Jan. 21, 2010
COMMENTARY: What If The People Of Afghanistan Could Choose?
By Cliff Kindy & Neil Wollman
After an intense review, President Obama recently ordered about thirty
thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The question is, should this
decision have been made by the U.S. government? The goals for the
United States are to prevent an Al Qaida threat in the homeland and to
stabilize the Afghan situation, allowing for some level of central
government control and a face-saving withdrawal. But who else could or
should have weighed in on this decision, and what are their
motivations?
The Afghan government realizes that any downsizing of the U.S.
presence could threaten its hold on political power. President Karzai
recently stated that he expects the U.S. military presence to continue
until 2024. The U.S. public is split, mainly along party lines,
between those who want an early withdrawal of troops to prevent a
quagmire, and those who support the U.S. military presence and fear
that withdrawal would squander the investment already made.
The missing voice among these acknowledged players is that of the
Afghan public. No country can impose on another a decision that
country cannot abide. History is filled with attempts by strong powers
to force actions upon weaker ones. This has worked sometimes in the
short run, but usually crashes in the long term. The power of
democracy is its dependence upon the will of the people who are
impacted by a decision.
Indeed, the Afghan citizenry seems to have no say, yet is the group
that stands to gain or lose the most from the U.S. occupation. Modern
warfare kills and wounds more local civilians than armed actors (about
80 percent, compared to 20 percent). Yet those civilians have little
or no ability to choose their own participation.
What if Afghani citizens were to determine whether the U.S. military
continues a surge or withdraws troops? Certainly this is a fitting
step in encouraging democracy. It would also provide the incentive for
Afghanis to really own and support a chosen policy on the ground. And
perhaps the Afghanis themselves know best how to create a stable
nation that does not house terrorists.
In January 2010, Iraq was to hold a referendum on withdrawing the
remaining U.S. troops. This plan was scrapped when it became clear it
would only reduce U.S. presence by a few months and so was not worth
the logistic and financial costs. If a referendum on U.S. troop
presence is of merit for Iraqi citizens, is it not also for Afghans,
before U.S. troops become more firmly entrenched there?
Who knows what the Afghans would decide if the choice was theirs? Poll
results in Afghanistan have varied by region and ethnicity, with a
fairly large margin of error. But Afghanistan could hold a national
binding referendum on U.S. military presence at the same time as
planned parliamentary elections in May. (Given the experience of their
last public vote, for president, improved preparations and precautions
are needed.) First, the U.S. President or Congress must assert their
intent to open a space to hear the voice of the Afghan people. They
could encourage Afghan lawmakers to consider such a referendum as a
way of respecting the will of the people and of seeking the support of
their own citizens.
Would a referendum change the dynamics of the war? If the Afghans
voted to keep troops there, then the U.S. could expect better
cooperation from the public (in both Afghanistan and the U.S.) and
would be confident it is respecting the will of the citizens. (This is
especially so if there is strong voter participation and the results
show a wide margin.) It might also convince mainly skeptical world
opinion and governments to provide more military and other aid. If the
Afghans voted against the troops remaining in Afghanistan, and the
U.S. honors that, again we are respecting what Afghans want for their
own country. Then U.S. options might include undertaking training of
police and military personnel; providing support for building the
country’s economic, political, and educational systems; and making
payments to militia in the same way that the U.S., perhaps in large
part, bought its way out of an insurgency in Iraq. Significant
resources could be made available in all these ways if there was no
combat presence to financially support.
Our nation asserts that it sends its military overseas to protect
freedoms at home and promote freedom and democracy elsewhere. The
United States can take another step toward democracy in the world by
encouraging it in Afghanistan—and it might even bring other benefits,
as well. The United States can let the people of Afghanistan choose.
* * *
Cliff Kindy is an organic market gardener and has for the last twenty
years worked frequently with Christian Peacemaker Teams in the war
zones of the world.
Neil Wollman is Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social
Responsibility, Bentley University, and the author of a 2005 op ed
suggesting that Iraqis hold a referendum concerning U.S. troop
presence. NWollman@Bentley.edu
This commentary was distributed by PeaceVoice, a program of the Oregon
Peace Institute, Portland, OR.