LET TERS
PARKLAND IMBALANCE
In his Viewpoint [11/14] “The Civic
Solution,” Eben Fodor proposes that the
city purchase Civic Stadium with Parks
and Open Space Bond funds because south
Eugene has a relative defi ciency of park
facilities. City purchase is also supported
by Donna Taggert’s Viewpoint [11/14].
Fodor is correct that we need to
continue to purchase parkland to match
population growth and there certainly is
interest in preserving Civic Stadium. As
for south Eugene needing more parks, that
area has much more than its share!
Here are the facts: A report shows
that the south Eugene planning sub-area
having 18 percent of Eugene’s population
and 39 percent of the acreage of developed
parks, 2.2 times the city average. South
Eugene’s parks and open space acreage
is 2.4 times the city average. (Table
C-1 of the November 2004 draft of the
Eugene Parks Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan.)
Recent parkland purchases haven’t
eliminated the imbalance. A report to City
DISPATCHES FROM AFGHANISTAN
Council a few weeks ago shows that 66
percent of parkland is found in the four
south council wards and 33 percent is in
the north wards.
New student housing around the UO
might create an argument for more parks,
but other parts of the city are seeing our
greenfi eld sites developed for single and
multifamily housing as well. It would be
interesting to know which parts of Eugene
are really growing faster.
There are good arguments for saving
Civic Stadium; let’s not detract from
them by incorrectly claiming that making
it a park will improve the geographic
distribution in the city. The reality is that
more parkland should be purchased and
developed in north and west Eugene to
reach parity.
Jon Belcher
Co-chair,
River Road Community Organization
Jerry Finigan
Chair,
Santa Clara Community Organization
BY JAKE KLONOSKI
The Loya Jirga
AN ARMORED AMBULANCE IN AFGHANISTAN
WHAT HAPPENS IN KABUL THIS WEEK WILL REVERBERATE
T
oday, Nov. 21, thousands of elected of-
fi cials, community leaders and respected
elders from around Afghanistan w ill gather
at Kabul Polytechnic University, braving
IEDs that already targeted the gathering, to
discuss and debate the U.S.-Afghan relationship beyond
2014. Five hundred miles away in Herat, U.S. forces
wait to fi nd out if our current tours will mark the last
of this 13-year mission or if we keep our Roshan phone
contact list up-to-date for the replacements coming be-
hind us.
The Loya Jirga, Pashto for “Grand Council,” is “the
highest manifestation of the will of the people of Af-
ghanistan,” according to the Afghan Constitution. The
Loya Jirga is intended to form consensus around mo-
mentous national questions by bringing as many politi-
cal and social voices into decision-making as possible.
With the future of the international presence in Af-
ghanistan beyond 2014 in question, and sensitive issues
regarding prosecutorial jurisdiction over U.S. service
members and the commitment of those service members
to protecting Afghanistan’s territorial integrity unre-
solved, a national decision is needed. The continuation
of negotiation deadlock between the U.S. and Afghani-
stan could force a full U.S. withdrawal, as it did in Iraq
in 2011.
It is not an exaggeration to say most decisions in
Afghanistan, important and trivial, are on hold pending
the outcome of the Loya Jirga. There is little else on the
public mind. “We’d like to expand our ice cream distri-
bution to Farah,” one Herat business owner told me two
days ago, “but we must see what happens in Kabul this
week.”
In contrast, U.S. negotiators use the possibility of
stateside public debate as a negotiating tool, cautioning
the Afghan government that if the security guarantees
to Afghanistan are too defi nitive, the agreement will
have to be debated in Congress rather than implemented
by the president alone. The resulting public discussion
from such a debate concerning a military commitment
of up to 16,000 troops for another decade is presump-
tively undesirable.
The September 2001 Authorization for the Use of
Military Force (AUMF) legally permits the American
effort in Afghanistan. It passed with only one dissent-
ing vote while the wreckage of the World Trade Center
burned. The authorization has so far empowered two
presidents over four terms to continue the fi ght here.
Shortly after the AUMF passed, President Bush
asked the American people for “your continued partici-
pation and confi dence in the American economy” and to
4
November 21, 2013 • eugeneweekly.com
“get down to Disney World in Florida.
Take your families and enjoy life, the
way we want it to be enjoyed” as a re-
sponse to 9/11.
In the years since, little else has been
asked of Americans generally and much
has been piled on the shoulders of a few,
to the frustration of many. Meanwhile
private military defense contractors
have taken the mandate to participate in
the American economy to heart, trans-
forming the American way of warfare
in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Though
President Obama has refocused the military effort here,
as a country we have largely failed to have conversa-
tions about this war of necessity, and the consequences
of that failure ripple throughout Afghanistan.
W
hile monitoring a Herat develop-
ment project, I watched two U.S.
contractors engage in an exchange
that symbolizes much of what the
effort here has become.
As a result of a failed 2012 project, one contractor
had physical control of a rented ambulance as well as
signifi cant debt owed by a now-bankrupt company. A
second contractor, planning a risky rural development
mission for which the ambulance could provide village
medical treatment and emergency response, employed
a few personnel from the bankrupt company. The fi rst
contractor refused to release the ambulance to the second
without payment on the past debt. The second contrac-
tor balked and sought an Afghan court order mandating
the ambulance be turned over. After going through legal
channels, the second contractor threatened to have the
Afghan National Police force enter into the fi rst contrac-
tor’s secure compound to seize the ambulance, despite
the possibility of a fi refi ght. A tense two days resulted.
After we calmed the situation, the second contractor
offered partial payment on the old debts, to be charged to
the U.S. government. The fi rst contractor blanched. Back
and forth they negotiated, with threats intermingled, all
with U.S. government funds. Finally, with profi t margin
at risk, the second contractor simply declared it would
proceed without an ambulance and the fi rst contractor
sent the vehicle back to Kabul. Without enough time to
procure another capable ambulance, the development
project’s prospects dimmed, as did the prospects for the
Afghan villages it was intended to aid.
The disappearing ambulance tail lights on Highway
1 boggled my mind. Within the military, there are petty
scuffl es over resources but protecting lives and mission
accomplishment win out. In an Afghanistan where U.S.
military numbers are on the decline and public attention
is elsewhere, contractors do much of the work and tan-
gled lines of corporate responsibility stretch everywhere.
Profi t often rules the day.
It need not be this way. Back in Salem, the fi rst public
memorial to this war is already seven years old, a state-
ment of community determination to connect to this
fi ght. Through two tours, I have witnessed tremendous
support from people back home, for me and for the Af-
ghan people. During my fi rst tour, a seven-soldier hu-
manitarian effort raised over $1.6 million in donated sup-
plies for refugee camps, children’s hospitals and primary
schools. In the fi rst months of this deployment, support
from family and friends has been overwhelming. Even
as tension spiked between Stanford and Oregon, gener-
ous care packages continued to arrive from my former
classmates.
There is a thirst among Americans for an opportunity
to impact this effort, even if opinions vary on how to
proceed. It is remarkable that Afghan deliberations about
how this confl ict transitions next year are more vibrant
and inclusive than our own. As we preach democratic
governance to the world, it would behoove us to prac-
tice it ourselves. Whether America departs Afghanistan
abruptly or commit for years to come, we are making the
decision now. Service members who cannot engage in
the discussion depend on the citizens and public offi cials
who can.
America bungled the endgame in Afghanistan through
inattentiveness before, to terrible effect. It should not
happen again.
Jake Klonoski is from Eugene and has been a U.S. Navy submarine of-
fi cer since 2002, serving in Italy, Bahrain, Japan, Kosovo, Afghanistan and
plenty of time at sea. He left active duty in 2010 and was mobilized after
graduating Stanford Law School in June 2013 for service in Kabul assisting
in economic development and stability operations.