
Afghanistan is becoming Iraq. If trends continue, eventually the American public may come to view it in much the same way they now view Iraq: an ill-advised, poorly planned blunder, borne of American hubris and the delusion that overthrowing governments, even illegitimate ones, is a justifiable exericise of American military power with acceptable and manageable consequences. What's clear now is that in both cases, we are learning at the expense of other peoples' lives those terrible consequences we would never have risked if the victims were Americans.
Oh, I know, we want desperately to believe that Afghanistan is different from Iraq, and in many ways, it is. The New York Times has called the Afghanistan adventure the "good" war, the necessary one, compared to the unilateral war of choice against Iraq. The Taliban were harboring/cooperating with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, the folks that attacked us on 9/11. And the Taliban are/were brutal, repressive, and intolerant of alternative political views and religious beliefs, let alone women's rights; they were the antithesis of modern civilization. Something had to be done, and striking back militarily to topple the Taliban regime seemed fully justified. At least that's what we said, and our anger over 9/11 and belief in our invincibility allowed us to believe it.
For months, news reports have warned us of the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan. The Taliban are regaining territories they lost at the beginning of the invasion and now appear to be regrouping in safe havens in Northern Pakistan, with the apparent acquiescence of our Pakistani allies. Anthony Cordesman in a NYT op-ed, One War We Can Still Win, recounts the growing problem on the military side, but also recommends major US economic aid to improve services to the Afghanis.
This means the United States needs to make major increases in its economic aid, as do its NATO allies. These increases need to be made immediately if new projects and meaningful actions are to begin in the field by the end of winter, when the Islamists typically launch new offensives.
At least such programs are cheap by the standards of aid to Iraq. The projects needed are simple ones that Afghans can largely carry out themselves. People need roads and water, and to a lesser degree schools and medical services. They need emergency aid to meet local needs and win hearts and minds.
The United States has grossly underfinanced such economic aid efforts and left far too much of the country without visible aid activity. State Department plans call for a $2.3 billion program, but unless at least $1.1 billion comes immediately, aid will lag far behind need next year.
While Cordesman remains hopeful it is not too late to save Afghanistan, the fact is that we and our NATO allies are now engaged in a bloody civil war, induced to use the same brutal, often indiscriminate military force on the ill-defined "insurgents" that we use against equally misdefined Iraqi "insurgents," and justifying this because the Taliban, like al Qaeda, are even more ruthless. Yet most of the victims of the violence from both sides are the hapless Afghani people.
Consider this AP story (h/t to reader angie for spotting this one), Karzai: NATO bombs, terrorists kill kids:
KABUL, Afghanistan – With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and U.S. bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan — a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos.
In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children." "We can't prevent the terrorists from coming from Pakistan, and we can't prevent the coalition from bombing the terrorists, and our children are dying because of this," he said.
The president, who turned tearful after relating stories of children maimed by bombings, took long pauses between sentences and at one point covered both eyes with a white handkerchief. A single tear rolled down his right cheek and bounced off his suit lapel. "Cruelty at the highest level," he said, his lower lip quivering. "The cruelty is too much."
The taped speech was shown later on state TV, though that broadcast and other news shows did not show Karzai crying.
"I think what he was trying to say is that our country — 30 years of war has made us so weak that we don't have the institutions to control these types of things," [a Karzai aide] said. [...]
Afghanistan has seen more than 100 suicide attacks this year, a record number, and close to 4,000 people have died in insurgency-related violence. On Sunday, insurgents ambushed NATO troops in southern Zabul province with a roadside bomb and gunfire, wounding two soldiers, said Capt. Andre Salloum, a spokesman for NATO's troops in the south.
A day earlier, a roadside bomb exploded next to an Afghan army vehicle in eastern Paktia province, killing all six soldiers on board, police said Sunday.
Karzai's tears are a man's tears. Grown men and women weep in the face of horrors like this. Have George Bush and Dick Cheney ever wept for the Afghani children? Or for the Iraqis, Pakistanis, Lebanese and Israelis who are dying for the same misguided policies?
President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their neocon cheerleaders told us theirs was the only way to confront rogue regimes and the threat of terrorism. But all they've done is unleashed death. Hundreds of thousands of deaths. And they deliberately chose to cause those deaths there, so they wouldn't occur here, a policy whose morality is likely not apparent to the Afghanis.
How much longer will the media listen to Bush, to the Cheneys, McCains and Liebermans, and to the whole cabal of neocons who talked the country into these morally outrageous disasters, and yet clamor for more and more and still more? When will they finally say what the American people are saying, "Enough!"
Related posts:
- An Afghan Circle I Would Like Squared
- White House: We Can’t Fix Our Afghan Strategy Until the Afghan Problem Goes Away
- Taking Out the Intelligence Laundry: McClatchy Avoids Policy Debate in Pro-Escalation Afghanistan Report
- Early Morning Swim: Special Memorial Day Edition
- Did US Forces Use White Phosphorus in the Afghan Bombings?





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

We are in Afghanistan for the Herion and to destablize the region so that the CIA or whomever our leaders are using, can steal it. Its Pretty simple. Too simple. Horrible.
Oooh, missed it my *that* much!
The complete destabilization of this region will lead to WWIII.
Both Shrub and Osama will get what they crave:
End of Days
Our mistake in Afghanistan was not following up. I have no problem with the idea that a country that openly supports the people who attack us should be punished for it, and in a place like Afghanistan the most effective form of punishment was that they lose power. Where we failed was that there was no followup. The smallish force we left there, and the lack of reconstruction funds, left the place a mess. This is probably Bush’s biggest strategic blunder – there was no reason to invade Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan.
Funny how he’s now so determined that we should finish the job in Iraq.
The sad fact is that this is an old story. We and the Soviets left the place a mess after our little proxy war there in the ’80s. The only people who seemed to care what happened in Afghanistan were the religious fanatics who took it over. Now we’re paying the price for that neglect, plus all the more recent neglect, as well.
thanks scarecrow. i never understood how this was a “good war”. cluster bombs from 30,000 ft and installing warlords every bit as bad as the taliban?
have any other FDLers seen the movie JUNG? i highly recommend it, but beware – it might inspire you to contribute to gino strada’s emergency (more from democracy now! interview).
How much of Pakistan does Musharaff truly control?
While I feel horribly for the people of afghanistan, let’s not drop the whole Unocal/Taliban pipeline deal, or Karzai’s involvement therewith.
a bit more about the movie JUNG (for those who don’t want to click the links):
JUNG (War): In the Land of the Mujaheddin
by Fabrizio Lazzaretti, Giuseppe Petitto, and Alberto Vendemmiati
2000
video documentary
Winner 2001 HRWIFF [Human Rights Watch International Film Festival] Nestor Almendros Award
“Either human rights are valid for everyone or else they’re just privileges.” – Dr. Gino Strada
In 1999 an Italian surgeon, Dr. Gino Strada, and a war correspondent, Ettore Mo, join forces and set up a hospital in Afghanistan, a country that has had to cope with various wars for the last twenty years. After the Russians, the Taliban took Afghan society firmly into their grasp. Houses and schools have been burnt down, sons killed on the battlefield and almost everybody is hungry, explains a veiled Afghan woman. Women are beaten up in the street if they are wearing sandals that show part of their legs; everyone is terrified of breaking the extremely strict rules of the Taliban. Meanwhile, tanks have conquered the mountains, soldiers are trigger-happy and the rugged, stunning landscape is strewn with mines, which are stepped on every day by countless innocent victims. The new hospital tries to help all of these war victims, though the Italian surgeon gets discouraged at times, because he knows that every day brings the same calamities and the situation is nowhere near ending. “This is a brave, intelligent, tough movie that must be seen, now more than ever.
Much more than just a piece of reporting, JUNG is a very human portrait of the people of Afghanistan, and the horror of living in a state of never-ending war.” -Martin Scorsese
Oh yeah the pipeline too for sure. the drug stuff is just a flashback to the 80’s in central america with the cocaine/CIA thing under Bush 41, only this time its Herion in Afghanastan. We are dealing w/ the mob basically. That’s who’s running our government. Mob/frat boys.
Even on days when I am not convinced that Dick Cheney personally controlled the RC transmitter which flew the drone planes into the tade center buildings, thereby garnishing full ownership of the greatest lie a government of the United States has ever perpetrated upon its populace…even on those days (and today isn’t one), I marvel at the complete disaster this administration has made with the conflict in Afghanistan.
The whole world was behind America for that brief, shining instance and W actually ‘looked’ like he had a purpose and intelligence enough to execute it. And al Qaeda are truly bad folks (on par with Cheney); committing crimes against women, children and the general Afghan populace on a daily basis. If only on the surface, there was every justifiable reason for America to retaliate against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There was NOT ANY justifiable reason for America to walk away from that fight when it was half over.
jayt @ 6
Umm. Let’s see, this is Thursday …
My guess, and hopefully someone who knows what he’s talking about will join in, is that he’s holding on by his fingernails. He needs the support of some of the same sorts of people who are now invading Afghanistan from his country to run the place. Or, to be more precise, he can’t piss them off too much or he’ll pay for it.
Politics in that region tend to be very Darwinian. To survive, Musharaff and his family will probably have to stay in power or have a very reliable exit strategy.
The government of Pakistan has little to no control over some of its western regions like Waziristan. That Frontline special from a while back was a good overview. It’s run by various religious fanatics and tribesmen. It’s so inaccessible that a mid-twentieth century army, which is a fairly good description of the Pakistani army, can’t get up there in sufficient numbers to control the place without tremendous effort. These western regions are where the Taliban are holed up.
This country is so fucked. Ratfuck Nation, I call it.
ALL THAT BLOOD AND MONEY, God knows how many hundreds of billions for Iraq — they’re even talking about an Iraqi “jobs program” now — when this money could have provided universal health care and jobs for our own citizens.
The cruelty, cynicism, and greed involved are overwhelming, and the Democrats hands are bloody, too. No one is even trying to stop it, and our votes mean nothing.
I’m surprised anyone even bothers to blog about politics any more. All that does is keep us off the streets.
Thanks Scarecrow; good post and important reminder of that other hotspot.
I would point out that the Taliban has a lot more than “the apparent acquiescence” of our ill chosen Pakistani allies; it has the wholehearted support of Pakistan- monetary and ideological.
Both of these articles address the malignant influence Pakistan has exerted on its’ neighbor, most often on the USA’s dime.
http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..10/1355235
Amy Goodman interview of Sarah Chayes (former reporter and current resident of Afghanistan); lots of insight and her first hand account of an outrageous incidence of the US undermining Karzai.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..istan.html
for Barney Rubin’s take on the current situation
Afternoon everyone.
Dru, Selise, others: thanks for the links. I used the words “apparent acquiescence” knowing the stories of the deal the Pakistanis struck to avoid having to face the factions in their own country. There is a long history of Pakistani interference in Afghanistan.
Hayduke @ 9
You’re on it. It’s drugs, oil, arms, and a whole shitload of money, in no particular order.
I’ve tried and tried to figure it all out – not bright enough, evidently.
Read Larissa, lukery
and lukery’s summaries of his various Sibel Edmonds interviews – it still confuses the crap out of me – but it’s there somewhere….
nobody would ever think the war was ill advised as just about everyone does Iraq, not even poorly executed, just ineptly resolved
jayt @ 15
thanks for reminding me of the potential sibel edmonds/turkey/drugs connections to our fubar afghanistan actions.
I have to admit I’ve struggled with the post. I suppose, deep down, that I accept in principle (if not embrace) the concept of a “just war,” and there are certainly arguments that the Taliban are brutal enough to confront us with that question. But my problem is, even if there are “justifications” for war, they always assume that there is a humane way to fight them and that we will in fact, adhere to those conventions. It’s never true. And I don’t think I’d want that logic used on me.
I’ve been in a war, walked through bomb craters from B-52 carpet raids, and have at least a little sense of what modern warfare can do. I don’t know how anyone can feel comfortable about unleashing our firepower on any civilization.
I guess the bottom line is that I wish the country and it’s leaders were spending as much time thinking about ways to save people’s lives and improve their conditions as they apparently are figuring out how to kill the “enemy.” There’s a horrible imbalance going on here, and it’s someone else’s people and their children who are paying the price for that. Instead of an Iraq Study Group, we need a “children’s study group.”
perris @ 16
i do.
Why did the Taliban take control of most of Afghanistan in 1996? Because, as abhorrent as their brand of Islam was, it was considered a better alternative to the civil war and brigandage that enveloped the country for four years.
After the Soviet withdrawal, the US forgot about Afghanistan — Clinton as well as Bush Sr. We know the result. And if the situation is allowed to deteriorate further now, Taliban 2.0’s promise of stability will seem preferable to yet more civil war.
In that sense, it does chime in unexpected ways with Iraq.
The argument that ‘it was fought the wrong way’ as opposed to ‘it shouldn’t have been fought at all’ applies much more to Afghanistan. Karzai was the consensus choice in Bonn, but he came to power in a position of weakness, reliant upon the various ethnic faction leaders who’d been bankrolled to fight on the ground. Those factions have been responsible for filling Guantanamo Bay’s cells with ransom victims.
More here from the BBC’s Lyse Doucet.
selise @ 5
Me either. The US had plenty of opportunities to deal with the Taliban back in the days when Mavis Leno was fighting gender apartheid with RAWA. We were too busy either ignoring them or trying to do business with them. The war on Afghanistan was a revenge attack on an already devastated nation.
and perris; I do!
You’re on it. It’s drugs, oil, arms, and a whole shitload of money, in no particular order.
I’ve tried and tried to figure it all out – not bright enough, evidently.
Read Larissa, lukery
and lukery’s summaries of his various Sibel Edmonds interviews – it still confuses the crap out of me – but it’s there somewhere….
We ivade three types of countries
1. those with oil
2. those with Coke
3. those with Heroin
Seriously, go back through the last 35 years or so. Oh yeah, we also invade countries that impede the supply of the said 3 things. We will bribe with arms to get to an ends too (Iran/Contra). I’m over analyzing these wars, there are a racket. Neighborhood gangster stuff on a global level. Period. Horrible.
Karzai is poignant; replaying Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. Both are leaders in a religious cultural war that will never end until the foreign occupiers leave or the indigenous tribes are placed in reservations, concentration camps, strategic hamlets, or secure villages.
Eeek! Internet was down for all of Fairfax County.
Erk…must resume breathing…
Scarecrow @ 18
thanks again scarecrow…
i’ve stuggled with this too. and i don’t claim to be an absolute pacifist…. although i’m not sure what i think makes a war “just”.
so far, i’ve been able to work out one requirement, which is: whatever justification it is we’re using – we have to be ok with that justification being used against us by the rest of the world.
and i don’t see how our war of invasion and occupation of afghanistan met that requirement.
Thank you, scarecrow; your frontpage posts exceed the quality of your comments! {something I’d not thought possible.}
The world must rescue itself from this criminal cabal now at the helm of the US. Perhaps the French could restore balance to the world. Would they rescue the Afghanis and the Iraqis from us, just as we stepped into Vietnam in their place, long ago?
Oh, and:
Troops
Home
NOW
My hairdresser escaped from Afghanistan. Every time she tells me about their life living with war it makes both of us cry.
Great post Scarecrow.
Ot,
It has started.
It’s raining like a bastard and the shop doors are banging in their tracks.
It’s only 1:30 here, and it’s not supposed to really hit until this evening
I hope everyone on the Left coast is good and bunkered in.
They predicted 130 mph gusts on Mt. hood later. God help those guys up there.
I’ve struggled w/ the Afghan issue too. I was very reluctantly is support of it at the beginning but it was before I understood the level of lying coming from this administration. Now, I just think its for the drugs, the pipeline and the destabilization of the region to keep the whole war/drug routes open and going and going.
We lefty’s always look for the good in something, I guess you could call it a fault but its not really. These folks are just more evil than any of us imagined, are brain’s aren’t wired up to their level of evil-mindedness. The Opium production is BOOMING now there. Its by design.
For W, Afghanistan was an unanticipated, annoying diversion from his real goal of war in Iraq. My Rep. Barbara Lee was the lone vote against the war authorization, and while she had her principled reasons, it’s one vote I disagreed with. That doesn’t mean I endorse how that war has been executed, and the suffering that has ensued. Much of which could have been lessened had not resources been diverted to the build-up in Iraq.
Herion BOOMED in the U.S. during the Vietnam war. Coke/crack did the same during the 80’s. This “war” stuff is so simple it makes me want to cry!
Scarecrow @ 18
That’s not true, at least in my own case. Thankfully, I’ve never had to participate in one, but I know full well what having a war fought in one’s territory can mean. What I assumed, and perhaps many others did as well, is that we wouldn’t be foolish enough yet again to allow the aftermath of the war to be inhumane as well.
I don’t. and I’m afraid of anyone who does. Anyone who thinks wars are precise little exercises in justified mayhem are people in serious need of an education, IMHO. War is never something that should be entered into lightly or casually. Wars almost inevitably spiral out of control of all parties involved and all participants inevitably do things of which they will later be ashamed, if they have any humanity at least. Andersonville, Wounded Knee, Tokyo, Dresden, and My Lai are just a few examples from our own past.
Ditto. The money we’ve spent turning the American military into a force that can be projected anywhere in the world in a very short time has become as dangerous as a loaded gun in the hands of a roomful of five-year olds. In retrospect, education, health care, science, and space exploration would all have been much better uses of that money.
20/20, hind site and all that jazz-Barbara Lee was right.
Bush shouldn’t be given the task of baking cookies much less “conducting” two wars.
Dru @ 12:55 pm (#13) – Thanks for the Barney Rubin link. It’s a good history of the area for folks who aren’t up to speed, or if you’re like me, just forgot a lot of this stuff.
punaise @ 30
Yes, I buy that argument: we might have prevented the current brutality if we’d been more effective and diligent at the beginning, pursuing the Taliban to “unconditional surrender.” But we didn’t. Iraq distracted Bush. But I’m not sure that confronts the issue of how we conduct ourselves now. I feel slightly better from the fact this is a NATO effort, not unilateral US = Bush/Cheney/Rummy etc. In one of the links, I recall reading that some of the NATO forces from other countries have more restrictive “rules of engagement” than we apply to US forces. And Rummy made sure, IIRC, to keep several thousand US forces in Afghanistan outside the NATO command — Dru may recall this? — which means they can function unfettered from whatever NATO rules might be. I haven’t seen anything lately on that.
Scarecrow @ 18
I don’t believe any war can be truly “just.” There are wars for which better and worse rationalizations can be made. The prospect of Hitler controlling Europe made for a pretty good rationalization; but, even at that, it took a Pearl Harbor to seal the deal in the minds of average Americans.
I understand and respect your reticence over this post. I also respect your information and I appreciate it greatly. Thank you.
Bustednuckles @ 28
be safe. we need you
Scarecrow – you are a duck in water.
Worth a read (I couldn’t cut it down to do excerpts, but read, for example, about the road that was the “gift” from the US to Afghanistan – the one that is falling apart, was bid out to a US company at twice the $$ bid by local and a US company that ended up sub-ing out all the work to Indian companies – the one that is falling apart – the one that brought with it brothels and more graft – the one that the US now says the Afghan govt has to charge its citizens each 20/month to use. Or maybe about phantom aid and why it counts as foreign aid for the US to pay big bucks to thinkers back here in the states to come up with that 20/month road use fee.)
Ann Jones, via TomDispatch, on Why Its Not Working In Afghanistan.
While Bush is hemming and hawing over Iraq, we all can have front row seats to the implosion in Africa that Feingold has been desperately trying to get some attention, some gameplan, some minor show of interest, from the Admin, Congress and US People
Garret Jones, Ret. CIA, op piece in LA Times, The Next Horror in Somalia
So there’s this government in Somalia, but see, it really only seems to control this one town, Baidoa, near the Ethiopian border. There were a bunch of factions and warlords, with the country beyond “failed nation” state for years and years. Warlords have battled and controlled areas, but of late, Islamic governance and courts have been spreading. The US took a stab at backing the cutthroat criminal warlords, as its perceived better option to talking with the Islamicists – who are harboring some (as the VP calls them) “al-Qaeda types.”
Remind yourself not to bet on the US judgment in a coin toss. Warlords went down, way down. The unified (kinda) Islamic movement is pretty much just waiting for better weather to take out the “gov” from it lonely little one city.
Enter the UN (with a peacekeeping resolution); Ethiopia (which doesn’t want Somalia to go Islamic and has been slipping in troops – but which has also seen its own Muslim population grow by leaps and bounds, to about 50% lately, and which is gonna have an *interesting* situation if it leaps in with both feet, and an oppressed situation if it sits back and waits for the Islamic Courts Cids to work their way over the border.
Sudan, Eritrea, Kenya, Djoubuti – it’s going to be like a Georgeography lesson, with body counts.
From the Guardian – Looming Somalian War Menaces Whole Region
From the Christian Science Monitor (with a nice map): Global Jihad’s New Front in Africa
etc. etc.
From Jones op piece:
1,362 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Cujo and the Firepup Patriots:
“Our mistake in Afghanistan was not following up…”
I thought that too (for about 30 seconds) durin’ the work-up to the Iraq invasion. But the folks who brought us this whole mess, the neo-cons and their corporate fascist masters, knew that Afghanistan was not “winnable” in a long and protracted occupation even with unified NATO support. Good God people, did we not learn ANYthing from the Soviet experience and the longer view of world history in that country??!!! The bait and switch done under the cover of the “successful” Afghanistan incursion was to get the US and as many western European forces as possible committed and bogged down in the area…an unending military conflict in the Middle East with giant transfers of wealth to the oligarchy thru corporations and suspension of representative democratic processes has been the strategic goal of the junta that took control of the executive branch of government in December of 2000.
Unending war, extension of executive war powers and the creation of corporate mercenary armies supported by taxpayers has always been the goal of the fascist oligarchy that now has complete power in our country. The arguments of old men who always dreamed of makin’ “command decisions” but never saw a shot fired in anger just divert our attention from the real truth of all this…war and occupation in the Middle East, absent a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, was NEVER “winnable”.
Don’t get diverted into an argument over what tactics coulda saved the day…nothing would have been successful in this conflict without the active support of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The only thing that can save us now from WWIII id a UN sponsored peace conference convened in Tehran as UN peace-keeping troops replace Americans on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a vet, I am angriest at the folks in our own political “caucus” who waste time fantasising over what they would’ve done differently to save the day…there is nothing that could have been done to achieve victory in either Afghanistan OR Iraq without an initial committment of 500,000 troops and Syrians and Iranians.
KEEP THE FAITH AND KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE THE WAR HAS COME HOME AND IT’S IN YOUR LIVINGROOM!!!
Look at the map folks. its all right there! Factor in the Oil countries and there you have have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HeroinWorld.png
when will Democratic triangulators like Obama say ‘enough’?
the answer for me is, it doesn’t matter if they eventually take some stance and speak the plain truth, their equivocation now has rendered them unfit for support.
Tacking left in the primaries to pinch off support for a real (or closer to real) anti-war candidate, then selling them out and taking their support for granted is not going to play any more.
The time to consider an anti-war allegiance across the left-right spectrum is now, or else the democrats will just play the ‘least-worst’ game on us all over again.
Imagine if we had treated 9/11 as a crime rather than an act of war. I’m not saying we necessarily should have, but it’s an interesting thought exercise. How would things be different? We still would’ve had to try to nab Osama with CIA and special forces, but we wouldn’t be bogged down now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
How were the taliban any less legitimate than a 1/4 of the worlds governments?
Mary, awesome comment. don’t even want to think about all that — which is why things get worse.
I guess where I come out is I’m not sure I want the idiots in this Administration turning their attentin to anything. Is there anything, anywhere, they haven’t screwed up and made worse. So we’ll continue to have Somalias and Darfurs because we can’t imagine the Bush people doing the right thing or even picking the right side, if there is such a thing.
The problem is Bush (and Cheney), and I think we need to focus on that — not on what he should do, but what we should do to him and his regime.
(Psssst. New thread.)
Yahoo News: Sell US Dollar, buy Real (Brazil) and Yuan (China)
So we have declining US financial dominance, global opposition to a the misadventures in the Middle East, Iraq and Afganistan, world opinion badly turned against the US. Yet someone suggested I was a dope for linking to an article that made the comparison between current US affairs and Weimar Germany.
Yes the Nazi police state was a police state of a different order from the current Homeland Security police state. But the Nazi’s didn’t create the conditions of Weimar Germany, they just rose to power in the midst of them. The Homeland Security state is in itself an analogy for the Nazi’s already in popular culture.
The argument presented to counter my ‘dopish’ linking was a mere ode to American ‘greatness’. Knee-jerk patriotism aside, there are a number of great things about America. Its unfortunate current resemblance to early 20th century germany not among them.
It was ironic however that my sharing that ‘linked’ observation met concerted scorn and derison, and the countervailing argument was itself referring to free speech as ‘proof’ of American greatness.
NorskeFlamethrower @ 1:37 pm (#39) – Sorry to be testing your patience, but I think this is exactly what we should be arguing about. Is there a way to make Afghanistan a better place, or is it time to try a different approach? That’s the important question here, I think, because there’s not much point in continuing what’s bound to be a losing strategy. That’s particularly when the strategy involves war or occupation.
So I’m going to continue to annoy people, I guess, because it’s what I do.
This is the same pigheaded ethnocentric colonialist worldview that so many Americans used to rationalize the stupidity of going into Iraq; the notion that democracy or human rights or “modern civilization” can be imposed at gunpoint, and will be welcomed simply because of its innate superiority. That didn’t jibe with reality a hundred years ago, and reality hasn’t changed to suit the worldview now. (Besides, as much and as justifiably as we criticize our own government and society domestically, there’s an obvious cognitive dissonance in believing that it is some inherently superior model that can be handed over as a package deal halfway around the world…even if Bush’s merry band of thugs and profiteers weren’t directing the operation.)
In addition, this blinkered belief that we are simply superior is why we can go in so stunningly ignorant of historical and social process in other parts of the world…another big, big reason why conquering Afghanistan was as doomed to failure from the start as conquering Iraq ever was.
And then there’s the (to me, flatly bizarre) notion that a guy with a gun ever solved a problem. On his best day, the guy with the gun merely cleared the deck so somebody else with a lick of sense and a real plan could come in and do the real work.
morbidly obese ballerina @ 42
i’ll say it: i think we should have treated 9/11 as a crime rather than an act of war.
probably everyone here is familar with george soro’s thesis, that the “war on terror” is a false metaphor…. but have you heard (05/05/06 lecture) or read any of ian lustick’s analysis from his book, “trapped in the war on terror”?
sorry, I meant our reaction to 9/11, not IRaq
Scarecrow #35 ; I found this:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/d…..2006_pg3_2
“There are already 32,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. In addition, the United States operates 11,000 troops outside the NATO command for logistics and anti-terrorism purposes.”
I wonder how many contractors are there…
Another interesting aspect of how NATO operates here
http://www.iht.com/articles/20…..29NATO.php
“Leaders of the 26 NATO nations failed to agree Wednesday on President Bush’s demand that member countries with troops in Afghanistan lift their restrictions on how the troops are used. Those rules keep some soldiers from operating in the most dangerous part of the country.
Instead of lifting the restrictions entirely, France, Germany and Italy agreed to allow their troops to be sent in emergencies to bolster the NATO forces in the south, where Taliban forces have fought with renewed vigor.”
Cujo @34 ; welcome
Cujo359. Keep asking the questions. I think that’s important.
EvilDrPuma — welcome rant. But suppose we dropped the colonial mentality, dropped the pretense of superiority, and yet we’re faced with what looks like clear evil. There seems little doubt that the Taliban are brutal and repressive, as the links to the killing of teachers and women indicate. What about Darfur? I don’t see these as easy questions.
I wish that one of our so-called news networks had shown the Karzai speech. Maybe it would finally move some of the hardened hearts in this country.
Scarecrow @ 44
amen… i would just add a bit:
The problem is Bush (and Cheney) and their ideology, and I think we need to focus on that — not on what he should do, but what we should do to him and his regime.
selise @ 19
what I meant to say was the war in afghanistan after we were attacked and becuase we were attacked
poorly worded response on my part
klyde @ 43
The international community did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate govt. of Afghanistan. Only Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan did (for obvious reasons), but the UN seat belonged to the guys who later became the Northern Alliance.
As dicey as it gets, I do think Afghanistan was very different and here’s why.
The Taliban were, mostly, not Afghanis. They were primarily from Pakistan schools and were foreigners with weapons who swept into the country like criminals and took over. They weren’t elected, they didn’t have popular support, they weren’t, by and large, native to the country.
Similarly, al-Qaeda did not have native ties or some broad based native support – they were just harbored by the Taliban. So going into Afghanistan in response the the attacks planned from Afghanistan and attacking the non-native, criminally imposed “government” to depose it when it refused to turn over Bin Laden – I think there was justification to drive out that crew.
I also think that, because of the very different setting – going after those directly responsible for 9/11 and the non-native criminals calling themselves the native gov and protecting Bin Laden – was just very different from what happened in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it set the tone for all the stupidity in its aftermath and even in its original execution – to the extent of the “enemy combatant” and pro-torture and dishonorable, criminal behaviour of US troops and agencies promulgated by the Chief Executive/CIC.
Scarecrow @ 52
i don’t claim that this is an answer… but i sure would like to see it tried. whatever we do, first principle ought to be “do no harm”. from the executive summary:
i read the whole feasibility study (at the link)… found it really interesting and informative.
Dru @ 51
Dru — that’s the information I’d seen. Thanks for finding it.
The whole question of “rules of engagement” keep coming up. Our Administration always wants to take the gloves off and become very active belligerents against some identified enemy. That’s what we wanted the UN to do in Lebanon. That would have made UN forces an extension of the Israeli army, with a mission to disarm (and fight against) Hizbullah. But other countries tend to disagree. They’re more comfortable sending troops as “peacekeepers,” which presupposes the protagonists have agree to at least a ceasefire and are willing to observe it with peacekeeper encouragement. The delay in sending in UN troops into Lebanon was largely over this issue — the US wanted an extension of US/Israeli policy; the Europeans wanted to be peacekeepers.
perris @ 55
i know you meant the war in afghanistan. so did i – i think it was wrong.
Thanks for this thread Scarecrow; gotta go for now. See you all later!
I gotta get home too. Thanks to all for your participation in the thread.
Dru @ 61
yes indeed… thank you scarecrow and commentors.
someday we may have to again face the choices we did on 9/12/01. thinking about our options and their consequences now may prepare us – so we don’t make the same mistakes twice. it would be nice to learn from experience.
I don’t know how many people among us ever said that Afghanistan was a good idea or a “good” war. My feeling is there is no such thing as a “good” war. I was not for invasion. However we are now stuck in a position where it’s unconscionable to strike deals with the real Taliban (as opposed to falsely labeled insurgents.) The war needs to be taken away from the Bush administration. Humanitarian help should begin (& no not in a colonial/imperialistic vein). We owe that much. In fact, maybe it’s start time to start issuing passports and visas (something we should have done with the Vietnamese, and something the British did well in HongKong.)
We can’t make the argument that we should withdraw help because we suck so badly. Someone will want a passport.
selise @ 60
assuming 9/11 wasn’t preventable, (it was preventable), how do you think we should have responded to 9/11
perris @
65
as a crime of mass murder. pursue as going after an organized crime syndicate.
Have George Bush and Dick Cheney ever wept for the Afghani children?
Hell, they’ve never even wept for all the AMERICAN children who’ve been left fatherless or motherless by their illicit wars. As long as the money keeps rolling in, neither Bush nor Cheney gives a fuck about dead kids.
Today on Alternative Radio, Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar gave a different view of Afghanistan today than what we’re hearing and seeing in MSM. They argue that what are being called Taliban in the media is in reality a mixture of former Taliban fighters, family members of those killed by coalition forces, and Pakistani fighters. The latter two groups form the majority and are funded and sometimes led by Afghan warlords. In short, the Taliban as we knew them are no longer a force to be reckoned with, but the new resistance force is, regardless of what they’re called. With the country full of guerillas, a word verboten in this administration, coalition forces are in deep doo-doo. This is not Iraq, which is mostly flat and desert. In mountainous Afghanistan a constant guerrilla war will kill thousands of coalition troops with far fewer casualties among resistance fighters. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that these fighters will have the support of the locals. Viet Nam deja vu, anyone? The coalition forces will collectively punish the locals, the resistance will grow and the deadly cycle will grow like a cancerous tumor. The fiasco in Afghanistan could have been avoided if US intelligence agencies had maintained the old tried and true human intelligence methods rather than relying solely upon electronic intelligence. bin Laden, who IMHO is more of a money man and mouthpiece for the real brains, the Egyptian al Zawahiri (sp), and the whole bunch could have been dealt with by a Special Forces task force from numerous countries. Such activity may have been the downfall of the Taliban without all the bloodshed we’ve heaped upon the country. In any event, look for at least two more years of needless death and destruction to prop up one pathetic little man’s ego.
This Christmas the so-called Christians will be out worshipping the Dollar Almighty, the peace activists will be out with their signs (that includes me), and our kids will be in some shithole bleeding and dying. Merry Christmas, my ass.
Never give up.
Oh, thank you for this long awaited post and all of the comments scarecrow and friends.
I also think that the response to 9/11 should have been one of criminal investigation and prosecution of those found guilty.
Afghanistan– I am deeply sorry for you and your people.
Afghanistan is not a war that can be won. It is another war that is already lost, it is only a matter of the invaders deciding at what point they will make their retreat.
Karzai is a manipulator. He will say or do anything to move on his own agenda. Manly tears? Only if the man is a crocodile.
Opium is the product of choice in this war, versus oil in Iraq. That children or anyone dies over it is the tragedy.
Scarecrow -
I believe in a post yesterday, or recently, you were asking Mary where one of her lists of issues-needing-remedy, or lists of questions for the Executive Branch, had been posted, but she wasn’t sure which list you were looking for, or where it might be. Later it dawned on me that you may have been looking for the comments Mary made in the post by Christy asking readers for questions that the (make-believe) nomination hearing for Robert Gates ought to have been airing. Those lists of issues/questions by Mary in that thread registered with me, because they were just her ’stream of consciousness’ and yet they were very comprehensive. Here’s the post by Christy:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments
Mary’s comments are at #65 and #76, in case those are the ones you’re looking for and in case you are still in search of them.
The civil war in Afghanistan is between a social revolution against the feudal lords (funded by Iran) and a religious revivalist which supports feudalism (funded by the Sunnis). There would be a war there anyway, our hubris is just making it about 100 times worse and proving every bad thing they teach about the West in the madrassahs.
America’s war in Afghanistan is not about capturing Bin Laden or finishing the Taliban. It’s part of the larger Oil Wars. (Bin Laden’s banker, who is also his brother in-law, still lives untroubled on the shores of Lake Geneva. How hard would it have really been to seize all Bin Laden’s assets, and bring him in? It was obviously was never a priority.)
Afghanistan is crucial terrain if you happen to be fighting to gain control of Caspian Sea oil reserves and the network of pipelines to India. It’s also crucial terrain if you want to gain control of Iran’s oil. There is only one country left, which, if taken, would leave Iran completely surrounded and ready for full-on embargo: Syria.
two bits from Dana Priest’s chat today:
I would venture to say that not nearly enough people are worried or even care about Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01065.html
This is your best post yet. Major contratters on your front-page-ness.
Put it this way: It could have been the “good war”.
Apparently, the term “success” means something entirely different to Bush and the neo-con nuts compared to what “success” means to members of the reality-based communities of the world.