By John Leschak, third-year law student
This Thursday, Oct. 8, is the eighth anniversary of the start of the Afghan War. Eight years of fighting, yet U.S. forces are no closer to achieving “victory.” A recent report by General Stanley McChrystal, the chief military officer in Afghanistan, says the U.S. must change its military strategy or it risks losing the war. But, why is this war being fought? What goal will be achieved by its continuation?
The U.S. government does not have clearly defined goals, nor any real, viable strategy. Obama’s administration has emulated the “surge” strategy used by General Petraeus in Iraq. Since taking office, Obama has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan from 38,000 to 62,000. Additionally, General McChrystal is planning on requesting up to 40,000 additional troops, which would bring the total to over 100,000.
However, the 2007 “surge” was less significant than the Awakening Councils. The U.S. paid the salaries of these councils, composed primarily of former Sunni-insurgents. Essentially, the U.S. paid insurgents to stop shooting at U.S. troops and blowing them up with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). This worked because one of Iraq’s biggest reasons to join the insurgency is economic desperation. Jobs, not bombs, will help bring peace.
Few places in the world face more desperation than Afghanistan, a country the size of Texas that is home to over 33 million people. It is ranked the fourth poorest country in the world on the U.N.’s Human Development Index. Afghanistan also has the fourth highest birthrate and the third highest infant mortality rate in the world. Each year, pregnancy and childbirth kill 25,000 women, and diarrhea kills 85,000 children. And countless Afghanis have been victimized by the current war.
As Obama has escalated the Afghan war, the number of civilian casualties has risen markedly. According to the U.N., 1,013 civilians were killed in the first half of 2009, an increase of 24 percent from 2008 and almost double the 2007 figures. Many innocent men, women and children have been killed by U.S. aerial bombing, as revealed by the stories of soldiers like James Gilligan.
James, a corporal gunner in Afghanistan in 2004, gave the following testimony to Congress last May: “On a mountain range I saw a blast, so I radioed my master sergeant, who asked for the location of the blast. I took out my compass and made the grave error of making a compass reading next to my metal machine gun. I gave my sergeant the reading. They launched a barrage of mortars and asked if I saw them make impact. I told them I did not. Then they fired three more barrages of mortars. I still saw nothing. The barrages had been fired into an Afghani village.” Then James broke down in tears.
Rather than bombing and shelling Afghanistan, the U.S. should promote economic development, public health, education, food security, and women’s empowerment. The U.S. should also adopt an exit strategy based on all party talks, regional diplomacy, and unconditional humanitarian aid and economic assistance.
Instead of doing this, Congress is a step away from passing a $625.8 billion 2010 military budget. Only $128.2 billion of that is to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the budget will go toward keeping open the 737 military bases the U.S. has all over the globe. Obama is still pushing for health care reform and other ambitious domestic policy changes. However, these enormous military expenditures threaten to make a shambles of his domestic agenda, as the Vietnam War did to President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” plans.
With millions of Americans unemployed and without health insurance, continued billions for war is an appalling waste of taxpayer money. Obama has promised change but Tupac’s lyrics ring true, “And still I see no changes/can’t a brother get a little peace/It’s war on the streets and the war in the Middle East/Instead of war on poverty.”
Obama ought to close down all foreign U.S. bases, demand the defense budget be cut in half, and then use the hundreds of billions saved to fight poverty here and in Afghanistan. He can’t change U.S. domestic policy without changing foreign policy, too.