Why sending more troops to Afghanistan is likely to increase conflict
Afghan Children at 'Picnic for Peace' (Oxfam photo)
(Editor’s Note: The author posts as an individual blogger and activist, not on behalf of any organization.)
More troops or not more troops, that is the question the international media has been obsessed with for weeks. As Obama announces the deployment of at least 30.000 more troops, ordinary Afghans are concerned that this will only mean more conflict in and around their villages. An Afghan man interviewed by Oxfam explains:
At night, the Taliban come and take shelter in our villages and then leave. The next day, when the coalition forces become aware of the Taliban in our areas, they bomb us.’
(via The Cost of War: Afghan Experiences of Conflict, 1978 – 2009)
These are the realities on the ground that Afghanistan expert Matt Waldman, of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University, believes the narrow US focus on troops fails to take into account. In a recent article in the Guardian he argues the following:
To defeat the Taliban insurgency we need an approach based not on a military solution but on the interests of ordinary Afghans. Two key elements of the current counter-insurgency strategy are killing insurgents and “winning hearts and minds” through military-sponsored assistance projects. Both are largely futile and fail to address the underlying causes of the insurgency: poverty, lack of security for civilians, local and tribal grievances, and corrupt and unjust government.
When asked in an Oxfam survey, almost 70% of Afghans agree with Mr. Waldman, saying that poverty and unemployment are the root causes of the current war. So why doesn’t the international community stop and listen for a change? The key issue at stake here is not simply numbers troops. It’s how best to secure a safe and peaceful future for a nation and a people devastated by more than 30 years of war.
This point was made by Oxfam America’s vice president Paul O’Brien in a statement issued in advance of Obama’s announcement December 1st:
The well-being of ordinary Afghans will be undermined if aid is based on military objectives, rather than Afghans’ needs. Afghanistan needs more than military solutions. Aid should support a stronger agriculture sector, better infrastructure, humanitarian assistance for the poorest, as well as improved schools and health services.
A disproportionate share of aid has been allocated to the southern provinces where international forces are operating. Too much of this aid is also tied to security objectives. This short-term approach fails to promote local ownership and isn’t the way forward
(via: Humanitarian agencies call for aid based on Afghans’ needs, not the military’s )
Or, in the words of and Afghan citizen from Kunduz:
We need peace. Afghans have seen the worst wars and worst periods. Now all Afghans are tired of war and conflict. We need peace to educate our children and have a good life.
The US has been here before (check out the ending of the movie Charlie Wilson’s War to remind yourself: “No one cares about building schools in Pakistan…”). Let’s hope Washington has finally learned the lesson from the last couple of decades: A narrow focus on guns and troops alone is not going to “fix” Afghanistan. It’s time we start really caring about the Afghan.
Learn More:
Adopt Negotiator
ConflictVoice
Maternal and Child Health Blog