Egypt serves as a warning to Karzai?

Hey guys,
In light of the recent crisis in Egypt, I thought that I would speak a bit on how this debacle affects the situation in Afghanistan. Essentially, the Egyptian citizens are fed up with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, as many Afghans are fed up with the fraud of Hamid Karzai. In these two cases, American foreign policy proves hypocritical, as America has supported, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the establishment of a democratic government. However, in Egypt, America has overtly propped up the autocratic regime of Mubarak. In fact, the people of Tunisia revolted to oust an American- backed dictator, and now the Egyptians are following suit. Some even say that perhaps Libya and Algeria are soon to follow. Back in Afghanistan, citizens ponder the future of their nation as Karzai becomes increasingly autocratic and America braces itself for a 10th year of military occupancy. As Mohammid Nasib, managing director of WADAN (grassroots organization supporting democracy) puts it, "Karzai is trying to suppress a problem rather than solve it, and that in the end makes the problem worse." Furthermore, when an autocrat "sweeps problems under the rug for too long, the situation becomes volatile and, as Nasib pointed out, 'We can all see the evidence of that now in Egypt.'"
The fraud apparent in Karzai's administration infuriates the Afghan people. For example, Karzai is hand- picking the jury to stack Parliament in his favor. In fact, Karzai is encouraging courts to examine the fraudulence of other Parliamentary members while keeping himself free of blame. Moreover, Karzai intends to base the Parliamentary leadership in the hands of a close loyalist friend, which will help Karzai consolidate power. However, some members of Karzai's own group fear a constitutional crisis in the making. For example, Karim Baz (deputy minister of parliamentary affairs) warns that "We are facing a great challenge right now and we have to respect the pillars of the government, the executive, the judiciary and the legislative... We have to hold them together or we are going to face a crisis." Moreover, some supporters of Karzai counter-argue that "the finger is pointed too often at just the president," said an appointee of Karzai's. The appointee goes on to say that, "I think we should recognize that the opposition is too self-focused, corrupt and divisive along ethnic lines. There are many reasons and many factors that contribute to this feeling, this cynicism."
In likening the Afghan situation to that in Cairo, the battle is claimed to be fought on the floor of Parliament, not in the main squares filled with rioters. However, the corruption in the Karzai administration (and trends towards autocracy) have astute Afghans wary that "[the protests in Cairo] are a good example for anyone in Afghanistan who might try to become a dictator here," said civilian Fazly.

Chomsky's Take on U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

Hello again everyone!

While browsing around for more news on Afghanistan today, I stumbled upon this video of Noam Chomsky. The video is about a year old, but it explores a topic that many of us in 2020 are still trying to completely understand, which is why American troops first invaded Afghanistan and why they still remain there. What I really like about this video is that Chomsky offers a different point of view from what I have found in most articles about the war in Afghanistan and he does so in a relatively objective manner.

What he says is that in the aftermath of September 11th, the United States had an opportunity to split the jihadi movement and isolate Osama Bin Laden because there was apparently much opposition to Osama Bin Laden within the jihadi movement. This was something I was never aware of, but now having heard of it, it does seem to have been prime opportunity to diffuse the conflict, since those jihad groups were so divided at the time. However, rather than follow that path, the United States reacted with belligerent action that unified rather than split the jihadi movement, therefore increasing the threat of terror.

Of course, at the time almost all of America was still reeling with fear and panic caused by September 11th and so brute force seemed more reasonable than strategy. And Chomsky offers an interesting perspective to the reasons behind those actions. In reaction to September 11th the United States felt the need to “show their muscle” to the world and display their power. The purpose of such an act is to intimidate any other potential threats. However, Chomsky goes on to describe the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan as a war crime that completely violated international law but also violated a moral code. As I’m sure we’re all aware, Afghanistan is a country that has very little and so the Afghanis (both then and now) were starving and just barely getting by. Obviously bombing only worsened this situation, killing and injuring many people.

And moreover, did the rest of the world even support this decision? Apparently not, according to Chomsky in only about two countries did the majority of the population support the U.S. decision to invade and bomb Afghanistan. Surprisingly, the countries that showed the biggest opposition to U.S. bombing in Afghanistan were the Latin American countries.

As for why the U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, Chomsky believes that it is partly due to the fact that Afghanistan has such a strategic location. However he also believes that the U.S. remains because it does not want to appear weak. This is what Dan Ellsberg calls “the stalemate machine”, which is when the war is kept going until the next election is won so that the country and president do not appear weak, but instead appear heroic and strong. And through it all the Afghanis continue to suffer.

Those are altogether some pretty bold and interesting statements; what do you guys think?

The State of the Union

President Obama’s State of the Union address last night promised a prosperous future as we rebuild America’s reputation in the world among people of all regions, races and creeds. The President assured that our country will progress if we work to strengthen the economy, invest in sustainable energy, educate the leaders of tomorrow, and ultimately put faith back in the renewed government. Obama challenged us to make the most of the current state of America and, instead of being discouraged, strive to surpass the rest of the world.

In relation to the “War on Terror”, the President looked to the state of Iraq as a positive model for continued efforts in Afghanistan. He certified that “American combat patrols have ended, violence has come down, and a new government has been formed” in Iraq and that it is now possible to sustain a cooperative relationship with the people as we finish bringing the troupes home.

While his main concern seemed to be continued insurgency by Al Qaeda, Obama demonstrated confidence in the government intelligence’s ability to keep the community safe as well as confidence in the strength and level-headedness of the community. He expressed that our ultimate goal in Afghanistan is to “prevent the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people [and to] deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11”. He assures us that we are making progress with the Taliban, helping to build a security force, and working with the government to ensure the safety of Afghani civilians.

However, the President believes that as we have sufficiently demobilized many Taliban troupes and secured numerous refuges that were harboring insurgents. Thus, the President announced that, beginning this July, we will be able to begin to pull troupes out of Afghanistan.

The objectives of the War in Afghanistan are surely nowhere near completion and there is sure to be more fighting. The mission in Afghanistan will surely fail without the cooperation of the government in place there and President Obama called on the help of “nearly fifty countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead.”

The President ended his section on Afghanistan with the message he hopes to send to terrorists around the world: “We will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.”

You can read a full transcript of President Obama’s State of the Union here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/25/133224909/obamas-state-of-the-union-speech

Or watch it after the jump:

Afghanistan + Cricket = Uniting Force

Hello,

It’s Nathan and personally I’d like to take a step back from the conflict and would like to hone in on a different aspect of the country. In this country that has been war torn for about 35 years there is a new sport sweeping the nation. It is bringing hope to every corner and is astounding in the support it has been getting. This new craze is the sport of cricket.

But first I must talk about the 1995 Rugby World Cup held in South Africa. The Rugby team was used as a uniting force to bring the entire country together for a single cause. The country at the time had just come out of black inequality with a new president, Nelson Mandela. It was in a time of change in which power was constantly fluctuating and there was much fear between both the whites and blacks of the country. But the world cup had the power to bring the entire country together and in the excitement of the cup all ideas of fear were forgotten for the cause of cheering on the team to victory. And that is precisely what happened, and the victory celebration had broken the color barrier as well.

Similar to this experience, the Afghanistan cricket team has the same potential. Living in a war torn country and a place where every citizen lives in fear, the team can be seen as a uniting force. The Cricket World Cup is set to take place this year starting in Late February and throughout March. The home country is India with the finals being held in Mumbai; however other matches are taking place throughout surrounding countries such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka. As of this moment Afghanistan is still in the process of attempting to qualify for the cup, but the Afghan team has been soundly beating other teams that have already qualified for the cup like Bermuda.

In 2008 the team was created and since then the country has been focused on this gleaming light. And a film crew is following the team in order to create a movie titled, “Out of the Ashes.” The title of the film is able to capture the true meaning of the team, that this team creates the hope necessary for the rest of the country to rise out of the ashes into a nation of peace and justice. At about 1:12 in the trailer below you can see the children of the nation playing cricket and the hype created for the upcoming cup. A far cry from the national team having trouble finding cricket balls for matches in their first tournament.

The members of this time have an opportunity. Even if the players do not know the magnitude their impact can create the people do. They have the opportunity to do something for the country. Something no amount of peacekeeping conference or talks can do. They have the ability to truly unite the country for one common goal and obtain complete support no matter the religion or ideals one may have. The only question left is what will the players do with this opportunity?

Nathan Gleason

On a side note there is even a Women’s team, which is set to compete in the 2011 Elite Asian Cup. This would be beyond the realm of treachery under the Taliban rule and is an example of how far the country has progressed.

The Kite Runner

Hi guys,
This is Nikhil here again. Later on this month, the 2020 group is going to show a film in school to generate awareness of the situation in Afghanistan. We plan to show "The Kite Runner," based on the book by Afghan Khaled Hosseini. After the viewing we will open up the forum for discussion, where any students (or hopefully parents) who come will be able to express their views on both the movie and the current situation in Afghanistan. For those who are not familiar with the movie, following is a short synopsis of the film. The movie starts off in Kabul before the violence hit. The city is filled with warm food, a rich cultural heritage, and surrounding natural beauty. The protagonist of the film is Amir, a Pashtun boy, who lives in a very wealthy enclave of Kabul with his father, Baba. The boy's father keeps a Hazara (ethnic minority) servant whose son, Hassan, and Amir grow up as the best of friends. Baba is critical of Amir for not being manly enough and blames the boy for his Amir's mother's death during childbirth. The two young boys, Amir and Hassan, live a carefree life of pleasure, though Amir is made fun of by the older boys for associating with a Hazara, which unfortunately the older boys believe to be an inferior race. Hassan kite- runs for Amir, and when Amir wins the local contest (though Hassan deserved the credit) Amir finally saw an opportunity to gain favor with Baba. Amir becomes jealous of Baba's affection for Hassan, so Amir himself pushes Hassan away as he views his childhood friend as a threat to Amir's reputation. Amir feels that his own life would be much easier if Hassan was not around, as Amir feels ashamed of his weakness compared with Hassan's selfless bravery, so Amir falsely frames Hassan of stealing some valuables from Baba. Altruistic as ever, Hassan falsely confesses to the theft and though Baba mercifully forgives the Hazara boy of the crime the servant and his son Hassan leave Baba's house forever.
When the Soviets invade Afghanistan, Amir and Baba dangerously escape Afghanistan, first stopping in Pakistan and then making their way to Fremont, California. Amir and Baba go from a life of luxury in Afghanistan to living in a run down apartment where Baba now works as a gas pump attendant. Amir gets married to a fellow Afghan refugee, Soraya, and soon after Baba dies. Amir and Soraya finds out that they can never have kids, and Amir embarks on a successful career as a novelist, possibly paralleling the life story of the true author of "The Kite Runner", Khaled Hosseini himself. One day, Amir receives a call from Pakistan, where one of Baba's Afghan friends tells Amir to return to Afghanistan as there is a "way to be good again." Upon return, Amir learns that Hassan was executed by the Taliban for loyally refusing to give up Baba's mansion, though Hassan's son, Sohrab, is still alive today. Amir is told to go find Sohrab and protect him from harm. Amir finally finds Sohrab in an orphanage, but is severely beaten as retribution for taking the child out of the orphanage. The abuser is none other than the rind- leader of the older boys who bullied Amir at a young age for spending so much time with the Hazara Hassan, creating a cyclical feeling to the movie and reconnecting the shards between past and present.
Amir takes Sohrab back to California eventually, but before that, Amir runs kites with Sohrab in Afghanistan, showing the boy some of Hassan's crafty old tricks. It is very difficult for the boy to adjust to a life of normalcy, though he is sheltered by Amir and Soraya and is nurtured and showered with love by the two refugees.
I hope that I have whetted your appetite to perhaps go out and rent the movie as it is a terrific (not too Hollywood romanticized) portrayal of Afghanistan then and now and how the Taliban leadership has affected everyday life for Afghan civilians.

Thanks for reading,
Nikhil

What's Happening in Afghanistan Right Now?

Hi everyone,

Just today I found an article online (link at the bottom) that gave an overview of the situation in Afghanistan right now, as well as what the U.S. troops are doing over there. The website had many articles written about the current situation in Afghanistan, and as I perused some of them I found that they almost all had titles such as: “Afghan girl raped, killed by U.S. troops” or “Afghan child killed in bomb blast” or “2010 deadliest year for Afghan civilians”. I knew that conditions were abhorrent in Afghanistan; I guess that I just didn’t know the details of just how horrible the situation really is.

What I learned was that in the past year violence in Afghanistan has reached a record high as U.S. troops have killed even more civilians than they did in the invasion of 2001. This violence has been mainly due to military aggression from both U.S. troops and the Taliban, as well as a rise in insurgencies. The Afghani government does not seem to be helping anything either as corruption and war profiteering appear to be on the rise. Currently the Afghanis are facing a deplorable situation of violence and corruption from their own government, from insurgent groups, from U.S. troops, and from international powers as well. And throughout all of this, the needs and desires of the Afghan people seem to have been disregarded. Although there has been much talk between foreign powers and government officials of what to do in Afghanistan, the Afghani people have had little say in the matter. In the ten years since U.S. and NATO troops first invaded Afghanistan there has been constant violence and the people have been unable to speak up in defense of themselves; it’s no wonder that sentiments towards the west are so hostile.

Instead of creating more violence through increasing offensive military operations, the nations and organizations currently involved in the Afghanistan conflict should be trying to develop a strategy that unifies the country and sets the foundation for a stable government. The present focus on armed forces only generates corruption, greed, and war-profiteering. In fact, many Afghanis feel that the current conflict in their country is a “mutual business enterprise”[1] between the different belligerent powers. They feel that the atmosphere of fear and instability allows these powers to mask their hidden agendas; meanwhile the civilians are the ones who are forced to pay with bloodshed and displacement. “As Martine van Biljert summarizes, ‘in the last eight years international contractors, policy makers and military have become part of an intricate patronage and racketeering network, sometimes as hostage, sometimes as unwitting contributors, but often as an active party seeking to further their perceived economic, political or security interests.’ Now, too many groups have an interest in perpetuating the conflict.”[2]

However, as a result of this ongoing conflict, many westerners have come to view the Afghanis as hostile and savage people who are potentially unable to be governed. In fact, the majority of Afghanis want the fighting to end and hope for a functional and stable government instead. In addition, they want the state to provide them with reasonable health, education, and judicial services. In order to move forward in finding a solution to this conflict, I think it is essential that the Afghanis themselves be brought into the talks seeing as they clearly have some intelligent ideas of their own. The government in Afghanistan needs to gain the trust of its people and the Afghanis need to feel as though all the forces present in their country are there to do good rather than for personal greed.

So tell me what you guys think. If you’re curious to know more, I encourage you to check out the links below.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/161092.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158322.html

---

[1] Rosen, Nir and Theros, Marika. Afghanistan: losing the Afghan People. <http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/161092.html>

[2] Rosen, Nir and Theros, Marika. Afghanistan: losing the Afghan People. <http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/161092.html>

Restrepo

Over the long weekend, I watched a Sundance Festival 2010 Award Winning documentary sponsored by National Geographic Channel. “Restrepo” chronicles the lives of average men deployed for fifteen months into the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan on the border of Pakistan in 2007. Taken from the perspective of two journalists from Vanity Fair who spent the deployment with the troupes, this heroic feat of journalism creates an honest and thorough depiction of the individuals who fight for us overseas. Arming the soldiers with cameras in addition to their guns, this movie gives a sincere and compassionate face to the soldiers and individuals fighting for us but at the same time gives no end in sight to the War on Terror.

The Korengal Valley was considered one of the “most dangerous places on earth” with 75% of the bombs dropped in Afghanistan having been dropped there. The soldiers and journalists found themselves at risk of being attacked at any moment and were fraught with extreme paranoia as they were expected to “take fire every single day” and were only protected by bullet-hole littered bunkers that provided minimal conditions.

The movie takes its namesake from the outpost the platoon built amid the onset of terror of the Taliban threatening them. The outpost, finished two months after his death, was named after platoon medic Juan “Doc” Restrepo. On July 22^nd, barely a month into their deployment, Doc Restrepo was shot and killed by Taliban and made death real for the platoon. His death signified to them and to the viewer that all the people the soldiers knew in Afghanistan were at terrible risk. Restrepo himself is only briefly seen in the movie as he both opens and ends with a shot of him and three of his fellow soldiers on the plane ride to Afghanistan. He is seen as an incredibly charismatic man who excitedly narrates his plane-ride, ambitious to start his time at war.

That is perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the film. The movie is not a Hollywood epic unlike many war movies. Instead it gives a face to the “average-Joes” you meet as they tell stories, show each other pictures from home, and goof around in their spare time. The chronicle is made more real by the moments of sheer boredom in which the soldiers sit around to play instruments, tell jokes, wrestle, play games, dance to music, and even express themselves through art and graffiti. The vast sense of camaraderie among the men in the movie is touching and reaches as climax when the second man killed in the platoon is found dead and one soldier incessantly weeps when he hears the news.

Despite this, there is an incessant feeling of disjunction with the local community as the soldiers do not demonstrate the same respect for the people living there. In their weekly diplomacy with some of the local elders, the soldiers are often deceitful and unrelenting as they force much of the blame on the previous platoon that was stationed there. The elders only even began to talk to the soldiers after the soldiers killed a sacred cow that got caught in an army fence and the elders demanded repayment to no avail. In future meetings, the soldiers ensured the citizens that Americans would bring jobs and security among other benefits but no steps were seen to making that change much to the suspicion of the people. The citizens whose family were insurgents refused to work with the soldiers as the culture is deeply rooted in families and ideologies.

The movie, though it focuses expressly on the people involved and rarely on the politics of the situation, seems to call to address the utter impossible nature of any chance that US involvement in Afghanistan will create positive change. From revenge-driven soldiers who had no idea what they were getting into to local citizens who refuse to comply, the planned strategy begins to deviate as the war takes unsuspecting turns on the battlefield.

The United States withdrew from the Korengal Valley in April of 2010 but the memory of the numerous men who fought and died there lives on.

Watch the trailer after the jump.

The Taliban

Hello Everyone!

Similar to Nikhil I also finished up a research paper. Mine was on the process in which war criminals were involved in peace negotiations. Followed by an appliance to Afghanistan. However I feel like my first blog post should be devoted to what I personally think is one of the most important goals for Afghanistan. A top priority for the on going war on terror in Afghanistan is the involvement of the Taliban in peace negotiations.

This is one of the most crucial points in the war on terror because they are considered the enemy and are the number one retarding force for the creation of a stable government. Through the use of roadside and suicide bombs the country remains in fluctuation with the intervening forces try to reduce the threats. As it stands at the present moment there seems like there is no reason the Taliban should consider peace talks.

The Taliban has the advantage of time. It’s easy to see the growing anger at the gross amounts of money spent on the war and as the amount increases the likelihood of staying in the country decreases. This means the Taliban can wait in the mountains until the withdrawal, followed by a reacquiring of the territory engrossing the country in the chaos again. There is only one bargaining chip that the Afghanistan government and the US forces have to bargain with, The ANA, Afghanistan National Army.

As the ANA grows the government gains the ability to defend itself. In 2004, eight thousand troops had been trained and were expected to have twenty thousand by 2006 (Their, 503). I make a motion to start to show the power of the ANA in order to get the Taliban to realize that being involved in a peace negotiation with be in their best interest. At least through a peace negotiation there will be Taliban influences and likely be a portion of power granted to them. It will be through the use of the ANA that the Taliban will agree to peace talks.

As we research deeper into the topic of the war criminals of Afghanistan and the power of fear the Taliban has created within the country, I suggest we consider the best option to be including them in peace talks. A quote by President Clinton addressing the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict applies to this conflict as well, “Only the parties to this terrible conflict can end it.” To achieve a solution to the conflict in Afghanistan it is necessary to bring all the sides of the conflict together, even if it means using the ANA as a threat.

Love to hear some feedback, toss some ideas around, anything critical or good is accepted.

Nathan

Thier, J. A. "AFghanistan." Twenty-First-Peace Keeping Operations. Ed. William J. Durch. Washington DC: Henry L. Stimpson Center, 2006. 467-572. Print.

Afghanistan- Pakistan Relations

Hey guys!
I recently finished up a research paper on Afghanistan- Pakistan relations for the class 2020 (in a bit of an attempt to save the world) but also a survey of the conflict between the two countries. In quelling the tensions in Afghanistan, the various strong disagreements between Pakistan and Afghanistan will have to be sorted out. For one, Pakistan and Afghanistan constantly bicker about the demarcated border between the two countries, the Durand Line. In Waziristan, a province in northern Pakistan, the Pakistani army is keeping very loose border security between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a consequence, many Taliban militants are seeping into Pakistan, where Pakistan is harboring them and perhaps training them as well. This fact is detrimental to the security of American soldiers in the region as well as the path to peace between the two countries. Moreover, the territory of Pashtunistan is a vital bone of contention between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghans have been imploring for a vote proposed to Pashtun leaders to make Pashtunistan a sovereign nation, though Pakistan is reluctant to give up an inch of Pakistani territory to supply any benefits to Afghanistan. There are many other facets to the conflict between the two countries, but these two instances represent the main cornerstones of the 50 year conflict. To solve the conflict, I proposed that the democratization of Pakistan was the most integral element in the solution process. In fact, a transition to democracy would prospectively dampen hostile relations with India and solve the border issue of the Durand Line. For example, the military leaders of Pakistan have constantly supported the Taliban to counteract the weight of Pashtun nationalism. Moreover, Pakistan has vacillated on its support of the Taliban, constantly either supporting or decrying the influence of the Taliban to win favor with America or damage India. I believe that this multi- faceted issue rests partially on the prospective democratization of Pakistan, though the establishment of such a government seems almost too idealistic given the fact that Pakistan's military seems solidly entrenched in the workings of government.
Therefore, in this upcoming project on Afghanistan, I urge our group to consider Pakistani strategy and benefit in our debates and eventual solutions, as the two countries are intertwined to a degree where a fracture in one can totally distort the other. That is to say that the stakes are extremely high regarding the two countries, and every care must be taken to resolve the Pakistani- Afghan hostility while mainly focusing on building a prosperously peaceful Afghanistan.

- Nikhil