Catt+P.+--Afghan+War

Home Small Wars Project Perspectives on Afganistan Midterm Assignment Student Recommendations - Position Essays


 * Chasing Our Tail in Afghanistan - Catt Perry **

The United States “entered Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda” with widespread support from across the country (Kissinger), according to Henry Kissinger, author and former secretary of state. One of the main reasons the public was so supportive was “how, over the course of a few weeks in 2001, a war of revenge was reframed as a war for human rights in Afghanistan” (Bunting). Madeleine Bunting, a reporter for The Hindu, India’s national newspaper, states it well: Afghanistan seemed like “a country in need of saving from itself” (Bunting). However, according to Ross Douthat, writer for The New York Times, it’s been over 10 years since the terrorist attack on the WTC, and “the country has turned its gaze from our distant wars to the economic crisis on the home front” (Douthat). As the war, dubbed “Operation Enduring Freedom” (Bunting), has relentlessly dragged on, the once-supportive and engaged public has become more and more “inattentive [to] what is now America’s longest war”: the War in Afghanistan “has lasted longer than [WWI] and [WWII] combined (Bunting). It’s clear to everyone that we will eventually have to withdraw from Afghanistan; the question is when. The fact that our initial reasons for intervening in Afghanistan can be argued both as just and unjust must be acknowledged, but either way, it does not matter; our intents evolved into an unjust purpose for being there. After very quickly succeeding in our initial goals, U.S. forces remained, declaring that Afghanistan was in need of nation-building to assist in the independency of a post-Taliban nation. Ironically, “the Afghan nation [is] primarily in opposition to occupying forces” (Kissinger). The United States’ reasoning for remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian purposes is unjust for many reasons. As clarified in the handout “Criteria for a Just War”, a war must meet certain criterion for it to be just (Criteria). The War in Afghanistan does not meet seven of the ten criterions: Distinction, Macro-Proportionality, Last Resort, Probability of Success, and Just Cause.

Stated in the //Jus in Bello// criterion //Distinction//, for a war to be just, “acts of war should [not] be directed towards … [civilians] caught in circumstances they did not create” or ask for (Criteria). The Afghan people did not create the circumstance that they’re in (said circumstance being that they do not have the choice of whether or not to live in Afghanistan). Afghanis don’t even want us there! According to Blaine Furey, Veterans Rethinking Afghanistan feels that the U.S. “cannot imp improve the situation in Afghanistan”; “they want all American troops to leave [because our presence is] causing more violence” (Furey). The Afghan people know that “when foreign forces are withdrawn, Afghan politics revert to a contest over territory”, money, power, and influence (Kissinger); being occupied by foreign forces just makes life worse for them, in the long //and// short run, so they oppose all occupying forces. // Probability of Success // means that “[force] may not be used in a futile cause” (Criteria), but, according to Steven Lee Myers and Rod Nordland, both writers for The New York Times, the Obama administration, echoing many other people, believes that there is “no purely military solution to the conflict” (Myers and Nordland), and it is “widely recognized” that the “goal of creating a government … to which responsibility for the defense of Afghanistan can be turned over is … unreachable by 2014” (Kissinger). U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee argued in a letter to the President that America “does not have an unlimited appetite for endless war,” and that neither “stability in Afghanistan [nor the improvement of] the lives of civilians ( particularly women and girls) [will be accomplished] through continued military intervention” (Another Way). Force must also be a //Last Resort//, and “may be used only after all peaceful/viable alternatives have been exhausted” (Criteria). Those said alternatives were not seriously tried, if even actually tried at all. “Protest [against near-immediate invasion] was muted or non-existent” (Bunting). //Just Cause // maintains that “innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life” (Criteria), and clearly, if today’s goal for the War in Afghanistan is to improve the lives of women and children, no lives are directly at stake. So no matter how you spin our reasoning for getting involved in Afghanistan, our involvement today is unjust.

Another blaring reason that it is crucial that the U.S. should pull its troops out of Afghanistan is our economic downturn. Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, writers for the Los Angeles Times, write that the U.S. has spent at least “$2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spending spree that accompanied it and a battery of new homeland security measures instituted [since] Sept. 11” ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ). Poverty is prevailing issue in America, Emily Miller writes in her Perspective essay, yet our political leaders are “hell-bent on raging war” (Miller). As of 9:00 PM on 20 December 2011, the U.S. national debt totaled about $15,137,671,000,000 ( U.S. National Debt Clock ), yet for the past decade, Rod Nordland, writer for The New York Times, reported that the United States has spent about $4 billion a year on “aid” in Afghanistan alone (Nordland). “Recent congressional investigations” have found that about one fourth of all funding has been “wasted or misspent” ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ), and the International Rescue Committee’s country director, Nigel Jenkins, says that “there is no question that not much of [the funds that haven’t been wasted or misspent have] trickled down to those who [are] in need” (Nordland). Thomas L. Friedman, author of an article in The New York Times, states that America definitely needs “more cost-efficient ways to influence geopolitics in Asia than keeping troops there indefinitely” (Friedman).And “even if we were to leave Afghanistan … tomorrow, our war debt would continue to rise for decades. Future bills will include, [for example], caring for … veterans, replacing military equipment, rebuilding the armed forces, and paying interest on [the trillions of dollars] we have borrowed”—costs that won’t be insignificant ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ). $600 billion to $900 billion – the “bill for future medical and disability benefits” – proves my point ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ). Until recently, there was only “one [war] in U.S. history that … was financed entirely through borrowing, without raising taxes: when the Colonies borrowed from France during the Revolutionary War” ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ). The War in Afghanistan is one of two wars (the second being the War in Iraq) in which we have done what we did in the Revolutionary War again; and not only did we not raise taxes, but thanks to George W. Bush’s reign, the U.S. cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 ( Bilmes and Stiglitz ). Now America’s “deficits are shaping our economic debate,” but it’s not even certain where the money has been spent (Bilmes and Stiglitz).

Lucas Sencillo writes that U.S. Representative Ron Paul thinks that the United States has “already spent too much time fighting [in Afghanistan]”, and that our intervention has been unbeneficial and unsuccessful (Sencillo). Afghan-American journalist Fariba Nawa believes that a lmost anything would be better than the situation Afghanistan is in right now; Afghanistan is a bigger mess than it was before the U.S. got involved (Nawa). Katie Van Winkle quotes Nawa in her Perspective essay: “If [the United States] hadn't gotten involved, [the situation] would have been fine [because Afghanistan] was somewhat stable [under the control of] the Taliban” (Van Winkle). The international debate that the U.S. is now entangled in should have been attempted prior to the U.S.’s intervention in Afghanistan, because “the outcome in Afghanistan is … an international political problem” (Kissinger). According to Max Ribar, Asif Ali Zardari, president of Pakistan, would want the U.S. to safely and gradually exit Afghanistan so that Pakistan and Afghanistan would be stable enough that their populations would feel more secure (Ribar). By continuing to fight this war, we’re also inflicting serious wounds to our foreign relations, especially with Pakistan and Iran (Myers and Nordland). At the Bonn conference in Germany earlier this month, “protesters erected shiny letters spelling ‘End the War in Afghanistan” from across the Rhine River (Myers and Nordland). We’ve fallen “into an intense … search for an exit strategy, with the emphasis on exit rather than strategy” (Kissinger). The VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) “would like to take the troops out of Afghanistan, for economic stability and to save lifes,” (Masters) according to John Masters’ Perspective essay. According to a recent Gallup poll, 72 percent of the American people want “to ‘speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan’ this year” (Another Way). However, we need to “choose our priorities, [because] the more rapid and substantial the immediate withdrawal, the more difficult the negotiating process will be” (Kissinger). And throughout that negotiation process with Afghanistan, we must, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, “‘be very clear [as to] what we can and cannot do together’” (U.S., Others).

So while the War in Afghanistan has been successful in some aspects, such as technological advancements – like the newfound possession of cell phones by 60 percent of Afghans (Myers and Nordland) – it has been majorly unsuccessful in others. For example, a negotiations for a “strategic agreement on relations” between Iraq and Afghanistan are being attempted, but “the two countries cannot even agree on what to call the agreement” (Myers and Nordland). The situation is like a dog chasing its tail—we’re going in circles, and the continued use of force alone won’t benefit anybody. “The Great Game” is being played the same as it’s been played for centuries, but “no one ever wins for long [playing this way], and all they win is a bill” (Friedman). There are even more tangible and legitimate reasons it is in the United States’ best interest to withdraw from Afghanistan soon, at least militarily, but what the debate comes down to put simply is that the U.S. shouldn’t delve any deeper into war “without understanding the true costs of continuing down that path” (Bilmes and Stiglitz).

A quality will essay will •open by setting up a context for the question--briefly explain why the unites States is fighting a war in Afghanistan, clearly done •develop a position or specific answer to the question that precisely states how the United States should proceed in Afghanistan, clearly done •use two criteria of the Just War Theory to analyze to what extent the U.S.'s involvement in Afghanistan is a Just War, clearly done •use three Perspectives to support your explanation of why our involvement in the war benefits or harms Afghanis, all three perspectives referenced •use three different Perspectives to support your explanation of why the war benefits or harms Americans three perspectives referenced •draw supporting information from the articles studied in class which are posted on Moodle, some articles referenced •wrap up the essay by restating the key reasons why your position is the best way for the U.S. to proceed in Afghanistan. Focused summary made • organize your ideas in extended power paragraphs, competently done •establish the credibility of sources, sources credited •cite sources internally and in a Works Cited, Internal citations and WC mostly correct--WC should be ordered alphabetically and web addressed truncated after .com •edit language errors from writing, edited for language usage errors •post the essay on Student Recommendations done
 * Works Cited**
 * Kissinger, Henry A. "How to Exit Afghanistan without Creating Wider Conflict." //Washington Post// 7 June 2011: n. pag. //The Washington Post//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * Bunting, Madeleine. "The Afghan War and the Myth of Women's Rights." //Hindu// 4 Oct. 2011: n. pag. //N/A//. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.
 * Douthat, Ross. "It's Still the 9/11 Era." //New York Times// 4 Sept. 2011: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
 * "Criteria for a Just War." N.d. //Wikispaces//. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. .
 * Furey, Blaine. "Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. .
 * Myers, Steven Lee, and Nordland, Rod. "At Conf., Afghans Say They'll Need Aid for Years." //New York Times// 5 Dec. 2011: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * "Another Way to Bring the Troops Home from Afghanistan." N.d. //Working Assets//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * Bilmes, Linda J., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. "America's Costly War Machine." //Los////Angeles Times// 18 Sept. 2011: n. pag. //N/A//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * Miller, Emily. "Ismail Salami." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. .
 * "U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time." //U.S. Debt Clock//. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <[]>.
 * Nordland, Rod. "Aid Agencies in Afghanistan Fear Reversals after U.S. Exit." //New York Times// 5 Dec. 2011: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * Friedman, Thomas L. "A Long List of Suckers." //New York Times// 1 Nov. 2011: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.
 * Sencillo, Lucas. "Rep. Ron Paul." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. .
 * Nawa, Fariba. Interview by Michel Martin. //Tell Me More//. NPR. 5 Dec. 2011. //National Public Radio//. Web. Transcript. 20 Dec. 2011. <[]>.
 * Van Winkle, Katie. "Fariba Nawa." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. .
 * Ribar, Max. "Pakistan's President, Asif Ali Zarari." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. .
 * Masters, John. "Veterans of Foreign Wars." //Wikispaces//. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. .
 * "U.S., Others Vow Support for Afghanistan Post-Troops." //Associated Press// 5 Dec. 2011: n. pag. //N/A//. Web. 13 Dec. 2011.