Back to the eAction Report

Continuing Bush's War on Terror?

Many of us cringed when President-Elect Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.  Now the peace movement is writhing over rumors Obama will keep Bush appointee Robert Gates as his Defense Secretary.  Peace Action is asking you to go to Change.gov and tell Obama what you think about Robert Gates in his cabinet.  You can tell you friends about this campaign, here.

Of course, despite any initial euphoria, we knew the peace movement could not take a break during the Obama Administration.  His progressive policy proposals in the primaries won him the peace vote then. He advocated withdrawal from Iraq and talked about supporting the American people over transnational corporations.  He rose to the Presidency on the shoulders of people like us - grassroots activists - and told us he would help us change our country.  In the general election we got a taste of a more hawkish Obama; a man who wanted to move the quagmire in Iraq to Afghanistan so he could hunt down Osama bin Laden.

What is he thinking?  Increasing our combat presence in Afghanistan will create internal conflict between armed political and religious groups; it will hurt diplomatic relations between the US and other states in the region; and, it will, undoubtedly, create an international crisis.  Does this scenario sound familiar?

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, is considered a puppet of the British and US governments by many of the Afghan people.  This widespread sentiment is fueled by US airstrikes in Afghan towns and villages.  The US maintains airstrikes target the Taliban, but locals disagree.  For the better part of the last two years a movement to hold Karzai and the US accountable for the countless civilian deaths has been growing.  The violently fundamentalist Taliban refuses to engage in peace talks until the occupying forces leave the country.    Naturally, they fear peace talks would lead to arrests, and most likely executions, of Taliban negotiators.  

The only way to promote peace in Afghanistan is to support Afghan-led peace talks with the Taliban.  Any additional 'military support' is counter productive and will be costly to US interests.  We are in an economic crisis and we have already lost nearly 5,000 US soldiers in the War on Terror.  How could a man who promises change even contemplate continuing this failed policy?

During the presidential debates Obama admitted he would not hesitate to bomb Pakistan if he believed he was chasing the Taliban over the border.  Here again, he's taking his cue from the Bush Administration.  Our strained relationship with Pakistan is strategically essential for the US.  Without the cooperation of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon recruitment for terrorist organizations will continue unabated.   Our relationships with these countries should focus on regional reconstruction and stabilization, human rights and citizen-to-citizen diplomacy.  Our occupation of Afghanistan fuels the flames of terrorism; any more significant violations of Pakistani sovereignty could spark yet another war.

The Afghan people have suffered unspeakable violations of their human rights:  First the Russians came, then the Taliban, and now the US.  During every war the standard of living for the average Afghani has declined.  Still today, many do not have potable water or electricity.  Orphaned and uneducated children struggle to survive without a solid safety net.  The current state of Afghanistan is a tragedy and a blood stain on the United States.

Afghanistan needs the US to fulfill its reconstruction promises - not increase our troop presence.  At Peace Action, we've been batting around the idea of expanding our No Soldier Left Behind campaign to include Afghanistan.  What do you think?  Give us your opinion at our blog.  We'd also love your opinion on taking care of our soldiers when they return from war - how do we make sure their needs are never left behind?