want a legitimate unified gov’t, if the US just “got out of the way,” that is not at all what Afghans would get. The Kabul gov’t would be toppled and strongmen and insurgents would fight it out in the street, just like in ‘93. Power abhors a vacuum. In Afghanistan, that vacuum would be plugged with the corpses of those who stand in the way of whoever tries to take power.
I’m not arguing for or against the US presence here, I am saying that everybody needs to be aware of the consequences of staying or going.
In response to another comment. See in context »Andy,
A real answer to your questions would take two blog-posts, and maybe one day I’ll write them.The short answers are that the Afghan gov’t prohibits NATO from destroying drugs, so all they can do when they find narcotics is call Afghan security forces who may or may not destroy them. There are some exceptions to this.
I answer the second question in this Afghan Desk post from a CSM story I wrote:
http://trueslant.com/pjtobia/2009/06/30/why-we-can%E2%80%99t-stop-heroin-or-much-else-from-crossing-afghanistan%E2%80%99s-southern-border/
Third question: Heroin that leaves Afghanistan can be in NY within a month, London in a matter of days.
The shortest, most accurate answer for all of these questions: Money.
It’s not possible to prop up a corrupt government and support the results of a rigged election then simultaneously espouse freedom and democracy in a way that will be meaningful for Afghanis…. I’m starting to wonder if a heavily monitored runoff election, with voting places heavily bolstered by security in the form of extra troops might not be a good place to start.
Also, Obama needs to speak frankly with the American people about what the mission is at this moment in the near future. With no message coming from the UN general assembly or the G20, he can’t afford to spend countless weeks mulling options. His policy on Afghanistan seems bogged down and indecisive IMO.
This is clearly a difficult problem and there does not seem to be a perfect solution. It seems that more troops produces more violence which produces an argument for more troops. It is a trap that we have fallen into before in Vietnam. There has been some disagreement about how a counter insurgency works and some consider that Afghanistan would require 600,000 troops for a true counter insurgency to work. Yet in Vietnam it did not work.
Pumping money into a corrupt government is counter productive and does nothing in the hearts and minds strategy. It would have been better to go back to a provincial government with a strong judicial system to make sure the money is well spent. However in Iraq this was so mismanaged by junior incompetents that it would not be considered.
Your report indicates that the people just want to get on with their lives without being squeezed between the west, the insurgents and a government that is making money from both sides.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Many Afghans uncertain about more US troops http://bit.ly/JQegT [...]
[...] taking up arms against the foreign occupier and corrupt central government. Never let on that more troops in more places will mean more fighting and more dead civilians. Wave the hands, distract the audience, palm the [...]
[...] taking up arms against the foreign occupier and corrupt central government. Never let on that more troops in more places will mean more fighting and more dead civilians. Wave the hands, distract the audience, palm the [...]
It seems like the only real solution is some kind of reconciliation between warring factions, not a military-style clamping down of the country. If President Obama is serious as a peacemaker, he will work his best to bring people together and not solve this political problem with a military solution.
[...] to cash and weapons, but I haven’t heard anything about training camps. But inject another 40,000 Americans into Afghanistan, as may soon happen, and perhaps we may see Iran become a bit more [...]
[...] Afghans told us that the question of more US soldiers is beside the point and what they’d really like–if it’s not too much trouble–is an honest, [...]
[...] Afghans: Question Of More US Troops Beside The Point – Afghans want more US troops! Kinda sorta! In a way! [...]