On Monday, Wikileaks, a website devoted to exposing the underbelly of the political and corporate world, revealed thousands of documents that, in a nutshell, depict the complications, perils and pitfalls of the war in Afghanistan. One piece of alarming information is that terrorist organizations in Afghanistan are clearly being supported by Pakistan. Another is solid evidence of the corruption of Hamid Karzai (though this has been suspected for quite some time). The force with which this story hit the news this week, the amount of coverage it has received and the combination of this story with recent exposés on the experience of war in Afghanistan and Iraq have created a situation in which increasing amounts of negative press about the war, whether in small leaks or larger bursts, are emerging. The dominant discourse or narratives about the Afghan war – hunting down a terrorist, bringing justice to terrorists in general, rooting out potential terrorist cells or the humanitarian notion that we’re providing a more stable government and safer society for Afghans – feel as though they are shifting. There is increasing discourse about a lost battle, a waste of precious American dollars and young lives, etc. Perhaps this shift is due to the number of soldiers dying, which makes it increasingly likely that you or someone you know or at the very least a distant
acquaintance is fighting in the middle east. Perhaps it’s our disastrous economy and the potential double-dip recession looming that’s making it harder to justify spending billions to fight a war when about 1 in 10 of us are unemployed at home. It could be any combination of these and/or other factors, but I would like to suggest that the increased access to images, information and general visibility of this war will be a key factor in its demise.
Theories of cognitive dissonance suggest that when our behavior clashes with our cognition, an uncomfortable psychological state ensues. For instance, if I am a pacifist, but engage in a violent act, I will experience distress. As I watch the coverage of the war in Afghanistan since the Wikileaks report was released yesterday, I am lead to think about the role of cognitive dissonance in producing social change. No matter what you believe has happened in Afghanistan, the narrative of success and progress, whether in the realm of hunting down terrorists or establishing better government, is at odds with the information in the Wikileaks documents that depict chaos. Changes in attitudes about the Afghan war have been brewing for months. Will this new and increasingly prominent information about the problems of “winning” this battle create psychological tension for many Americans who previously supported the war?
by paulabowles
The Washington Post announced on Tuesday that between 2,000 and 4,000 military trainers would be required for the growth of the Afghan army in the coming years. This estimate comes from Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to the report, Mullen also suggested that additional troops would be needed in the short term to provide security while Afghan forces are being developed. This testimony was given before the Senate Armed Services Committee; a hearing that comes in the midst of heightened political debate and floundering support over US involvement in Afghanistan. President Obama has already ordered an additional 17,000 US combat troops and 4,000 trainers this year, which will bring the total number of American service members to 68,000 by the end of 2009. Mullen explained that executing the President’s strategy would require not only combat efforts but also the provision of security, government services, and rebuilding the economy. Mullen stated at the hearing, “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing bad guys. You have to be there.” 












Last week, Afghan President 















