EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Afghan War Myths
SOMEWHERE IN AFGHANISTAN - There's an exception. It is a limited set of circumstances. If the armies of another nation invade your country, there is no need to resort to lies to sell war. The battle is already joined. The threat is palpable. Anyone with a smidgen of patriotism and/or the instinct of self-preservation will rush to enlist.
Mostly, this does not happen. It sort of happened in 1941, with Pearl Harbor. But Hawaii, itself recently seized by U.S. marines without the thinnest veneer of legality, was merely a distant possession. It sort of happened in 1848 when Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande (after being deliberately provoked by the Americans). It definitely happened in 1812. But you see the point: every war the United States has fought, at least since 1945 (really since 1814), has been just for fun.
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq--the U.S. didn't have to fight any of them. They were optional. At minimum, they were wars of imperialism. Mostly, they were wars of aggression: undeclared, immoral, violations of international law.
Lies and spin are essential tools of "leaders" who want to convince the public to support wars for fun and profit.
The war against Afghanistan is no exception. I have previously discussed the Big Lies about Afghanistan: 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda's training camps were there, bin Laden was there, oil has nothing to do with it, etc. Now let's talk about the little lies.
Lie #1: The war could have been won.
You know the narrative: the Bush Administration never sent in enough troops, then "took their eye off the ball" by invading Iraq and transferring military resources there from Afghanistan.
The truth: More troops would merely have postponed the inevitable defeat, while costing more Afghan and American lives. Remember General Shinseki, fired for telling Congress that Iraq needed at least 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. troops to establish command and control?
Afghanistan is about the same population and area as Iraq, but with much tougher terrain: some of the biggest, baddest mountains on the planet. U.S. forces would have had to permanently station at least 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers there. We didn't have them. Still don't.
Sure, we could run up the deficit even higher, hire and train more troops, and pack them off to the Hindu Kush. But Afghan resistance forces would wait us out. Even the U.S. military colossus can't bleed forever. We would have to pare down. Then we'd be back where we are now: humiliated, defeated, broke, morally bankrupt.
Lie #2: Karzai isn't perfect, but he's the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
The mainstream media began questioning America's backing of the corrupt, incompetent and unpopular Karzai regime after he brazenly stole the most recent presidential election. But they refuse to call for the end of U.S. aid, or for fair elections. Mainly this is because they don't know squat about Afghanistan. But there were always better alternatives.
The best option for a nation that pretends to promote democracy would have been to actually promote democracy. Let the Afghan people choose between any candidates they want--yes, including the Taliban--and pledge to work with the winner no matter what. (This is what the U.S. ought to have done after Hamas won the election in Gaza.) The definition of integrity is doing the right thing even when it hurts; that's also what's required of the U.S. when it's playing Captain Democracy.
Moreover, there were always more palatable choices than Karzai. The exiled king, for example, was far more popular in 2001 than the dapper ex-Talib who fled the country after being accused of embezzlement.
Lie #3: We've got the right strategy/general now.
Now it's Petraeus. Every time the White House shuffles the military brass, they claim that this time it's different. The old strategy that didn't work in 2004, or 2006, or whatever, is dead. We'll use more drones. No, fewer drones. Wait, more.
No general, no matter how brilliant, can save a doomed military campaign. Anyway, neither Petraeus nor the other stuffed uniforms who've paraded in and out of Bagram in recent years are geniuses. Where are the Eisenhowers and Pattons of 2010? They're hedge fund managers.
Lie #4: Nation-building wouldn't have helped.
Bush promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Now Vice President Biden admits what Afghans have known all along: we're not there to nation-build. We are there to nation break.
Nine years into America's longest war, it's painful to contemplate how the billions poured into Afghanistan--much of which has been siphoned off by Halliburton and other contractors, not to mention flown out of the country by the Karzai clan, might have been better spent.
In 2001 Afghans didn't need much to lay the foundations for a viable nation-state. I asked them. The answers were always the same: they involved infrastructure. Good roads. Electricity. Running water. Government offices. Connect the country's far-flung provinces to the capital, and Afghans would resume their historical role as traders. Security would necessarily follow commerce.
If we were determined to occupy Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, it ought to have been with construction equipment, not tanks. Even if the Taliban had come to power, it would have been hard for them to talk smack about the U.S. in a nation covered with road signs that read: "Unconditional Gift of the People of the United States to the People of Afghanistan."
Mostly, this does not happen. It sort of happened in 1941, with Pearl Harbor. But Hawaii, itself recently seized by U.S. marines without the thinnest veneer of legality, was merely a distant possession. It sort of happened in 1848 when Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande (after being deliberately provoked by the Americans). It definitely happened in 1812. But you see the point: every war the United States has fought, at least since 1945 (really since 1814), has been just for fun.
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq--the U.S. didn't have to fight any of them. They were optional. At minimum, they were wars of imperialism. Mostly, they were wars of aggression: undeclared, immoral, violations of international law.
Lies and spin are essential tools of "leaders" who want to convince the public to support wars for fun and profit.
The war against Afghanistan is no exception. I have previously discussed the Big Lies about Afghanistan: 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda's training camps were there, bin Laden was there, oil has nothing to do with it, etc. Now let's talk about the little lies.
Lie #1: The war could have been won.
You know the narrative: the Bush Administration never sent in enough troops, then "took their eye off the ball" by invading Iraq and transferring military resources there from Afghanistan.
The truth: More troops would merely have postponed the inevitable defeat, while costing more Afghan and American lives. Remember General Shinseki, fired for telling Congress that Iraq needed at least 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. troops to establish command and control?
Afghanistan is about the same population and area as Iraq, but with much tougher terrain: some of the biggest, baddest mountains on the planet. U.S. forces would have had to permanently station at least 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers there. We didn't have them. Still don't.
Sure, we could run up the deficit even higher, hire and train more troops, and pack them off to the Hindu Kush. But Afghan resistance forces would wait us out. Even the U.S. military colossus can't bleed forever. We would have to pare down. Then we'd be back where we are now: humiliated, defeated, broke, morally bankrupt.
Lie #2: Karzai isn't perfect, but he's the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
The mainstream media began questioning America's backing of the corrupt, incompetent and unpopular Karzai regime after he brazenly stole the most recent presidential election. But they refuse to call for the end of U.S. aid, or for fair elections. Mainly this is because they don't know squat about Afghanistan. But there were always better alternatives.
The best option for a nation that pretends to promote democracy would have been to actually promote democracy. Let the Afghan people choose between any candidates they want--yes, including the Taliban--and pledge to work with the winner no matter what. (This is what the U.S. ought to have done after Hamas won the election in Gaza.) The definition of integrity is doing the right thing even when it hurts; that's also what's required of the U.S. when it's playing Captain Democracy.
Moreover, there were always more palatable choices than Karzai. The exiled king, for example, was far more popular in 2001 than the dapper ex-Talib who fled the country after being accused of embezzlement.
Lie #3: We've got the right strategy/general now.
Now it's Petraeus. Every time the White House shuffles the military brass, they claim that this time it's different. The old strategy that didn't work in 2004, or 2006, or whatever, is dead. We'll use more drones. No, fewer drones. Wait, more.
No general, no matter how brilliant, can save a doomed military campaign. Anyway, neither Petraeus nor the other stuffed uniforms who've paraded in and out of Bagram in recent years are geniuses. Where are the Eisenhowers and Pattons of 2010? They're hedge fund managers.
Lie #4: Nation-building wouldn't have helped.
Bush promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Now Vice President Biden admits what Afghans have known all along: we're not there to nation-build. We are there to nation break.
Nine years into America's longest war, it's painful to contemplate how the billions poured into Afghanistan--much of which has been siphoned off by Halliburton and other contractors, not to mention flown out of the country by the Karzai clan, might have been better spent.
In 2001 Afghans didn't need much to lay the foundations for a viable nation-state. I asked them. The answers were always the same: they involved infrastructure. Good roads. Electricity. Running water. Government offices. Connect the country's far-flung provinces to the capital, and Afghans would resume their historical role as traders. Security would necessarily follow commerce.
If we were determined to occupy Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, it ought to have been with construction equipment, not tanks. Even if the Taliban had come to power, it would have been hard for them to talk smack about the U.S. in a nation covered with road signs that read: "Unconditional Gift of the People of the United States to the People of Afghanistan."
- Posted in
Comments are closed
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...
21 Comments so far
Show AllTed is very perceptive.
Every sentence in this piece is true and cuts through the propaganda of the American oligarchy:
"...wars of imperialism..."
"...wars of aggression..."
"The best option for a nation that pretends to promote democracy would have been to actually promote democracy." (Gaza, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Honduras, etc., etc.)
Right on. The U.S. and Israel lost all credibility as "democracies" when they refused to recognize the legitimately elected government of Gaza. In Afghanistan, last man on the roof of the embassy, please turn out the lights.
How could the US lose it's credibility so recently, After all, there was Mossadeq, Allende, the Sandanistas, and those just off the top of my head all well before Hamas even came into existence...
It's all about gaining natural resources and control. The US is full of greedy shameless fucks.
Ted failed to point out that Karzai was the UnoCal rep in the area who brought the Taliban leadership to Houston to sign up allow a pipeline across Afghanistan from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.
Result - Resounding NO from the Taliban
Date - August 2001 - less than 3 weeks before 9/11
Just a coincidence ? or?
Some say the permanent bases we are building happen to be on the route of that requested pipeline.
Who knows what Cheney and the oil moguls were discussing early in 2001 behind closed doors with maps of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And who is the enemy?-- the Taliban. And who are the Taliban-- by now it is probably any Afghan who opposes our presence there. And what should we do about the Taliban-- eliminate them. We had to burn the village to save it-- an old story.
Tammons,
Well said.
Minor point: It wasn't the Mexican troops crossing the Rio Grande in 1848 that caused the Mexican-American War, it was the Americans crossing the Nueces River in 1846 that stirred trouble. President Polk ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor to do this with the intention of starting a war. Mexico had never ratified any treaty agreeing with the Rio Grande as the border (although Gen. Santa Anna, while a prisioner in Texas, had signed one.)
Oh, and someone please explain to me what was so "definite" about the cause(s) of the War of 1812. As far as I know, that one too could have been avoided.
The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant
We now know that one main cause of the War of 1812 was President James Madison's desire to add Canada to the United States, so that war was partly a war for U.S. Empire.
The War of 1812 was definitely an absurd war. The British were guilty of impressment (capturing U.S. ships and searching for deserters). If I recall my history correctly, the French were doing the same thing, however, messing with Napoleon wouldn't have been such a good idea for the U.S. As a cause of war, this is absurd. It's not like Britain attempted to invade the U.S. in retaliation for the Revolutionary War.
Rall's last paragraph is a little messy it almost sounds like he is implying the Taliban came to power after 2001.
Rall wrote: "The best option for a nation that pretends to promote democracy would have been to actually promote democracy."
Why would they actually promote democracy when capitalism never ever wanted democracy. From the beginning they suppressed democracy everywhere -- they wanted "men of means" to rule -- not the "uninformed and ignorant" masses to make decisions of the country.
So when failure after failure occurs, its not because they don't understand Afghanistan, it's because they are doing everything possible to win the war for US corporate interests -- something (imperialism/colonialism) that almost all the (common) people in the "West" fail to understand.
JJR
I recall being upset as a young Amerikan Jugend Cold War Lover in the '70s that a novelist could name the US-Soviet conflict "The Looking-Glass War", but the eagerness with which the US population went gung-ho to destroy The-Devil-in-the-Flesh in 2001 (to say nothing of its non-sequiturial sequel, the Iraq Genocide) demonstrated the exactitude of the coinage.
Well, many afghan patriots and freedom fighters remain eager to expel NATO's mercenary thugs from their lands. The yearning for freedom from brutal foreign domination remains.
"But you see the point: every war the United States has fought, at least since 1945 (really since 1814), has been just for fun."
While you are at it - enjoy!
Capitalism and the Military-Industrial Complex doesnt require wars to be won - no - it needs perpetual war. That way Afghanistan is perfect. And there are billions more waiting out there to join the uncounted casualties of White Man's adventures (if i may be allowed to generalise the US as a continuation of Europe, only on the pain of forgetting the zionists).
Karzai/ democracy/ more troops etc. is besides the point, espe now with the perfect weapon without risk of US casualties - drones.
as it is all peace production is in China and the only thing the US hasnt outsourced the production of, yet, is weapons.
so join the M-I C and stop cribbing.
As USMC Major General Smedley Butler told us long ago: "War is a racket".
...it would have been hard for them to talk smack about the U.S. in a nation covered with road signs that read: "Unconditional Gift of the People of the United States to the People of Afghanistan."
The only unconditional gifts from the US MIC to foreign countries are things which go "BOOM".
Ted,
Disregarding all the nits and picks momentarily...,
Thanks for a timely and lucid presentation of the sog as it
really is.
There are constructive steps that even the current regime team could apply to the issue; it is more than disturbing, it is apalling to witness the lack of stategic insight that is evident.
Members within the regime team will have to take steps to remove some obstacles around them in order for such a "new" approach to be staged/initiated.
As it stands, where is the military senior leadership when it is needed in the service of the people? Who within the highest ranks will step forward and castigate the criminal madness being posed as command integrity/operational balance?
I suspevt that one reason that the "nation buliding" fails is that it is more profitable that way.
Actually creating infrastructure that works for the people in the occupied nation has a much lower profit margin than creating shoddy, bulit to fail projects.