How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die for a Mistake in Afghanistan?

by: ZP Heller

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 18:15


What happened today in Washington was, as Senator Russ Feingold called it, "historic."  Thirty-eight years nearly to the day when a young John Kerry shocked the nation with his fiery anti-Vietnam war testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rick Reyes, a former US Marine Corporal, delivered an equally puissant testimony in which he expressed his disenchantment with the war in Afghanistan.  How appropriate Kerry should be sitting directly across from Reyes as Committee Chairman, listening attentively as Congress heard one of the first major voices of dissent on this war.

The son of Mexican immigrants who joined the Marines to escape a violent gang life in Los Angeles, Reyes served as an infantry rifleman in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He upheld his duty to serve our country honorably, and immediately after 9/11, he was deployed to Afghanistan "with the conviction of fighting for justice and the American way."  All of that changed when Reyes realized US military forces faced the impossible task of fighting militant Taliban members who blended in with the local Afghan population, routinely resulting in the injuries or deaths of innocent civilians.

ZP Heller :: How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die for a Mistake in Afghanistan?
As Reyes told Congress:
"We weren't fulfilling our objective of capturing terrorists, but instead creating enemies out of civilians.  As a Marine trying to ensure justice, I began losing sight of why I was there and the conviction began to fade.

"Because our mission was to capture suspected Taliban and had no successful way of being able to distinguish them, we had no other choice but to suspect the entire civilian population, innocent or not.

"One day we stopped at gun point, detaining, beating, and nearly killing an innocent man only to find he was just traveling down a road to deliver milk to his children.  Because of us, that day those kids went without a father.  There were hundreds of incidents like this one.

"Almost 100 percent of the time we would find that suspected terrorists turned out to be innocent civilians.  I began to feel like we were chasing ghosts, fighting an enemy that we could not see or that didn't allow itself to be seen.  How can you tell the difference between the Taliban and Afghan civilians?  The answer is that you can't.  it all stopped making sense."


Reyes is a patriot, but like a young John Kerry, he felt that patriotism exploited when he returned home from these wars.  The chaotic violence Reyes experienced, coupled with the lack of clear mission in Afghanistan, led him to question our government's plans for this war publicly today.  He cited low troop morale and military forces stretched impossibly thin; soldiers who have already done multiple tours, Reyes claimed, are dying on the ground in Afghanistan and in spirit due to a deeply flawed foreign policy.

As the casualty rate of US soldiers in Afghanistan nears 700--with violence at its worst in the history of this war--we must also consider more and more troops returning home injured and in dire need of psychological help.  And that only begins to scratch the surface of why Reyes believes Congress should reconsider plans for escalation.  "Sending more troops will not make the US safer; it will only build more opposition against us.  I urge you on behalf of truth and patriotism to consider carefully and Rethink Afghanistan."

Kerry, who couldn't help but draw parallels between the Vietnam War and the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, stressed the importance of hearing soldiers testify about the conditions in Afghanistan.  "History proves that soldiers on the ground have an intimate knowledge that is vital to their commanders and us as policymakers," Kerry said.  "Most recently, it was soldiers who sounded the early warnings that our mission in Iraq had some problems."

We should be seeing more soldiers like Reyes sitting before Congress, if not to channel Kerry's anti-war passion from 38 years ago, then to alert the nation to what's really going on in this war and compel the public to question policymakers, as Kerry once did.  That absolutely must happen now, as Congress will soon consider a war funding bill in excess of $83 billion, with ten times more for expanding military operations than humanitarian aid.  Take a minute to call your Representatives (if you're not sure who represents you, it's time you found out).   Tell them not to vote on the war funding bill until they have heard from more soldiers like Reyes, and certainly not until they've started explaining what escalation will mean for us and the people of Afghanistan.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Next Man Killed By Al Quaeda? (0.00 / 0)
Sry, but moving out of Afghanistan isn't really an option. It would only result in establishing a Taliban nation and a safe haven for Al Quaeda again. That's a different situation than in 1970s Vietnam, so the same solution can't be applied here. Imho that's obvious. Withdrawal will only make things worse.

We can withdraw from Afghanistan... (4.00 / 2)
...if we simultaneously bring in serious regional diplomacy and humanitarian aid.  That would involve the international community, stabilize the region, and give Afghans a real alternative to supporting militant Taliban.  

[ Parent ]
That's a fantasy. And what if it doesn't work? What's your plan B then? (0.00 / 0)
Regional diplomacy and humanitarian help has already been tried. Help failed when the security situation deteriorated so much that no organsisation can safely work there anymore. Regional diplomacy failed when the local strongman noticed that the West wasn't strong enough to keep the Taliban out and prevent revenge killings. That wouldn't have had to happen if the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq and concentrated on Afghanistan instead. And if at least part of the billions that had been wasted in Iraq would have been used to support Karzai.

Of course, the situation has become much more problematic now. But the US can still withdraw from Iraq and use those troops for shutting down the borders to Pakistan. Taliban can't be allowed to movew freely in that region. This demands a solution for the Pakistan situation, too. That's difficult, but it has to be tried. Again, withdrawal is not an option. The Taliban can't be bribed with foreign aid from the west. Really, that's a fantasy, and not supported at all by the facts.  


[ Parent ]
The fantasy (4.00 / 3)
is thinking that terrorism is likely to be ended through war, or that continued US military action won't increase terrorism.



Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
The fantasy (0.00 / 0)
is that anything can be created there without armed forces providing security. Read the news, the Taliban kill aid workers, teachers, doctors. Of course, the West shouldn't engage in war against Afghans, but Talibans crossing the borders have to be stopped. Only then can local warlords be persuaded to do anything against Taliban influence. They won't do that as long as they have to fear to be left alone in that fight.

[ Parent ]
What you are saying (0.00 / 0)
is irrelevant to the question of what to do about this situation. They issue is not whether these are bad people.  Except in a few limited circumstances, none of which apply here, force doesn't create security.  No one here suggested that they are good guys.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
And you think the absence of force creates security, or what? (0.00 / 0)
Really, don't you read the news? There had been aid projects and regional diplomacy once. Not anymore. The deterioriating situation stopped all those attempts. And there won't be any of those projects when the Taliban return. They don't want western interference, they will resurrect their theocracy again. What tf do you think will happen when the Taliban return? That they will act differently than the last time???

Honestly, it seems to me that you're thinking in academic, theoretical terms and ignore all practical evidence that contradicts your ideas.


[ Parent ]
Armed forces providing security don't help (4.00 / 2)
There aren't enough of them, and Obama's surge can't make up the numbers significantly. Even in the safest provinces in the south, aid workers don't like to tread. What stability there is has been secured by agreements with local elders, and that hasn't allowed much change, nor has it tended to survive the inevitable misdirected airstrikes.

The resources don't exist to fight a surge on the Iraqi model in the much bigger and more remote Afghan theatre, and the alternative, best epitomised by the British model in Helmand, of local alliances has at best produced a bloody stalemate.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Afghanistan is a larger country, ok, but not much more people. (0.00 / 0)
Iraq population: 28,945,657 (July 2009 est.)
Afghanistan population: 33,609,937 (July 2009 est.)

And the strategic situation is different there. As I see it, and pls correct me if you know of other evidence, this isn't so much an insurgency from within, but a guerilla war conducted from the northern provinces of Pakistan. So, you're right, securing the borders is essential in fighting this. And regarding the significant difference in troop numbers in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres, a withdrawal from Iraq would allow for a multiplikation of troops at the borders to Pakistan. This can only result in a positive impact on the situation there.

But for this to bring real fruit this has to be coupled with a stronger initiative by the Pakistanis against the rebells on theirown soil. That's the difficult part, of course. The US have to strengthen the power base of PPP leaders Zardari and Gillani. A cleaning up of the intelligence agency ISI is essential for that. And the "silent" majority of Pakistanis has to be convinced that the Taliban are threatening their own nation, too. Again, all these are difficult goals, but at least Obama is much better suited to achieve positive results than the dimwit Bush with his black and white thinking. And imho this has at least to be tried before not only Afghanistan, but nuclear power Pakistan, too, is allowed to fall back to the dark ages, with all the negative consequences for global stability that would come from this. That alternative is simply too horrible to ignore it.


[ Parent ]
Size does matter (0.00 / 0)
Baghdad is a major city and central Iraq in general is much more urbanised than pretty much anywhere in Afghanistan. In most areas, there aren't even good roads (which is why major NATO offensives tend to be carried out by helicopters).

Also, you are definitely wrong about the security situation. It is an internal insurgency, from the nebulous region spanning the Afghan-Pakistan border. You can't think of this area in terms of nations. It's a cultural zone and very definitely should only be thought of in a pre-state context. The border means nothing and is easily crossed.

Not least by ideas. Pashtun Afghanistan and Pashtun Pakistan are linked by history, ethnicity, culture, language and blood ties. There are plenty of Talibani on both sides and very few of the local people are happy to see foreign or government troops (and that's before we get on to the opium growers).

We have uprisings with relatively broad popular support in remote areas on both sides of a long, unguardable and politically sensitive border (as Pakistan fears Karzai is too close to India). We have nowhere near enough men on one side to control the situation, and on the other hand we have a country so internally disordered it couldn't suppress the uprising, even if it was willing to (and Pakistan is probably quite willing to deal with a disordered NWFP, provided the trouble doesn't spread to the regime's heartland in Punjab and Sindh).

And we have a [b]best case scenario[/b] of stabilising the situation enough so that we can hand over to a group of barbaric (not to say psychopathic) warlords who are quite OK with the Taliban throwing acid over schoolgirls.

That doesn't seem worth all the blood we'd need to spill to accomplish it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
The US presence (4.00 / 3)
is the best recruiting tool that Al Qaeda could wish for. It also increases the legitimacy of the Taliban.  And "safe haven" is a meaningless term.  Terrorists are equally capable of planning attacks from any where else in the world. So trying to prevent a safe haven accomplishes nothing, but it does lead to more terrorists.

So I suppose you are right, the Vietnam parallel is not quite right. The continuation of war in Afghanistan is worse than Vietnam in that regard.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
please (0.00 / 0)
read Orientalism by Edward Said. Your comment betrays a neocolonial tendency.  

[ Parent ]
please (0.00 / 0)
read "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" by Ahmed Rashid. Your comment shows that you're full of illusions about these extremists.

[ Parent ]
Please -- read Descent into Chaos (0.00 / 0)
by the same Ahmed Rashid -- his heartbreaking chronicle of the stupidity and failure that is the US occupation in Afghanistan and our ignorant relationship with the Pakistan military and ISI. He believed the coming of the US in 2001 meant hope for educated, democratic Pakistanis like him. It has meant nothing and the area is MORE threatened by fundamentalism than ever.

US troops occupying Muslim countries make for intolerant Muslim enemies. Period.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
Don't wanna defend Bush's idiots. But do you believe in change, or not? (0.00 / 0)
Of course, the US did a bad job in Afghanistan (and Iraq, too). But a large part of this is based on the ideologically driven, unqulified officials Bush sent there. Imho the US are able to do much better under an administration that tries to correct the mistakes of the past. And while US troops maybe aren't the best choice for providing security for the Afghans (because of their totally combat based training, and cultural differences), other involved Nato partners did fare much beter. So, a division of labor where Europeans secure the cities, and US troops monitor the borders and hunt the Taliban down should work.

Again, the carnage that will result from the Taliban taking over the country again will greatly exceed the bloodtoll in Afghanistan now. So, trying to correct the course now is still a much better idea than simply giving up and abandoning the people there. Not to forget, the west made a lot of promises to the Afghan people in the Afghanistan Compact agreements of 2006. And breaking our word would create even more intolerant Muslim enemies there. Period.  


[ Parent ]
That reasoning is so incredibly illogical. (4.00 / 2)
How exactly did the Taliban support Al Queda? They did so by providing a piece of ground on which to train. They did not design weapons, they did not provide planes, tanks or missiles. What is the easier goal? To control every square mile of a mountainous country, or secure the boarders and means of transport and limit the trafficking of arms?

9/11, which resulted in 3000 deaths, was eight years and a million lives ago. At what point do you stop using the specter of 9/11? At 2 million lives, at 3?

I have so little hope when I run into the likes of you, someone who refuses to look at the situation logically. Mass delusion--nothing new, unfortunately.


[ Parent ]
Your "peaceful" plans come with a price in blood, too! (4.00 / 1)
What do you think will happen aqfter a withdrawal? The Taliban will take over the country again, and they will start a cleansing among the population. Many of those who collaborrated with the West will die. That's not a nightmare I make up, that's evident in countless newsreports about Taliban atrocities among those who support education, civil liberties, and equal rights for women.

Yes, I know that "staying the course" isn't a popular plan after it has been the main slogan of the Bush crooks all those years. But I have been against the Iraq adventure from the very start and always have said so in the commentosphere, so painting me as a warmongerer really isn't supported by the evidence. I have been for more Western aid for Afghanistan all the time, and for providing security for Afghans to rebuild their country, a strategy that never really took off because of the Iraq craze preventing it. It may be late to come back to that strategy, but imho not too late. And the other alternative comes with a very high blood toil among those who supported the rebuilding of Afghanistan. So, sry, but I have to say very clearly that the US, who bear the main responsibility for the horrible development in the region, owes it to the progressive people there not to leave them alone.

You have another plan, based on a theory that creating a power vacuum will stop the violence, ok. That may work in the long run, in one generations or two. But then, you should explain how many Afghan lives this will cost in the short run (while the US stop both their casualties and financial costs) and why you think that a confrontantional ideology like that of the Taliban will not result in that nation becoming a training ground for terrorists again.

Remember, the Taliban fighters have learned really nothing useful for a civil society. They are soldiers and amateur Quaran pundits. There is good reason to believe that any nation they create will be like an Iran solely ruled by revolutionary guards, with even the moderate Imams, the peaceful middle class and all democratic structures missing. I've read a lot about the middle east and asia, mostly insights from journalistic folks, not theorists, and I really can't see how a new Taliban rule would be more peaceful than the last time. If you have any reasonable arguments for this, real evidence and not just theories, I'd like to see it now.


[ Parent ]
Nations have a fundamental right to self-determination. (0.00 / 0)
If you don't believe that, you cannot say you are on the left. As far as I know, the Taliban in Afghanistan are Afghan. The idea that one country can govern another country better than natives is a right-wing view. The very act of occupation is wrong. Occupation is an evil. Invasion is an evil. We seem to be killing a lot of innocents.

[ Parent ]
Who's denying this? But do you think a majority wants to live under Taliban rule? (0.00 / 0)
Where do you get that idea? And I seriously doubt that "the Taliban in Afghanistan are Afghan", noit even a majority of them. Countless news reports have claimed that most of them are Pakistanis. All Taliban Quran schools seem to be in northern Pakistan, so its no surprise the majority of their fighters is recruited there.

And generally, what about occupation when the majority of the population supports it for security reasons? Sry, jcr, but too much of your comments is based on the assumptions. And, honestly, I'm under the impression you're not following the news from that region very closely.


[ Parent ]
This is the same "facts on the ground" argument made throughout the Vietnam War (0.00 / 0)
and by the Bush administration once Iraq turned bad.

[ Parent ]
The same argument may be right when applied to a different situation! (0.00 / 0)
That's elementary, dear jcr.

[ Parent ]
You say Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)
I say Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province.

Al-Qaeda already has a safe haven, not that it ever really needed one. The Taliban remain in force in much of southern Afghanistan and most Afghan politicians on 'our side' are little better in terms of politics, and often worse in terms of corruption, criminality and general psychopathy.

Afghanistan remains a large country, divided on ethnic lines, with a scattered population, little in the way of infrastructure and no real hope of more than incremental advances in development indices. It remains a nation that you cannot win a long military campaign in without the active support of the native population and millions of boots on the ground, and we just don't have either.

I fail to see the value of sending a man to die so that ten years later another man can die for the same unrealistic goals.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Important points, EL. But they don't support a withdrawal. (0.00 / 0)
Remember, Afghanistan has been freed from the Taliban before. Of course, the forces of the warlords were essential in achieving this. The misguided centralization of the political power in Kabul, and especially the insufficient and uneven distribution of reconstruction aid has allienated those warlords. Now, I know tis sounds cynical, but historical evidence shows us that those strongmen can be bought. This depends on reliable commitments by the west to increase security there, of course. But it can be done. As I point out in my other comment, a new Pakistan strategy is essential for achieving a turnaround. That's the difficult part. But it has to be tried, because the fate of nuclear armed Pakistan depends on it, too. That's a totally different situation than in Vietnam. It's not a hairsplitting domino theory this time, it's clear and evident danger that a fanatic group which is  much more irrational than Iran's leadership will gain hold of nuclear weapons. A withdrawal would only result in freeing the Taliban to gain even more power in Pakistan. That's too dangerous to acccept.

[ Parent ]
Afghanistan was never really freed from the Taliban (0.00 / 0)
Sure, in 2001 the Taliban may have lost Kabul and melted away under airstrikes, but the warlords only really established control securely in the north, where the Taliban had always been weak, as the population up there is mostly non-Pashtun.

But Taliban influence remained, it just manifested itself in private, not in town halls. Meanwhile, a power vacuum emerged as Karzai, perhaps unwilling to create a rival in the Pashtun community and desperately short of resources, neither farmed most of the south out to warlords nor managed to impose central control.

And into that vacuum, the lower levels of the Taliban returned. Let's face it - the Taliban have a lot of popular support in southern Afghanistan. There's extreme religious conservatism, nationalist fervour and to some extent still a swell of good feeling because the Taliban were more honest and less bloodthirsty than the warlords were in the early 1990s.

We can drive the Taliban underground, but that just means that they'll go underground and take the governmental structures with them. But there simply isn't anything on the horizon right now which seems likely to supplant them.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Interesting point. Do you have any further links? (0.00 / 0)
Cause from reports during the Afghan war, I was under the impression that south-western Afghanistan was under Iranian influence, and not really a stronghold of the Taliban.

[ Parent ]
I have to admit my knowledge of Afghanistan isn't very systematic (0.00 / 0)
I'm under the impression that there are more Shia in south-western Afghanistan than elsewhere, and I know that Heykmatyar was in exile in Iran from 1997 onwards.

But my understanding is that Iranian influence never extended very far across the border - largely because most of the border is sparsely populated even by Afghan standards. Iran mattered in Herat, certainly, where Persian is the main language, but I don't think its influence really extended as far as Helmand or Uruzgan, where the Taliban have their core power bases.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
EL, this new story in NYT will interest you (0.00 / 0)
"U.S. Questions Pakistan's Will to Stop Taliban"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...

Imho a very important point raised:
"In Washington, a Defense Department official who is monitoring Pakistan closely said that the poorly trained constabulary force was sent Thursday because Pakistani Army troops were not available, and Pakistani generals were reluctant to pull reinforcements off the border with India - something American officials have encouraged them to do."

And why are they concentrating at the Indian Border instead of in the rebeloous provinces? Because of the increased tensions between the states after the terrorist acts in India. And those terrorists were supported with informations and logisitcs by ISI! A smart move by those pro-extremist spooks, relieving the Taliban from pressure from within by putting fuel into the conflict with the big neighbor! Those intelligence officials shouldn't be misunderestimated: They are crazy, but there's method in their madness.

So, a cleansing of this pigsty of an intelligence agency, which is conducting its own foreign policy, is essential for normalising the situation between India and Pakistan, and for making available the troops needed to fight the Taliban. It's a difficult goal, but its of enormous importance, and it will only happen if the West supports the Pakistani governments by all available means.


[ Parent ]
Pakistan isn't about to move off the Indian border (0.00 / 0)
Its officer corps is hugely influential and institutionally paranoid. Preparing for the next fight with India is their raison d'etre. It's their excuse for their failure at everything else (which is not to say that the Pakistani Army is very good at fighting India).

Mumbai raised the stakes on the Indian side, but the Pakistani army would have been there anyway.

Also, I simply don't believe that Pakistan has the internal stability necessary to clean out the ISI. They've got tendrils everywhere, they're well-connected to Islamic radicals and their internal opponents are a bunch of mostly corrupt politicians who don't wanted to move too fast in case the military launches another coup.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Agree with Reyes (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Reyes that when the objective becomes unclear, it is very difficult to fight because you don't know whether what you are doing is right or wrong.

Coupled with the talibans mixing with the afghan people, it makes it almost impossible to differentiate between the enemy and the innocent.

How are we suppose to complete the objectives when we don't even know which one is the enemy..

Just my 2 cents..

Mudmat
Home Solar Systems


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox