SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Steering clear of Afghanistan's Graveyard of Invaders
My recent travels and talks with Afghan and Pakistani leaders, including several ex-Taliban leaders and with hundreds of ordinary Afghan and Pakistani citizens, lead me to this conclusion: the West has bombed itself from the role of the liberator into the role of the occupier. Afghanistan no longer matters when it comes to global, anti-Western terrorism.
The gruesome Taliban -- and all the resistance forces the West conveniently labels "Taliban" -- are part of a popular uprising caused by, and directed against, the brutality of the occupiers.
Mar 05, 2009
My recent travels and talks with Afghan and Pakistani leaders, including several ex-Taliban leaders and with hundreds of ordinary Afghan and Pakistani citizens, lead me to this conclusion: the West has bombed itself from the role of the liberator into the role of the occupier. Afghanistan no longer matters when it comes to global, anti-Western terrorism.
The gruesome Taliban -- and all the resistance forces the West conveniently labels "Taliban" -- are part of a popular uprising caused by, and directed against, the brutality of the occupiers.
While the word "terrorism" is the most abused expression in recent history, we must ask ourselves --who is our real and most dangerous enemy?
Is it Osama bin Laden's and Al-Zawahiri's globally operating Al Qaeda terror organization -- the real Al Qaeda -- which, even according to ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, has been largely dismantled and has no direct operational influence anymore with regard to concrete acts of terror in the West?
Is it the regionally operating terrorism; a copy of bin Laden's old anti-Russian and anti-American terror gang that roams the Muslim world in search of another "holy war"?
Is it the daily growing number of western diaspora-terrorists, who, using an Islamic masquerade, live amongst us and try to attack the West in it's own cities, branding themselves Al Qaeda, even though they are only crude copies because they don't know any real Al Qaeda leaders.
Or is it the national terrorism of a muslim insurgency directed against pro-western-governments and the forces of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what is the purpose of Western troop reinforcements in Afghanistan? The vast majority of the Afghan population is against them. They argue: More NATO troops means more war, more civilian casualties and ultimately more Taliban. Pres. Hamid Karzai stated in his congratulatory address to Pres. Barack Obama quite passionately, "The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in Afghanistan. Stop bombing our villages! We need a new strategy."
Troop reinforcements are not even in the interest of the West. Even if the United States would drop its entire arsenal of bombs on the Hindu Kush and kill all Taliban and all migrant guerrillas of "Al Qaeda", still the diaspora-terrorism threatening our cities, this copy of Al Qaeda in the West, would not be defeated. Quite to the contrary: Its popularity would grow.
Our wars in Afghanistan and also in Iraq - where I spent five long days with the Iraqi resistance that fights against the US-occupation and against the so-called "Al Qaeda" -- have turned into terrorist breeding programs long ago. The western diaspora-terrorism grows with each Muslim civilian killed by a Western weapon.
Isn't it ludicrous that our Secretaries of the Interior must fight terrorists in our countries, which their colleagues the Secretaries of the Defense produce in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Why doesn't someone in the Western governments rise and say: "Enough! Not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan?" Why is nobody admitting that the main problem facing us is that our politicians just don't know how to get out of this quagmire?
Of course, in Afghanistan an immediate withdrawal is not a strategic alternative to the phantom war we are fighting there. Instead, I offer for the following five strategic alternatives:
* Strengthening of the Afghan security forces
A soldier of Afghanistan's National Army earns $100 a month, a Talib up to $400, and the average Western soldier $4000 as extra-pay only. A member of Afghanistan's security forces has to earn considerably more than a Taliban-fighter.
* Building of Schools instead of dropping bombs
Our Afghanistan policy has to focus once again on reconstruction. Only ten percent of the spending for Afghanistan is developmental in nature.
* Negotiations with the Taliban
All my intensive conversations with ex-Taliban leaders have convinced me that one can talk rationally with these people. Perhaps negotiations are the last resort in order to prevent their victory. The Afghans say: "You have watches, we have time." Afghanistan remains an invaders graveyard. But, there can be no negotiations with the migrant guerrillas who call themselves Al Qaeda. We do have to drive a wedge between these copies of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
* Encouraging Afghanistan to negotiate with its neighbours Pakistan, India and even Iran under the leadership of the UN Security Council. None of these countries is in a position to solve its problems alone, whether in the tribal areas or in Kashmir.
* Withdrawal of our troops within three years because the Taliban will immediately lose their only "raison d'etre" with the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Most Afghans do not want to see a return of the Taliban. They support them out of sheer desperation over the Rambo-style politics of the occupier.
It is a foolish act: the West looks for the terrorists, who threaten its cities, in the wrong places. The terrorists who threaten New York, London, Madrid or Berlin live neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. They live in the West. And our politicians don't have the guts to admit it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
My recent travels and talks with Afghan and Pakistani leaders, including several ex-Taliban leaders and with hundreds of ordinary Afghan and Pakistani citizens, lead me to this conclusion: the West has bombed itself from the role of the liberator into the role of the occupier. Afghanistan no longer matters when it comes to global, anti-Western terrorism.
The gruesome Taliban -- and all the resistance forces the West conveniently labels "Taliban" -- are part of a popular uprising caused by, and directed against, the brutality of the occupiers.
While the word "terrorism" is the most abused expression in recent history, we must ask ourselves --who is our real and most dangerous enemy?
Is it Osama bin Laden's and Al-Zawahiri's globally operating Al Qaeda terror organization -- the real Al Qaeda -- which, even according to ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, has been largely dismantled and has no direct operational influence anymore with regard to concrete acts of terror in the West?
Is it the regionally operating terrorism; a copy of bin Laden's old anti-Russian and anti-American terror gang that roams the Muslim world in search of another "holy war"?
Is it the daily growing number of western diaspora-terrorists, who, using an Islamic masquerade, live amongst us and try to attack the West in it's own cities, branding themselves Al Qaeda, even though they are only crude copies because they don't know any real Al Qaeda leaders.
Or is it the national terrorism of a muslim insurgency directed against pro-western-governments and the forces of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what is the purpose of Western troop reinforcements in Afghanistan? The vast majority of the Afghan population is against them. They argue: More NATO troops means more war, more civilian casualties and ultimately more Taliban. Pres. Hamid Karzai stated in his congratulatory address to Pres. Barack Obama quite passionately, "The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in Afghanistan. Stop bombing our villages! We need a new strategy."
Troop reinforcements are not even in the interest of the West. Even if the United States would drop its entire arsenal of bombs on the Hindu Kush and kill all Taliban and all migrant guerrillas of "Al Qaeda", still the diaspora-terrorism threatening our cities, this copy of Al Qaeda in the West, would not be defeated. Quite to the contrary: Its popularity would grow.
Our wars in Afghanistan and also in Iraq - where I spent five long days with the Iraqi resistance that fights against the US-occupation and against the so-called "Al Qaeda" -- have turned into terrorist breeding programs long ago. The western diaspora-terrorism grows with each Muslim civilian killed by a Western weapon.
Isn't it ludicrous that our Secretaries of the Interior must fight terrorists in our countries, which their colleagues the Secretaries of the Defense produce in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Why doesn't someone in the Western governments rise and say: "Enough! Not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan?" Why is nobody admitting that the main problem facing us is that our politicians just don't know how to get out of this quagmire?
Of course, in Afghanistan an immediate withdrawal is not a strategic alternative to the phantom war we are fighting there. Instead, I offer for the following five strategic alternatives:
* Strengthening of the Afghan security forces
A soldier of Afghanistan's National Army earns $100 a month, a Talib up to $400, and the average Western soldier $4000 as extra-pay only. A member of Afghanistan's security forces has to earn considerably more than a Taliban-fighter.
* Building of Schools instead of dropping bombs
Our Afghanistan policy has to focus once again on reconstruction. Only ten percent of the spending for Afghanistan is developmental in nature.
* Negotiations with the Taliban
All my intensive conversations with ex-Taliban leaders have convinced me that one can talk rationally with these people. Perhaps negotiations are the last resort in order to prevent their victory. The Afghans say: "You have watches, we have time." Afghanistan remains an invaders graveyard. But, there can be no negotiations with the migrant guerrillas who call themselves Al Qaeda. We do have to drive a wedge between these copies of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
* Encouraging Afghanistan to negotiate with its neighbours Pakistan, India and even Iran under the leadership of the UN Security Council. None of these countries is in a position to solve its problems alone, whether in the tribal areas or in Kashmir.
* Withdrawal of our troops within three years because the Taliban will immediately lose their only "raison d'etre" with the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Most Afghans do not want to see a return of the Taliban. They support them out of sheer desperation over the Rambo-style politics of the occupier.
It is a foolish act: the West looks for the terrorists, who threaten its cities, in the wrong places. The terrorists who threaten New York, London, Madrid or Berlin live neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. They live in the West. And our politicians don't have the guts to admit it.
My recent travels and talks with Afghan and Pakistani leaders, including several ex-Taliban leaders and with hundreds of ordinary Afghan and Pakistani citizens, lead me to this conclusion: the West has bombed itself from the role of the liberator into the role of the occupier. Afghanistan no longer matters when it comes to global, anti-Western terrorism.
The gruesome Taliban -- and all the resistance forces the West conveniently labels "Taliban" -- are part of a popular uprising caused by, and directed against, the brutality of the occupiers.
While the word "terrorism" is the most abused expression in recent history, we must ask ourselves --who is our real and most dangerous enemy?
Is it Osama bin Laden's and Al-Zawahiri's globally operating Al Qaeda terror organization -- the real Al Qaeda -- which, even according to ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, has been largely dismantled and has no direct operational influence anymore with regard to concrete acts of terror in the West?
Is it the regionally operating terrorism; a copy of bin Laden's old anti-Russian and anti-American terror gang that roams the Muslim world in search of another "holy war"?
Is it the daily growing number of western diaspora-terrorists, who, using an Islamic masquerade, live amongst us and try to attack the West in it's own cities, branding themselves Al Qaeda, even though they are only crude copies because they don't know any real Al Qaeda leaders.
Or is it the national terrorism of a muslim insurgency directed against pro-western-governments and the forces of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what is the purpose of Western troop reinforcements in Afghanistan? The vast majority of the Afghan population is against them. They argue: More NATO troops means more war, more civilian casualties and ultimately more Taliban. Pres. Hamid Karzai stated in his congratulatory address to Pres. Barack Obama quite passionately, "The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in Afghanistan. Stop bombing our villages! We need a new strategy."
Troop reinforcements are not even in the interest of the West. Even if the United States would drop its entire arsenal of bombs on the Hindu Kush and kill all Taliban and all migrant guerrillas of "Al Qaeda", still the diaspora-terrorism threatening our cities, this copy of Al Qaeda in the West, would not be defeated. Quite to the contrary: Its popularity would grow.
Our wars in Afghanistan and also in Iraq - where I spent five long days with the Iraqi resistance that fights against the US-occupation and against the so-called "Al Qaeda" -- have turned into terrorist breeding programs long ago. The western diaspora-terrorism grows with each Muslim civilian killed by a Western weapon.
Isn't it ludicrous that our Secretaries of the Interior must fight terrorists in our countries, which their colleagues the Secretaries of the Defense produce in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Why doesn't someone in the Western governments rise and say: "Enough! Not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan?" Why is nobody admitting that the main problem facing us is that our politicians just don't know how to get out of this quagmire?
Of course, in Afghanistan an immediate withdrawal is not a strategic alternative to the phantom war we are fighting there. Instead, I offer for the following five strategic alternatives:
* Strengthening of the Afghan security forces
A soldier of Afghanistan's National Army earns $100 a month, a Talib up to $400, and the average Western soldier $4000 as extra-pay only. A member of Afghanistan's security forces has to earn considerably more than a Taliban-fighter.
* Building of Schools instead of dropping bombs
Our Afghanistan policy has to focus once again on reconstruction. Only ten percent of the spending for Afghanistan is developmental in nature.
* Negotiations with the Taliban
All my intensive conversations with ex-Taliban leaders have convinced me that one can talk rationally with these people. Perhaps negotiations are the last resort in order to prevent their victory. The Afghans say: "You have watches, we have time." Afghanistan remains an invaders graveyard. But, there can be no negotiations with the migrant guerrillas who call themselves Al Qaeda. We do have to drive a wedge between these copies of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
* Encouraging Afghanistan to negotiate with its neighbours Pakistan, India and even Iran under the leadership of the UN Security Council. None of these countries is in a position to solve its problems alone, whether in the tribal areas or in Kashmir.
* Withdrawal of our troops within three years because the Taliban will immediately lose their only "raison d'etre" with the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Most Afghans do not want to see a return of the Taliban. They support them out of sheer desperation over the Rambo-style politics of the occupier.
It is a foolish act: the West looks for the terrorists, who threaten its cities, in the wrong places. The terrorists who threaten New York, London, Madrid or Berlin live neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. They live in the West. And our politicians don't have the guts to admit it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.