Blogs and Stories
Can This Film Save Afghanistan?
It took documentarian Robert Greenwald 40 years to become an activist, but it was worth the wait, writes Gail Sheehy—his new film about Afghanistan is a clarion call for peace.
Many of us who marched against the Vietnam War 40 years ago have a terminal case of déjà vu over Afghanistan as we blunder into our ninth year of bombing and occupation. More than 90 percent of U.S. funding there goes to military purposes, and we still aren’t winning hearts or minds. Our Nobel Prize-winning president promised to “forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan,” but so far he has only threatened to escalate our troop level by tens of thousands.
In the film, Greenwald and his team ask Afghans themselves if American troops are making them safer. The answers are no, no, no, a thousand times no.
So thank goodness for documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald, a latter-day saint in my book. It took Greenwald 40 years to figure out how to be the activist he was not during Vietnam. But he’s making up for lost time by getting us to rethink what’s going on in Afghanistan.
Greenwald was born into the back end of the Silent Generation, in 1943. Despite being raised in the hot pink sandbox of Manhattan’s Upper West Side, he joined a common fraternity for boomers in college—those whose only resistance was to the draft.
Greenwald went on to a successful career in Hollywood, having made more than 50 movies, including a documentary about the 1972 Olympics, 21 Hours in Munich, and The Burning Bed, starring Farrah Fawcett. His latent activism didn’t surface until three events coincided: the September 11 attacks, his father’s death, and his own arrival in middle age. “I was very well compensated for my work in commercial film and TV,” says Greenwald. He could afford to take up a mission of social change. He launched Brave New Films in 2006 to make bold documentaries by accepting donations for funding and taking no compensation.
Greenwald finally made it to Vietnam in December 2008. At the ripe age of 65, he took his second wife and four children and his brother’s family for the Christmas holidays. The aha! moments for him came after touring the infamous Vietcong tunnels and returning to his hotel to read comments from the Obama transition team about their new counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan. Then he’d pore over his copy of The Best and the Brightest, the David Halberstam classic about our Vietnam strategy, comparing the rhetoric of Vietnam to Obama’s.
“I’d underline like a lunatic and read the quotes to my family,” he says. “They were almost word for word the same.”
Last January, few were talking about the war in Afghanistan as a looming disaster. Barack Obama walked on water back then and Greenwald saw the press paddling right behind him. He began raising money to make a documentary called Rethink Afghanistan. Major funders warned him to stop. He didn’t. Some pulled out. Determined to continue, Greenwald made his film one video section at a time, shaking the tambourine for money to make the next video, putting it up, and releasing the whole film online, for free. He engaged his viewers to hold house parties and share the videos with friends.
In the film, Greenwald and his team ask Afghans themselves if American troops are making them safer, liberating women, and gradually rebuilding their shattered country.
What Are We About to Pass?
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
10 Power Food Combos
Divya Gugnani is the CEO and founder of BehindtheBurner.com, an emerging culinary media brand that creates expert-based content about food, wine, mixology, and nutrition.
How Barack Beat Bibi
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
It Took a Woman
Gail Sheehy is an American writer and lecturer, most notable for her books on life and the life cycle. She is also a contributor to Vanity Fair, and can be found at gailsheehy.com. Her new book "Passages in Caregiving'" will be published in early May.
Powell's Gay Soldier Dilemma
Gail Sheehy is an American writer and lecturer, most notable for her books on life and the life cycle. She is also a contributor to Vanity Fair, and can be found at gailsheehy.com. Her new book "Passages in Caregiving'" will be published in early May.
Saving the Sandwich Generation
Gail Sheehy is an American writer and lecturer, most notable for her books on life and the life cycle. She is also a contributor to Vanity Fair, and can be found at gailsheehy.com. Her new book "Passages in Caregiving'" will be published in early May.
billdinTO
The definitive book on how the U.S. screwed up early on with respects to nation-building in Afghanistan is Ahmed Rashid's 'Descent into Chaos.'
No doubt many errors have been made in Afghanistan, which is -- to put it mildly -- a wide range of problems that must be solved simultaneously to give it a chance at stability.
Readers might be interested in checking the BBC/ABC News polls on Afghanistan (and to watch for the new version later this fall/winter).
Those surveys seem to find a more charitable attitude towards the U.S./foreign troops presence in Afghanistan than Greenwald finds.
While Greenwald rightly decries the use of air power, that has been made necessary because the NATO alliance has had relatively few combat boots on the ground -- particularly in the high-conflict zones of the east and south where U.S., Canadian, Dutch and British troops are operating.
You can't nation-build in the absence of stability, and the Taliban is determined to deny the country stability. Chaos is the Taliban's friend.
I'll be be interested in seeing what Greenwald proposes as an alternative. When the Soviets pulled out, their puppet Najibullah lasted three years. Civil war followed until the Taliban came to power.
If there is no U.S./NATO presence, who will fill the vacuum? The Afghan people know, which is maybe why they're more tolerant of the foreign presence than Greenwald admits.
I don't have any easy answers for the Afghanistan situation, nor could any responsible person. I would be skeptical of anyone who claims they do.
Chuckv
billdinTO is correct.
Sheely and Greenwald, if she summarizes him correctly, are beating a dead horse. Our leaders, both civil and military, understands that there is no "military" solution in Afghanistan. U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine provides that the "center of gravity" the people of the country. Our military and civilian advisors work with nationals to create a national government and army capable of providing security and government services. We know that you cannot win a counterinsurgency by militarily defeating the insurgents. Gen. Petraeus wrote the book on this.
It is wrong to say that Afghanistan is not really a country. There has been a national government in Afghanistan for a long time. Granted, the local tribal leaders in that country are stronger than local leaders in most countries and this poses a real threat to the national government--whereas when the governor of Texas hints succession it is a joke. But there are forces tending to hold the country together even while there are other forces tending to pull it apart. At this time it is not certain which will win. And please note that the Taliban did provide a national government before and intends to do so again.
It is also wrong to say that Al Qaeda is no problem in Afghanistan. It is not a problem now, but how long will it take for it to re-establish itself if the Taliban can offer a safe haven?
It is wrong to say flatly that the people of Afghanistan want us to leave. Some do. Some do not. It is probably best to say that the population on the whole is ambivalent. And political opinions change.
None of this means that I necessarily favor increasing our troop level or even staying in the country. I doubt if the President, much less the rest of us, has enough information to make a decision with any certainty it is correct. There are too many intangibles.
Obama's problem is that his only options at this time are to stand pat or raise the stakes. If we thinks that we can be successful, we should raise. If he decides it is a lost cause, we should leave. But that is not one of his two options. My guess is that he will decide that since we are going to be there for a while we might as well try to succeed. But he also knows that ultimately success is in the hands of the Afghan people not us.
estcruzer
What is the problem? Why are we fighting a war of attrition in this country and the rest of the world just sits on the sidelines - what do they know that we don't? Isn't it time we actually asked why we should be policing this country when no one else will step up to the bar? If Al-Queda and the Taliban really are going to impact the rest of Europe, China, India, South America - why aren't they there along with us?
Finally, why don't we put this statement to them (the rest of the world): If you don't care, obviously you know something about this that we are missing and you aren't telling us - so we will quit, get out and leave the situation to the rest of the world to sort out if necessary.
Keep in mind, we have not fought a successful war since 1945 and we had to drop an atom bomb on a very stubborn enemy and then dedicate ourselve to reconstructing the rest of the world afterward. I would propose to you that that is because WWII was a war we had to win for ourselves (Americans, that's who we are), all these other violent efforts were used to assist Global Big Business in their march toward ever larger profits at the expense of other nations and peoples around the world. There is no moral or ethical foundation for these wars. We aren't protecting peoples rights - just the interests of Global Big Business (at the expense of American's interests).
Afghanistan is unique - there is no Global Big Business that want's to do anything in Afghanistan - except maybe the Heroin Trade Business. So why are we there? I think we are there to root out a thorn in the side of Global Big Business called Terrorism. Much of the Terrorism we see and hear today is the result of the callous disregard for human and nation rights exhibited by Global Big Business with our (American military/government) assistance around the world. We protect ourselves from these monsters but who protects the Nigerians, the Venezuelans, the Iraquis, the Vietnamese and countless other countries and peoples that have been poached by Global Big Business. Our help, backing, voice for these gluttonous theives has succeeded in creating many disenfranchised enemies for America. Now that they are speaking up (with voice and violence in kind) we find an embarrasing situation - the entities we backed with lucre, men and guns has created enemies for us that the man in the street dosn't understand.
So we villify them, and rightfully so, they shouldn't be killing innocents - like we (the American Military, Government and CIA) do. There is an interesting symetry here, The American Government and Military are holding them accountable (thus we are in Afghanistan) and they are holding us accountable (their voice and violence). We are crapping on them and theirs (everyone of them had a mother, possibly a family) and they are crapping on us. We have nothing to gain by continuing to support Global Big Business in raping the rest of the world and they have nothing to gain by making us their targets.
So, what would happen if we stopped supporting Global Big Business in pillaging? Maybe our reputation would go up a couple of notches in the minds of the people of the world. Of course Global Big Business would cry foul - they've become additected to our support in money and firepower - but then what have they done for me lately? They've moved my job to India, thanks. They've almost crashed the Financial System of the world raising unemployment around the world, thanks. They've gotten our soldiers killed in a senseless war and caused us to waste a Trillion (yes that's 1,000,000,000,000's, 12 zeros) of dollars in a sand sinkhole called Iraq, thanks. They've got us fighting another Vietnam in Afhanistan, thanks. They've brought us cheap electronics (TV's, Video Games, computers), Thanks, 1 out of 5 isn't to bad, is it?
Somehow I think we should wean them off our military - as a start and then our political influence - I mean why should we lend our name to the rape and pillage of a small country on the other side of the world so some Oil company can steal their oil resources, despoil their country side, cause dislocation of the human residents and then ask us to clean up their mess afterwards? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
And then our money, there is no reason I should be taxed to support Global Big Business so it can scr.. me over, and use the money to rape and pillage...
I just don't trust Global Big Business to have my best interests at heart - do you?
They are very selective in who they support, the executives of the Global Big Business come first. (Wait, what about the shareholders you say - I say look at the evidence, do the shareholders get fat bonuses every year, whether or not there is a profit, do they get a say in the raping and pillaging, are they the ones that corrupt our politicians so they can get tax loopholes and votes to start wars in foreign countries - I don't think so). The Business Partners of the Global Big Business are next at the trough, then Politicians, Dictators and others that make laws and direct the military/Militia - Then shareholders (if there is anything left), then, well, us. But only as an afterthought.
So, I really don't want to keep giving my tax money to these blood thirsty Vampires, I really don't want to keep shedding our young people's blood for these blood thirsty vampires, I really don't want the keep supporting them in raping and pillaging etc., I really think we should reconsider our position in Afghanistan in light of the history and results so far - and get out.
Rasmuncher
The difficulty is that there are two criminal groups in Afghanistan. One in government and one trying to kick them out. We are and are seen to be protecting one group over the other while the people are hedging their bets. If we say we can protect them with all the military if they side with us and the the Talibs say they will kill them if they do, who are you going to side with?
I have just spent the last year there and been managing part of a program that spent 120 million of US taxpayer funds and am convinced it was all a waste. We achieved nothing except appear to be as corrupt as the government we work with.
mcmchugh99
I have never believed the war could be won by military power alone. If they are not spending at least as much on the civilian side, and social and economic development, then it will be lost. Of course, development requires security, which in the long run will have to be provided by the Afghans themselves.
I still see no way just to get out of there and leave a failed state behind that will be easy pickings for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That would not be in the interests of the West, and the miseries of the Afghans would be even greater under a regime like that. We've seen that movie before, and the outcome was even worse for them than it was for us.
robwriter
Afghanistan is a synthetic "country" composed of tribal units speaking various languages, run by a corrupt and ineffective government propped up by American troops. The population is almost entirely illiterate. It is a magnet for foreign jihadists eager to kill "infidels." The major source of income is opium. The alleged targets of our invasion have moved into Pakistan. The US has been there for eight years with little by way of results. Afghanistan is an impoverished and utterly miserable place riddled with ignorance and religious extremism. Most of it, so far, is not historically our fault. Let's join the Greeks, the British, and the Russians and leave. Now.
farser
Surely the real battle Obama is fighting in the end is for his own political survival - he is after all mere politician.
He can't always (rarely ever?) do what's "right" given the way complex issues are so skillfully butchered by Fox et al in the ideological battle at home.
cmhandy
Clearly neither the author nor any of the other commentors have been to Afghanistan. So....shut the flack up.
mcmchugh99
I haven't? I've been everywhere, Sunny Jim.
And when were you there?
piktor
Yeah, let's keep up the nation building and sowing democracy and defend freedom!
In Afghanistan, of all places...
brian67
I'm confused. I have a friend from Afghanistan and she says our troops being there has made life better in Afghanistan, and she hopes we stay. If we leave the Taliban will wash over the country like a tidal wave.
I know it's costing us money. I guess I support our being there for humanitarian reasons. I know our primary objective is to eliminate al-Qaeda, but I'd really like the people there to have better lives.
This guy who made the documentary...I believe his method is called anecdotal, right? He interviews people and they say, No, we don't want the U.S. here. Not exactly a Gallup poll.
I am concerned we are pouring money into a lost cause at a time when we really need that money ourselves.
elarson120
While a different strategy is indeed necessary in Afganistan, that stategy isnt going to be a touchy feeling build schools and bridges and hope everybody sings songs together (which is sounds like what the author is pleading for). Just because the military has guns and bombs doesnt mean its somehow unjust to use a military. Police have guns, so are police bad? The real problem here is that Afganistan has always been screwed up and has never had a functional central government for more than a couple decades at a time. In addition, it is a narco state where the drug trade is controlled by warlords who constantly interfer with the government. The whole hugs and kisses solution is rediculous. What the US government is going to probably do (but not tell anyone) is do what they probably did in Colombia: cut deals with certain high up reliable people in the drug trade to support the government by providing manpower to fight guerillas and provide security. Stable reliable corruption is better than shaky anarchyesqe democracy.
NickLento
Sheehy's astute observations are well complimented by some of these excellent comments!!!
What's needed (ideally( would be for Obama to take a true leadership role and change the mission there to one of purely supporting human rights and democracy.....if that was truly and sincerely THE mission we would then become the enemies of the warlords and petty despots that run the "country".
If that was TRULY the mission, we would be funding and aiding a civil war of the democrats v the religious fanatics AND the criminals AND the existing "government".
Two questions: Does anyone in Afghanistan want to fight for such a democracy? And In what dreamworld would Obama make such a decision? lol
I hate to say it......but we're in a complete pickle as it is....almost a no win situation because everything we're doing there wastes lives, money and results in the strengthening of the Taliban and Al Qaeda since we are making more people hate us with a passion that most Americans can't even conceive of.
This is Vietnam and Iraq all over again, the same evil stupid ugly "dynamic".
The problem isn't that our government is stupid or incomopetent; it's that it is owned, bought by interests that make trillions of dollars of of these evil sick policies. It's all just one big effed up bloody boondoggle.....with a lot of first rate PR bullshit done by pros with millions to spend on bullshitting and conning the American public.......this is the way most "issues" are (not) dealt with.....and it's the taxpayers and the innocent victims of war that pay the price.
JISantiago
If the Afghans do not want Americans on their soil why then America send her sons and daughters to spill their precious blood for a thankless cause?
If the Afghan people's preference are the Mullahs and warlords as opposed to democracy who are we to say "No" to their will.
If the Mullahs and Taliban and Al Qaeda win in Afghanistan that would pose a bigger threat to moderate Muslim countries than to the US. Because these ultra fundamentalists are the real nemesis for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.
Why not these countries send their troops to fight the war against extremism. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are so filthy rich that they can fund such a war without pain!
It doesn't make sense for Americans to sacrifice their precious lives so the rulers of these rich Muslim countries live their playboy life uninterrupted. Americans should get wise and come to their senses that this is not their war. They shouldn't be sacrificing their lives and wealth to protect thankless people and prop up corrupt regimes.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.