RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

We Needed a New Approach in Afghanistan — and This Isn’t It

by Jim Wallis 12-02-2009

091202-afghanistanThe decision by President Obama to send additional troops to Afghanistan saddens me. I believe it is a mistake, it is the wrong direction for U.S. foreign policy, and it is disappointing to many of us in the faith community and our friends who spearhead the on-the-ground development efforts in Afghanistan and around the world.

We needed a new approach to the very difficult and complicated situation in Afghanistan, and this isn’t it. We were promised fundamental change in the direction of U.S. policy around the world, and this isn’t it. We were promised change we can believe in, and this military escalation is not something many of us as faith leaders can believe in. This is still a primary reliance on military solutions and occupations to defeat terrorism — a strategy which has not succeeded. The defeat of violent extremism is a necessary goal of the international community — but old thinking, old ideas, old strategies, have failed time and time again to do that. And we have no reason to believe it will succeed this time.

Two weeks ago, we delivered to the White House an open letter to the president calling on him to lead with a different kind of “surge” — a surge of strategic and focused international development, diplomacy, and targeted humanitarian assistance (and, yes, the necessary security to support it), rather than again relying on more military escalation. Seventeen thousand people have signed on to that letter. We heard little of that new approach in this announcement of sending more troops to fight terrorism. To undermine, isolate, and roll back the influence, capacity, and power of groups like al Qaeda is a necessary goal, but we still fail to fully comprehend how the presence and consequences of foreign military power serve to strengthen the extremism we seek to weaken.  The plan that the president announced last evening is still the wrong kind of surge, and the emphasis of this policy is still in the wrong place. The history of the troubled country of Afghanistan, the lack of a reliable governance partner, the absolute failure of every other occupation of that nation, and the consistent mistake of leading with military solutions all predict sad outcomes for this old approach. Our nation’s growing skepticism about this war is well-founded.

Ultimately, only a whole new approach to Afghanistan will have any chance of success. And many of us will continue to call for that, in the hope that the Obama administration will eventually listen. In the meantime, we will pray for our servicemen and women who will continue to sacrifice for a tragic strategy, for more innocent civilians in Afghanistan who will die from more military escalation, for a president whose deepest instincts we still trust, and for the soul of our own nation. May God save us from our well-intentioned mistakes.

+Click here to sign our petition to President Obama

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)

  • bill pence
    well said. and another question is why are Americans so content to NOT know these objectives? the apathy of society, including many many intelligent members astounds me.. I feel like i'm the odd man out for demanding reasoning behind these measures.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Thanks for sharing website. I scanned site. I have not had time to digest any of it.

    My primary thought/question revolves around this: Say we could sit down President's Clinton, Bush, and Obama; along with Hilary Clinton (State Department) and the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives. If we asked them to each stand and define the long-term US policy for Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Iran/Iraq/etc--would they all say the same thing?

    I'm not talking about each of them arguing for what they think should be the policy; or what some parts of the policy is; but rather to summarize, objectively, U.S. policy.

    At that point I ask: "If you can state what it, is there reason you can't stand up together and outline the policy for the American people? If you can't state what it is--what, in God's name, are we doing there?"

    I may be missing something. But these discussions argue over military escalation, whether the war is winnable, etc, assuming there is an obvious objective we are working towards. I don't know how to evaluate anything when the objective has not even been defined.
  • bill pence
    it's a difficult, complex situation. the 30,000 troop surge costs are estimated at 30 billion (over the proposed occupation period) and this is being spent in the 3rd poorest country in the world.. something seems very wrong with that. i would like to hear your thoughts on a website, rethinkafghanistan.com if you have time.. i'm definitely learning alot from different points of view at sojo, which i love to do
  • letjusticerolldown
    No. If my writing implied that, I'm sorry for the terrible writing.

    If it were a good rationale--than I guess we'd start with occupying our own country. Stewarding our own immigration issues. etc. We have militias and organized criminal enterprises operating in virtually every state of the nation.
  • bill pence
    So you think declaring a country to be a potential terrorist foothold is a good enough reason to occupy a country, displace vast numbers of civilians and kill people that live in the country (terrorists and civilians)?
  • bill pence
    i agree with you, but how besides "pro-war" do you descibe that widespread notion? i'm open for suggestions
  • bill pence
    i realized i had mentioned that I was a doc before and then realized how dorky it was for me to mention that, sorry
  • bill pence
    i mean seriously, how do you forgive and love your enemy and still kill him?
  • bill pence
    well Christ healed on the sabbath so that would seem to make it not an issue, which is good because i'm a physician. I think that as Christians we have to be prepared to die for our beliefs and principles, one of those being to love your enemy and another is 'thou shall not kill'
  • bill pence
    which one of Jesus' principles is that exactly?
  • Russ_in_Colorado
    I agree with Mr. Wallis that a "civilian surge" is the answer. But it cannot be done without reliable security, so I did not sign the petition. There is also a lot more at stake in Afghanistan than most are aware of, as I explain in "On Afghanistan" - http://home.comcast.net/~russ1980/stuff/On_Afgh...
  • Servway
    Its time for us to leave - we are no longer deliverers - we have become occupiers. It will be the Afghani people who determine their government. The Afghani people are tribal and anybody who governs has to ensure all tribes are respected and maintain a precarious balance of power. If Karzai can do this he will succeed. If he relies on brute military power -- he will fail and be replaced. America can only help if it works to serve legitimate Afghani institutions by invitation. Manipulating the political future of Afganistan will not work and will lead to blowback. We did this in neighboring Iran, and still reap the fruit of our intervention -the Iranian Revolution.

    As Christians, we can look for organizations who care about Afghanis( preferably led by Afghanis) and offer to partner with them. We can also work to ensure that the message of Jesus is available to the Afghanis people. Our hope in schools and material development is futile if people cannot learn the freeing message of Jesus.
  • Jazzaloha
    So if the U.S. and NGO's aren't the solution, what is the solution? Does the U.S. military have a role to play in that or are you saying they should just leave?

    Should we do nothing to stop the Taliban from gaining power in Afghanistan? If they did gain control, do you feel like this would improve the lives of the general population; that the general population would embrace Taliban rule?
  • Servway
    Jazzolah,

    There is an innate and wrong assumption that US military or US NGO's are the solution in your question. I don't think the US is the solution to Afganistan. The Soviets thought they were the solution and they speeded the downfall of their own empire trying to fix Afganistan.

    The Taliban may gain power in Afghanistan again - especially since our occupation has succeeded in alienating much of the Afghan people. The Saudi's actually have a very similar ideology to the Taliban. Why is it that we can be best buddies with the Saudis and have a huge role in the development of their country, while with Afghanistan we can't even talk to groups like the Taliban? Remember the Taliban didn't strike America, Saudis did. The only reason there was a Ben Laden base in Afghanistan was that this group of Saudis were bringing badly needed cash into the country.
  • Jazzaloha
    Servway,

    So in your view, you believe the US should remove its military and insert more NGOs?

    You feel like the Taliban won't resort to violence to gain power in Afghanistan? And if they did regain control of the country, would that be a good thing? Do you think the general populace want the Taliban back in control?
  • hollysavage
    The word is "murder" Servway and the footnote in my NIV Study Bible explains this commandment to mean "The Hebrew for this verb usually refers to a premeditated and deliberate act." In other words, we need a strong central government, including a military, and justice system to come down hard on murderers at home and murderers overseas in order to bring justice to our streets and the world. Weakness and cowardess does not equal peace. And I have a problem with what you said: "I seem to remember a commandment which makes me feel uncomfortable with what you say." Sometimes justice does not leave room for comfort.
  • Servway
    I seem to remember a commandment which makes me feel uncomfortable with what you say Holly. Thou shalt not.... What what was that?
  • hollysavage
    I would like to suggest something a bit radical: God is pro killing people. We should and would all be dead right now were it not for God's own intervention on our behalf, sending Jesus who then chose to die in our place. However, while we should also strive to try and love first and sacrifice our own pride to help others, we should not be beyond taking out those who live for murder and destruction or beyond implementing tough love at home by passing harsher penalties for criminals and reinstating the death penalty nation-wide. In the end, God wants us to do justice - sometimes that means a loving approach and sometimes that means a tough, get-'er-done approach.
    If we have truly fallen for the idea that God has no righteous anger so we should not have any either, than what place do we have as leaders?
    Last note: the surge worked in Iraq; why souldn't it in Afghanistan if Obama is willing to swallow his partisan pride and let the troops finish the job?
  • letjusticerolldown
    "As people of Peace and Faith we must continue to press for the higher road in the ultimate solving of this truly international problem."

    I appreciate the tone, content and thoughtfulness of your comments.

    And you are right. I don't have patience.

    This is an international problem--centuries in the making. So I don't expect a short speech to dissect and explain the complexities of human history and civilization.

    But I think I do deserve to know the mind and policy of my government; and that includes an articulation of the nation's policy objectives. I have zero evidence that there is a grand wizard behind the curtain in Washington who has this coherent US foreign policy that guides our actions--but is too complex and difficult to explain.

    I have a simpler equation. Clear rationales are not explained because they do not exist. If they are clear enough for the President to wrap his mind around--then they are clear enough to explain.

    If it is so abundantly clear we need to have concern about nuclear weapons in Pakistan--then we would have been hearing a non-proliferation policy being articulated for the last 50 years.

    Obama promised a heightened Afgan intervention. He must have had a rationale in mind. Of course he has articulated reasons for intervention; as George Bush did with Iraq. It's always multiple choice. What reason can be sold today?

    You and I could form a terrorist cell today, hide out in a townhouse two miles from the Whitehouse, and figure out how to terrorize an American city by next Christmas. Fighting terrorism by removing Sadam and crippling the Taliban is silly.

    We just "had" to create the Taliban. And now we "have" to stop them. And we can't trust anyone else to do it. And we have to borrow money from China to pay for it.

    It seems to me--it is all about us. Not the Taliban. Not Afghanistan.

    What is the compelling objective for intervention? We are not down at the local park playing on the swings. We invaded another nation on the other side of the planet.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Yea--I'm most interested in living based on lies and small pictures. I wouldn't want you to waste your time saying what the truth is and explaining the big picture. It's likely more important for us to insult each other.

    On the other hand, you might like to step out on faith.
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