What To Do About Afghanistan-- Perspectives From Navy Master Chief (Ret) Doug Tudor And California Congressman Michael Honda

Doug Tudor is a retired Navy Master Chief (E9) who served on the personal staff of three Commanders, U.S. Central Command-- General Tommy Franks, General John Abizaid, and Admiral William Fallon. The Master Chief saw all of Central Command’s behind-the-curtain workings from 2000-2008.” In 2008 he ran a spirited grassroots campaign against entrenched reactionary incumbent Adam Putnam in Florida's Polk County. Doug is a well-informed progressive whose perspective is always worth considering. He was the first candidate the DownWithTyranny PAC endorsed for 2010. This week marks the 8th anniversary of war in Afghanistan and I asked Doug to share his vision on how we need to end this tragic conflict. This is what he told me:

EIGHT YEARS LATER
-by Doug Tudor

After eight years of combat operations in Afghanistan, “The Graveyard of Empires,” America needs to have a national conversation on our future in that hostile, unyielding country. To begin the conversation, I believe one point needs to be very clear: we were never supposed to go to war in Afghanistan. Instead, we were supposed to go into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and kill or capture (K/C) the leadership of al Qaida. We succeeded at the first objective and partially succeeded at the second.

Eight years ago this week, America invaded Afghanistan. Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was born. On November 12, 2001, Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, fell to our forces. The Taliban was in full retreat. Objective number one accomplished.

In December 2001, conventional wisdom holds that we had Osama bin Laden trapped in the complex series of caves and fortresses in Tora Bora. Due to political pressures and cultural sensitivities, it was decided that, instead of using America’s overwhelming military force, our Special Forces should combine their efforts with the militia of Afghan warlords Hazret Ali and Haji Zaman Ghamsharik. When our efforts at Tora Bora did not realize the mission of killing or capturing al Qaida’s top commanders, America should have redeployed our forces for another phase of operations intended to achieve the K/C objective.

Instead, as often happens in wartime, mission creep set in. We had troops within Afghanistan’s border, so we figured we needed to find a mission for them.

President Obama is currently reviewing our current mission in Afghanistan. If he were to ask me for advice, which he hasn’t (yet), I would tell the Commander-in-Chief this: Stop counter-insurgency operations and concentrate on counter-terrorism operations. In other words, leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis and concentrate on killing or capturing the leaders of al Qaida.

To me, it really is that simple. After eight years of combat operations abusing America’s military force which is stretched dangerously thin, let’s concentrate on capturing or killing the people who killed nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11, 2001. We cannot make Afghanistan a Jeffersonian democracy. We cannot abet thousands of years of ethnic and tribal conflicts. We can use the awesome technological and intelligence advantages America holds to kill or capture the leadership of al Qaida. Not to be cliché, but “Yes, We Can.”

----------------------

You may recognize Rep. Honda's name from Blue America's No Means No page which commends the 32 Democrats who stood up and voted "no" against the supplemental war budget on June 16. When I asked a Capitol Hill staffer who was the most articulate spokesperson for progressives opposed to the continued occupation of and war in Afghanistan, she told me it was Honda, the Democrat representing good chunks of San Jose and the Silicon Valley. Today he did an OpEd for the Hill, Afghanistan Solution, It was actually co-authored by the Afghan Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, the ministry that coordinates the National Solidarity Program mentioned in the piece.  At the last minute someone-- not the Minister-- pulled the plug on his participation, at least in terms of publication. Here are relevent pieces of Rep. Honda's Op-Ed:

With Washington talking about U.S. troops surging in Afghanistan, and with Kabul coordinating its post-election game plan, now is the time to ensure that an alternative aid approach is front-and-center (lest it get tabled again). We know what works in reconstructing and stabilizing this fractured country. The model has spread to all 34 Afghan provinces. It is the National Solidarity Program (NSP), operated out of Afghanistan’s Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. What stands in its way, however, is the lack of international political and economic wherewithal to sufficiently scale up.

...What makes the NSP so special? Not much, in the sense that the archetype is not overly sophisticated. The concept is simple: Communities are empowered to make decisions and manage resources during all stages of their project cycle. Although USAID and other international donors do fund NSP through the Afghan government’s core budget, remarkably, two-thirds of foreign aid still circumvents Afghan government institutions. That means the aid is not optimized in Afghanistan, leaving the country with only modest improvements in institutional or individual capacity. No wonder security in Afghanistan remains elusive. Bereft of a viable political and economic infrastructure at the local, provincial and national levels, instability is inevitable.
 
Secondly, the costs are minimal. The NSP’s budget is small change in comparison to what American contractors are costing taxpayers. The NSP provides direct block grant transfers to the Community Development Councils (CDCs) at $200 per family, with an average grant of $33,000 per community (up to $60,000). For only $200 million, the NSP could complete 20,000 small projects in the coming five months. Compare this to the $80 billion that Congress approved this summer for combat operations and equipment to secure Afghanistan and the funding disparity is disconcerting.
 
Thirdly, the cases are encouraging. At the crux of the NSP are the democratically elected, mixed-gender CDCs, which, together with members of the community, identify, manage and monitor their development projects and resources. The CDCs are a triple-threat: They improve local governance, making it more accountable and inclusive; they alleviate poverty, particularly high with many living on less than $2 a day; and they provide jobs, which is critical for provinces like Helmand where unemployment is as high as 80 percent.
 
The CDCs are fast and furiously rebuilding the country. One water project opened up drinking water access for four villages, ameliorating a two-hour walk for water and reducing tensions between villagers who had poached supplies. Another water project constructed two dams and 1,500-meter canals to irrigate 1,000 acres of agricultural land. One healthcare project, designed by female CDC members, built a medical clinic for women and children-- providing health services access to 50,000 residents. An energy project established a joint micro hydropower plant, capable of producing 12 kilowatts of energy and generating 20,351 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, thereby offsetting more than 28,000 pounds of CO2. This CO2 offset is equivalent to preventing the emissions from the combustion of nearly 1,500 gallons of gasoline... This is what Afghanistan’s democracy looks like-- governance for, with and by the people. As we rethink Afghanistan in the coming months, this is what we must support. If we are to have any kind of surge, let it be in the National Solidarity Program.