A Canadian friend of mine emailed me last November, after President Obama’s election victory, and asked who the President-elect might nominate for Secretary of Peace.
I had never before considered such a question. What a concept.
Someone with the ear of the President, part of the inner circle of power in the most powerful nation in the world, whose responsibility was to promote and protect peace for Americans.
You might argue that is the job of the Secretary of Defense, but think about it. To use a sports metaphor, it’s like saying we need a defensive coach, but not someone who looks for new and effective ways to score points. You can’t win games that way.
Truth is, defending us from an imminent attack is not the same as anticipating what might disrupt peace in the near and distant future, and taking steps to avoid such situations.
If your neighbor keeps throwing his trash over the fence into your yard, you call the cops, and if you don’t get satisfaction that way, you raise the height of your fence so they can’t do it anymore. Defense (pardon the pun).
If instead, you went over to visit, you might find out they were doing that because your dog keeps pooping on their lawn and you never clean it up. They can’t let their toddler crawl around in the yard because of all the crap. You express surprise and regret, and promise to control your dog and clean up after him, they promise to stop tossing their trash into your yard. Peacemaking.
Or, you say “My dog is perfect. His poop don’t stink.” And sick your dog on their toddler. Then you express surprise when they pull out a gun and shoot you. And you make your way home and set fire to their house on the way. Defense.
When a new neighbor moves in, do you knock on their door and tell them to keep the hell off your property and raise your fence height so they can’t see your house? Defense. Or do you knock on the door with fresh-baked bread and a jar of homemade preserves and say “Welcome to our neighborhood.” Peacemaking.
We’ve talked about this before on this blog. Clearly we need both defense and peacemaking if we want to live in peace with the rest of the world. But the Secretary of State is the closest thing we have to a Secretary of Peace. When Secretary Clinton tries to meet with foreign governments, the right wingnuts say she’s weakening our defense.
If someone, anyone, points out that our nation’s behavior in the past might actually have something to do with why another country or group of people take offense and react violently, they are scolded for “blaming America first.”
President Obama is facing an incredibly momentous decision on what to do about Afghanistan. Do we send in more troops and settle in for the long haul? Set a goal of instituting a new democracy in that nation of fiefdoms? Set a goal of eliminating corruption in a government we don’t control – indeed a government that has never controlled that nation? Is the Taliban the enemy? Or is it al Qaeda? Or the heroin industry? Do we beef up our presence and start shooting everyone who might be associated with the Taliban? Or pick and choose only those who actually shoot at us, or provide funding and arms for those who do? And how do we identify them?
Or do we cut and run? We took on the Taliban, destroyed their government infrastructure, encouraged the people to defend themselves against them, and now we disappear, leaving them to fend for themselves?
Do we consider peacemaking? Using the billions we’re spending to build highways, power grids, schools, health clinics? Disarming the Taliban by competing for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people?
These are questions you can’t answer with knee-jerk patriotism. A defensive attitude doesn’t provide the answers to such a complex situation.
Pundits suggest the President’s decision is taking so long because it is based on protecting his job, his legacy. He does not want to be known for putting in place the “Obama surge”… That assumes President Obama’s main priority is keeping his job for 8 years instead of only 4. It assumes he has self-absorbed tunnel vision. Is it not possible that the President of the United States places the highest priority on determining what is the best course for America? What will work to ensure a safe and comfortable future for our children?
Let’s judge his process of decision-making when we see the results. Not the day after he makes his announcement, but 2 years from now – 10 years from now – 100 years from now. The job isn’t impressing the television pundits or quieting the defensive “no one can say anything bad about us” patriots. It’s keeping America at peace while respecting our constitution.
Don’t assume the new guy and his team have the same priorities as the previous guy.
JM
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hearts & Minds vs. Bullets & Bombs
Can’t help it… I have to repeat myself. We’d make better progress in Afghanistan if we sent in the Peace Corps alongside the Marine Corps.
I saw journalist David Ignatius on TV the other day. He was in Afghanistan in April, then again recently, and noticed a big difference. The Taliban is gaining ground and influence with the people. There’s a growing feeling that the US is on its way out, so we either have to stem that notion or get out, or the people will be disinclined to cooperate. No point in throwing your lot in with the folks who are deserting you!
He says they’re making progress against the Taliban in Pakistan! How? They’re using 10 times as many national troops in the regions where the Taliban have found refuge. But they don’t shoot people, they get the soldiers & local police into the towns and cities mixing with the people, making friends -- and beefing up aid for schools, jobs, health care.
Pakistanis are doing it by themselves in their own country. Can American soldiers do it in Afghanistan?
Confounding the situation, we also learned that the governments whose troops we are supporting in the region are corrupt. Of the $6+billion US dollars given to Pakistan to support their military efforts against the Taliban, only $500Million actually got to the military. The rest went to … who knows?
But get back to the earlier observation, that Pakistan is making headway. People are people. In the end, it’s Afghanistan’s fight. The people there have to make up their minds who they trust to be in control. Would you trust people who shoot your friends and bomb civilian homes because there might be Taliban leaders in there? Or the people who shoot the foreign occupiers? Or the people who help you build water treatment plants, and plant corn, and operate clinics to make people healthier, and supply schools with teachers and books?
Whoever they trust, they will support.
Don’t give President Obama a hard time because he’s taking his time trying to decide the right course of action in Afghanistan. Could YOU decide based on what you know, when everywhere you turn is evidence for a different rationale?
The President’s decision is not just about troops, but also diplomatic effort. If civilians don’t decide to step up, we will fail. We need to protect them to get them on board.
We need to have a plan and goals in Afghanistan. I’ll submit these: First, we need to earn their trust. Second, we need to defend whoever we put there. Third, we need to make a recognizable contribution to their well-being. The goals? First, train local people to do everything WE can do there. Second, convince the people that they can and should take responsibility for their own future. And third, stabilize the region (Pakistan has nukes!) by getting our visible military presence out of there.
JM
I saw journalist David Ignatius on TV the other day. He was in Afghanistan in April, then again recently, and noticed a big difference. The Taliban is gaining ground and influence with the people. There’s a growing feeling that the US is on its way out, so we either have to stem that notion or get out, or the people will be disinclined to cooperate. No point in throwing your lot in with the folks who are deserting you!
He says they’re making progress against the Taliban in Pakistan! How? They’re using 10 times as many national troops in the regions where the Taliban have found refuge. But they don’t shoot people, they get the soldiers & local police into the towns and cities mixing with the people, making friends -- and beefing up aid for schools, jobs, health care.
Pakistanis are doing it by themselves in their own country. Can American soldiers do it in Afghanistan?
Confounding the situation, we also learned that the governments whose troops we are supporting in the region are corrupt. Of the $6+billion US dollars given to Pakistan to support their military efforts against the Taliban, only $500Million actually got to the military. The rest went to … who knows?
But get back to the earlier observation, that Pakistan is making headway. People are people. In the end, it’s Afghanistan’s fight. The people there have to make up their minds who they trust to be in control. Would you trust people who shoot your friends and bomb civilian homes because there might be Taliban leaders in there? Or the people who shoot the foreign occupiers? Or the people who help you build water treatment plants, and plant corn, and operate clinics to make people healthier, and supply schools with teachers and books?
Whoever they trust, they will support.
Don’t give President Obama a hard time because he’s taking his time trying to decide the right course of action in Afghanistan. Could YOU decide based on what you know, when everywhere you turn is evidence for a different rationale?
The President’s decision is not just about troops, but also diplomatic effort. If civilians don’t decide to step up, we will fail. We need to protect them to get them on board.
We need to have a plan and goals in Afghanistan. I’ll submit these: First, we need to earn their trust. Second, we need to defend whoever we put there. Third, we need to make a recognizable contribution to their well-being. The goals? First, train local people to do everything WE can do there. Second, convince the people that they can and should take responsibility for their own future. And third, stabilize the region (Pakistan has nukes!) by getting our visible military presence out of there.
JM
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A Peace Plan for Afghanistan
Unusual for us, but here's a quickie post...
Instead of sending thousands more battle-trained troops, how 'bout we beef up our presence in Afghanistan with Peace Corps workers, with the military already there to protect them. Train a few thousand to speak the language (Rosetta Stone says it can happen in a few months) and let them visit with the locals, help them improve their schools and water supplies and small businesses, maybe even teach a little English. Show them they don't have to grow poppies to enter the world market. Show them that Americans don't want to take over, we want to help them wrest control from the Taliban and take back of an improved nation. Show them that Americans know more than force and killing.
It's a dream, I know, but some of the best plans start with a dream, and end with real success. Whaddaya think?
Instead of sending thousands more battle-trained troops, how 'bout we beef up our presence in Afghanistan with Peace Corps workers, with the military already there to protect them. Train a few thousand to speak the language (Rosetta Stone says it can happen in a few months) and let them visit with the locals, help them improve their schools and water supplies and small businesses, maybe even teach a little English. Show them they don't have to grow poppies to enter the world market. Show them that Americans don't want to take over, we want to help them wrest control from the Taliban and take back of an improved nation. Show them that Americans know more than force and killing.
It's a dream, I know, but some of the best plans start with a dream, and end with real success. Whaddaya think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)