Issue 2: Afghanistan

With the announcement of a likely additional 7,000 troops coming from our NATO allies I have started to think a bit more about how I understand the situation.

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is going to grow in the next year, by troops, by funding, and by social service projects. We know, and have known for a while, that the government in place in Kabul is weak, corrupt, and undisciplined... and for some reason that does not prevent NATO from pouring money into it. Nearly every member country is facing public disapproval, funding shortages and a lack of morale. Part of that public disapproval is that Afghanistan seems so far away that people do not associate it with being a threat back home (a problem that has been an issue since at least World War I), and outside of another massive attack on home soil that does not seem likely to change.

The other major part is the cost, the investment of time, money and lives. Every region we seem to secure is later fraught with poppy production, insurgents, corruption and a general lack of progress. We send thousands of soldiers from about 25 or 30 counties in modern and expensive vehicles, with modern and expensive weapons and modern and expensive training to protect huts? Rocks? Farmers? Criminals? The ineffable "American way of life?"

The government is releasing information in a way that I think is self defeating in terms of public support. We have news releases of civilian deaths, killed in action reports, insurgent attacks, drone missile attacks and a series of other disheartening and generally depressing items of information. I propose an positive propaganda campaign. No "kill the enemy because they are so-and-sos," or any other type of dehumanizing advertising, but certainly we could do with a press release or two that specifically and clearly lays out what has been accomplished, protected and built. A series of award ceremonies, so we can put a face to the men and women fighting, as well as some heroes. I am tired of reading stories where some faceless soldier did some great thing and the first I hear about it, if I hear about it, is something unrelated and unremarkable about 4 years later. Without that, the situation feeds the anti-war sentiment and the resentment.

Without a specificpositive message beyond "it's important to be there" or "we are spreading democracy," we are not driving it home that this is helpful, that this is productive, and that there is a point.

To that end, I suggest a clear report, or press release, that lists the specific examples of what we are fighting for and what we are funding.

Which brings me back to the corruption that causes so much rancor. Sending money to Kabul is risky. Let us, and our allies, create projects and efforts for goodwill, both at home and in Afghanistan with the money we would otherwise be using to prop up functionaries and crooks. While they sort out the rampant nastiness in the capital, we can build wind-farms, irrigation, and schools. We can replace bridges and make parks. To be fair, we do these things already, but they cost an exorbitant amount of money for shoddy work because we go through a government too riddled with lined pockets and greased palms.

Then, and here's the kicker, We (NATO/investors, not just America, though we could too) tell the whole damn world, in glorious bullet points, human interest stories and pictures. If pro-ratings media want to report only the bad news, then we have to shove the heroes, the awards, and the beneficial actions down their throats.

You can not win over the television generation with silence, bad news and anonymous faces. We require stories, plot and victories.