Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Boring Blogger


It's true.  These days all I blog about is school, places we dream of traveling, and school again.  This will be no different.  My final assignment for my last class, Afghanistan in Conflict, was to write ten pages on why public support for the war has fallen off sharply in the last few years, along with the effect it has had on the US effort in Afghanistan.  I couldn't have asked for a more interesting topic, and had as much fun as paper writing may produce.  Please keep in mind that I had only ten pages to condense an argument.  I could have gone on for double that, and feel like important anecdotes were left out.  That being said, enjoy:

Supporting Our Troops, and Ending the War
            The war in Afghanistan has been a long one.  An entire generation, of Americans and Afghans alike, have grown up with parents who fought in the region, only to fight there themselves.  Though the war was once popular, as years have passed and projected high expectations have yet to be seen, many have come to question our involvement.  Three U.S. presidents have left their mark on the country, as the current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, has been left the job of cleaning up quite a mess.   The American public wants to know why we are still in Afghanistan, including military spouses and family members whose loved ones have served numerous tours in Enduring Freedom and New Dawn. 
            Now that we are in an election year, both dominant parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats, are bringing all issues to the table.  As expected, most Democrats believe we should withdraw from Afghanistan sooner than projected – 2014.  However, in researching, I found it surprising that, in a recent poll, forty percent of Republicans concurred with an early withdrawal (Buhmiller).  The support for the war is dropping rapidly across the ideological spectrum, with sixty-nine percent of Americans believing we should not be in Afghanistan – compared to fifty-three percent just four months ago (Buhmiller). 
Several instances have led to where we are now in support of our involvement in Afghanistan.  Though it is difficult to condense them into three points, there are some issues that stand above others, the first being the effect on the U.S. military.  As stated earlier, our nation has been at war for years.  Though any retaliation seemed justified after 9/11, as years passed, we’ve seen the toll it’s taken on us all, particularly those who serve.  Families have lived years without their military member, soldiers have missed seeing their children being born and growing up, and all too often come home with psychological complications, if they’re lucky enough to escape physical injury or even death.  We all suffer during a time of war, but it is the families of soldiers, and the soldiers themselves, that bear the brunt of the heartache.
The second issue causing less support for the war in Afghanistan is the lost sense of mission.  Though commanders have ways of rallying their troops, the public sees it from a different perspective, often questioning the legitimacy of the fight.  Due to the lack of media coverage and daily reporting on the subject, it is also easy for many to tune out.  If one doesn’t have a friend or family member in the military, it doesn’t behoove them to stay informed; at least, that is often the case.  Besides assassinating Osama bin Laden just over a year ago, there have been little results shown, at least in the view of the average American.  People continually question, “Why are we there?” and don’t often receive a straightforward answer.
The last issue covered in this essay is economics.  As one of my favorite political analysts, James Carville, coined in 1991, “It’s the economy, stupid”.  Now more than ever American voters are evaluating their finances, as well as the national budget.  Just as one would eliminate frivolous spending from their own budget, they expect the government to do the same.  True, not all believe this war is inconsequential, but as stated in the previous paragraph regarding results and mission, most feel we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan.  Therefore, they see any and every penny spent there a waste of taxpayer money that could be used on our failing health care system, education, or finally balancing the budget. In my opinion, this is what has led to an increase of Republicans preferring an early withdrawal.  It looks like there finally may be an issue the two parties can agree on.
Before I go any further, let us return to the issue of military.  As mentioned, military members themselves are becoming fatigued.  Many deploy for a year, come home for year, and deploy again, and again.  Not only are these women and men working long hours, fighting in harsh conditions, and risking their lives, they are missing out on so much back home.  Working for DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity) schools, I have seen first hand what these tours do to families.  Children are left without mothers and fathers, and while they are so proud of what their moms and dads do, they miss them tremendously.  This all too often leads to disciplinary problems at school, uncharacteristic behavior, and academic setbacks.  Though many parents present a nurturing environment along with a set of coping skills for the whole family, just as many do not.  This is something that takes practice, awareness, and knowledge, and just as many parents aren’t able to offer this support, based on their own reactions to deployments.  This leads to depression, anxiety, insecurity, resentment, insomnia; frequently resulting in divorce.  Marriages have their ups and downs to begin with, but stressors that come with deployments are unforeseen and often dealt with alone.  This, coupled with issues listed before, are a recipe for dysfunction. 
What do those fighting the war think?  When searching “morale of soldiers in Afghanistan”, the most recent article I found was from a year ago, immediately following the death of bin Laden.  In 2005, sixty-six percent of soldiers reported high morale, compared to forty-seven percent, as reported in May of 2011 (Zoroya).  “More than half of those surveyed said they had killed the enemy, and 75 percent-80 percent described the death or wounding of a buddy” (Zoroya).  Now, think of all that has taken place in the last twelve months.  How is one expected to give their all to something that they aren’t sure about?  Yes, they’ve trained for this.  But at some point the mind takes over conditioned training, and interferes with personal morale.  Though they are instructed through combat training, it is naïve to think one may continue normalcy after witnessing a comrade being injured or killed by an IED (improved explosion device).  Soldiers aren’t robots; they’re humans, after all.
All of this leads to complications of the psychological perspective.  We have all heard of Abu Ghraib, U.S. soldiers burning Korans, and the shooting spree of an American soldier in Kandahar.  While I am utterly disgusted by all of these events, one must step back and realize that though many of these actions were conscious, some had to be the result of psychosis on some level.  Repeated deployments paired with the stigma of mental health discrepancies causes troops to go without seeking help for various problems; particularly PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) and suicidal thoughts.  As one can surmise, a soldier may continue to serve while unfit to do so, becoming a danger to her/himself, her/his fellow soldiers, and, in the recent case of Kandahar, civilians. 
For families of those in uniform, and the GIs themselves, war brings about difficulties that otherwise would not exist.  True, members of the military enlist or commission to serve their country against threats foreign and domestic, but the very act of war, especially when served in more than one deployment, the stigma of mental health and getting help, and the lack of resources available to hurting soldiers lead to a view that this war (not mentioning Iraq) has dragged on long enough. 
The second point I would like to cover is the lost sense of mission and purpose.  In no way do I mean this in regards to the military - our military leaders are excellent at motivating troops and fighting until the end.  Rather I mean, the American public, who see very little coverage of the happenings in Afghanistan, unless a Koran is being defaced or civilians are being massacred by one of our own.  I will never forget watching a documentary on PBS entitled “Obama’s War”.  Last night I streamed it again, and the same feelings came flooding back as I watched Marines that were no older than my husband in an intense firefight against the Taliban in the Helmand Province.  In the most defining moment, to me at least, a marine is shot in the neck.  His comrades call out for medics and are eerily prepared as they remove him from the battlefield.  The man died, and I watched his friends briefly mourn his passing and head back to the fight.  My point here is, these images are kept from mainstream media.  They are seen as incongruous and too obscene for the nightly news, but it is these exact images that give a purpose and name to the very conflict we are in.  
Coverage of the war is minimal among mainstream media.  The average American tunes in to the nightly news, CNN in the mornings, or heaven forbid, the atrocious sideshow known as “Fox and Friends” and other shows on the network.  Here they may hear sound bites of politicians arguing either for or against the war with very little to back it up, the number of troops killed in the last month or to date (if they’re lucky), or debates on the withdrawal date.  I just hopped over to the media outlet most Americans frequent, CNN.com, and didn’t even find the word “Afghanistan” on the homepage.  They do, however, have a link titled “Bin Laden dyed hair, on Viagra”.  You know, only the essentials.  Instead of reporting on American military deaths, conditions in which they’re fighting, progress made, and difficulties in completing the mission, they’d rather address a deceased tyrant’s physical appearance and sex life.  In a way you can’t fault CNN, because I’m sure plenty of Americans are reading this.  Still, the fact that not a single story on Afghanistan is mentioned on the homepage is repulsive and appalling to me. 
Those of us who read BBC, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Army Times, and other more notable sources are more informed on the issue of Afghanistan and U.S. involvement, for better or for worse.  I weekly do my research on current war zones to stay conversant, as it is my hobby as well as my job, being a student of International Relations and a friend to several soldiers serving across the world.   John Doe, however, doesn’t have the same motivation and interest as me to remain connected to this issue, so he counts on the six o’clock news to keep him up-to-date.  Sadly, very rarely will coverage of Afghanistan, the progress being made along with mistakes, ever make it into the living rooms of millions of Americans.  This leaves many ill informed, but also questioning our mission.  That being said, even knowing more than the typical American on this subject matter, I’m left questioning why we’re in Afghanistan, and I know many of those who fight do the same.  If the majority of my countrywomen and men knew that their tax dollars had gone to pay off warlords, do you think they would be supporting sending our men and women to war?  Probably not.  Also, I’d like to think that most Americans are aware that we found and captured Osama bin Laden, a name synonymous with terror in the Western Hemisphere, in Pakistan, not even the country we’ve occupied.  Naturally, this leads to confusion and mistrust on behalf of our government, particularly when situations such as the Kandahar shooting occur, questioning our mission and ultimate goal in a war that has lasted far too long.
Finally, something most of us can agree on, rehabilitating our economy.  As of June 2011, the United States had spent at least $3.7 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq (“Daily Mail”).  At the same time, Congress was debating how to balance our budget, a tenth of which is spent on the war (“Daily Mail”).  Last month an article was published in the Washington Post, stating, “The U.S. military expects that sustaining the Afghan army and police forces after the planned withdrawal of American combat forces in 2014 will cost about $4billion a year and that most of that money will have to come from the United States and other outside donors” (Jaffe).  Though I believe the Obama Administration is doing their best to responsibly withdraw from Afghanistan, cutting their Afghan spending to $5.7 billion in 2013, this year they have projected funds to reach $11.2 billion (Jaffe).  Though he advocates military cutbacks and withdrawing from Afghanistan, not to mention voting entirely against the war in Iraq, President Obama has spent more on the military than any other president in the last fifty years (Korb, Conley, and Rothman).  I’d be willing to wager he has spent more on wars than any other U.S. president in history.  Most of this is because once a war is started, you must keep up and continue the fight, progressing and rebuilding infrastructure.  Still, I find it ironic.
Americans today are struggling, for the first time, more than the previous generation.  Those who have grown up the American way (with credit cards, fast food, electronics, technology, you know, the “I want it NOW” culture) are finding themselves owing student loans, without health insurance, retirement, jobs, and oftentimes, money to pay the rent.  Imagine you are fresh out of college and owe student loans, finally got a job that pays just over minimum wage with no benefits, and have a spouse with no job as well as a baby to feed and clothe.  These scenarios vary, but the thoughts are often the same – “Why can’t the U.S. government be held accountable when I am?”  “How can trillions be spent on a war we don’t even know we’ll win when millions of people don’t have health care, education is falling more and more behind, and I can hardly pay my bills?” 
All in all, now more than ever, Americans want their loved ones home from tours of duty, want a military budget that makes sense and can be held accountable, and an answer to why we are still in Afghanistan.  These three factors have led to a decrease in support of the war in Afghanistan, not the troops that fight it.  Still, because of the lack of confirmation towards the conflict, the very women and men that put their lives on the line question their duty to the cause, leading to a drop in morale.  With more and more civilians and military alike questioning our nation’s motives in a region peppered with extremists just waiting for us to leave so they may return to wreak havoc, U.S. officials cannot help but evaluate our presence and purpose in Afghanistan.


 Bibliography
1)   Buhmiller, Elisabeth. "Support in US for Afghan War Drops Sharply, Poll Finds." New York Times [New York City] 26 March 2012, n. pag. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
2)   Zoroya, Gregg. "Morale plunges among troops in Afghanistan." USA Today, via Army Times [New York City] 09 may 2011, n. pag. Web. 4 May. 2012. .
3)   "Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan wars: US cost is $3.7 trillion and up to 258k lives." Daily Mail [London] 29 June 2011, n. pag. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. .
4)   Jaffe, Greg. "Afghan army to cost U.S. billions of dollars after 2014 withdrawal." Washington Post [Washington DC] 16 Feb 2012, n. pag. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. .
5)   , Lawrence Korb, Laura Conley, and Alex Rothman. A Historical Perspective on Defense Budgets:What We Can Learn from Past Presidents About Reducing Spending. 2011. Graphic. The Center of American ProgressWeb. 4 May 2012. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.htl. *pretty stellar link*

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Warning: Great Read (and my summary)


Hello there.  As I've noted, my life has been consumed by all things Afghanistan.  I recently read a book by Ahmed Rashid called Descent into Chaos, a must read for all soldiers headed to Afghanistan, or spouses and others interested in the subject matter.  Obsessed.  Seriously, it's phenomenal.  

If you love reading biographies, history, political novels, or all things Central Asia, check it out.  Compelling, to say the least.  

Here is my critique, which started as 10 pages, whittled down to six:

           After reading Ahmed Rashid’s book, Descent into Chaos: The U.S. and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, I saw that my views pertaining to the subject matter had evolved. In his personalized yet fact-filled tome, Rashid covers everything about the region and the United States’ involvement.  Because of his personal ties to the area, Descent into Chaos was not only an interesting read, but also one with fact, in addition to opinion.  Being a Pakistani journalist familiar with the territory explored through the chapters, Rashid reports and writes objectively.
In this critique, I list which points I found most helpful in understanding the current conflict taking place in Afghanistan, and the role my country has played, through Rashid’s analysis.  The three points I highlight, as noted in the subsequent paragraph, spoke to me more so than others, allowing a personal decision on the matter.  Though I struggle to remain impartial, it must be known that I support most of what Ahmed Rashid contends.  In my personal opinion, I find his analysis uninhibited and genuine.  A vehement supporter of rapid withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and all foreign nations, I was left stunned at money wasted, with so much work to be done.  More confused than ever, I question our presence in, as well as a speedy exit from, Afghanistan.  And so, let us begin my critique of Descent into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid.
As previously stated, though Descent into Chaos is teeming with relevant anecdotes and information, there are three topics that appealed to me, all of which overlap one another at some point.  First, we’ll review the encompassing subject of the US in Afghanistan. I focus on American mistakes (Tora Bora and the like). Second, I move on to a topic that is ever infuriating to me – the role of Pakistan in this conflict.  Most Americans have no knowledge of Pakistan, and it is an absolutely irreplaceable piece of this puzzle. I’ll brief how the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) have pretended to be helpful while playing “double-agent.  All Westerners should know about Pakistan’s part in this play, and I shall try to do my best to explain why in a limited forum.
Last – corruption.  If there is one word that epitomizes all the issues we have seen in the region, it is corruption.  By the Afghan government, Pakistani government, Afghan warlords, and the most vexatious to me – the United States. We like to think a country like Afghanistan is full of corruption, and while many Americans joke about the venality that takes place in the Capitol, no one expects the pure depravity (in my opinion) that the United States has involved itself in, with regards to Afghanistan.
Let us begin with the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan, fast-forwarding to the months following 9/11.  Most informed Westerners are aware of the travesty we call Tora Bora – the exodus of many terrorizing leaders and soldiers, including Osama bin Laden, from Afghanistan to Pakistan.  “Between six hundred and eight hundred Arabs were escorted out of Tora Bora by Pashtun guides from the Pakistani side of the border, at an average cost of $1,200 each” (Rashid, p.98).  A few weeks prior to this, however, was another major mistake.  Taliban forces offered to surrender, but American State Department/Pentagon/Intelligence entities refused to accept.  Had we put troops in Uzbekistan awaiting their surrender, there would have been a major shift in the direction of our mission.  However, “The absence of U.S. troops [Rashid believes], led to the deaths of thousands of Taliban prisoners…[and] the leaders of the Taliban and al Qaeda escaping” (p.91).  There was even an airlift to aid escapes, approved by the Bush Administration.  “Hundreds of ISI officers, Taliban commanders, and foot soldiers belonging to the IMU and al Qaeda personnel boarded the planes” (p.92).
The biggest mistake of all?  In my opinion: the Iraq War’s effect on distracting from the mission in Afghanistan.  Rashid put it best in Chapter Four: “The distraction of Iraq, which materialized just hours after the 9/11 attacks and continued indefinitely, was first to undermine and then defeat both U.S. policy in Afghanistan and the struggle to capture al Qaeda leaders” (p.64).  Donald Rumsfeld, the ultimate stooge behind this entire operation, even said, “Sweep it all up – things related and not” (p.64). The Bush Administration was on the warpath.
In the fall of 2003, the international community found itself at a turning point.  Would the War in Afghanistan be deemed a failure or success?  “In those critical … a few thousand more U.S. troops on the ground, more money for reconstruction, and a speedier rebuilding of the Afghan army and policy could easily have turned the tide against the Taliban and enhanced the support of the population for the government” (p.248).  Why didn’t we have more troops on the ground and more allocated resources?  Oh, that’s right.  We were fighting the “terrorists” in Iraq. 
Slighting allies, pursuing a mission though it is not backed by anyone but conspirators. Sigh, cowboy politics at its best.  Pair the interferences of the Iraq War with all too common American unilateralism, and you have, well, the fruits of the Bush Administration.
Even our allies became cross and unsupportive.  The United Nations called for a Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) in Afghanistan.  This program would clean up the country, and offer alternatives to violence.  The United States, however, “Put up major obstacles, refusing to fund or support DDR or allow U.S. troops to help the UN carry out disarmament” (p.209).  In fact, this very issue tore our alliance with Europe even further apart.  Unilateralism at its finest.
A change of pace leads us to Pakistan and its repulsive role in the region. I find it humorous that Pakistan told us over and over again, “Yeah, he’s not here.  And how dare you think we’re harboring terrorists?!”, only to concede in May of last year, “Oh, yeah.  You found him in Pakistan?” 
From the beginning, Rashid portrays Pakistan playing a double agent.  The CIA went through ISI repeatedly for contacts and intelligence, exchanging data and tips.  Besides helping guide them out of the country to the FATA region in Pakistan, “ISI officers were warning Taliban families not to return home”, because if they did, they were under obligation by the Americans to hand them over (p.242).  Though they weren’t physically helping them out at this point, the ISI was giving terrorists a heads up. 
I have a scribbled, barely legible tidbit written in my notes from our class discussion on Pakistan that reads, “Evidence ISI funded Taliban”, along with an expletive not suitable for an academic evaluation.  So, I went to my favorite media outlet, BBC News, in an attempt to fuse pieces of the puzzle.  An article titled “Pakistani agents ‘funding and training Afghan Taliban’”, notes that “Support for the Afghan Taliban was official ISI policy” (“BBC”).  Why is this so important, besides the fact that they are supposed to be helping us rid the region of Taliban and al Qaeda?  Because we have given them billions of dollars in aid, essentially funding the very extremists that seek to destroy the West.  Though Pakistan is formally known as our major ally in the region, I question it, to say the least.  Notwithstanding their blatant concealment of the Taliban and al Qaeda, particularly Osama bin Laden.  Without FATA’s safe haven, the Taliban wouldn’t have been able to regroup and prepare more attacks. 
Finally, we’ve made it to corruption.  It has been tied in with the previous two points, but lets explore it in more depth.  Whether the CIA, ISI, Afghan warlords, or the Taliban initiated it, venality has been prevalent in this conflict.  Most people are aware of the poppy/opium problem in Afghanistan. Poppy cultivation is often found as the root of the warlord and corruption problem in Afghanistan.  In the chapter titled “Afghanistan II”, Rashid ascertains, “The Ministry of the Interior, which ran the police after 9/11, became a center for drug trafficking, with police posts in opium-growing regions being auctioned to the highest bidder” (p.204).  President Karzai’s own brother has been suspected of involvement in the trade.  Poppy cultivation, as we discussed in class, involves intimidation of civilians, and whoever is involved in its development or profits from such, allow warlords and effectively terrorists to become wealthy.  It’s a vicious cycle of dependence and exploitation.
The United States is just as involved, donating billions upon millions of dollars to Afghanistan, its warlords, and Pakistan.  This money often never makes it into civilians’ hands.  Just a few days after the atrocities that took place in September 2001, “Bush signed an order giving enormous powers to the CIA, allowing it to conduct the war in Afghanistan and make foreign policy decisions…Up to $900 million and perhaps more than $1 billion was allocated to the CIA for covert operations” (p.62).  On the adjacent page, Rashid continues, writing that CIA agent Gary Schroen flew to Tashkent with “$3 million, which was immediately dished out to NA [Northern Alliance] leaders…another $10 million was quickly flown in so that the CIA could pay off other warlords” (p.63). 
Again, our European allies were livid.  Euro officials told the U.S. to halt all support of warlords.  Rashid pensively states, “U.S. protection of the warlords had become a major constraint to Afghanistan’s ability to move forward and a growing bone of contention between Europe and the United States” (p.143).  Were American taxpayers aware that they were funding dissonance in Afghanistan, perhaps even incubating a movement that wanted nothing more than to destroy us?  I feel it’s safe to say no. 
Even Mr. BFD himself, now Vice President Biden, warned in 2002, “America has replaced the Taliban with the warlords.  Warlords are still on the US payroll but that hasn’t bought a cessation of violence.  Not only is the US failing to rein in the warlords, we are actually making them the centerpiece of our strategy” (p.134).  Our friend Rummy, however, felt that the highly compensated warlords should share power with the Afghan government. Was he drunk for years on end?  Rashid continues, “Rumsfeld’s determination to legalize warlord authority against the wishes of the Afghan government and the people was the most fatal mistake he was to make.  It gave the Taliban just the propaganda excuse they needed to reorganize themselves” (p.135).
I could go on for days about the corruption taken place throughout the modern conflict in Afghanistan (not to mention RPGs and money handed out during the Soviet conflict, later used against our own soldiers), but I believe I’ve made my point.  The three most compelling arguments, to me, made by Ahmed Rashid in Descent into Chaos, are those surrounding the U.S. in Afghanistan, the role of Pakistan, particularly the ISI and FATA region, and corruption committed by all parties involved.  Let this serve as a lesson, something we should always take from history, so that we may progress as a country and a planet.