3-16-09, 10:17 am

Using the same language as the previous US administration to justify a surge of troops in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus told a gathering sponsored by the World Affairs Council last week that '[w]e must help our Afghan partners create the breathing space that'll allow the people to stand up for themselves as the Iraqi people did during the awakening movements there.'

Petraeus, of course, did not recall that is was the US invasion that had been based on lies about Iraq's possession of WMD and its ties to Al Qaeda that caused the collapse of Iraqi society. Nor did he remind anyone of the ethnic cleansing that took place in Iraq that gave the Bush administration's 'surge' the veneer of success.

At the time the surge in Iraq took place, some reports by human rights organizations, indicated that forced population movements, commonly described as ethnic cleansing, played a large role in the gradual reduction of violence through 2007.

In addition to these reports, a study of satellite imagery by a team of geographers at UCLA found that whole Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad began emptying before the troop surge began in January of 2007.

In other words, the reduction of violence was more likely caused by a major forced shift in population than by an increase in US military forces. When it is was all said and done, some 4 million Iraqis, nearly 20 percent of that country's population, had been internally and externally displaced – still a huge source of anger and instability.

Because these facts link US military policy in Iraq to an odious, universally condemned practice – ethnic cleansing – and run counter to the widely accepted theory of US military might and benevolence, they are rarely discussed. The more commonly proposed view – or delusion – is that despite the Bush administration's incompetence, the US managed to squeak out a victory in Iraq.

Despite setbacks and failures, foreign policy and military advisors seem to be telling the current administration, similar tactics for Afghanistan are warranted and winnable – even if it costs thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and many years of occupation.

One needn't look at the disastrous history of US military intervention overseas, e.g. Vietnam, or even the history of the failed intervention of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan to understand that a surge there is a bad idea.

Just look at Iraq.

The world does need to find and stop the people who attacked America on September 11th – and many other countries before and since – and who are a source of destabilization and insecurity for the whole Middle East and South Asia.

How can that best be done? Start with the premise that the massive foreign military presence in Afghanistan promotes rather than reduces violence, justification for terrorism, accusations that the Kabul government is a puppet of the West, forging of alliances between extremist groups and governments ill-disposed toward the US (like Iran), and so on.

With this in mind, step one would be to announce, as in Iraq, a timetable for withdrawal. Next, end airstrikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which to date have killed for more civilians than Taliban combatants or Al Qaeda leaders. Launch a good-faith diplomatic surge that includes all regional actors on a level playing field that seeks to promote collective security and economic development. De-link humanitarian aid from military action and give priority for these funds to Afghan organizations and communities, rather than foreign-owned companies.

Americans also need to ask the Obama administration if resources needed to fund the economic recovery or to fund much needed reforms for education, health care and a green economy here will be available if the US government persists with the surge delusion in Afghanistan.