After visiting his son, editor wants 'victory' in Afghanistan

I've refrained from writing anything for several days while reading the series of articles by George Stanley, Journal Sentinel managing editor, about his visit to Afghanistan, where his son serves in the Army.

It has been clear that Stanley decided long ago that the war in Afghanistan is a just war, and that the US is justified in sending its troops and spilling blood there for the past eight years. Many of us would differ and question the underlying premise that the Taliban were responsible for the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, but he is entitled to his opinion. He also seems convinced that our troops being in Afghanistan is the reason we haven't had another terrorist attack in the US -- another dubious and debatable assumption.

Stanley is understandably proud of his son and his decision to serve. As someone who served myself in an unwinnable war long ago, I respect both those who are serving and who have served. I don't think that troops fighting in a combat zone are the best people to decide our foreign policy, however, no matter how gung-ho they might be.

When someone's family is directly involved, as Stanley's is, I am more hesitant to speak up. But today's final installment of the series, played on page one of the news section Stanley oversees, should not pass without comment.

First of all, by no stretch of imagination is his piece "news." It is a full-throated, flag-waving call for victory in Afghanistan, whatever "winning" there would be.

Our troops, Stanley says, are fierce and determined:

And finally, for the first time since this war started more than eight years ago, they have commanders who feel an urgency to finish this thing.

Yet, a few paragraphs later, Stanley seems to say there is no finish in sight, even on the distant horizon:

Gen. Jack Stultz, three-star commander of the Army Reserve, came to Afghanistan while I was here and told reservists they should plan on being deployed to war for one year of every four or five, with no end yet in sight.

Our reservists and National Guard members, of course, are spending much less time than that at home and much more in combat zones, despite findings that it takes three years for a returning service member to return to something approaching "normal." Many, of course, never do, and are permanently scarred, physically, emotionally or psychologically.

The Taliban, Stanley says, cannot win in Afghanistan -- "unless we lose our resolve."

American troops are committed, he says:

Most important, they have stiffened the resolve of our fighting men and women, who made it abundantly clear to me that they will do anything in their power to ensure that their fallen comrades did not die in vain.

Even if that means coming back for more war when this deployment is through.

So, as long as our nation is willing to continue sending its troops and its treasure to Afghanistan, the Taliban can't win. Can we "win?" What would that mean?

When Stanley drags out the ultimate cliche to justify more war -- that our troops shall not have "died in vain" -- what does that mean?

Does that mean that the only way we can justify the deaths or those who have already lost their lives -- or been maimed, brain-damaged, or otherwise had their lives destroyed -- is to send more troops to lose their lives? Then how do we make certain the second wave didn't "die in vain" -- send more? That's how we ended up with 58,000 American lives lost in Vietnam. And for what?

Stanley concludes that we are fighting a foe in Afghanistan that is virtually an army of devils who attacked us on Sept.11, 2001:

On that bright, sunny morning the bodies, hopes and dreams of 2,976 innocent men, women and children were burned alive by a backward band of bullies fueled by hatred. They hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'i, agnostics, atheists, Shia Muslims and other Sunni Muslims who don't share in their bitter worship of punishment, cruelty and murder.

They hate women who yearn to learn or uncover their mouths to express an independent thought.

They hate Americans, Europeans, democracy, reason, science, tolerance, liberty, mercy and the rule of law outside the Qur'an as they twist it.

They hate Nick, Ryan, Max, Katie, Bill, Naomi, Jamison, Brian, Gibran, Alfred, Casey and all the fine men and women I've met here who want to bring the rule of law to people of goodwill in Afghanistan.

Who are these sick, twisted people who hate us so much, and who attacked the United States? Are they even in Afghanistan? Intelligence agencies say perhaps 100 operatives of Al Qaeda are in the country. Others are across the border in Pakistan or elsewhere.

Why do they fight us?

Steve Burns, program director of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, asks the question:

How would we respond if we were subjected to the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops, occupying our country, killing our countrymen and imprisoning our family members without trial? He writes, with some pride, of his son's decision to enlist after 9/11 and to volunteer for the most dangerous duty in Iraq, but how does Mr. Stanley think his son would have responded to the humiliating experience of living under a foreign military occupation? Can he imagine that there might be Afghan fathers who look at their own son's decision to fight a vastly better-armed occupying army, against enormous odds, with similar pride?

Note that the presence of our troops has resulted in the deaths of many times the 2,976 civilians who died on 9/11. In iraq and Afghanistan, the total is in the hundreds of thousands; the US doesn't care enough to even keep accurate count. Millions have been displaced and become refugees.

Stanley ends with a heartful peaen to the troops, including this:

Our citizens will demand that problems get fixed, that our leaders learn, that our troops get the support they deserve.

They deserve a just end for their sacrifices.

What would "a just end for their sacrifices" be? When we begin to mix admiration for our troops as people with what sounds like to need to pursue and "win" what may well be an endless unwinnable war, it is time to take a step back from the emotion and pride in meeting Nick, Ryan, Max. Katie and the rest and ask the hard questions. That's where Stanley's trip and subsequent series of articles fall far short.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War has a slogan that I would recommend to Stanley and others who mistake our well-intentioned troops for a well-formulated foreign policy: "Honor the warrior, not the war."

Earlier Stanley articles: Part 1: Gone, our peaceful world. Part 2: Defining Victory. Part 3: An urgent message for Afghanistan.