cross-posted at Progressive Blue
As you all know there are amazing challenges we all face daily, from our own personal financial situation to others that we care about around the world. Let's face it, that "golden parachute" isn't so golden at this point for many people in this country or others around the world. That being said, this isn't a diary about any of our economic situations or theirs, but about being "All That We Can Be".
Jump with me to explore some thoughts on war and peace, including my own.
In case you haven't met her, let me introduce you to Sakena Yacoobi.
In 1995, Sakena Yacoobi cofounded the Afghan Institute for Learning (AIL) — today one of the largest nonprofit organizations in Afghanistan — and is now its president and executive director. AIL provides education and health services to over 350,000 women and children annually in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with offices in the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Sakena has received numerous prestigious awards for peace-building, including the Peacemakers in Action Award from the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, the Gruber Prize, the Bill Graham Award from the Rex Foundation, and most recently, the Kravis Prize for Leadership.
I know the big news of the day is the fact President Obama plans on bringing the troops home from Iraq, sort of, and this is a good thing, until you realize Afghanistan is not their home.
Just as this wasn't a post about our economic situation, it also isn't a post about Iraq, but Afghanistan. This is a post about the approach that we as Americans take towards the rest of the world and the consequences of those actions.
Let me begin with an article by John Feffer at FPIF. He discusses the fact that President Obama has indeed followed through on his campaign promise of opening dialogue, yet seems not to hear what is being said.
In his first month in office, the Big Ear in the White House has deputized his trusted advisors to listen on his behalf all over the world. Vice President Joe Biden went off to Europe, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured Asia, and envoys George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke went off to their designated regions. These trips featured speeches, of course, but they were also designed to make allies and even adversaries feel listened to.
So, given all this new attention to the fine art of listening, why is President Obama so unable to hear the word "quagmire" when he turns his attention to Afghanistan? His ability to listen to people apparently doesn't extend to Afghans, who aren't enthusiastic at all about the increased number of U.S. troops heading to their country.
(emphasis mine)
Mark Pilusak has a great article at commondreams.org pointing to the fact that "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana).
The planned escalation of war in Afghanistan repeats the mindset and the blindness of the Pentagon and CIA officials who provided the daily briefings to the President during the Vietnam era. Each day they recount acts of military resistance, the bombing of the Khyber pass bridge, new caches of weapons being delivered, the leads provided to a secret intelligence unit that some paid informant was telling us which house to bomb to kill some militant leader. He will hear of "success" claimed by military authorities in getting the US supported governments in Kabul, or in Islamabad, to cooperate with us at the cost of increased internal strife in their own countries. He will not hear daily reports about how the expanding cost of that war are draining our economy and our soul, with no end in sight
To paraphrase Kipling, it is the place empires go to die. Not to imply that we are an empire or should aspire to be, only to suggest there are things that we could and should be doing beyond killing. "Hearts and minds" is not just a saying used to win support, it can also be used as policy.
Back to the interview with Ms. Yacoobi.
SHEKAR & AHN: There are many in the United States, including President Obama, who believe troops are needed to secure and stabilize the country and ensure humanitarian aid is delivered. What do you think?
YACOOBI: Security is the biggest issue in Afghanistan. The United States has helped us before and then let the situation in Afghanistan get so bad so that now there are opposition groups everywhere that are creating problems. Troops can provide some security. But as you know, a lot of innocent people and children are being killed because when they raid a house, they kill civilians. The problem is that the situation is so bad that it’s impossible to settle a peace negotiation and engage in a conversation because those people are everywhere. Peacekeeping is one way to negotiate with these people, but right now, for maintaining security, I think that troops are needed — but our own troops, not American.
If the United States really wants to help stabilize our country, I would tell President Obama that the United States should direct its resources to planning, developing the infrastructure, and providing jobs for the people of Afghanistan and region. If people have enough to eat, a job, money to support their family, then they would not resort to suicide bombing, blowing themselves up and innocent people. Countries need some sort of national security — but most foreign troops are not primarily focused on protecting women and children. Their focus is on beating the enemy, which is very different, and ordinary citizens become collateral damage in the process.
(emphasis mine)
It seems I remember a time someone was expressing the difference it would make around the world if we would focus on supplying goodwill instead of good bombs. I think it was this guy.
When we're serious about moral leadership at home, we have the standing to assert moral leadership in the world.
And I believe we can begin by leading in areas that – at first glance – might not seem directly related to our self-interest. I'm talking about global poverty, primary education. But I believe if you look closely, it's clear that these areas are in fact directly related to our present and future national security.
We know that terrorists thrive in failed states, and in states torn apart by internal conflict and poverty.
And we know that in many African and Muslim countries today, extreme poverty and civil wars have gutted government educational systems.
So what's taking their place? The answer is troubling – but filled with opportunity if we have the courage to seize it.
A great portion of a generation is being educated in madrassas run by militant extremists rather than in public schools. And as a result, thousands and thousands of young people who might once have aspired to be educated in America are being taught to hate America.
When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States – it is a national security issue for the United States. If we tackle it, we will be doing a good and moral thing by helping to improve the lives of billions of people around the world who live on less than $2 per day – but we will also begin to create a world in which the ideologies of radical terrorism are overwhelmed by the ideologies of education, democracy, and opportunity. If we tackle it, we have the chance to change a generation of potential enemies into a generation of friends. Now that would be transformational.
Whatever anyone may think about that guy, his approach to our current situation is dead on. We as Americans cannot expect the world to open its arms to us when all we do is project an offensive military solution to every crisis. I'm sure that many of you have heard the same thing from the right asking why hasn't President Obama uttered the words "Global War On Terror"? My answer is the answer those with much more power than I should be expressing...
It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed "war on terror" has backfired—and is now part of the problem.
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political "frame," it's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents "weak on terror," they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.
But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn't worked. The so-called "war" has created even more terrorism—as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.
By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.
The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power—the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
There's an emerging consensus inside the armed forces that we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror. The Commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command recently stated that he would no longer use the "long war" framework. Top military leaders like retired General Anthony Zinni have rejected the term. These leaders know we need substance, not slogans—leadership, not labels.
I know I have used quotes from a man who some may have disagreements with, so be it. In response to that I would like to share something my grandfather told me once "sometimes honesty hurts no matter where it comes from".
Peace!!!