Why It's Okay to be Person Most Likely to Stand in Front of a Tank To Stop It and Continue Military Work in Afghanistan

If there was a high school yearbook category Person Most Likely to Stand in Front of a Tank To Stop It, I'd be the winner hands down.

And yet, there's no way I would support a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan post-haste. This blog entry, A Commitment Strategy to Afghanistan, by Lorelei Kelly offers a great explanation but here's the crux for me (I recommend reading the whole column though):

The left and the right are too often defaulting to Iraq-era talking points for Afghanistan. On the right, Vets for Freedom is running anti-Obama ads, using the Iraq surge as a bludgeon against him. On the left, the California Democratic Party just adopted a resolution calling for increased humanitarian aid along with a military withdrawal.

But what if you can't have one with the other? The consequences of a complete withdrawal would leave a violent, chaotic hole in the middle of a tense neighborhood. The US would deal a potential death blow to the world's premier military alliance (NATO) and crackpot messiahs across the globe will claim credit. Troops need to be in the mix. Most Afghans want us there. They overwhelmingly dislike the Taliban. Girls attending school has risen to 44% since we've been present. Far more Afghans have access to basic health care. We need to start seeing these benchmarks as part of a broader set of objectives -- all thus far achieved with the help of American troops. [emphasis mine]

A month before that, Lorelei wrote, in Commander-in-Chief, Yes He Is, a pre-emptive strike that Obama critics from any point on the spectrum would be wise to read:

It still kills me that so many neoconservatives claim to value the military, yet demonstrate so few military values. Like: looking after the general welfare, shared risk, sacrifice for common goals and longterm planning. And here's the kicker: public service. Here are some other reminders of how progressive the military can be:

• International human rights law: U.S. military lawyers have been human rights champions for Guantánamo prisoners and for the Geneva Conventions.

• International treaties: The U.S. Navy is one of the strongest advocates for the Law of the Sea.

• Conflict resolution: The Air Force has a prize-winning office of dispute resolution.


• Renewable energy: The U.S. military is the largest renewable consumer in the country.


• AIDS prevention: The Defense Department has an extensive program to help foreign militaries.

And her conclusion really says it all for me:

The idea that power comes not from dominance, but from the ability to influence change, is a lesson learned from recent experience. Contrast the tea-drinking and negotiating experience of Afghanistan with the linear, engineering mindset of the Cold War--where a rigid worldview fit nicely with hardware-heavy solutions. Low-tech is our future. Afghanistan is the test. Finally, we have a President who hears what the military has been saying for nearly twenty years now: Security is about people.

I'm going to gloss over the fact that what I hate most about our military intervention in Afghanistan is how disconnected I've always felt it has been from getting at those individuals and groups and influences behind who actually performed the terrorist attacks (read more about how they connect to one another) and the countries and entities that have truly given asylum to such individuals. I read Three Cups of Tea, I think the Afghanistan population, like that in many countries around the world, our own included, could benefit enormously from the skills our military can deploy when not using arms or weapons (as Lorelei notes the other things the forces do), but that's why we have the U.N. and its derivative groups as well as NGOs.

And so, as a student of just and limited war, while it's incredibly difficult for me to even accept that we're in Afghanistan since we barely went after the right parties in the right way in the first place, I must insist that we now look at how deep in we are. There's little practical value to withdrawing 100% immediately either as no objectives will have been met if we do so.

This headline from an article in today's New York Times, "Obama's Afghanistan Decision is Straining Ties With Democrats," sums up how it can be that the reaction coming out of the lefty blogosphere is tense and in tension with itself as they digest these dilemmas which the President's speech addressed on Tuesday night at West Point (which you can read here or view here).

Although written just before the speech was given, Karoli seems to echo my sentiments:

I’ve been doing nothing but reading about Afghanistan over these past weeks, and find it difficult to understand how any progressive can support complete withdrawal unless they’re also willing to shut up about Darfur and other nations where culture and poverty dictate a miserable existence for their people.

Forget the Taliban, forget Al Qaeda, forget Pakistan, forget the nuclear weapons at risk. Forget history, forget the fall of empires on Afghanistan’s poppy fields, forget it all.

To summarily withdraw from Afghanistan or support such a withdrawal suggests abandonment of any principled approach to foreign policy and human rights. It serves as signal to the Afghan people and the world that Americans are simply opportunistic political animals with no real moral compass or will to at least attempt to repair what they broke.

Yet, opposite that and returning to just and limited war notions, Womanist Musings writes,

He [Obama] began [his speech] by reminding the populace of the events of 9/11, thereby justifying the start of the war.  To be clear, this was most definitely an act of terrorism, however; the peoples of Afghanistan did not wage war against the U.S. and by invading, Americans held them completely responsible for a man that was a visitor in their country.  There is such a thing as a measured response but this would not have sent the message of an untouchable America to the globe.  This war has never been about justice; it has been solely about vengeance.

...

Afghanistan is supposedly the moral war and yet its pursuit while American children go without healthcare, proper education, and housing is criminal. It is these same children who will be saddled with the debt that will be created to fight this war.  America may see itself as a beacon of light and hope, yet its behaviour is far more reminiscent of a crumbling empire desperate to remain relevant.  One nation cannot police the globe no matter its intent. 

Her thoughts help put the reports about the Congressional Black Caucus trying to leverage its votes in order to advance its priorities (an effort Obama is rejecting) into perspective.  Those efforts also should come as no surprise - here's Janet Shan of The Hinterland Gazette less than a month ago:

"White power in black face" was the rallying cry of hundreds of African Americans who marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first African American U.S. president and they demanded that he bring the troops home. More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration and they slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington's "imperialist" agenda around the world.

Womanist Musings also expresses her disappointment at how Afghan women's pleas seem to be ignored by Obama's decision:

The crimes against women to the abject poverty in Afghanistan have all been used to justify this action.   You cannot bring peace at the end of a rifle.  The women of Afghanistan have spoken forcefully regarding this issue and yet their calls have clearly not been heard.

“Stop this war because our people is very tired with this situation.  And if they really want to help our people we don’t need more soldiers.” 

“I don’t believe and I don’t expect any outside power to come and liberate me.  If I cannot liberate myself, no one from outside can liberate me. “

In a complete contradiction of their wishes, Obama is planning to send more troops.

But other left of center thinkers viewed the omission of discussing the women's plight as a good thing because it kept Obama's reasoning away from what they deem to be, "manipulative appeals."

PunditMom puts the awareness and omission together:

There was no mention how we are going to help the situation of Afghan women and girls. Increased presence of the Taliban over the last few years — the same Taliban that was supposed to have been defeated if I remember correctly — has made life pretty much a living hell for anyone there with two X chromosomes. Women and girls can’t even get medical treatment because women doctors are no longer allowed to work and men doctors are forbidden from seeing female patients. If this fundamental human rights issue isn’t addressed while we are trying to turn Afghanistan into a self-supporting society that we can leave by 2011, then I have to wonder if there’s any point to the rest of it.  We can do all the training and supporting we want, but if we don’t have any influence over how a society treats women and girls, how can anything constructive be built?

Speaking of women speaking up, Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Martha Coakley (in a Massachusetts' special election primary to be held this Tuesday) and Jennifer Brunner (Ohio's current Secretary of State and Democratic primary candidate whose race will be decided in May 2010), both want the troops to leave.

Finally, here in Racialicious' open thread during the night of the speech, you can see back to back the objections to and support for Obama's position.

Like I wrote at the beginning, I'm the person most likely to stand in Tianaman Square and get run over if I think it will stop military actions. But I'm also a social worker and sociologist, and I while I might give my life that way, I would not walk away from the lives of others.

More excellent reading:

From My Private Casbah, Re-Thinking Afghanistan (video)

Two from Malou Innocent: Myth v. Fact: Afghanistan and A Costly Mistake

From TIME, because don't you really want to remember: Why Are We In Afghanistan? (from 2007)