In Eastern Iowa, talk of Afghanistan is eclipsing most other topics in conversations with my friends and neighbors. In part, this is a reaction to President Obama’s decision to surge the troop level there. In part, it is an awakening to a United States involvement in that country that has been going on for decades. In part, it is reflective of our tendency to discuss whatever is of importance in the mainstream news media. There does not appear to be much common ground on what the United States should do in Afghanistan.

In a recent guest opinion in the Solon Economist, retired military officer and North Liberty resident, William Peterson suggests that “we need to bypass Kabul and its corrupt middlemen and go straight to the tribal leaders on a valley-by-valley basis.” He cites improvements in Helmund province where a battalion of marines has been successful in reducing the number of attacks, and creating a sense of security. This approach seems closest to what the United States is taking in Afghanistan. Peterson indicates that the troop surge will support this type of military and political actions.

In Des Moines, Catholic Peace Ministry Director Jeffrey Weiss has a different view. He recently gave a presentation on the patriarchal organization of Afghan society and how it is not a nation-state as we often think of the term. You can view excerpts of this presentation here. According to Weiss, the word “Afghanistan” means “allied tribes” and politics is very local in the country. Weiss’ view supports Peterson’s in that the government in Kabul matters less than the views of members of the patriarchal tribe structure. While Peterson supports a military solution, Weiss takes issue with United States militarism. It is hard to argue with Weiss when he says that the United States is becoming a militaristic state with a military presence around the globe and annual military expenses of more than $700 billion. Weiss says, “at some point we need to have the conversation where we want to go as a country and who we want to be.”

In Eastern Iowa cities, peace groups know who they want to be and muster small groups of people on street corners to protest American militarism. These direct actions started as a response to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While sparsely attended, they have been a constant reminder of our militarism. Some members of these groups believe that President Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize was unwarranted. An open letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, expresses how some Iowans feel: “we are distressed that President Obama, so close upon his receipt of this honor, has opted to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan with the deployment of 30,000 additional troops. We regret that he could not be guided by the example of a previous Nobel Peace Laureate, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who identified his peace prize as ‘profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time — the need for man [sic] to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.’” I attend these demonstrations when I can, and see more people my age, veterans of the Vietnam era protests, and not a lot of younger people. I would like to see that ratio reversed.

On Tuesday, a discussion group met in Cedar Rapids where the topic was Afghanistan. We have been reading a series of articles on the country and most of us are reading supporting books and articles. Compared to what we hear in the mainstream media, we are taking a deeper dive into the United States role there. Our conclusion was that the military, tribal and diplomatic aspects of Afghanistan and the region are very complicated: more complicated than we could understand in an hour’s time. Some in the group view President Obama as another edition of the policies of George W. Bush as far as Afghanistan is concerned. The discussion was robust and respectful. A surprising outcome was that we all agreed that more engagement by the people of the United States may help bring our wars to an end. First, replace outside contractors with United States soldiers. Second, reinstate the draft.

It is easy for us to say this, since we are all beyond draft age. At the same time we understand that unless people in our family and neighborhoods are engaged in United States foreign policy, there is little hope of ending the militarism that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represent. People say our military is already spread too thin to get rid of outside contractors. It would be tough politically for the administration to re-instate a draft. Congress does not have the will to cut funding for United States militarism.

So it is left to small groups of aging peace activists to carry the torch and seek a world free of war and the threat of war, even if everyone in Iowa seems to be talking about Afghanistan.