Both Oars In Nation-Building is our interest

Jul 8, 2011

For the record, I support President Obama’s recent decision to accelerate the drawdown of our troops in Afghanistan. I also agree with the decision announced by General Petraeus on July 4th to switch the focus of US military assets from the south of Afghanistan to the Pakistan border. Hopefully, these reductions in the size and scope of the mission, which are as regrettable as they are necessary, will at least lessen the loss of life, military and civilian, and the cost of the Afghan war.   

On the other hand, I bristle at the bashing that Nation-Building is taking as part of the public justification of the change in our objectives in Afghanistan. After the protection of innocent lives, Nation-Building is the most compelling and moral reason to engage our troops abroad. After all, war does not make peace — stable nations do.

Specifically, I was disappointed by the President’s attempt at cleverness by stating, “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”  His twisting of such an important aspect of our foreign policy for rhetorical effect and populist appeal in the last minutes of his otherwise articulate and clear message to the nation on June 22 undermined the sincerity of the previous 10 minutes of his speech, which had extolled the mutual benefit of helping the Afghan people build a stable, democratic nation — Nation-Building.  

In a July 4 New York Times op-ed titled “Let’s Not Linger in Afghanistan,” Senators Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY) and Udall (D-NM) also took advantage of the lamentable difficulties in building infrastructure and government in Afghanistan to cast aspersion on Nation-Building. Using the all too familiar “blame the victim” slight-of-hand, the trio complain that our armed forces are “bogged down in…a prolonged effort to create a strong central government, a national police force and an army, and civic institutions in a nation that never had any to begin with.” To punctuate their pessimism, they quip, “Let’s not forget that Afghanistan has been a tribal society for millenniums.”  

If history matters, shouldn’t we also remember that Italy and Germany were tribal societies of a sort until relatively recently? As U.S. Americans, shouldn’t we be especially mindful that divided nations can rise above civil war? Why the loading on, Senators, if not to put Nation-Building in a bad light?

Granted it is clear that current conditions and economic constraints require that Obama curtail for now what these senators politically refer to as a “sprawling” mission,” but do we really want to say to the Afghan people, especially the women and girls our President so proudly mentioned in his speech, that “we’ve accomplished what we set out to accomplish in Afghanistan, and we can no longer afford the lives and money it is taking” to really help you?

Thankfully, this is not how our troops are approaching their job on the ground. Our troops, and their senior leadership, understand, unlike the junior senators, that the difficulties in helping the Afghan people build their nation are the very reasons the effort is so necessary and important.  For them, Nation-Building is not sprawl or add-on — it is primary. (Google: Petraeus Clear Hold Build).  

Footage of community meetings held by our officers on the frontline, like those captured in “Restrepo” by war correspondents Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington, prove that our troops in the field clearly support and understand the importance of the “build” aspect of their mission. Watching a battle-strained soldier patiently and honestly carryout a face-to-face meeting with local leaders, many of whom are justifiably upset with the collateral damage that goes with fighting insurgencies, is quite a testament to both the importance and potential of  Nation-Building.

Nation-Building is costly. It is also difficult. Clearly, it is too difficult and costly for now in Afghanistan — which is sad. Still, developing local infrastructure and government — doing the build — is the only real way to ensure that a battle once fought and won will not have to be fought again. This is why soldiers so willingly take to it. It is also why it is always in our interest.

|