RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Build, Don’t Destroy in Afghanistan: An Open Letter to President Obama

by Jim Wallis 11-19-2009

091119-afghanistanYour voice is being heard. Already, thousands of you have signed a letter and contacted the White House urging a new way forward in Afghanistan. Today, Sojourners staff will be meeting with White House officials to hand-deliver the following letter. I encourage you to read it and to endorse this message if you have not done so already. Support for a new way forward is growing. InterAction, a coalition of 187 non-governmental relief and development organizations focused on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, has now issued a letter of support for this new approach that you can read here. As the president’s decision draws near, please, as always, pray for peace.

Dear Mr. President,

In your speech to the United Nations General Assembly this fall, you eloquently stated one of your core beliefs, that while too often peace remains a distant dream:

We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world. … For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings — the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

We share that belief, and urge you to make it your guiding principle in Afghanistan.  We speak not as military or political strategists, but as religious leaders seeking to faithfully apply our moral values to this most crucial issue. We have been watching, listening, and praying as the political arguments and counter-arguments about what to do in Afghanistan fill the air. We commend you for taking time to make your decisions in such an important matter which will affect the lives of so many.

We believe that after eight years of war we need a whole new approach in Afghanistan. And we respectfully and prayerfully suggest to you a different strategy that we would name: the humanitarian and development surge.

First, lead with what we know works — massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable development.  We know that what can re-build a broken nation; inspire confidence, trust, and hope among its people; and undermine the appeal of terrorism is massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development.  And it costs less — far less — than continued war.

Many of us as religious leaders are deeply involved with the people and organizations who know places like Afghanistan the best; and they are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs, both faith-based and secular, doing relief and development work which have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military. We’ve also learned that it is vitally important that humanitarian and development assistance should be provided, as much as possible, by independent civilian and non-governmental organizations, both international and local– rather than using aid as a government adjunct to military operations. Another way to say it is that the best face of America to the world is a baseball hat and not a helmet.

Of course, we recognize that effective development needs security, and when we have massively intervened in a country as much as the U.S. has in Afghanistan, we can’t responsibly just walk away — as has tragically happened to that country in the past. But we should lead with economic development now, starting in areas that are secure with the plan of growing the transformation from there and providing only the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country.  That kind of peacekeeping security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries.  Let the non-military strategies lead the way, rather than the other way around. Let us not make aid and development another weapon of war, by tying it so closely to the military; but rather provide the security support needed for the development work to succeed—led by both respected and well-established international organizations with strong local connections.

Second, we feel deeply about the ethical and moral issues that are at stake in our decisions about future policy in Afghanistan —legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism, protecting the lives of American servicemen and women, protecting the Afghan people from the collateral damage of war, defending women from the Taliban, genuinely supporting democracy and, of course, saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war — to name a few.

We also strongly recommend a diplomatic surge. We urge you to continue pursuing political and diplomatic solutions to these complicated issues, promoting stable governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seeking political integration of those elements of the Taliban that are willing to cooperate in preventing the use of their territory for launching terrorist strikes, engaging with the United Nations and other states in the region to build diplomatic and economic support for regional stabilization and economic development, as well as international policing to prevent the spread of extremists and the use of terror.

But Mr. President, as you deliberate on these momentous decisions, we are concerned that the discussion in Washington, D.C. is far too narrow, with only two points of view being seriously considered.

One strategy supports a robust strategy of counter-insurgency, requiring a substantial escalation of troops that would bring the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to as many as 100,000.  Yet, this only increases the massive American footprint in that volatile country; which is now one of the primary causes of our problems there, and is clearly helping to fuel the insurgency. Add in a corrupt Afghan government, a highly decentralized society, and a physical terrain that has confounded every other occupier in history; and we find little reason to be hopeful about the prospects of military success through more escalation.

The other prefers counter-terrorism, relying on precision targeting technology to apply military pressure on the most dangerous and extreme operatives who are the greatest threat to us.  Our counter-terrorist missiles and unmanned drones may cost less in American lives and treasure, but they have very significant political and moral costs. In war, a laser-like focus is seldom possible, often leading to tragic results in unintended consequences and innocent casualties. The collateral damage of our technological war has already been great, resulting in many civilian deaths, further alienating the populace and, inadvertently, producing even more angry young recruits for terrorism.

And we fear the solution that may be emerging in Washington could be a confused combination of the two strategies, bringing us the worst of both worlds.

We humbly suggest it is time for a meeting at the White House with both American religious leaders and the heads of the leading international development agencies, some of whom have been in Afghanistan for years, with many indigenous employees and partners, who are trusted by the people of the country. These organizations can contribute their experience and wisdom on what U.S. policy would best work, and what kind of security they would need to really do the kind of development in Afghanistan that is most needed.  Along with the military and political advice you are receiving, this input is crucial to your decision. And it is time, perhaps for the first time, for an on-going moral and ethical conversation between government and the faith community about the moral implications of our policy decisions.

Mr. President, we assure you that in taking the approach of effective aid and development, and real engagement with the moral issues that confront us in Afghanistan, you will have our support. As always, you are in our prayers as you seek the right decisions to these most difficult questions and choices. We look forward to hearing from you.

Blessings,

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners

Noel Castellanos, President, Christian Community Development Association

Rev. William J. Shaw, Pastor, White Rock Baptist Church, Philadelphia, PA

Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, President, Skinner Leadership Institute

Rev. Rich Nathan, Pastor, Vineyard Church of Columbus

Thomas L. Jones, former chair, Social Justice and Peacemaking, Presbyterian Church USA

The Honorable Douglas W. Kmiec

Arturo Chavez, Ph.D., President and CEO, Mexican American Catholic College

Ingrid Mattson, President, The Islamic Society of North America

Dr. Anthony Campolo, President and Founder, Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education

Fred Davie, The Arcus Foundation

Diana Butler Bass, Author and Educator

Harry Knox, Silver Spring, Maryland

Brian D. McLaren, author, speaker, activist

Rev. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra

Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Reformed Church in America

Thomas and Karen Getman, The Getman Group

Mubarak Awad, American University

Robin and Nancy Wainwright, Middle East Fellowship

Norm Nelson, Compassion Radio

Susheilla Mehta

Stephen Bauman, World Relief

Luonne Abram Rouse, D.Min., LMFT, Fellow-AAPC

Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center

+Click here to add your signature to this message to President Obama

+Tell your friends about this petition

Categories: War & Peace
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • duhsciple
    Jim, why don't WE do it?

    Invite Greg Mortensen, author of "Three Cups of Tea," to advise us how to invest in Afghanistan in a non-imperial, respectful, inter-faith kind of way.
  • baumgrenze
    Jim, we need to help the President see that every BTU of energy that is used in any aspect of warfare, preparation, waging, and recovery, is a BTU that cannot be used in peace. Climate change is a zero sum/minus sum game. It is time that we all demand an accounting for the climate change contributions of military acts be accounted for as we seek to avoid a day when the seas will rise and our mighty armies will be left with only the high ground to defend at all costs.
  • ckgmail
    And I agree with baumgrenze about the BTU usage by the military. And I wonder also how much commercial aviation contributes to the greenhouse effect.
  • ckgmail
    Duh! I don't know or even know about Greg M, but this seems like a great idea, that a non-governmental group could invest in aid and development for community building--not necessarily nation building--in a non-imperial non-colonial type of way, in a way that Afghan communities want and participate in, something like the model of home-owners in Habitat for Humanity who are personally invested in their own homes. Do something WITH, not something FOR Afghan communities.

    As far as the US government approach, I think Jim Wallis and the other signators are on the right track. I could certainly sign that letter.

    Charles Kiker
  • Some would assume that, because I wear a uniform and I served with the military in Afghanistan, I couldn't possibly understand, value or support Sojo's recommendations. They would be wrong.

    I am also a Christian who believes that we should always strive first and foremost for peace. I agree humanitarian aid is most desirable and will do the most good in Afghanistan. In fact, I fight for Sojo's right to embrace and enlighten others about pacifism and the pursuit of social justice for all.

    However, it's a fine line that those of us walk who volunteer to protect and defend the human rights of the poor and oppressed. The best I can say is that, having seen the evil of terrorists up close while in Afghanistan, and having watched with horror as the events of 9/11 unfolded, I'm confident that without strong, vigilant security, humanitarian aid will never reach the people who need it so desperately.

    I'm reminded of the nuns in Central America who, while working on behalf of the poor, were murdered in cold blood by paramilitary groups. Nuns aren't the only aid workers at risk in Afghanistan. The Taliban have proven that they're willing to kill anyone peacefully working toward educating or otherwise assisting Afghanistan's poor.

    Unfortunately, troops are necessary to protect those who serve in humanitarian roles, to ensure that aid work is possible and the wellbeing of each aid worker is secure. Otherwise, those who seem interested in simply removing the military from the Afghanistan equation will need to consider the cost of lost innocent lives in their "war savings" calculations. As Christians, that terrible cost should keep us all up at night.

    The Bible tells us that Joshua went into the promised land, with singers praising God and making music. And as he journeyed, he was accompanied by a large group of Soldiers, with swords at the ready for protection.

    Similarly, we cannot expect vulnerable non-military personnel to work in any area where their lives are threatened unless we take the necessary steps to keep those who do the most good from being most at risk.

    Jeff Courter
    http://LifeLoveandTruth.com
  • tomheffern
    Amen brother. Curiosity to a link on my liberal cousin's website found me here. Want to second your assessment that most US military actually hold very similar views and aims to this groups desires, though I doubt they believe that. What this group fails to understand is that our US military policy is attempting to achieve similar results using US troops and positive interaction with Afghans. Read "A Bell for Adano".... we're not all evil, cold blooded killers. ... though I've sent a few deserving souls to hell myself.
  • jonabark
    You are ignoring quite a bit in proposing that the US Military occupation of Afghanistan is a heroic intervention to protect Afghans and preserve the Afghans from terror or abuse. Many Afghans, US and international military experts, journalists and human rights workers testify to a much more compromised and dangerous escalation of violence and securing of a system of warlord fiefdoms who traffic in large quantities of opium and heroin with impunity. The "government of Afghanistan is deeply involved in this drug traffic and has not protected its people nor provided economic equity or the rule of law. This arrangement of a war relying on a corrupt client state failed in Vietnam and I remember many of the same things you are saying , being said then.
    Your example of the nuns is oddly telling because the people that killed them were trained in America in the " counter insurgency" techniques of that time..
    As for the claims of protection, in 8 years 2000 Taliban have been killed and more than 8000 civilians.Of those, between 2,700 and 3,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in US bombing attacks( Professor Marc Herold) .

    While I see nothing admirable in the Taliban, it is important to recall that they are largely our creation, brought to power as the Mujahadeen in our proxy war with Russia.

    You are not Joshua going into the promised land, you are a soldier who is part of a military occupation which is not accomplishing the mission you describe. According to the courageous Malalai Joya, Karzai and the warlords are corrupt and violent and often on friendly terms with the Taliban. She also says that women are not safe under the warlords or the Government either, and that the elections were a sham of people too frightened to vote and votes miscounted.
  • michaelstarks
    Does anyone know why Facebook is blocking this letter?
  • gregrobie
    My father-in-law, a retired pastor, forwarded this essay to me. I am posting my response, and—more to the point—its question, as a comment here to see what other make of it; can add to this converation:

    Morning Dad,

    Aren't Wallis's thoughts similar to Kristof's subject for his opinion piece a few weeks back? Charity does seem to function as a moral door for framing thoughts about peace in our society. Anyway, it is an approach to 'peace' that is marketable; a 'peace' that preaches; a piety that effects an entombing, whitewashed piety.

    It is a piety defined by a talk not walked.

    The systemic usury that creates 'wealth' in our iteration of global capitalism (based on fiat currencies denominated in consumer debt) traps us in this piety. When one's 'money' is coined in debt—a debt that was justified by (and dependent on) economic exploitation, social inequality, and environmental destruction—every exchange of a Federal Reserve Note is a vote for injustice, self-interest, and an exercise in moral hubris—and this includes charitable giving. It may not feel like this is so, but such is the spiritual blindness that piety can effect through the dynamics of motivated reasoning.

    To figure this out, I have found it helpful to recall that 'charity,' as the term meant when agape was translated into the vernacular, is God's love. However, I feel we have corrupted the meaning of 'charity,' just as we have changed our thinking about the terms 'faith" (now belief), and 'hope' (now wishing). Charity, due to a systemic failure to be about doing justice, now means enslaving.

    From the logic of this framing, Wallis' argument affects a clanging gong . . . and proves Paul correct in the logic of his exegesis on these three things—of which, the greatest, is charity. What is flawed in this theological argument, other than it feels harsh?

    =)
    Greg
  • Knightscrossing
    Interesting but very naive... Yes building is much better than destroying. But before any of this can even happen the Afghans must install a stable form of government that will not allow outside governments to dictate its policies and a government that fights corruption.

    Otherwise just follow the banking sign that says... The Black Hole Starts HERE!
  • I often read your blog and always find it very interesting. Thought it was about time i let you know�Keep up the great work
  • I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!
  • This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.
  • this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..
  • Thank you, it is very good! I like it very much
  • this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..
  • this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..
  • this is such great information. thanks for the insight.
  • Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.
  • thanks for sharing with us.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008