It's time to start planning a withdrawal from Afghanistan

By Rod Nippert

Obama is consistent, promising in the presidential primary and now as president that the United States is going to shift some considerable military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. The president's principal justification is that we must destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan, two areas where al-Qaeda is located according to official determinations. By destroying al-Qaeda, we will have revenge for 9/11 and prevent al-Qaeda from fomenting other terrorist attacks in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world.

It's important to note that al-Qaeda is a small non-state group perhaps numbering in the hundreds, perhaps training a small number of recruits, and with no territory it can claim as its own. Its strengths are as a symbol of defiance to U.S. interests in the Middle East and an inspiration to a minority of Islamic fundamentalists.

In the meantime, and for the last eight years stretching into the future, U.S. forces and their allies in Afghanistan have been fighting the Taliban. Why? The official view goes something like this. The U.S. government is trying to facilitate the creation of a democratic state, build Afghan police and military forces, and thus create the political and military conditions necessary for social order and economic advancement. Once achieved, al-Qaeda becomes a non-factor.

Who are the Taliban? The dubious picture that we get from government officials and much of the media is that the Taliban are fundamentalist Muslims who represent a relatively unified terrorist force. They employ intimidation and terror to advance their ambitions, with the goals of establishing a totalitarian theocratic, patriarchal state, and, the official line goes, provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda. If they succeed, we are told, the Taliban plus al-Qaeda will ultimately destabilize surrounding countries and the oil-rich Middle East generally and throw the world into a turmoil.

Given these viewpoints, it's not surprising when President Obama wants to augment the 52,000 uniformed personnel already stationed in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of additional troops and tens of billions in addition resources. Note also that at the end of June, there were 68,000 people employed by private contractors in Afghanistan.

Some of us here in Athens, and apparently a majority of Americans who are polled on the issue (CNN poll, 57 percent), have not been convinced and are opposed to further U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Here are some of our reasons.

Given what we learn from non-official sources in the media and from various experts, a military victory in Afghanistan is improbable, no matter how many troops and private contractors we send there. Let's not forget that we spent $228.2 billion in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2009, 90 percent of which was for military, not development or humanitarian, purposes. As the budget goes up, so do U.S. and coalition deaths and an increase in "Taliban" attacks. In the process, we put tens of thousands American lives at risk, deepen our national debt, and destroy more Afghan lives, jobs, communities, social and physical infrastructures than we protect and preserve. And then to top it off, we learn that the present Afghan government is corrupt, widely unpopular, and continuing in power as a result of a rigged election.

What are the alternatives? Cap the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Shift more of the money going to Afghanistan from military to non-military purposes and keep the rest at home.

Congressman James McGovern's H.R. 2404 that would require President Obama to provide an "exit plan" from Afghanistan is an alternative that should be supported.

Rod Nippert of Amesville wrote this on behalf of People for Peace and Justice.