Ending the Afghan War
Obama’s Afghanistan War
September 22, 2009
Since President Obama has taken over the Presidency he has now made the Iraq and Afghan wars his and how he deals with them during his term as President will greatly affect the US, the countries we are waging war in and even much of the rest of the world.
Around this time there is renewed talk about increasing troops in Afghanistan. I agree with this, but it must be followed by certain very important steps or we will still lose at least the remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan like we lost in Viet Nam. We need to narrow our focus to a precise limited goal for winning. This goal should be why we are their and that goal should be:
The Unconditional Surrender of al Qaeda
Of course this can not truly mean “unconditional” or it means the same as “fight to the death”. It must be followed with conditions that the al Qaeda leadership and followers can be made to accept. The statement in front stating “Unconditional” is really just the opening phase of discussing the conditions of surrender.
Because we failed to do this under President Bush and we spread what should have been a war with only al Qaeda to all of the Taliban and even then turned most of our war effort onto Iraq and that in the process we have killed and injured vast numbers of people, we LOST our CLEAR Moral High Ground. We have already killed and injured more than TEN TIMES “INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES” who got in the way the number of people we lost.
The worst part of this is how many people WE KILLED that had NOTHING to do with the attack on the United States by al Qaeda. For this, we no longer hold a clear moral high ground over al Qaeda, since we have killed far more innocent people than they have as a direct part of this conflict.
But we need this war to end and we need to minimize future threat to us from al Qaeda.
So we should begin with coming up with a set of conditions for the surrender of al Qaeda and then drop those terms printed on leaflets in the local language in any areas al Qaeda is holding out.
Because we mismanaged dealing with the Taliban in the beginning of this and are at war with them too, we should include a similar set of surrender conditions to the Taliban with a stress that a condition of the surrender of the Taliban is that they help in obtaining the surrender of al Qaeda.
It will be much better for us if we act with honor and as part of that treat our enemies with honor in the process of ending this conflict so that we can move on with our lives. The pamphlet dropped might read like this, in the local language:
*****
Unconditional Surrender of
al Qaeda and Taliban
The United States military does not want to be here. The only reason the U.S. forces are here is because al Qaeda started war with the U.S. by attacking first and the Taliban sided with al Qaeda in the was that followed.
U.S. forces under the leadership of President Bush never came to this area in full force, but instead went to Iraq in full force. Only a small fraction of U.S. force has been brought to this war with al Qaeda and Taliban up to this point.
U.S. forces under the leadership of President Obama now specifically seek the surrender of al Qaeda and Taliban to end this war so that U.S. forces may return home. Should al Qaeda and Taliban not surrender, then President Obama will bring the FULL FORCE of the U.S. military into this area and engage in a full strength war to end this war. The U.S. did not begin this war and the only way it will stop is for al Qaeda and Taliban to surrender.
For surrender all leadership and fighters must turn themselves in to U.S. forces and make the following statement while under oath for their personal honor and by oath under Shari`a Islamic law and the Koran. President Obama gives his personal oath that U.S. forces will be ordered to treat all who surrender with honor and no one will be tortured.
al Qaeda or Taliban: “I surrender my life to you”.
U.S. Representative: “You have forfeited your life to me you are now as if dead. You must acknowledge the mistake it was to begin war with the U.S.”.
al Qaeda or Taliban: “It was a great mistake for us to attack the U.S. and doing so has brought a rain of destruction down upon us more than a hundred times worse. We were wrong and should never have attacked the U.S.”.
U.S. Representative: You must give your deepest oath of honor, by your immortal soul; that you will never attack or help and attack against any part or member of the U.S. again.
al Qaeda or Taliban: “I give my word to never attack or to help attack the U.S. ever again.” (Someone very familiar with what oaths mean the most to these people should write out what such an oath should be).
U.S. Representative: You will do your best to avoid harming any others and that you will seek a non-violent path of peace to follow. You can still actively pursue fighting for your beliefs, but through non-violent means. Do you so agree”?
al Qaeda or Taliban: “I do”.
U.S. Representative: “You must allow us to fully identify you, finger prints, pictures and DNA sample. You must help us identify other al Qaeda members and obtain surrender from them. Do you so agree”?
al Qaeda or Taliban: “I do”.
U.S. Representative: “Then I return to you your life upon the following the conditions you have sworn and agreed to. Let us seek to live in peace”.
*****
Because we lost the moral imperative, I think we should probably do this even with Osama bin Laden. We could state that conditions of surrender include some exceptions for particular people who will either be imprisoned for life or face a death penalty for their part in starting the war. But, this would leave us demanding responsibility be held uncompromisingly for Osama bin Laden while we allow President Bush and his administration to avoid any responsibility for the tens of thousands of innocent people killed during his very poorly directed wars, one of which was a preemptive attack upon an entire country which had not attacked us and did not pose any real threat to us.
Further, if we imprison Osama bin Laden, he can become a focus of continued refreshing hatred and rebellion against U.S. power. If we kill Osama bin Laden after he surrender’s then it is more likely to cast him as a martyr in the continued violent fight against U.S. power.
Whatever we choose becomes a balancing act around the repercussions of our choice. What we should focus on is how to minimize future threats of the U.S. being attacked.
If we were able to get Osama bin Laden to positively and constructively work with us while being our prisoner for life, then maybe we could turn him into a tool to help us minimize the risks of future terrorist attacks. But why would he do this if faced with prison for life? Still, maybe we could manage that. If he is imprisoned for life but actively rebellious and still urging others to fight against the U.S., then he will be a symbol to rally around.
If we could get him to positively and constructively work with us for a short time in return for his being able to die in an honorable manner, then maybe we could turn him into a martyr for peace. He could give some lengthy speech about how he was wrong and that the path of violence was wrong. He could talk about how his wrongful decision resulted in not only the death of those he viewed of as his enemy, but in vast numbers of deaths among his own people and it was all his fault, therefore he does feel he should die. He could urge others to not make his mistake in choosing a path of violence and instead seek a non-violent path. But, facing death, would he really agree to do something like this? If he is captured, sentenced to death and killed while remaining stead fast in his defiance of U.S. power, then his death will be a symbol to rally around.
But if he surrenders through some process of oaths like those suggested above while it is all video taped, he is freed and remains a leader in al Qaeda but now working towards making al Qaeda non-violent and actively urging others to seek non-violent means to achieve their ends, then he can become a tool to help minimize future threats to the U.S. If a potential threat arises again from al Qaeda, he becomes a contact person to question about it and make sure he applies pressure to remove any threat from al Qaeda or face another war with the US and this time a war focused primarily at al Qaeda instead of being mostly focused at an unrelated target like Saddam Hussein.
Osama bin Laden might very well agree to this, because it would give him several things to hope for. He could continue to live. He would have to humble himself in surrender and admitting wrong for violently attacking the U.S., but he could retain some elements of honor and find future purpose in life through active non-violent efforts, meaning he could still have a chance to do something he felt was good.
To fail to realize that Osama bin Laden is a man highly driven by his belief’s in honor, morality and the desire to do what he thinks is GOOD is a big mistake. Osama bin Laden did NOT help organize an attack against the U.S. because he is simply an evil person with no morals that takes joy in killing innocent people. He is a person very strongly driven by beliefs in honor and morality. This applies to many, if not all, of the al Qaeda leadership.
If we can use that sense of honor and morality to work for us instead of against us, we will be far better off. It means we must act with honor, which means no torturing, no humiliating and in means treating our enemy with respect. Under the circumstances, it means we must hurt them enough to make them ready to surrender.
We already had them at this point once, but President Bush did not take advantage of this point. That time was lost as we slid into a longer term conflict which has digressed into an occupation and turned al Qaeda and the Taliban into resistance fighters to our occupation. This strengthens them and if we do not change this we will almost certainly lose in the long run, unless we want to stoop so low as to commit genocide.
We must present them with a way we can win that is acceptable to them in order to end the conflict. First in order should be that we are only there to obtain surrender and we have NO INTEREST in occupying the territory. We want to leave, but first those who attacked us must surrender.
Make this clear. Maybe they will surrender now, if they have not hardened their positions too much. But, once we make it clear, if they do not surrender, then we need to bring it back to a point like we had years ago when they are ready to surrender.
That might mean effectively re-starting the war. Not really, but it means giving a new directive to our military that we have one purpose and one purpose only, to gain surrender from al Qaeda and the Taliban because they attacked us. Then treat it as a war with a directive to our generals to provide a path of virtual guaranteed win, even if it requires a vast increase in troop levels.
That is the threat to al Qaeda and the Taliban if they do not surrender. Bring the conflict to the levels we did in Iraq, focused on al Qaeda and the Taliban. Making it clear what they must do to end the war at which time we will withdraw and leave the territory, they will surrender.
The reason they did not surrender under President Bush is because the choice was basically “surrender and be destroyed” or “fight and be destroyed”. Well, if the result is destruction either way, might as well fight to the death.
If we fail to do something like this, then we will lose this war, just like we lost in Viet Nam.
|
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
