PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

The Progressive Challenge in Afghanistan

  • November 23, 2009
  • Jim Arkedis

Lorelei Kelly at the New Strategic Security Initiative issues a thoughtful challenge to progressives over at the Huffington Post:

If progressives really want to help forward the policy discussion, they should develop a set of alternatives premised on enduring commitment and solidarity with the Afghan people (local grants through the National Solidarity Program is a good example), and not pose them as a tradeoff for troop levels. Heck, even the commanding general in Afghanistan says this conflict has no military solution. Take that and run with it. But doing so means exercising forbearance when talking about the military presence. Uniforms are going to be part of the picture for a while. What the alliance is actually doing on the ground will determine the outcome. Tactics are already changing. But prioritizing civilians will mean that soldiers bear more of the risk.

We need to come to terms with that.

Any success must also include a significant shift in resources and coordination to make sure Afghans actually receive support to own their future. This kind of partnered consultation can start despite Karzai in office. The Afghan people know who isn’t corrupt. We need to go national and local at the same time because promising upstarts exist at both levels. The goal is a process — and so will be tough to measure, which is why a commitment is important. All sorts of policies here at home provide illustrations. From building the national highway system to public education, broadly distributed achievement through time take time. The laser-focused message the Afghan people need to hear is “we’re on this path with you.” We need to commit.

[…]

The president will put forward his decision soon. It will involve a troop increase. If progressives stay in full opposition mode, they will exist on the margin of the debate right when we need them setting the agenda. Exit to the sidelines will also undercut future efforts to advocate a new strategy for U.S. security. We are moving from a time when we could contain threats to one where we must minimize them. This can only happen through sustained engagement.

The progressive community would do well to consider Lorelei’s words before blindly opposing a troop increase. Even Code Pink has recognized the need for engagement and moderated its position. After all, America’s military is in Afghanistan to protect the Afghan population and promote peace. Those are progressive values.

Related Work

In the News  |  May 19, 2026

Marshall and Kahlenberg in The New York Times: Is There a Door No. 3 for Democrats?

  • Will Marshall Richard D. Kahlenberg
Op-Ed  |  May 13, 2026

Kahlenberg for The Atlantic: The Democrats Can’t Let Go of Racial Preferences

  • Richard D. Kahlenberg
In the News  |  May 12, 2026

Ainsley in IPS Journal: ‘Britain is moving into a multi-party era’

  • Claire Ainsley
In the News  |  May 12, 2026

Ainsley on ABC Australia’s Radio National Breakfast: More than 80 Labour MPs are now calling for the British Prime Minister to resign

  • Claire Ainsley
Op-Ed  |  May 8, 2026

Marshall for The Hill: America at 250: Battling over National Identity

  • Will Marshall
Op-Ed  |  May 7, 2026

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Trump Leaves Ukraine’s Future to Europe

  • Tamar Jacoby
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2026 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings