Get E-Mail Updates

It's Time to End This War

After his unanimous approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee as the new Afghan war commander, General David Petraeus was pictured in The Washington Post with a broad smile and thumbs up proclaiming, "We are all firmly united in seeking to forge unity of effort." No, we're not, General. No, we're not. In fact, I believe it's time to begin to unite the religious community against the war in Afghanistan.

Following last week's resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, confirmation hearings began right away for Petraeus to become his replacement. But the real issue is not replacing one general with another because of inappropriate comments and insubordination -- it's the fatally flawed war policy in Afghanistan.

In February 1968, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attacks erupted throughout South Vietnam, showing that U.S. political and military leaders' optimistic pronouncements that the end of the war was near were not true. By then, it was clear to many that the war was not winnable, yet more than half of U.S. casualties in Vietnam occurred from that spring until the end of the war (35,000 of the total 58,000).

I have walked the line at the Vietnam Memorial Wall many times, with tears running down my face as I read the names of my generation who were killed there. And the painful remorse over that awful war is even greater when I remember that the majority of those who died in Vietnam were killed after we knew we would ultimately have to come home without "winning" the unwinnable war. The last of the many reasons for staying in Vietnam that I recall President Nixon saying was to come home "with our heads held high." We didn't.

After 9/11, an international police action to bring the perpetrators of that horrible crime to justice would have been one thing. But to begin a war and then an occupation of Afghanistan was the wrong policy, quickly killing more Afghan innocents than the American innocents who died on September 11. It was then further compromised by the completely mistaken and morally unjustifiable war in Iraq.

When will we ever learn? The failed policies are all too familiar: a counter-insurgency strategy requiring more and more troops; creating the continued presence of a large U.S. military force; increasing the resentment and hostility of the Afghan people at a foreign occupation; trying to create a central government out of an ungovernable tribal society; and depending on an incompetent and utterly corrupt political ruler and regime.

An effective anti-terrorism policy was never really tried and was replaced by a "war on terrorism" which has failed. Here's the metric: Has our primarily military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq killed more terrorists than it has recruited? I think we know the answer to that. The math of terrorism is against us. And our military obsession has made the most important question impossible to ask and even unpatriotic to consider: How might we reduce and defeat the causes of terrorism in the first place?

A new strategy in Afghanistan that focuses on humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development, along with international policing, was also never tried. It could have been led by NGOs, both faith-based and secular, who have been in the region for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of these countries than are the U.S. military. But such assistance would have to 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.

Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. 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.

And yes, effective development needs security. We could have focused on economic development, starting in areas that are secure and then growing to additional parts of the country, but providing only the security necessary to protect the rebuilding of the country. That kind of peacekeeping security would have been more likely to gain the international support we needed in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries.

Non-military strategies should have led the way, rather than the other way around, as counter-insurgency doctrine requires. We should not have made aid and development weapons of war by tying them so closely to the military; rather, we should have only provided the security support needed for the development work to succeed -- led by respected, well-established international organizations with strong local connections.

The current strategy, even with a new commander, will only lead to more casualties -- U.S. and Afghan -- while likely strengthening popular support for the Taliban as an anti-occupation force. It is a strategy of endless war that is ultimately doomed to failure.

Last Sunday, the photo on the front page of The New York Times broke my heart. It showed the family of a military serviceman just before he was redeployed to Afghanistan. He was in his fatigues, holding his 6-month-old son with a look of deep pain on his face, with his wife resting her head against his shoulder. The article told story after story about families being separated by repeated deployments in an endless war. Soldiers who are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters are dying for a wrong-headed, ineffective, failed, doomed, arrogant, theologically unjust, and yes, immoral war policy. And of course, the ones dying are not the young people headed for our best universities and successful professional careers, but rather they are the ones who have fewer options, or who see the military as their only option. Those with the least opportunities, and their families, are again the ones to sacrifice and suffer. It's not right and it's not fair.

The number of U.S. service members killed in June was the highest for one month since this now nine-year war began. It's time to end this war. Or should we just start building another wall?

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: graceandpeace

07-01-2010 @ 5:35pm

Amen!

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: LuckyTN

07-01-2010 @ 6:54pm

How blood is enough? Every war humans have waged against each other could have been prevented. All it takes is open eyes and minds to realize a threat before it becomes so great that war is the logical choice. All it takes is a rejection of the demonization of the other who is called enemy. Why, if they were so hot for war, didn't they wage war on Saudi Arabia? That's tongue in cheek of course.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

by: Ngchen

07-02-2010 @ 9:04pm

You raise some interesting points. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. There are several tough questions, none of which have good answers. How does one define victory in this context? (We'll never have a terrorist surrender ceremony the way we did with Japan.) The very tricky thing about counterinsurgency is that one can't be either too hard (every innocent you kill breeds insurgents) OR too soft (metaphorically fighting with a hand tied behind the back). In an ideal world, the way to go would probably be something riot police do when faced with a hostile crowd - immediate arrest of those committing crimes such as looting and burning, and ignoring the rest of the crowd. IF the treatment handed out can be broadly seen as fair and just, then there is a chance of success. An absolutely unequivocal statement by our top leaders that we absolutely do not covet Afghan resources or territory would also help, in that it takes away a nationalist motive for the insurgency. Finally, to bolster such a claim, having a firm withdrawal date helps too. At some point whatever Afghan government there is has to assume responsibility for itself.

by: PaulSurovell

07-01-2010 @ 9:45pm

Jim,

Your title is that "It's time to end this war" but you list a number of compelling reasons why we can't pull our troops out of Afghanistan (see below). Maybe a better title would be "It's time to change our strategy in Afghanistan so we can end this war."

Such a formulation is consistent with the effort in Congress calling on the President to establish a real timetable for withdrawal.

(from your blog)

"Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility
not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that
need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from
further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. 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."

by: davintosh

07-01-2010 @ 10:38pm

True enough that the casualty numbers last month were the highest, but why is that? Because the troops have so many convoluted rules of engagement that it's been difficult for them to defend themselves when attacked. You can place the blame for that directly on the politicians who've placed this burden on our soldiers and the cowardly terrorists who have no qualms about hiding amongst and blending in with civilians, including women and children. Thanks to the idiots in the US media, the enemy knows the rules of engagement our soldiers have to follow and they leverage that to their advantage. And a huge factor at play with anti-US sentiment among the Afghan people is they see the terrorists making our soldiers look helpless & foolish at the hands of the terrorists. If a civilian sees the better-equipped US troops being dominated by the terrorists, and the civilian knows the US troops won't likely be around in a year... The Afghans know who is going to be in charge and are cutting their losses.

Yes, it's time to end this war, but not by setting arbitrary dates when a pullout begins, but by setting real and attainable objectives for a victory over the terrorists in Afghanistan and establishing a lasting peace there, then releasing our soldiers to do the job they've been sent to do. This is a winnable war. The only ones holding us back are the politicians.

by: PaulSurovell

07-01-2010 @ 9:45pm

Jim,

Your title is that "It's time to end this war" but you list a number of compelling reasons why we can't pull our troops out of Afghanistan (see below). Maybe a better title would be "It's time to change our strategy in Afghanistan so we can end this war."

Such a formulation is consistent with the effort in Congress calling on the President to establish a real timetable for withdrawal.

(from your blog)

"Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility
not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that
need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from
further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. 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."

by: davintosh

07-01-2010 @ 10:38pm

True enough that the casualty numbers last month were the highest, but why is that? Because the troops have so many convoluted rules of engagement that it's been difficult for them to defend themselves when attacked. You can place the blame for that directly on the politicians who've placed this burden on our soldiers and the cowardly terrorists who have no qualms about hiding amongst and blending in with civilians, including women and children. Thanks to the idiots in the US media, the enemy knows the rules of engagement our soldiers have to follow and they leverage that to their advantage. And a huge factor at play with anti-US sentiment among the Afghan people is they see the terrorists making our soldiers look helpless & foolish at the hands of the terrorists. If a civilian sees the better-equipped US troops being dominated by the terrorists, and the civilian knows the US troops won't likely be around in a year... The Afghans know who is going to be in charge and are cutting their losses.

Yes, it's time to end this war, but not by setting arbitrary dates when a pullout begins, but by setting real and attainable objectives for a victory over the terrorists in Afghanistan and establishing a lasting peace there, then releasing our soldiers to do the job they've been sent to do. This is a winnable war. The only ones holding us back are the politicians.

by: Peaceseeker2

07-02-2010 @ 4:32am

Thank you Jim for your article. I agree that it is past time to quit this war and pursue a more humanitarian and humane goal. NGO's, international involvement and working the local tribal units are the best way to go. After reading "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortensen I am convinced that a cooperative and non-military approach which addresses the needs of the people will work. It must not in any way be financed by the U.S. government and especially not the military. Let the humanitarian groups who have developed such programs work with the people. Seek peace and pursue it the psalmist said. Let's pursue peace people to people working together for life-giving projects. No killing, no war machines or soldiers/military involvement. Learn more by reading Mortensen - now two books available.

by: Peaceseeker2

07-02-2010 @ 4:32am

Thank you Jim for your article. I agree that it is past time to quit this war and pursue a more humanitarian and humane goal. NGO's, international involvement and working the local tribal units are the best way to go. After reading "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortensen I am convinced that a cooperative and non-military approach which addresses the needs of the people will work. It must not in any way be financed by the U.S. government and especially not the military. Let the humanitarian groups who have developed such programs work with the people. Seek peace and pursue it the psalmist said. Let's pursue peace people to people working together for life-giving projects. No killing, no war machines or soldiers/military involvement. Learn more by reading Mortensen - now two books available.

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: Ngchen

07-02-2010 @ 9:04pm

You raise some interesting points. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. There are several tough questions, none of which have good answers. How does one define victory in this context? (We'll never have a terrorist surrender ceremony the way we did with Japan.) The very tricky thing about counterinsurgency is that one can't be either too hard (every innocent you kill breeds insurgents) OR too soft (metaphorically fighting with a hand tied behind the back). In an ideal world, the way to go would probably be something riot police do when faced with a hostile crowd - immediate arrest of those committing crimes such as looting and burning, and ignoring the rest of the crowd. IF the treatment handed out can be broadly seen as fair and just, then there is a chance of success. An absolutely unequivocal statement by our top leaders that we absolutely do not covet Afghan resources or territory would also help, in that it takes away a nationalist motive for the insurgency. Finally, to bolster such a claim, having a firm withdrawal date helps too. At some point whatever Afghan government there is has to assume responsibility for itself.

by: graceandpeace

07-01-2010 @ 5:35pm

Amen!

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: LuckyTN

07-01-2010 @ 6:54pm

How blood is enough? Every war humans have waged against each other could have been prevented. All it takes is open eyes and minds to realize a threat before it becomes so great that war is the logical choice. All it takes is a rejection of the demonization of the other who is called enemy. Why, if they were so hot for war, didn't they wage war on Saudi Arabia? That's tongue in cheek of course.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: graceandpeace

07-01-2010 @ 5:35pm

Amen!

by: graceandpeace

07-01-2010 @ 5:35pm

Amen!

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: Joel225A

07-01-2010 @ 5:47pm

Yes it was time to leave Afganistan . Been so for a long time . The President inherited some big problems . I do not see any Christian or religious leader that has brought a cogent consistent voice about this war . I don't think you can get too many cogent consistent voices about war. But it is good to see that our Generals are no longer be called traitors and the war is becoming the issue . I guess that is progress.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: justintime

07-01-2010 @ 6:27pm

Gen. Petraeus and the 'Surge' Myth

If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

In his book, The War Within, Robert Woodward wrote, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062810.html

Not long ago, information was leaked about the "vast mineral resources in Afghanistan".
Was this leak intended as justification for staying in Afghanistan? - to facilitate corporate exploitation of those resources?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
It had to do with facilitating the petroleum industry's exploitation of Iraq's oil resources - second only to Saudi Arabia's.

by: LuckyTN

07-01-2010 @ 6:54pm

How blood is enough? Every war humans have waged against each other could have been prevented. All it takes is open eyes and minds to realize a threat before it becomes so great that war is the logical choice. All it takes is a rejection of the demonization of the other who is called enemy. Why, if they were so hot for war, didn't they wage war on Saudi Arabia? That's tongue in cheek of course.

by: LuckyTN

07-01-2010 @ 6:54pm

How blood is enough? Every war humans have waged against each other could have been prevented. All it takes is open eyes and minds to realize a threat before it becomes so great that war is the logical choice. All it takes is a rejection of the demonization of the other who is called enemy. Why, if they were so hot for war, didn't they wage war on Saudi Arabia? That's tongue in cheek of course.

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

by: mjeinpenn

07-01-2010 @ 7:09pm

Nine years into the conflict, it remains difficult to detect much improvement to American security. For every innocent civilian we kill through collateral damage, mistake, or an errant missile (even as precise and careful as our military professionals try to be), the seeds of further terrorism are planted. If victory has not been achieved after nine years, I fail to see how we can ever accomplish it under current strategy. Terrorist cells continue to exist around the world; al-Qaeda leaders continue to hide in the mountainous terrains of northwestern Pakistan, a country that we do not fully trust and that is, at best, lukewarm to our efforts in the region. We have diverted badly needed funds to a failed military effort that could otherwise help educate our children, create jobs, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, promote a green economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We could do so much more to enhance the security of the United States if we instead focused our efforts on building schools for Afghan children. The long-term solution to terrorism and militant fundamentalism in general, and Afghanistan in particular, is education and economic opportunity. A policy that relies upon long-term military power to bolster a corrupt government is destined to fail.
http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

by: PaulSurovell

07-01-2010 @ 9:45pm

Jim,

Your title is that "It's time to end this war" but you list a number of compelling reasons why we can't pull our troops out of Afghanistan (see below). Maybe a better title would be "It's time to change our strategy in Afghanistan so we can end this war."

Such a formulation is consistent with the effort in Congress calling on the President to establish a real timetable for withdrawal.

(from your blog)

"Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility
not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that
need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from
further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. 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."

by: PaulSurovell

07-01-2010 @ 9:45pm

Jim,

Your title is that "It's time to end this war" but you list a number of compelling reasons why we can't pull our troops out of Afghanistan (see below). Maybe a better title would be "It's time to change our strategy in Afghanistan so we can end this war."

Such a formulation is consistent with the effort in Congress calling on the President to establish a real timetable for withdrawal.

(from your blog)

"Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility
not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that
need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from
further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. 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."

by: davintosh

07-01-2010 @ 10:38pm

True enough that the casualty numbers last month were the highest, but why is that? Because the troops have so many convoluted rules of engagement that it's been difficult for them to defend themselves when attacked. You can place the blame for that directly on the politicians who've placed this burden on our soldiers and the cowardly terrorists who have no qualms about hiding amongst and blending in with civilians, including women and children. Thanks to the idiots in the US media, the enemy knows the rules of engagement our soldiers have to follow and they leverage that to their advantage. And a huge factor at play with anti-US sentiment among the Afghan people is they see the terrorists making our soldiers look helpless & foolish at the hands of the terrorists. If a civilian sees the better-equipped US troops being dominated by the terrorists, and the civilian knows the US troops won't likely be around in a year... The Afghans know who is going to be in charge and are cutting their losses.

Yes, it's time to end this war, but not by setting arbitrary dates when a pullout begins, but by setting real and attainable objectives for a victory over the terrorists in Afghanistan and establishing a lasting peace there, then releasing our soldiers to do the job they've been sent to do. This is a winnable war. The only ones holding us back are the politicians.

by: davintosh

07-01-2010 @ 10:38pm

True enough that the casualty numbers last month were the highest, but why is that? Because the troops have so many convoluted rules of engagement that it's been difficult for them to defend themselves when attacked. You can place the blame for that directly on the politicians who've placed this burden on our soldiers and the cowardly terrorists who have no qualms about hiding amongst and blending in with civilians, including women and children. Thanks to the idiots in the US media, the enemy knows the rules of engagement our soldiers have to follow and they leverage that to their advantage. And a huge factor at play with anti-US sentiment among the Afghan people is they see the terrorists making our soldiers look helpless & foolish at the hands of the terrorists. If a civilian sees the better-equipped US troops being dominated by the terrorists, and the civilian knows the US troops won't likely be around in a year... The Afghans know who is going to be in charge and are cutting their losses.

Yes, it's time to end this war, but not by setting arbitrary dates when a pullout begins, but by setting real and attainable objectives for a victory over the terrorists in Afghanistan and establishing a lasting peace there, then releasing our soldiers to do the job they've been sent to do. This is a winnable war. The only ones holding us back are the politicians.

by: Peaceseeker2

07-02-2010 @ 4:32am

Thank you Jim for your article. I agree that it is past time to quit this war and pursue a more humanitarian and humane goal. NGO's, international involvement and working the local tribal units are the best way to go. After reading "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortensen I am convinced that a cooperative and non-military approach which addresses the needs of the people will work. It must not in any way be financed by the U.S. government and especially not the military. Let the humanitarian groups who have developed such programs work with the people. Seek peace and pursue it the psalmist said. Let's pursue peace people to people working together for life-giving projects. No killing, no war machines or soldiers/military involvement. Learn more by reading Mortensen - now two books available.

by: Peaceseeker2

07-02-2010 @ 4:32am

Thank you Jim for your article. I agree that it is past time to quit this war and pursue a more humanitarian and humane goal. NGO's, international involvement and working the local tribal units are the best way to go. After reading "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortensen I am convinced that a cooperative and non-military approach which addresses the needs of the people will work. It must not in any way be financed by the U.S. government and especially not the military. Let the humanitarian groups who have developed such programs work with the people. Seek peace and pursue it the psalmist said. Let's pursue peace people to people working together for life-giving projects. No killing, no war machines or soldiers/military involvement. Learn more by reading Mortensen - now two books available.

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: RachelK

07-02-2010 @ 8:03pm

Andrew Bacevich's opinion piece in the Washington Post did an excellent job of analyzing how McChrystal's comments are the product of a "standing army," divorced from our citizenry, with the result that the military feels superior and the public feels detached and apathetic. That's one reason the war goes on and on without arousing the will of the people to demand an end. If you would like to see the column, try www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2....

by: Ngchen

07-02-2010 @ 9:04pm

You raise some interesting points. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. There are several tough questions, none of which have good answers. How does one define victory in this context? (We'll never have a terrorist surrender ceremony the way we did with Japan.) The very tricky thing about counterinsurgency is that one can't be either too hard (every innocent you kill breeds insurgents) OR too soft (metaphorically fighting with a hand tied behind the back). In an ideal world, the way to go would probably be something riot police do when faced with a hostile crowd - immediate arrest of those committing crimes such as looting and burning, and ignoring the rest of the crowd. IF the treatment handed out can be broadly seen as fair and just, then there is a chance of success. An absolutely unequivocal statement by our top leaders that we absolutely do not covet Afghan resources or territory would also help, in that it takes away a nationalist motive for the insurgency. Finally, to bolster such a claim, having a firm withdrawal date helps too. At some point whatever Afghan government there is has to assume responsibility for itself.

by: Ngchen

07-02-2010 @ 9:04pm

You raise some interesting points. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. There are several tough questions, none of which have good answers. How does one define victory in this context? (We'll never have a terrorist surrender ceremony the way we did with Japan.) The very tricky thing about counterinsurgency is that one can't be either too hard (every innocent you kill breeds insurgents) OR too soft (metaphorically fighting with a hand tied behind the back). In an ideal world, the way to go would probably be something riot police do when faced with a hostile crowd - immediate arrest of those committing crimes such as looting and burning, and ignoring the rest of the crowd. IF the treatment handed out can be broadly seen as fair and just, then there is a chance of success. An absolutely unequivocal statement by our top leaders that we absolutely do not covet Afghan resources or territory would also help, in that it takes away a nationalist motive for the insurgency. Finally, to bolster such a claim, having a firm withdrawal date helps too. At some point whatever Afghan government there is has to assume responsibility for itself.