July 12, 2010
Day after day we are told that in Afghanistan only counterinsurgency (or COIN,
as the Pentagon calls it) has a chance of success. And day after day we
see evidence that the guidelines for success are not being followed.
The central principle of COIN is said to be to get the population on our side.
Two ways of doing this are to protect the population from the Taliban and to
provide effective government and public services. But as long as our
government supports Hamid Karzai, both of these ideas are doomed to failure.
It seems that COIN, instead of being a military strategy, is more of a public
relations campaign with a soothing acronym designed to mislead the American
people into accepting a state of continuous war. The war started with an
honest rationale, to bring justice to bin Laden, al Qaida, the Taliban
leadership, and anyone who aided or sheltered them. But it has been
turned into a war for control of Afghanistan.
Recent news stories show that there are cracks in the COIN story big enough for
a whole country to fall through. The Afghan police are corrupt and
abusive. The Afghan National Army doesn't want to fight for Karzai.
U.S. tax money finds its way to the Taliban for protection money.to avoid
attacks on supply convoys, which means that we are paying for bullets for both
sides. The Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) continues to advise and
supply the Taliban. We spend 90% of our Afghanistan funding on the
military side and most of the 10% left for reconstruction is stolen or badly
spent.
The 2009 election in Afghanistan gave our government an opportunity to support
one of the candidates who actually cared about the Afghan people.
Instead, President Obama chose to support Karzai, with his proven record of
corruption, even after it became obvious that he had stolen the election.
And to top it all off, bin Laden is still free.
General David Petraeus, the new commander in Afghanistan, is the principal
author of the new counterinsurgency strategy. General Petraeus has been
in the Army since he started at West Point in 1970. That's 40
years. You would think he would have learned by now.
Two of our greatest anti-war warriors, General Smedley Butler and General David
Shoup, only needed 33 and 37 years in the military, respectively, to figure out
what was going on. General Butler, Vice Commandant of the Marine Corps
from 1928 to 1931, entitled his post-retirement book "War Is a
Racket."
General Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps from 1960 to 1963, said in a
speech at Pierce College in 1966 that he was against our involvement in
Vietnam, and then he went further: "I believe that if we had and
would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of
these nations, so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a
solution of their own they design and want, that they fight and work for.
And if, unfortunately, their revolution must be of the violent type...at least
what they get will be their own and not the American style, which they don't
want... crammed down their throat." (from "David M. Shoup: A Warrior
Against War", by Howard Jablon, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, page
101)
General Petraeus, as of yet, has not turned away from the business of
war. In a quote in a Wall Street Journal article in 1986, he said about
Low Intensity Conflict: "LIC is a growth industry."("Latin
Lesson: US Effort to Win 'Hearts and Minds' Gains in El Salvador", WSJ,
Sept.8, 1986, p.1) Showing that he hasn't changed much, the general is
quoted in Parade Magazine in 2009, answering a question about
counterinsurgency: "It's a growth industry, and we will get what we
require." ("General Petraeus Gives A War Briefing", Parade,
Nov.29, '09.)
Both Generals Butler and Shoup came to their understanding after their
retirements. Perhaps General Petraeus could receive some wisdom if he retired
early. President Obama needs to look for advisers who don't see war as a
business opportunity, but as something that needs to end as soon as possible on
just terms acceptable to all parties, which includes the civilian population.
Thousands of words have been written in praise of the COIN strategy, but this narrow
focus takes our attention away from what is actually happening- a struggle for
control- with the U.S. offering the Afghan people a choice between the horrible
Karzai regime and the more horrible Taliban. The Afghans deserve and are
capable of much better than that.
After 32 years of war, the Afghan people are some of the poorest people
in the world. We used them as cannon fodder to defeat the Soviet Union
and we are responsible for much of their current suffering. We owe them a
peace process and real help, not more war. And we need an Acronym Contest
to replace COIN with a more hopeful idea. I nominate AA-HA! (America
Against Hunger in Afghanistan!). Send in your ideas. First prize in
the contest is a shiny Massachusetts quarter, the one with the image of the
Colonial Minuteman, the original illegal enemy combatant, on the back.
Bill Distler
910 E. Myrtle St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-224-3579
lilyjane910@aol.com
Bio info: Vietnam veteran; fire team leader and squad leader in
Delta Co., 2/506, 101st Airborne Division, Dec. '67 to Sept. '68.
Member of Veterans for Peace since 2003. (The views are my own.)