 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 12, 2008 at 12:36:13
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/12/08: by Patricia DeGennaro (Posted by Rady Ananda) Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
1
1
1
Many different interests vie for supremacy in Afghanistan, and the new administration must stimulate an honest discussion among the stakeholders. Left out of discussions so far has been consultation with the Afghan people themselves. I recently taught a class at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, where students were assigned various roles simulating democracy-building efforts, The exercise highlighted issues such as civilian casualties, negotiations with the Taliban, refugees whose families have been killed, and the limited cooperation of international organizations and agencies. The students diligently outlined their goals and interests, and determined whom they should (or should not) be working with. There were a number of striking similarities between the simulation's outcome and the current reality. 
- The smallest groups, NGOs and refugees, spoke to everyone and anyone to increase their chances of getting the job done, but larger groups-the military and USAID-dismissed their value. The larger groups worked only with groups that would support their agendas, without considering the larger strategic picture. Other than refugees (who were directed to do so in the simulation), no party spoke with the Afghan government, except for the U.S. military, but they met with "Karzai" just 10 minutes before the simulation ended. And that visit was merely to "inform" the Afghans about their plans.
-
Lack of a holistic, strategic and visionary U.S. foreign policy is hardly news, and neither is competition between organizations and agencies. What is shocking is that most Afghan nationals are repeatedly excluded from the planning, decision-making and implementation processes. Although they are sometimes "informed," their input is often dismissed while outside plans are imposed.
My class learned this in a safe environment. Regrettably, the U.S. military has learned the same lesson in a very dangerous one-Iraq. Many recent successes in Iraq have occurred because our soldiers are finally learning to work with community leaders to win hearts and minds. The new emphasis-on working collectively-is being transferred to Afghanistan, and Barack Obama has pledged to support this strategy.
Afghans watched the U.S. election closely. While I was in Kabul this summer, every one of my colleagues expressed support for an Obama administration, and I received many congratulatory emails afterward.
Afghans believe that Obama will concentrate on the welfare of civilians, and minimize the use of force. They believe he will use civilian foreign policy "tools" that more effectively empower Afghans, so they can convince their own communities to keep the Taliban at bay and repair their shattered society.
Afghans know they need help. They understand that they live in a broken nation, one ranked 173 out of 178 in the area of human development. They know that the poppies cultivated in the south do not give them power, but help to maintain warlord domination and aggression. The people know, but they feel powerless to make the changes without more help-and a much bigger say.
As president, Obama will have an unprecedented chance to make big differences in our world, including Afghanistan.
To do this, however, he must first realize that the U.S. foreign policy apparatus needs an overhaul. If the parts are not coordinated to create an effective whole, the United States will never get out of Iraq, let alone help Afghanistan to move forward.
Obama must also require the military to create a comprehensive strategy for success. This requires that NATO and the international community accept more leadership responsibilities.
Finally, without strengthening Afghan participation and requiring accountability from all parties, little will change in the country or the region. We will not only fail at a more rapid rate, we will find ourselves on the outside, looking in. Afghans will tell you that they won't tolerate much more domineering behavior.
Obama will be tasked with determining how Afghanistan fits into a new and, one hopes, visionary American foreign policy. He must also set the direction for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, while promoting change in an international community that has been as much a part of the problem as the solution.
The current head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, said it will take more than extra soldiers to stabilize Afghanistan. It will take Afghans, as well as a more holistic foreign policy. This policy must be more inclusive, taking into account the interests of all parties in the region.
The "cowboy" mentality practiced under the outgoing administration has not gotten us anywhere. Change is overdue. This requires equal and honest participation from all stakeholders in creating a stable country that can finally move beyond war.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
|
|
| 11 comments |
|
Why not just get out?
What business do we have there? There isn't even oil there. We -- I discount Ms DeGennaro and a smattering of a few other experts -- have no knowledge of Afghanistan and ne way to enforce our will, even if our will was benign, which I take leave to doubt. We have better things to do with the lives of our soldiers and the treasure of our taxpayers. Maybe the Taliban will take over again. Many Europeans, plagued with the poppy products endemic on their streets, would be happy. If we wish to solve a drug problem, a country to experiment on, Mexico, is a lot closer. So the argument to get out seems overwhelming to this viewer. Am I wrong? Best wishes, Alan McConnell by alan17b0 (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:56:38 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: gonna question the party line here
okay, Afghanistan offers two reasons for the US to be there: 1. control of the heroin trade from what has become the world's largest producer. With drug money, the empire can buy weapons and allegiances, etc., to fund its imperial aims. 2. land rights for the transasian oil line. Seriously, is there any other reason we are there? by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:22:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dead on the money
Afghanistan has squat to do with "terrorists" or bin Laden's ghost, everything to do with the Central Asian Great Game (Brzezinski). 4000% opium export increase since 2001 funds a lot of black ops. The TAPI natural gas pipeline will run through Kandahar and must be protected from angry natives. http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/ by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:20:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: great stuff,
thanks, Michael: The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran. The TAPI pipeline would also diminish Russia’s dominance of Central Asian energy exports. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:36:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Patricia, Rady: THANKS SO VERY MUCH.
I think you should be telling OBAMA what you think he should do by sending this to his Senate Contact email, to the new site , Change.gov, and even try publishing it in the Washington Post so that millions of really influential folks would see it. So much of this depends on who is appointed Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense. Gore vs. Richardson? I would take Richardson in a second. The election was by Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:01:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: will pass on your advice, stephen
I'll send that obama change link to the publisher to see if she'll forward to the writer... by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:27:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: wonderful. thank so much.
So much of the next 4 years is JANITORIAL: cleaning up the mess from the past 8 years, eh? by Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:22:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Afghanistan
I'm not convinced that our military presence in Afghanistan is really in anyone's best interests. We supported the Mujahdeen during the Russian invasion and that support turned around a bit us in the back side when the world turned its back and the Taliban became the power of the land. We became involved for three reasons – first to 'beat' the Russians, secondly to hunt down Bid Laden, and the last reason was to over throw the Taliban, all in the name of freedom. In each case, though, we really did have ulterior motives. Now, it has all turned into a quagmire and we are decisively engaged. Innocent casualties are now the rule rather than being the exception. Perhaps we should ask Afghanistan what help they believe they need rather than removing them from the whole decision making process. The growing of poppy plants means a living for a number of people – and I am sure that good old American capitalism can figure a way to profit from that harvest. Afghanistan's climate is less than forgiving and perhaps we should ask them if we can help them to find ways to feed themselves through our own crop research. Rather than killing everything that moves we should concentrate on the needs of Afghanistan first and foremost, and that is a United Nations concern - not an American mandate because we only do nice things in exchange for a heavy price in return. In my humble opinion, we need to pull our troops back for we will never find Bin Laden. The Taliban are close to being yesterday's news. It is time to help Afghanistan to become a nation with its own national identity, a government relative to its own culture, and end the burden of continued warfare. We, as a country, need to realize that America is not 'uber alles'. by Rabbi (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 109 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:25:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It is Not What SHOULD Obama Do
The real question is what WILL Obama do in regards to Afghanistan. Probably do exactly what he said he would do. Escalate the war there with combat troops from Iraq. Watch the "peace and justice" community dance now folks. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:48:27 PM (0+)
|
|
LOOK, Y'ALL. DON'T JUST YUK IT UP HERE; WRITE TO OBAMA
DIRECTLY, ON HIS SENATE WEBSITE FOR THE TIME BEING....SEND HIM AN EMAIL, AND DON'T BE SILENT. IF EVER THERE WERE A PRESIDENT-ELECT THAT WAS OPEN TO WIDE RANGING PUBLIC OPINION, THIS IS THE GUY, AND THIS IS YOUR CHANCE. MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN TO HIS STAFF, AND TO BIDEN'S STAFF. THIS IS VITAL! by Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:17:37 PM (0+)
|
|
What should Obama do about Afghanistan?
Statement: "They know that the poppies cultivated in the south do not give them power, but help to maintain warlord domination and aggression. " Do they also know that those poppy fields are being guarded by our soldiers and that a great deal of the harvest coming from them funds CIA Black-ops and terrorists, as well enriching the same world bankers that have orchestrated this world economic collapse? Not to mention, hooking millions of people in their mad Eugenics program to murder 80% of the worlds population? No? Well, I guess I can understand that, after all they're poor peasants. What's the author of this articles excuse for not mentioning that? Obama should get on his knees and apologise for all the msurder we've committed in their land, and make retribution a 1,000 time over, pull all our troops out and tell the world that America will end its aggressive military imperialistic approach and forever wage peace. What do you think the chances are? I guess asking for an investigation into 9/11 is out of the question too, huh? by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:52:40 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
