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
US Takes the Russian Route to Afghanistan
Wonder What They're Thinking in Moscow
Jul 07, 2009
I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the minds of Russia's leaders as they recently agreed to allow American troops and weapons to fly over their territory on their way to our war in Afghanistan. Thousand of flights a year to facilitate the American escalation are apparently envisioned under the new agreement because, as Mikhail Margelov, foreign affairs committee chairman of the Russian upper house of Parliament, told the New York Times, "Afghanistan is one of the areas where we must cooperate."
The American press has noted that with its eighth anniversary coming up this war has not only long since passed the duration of our involvement in the Second World War but may soon become our longest running war - depending on how you date the beginning of America's participation in the Vietnam War. But in Russia I suspect they'll pay more heed to another benchmark of futility - the date on which our war in Afghanistan matches theirs in duration, or, more properly put, the date on which it matches the length of the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, which began in late 1979 and ended in early 1989.
Many have called that war the Soviet Union's Vietnam. A couple of years after the last troops came home there wasn't even a Soviet Union any more. Some say that Afghanistan is the reason there wasn't. Of this we can't be certain, but what we do know is that the Soviet war effort did not turn out too well.
To be sure, the US seems unlikely to follow the USSR into oblivion over the next few years, regardless of how badly our Afghanistan War may go. But as the date on which we match the Soviets approaches, we might hope that it could at least sober our decision-makers up - and maybe wise them up a bit as well. Arrogance of power or ignorance of history - it's hard to say which is more significant in Washington these days.
Consider the amendment that Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) offered to the recent supplemental budget appropriating funding for America's two wars. It was the most modest of measures, asking only that the Administration "submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan." As McGovern argued during debate, "This should not be controversial." But demand anything of the White House and the antiwar President who supposedly lives there? The effrontery! The Administration and the House leadership were having none of it and rounded up every vote they could against an amendment that would have required little more of them than that within six months time they concoct an excuse for continuing this war.
The good news for the Administration was that it prevailed handily, by a 278-138 margin. The bad news was that they lost the House Democrats by 131-114. In other words, the White House now retains carte blanche regarding the Afghanistan War at the sufferance of the Republican Party. Now, the Republicans are generally a pretty dependable pro-war party and all, yet there are signs that they may not prove reliable allies indefinitely.
Take the opinions recently penned by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute for the generally right wing Examiner newspapers: "The new bipartisan conventional wisdom is that in order to fight al-Qaida, we'll have to keep fighting bloody counterinsurgencies in "failed states." Why anyone believes that is a mystery. ... Afghanistan wasn't a "dumb war" at the outset; unlike Iraq, it was a necessary war. But staying looks less and less wise every day." The Administration might do well to take note and maybe start paying a bit more heed to the people who got them where they are.
Meanwhile, it may well be true that Russia's decision to become enablers for US plans to get heavier into Afghanistan are motivated by appreciation of the fact that "the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan are effectively defending Russia's southern flank," as Margelov is reported to believe. But you've got to figure that there'll be a few vodka toasts in Moscow when the day comes that we've been there even longer than they were. I know that when I read the July 4 headline that said, "Russia Opens Route for U.S. to Fly Arms to Afghanistan," I couldn't help but think - Those Russians, they sure have a sense of humor.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Tom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts State Representative and the author of 'The Primary Route: How the 99% Take On the Military Industrial Complex.' He lives in San Francisco.
I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the minds of Russia's leaders as they recently agreed to allow American troops and weapons to fly over their territory on their way to our war in Afghanistan. Thousand of flights a year to facilitate the American escalation are apparently envisioned under the new agreement because, as Mikhail Margelov, foreign affairs committee chairman of the Russian upper house of Parliament, told the New York Times, "Afghanistan is one of the areas where we must cooperate."
The American press has noted that with its eighth anniversary coming up this war has not only long since passed the duration of our involvement in the Second World War but may soon become our longest running war - depending on how you date the beginning of America's participation in the Vietnam War. But in Russia I suspect they'll pay more heed to another benchmark of futility - the date on which our war in Afghanistan matches theirs in duration, or, more properly put, the date on which it matches the length of the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, which began in late 1979 and ended in early 1989.
Many have called that war the Soviet Union's Vietnam. A couple of years after the last troops came home there wasn't even a Soviet Union any more. Some say that Afghanistan is the reason there wasn't. Of this we can't be certain, but what we do know is that the Soviet war effort did not turn out too well.
To be sure, the US seems unlikely to follow the USSR into oblivion over the next few years, regardless of how badly our Afghanistan War may go. But as the date on which we match the Soviets approaches, we might hope that it could at least sober our decision-makers up - and maybe wise them up a bit as well. Arrogance of power or ignorance of history - it's hard to say which is more significant in Washington these days.
Consider the amendment that Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) offered to the recent supplemental budget appropriating funding for America's two wars. It was the most modest of measures, asking only that the Administration "submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan." As McGovern argued during debate, "This should not be controversial." But demand anything of the White House and the antiwar President who supposedly lives there? The effrontery! The Administration and the House leadership were having none of it and rounded up every vote they could against an amendment that would have required little more of them than that within six months time they concoct an excuse for continuing this war.
The good news for the Administration was that it prevailed handily, by a 278-138 margin. The bad news was that they lost the House Democrats by 131-114. In other words, the White House now retains carte blanche regarding the Afghanistan War at the sufferance of the Republican Party. Now, the Republicans are generally a pretty dependable pro-war party and all, yet there are signs that they may not prove reliable allies indefinitely.
Take the opinions recently penned by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute for the generally right wing Examiner newspapers: "The new bipartisan conventional wisdom is that in order to fight al-Qaida, we'll have to keep fighting bloody counterinsurgencies in "failed states." Why anyone believes that is a mystery. ... Afghanistan wasn't a "dumb war" at the outset; unlike Iraq, it was a necessary war. But staying looks less and less wise every day." The Administration might do well to take note and maybe start paying a bit more heed to the people who got them where they are.
Meanwhile, it may well be true that Russia's decision to become enablers for US plans to get heavier into Afghanistan are motivated by appreciation of the fact that "the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan are effectively defending Russia's southern flank," as Margelov is reported to believe. But you've got to figure that there'll be a few vodka toasts in Moscow when the day comes that we've been there even longer than they were. I know that when I read the July 4 headline that said, "Russia Opens Route for U.S. to Fly Arms to Afghanistan," I couldn't help but think - Those Russians, they sure have a sense of humor.
Tom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts State Representative and the author of 'The Primary Route: How the 99% Take On the Military Industrial Complex.' He lives in San Francisco.
I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the minds of Russia's leaders as they recently agreed to allow American troops and weapons to fly over their territory on their way to our war in Afghanistan. Thousand of flights a year to facilitate the American escalation are apparently envisioned under the new agreement because, as Mikhail Margelov, foreign affairs committee chairman of the Russian upper house of Parliament, told the New York Times, "Afghanistan is one of the areas where we must cooperate."
The American press has noted that with its eighth anniversary coming up this war has not only long since passed the duration of our involvement in the Second World War but may soon become our longest running war - depending on how you date the beginning of America's participation in the Vietnam War. But in Russia I suspect they'll pay more heed to another benchmark of futility - the date on which our war in Afghanistan matches theirs in duration, or, more properly put, the date on which it matches the length of the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, which began in late 1979 and ended in early 1989.
Many have called that war the Soviet Union's Vietnam. A couple of years after the last troops came home there wasn't even a Soviet Union any more. Some say that Afghanistan is the reason there wasn't. Of this we can't be certain, but what we do know is that the Soviet war effort did not turn out too well.
To be sure, the US seems unlikely to follow the USSR into oblivion over the next few years, regardless of how badly our Afghanistan War may go. But as the date on which we match the Soviets approaches, we might hope that it could at least sober our decision-makers up - and maybe wise them up a bit as well. Arrogance of power or ignorance of history - it's hard to say which is more significant in Washington these days.
Consider the amendment that Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) offered to the recent supplemental budget appropriating funding for America's two wars. It was the most modest of measures, asking only that the Administration "submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan." As McGovern argued during debate, "This should not be controversial." But demand anything of the White House and the antiwar President who supposedly lives there? The effrontery! The Administration and the House leadership were having none of it and rounded up every vote they could against an amendment that would have required little more of them than that within six months time they concoct an excuse for continuing this war.
The good news for the Administration was that it prevailed handily, by a 278-138 margin. The bad news was that they lost the House Democrats by 131-114. In other words, the White House now retains carte blanche regarding the Afghanistan War at the sufferance of the Republican Party. Now, the Republicans are generally a pretty dependable pro-war party and all, yet there are signs that they may not prove reliable allies indefinitely.
Take the opinions recently penned by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute for the generally right wing Examiner newspapers: "The new bipartisan conventional wisdom is that in order to fight al-Qaida, we'll have to keep fighting bloody counterinsurgencies in "failed states." Why anyone believes that is a mystery. ... Afghanistan wasn't a "dumb war" at the outset; unlike Iraq, it was a necessary war. But staying looks less and less wise every day." The Administration might do well to take note and maybe start paying a bit more heed to the people who got them where they are.
Meanwhile, it may well be true that Russia's decision to become enablers for US plans to get heavier into Afghanistan are motivated by appreciation of the fact that "the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan are effectively defending Russia's southern flank," as Margelov is reported to believe. But you've got to figure that there'll be a few vodka toasts in Moscow when the day comes that we've been there even longer than they were. I know that when I read the July 4 headline that said, "Russia Opens Route for U.S. to Fly Arms to Afghanistan," I couldn't help but think - Those Russians, they sure have a sense of humor.
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.