I am sure I a lot of people are going to like me by the title of this post (joking). In addition, by no means am I suggesting amnesty for those who committed crimes, or for us to place trust in the Taliban. I am just here to pitch an idea.
So there has been some talk on negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now I am usually an optimistic person, but we're never going to win the war in Afghanistan, by the common definition "to win". As long as people oppose the U.S. and a secular state, which there will always be, Afghanistan will be in turmoil. Instead of marginalizing those in the Taliban, I feel as if we should start engaging with them. Some say this is validating their action; its what you make of it. They are real people with real motives, and the only way to solve a conflict for the long term is to acknowledge the other side exists.
Without help and the end of violence from the Taliban or other extremists, Afghanistan will be in constant war. No matter how much we, as a society, disagree with the Taliban, they are unfortunately necessary to restore some sort of stability in Afghanistan. When a group is continuously marginalized, whether for good reason or not, it becomes harder and harder to solve conflicts. Only by engaging the opposition can conflict be solved. It is practical. By bringing some Taliban into a "democratic" system, or by just simply having more moderate elements part take in governance, they may feel more connected to the system.
The War on Terror is a war on idea. Now there are ways to reduce the appeal of the Taliban, and more so extremism, but that is not the topic of this post. However, until we find a strategy that addresses why citizens become radicalized, it is imperative we bring in some elements of the Taliban to be represented in the Afghanistan government. Though it may be against our morals as a society; we are not Afghanistan. If the Taliban has a vested interest in keeping their own country afloat (with "democratic governance") it is in our best interests to pursue this strategy. I am not saying direct negotiations, but using our resources and allies in the region to get communication more open than ever before.
Being pro-active and engaging is more useful than sitting on our hands and getting deeper in this quagmire. Principals are important, but to combine principles and practically is a way to success.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Afghanistan Panel Reflections
So I am a bit late on posting this, but I would like to also put in my two cents about the panel on Tuesday night. Overall, I thought it was very rewarding and very educational. The contrast between "state-building" and "nation-building" was very interesting, especially in the context of Afghanistan and its history. I thought "state-building" made even more sense when presented with anthropological evidence of how Afghans behaved in the past. Many people, including myself, did not know that the complexities between local and state rules, and Afghanistan's intricate foreign policy.
Now I understand that, in Afghanistan, the phrase "all politics is local" really goes home. The traditional way Afghanistan was governed was by locality and the tribal or village head, not a national figure. This would have been good for U.S. diplomats to know when helping form the new more-centralized government of Karzai. Though the west and other societies are used to a federal or semi-centralized nature of a state, that was totally opposite in Afghanistan. The Afghans have their own way of decision-making. This local concept provides a challenge to "nation-building" but not necessarily to "state-building". One can build a strong state, through infrastructure and technology, but not necessarily a strong nation. A nation is a more abstract concept. However, I do feel that the U.S. should take this into account (if they haven't already) and provide more aid locally to promote a higher quality of life in these villages. If "all politics is local", then it is smart politics to stay local.
In addition, I enjoyed the panelists discussion on the power vacuum that would be opened if/when the U.S. leaves. It was interesting to hear that India would step up and take charge. An emerging power, India has been overshadowed by China. However, this would be India's chance to make a stand in world politics, though lets see if it actually happens.
Though I enjoyed the discussion, I feel that Professor Commins should have moderated more, as a majority of the time the speakers spoke for a very long time on one question. I did enjoy hearing their thoughts, but I feel the panel could have hit on more issues as well as more time for questions.
On the questions issue, I personally feel the Clarke Forum should have allotted more time for them. Though 2 of the 3 questions were interesting I thought the 3rd one (something about troop presence) was from someone who didn't completely understand the issues (not to be mean, but really?). There were many people, including myself, which had questions and I am sure understood the situation more.
I did benefit a lot from the speakers, and now I have a more in depth view on a very complex situation.
Now I understand that, in Afghanistan, the phrase "all politics is local" really goes home. The traditional way Afghanistan was governed was by locality and the tribal or village head, not a national figure. This would have been good for U.S. diplomats to know when helping form the new more-centralized government of Karzai. Though the west and other societies are used to a federal or semi-centralized nature of a state, that was totally opposite in Afghanistan. The Afghans have their own way of decision-making. This local concept provides a challenge to "nation-building" but not necessarily to "state-building". One can build a strong state, through infrastructure and technology, but not necessarily a strong nation. A nation is a more abstract concept. However, I do feel that the U.S. should take this into account (if they haven't already) and provide more aid locally to promote a higher quality of life in these villages. If "all politics is local", then it is smart politics to stay local.
In addition, I enjoyed the panelists discussion on the power vacuum that would be opened if/when the U.S. leaves. It was interesting to hear that India would step up and take charge. An emerging power, India has been overshadowed by China. However, this would be India's chance to make a stand in world politics, though lets see if it actually happens.
Though I enjoyed the discussion, I feel that Professor Commins should have moderated more, as a majority of the time the speakers spoke for a very long time on one question. I did enjoy hearing their thoughts, but I feel the panel could have hit on more issues as well as more time for questions.
On the questions issue, I personally feel the Clarke Forum should have allotted more time for them. Though 2 of the 3 questions were interesting I thought the 3rd one (something about troop presence) was from someone who didn't completely understand the issues (not to be mean, but really?). There were many people, including myself, which had questions and I am sure understood the situation more.
I did benefit a lot from the speakers, and now I have a more in depth view on a very complex situation.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Lessons Connected: Afghanistan to the Middle East
I was going through old files on my computer, and I found this very powerful (at least to me) video report from CNN about Afghanistan civilians fleeing their homes in the face of the U.S.-NATO Kandahar offensive. This video is about 8 months old, and I also do know that Afghanistan is not per-say in the Middle East region. However I think it ties in well with our talk with Islamic politics and terrorism. Just so I am not misunderstood, I am not saying anyone in the video is a terrorist or anything else; they are innocent families just wanting a peaceful life and whats best for their children.
In the video, you can see the refugee camp is poorly built, the small children are sleeping on barren floors. The video is dated February, so it is still winter. The conditions seem horrible, and I sure there is poor sanitation and food hardships. In America this would be more than unacceptable. Where is the UNHCR? Hopefully the situation has changed.
In class and through the primary source readings we have seen that Islamic parties in government often provide more social welfare and are connected to the civilians through grassroots efforts. Not saying Pres. Karzai isn't, but from the video, it doesn't seem much was done for refugees. Thus, people may be swayed to support a candidate in Afghanistan who provides support for the people. The inability of a government to provide for its people, and it looks like Karzai's government is one of them, spur the formation of parties which are closer to the people (i.e. Islamic groups) .
These families have left their homes, and their lives have been shaken because of the war against terrorism. If the Afghan government or/and the U.S. government focused on improving and modernizing the country's infrastructure, economy, and health care; maybe there would be less terrorist. If the United States does more to raise the living conditions of Afghan civilians, by providing a safe environment, building society, and creating jobs, terrorism may seem less appealing. This notion applies especially to the youth, who have been more prone to join radical organization due to the lack of jobs and a secure future in the country.
Both these notions can certainly can apply to Middle Eastern states in understanding Islamism and why some join radical organizations.
I'm just throwing my opinion out there about these ideas. Even though Afghanistan is not the focus of our class, I think the lessons in the video are. I encourage you to watch if you have 2-3 minutes free.
In the video, you can see the refugee camp is poorly built, the small children are sleeping on barren floors. The video is dated February, so it is still winter. The conditions seem horrible, and I sure there is poor sanitation and food hardships. In America this would be more than unacceptable. Where is the UNHCR? Hopefully the situation has changed.
In class and through the primary source readings we have seen that Islamic parties in government often provide more social welfare and are connected to the civilians through grassroots efforts. Not saying Pres. Karzai isn't, but from the video, it doesn't seem much was done for refugees. Thus, people may be swayed to support a candidate in Afghanistan who provides support for the people. The inability of a government to provide for its people, and it looks like Karzai's government is one of them, spur the formation of parties which are closer to the people (i.e. Islamic groups) .
These families have left their homes, and their lives have been shaken because of the war against terrorism. If the Afghan government or/and the U.S. government focused on improving and modernizing the country's infrastructure, economy, and health care; maybe there would be less terrorist. If the United States does more to raise the living conditions of Afghan civilians, by providing a safe environment, building society, and creating jobs, terrorism may seem less appealing. This notion applies especially to the youth, who have been more prone to join radical organization due to the lack of jobs and a secure future in the country.
Both these notions can certainly can apply to Middle Eastern states in understanding Islamism and why some join radical organizations.
I'm just throwing my opinion out there about these ideas. Even though Afghanistan is not the focus of our class, I think the lessons in the video are. I encourage you to watch if you have 2-3 minutes free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)