MEDIA ROOTS- Taxpayers in Sonoma County will pay $2 billion for war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the National Priorities Project. Combine those figures with the loss of more than 5,500 American soldiers and countless others abroad, and a line of questioning is likely to arise. For one SRJC political science professor, two questions are necessary and quite simple: Why did the United States invade Afghanistan, and why is the U.S. likely to remain mired there?

“The answer to the second question, in my view… is because some U.S interests cannot be served without a long-term commitment, and Afghanistan is a place where the circumstances, history and culture may render U.S. goals unachievable in the near term, if ever,” Geri Gorski said during a Sept. 16th War and Peace Forum.

The forum was titled “Iraq & Afghanistan: War Without End or Possibilities for an Enduring Peace,” and was held at the Doyle Library and sponsored by SRJC’s Arts and Lectures Committee. In an effort to educate, inform and develop a critical dialogue about foreign conflicts, faculty members from the the Social Science, Behavioral Sciences and Philosophy departments came together for an event reminiscent of the 1960s era teach-ins.

“This event today draws upon a tradition in American society that goes back to the Vietnam War, and that is so-called teach-ins; where faculty, students and staff came together to educate themselves about the Vietnam War,” Professor Martin Bennett told a standing room only crowd. “Why did this occur? It occurred because of the so-called ‘credibility gap’: the difference between what the government said our reason for being involved, what the government said we were accomplishing and the reality which was, over time, very different. And these teach-ins played a vital role in educating students and faculty, and over time moving them to action.”

Moving away from Iraq, both speakers spent most of their time discussing Afghanistan and the implications of U.S. involvement in the region. “I focus essentially on Afghanistan for a couple of reasons. One is I think that it’s the area that holds the most promise in terms of political discussion at this point. Frankly, I think the Obama Administration has been rather successful in diffusing some of the political response to Iraq by putting a timetable of withdrawal in place,” Gorski said. Speaking firmly and adamantly, he hurriedly covered the complex history of the war-torn nation and expressed his frustration with being short on time.

Picking up where Gorski left off, Bennett explored the reasons behind the Obama Administration’s escalation of the war; noting U.S. interest in controlling the region’s oil and energy resources, as well as what he referred to as the “permanent government” or National Security State. He also pointed out both the similarities and differences between the Afghanistan War and Vietnam War. “I think you can also say that both presidents conducted a very vigorous internal debate prior to escalation. I tend to be of the mind that, in both instances, the outcomes were relatively pre-determined. I had talked about the permanent government and not only did they inherit the wars, but I think they inherited the permanent government and the options were relatively narrow.”

Ending on a positive note, Bennett expressed his enthusiasm for hosting a similar event each semester and encouraged other faculty to come forward to help achieve that goal. Additionally, both Gorski and Bennett encouraged audience members to become engaged and take action by any means possible, noting the success of the antiwar movement in the 1960s. They also took questions from a devoted but seemingly overwhelmed audience and urged anyone with concerns to voice their opinion. Among others, an Afghanistan veteran chose to do so and took the opportunity to relate the discussion to his personal experience as a soldier.

Written by Art Dickinson