Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: Why Obama's Favorite War Is Less Winnable Than Iraq
Five years after the Republicans got us into war against Iraq, Democrats want to double down on a war that's even more unjustifiable and unwinnable--the one against Afghanistan.By any measure, U.S. troops and their NATO allies are getting their asses kicked in the country that Reagan's CIA station chief for Pakistan called "the graveyard of empires." Afghanistan currently produces a record 93 percent of the world's opium. Suicide bombers are killing more U.S.-aligned troops than ever. Stonings are back. The Taliban and their allies, "defeated" in 2001, control most of the country--and may recapture the capital of Kabul as early as this summer.
"So," asks The New York Times, "has Afghanistan now become a bigger security threat to the United States than Iraq?" Barack Obama's answer is yes. He spent last year parroting the DNC's line that Bush "took his eye off the ball" in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. Thankfully, he abandoned that hoary sports metaphor. Iraq, he says now, "distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. They're the ones who killed 3,000 Americans."
Sorta. But not really.
Osama bin Laden bragged about ordering the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998, yet has repeatedly denied a direct role in 9/11. He's probably telling the truth. The hijackers were mostly likely recruited by Islamic Jihad, which is based in Egypt. Saudis, including members of the royal family, financed the strikes against New York and Washington. Pakistani intelligence funded and supervised the camps where some of them trained.
Al Qaeda may have been peripherally involved in 9/11; its leadership certainly knew about the plot ahead of time. They may have fronted some of the expense money. But 9/11 wasn't an Al Qaeda operation per se.
Afghanistan's connection to 9/11 was tertiary. At the moment the first plane struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center, most of Al Qaeda's camps and fighters were in Pakistan. As CBS News reported on January 29, 2002, Osama bin Laden was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on 9/11. The Taliban militia, which provided neither men nor money for the attacks, controlled 90 percent of the country.
It has long been an article of faith among Democrats that Afghanistan is the "good war," a righteous campaign that could be won with more money and manpower. But the facts say otherwise. The U.S. Air Force rained more than a million pounds of bombs upon Afghanistan in 2007, mostly on innocent civilians. It's twice as much as was dropped in Iraq--and equally ineffective.
Six years after the U.S. invasion of 2001, according to Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the U.S./NATO occupation force has surged from 8,000 to 50,000. But the Americans are having no more luck against the Afghans than had the Brits or the Soviet Union. The U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai controls a mere 30 percent of Afghanistan, admits McConnell. (Regional analysts say in truth it is closer to 15 percent.) Most of the country belongs to the charming guys who gave us babes in burqas and exploding Buddhas: the Taliban and likeminded warlords. "Afghanistan remains a failing state," says a report by General James Jones, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. "The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid."
If he becomes president, Obama says he'll "ask more from our European allies" to win in Afghanistan. But he won't get it. As The New York Times puts it: "Why help the United States in Afghanistan, the European logic goes, when America would be able to handle Afghanistan much more easily if its GIs weren't bogged down in Iraq?"
Obama says he would send two more American combat brigades--between 3,000 and 8,000 troops. If 158,000 troops can't subdue Iraq, how can 58,000 do the job in Afghanistan?
They can't.
Afghanistan's population is 19 percent larger than that of Iraq. Its area is 49 percent bigger, with infinitely rougher terrain. Obama's proposed "surgelet" would result in troop strength of less than one sixth of the 400,000 dictated by official U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine for a nation the size of Afghanistan.
Afghans say spring could mark the beginning of the end of the United States' first experiment in post-9/11 regime change. For more than a year, Taliban commanders have controlled the key Kabul-to-Kandahar highway. "On one convoy last year we were 40 vehicles and only 12 got through," Sadat Khan, a 25-year-old truck driver explained to the UK Telegraph as he pointed to "roughly patched bullet holes in the cab of his truck." Cops loyal to Karzai expect to be massacred. "Maybe we will lose 30 per cent of us this spring, maybe 60 per cent," police commander Mohammad Farid told the paper. He'd already been shot.
The Taliban say they'll retake Kabul this year and reestablish the Islamic fundamentalist government led by Mullah Omar. No one knows whether they'll succeed. But they've already begun to strangle the city of Kabul. They're destroying its nascent telecommunications infrastructure, driving out foreign NGOs and businesspeople with terrorist attacks, and cutting off access to the remaining highways. Talibs promise to continue to target NATO troops, betting that Canada and other members of the coalition will pull out under pressure from antiwar voters. Bogged down in Iraq, the U.S. won't be able to send more soldiers to Afghanistan. Karzai's puppet regime won't last long.
If Obama is so eager to keep fighting Bush's wars, he'd be smarter to focus on the more winnable of the two: Iraq.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




24 Comments so far
Show AllIt has always bugged me that liberal democrats support the war in Afghanistan and go along with the pretense that 9-11 was an outside job. I caution people now not to switch the finger pointing to Pakistan, cause that'll just lead to President Hillary bombing and/or invading Pakistan.
These are the same people who supported the bombing of Yugoslavia. They won't support invasions for oil, but give them a terrorist boogeyman or false accusations of genocide and they're all up for dropping depleted uranium.
Now the surviving people of Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan live with unexploded cluster bombs, daily oppression and birth defects and leukemia. But that's OK with the liberals, if it's for a good cause.
The saying "Talk softly and carry a big stick",a strong psychological weapon to influence the behaviour of your antagonists,has lost all its usefulness.With the gung-ho,shock and awe,action in Afghanistan/Iraq,the cats out of the bag.The only people running scared now are the U.S.
The U.S. has displayed to the world an incompetence and ignorance that is having a domino effect in many parts of the world.The "American Century"is going to have a shorter run than first expected.Maybe they shoud have tried it off Broadway before gung-ho was O.K.ed.
I protested the War of US occupation of Iraq for well over a year in weekly vigils with a guy who thought the War of US occupation of Afghanistan was just ever so right on. Couldn't ever get him to see the sameness either.
The problem with liberal Democrats is that they always want to pick and choose their imperialist adventures and categorize them as being either good ones or bad ones. They think that that is the 'humanitarian' thing to do even. Liberal Democrats are very easy to manipulate.
The Taliban triggered the invasion of Afghanistan when they turned down the bid of Unocal and the Bush administration during early 2001 for rights to build a pipeline across the country.
This followed earlier ongoing attempts to persuade the Taliban to accede to our requests as far back as 1996.
Check this link out for all the gory details. You may come away with some thought that this failure to communicate may have influenced 9/11. Especially note mentions of who the UnoCal reps were. Tsk,Tsk
January 10, 2002
A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html
You may be missing the point. In Iraq and Afganistan, we are not there to win, we are not there to lose, we are there to STAY.
I've often been dismayed to hear supposed anti-war voices i.e. Neil Young praise the war of aggression against the Afghan people while simultaneously condemning the one against the Iraqi people. We can't win either war, because war is an obsolete mode of resolving conflict. This is the primary lesson of the Vietnam War. You can't bomb people into submission. Maybe the Europeans are starting to get it. I hope Obama can start to get it. Neil Young? Apparently drugs do cause brain damage after all.
The Afghanis have kicked out every wannabe occupier and sent them running like dogs with their tails between their legs. The Afghanis are tough, dedicated, they know their land. They are everything that wannabe occupiers are not.
The US will be just another feather in their hat.
The Afghani war has at least made heroin a lot cheaper i Europe. They don't even bother to refine all of the opium the war produces, so for the first time rawopium is sold as a substituisjon for cannabis. I just wonder if this is an eksternality or a part of the "Plan Afghanistan"?
Congress declared WAR on Afghanistan? When was that exactly?
Oh, right. Never. There was this, though:
"On May 1, 2002, the United States and the Afghan government declared major U.S.-led combat to have ended and that U.S.-led forces would henceforth concentrate on stabilization."
Congress declared WAR on Iraq? When was that exactly?
Oh, right. Never. There was this, though:
Also, coincidentally, on May 1, 2003: "My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
So lets stop using Rove's favorite word, WAR, which is the ultimate fear-control word. We MUST start referring to Iraq as an ILLEGAL INVASION followed by an ongoing ILLEGAL OCCUPATION. Technically, the same applies to Afghanistan, since, technically, the Taliban never attacked America.
Or keep using the word WAR and keep wondering why Americans are too afraid to demand our soldiers return home ASAP.
Recall the context. Bin Laden (who is not Afghan) was living IN Afghanistan during/after 9/11. Afghan leaders suggested at the time that IF bin Laden INDEED was responsible for 9/11, THEN they might turn him over (not to the US, but to some external authority). The US response was to IGNORE this, and to ATTACK Afghanistan. International relief workers protested loudly that this could set off a humanitarian catastrophe (Chomsky wrote about this at the time). I think the US should have pursued the offer. And the Taliban should have been opposed by peaceful means.
Eric Margolis who, unlike anyone in the US administration & Congress or in Canada, actually knows something about Central Asia, writes: "this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible and stupid mistake..." But of course nobody wants to hear anything from someone who knows something. Both Margolis and Gwynne Dyer, another military historian and analyst who knows the situation, have said from the beginning that Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. No wonder Ted gives the Iraq war a better chance of being won. Afghanistan defeated Alexander the Great, fer crissake! It takes a lot of ego to think that somehow the White House moron can do better.
I laughed out loud when Hillary Clinton said in her speech after winning her primaries last night that they will win the war in Afghanistan. I was on the verge of laughing when she said that she was going to help working Americans but the Afghanistan line was so bombastic. And the delivery was like she was reading a child's Christmas wish list with a big smile. Yay, we are going to kill more people! What a ghoul.
Lets fight to win the War on Terrorism? How does one beat terrorism, which is just lower level warfare, with more warfare? It's another Orwellian vortex ride to Big Brother land.
Afghanistan: Its the pipeline, stupid.
US representatives to the Taliban in Berlin, July 2001: Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs and ...military action against Afghanistan would go ahead...before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. BBC News, Sep 18, 2001.
Frank1569 wrote: "Technically, the same applies to Afghanistan, since, technically, the Taliban never attacked America."
No, but if the official line was correct, the Taliban, a loathsome crew in their own right, were offering Al Qaeda sanctuary knowing it was attacking US targets, and Al Qaeda co-ordinated 9/11. That is why I originally supported the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In any case, the war there is a complete botch job; if Kabul falls, I sure hope it happens before Bush leaves office.
Yeah, who cares, Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban. I'm sure they won't take over a 3 million dollar hospital from Abdul Sattar Edhi or genocidally seek to run central asia.
I mean is it just me, or does the Peoples Party victory in Pakistan, just absolutely not count for shit with people like Ted Rall?
Read Geographic September 2007 and Human Rights Watch.
MASSACRES OF HAZARAS IN AFGHANISTAN
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/
UN Urged To Prevent More Killings As Taliban Offensive Continues
September 1998
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Sept98/091498b.htm
Obama knows better than to bore the public with facts like Ted Rall is trying to do here. In any case what the Dems and Obama are saying sounds so much better in sound byte format.
dougnwagner thanks for being the voice of reason. The Taliban are pure evil. My mother in law lived under them.
Taliban are PAKISTAN's proxie people how many friggin times do I have to explain this to the CDers its like beating a dead Buzkashi horse. Taliban are not supported by the Afghan people. They were oppressed by these freaks. Afghans don't want to live under Talibann nor under the drug-trafficking Northern Alliance War Lords. They want peace, they want an economy, they want to send thier children to school, they want accountability, justice, and stability and they want Pakistan out of thier affairs asap. Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks and women don't want to be ethnically cleansed by the Taliban. A lot of Pushtuns hate the Taliban also contrary to popular belief that all Pashtuns support them.
I am married to an Afghan I hear this same thing from every Afghan I meet across the board. How about you CDers start asking Afghans what they want for once?
Here's the link for the trillionth time on Pakistani support of the Taliban.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
WTF is SOOOO Correct!! It is too bad people do not research or understand THIS connection because THIS is the heart of the matter...
On a related topic:
Impeach George's Dick (cheney too)
Our government does not care what Americans want let alone Afghans.
Iraq has oil. Afghanistan is a route for oil and gas to flow to the "good" guys. We created Al Qaeda, and supported the Talibans rise to power. Today, need the Taliban, just like we need Al Qaeda in Iraq, but as enemies and not partners. They justify our continued presence, and allow us to divide and rule.
It's not complicated if you can filter out the MSM propaganda.
And for the last time, please, there is no War in either country, those wars ended in a matter of weeks. It is an occupation, where there are some who resist the occupation forces, or the puppet governments we have installed. If we are going to be an Empire, lets get the terminology right.
We are diminishing what those who fought in real wars went through by calling Iraq and Afghanistan a war.
Thank you dcbeltway - from me and my Afghan friends.
Joe Liberman has taken to a wicked propaganda style, writing a column in the Washington Post titled "A Surge To Help Afghanistan", as if Americans can do anything to help Afghanistan. In his column, Joe decided to put a hyperlink on the name of the Imperial Chimp for the readers who want to learn more about whatever the hell he's up to. Many thanks, Joe!
Joe says "Privately, many U.S. officials concede..." like he wants to be our "inside source" for the REAL news beyond the official spin. Oh cool, Joe, we were hoping to find a US Senator to provide us that service. Then Joe says "The Afghan army ...with a targeted end strength of ...80,000 troops". But that's only the "TARGETED END STRENGTH". Joe didn't say how many there actually are. Might only be 800. But he touted it as... "one of the great success stories of the war on terrorism".
At the end of the column, Joe described himself as an "independent Democratic senator". Neither the senator nor the party deserve anyone's association, yet there he is grabbing its coattail. Joe is probably paying top taxpayer dollars to the top "Public Relations" firm in the galaxy in a frantic bid to shore up a fast eroding empire. Joe Liberman will be writing the front page news at the Washington Post before long, in a "splendid" progression of US propaganda journalism.
Since the late 1980s, NATO has been scrambling for a raison d'etre.
So, the present one is Afghanistan...on the flimsy pretext that afghanistan attacked the USA, a member of NATO. So NATO is there in Afghanistan defending USA from Afghanistan aggression.
Here in Canada our gvt and military community are telling us that our contribution is doing wonderful things for the Afghan community, building schools and hospitals and so on. We're told that our military has to keep on doing military things to protect these good works.
This military community says that for six-seven years now we have been building an Afghan army and police force to provide stability to the country. they say it will take another several years to train this stabilizing force.
When I see pics of the Afghan army, they have way different equipment than that of the NATO forces.
What little I know of the Pashtun people is that they are rural, small village people, some subsistance farming and some local market produce. Not likely to have a lot of extra cash for arms. I've been told that in their resistance to the western occupation, they are using poppy money to get better arms.
So, it puzzles me: subsistance farmers, small village peasants can pony up enough poppy money for equipment, and roust up enough resistance fighters to take on the NATO control of Afghanistan. Yet, those same NATO people cannot equip and train in the same time an indigenous force to take on the Pashtun resistance.
Perhaps a new approach could be to supply money to a different group, say that Afghan women's group that resisted the Taliban gvt before 2001, and have them, should they figure it's the only way, acquire their own military equipment to stabilize their land.
(Instead of arming them the way we arm Fatah, or the Iraq army, try arming them the way we arm Israel.)
To dougnwagner
Who made us the worlds cops? If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not just imperial ploys to steal resources how come the U.N. isn't involved? Oh yeah that's right none of the rest of the world believes the U.S.'s cover stories, oops.
" Afghanistan is a route for oil and gas to flow to the "good" guys. "
Nice to see someone mention the heart of the matter. Neither political party dares to tell the plain truth about the ambitions of American international Big Oil for fear of offending thier corporate masters.
Empire builders have seen Afghanistan as a Central Asian route to the Arabian sea for centuries. Oil and natural gas resources of Central Asia are the prize coveted by American Big Oil. The only way for American energy corporations can gain hegemony over those resources is through Afghanistan via pipelines to India and the Arabian sea. There are also some energy resources in Afghanistan and possibly western Pakistan as the Russians exported Afghan natural gas for awhile although the Afghans kept sabotaging the pipeline. Pipelines are very vulnerable.
India has a growing economy and need for energy as well as other Asian countries. Thus the US military, paid for by the America taxpayer, is busy setting up bases in and around Afghanistan for a permanent occupation of the region so American energy corporations can gain the upper hand in Asian energy markets.
This is imperialism of the worst kind with no end in sight as the American occupation has only fueled a resistance movement that has no end and will only generate new "blowback" against the American corporate empire.
And presently this paper tiger declining dollar empire is experiencing a major economic meltdown due to deficit spending in support of what some would call corporate war crimes.