Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Afghan Trap
President Obama held his first prime-time news conference Tuesday night. When questioned on Afghanistan, he replied, "This is going to be a big challenge." He also was asked whether he would change the Pentagon policy banning the filming and photographing of the flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was reviewing it. The journalist who asked the question pointed out that it was Joe Biden several years ago who accused the Bush administration of suppressing the images to avoid public furor over the deaths of U.S. service members. Now Vice President Joe Biden predicts that a surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan will mean more U.S. casualties: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."
Meanwhile, the Associated Press recently cited a classified report drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending a shift in strategy from democracy-building in Afghanistan to attacking alleged Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
And the campaign has clearly begun. Days after his inauguration, Obama's first (known) military actions were two missile strikes inside Pakistan's frontier province, reportedly killing 22 people, including women and children.
Cherif Bassiouni has spent years going back and forth to Afghanistan. He is a professor of law at DePaul University and the former United Nations human rights investigator in Afghanistan. In 2005, he was forced out of the United Nations under pressure from the Bush administration, days after he released a report accusing the U.S. military and private contractors of committing human rights abuses. I asked Bassiouni about Obama's approach to Afghanistan. He told me: "There is no military solution in Afghanistan. There is an economic-development solution, but I don't see that coming. ... Right now, the population has nothing to gain by supporting the U.S. and NATO. It has everything to gain by being supportive of the Taliban."
Bassiouni's scathing 2005 U.N. report accused the U.S. military and private military contractors of "forced entry into homes, arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review, sometimes for extended periods of time, forced nudity, hooding and sensory deprivation, sleep and food deprivation, forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress positions, sexual abuse, beatings, torture, and use of force resulting in death."
I also put the question of the military surge to former President Jimmy Carter. He responded: "I would disagree with Obama as far as a surge that would lead to a more intense bombing of Afghan villages and centers and a heavy dependence on military. I would like to see us reach out more, to be accommodating, and negotiate with all of the factions in Afghanistan."
Carter should know. He helped create what his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called "the Afghan trap," set for the Soviets. This was done by supporting Islamic mujahedeen in the late 1970s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby creating what evolved into the Taliban. Brzezinski told the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" More than 14,000 Soviet troops were killed, and the Afghan toll exceeded 1 million. Osama bin Laden got his start with the help of the CIA-funded Afghan operation.
Bassiouni suggests that a military solution is doomed to failure, noting that the Taliban "realized they could not defeat the American forces, so they went underground. They put their Kalashnikovs under the mattresses, and they waited. A year ago, they resurfaced again. They can do the same thing. They can go back in the mountains, push the Kalashnikovs under the mattress, wait out five years. They have been doing that since the 1800s with any foreign and every foreign invader."
As Carter told me, "To offer a hand of friendship or accommodation, not only to the warlords but even to those radicals in the Taliban who are willing to negotiate, would be the best approach, than to rely exclusively on major military force."
Have we learned nothing from Iraq? "When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the president on another tried-and-failed policy." That was Sen. Barack Obama in January 2007. With his Joint Chiefs now apparently gunning for more fighting and less talk in Afghanistan, President Obama needs to be reminded of his own words.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
- Posted in
142 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
Some addicts get an overdose and that ends up setting a cure into motion. That is my prescription for America's addiction to violence and/or "military solutions." They never work, and there's always karmic blowback.
There is NO need for U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan and after the bang-up job of ruining a nation (Iraq), military intelligence ought not be able to look itself in the mirror and ask for more of same. But without the false rationale for yet another war, how can the budget be maintained that puts military interests FIRST and FOREMOST, proof of Mars rules! That same MIC Eisenhower warned so presciently about! Feed the beast and it grows, its appetites insatiable, now eating up lunch programs for children, the funds that would truly green the nation's technology so as to build a DEFENSIVE economic structure from within! Rather than all this casting about like a drunken giant in search of presumed enemies afar! It's madness! Damned expensive madness, too, when the nation IS bankrupt, and not only in terms of dollars and cents/sense!
The only way to begin to heal the divides and wounds America has been on the front lines of causing is through aid, education, and fairer trade rules. America's foreign policy reminds me increasingly of the guy who's obviously lost, but his ego is too big to admit it, so he lumbers on further and further in the wrong direction. Ditto, Israel.
I am hoping that like the addict, American citizens and/or the world reach a level something akin to a grotesque allergic reaction to ever choosing the option of violence again. Clockwork Orange on a massive scale, it's about time! Or there may not BE much time left.
Good points. The whole enterprise is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways that to me it is as nauseating as it is heartbreaking (and I even suspect the Wall Street crooks look down on the MIC crooks for being so pedestrian and predictable, though they probably admire the ruthlessness and blood lust). And to cap it off, even assuming that Osama was behind 9/11, it seems likely that he and his merry band of malicious lunatics would have lost interest in attacking the US by now, as Bush and Cheney, with preparatory work by Clinton and his gang of neoliberal crackpots like Summers and Rubin, have left the country in such sorry shape that attacking it now would be like beating a dead horse.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: Exactly. It's so cost-effective to sit back and watch as domino after domino drops. Any nation that invests in militarism/armanents INSTEAD of the welfare of its people has surpassed spiritual death*, nor does it make particularly wise financial decisions. They talk about what the stimulus plan will do, well how do you measure the VALUE of a nation ruined? How do you place a sum on land now contaminated by depleted uranium, on waterways filled with chemicals? How do we place a value on the returned soldiers, half the men they used to be, broken in body and spirit? Or a sum against the loss of aptitudes in the children oh so truly left behind? What price, too, for the raped mountain tops of West Virginia, the lost city of New Orleans? I'd like to see an economist come up with figures that show the REAL loss in terms of what was spent on war and naked aggression, and where it's left our nation, in terms of what's been lost, neglected, or brought to ruin. I'd have to say Disaster Capitalism is probably the Devil's 9th sin, as the film Bedazzled ingeniously located advertising as the newest one, the 8th. (This is facetious as I don't believe in a devil, as an entity, although only a fool would think evil is merely an illusion, lest we see the whole of this world, what the Hindus term Maya, as nothing BUT illusion. It sure is real enough when you're embodied in it, and when pain is tough to stave off.)
(*I think ML King would forgive me for taking his quote to the next level.)
"I'd like to see an economist come up with figures that show the REAL loss in terms of what was spent on war and naked aggression, and where it's left our nation, in terms of what's been lost, neglected, or brought to ruin."
Any US government economist's report on that would of course be a pile of lies. Washington is where lies go to grow and multiply. They have always dealt in lies in Washington, but in the Bush Error the city and the government became so trapped under a mountain of mendacity, fraud, dishonesty, and disinformation, I really do not believe anyone there still knows what honesty is, what good government is, or what reality is. They are eternally lost. It is George Orwell's "1984" combined with Charles Dodgson's "Through the Looking-Glass" as imagined by Caligula while undergoing sensory deprivation.
Lest we forget.
This strategy is also self perpetuating as it ensures we have a continuing supply of enemies, making a continued flow of money to the manufacturers of weapons inevitable. In an era when govt desperately looks to save our economy that 8 billion dollar Pentagon budget is a juicy plum left ripening on the tree....How many jobs could be created with a portion of that money? How many infrastructure projects could be achieved? How many schools remodeled, textbooks delivered and lives enriched?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"How many jobs could be created with a portion of that money? How many infrastructure projects could be achieved? How many schools remodeled, textbooks delivered and lives enriched?"
Remember Eisenhower's famous quote from half a century ago?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
You know those cretins in Washington are aware of this. They just don't give a damn. They want to "reap the whirlwind."
"(*I think ML King would forgive me for taking his quote to the next level.)"
Please, not even close, and let's not pretend anyone has. Houston tritely tried to say she'd taken Mead's to the next level and again...please, let's be truthful: that's where pleasure over excitement is at, and that's where the answers will be found as they always have been. Metamorphosis of Narcissus has seen it's day. If it was Martin himself warning against the intoxication of gradualism or the running from demo to demo, or any of the great humanitarians: the time for any individual is now for being real, no, not Condi's realism, but, you know - the excruciating realism of the heart(no, not forgoing the frontal cortex and the 6hth chakra, or the bowels and 1,2,3...every little drop of piss and sweat that falls with the human being to elicit levity, levitation - that which is real - enough of the bigger better girl and boy - enough! - intelligence wrapped up in a 5 year old maturity means only one thing: the continuance of dropping uranium bombs in the name of human justice - enough - grow up!)
If it's projection or transference or whatever...the same thing for Amy Goodman - take the next step in maturity...for all our sakes, please...this plateau has worn out it's welcome.
Sioux Rose
PT I expanded on a quote in GOOD faith. Your response is all over the board, the Jackson Pollack of throwing words at a blank canvas. It makes NO sense.
Kivals and Sioux Rose - Good points. A high level of unity between intelligence and heart.
Joe
Must definitely a military solution is not possible. Yet any economic development, particularly in Pushtun areas, will require considerable security. Fortunately, more and more I, contra the above, am seeing the military understanding this need for economic development with security. I have noticed such with the training several units of the Indiana National Guard and Reserves have received at Indiana University. I have heard such from an Afghan instructor at DoD facilities. Even better, Obama seems very aware of such.
Right now, however, NATO and the US lack sufficient boots on the ground to do community development work ( clean water wells, healthy sanitation, elementary schools) and provide the needed security for the thousands of villages in the country. Where security is less necessary in the nonPushtun areas, the needed projects simply are impossible in Pushtun lands without it. Those providing the assistance will need security. Those using the wells and schools will need security. Taliban and al-qaeda are not stupid. They understand fully that even their Pushtun hosts will turn, if the Western forces and the Karzai government offer net advantages including security. That makes just an old fashioned Peace Corps or even AID mission impossible. This old Returned Peace Corps Volunteer/Afghanistan wishes this was not the case, but it is.
This RPCV also wishes that the left would deal with the concrete factors related to Afghanistan and Pushtunistan, rather than rely or kneejerk isolationism or pacifism. Analogies are useful for thought, but in themselves are not convincing, even the Vietnam analogy.
PL,
I am sympathetic to your quandary, but see no way out of it. You support increased "boots on the ground" in the hope they will support YOUR strategy for stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan. Sorry, your support for the troop increase is welcomed by those calling the shots. Your suggestions for how to USE those boots will be ignored.
Your "pragmatism" appears to hinge upon an unrealistic expectation you can dictate the military strategy or that Obama can be expected to pursue such a strategy on his own.
My prediction? Not gonna happen. But you, and people with your optimism, will have helped win approval for more boots.
A closer reading of my remarks would have shown the reasons for my guarded optimism regarding the use of the boots on the ground.
I have no expectation that I can dictate military strategy. That is one of the benefits of age to loose such expectations. But there is definite movement in that direction within the military. Whether it will become the dominant means as opposed to more conventional military strategy and tactics, I don't know. But I have confidence in Obama's critical reflection and even gaining some for some of the top military command. Indeed I am starting to see them as less dogmatic than many on the left.
PL wrote:
"But I have confidence in Obama's critical reflection and even gaining some for some of the top military command. Indeed I am starting to see them as less dogmatic than many on the left."
I have had dealings with military officers which have led me to believe the best of them are more intelligent and flexible than commonly suspected. I have even had conversation with very high-level Pakistani military officers which has given me some insight into the challenges they face. This was a few years ago, shortly after the launch of the war in Afghanistan.
I will EVEN concede that Obama spoke intelligently about the complexity of the US relationship with Pakistan, the tribal areas, and tensions with India over Kashmir in a suprisingly relaxed interview he had with Rachel Maddow about five days before the election. For a brief moment, I had more confidence in his judgment.
I have been a reader of the Common Dream website since its very early days. When they started the discussion boards as an adjunct to the articles, I participated for awhile, then lost interest as I witnessed the low level of discussion and debate, often coming from newly converted and pretty inexperienced "punks."
So I have a little sympathy for your frustration about "many on the left." I would hesitate to put more trust in the judgment of the military brass than in the left, however.
Had Obama appointed at least some thoughtful progressives to key positions within his foreign policy brain trust and economic policy advisers, I would have more confidence in his intelligence and "critical reflection." As I see it, he has surrounded himself with bastards in both areas, with a slight allowance for George Mitchell. I do not have so much invested that I am hoping to have my doubts come true.
Good luck to all of us. See you on the field.
Coincidentally NPR had addressed the question of military strategy yesterday ( Talk of the Nation possibly). General Petraeus and several of his top aides were cited as moving towards precisely this sort of strategy as discussed above. A couple of successful implimentations of such were noted as well.
One can, occasionally, be an optimist.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
As Carter told me, "To offer a hand of friendship or accommodation, not only to the warlords but even to those radicals in the Taliban who are willing to negotiate, would be the best approach, than to rely exclusively on major military force."
--------------------
There's no money to be made by extending one's hand in friendship.
In every criminal enterprise everyone gets their cut.
How would the defense contractors make their profits in the absence on death and destruction?
Not too long ago, a gentleman appeared on Bill Moyers' Journal explaining why creating an elite task force to find the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, rather than sending in thousands of military forces to the Middle East was the only sensible thing to do. He has written a book about it. Does anyone out there remember the title and the author's name? I'd like to know what Obama and others think about this strategy.
Sorry, cannot help you with the reference.
My understanding of why we did not send a task force into Afghanistan to extricate OBL is because the US did not consider assassination or kidnapping judicial tools (though black ops was conducted prior to 9/11). Since then, of course, the US has flagrantly disregarded this rule (hint: Special renditions).
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Sioux Rose
SIERRA: I haven't watched TV in some time, but I think it might have been Ray McGovern or Scott Ritter. Perhaps even Richard Clarke.
I think that this idea is DOA (dead on arrival). Why, because more likely than not, the perp's are in our own government. 911 was an inside job, planned and well executed.
But, let us say that it was not an inside job. An analysis of the events leading up to 911 would show the gross waste of having an ineffective NSA/Military. Trillions of dollars have been spent to have early warning of events that have the effect of 911. However, all that money failed to stop four civilian high jacked airliners from crashing into the twin towers. The reason I don't buy that the jets caused the collapse of the two main towers is because WTC 7 was not hit by jets, but collapsed anyway. Fire did not bring that building down at free fall speed to collapse into a neat pile of rubble. Recently, a steel high rise in Bezing, China burned completely for hours and it still stands. If you saw the pictures, you would see it was completely engulfed.
So any honest and complete investigation would show that our government was incompetent or criminal. You decide.
Mr. Obama is a Chicago politician who is not going to stir the pot to have it boil over on to his administration, which will be the most corrupt since Grant.
Hoytdouglas wrote:
"Mr. Obama is a Chicago politician who is not going to stir the pot to have it boil over on to his administration, which will be the most corrupt since Grant."
Yeah, this is useful.
Well-said, Sioux Rose.
You are right on, Sioux Rose. I got a message from "The Pen" today askeing me to contact my alleged representative aobut the new bailout bill. Apparently there are some billions earmarked for building coal fired and nuclear power plants and for more research into advanced nuclear weaponry!
I don't think we need to pollute more and exacerbate the arms race as an incentive. There is a lot of work out there other than that.
Education is down the toilet, health care not far behind. We will soon have millions more homeless as homes are foreclosed upon by banks that used the last bailout, not to help their customers, but to buy other banks and businesses as "investments."
The filth that has used war and intimidation, bought politicians and lawyers, to grasp over ninety percent of the wealth now wants to get that last few percent in their coffers and damn the "people of no particular importance," as Hamilton called We the People.
Sioux Rose
MINITRUE & TRUTH SEEKER: Thank you for the acknowledgement. Life feels like a Twilight Zone episode where new leader after new leader takes over, but POLICY remains on the same calamitous, amoral, disgusting course...
A friend of mine said he's having this recurring dream where he doesn't wake up within the dream and it's scaring him. (I remember that theme also given life by Rod Serling many moons ago.) I think that dream has a lot to do with consensual reality these days, as power has been seized by the dark side. Cosmic central casting is seeking a set of twins to play Luke and Leah in a live-action Star Wars makeover. (Sometimes I have to humor myself NOT to go crazy given what's passing for "reality" these days.)
-- attacking alleged Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds -- Oh, look. It's those pesky 'war on terror' enemies popping up again like whacked moles in a game that never ends.
I repeat again what I have repeated repeatedly.
Congress enacted an execrable piece of crapola (Public Law 107-40 - READ IT!) that authorized the President to use the military against those he deemed responsible for 9/11 (enemies to be named later).
Bush then announced that al-Qaeda was responsible and that the Taliban would be treated the same way. Ergo, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are America's enemies in the 'War against those responsible for 9/11' (descriptive title), or 'War on terrorism' (popularly known title used by the government and military).
The specified war goal is 'preventing future terrorism' by these groups, which nobody in over seven years has ever defined or ever explained what victory would look like. There is no victory in this insane and unwinnable war.
Any calls for a more 'humane' policy toward Afghanistan will founder on the rocks of this conflict and the needs of the military to do their duty, which is to inflict death on enemies (present and future enemies - after all, they have to prevent future terrorism).
But keep in mind locust's law - Nobody gives up power voluntarily.
The President (Bush then, Obama now) will never give up the Congressionally-authorized authority to order the military to wage this madness.
Further, the President, being a political creature, will not suffer political suicide by withdrawing from a war without victory. That is why America remains stuck, stuck, stuck in Afghanistan. That is why LBJ (yes, comparisons to Vietnam are extremely relevant) escalated troop levels into Vietnam despite expert advice that the conflict was - repeat after me - unwinnable. That is why the only new strategy allowed into conversation for Afghanistan is more of the same, more troops, more money wasted, more killing.
Congress started this madness and Congress must end it by taking away the President's authority to use the military in its vain quest to 'prevent future terrorism'. Congress must revoke, rescind, get rid of, Public Law 107-40.
Otherwise it's more of the same, until the inevitable catastrophe.
p.s. -- Have we learned nothing from Iraq? -- We haven't even learned from Vietnam, yet.
Ray Berthiaume
Iraq was George W. Bush's Vietnam. Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam.
Locust,
Iraq and Vietnam had no just cause for war. Administrations fabricated and just ignored just cause. But despite what seems yours and others most fervent wish, actions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban have just cause. Bush didn't " then announced that al-Qaeda was responsible and that the Taliban would be treated the same way." That was done by al-Qaeda who took credit and even earlier announced their intent to be at war against the USA. The Taliban provided al-Qaeda the safe haven to plan and operationalize at the general level 9/11. Sometimes wrong is not just caused by the US and its government.
It is just for any nation to seek to apprehend those who attack them and to not allow the conditions that made it possible (in this case a return of Taliban to governing Afghanistan or parts of it). Of course, the concept of just war requires more than just cause, but also just means. On this aspect, the NATO/USA effort is on far shakier grounds. But there seems to be realization of it and efforts to correct (albeit always insufficient, given the embedment of al-Qaeda and Taliban with innocents) have been and are being made. It would seem the military has taken your advice and are learning from Vietnam and early Iraq.
The just cause of the Afghan military action alone makes it different from Vietnam and Iraq (I and II). Thus the analogies of Vietnam and Iraq are less than convincing, not to mention the different arrangement of forces and organizations, the physical climate and landscape, the cultural traditions, etc. To me, the problem is how to end the safe haven in Pushtun lands from which al-Qaeda have and can organize attacks on Western interests. Yes, it is a difficult problem and one for which resolution is debatable. Yet I think wholesale withdraw will not meliorate this very real and legitimate problem. Nor does reduction by analogy.
Actually, there is not a "just cause" for U.S. military action against Afghanistan. Once again it's about oil, which is why the U.S. refused Afghanistan's offer to hand Bin Laden over to a third party in the first place. See below:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm
Published on Sunday, November 25, 2001
The War for Oil Subtext in Afghanistan
by Fran Shor
"... Now with another Bush Administration in Washington, but with many of the same players, including those with obvious oil connections like VP Dick Cheney, and another war in the region, there needs to be some analysis of the politics of oil. The "Post" article gives no inkling of the oil connections. Nor should one expect to find those linkages in the corporate media. However, when one turns to alternative media sources and the internet, an interesting history comes to light - a history focused in particular around the role of the Unocal Oil company.
Unocal has been actively engaged in doing business with repressive regimes throughout the world in their search for oil and natural gas reserves. From connections to military dictatorships in Burma and Indonesia, Unocal spread its oily tentacles throughout the third world. Having been part of a consortium of US oil firms exploring potential gas and oil reserves in Central Asia, Unocal turned its attention to Afghanistan in the late 1990's. Not averse to doing business with the Taliban, Unocal unsuccessfully tried to induce the Taliban as late as last summer into making a deal for a major oil pipeline across the country. When the talks broke off, there were rumblings in Washington that the Taliban would have to make way for a more pliable government.
It's important to stress that Unocal, like many Washington policymakers, was willing to do business with the Taliban and turn a blind eye to their outrageous human rights abuses. More importantly, Unocal was fishing around for Washington to assert its power in the region to get a more pliable government in Afghanistan. Appearing before the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific in February of 1998, John J. Maresca, Unocal's VP for International Relations asserted: "From the outset, we have made it clear that the construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of our government, lenders, and our company." Maresca went on to urge "the Administration and Congress to give strong support to the UN-Led peace process in Afghanistan."
Now that the Bush Administration through its military campaign has devastated an already brutalized country, the touting on a new non-Taliban government has become a key political objective and the UN is offering its services to help broker a new government in Afghanistan. Of course, neither the UN nor any other international agency was utilized by the Bush Administration to seek an alternative to the war in Afghanistan. Working through the World Court on the newly developed International Criminal Court (which the US has spurned) would have been impossible given the track record of Washington in these matters. Even when the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden to a third country, Washington rejected this and pursued its nearly unilateral military campaign. ..."
Just cause.
AlQaeda has never claimed responsibility for the events of 9/11, though they have for other actions both prior to and post those events.
The Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to any country the USA named provided that he received a fair trial with no possible death penalty. Thus I find your noting that invasion as justifiable a bit sour.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
You can wish away whatever you chose, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Al-qaeda belatedly did formally claimed responsibility http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/sep/10/alqaida.september112001.
Why would the USA accept conditions from the Taliban regarding Usama? The man have the chief responsibility for the destruction of 9/11 and other murderous acts. And the Taliban provided him a safe haven to do it.
If you reject the concept of just war, fine. But pretending that al-Qaeda was not involved with 9/11 or that the US should take capital punishment off the board (if Umar would have given the final ok on that basis even, which I doubt) removes your position from objective reality. In my lifetime I have opposed the Vietnam War, both Iraq Wars, and just about every use of military (with the exception of Kosovo/Bosnia) on the basis that no just cause exist. It is impossible to oppose the Afghan War (i.e., the hunt and destruction of al-Qaeda and core Taliban of Umar)as unjust cause.
I thank you for a fact that I had not previously known. I wonder, however, at the obscurity of that revelation as I do about your twisting of my lack of knowledge into something more devious. Nevertheless I will continue to believe that there is nothing just about war, and even if the Taliban harbored AlQaeda and provided a place in which to plan the attacks on our soil they made a legitimate offer, one that should have been accepted. We were not attacked by the government of Afghanistan but by radical forces who happened to be in that locale while strategizing.
Do you, I wonder, believe in the tactics and strategies of the invasion of that nation? Do you believe there is any hope of success in pacifying them? Or do you believe as do I that we are raising an entire generation who will hate us forever, we are in Afghanistan, as we are in Iraq, as we become increasingly bellicose about Iran, all for the same reason, that black gunk that comes out of the ground and requires pipelines and such to deliver?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
You're welcome.
That you believe a just war is impossible doesn't allow us to dialogue. Given that belief, you must oppose the action in Afghanistan no matter the concrete experiences. Thank you for the straight forward honesty. Pacificism is very noble, although I don't believe it should be a general principle.
When someone hosts and nurtures another who attacks you, I think it is not unreasonable to include the fist as a hostile. Al-Qaeda was not just some unknown visitor in areas under the control of a gullible Taliban. They are co-wahhabist and have a long history of cooperation (even intermarriage, I believe).
As I have said, I believe the cause is just, but the means have not always been, in answer to your first question. I have reason to believe that even the US military recognizes at least the ultimate ineffectiveness of not employing just means in Pustunistan and are stressing more community development and cultural sensitivity.
Regarding the second question, relatedly, we have a window in most parts of Afghanistan, varying with the ethnicity, tribal, and kin affiliations of an area, to meet our objectives; but only if we employ proper and just means. Those windows were opened much wider when we first got there, but, as you know, Bush chose a U-Turn to Iraq and wasted much valuable time in Afghanistan. Right now, I doubt if a majority of Afghans (again dependent upon areas, as I mentioned) hate the US or NATO members. Indeed I think far more want us to get rid of the Wahhabists, whether al-Qaeda or Taliban, and help them have a decent chance for what they define as a decent life. Many have questioned how we desserted them after the Russians left and are not confident of our staying and helping now. They need community development assistance and security. Exactly who else can provide it?
The House of Saude that is who can provide a decent life. The House of Saude has the resources and the cultural structure of communicate with the Afghans. The USA lacks any program to help or dominate the Afghans or more appropriately the people who live in Afghanistan.
BTW, Osama Bin Liden was our CIA guy in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. What is the significance of this?
The Saudis have already done much to the situation, such as funding the maddrassas from which the orphaned Afghans learned a nonAfghan version of Islam, Wahhabism, and became the Taliban.
The US and Western agencies have the technology expertise to help Afghan villages build wells, schools, sanitation systems, and other mimimal amenities for a decent life. US for many years so provided, along with other countries, and were more than accepted by Afghans from the city to the village levels. Why you assume those skills and concerns have been lost is not understandable? Right now, they can't be applied because of the security problems from al-qaeda and the Taliban. Thus the need for military.
Usama was far less of a CIA guy than were Afghan Pushtun Mujahhadin leaders. What is the significance of this fact?
We see things a bit differently, at least on this one subject. But I appreciate the civility and the intellectual involvement in your posts...
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
PL wrote:
"It is just for any nation to seek to apprehend those who attack them and to not allow the conditions that made it possible (in this case a return of Taliban to governing Afghanistan or parts of it). Of course, the concept of just war requires more than just cause, but also just means."
PL, I will agree with you part way on this. I agree that al Qaida's attack made them a legitimate target for military reprisals and the Taliban providing safe haven to al Qaida provided justification for treating them as an enemy.
I accept those "facts" and agree that it is appropriate to apply the "Just War" standard in determining the legitimate options for the US response. I am not a complete pacifist and believe violence is sometimes necessary. Including, if I am allowed to be consistent, to be employed by people in defense of their rights, when they are occupied or oppressed, and non-violent means do not promise a reasonable chance for success.
IN practice, however, I approach the absolute pacifist position. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a scenario, in realistic terms, where state violence, or revolutionary violence, is likely to have the desired effect, or where the secondary results do not cause more grief than other courses of action.
Sticking to the Just War doctrine, I believe the US invasion of Afghanistan fails the complete test. We might IMAGINE a surgical strike which just took out the al Qaida leadership, but in the real world, it is unforgivable to assume such a massive invasion would make the situation better. It has certainly made the situation worse, first for the people of Afghanistan, then Iraq and, if we give Obama a chance, probably for the people of Pakistan as well.
I suggest because you run into resistance from anti-war activists and pacifists of the sort you met here, you get stuck on the first part of your Just War justification for the war and don't really reflect on how badly it failed (and was doomed to fail) the secondary consideration: would a war make the situation worse?
- - - - - - - -
I appreciate your RPCV perspective. I have family and friends who have put in similar service. For many, it was a great opportunity to live in another country, get to know the culture and have hands on "development" experience among the poor. Many of them came back radicalized about the structure of the global economy and US support for the (often) brutal elites in the countries they served.
Having said that, I cannot fail to see the Peace Corps as having been the "velvet glove" component of Jack Kennedy's Civic Action strategy of counter-insurgency. Just as Green Beret doctors were sent into villages to provide medical care for the children in a disputed region as part of an effort to establish trust and develop informants, so too was the Peace Corps an essential part of JFK's global battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Third World.
As I said, I have friends and family who served in the PC. On balance, I think they did little harm and got a good education out of it. At the micro level, they undoubtedly improved the lives of some of the people they served. Many of the RPCVs graduated into the movement to resist US domination of the world, though some of them, as intended, graduated to offer their skills to the US intelligence and "diplomatic" services and to counter-productive aid agencies, like AID, the IMF and World Bank.
I sense you want an opportunity for a Civic Action approach to be successfully employed in Afghanistan, a belated victory for the "best and the brightest" of the "Golden Years" of JFK. I worry Obama may be tempted to see the same "opportunity." I fear it will end badly.
There will be an uptick."
Yeah, right. An "uptick". Much less inflammatory than "death", "blown to bits", "killed" or "died for nothing". Ask Biden the same question they should've asked Cheesedick Cheney: "Are you personally willing to die for this?" The answer, of course, is no. And if you told Biden and Obama that they will have to go to Afghanistan and put their backsides on the line, the order to evacuate will be given five minutes later.
Why is it so hard for Americans to accept that the only solution (or what can be close to a solution) of the Afghan problem is to involve the neighbours. Like Tariq Ali mentioned in another article, the only way is to get Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and China into the picture.
The U.S. must facilitate this and help finance the effort. We will end up spending a lot less than what we are now to begin with and also regionalize the solution.
Even progressive voices like Amy Goodman (who i love to death) cannot seem to explore that possibility deeper.
We need to talk with the Russians and Iranians unconditionally and involve the Indians who are well received by Afghans at large. Pakistan itself is on the verge of collapse, so we need to ensure that doesnt happen. Bombing them is not the answer.
PragmaticLiberal -
Okay, let us indeed "deal with concrete factors related to Afghanistan and Pashtunistan, rather than rely on kneejerk isolationism or pacificism."
And while we're at it, would you please identify by name one or two public commentators from "the left" (as you use the term) who advocate a return to isolationism, and name one or two "leftist" commentators who actually advocate pacificism as a proper response to international terrorism in general, or as a response to Al Qaeda in particular?
To me, assailing such straw men of the left sounds a lot like vintage George W (ridiculing those who opposed his aggressive sabre rattling militarism as people who "think our oceans will keep us safe" in the brave new post 9/11 world), or Dick Cheney's snarky comments to Politico just last week about those who oppose torturing prisoners as preferring to "read terrorists their Miranda rights" and "turn the other cheek" to evil. These are straw men, not of the real world, being targeted for ad hominem attack.
In any event, on your larger point I think the concrete factors we really need to look at is the long, long history in Afghanistan of tenacious tribal animosity towards all foreign invaders, and the enormous, growing array of hostile factions (regional warlords, tribal warlords, ethnic warlords, heroin dealers, smugglers, old Taliban, new Taliban, Al Qaeda, pro-Pakistanis, pro-Iranians, anti-Indians, etc.) that now place killing and ousting the Americans right up at the very top of their respective priority lists. Our man in Kabul Hamid Karzai has succeeded in systematically alienating them all, and the US forces' use of drones, Hellfire missles and other hi tech shock and awe weaponry has infuriated them all, along with the most of the otherwise nonaligned Afghan civilian grassroots.
It's sort of like Vietnam, but with twenty different overlapping versions of the Viet Cong to contend with, each faction having its own indigenous base and its own Ho Chi Minh trail outside support network. The United States doesn't really have a dog in this fight that's a credible, reliable ally. The supply lines for the troops stretch hundreds of vulnerable miles. And if you feel uncomfortable bedding down with devious folks like the Pakistani ISI to keep the supply lines open, then your alternatives are to cuddle up with either the Iranians or the Russians.
I think an authority like Andrew Bacevich has the current ominous situation in Afghanistan and the northwest tribal areas best analyzed. Damage control and a complete withdrawal (sooner rather than later) is the best of the available bad options. Nation building, or a divide and pit-faction-versus-faction occupation strategy is a bloody, self-defeating pipe dream in Afghanistan.
It didn't have to be this way, but that's the way it is. The blowback is properly the fault of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, but Barack Obama is neatly set up to take the blame.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill,
I can't name one person who opposes in the name of isolationism or pacifism the USA/NATO presence in Afghanistan. That is my description of their positions which say get out now but don't discuss the consequences of leaving now or the antecedents of our presence. You know, those saying complete withdraw now rather than later. You know, those who can't consider the just cause related to American and others actions in post 9/11 Afghanistan. Of course, you know. But thanks for lumping me with Bush and Cheney. That promotes honest dialogue.
Now regarding the predictable notification of Afghan tribal hostility to foreign invaders--true, but not as kneejerked as you are applying it. Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazzars don't seem upset by US/NATO presence. They were much more upset by the cruel domination of the Taliban earlier and seem appreciative of US/NATO efforts heretofore. Are they not Afghans? But to your point, yes, they will react hostilely, if they perceive the US policy is as occupier of their homelands or will increase the authority in their homelands by a Pushtun dominated government, even nonTaliban. So yes, even in those areas, we must employ considerable diplomacy, cultural understanding, and evenhandedness.
In Pushtun areas, they really get hostile to foreign invaders. But do most Pushtuns consider us as such? Of course, those whose kinsmen are the victims of mistaken bombs or weaponry are going to be hostile and the vengeance code of the Pushtunwali kicks in.
But on the other hand, that same code makes it very understandable to Pushtun leaders what the US is doing in seeking out al-Qaeda. On the other hand, their understanding of the US's legitimate claim, in their value structure, for revenge, they can not help because of the hospitality the Pushtunwali requires of them and they earlier extended to al-Qaeda and Taliban. And, of course, they don't expect the US to have their limitless timelines and thus will be gone, leaving them to get along again with al-Qaeda and Taliban. what adds to the complication is that each village or town will respond in its own way, dependent upon previous interactions with either US or al-Qaeda/Taliban forces. In your terms, each village or town has its own priority list and killing Americans or whatever varies in each one, if that priority even exists. Not ever Afghan village, many thousands, mostly extended family compounds, has experienced drones.
The US has many dogs in the fight. There are many of every ethnic group who want community development and security and look to the West to assist. There are many who do not want the Taliban back in power with their foreign brand of Islam. How many Hazzarrs (sp), Uzbeks, Tajiks are you willing to offer in a reTalibaned Afghanistan. This is not a Bushian uninformed abstraction, but the result in my own life of hearing of the murder by the Taliban of my former cook and several of my students for the reason at one time in their lives they were too friendly with Americans, me and my roommate. Maybe Jimmy Carter can get the Taliban singing Kumbaya, but I think they bane singing in their Wahhabist purity.
Just cause; community development with security; ending safe haven for al-Qaeda; prevent the return of the Taliban; regional involvement. What is the alternative that brings legitimate and just retribution for 9/11; prevents a return to the conditions that made it possible; offers Afghans the modicum of a life allowing as they define self-development. Withdrawing now? Don't think so, although it would be less costly for the present and is nice and simple.
So you have a personal agenda? Thanks for sharing that with us.
Well, I don't want to waste my tax dollars on your stinking agenda. Afghanistan is a very costly looser war. If you want to make over their society do it with your own dime.
It is all about money.
And your agenda would appear protecting your pocketbook. How noble!
I included my personal experiences with the situation to refute any notion that the Taliban are just some misunderstood guys ready for just some reasonable dialogue. How you interpret that as an agenda and a "stinking" one at that will remain a mystery.
Finally I am not interested in making over Afghan society. I am interested that they receive the assistance needed for them to have a decent life on their own and varying terms and that their land not be used for a safe haven for terrorists. Even at the expensive of your sacred tax dollar.
"If you want to make over their society do it with your own dime."
Smarmy comments like this rile. You didnt have a friggin problem when we were destroying their society over a period of 30 years, in slow motion, so as to advance U.S. strategic interests did you ?? Didnt think so. Im sure you would much rather have OUR tax dollars stuffed into secret bank accounts of secret bank executives. Yeah .. its all about money nitwit.
Pull the wool off the Afghan lies. If you still take the White House talking points at face value, then you are debating nothing of value.
Look, the New Cold War is on. China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran are the very reasons we are in Afghanistan. New weapons technologies are making their debuts, and everyone wants to play the 'Shoot a Satellite Down' game. Here's the very likely military motivation for Afghanistan- the MIC wants to park some missile defense in China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran's backyard.
The pipe dream of Reagon's "Star Wars" satellite based nuclear weapons intercepting defense program have been revamped for the 21st century. The MIC realized they had a fundamental problem with the "Star Wars" concept. If you use satellites to blow up ICBM's while the missiles transverse space... you effectively place the battlefield of nuclear war in the upper upper atmosphere where radioactive fallout will rain down on every square inch of the Earth, and, the ozone layer will be totally vaporized. You pollute your own land as well as your opponents and turn this planet into the Moon. Sorta defeats the purpose of defending against an attack now doesn't it?
Fast forward to the year 2000 or there abouts... the MIC starts throwing around new ideas for how to defend against nuclear war, and simultaneously line their pockets with the fattest weapons contracts on the planet.
Here's what they say they want to do: They want to shoot down the enemies nuclear missiles during their launch phase, while it's still located over the enemies own territory. In a nuclear war that means your opponent suffers the consequences of any attack they dare to launch, under the fall out of their own missiles as they try to clear the launch pad.
Two of the systems that the MIC is pitching to do this with:
1. Modified 747 airliners, equipped with a mega laser that can target multiple missiles during their launch boost phase, and toast them.
2. High speed missile interceptiong missiles that fly so fast they'll catch up to and take out a large ICBM as it climbs relatively slowly heavenward.
What's the missing piece of the puzzle that's needed to make the new Reagon-esque Star War's on Steroids dreams a reality?
*Land. Strategically located directly in your enemies backyard. Welcome to Afghanistan.
Aside from the missile defense wet dream that the Neocons are tripping over themselves with... there are other motivating factors as well. Namely oil. China wanted to build a trans Afghan pipeline to tap into Iranian oil to fuel their booming economy and military. Historically, didn't Russia want to do the same? Run a trans Afghan pipeline from north to south so they could eventually setup a port where they could ship their oil out year round without the delays and difficulties of dealing with the harsh Russian winters that basically brings their business to a halt?
Anyway... just check out the wikipedia Afghan map. Someone has removed all the names. Likewise with Europe and other places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LocationAfghanistan.svg
An uninformed electorate is a democratic failure but an oligarchy's fantasy. If you're still talking about the Taliban, you've been tall tale'd once again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
Sorry, fd, but there are other Central Asian countries where the US could plant their Star Wars gear at much cheaper cost--just buying off some local autocrat without having to fight off the armed tribes.
You are correct the US is relying more and more on sophisticated technology for "full spectrum dominance" of the world's surface. But planting it in Afghanistan doesn't make sense.
I wouldn't be so sure Shliapnikov. What Asian countries are you suggesting are better suited for it? Many countries don't want this stuff on their soil because it then makes them a primary target during a first strike.
Also, of key importance is proximity to the enemies launch site. The neocons want to shoot down missiles during the launch phase... and that means sitting close by just over the border. Afghanistan is centrally located close to 4 countries of concern for the neocon crazies.
And it's not necessarily about 'planting' missile defense somewhere. Like I described above... one model of their defense is an airborne 747 with anti-missile lasers. All they need is the airspace to patrol just over the horizon. It's mobile.
But also look at the Missile Defense Agency's own website. They talk about actively deploying this stuff "in theaters of operation to protect US forces and assets". I take that to be a pretty clear statement that they want this stuff operational in Iraq and Afghanistan, with wider implications forthcoming. Otherwise what's the point? Combine that with Obama's statements that this is going to be long battle... and things start to look grim. That's what I'm saying. Read up on it here.
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/boost.html
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
President Karzai has already extended the hand of friendship and reconciliation to any Taliban member who wishes to rejoin Afghan society and renounce violence.
We should be supporting HIS effort, not trying to tell him what to do (like eliminate the corruption among members of his government, which can wait until his country is at peace). We do not always know best.
If the Taliban were to willingly give up their violence, farmers could grow something other than poppies because the Taliban would no longer need to be selling this crop to drug dealers. Afghanistan could then provide employment to those who would rebuild its infrastructure and restart its agricultural sector.
did you know that a large percentage of the world's poppy production goes to legal medicinal use? as a matter of fact, one foreign doctor/pharmacologist working in Afghanistan has recommended that Afghans be allowed to grow and sell opium to legal buyers who then supply medical byproducts (morphine, heroin, etc) for legitimate use. this would give the Afghans an income from something they are already set up to do and are good at. The only reason there are drug cartels and the only reason criminal and terrorist factions can profit from these drugs is because they are illegal. They should all be legalized and regulated. The War on Drugs is another phony asinine war perpetuated by the insane, illogical, untenable US anti-drug laws designed not to stop drug use but to create income for certain industries (prisons, police and military readily come to mind) and allow the US to interfere in the affairs of foreign countries while claiming to be fighting the WOD. If drugs were legalized, we would take billions of dollars out of the hands of organized crime. more people die in the US from prescription drug abuse every year then all illegal drugs combined. Studies have also shown that relaxing drug laws does NOT lead to an increase in drug use but the exact opposite. there is less usage. by ripping up poppy fields in afghanistan, we not only destroy a farmer's ability to feed his desperately poor family, we increase the value of what opium is produced thereby maximizing profits for the Taliban all the while alienating the very people whose interests we are supposed to be protecting and promoting. legalize and regulate ALL drugs. the WOD is as bogus as the WOT. this is a plea for sanity...
Right on, cruz_ctrl!!!!
j.a.h.Hear,here!