See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Why Are We In Afghanistan?
Source:
antiwar.com
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/ ... /13/why-are-we-in-afghanistan/
Published: Aug 14, 2009
Author: Justin Raimondo
Post Date: 2009-08-15 20:20:55 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 236
Comments: 17
Why Are We In Afghanistan? Don't ask Stephen Biddle – or, on second thought, please do ask him. Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Well, it’s hard to say, because the rationale for our intervention keeps shifting: first it was to banish al-Qaeda from the region – although, of course, Osama bin Laden & Co. haven’t been seen in those parts since 2001, when we fumbled an attempt to corner them in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Now, however, our war aims seem to have changed: according to Stephen Biddle, a civilian advisor to the commander of US troops at the Afghan front, Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, it’s to keep Pakistan in line, prevent Islamabad from becoming a terrorist “haven” – and keep that country’s nukes out of al-Qaeda’s hands. Such a nightmare scenario isn’t very likely, says Biddle in an essay published in The American Interest, and the rationale for the war itself is “a close call,” although, he avers, “still worth it.” But why and how is it worth it – and, more importantly, to whom is it worth it? We’ll get to that later, but first let’s examine Biddle’s argument in favor of the Afghan war – if, indeed, it can be called an argument in favor at all. Because he’s unusually honest about the real stakes involved, and on account of his position as an advisor to McChrystal, what he has to say is fascinating from the perspective of an opponent of US intervention. Biddle dispenses with the “we must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven” argument – raised repeatedly by President Obama – with admirable swiftness. Yes, he avers, we must make sure al-Qaeda doesn’t reassert its presence in Afghanistan, “But the intrinsic importance of doing so is no greater than that of denying sanctuary in many other potential havens—and probably smaller than many. We clearly cannot afford to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny al-Qaeda access to every possible safe haven. We would run out of brigades long before bin Laden ran out of prospective sanctuaries.” Indeed, if we take the logic of the “no safe haven” doctrine to its ultimate conclusion, then we must be willing to occupy the entire world – anywhere al-Qaeda could possibly find a “safe haven.” Something tells me such a strategy isn’t going to be all that workable – although I’m glad no one suggested it to the Bush administration, because they would probably have jumped at the chance to implement it. No, says Biddle, the real reason we must invade and occupy Afghanistan for the next forty years or so is because of … Pakistan! As he puts it: “The more important U.S. interest is indirect: to prevent chaos in Afghanistan from destabilizing Pakistan. With a population of 173 million (five times Afghanistan’s), a GDP of more than $160 billion (more than ten times Afghanistan’s) and a functional nuclear arsenal of perhaps twenty to fifty warheads, Pakistan is a much more dangerous prospective state sanctuary for al-Qaeda. “Furthermore, the likelihood of government collapse in Pakistan, which would enable the establishment of such a sanctuary, may be in the same ballpark as Afghanistan, at least in the medium to long term. Pakistan is already at war with internal Islamist insurgents allied to al-Qaeda, and that war is not going well. Should the Pakistani insurgency succeed in collapsing the state or even just in toppling the current civilian government, the risk of nuclear weapons falling into al-Qaeda’s hands would rise sharply. “ Oh, but wait: “The United States is too unpopular with the Pakistani public to have any meaningful prospect of deploying major ground forces there to assist the government in counterinsurgency. U.S. air strikes can harass insurgents and terrorists within Pakistan, but the inevitable collateral damage arouses harsh public opposition that could itself threaten the weak government’s stability. U.S. aid is easily (and routinely) diverted to purposes other than countering Islamist insurgents, such as the maintenance of military counterweights to India, graft and patronage, or even support for Islamist groups seen by Pakistani authorities as potential allies against India. U.S. assistance to Pakistan can—and should—be made conditional on progress in countering insurgents, but if these conditions are too harsh, Pakistan might reject the terms, thus removing our leverage in the process. Demanding conditions that the Pakistani government ultimately accepts but cannot reasonably fulfill only sets the stage for recrimination and misunderstanding.” Okay, let’s see if I get this straight: the real problem is Pakistan, not Afghanistan. However, we can’t go into Pakistan because we’re hated there, and the very act of intervening could and would give al-Qaeda the kind of momentum it needs to overthrow the Pakistani government. And we can’t even pressure the Pakistanis to crack down on the Islamists who may be sympathetic to al-Qaeda, because they can’t do it, and our insisting on it would only lead to hard feelings and “misunderstanding.” Okay, I get it. So, please tell me: why are we in Afghanistan? Well, I was just getting to that, if you’ll be patient. According to Biddle, “This is the single greatest U.S. interest in Afghanistan: to prevent it from aggravating Pakistan’s internal problems and magnifying the danger of an al-Qaeda nuclear-armed sanctuary there.” Oh, but never mind that, because, you see, “Afghanistan’s influence over Pakistan’s future is important, but it is also incomplete and indirect. A Taliban Afghanistan would make a Pakistani collapse more likely, but it would not guarantee it. Nor does success in Afghanistan guarantee success in Pakistan: There is a chance that we could struggle our way to stability in Afghanistan at great cost and sacrifice, only to see Pakistan collapse anyway under the weight of its own elite misjudgments and deep internal divisions.” So, where does this leave us? On the one hand, we have to be in Afghanistan because of our concern for Pakistan’s security – but the latter could disintegrate in any event, and, indeed, it could do so in large part due to our efforts. Hmmmmm. A real conundrum here. So what’s left of the rationale for the Afghan war? Well, not a lot. We are left to imagine a chain reaction of events, including the downfall of the Karzai government and its replacement with the Taliban, the downfall of the secular government in Islamabad and its replacement by some sort of Islamist regime sympathetic to al-Qaeda, and, finally, the capture of Pakistan’s nukes by Al Qaeda, aided and abetted by the Taliban and the newly-installed Islamists – a scenario Biddle admits is not likely. Nevertheless, “During the Cold War, the United States devoted vast resources to diminishing an already-small risk that the USSR would launch a nuclear attack on America. Today, the odds of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan yielding an al-Qaeda nuclear weapon next door in Pakistan may be relatively low, but the low risk of a grave result has been judged intolerable in the past and perhaps ought to be again. On balance, the gravity of the risks involved in withdrawal narrowly make a renewed effort in Afghanistan the least-bad option we have.” Actually, the chances of a nuclear first strike by the Russians were a lot higher than is the highly unlikely prospect of a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda nuking New York from some Central Asian launching pad — first ,because al-Qaeda has yet to acquire nukes, and secondly because Pakistan’s nukes are well-guarded. Thirdly, and most importantly, Biddle’s analysis of the risks of inaction is seriously flawed by his one-sided emphasis on the alleged “gravity” of a given risk. It would certainly pose a grave danger to the planet earth if we were invaded by a race of intelligent reptiles from Regulus: on the gravity scale I would give it a ten. Yet the likelihood of such an event is practically zero, and therefore expending resources on prevention would be sheer waste. There are other, far more probable threats lurking on the horizon. Such as the threat of al-Qaeda obtaining nuclear materials from, say, Russian organized crime gangs, who looted nuclear facilities in the last days of the Soviet regime, and took advantage of the chaos to spirit away the makings of a very dirty bomb. If al-Qaeda was about to take control of Pakistan, and its nukes, we would have plenty of warning: not so with the deployment of a dirty nuke, the elements of which have been assembled in secret and put in position just as the hijackers were put in position to do what they did on 9/11. This is the real threat, emanating not from any state actors but from a stateless, transnational insurgency that operates outside the parameters of warfare as we have known it. Rather than fighting on the battlefield, they burrow beneath it and emerge like Myrmidons from the very soil, our own soil, to wreak destruction on a mass scale. Andrew Bacevich made the same point in a recent essay for Commonweal, arguing that those who say “the fight in Afghanistan is essential to keeping America safe” overlook “The primary reason why the 9/11 conspiracy succeeded: federal, state, and local agencies responsible for basic security fell down on the job, failing to install even minimally adequate security measures in the nation’s airports. The national-security apparatus wasn’t paying attention—indeed, it ignored or downplayed all sorts of warning signs, not least of all Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States. … So we let ourselves get sucker-punched. Averting a recurrence of that awful day does not require the semipermanent occupation and pacification of distant countries like Afghanistan. Rather, it requires that the United States erect and maintain robust defenses.” The campaign mantra of the Obama-ites was that the Iraq war was a diversion: the real battle against al-Qaeda, declared candidate Obama, needs to be fought in Afghanistan. The reality is that both Iraq and Afghanistan are diversions away from the looming threat posed by a terrorist group that has shown it can penetrate our defenses and strike the continental United States, swiftly and without warning. Biddle’s essay, meant as a defense of military efforts in the region, is woefully unconvincing because the author is himself undecided when it comes to answering the question posed in his title: “Is It Worth It?” Summarizing the problems – and problematic contingencies – surrounding the Afghan campaign, Biddle writes: “taking all this into account, advocates for withdrawal from Afghanistan certainly have a case.” Wading through the ambiguities of Biddle’s”on the one hand this, on the other hand that” case for invading and occupying Afghanistan for the next few decades – at enormous cost, both in lives and American tax dollars – one has to ask: is this all there is? Even the top advisor to the commander of our Afghan forces is hard-pressed to come up with a convincing rationale for a war guaranteed to be protracted, costly, and highly uncertain as to its ultimate outcome. No wonder the American people are turning against it. This business about al-Qaeda somehow taking control of Pakistan’s nukes is a fantasy, but if fear of a nuclear-armed Osama bin Laden is going to lead us into invading and occupying entire countries, then neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan qualify as the prime candidate. The chances of al-Qaeda acquiring a nuke from somewhere in the former Soviet Union – where loose nukes are floating around like autumn leaves in a forest – are far greater than this rather far-fetched Pakistan-goes-Islamist scenario. So why don’t we invade one of those former Soviet republics, say, Kazakhstan, where they might possibly pick up “lost” nukes from some criminal gang? Well, I’d better stop there – after all, I don’t want to give the Obama-ites any ideas, now do I? So, let’s get back to our original question: how, why, and to whom is the Afghan war “worth it”? A good deal of Biddle’s essay is concerned with the politics of the conflict and its impact on the domestic scene, particularly its reception in the court of US public opinion. According to him, Obama has already “put his stamp on” the conflict, he owns it, and so must defend it from Republican attack and popular discontent. It is a war, he says, that “skirts the margins of being worthwhile,” and the great danger is that a “bipartisan antiwar coalition” will arise as casualties mount. On the other hand, we are told, withdrawal poses dangers, too: “Politically, it would commit the Administration to a policy now supported by only 17 percent of the electorate. It would play into the traditional Republican narrative of Democratic weakness on defense, facilitate widespread if ill-founded Republican accusations of the Administration’s leftist radicalism, and risk alienating moderate Democrats in battleground districts whose support the President will need on other issues. However bad the news may look if the United States fights on, withdrawal would probably mean a Karzai collapse and a Taliban victory, an outcome that would flood American TV screens with nightmarish imagery.” What’s at stake isn’t just the national interest – it’s “the Democratic Party’s future—not to mention the nation’s.” That’s why thousands more must die, and billions must be wasted.In short, it’s all about politics – but not the politics of change. It’s the politics of “stay the course,” Obama-style. There’s the answer to the question that titles today’s column. Given this rationale for the Afghan war, I’d like to see the following carved on the tombstone of each and every victim of this war: “He/she died for the future of the Democratic party.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
That's where the poppies are grown.
No no no. The reason is because America is fighting for freedom and liberation and nation-building throughout the world and we decided to start with one of the most impoverished nations on the planet. Once we declare V-I-C-T-O-R-Y as GWBush did in Iraq, we shall move on to all new nations to conquer. Yes, it for the world's good as America is a just nation and knows everything even when it appears to be a mistake. And if you don't believe me ask anyone in Washington DC.
*snickering*
Are you saying that you don't believe me?
Having failed to win Muslims heart through his con-speeches in Turkey and Egypt; failed to bring regime change in Gazzah; failed to disarm Hizb’Allah after pro-US government’s victory in last month elections and got humiliated by the re-election of pro-Hamas Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections two weeks ago even after spending US$400 million and Israeli Hasbara Twitters – Obama still believes in his campaign prophecy about Afganistan: “A war that we must win”. However, his ‘Israel-First’ administration believe that to win that war in Afghanistan – Pakistan must be dismembered first. In Obama’s own words: “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved . That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us my message is the same: We will defeat you.” Jeremy Scahill in OBAMA WARS: Attack of The Drones wrote that Obama’s undeclared war against Pakistan continues, despite his attempts to downplay it. According to Reuters, Washington has a secret agreement with Zardari government in Islamabad to carry out drone attacks on Pakistan territory while allowing Pakistani leaders to publically criticize the attacks. However, the resistance Americans are facing is from the middle-ranking Pakistan Army officers, who never received training in the US or Britain. Pakistan Army is the only organized group in Pakistan and these officers see dismantling of Pakistan as a unity – a threat to army’s influential position in both government and private sectors with excellent pricks. That’s why Army establishment is against American soldiers fighting side-by-side with them and refuses to let country’s nuclear deterrent fall in American hands. It would be interesting to see American reaction if Pakistan Army get hold of some drones from Tehran and send them over to Afghanistan to track down CIA- MOSSAD-RAW funded Baitullah Mehsud’s Taliban friends in Afghanistan. Obama’s Af-Pak strategy tends to involve all the neighbouring countries in that region – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Islamic Iran and India – though the last one is cautioned to control its anti-Pakistan activities being directed from its consulates in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton has already expressed Obama administration’s desire to get Tehran involved in Af-Pak strategy – which cannot bring any additional fruits to Iranian influence in that region because it already have greater non-military influence in the occupied Afghanistan. According to US sources – since the fall of Taliban regime – Tehran has donated more than US$500 million to the reconstruction of the country through Karzai government. Writing for the Zionist think tank, Council for Foreign Relations (July-August 2007 issue) Senator Barack Obama showed his ignorance of America’s colonial history: “At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders….” www.jews- for-allah.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php? http://t=4102&start=25">www.jews-for-allah.org/ph...topic.php? t=4102&start=25
I have been looking for the quote or the video of an event that I saw with my own eyes the evening it was broadcast after the chameleon and charlatan who has captured the White House said to a packed audience: "And if this war is still going on when I become president, I will end it!" (Great outpouring of applause from the go-go 'Bama townhall meeting crowd.) Now without quibbling and qualification, what do you think the audience thought this poseur and pretender meant by that? That the war would go on two more year? Five? Another ten? And how many men did they think he meant to throw into the breech? Certainly not another 35,000. They broke into applause because they thought he meant what he said; whereas he meant precisely the opposite. Precisely the opposite because he is a practiced and a damnable LIAR.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. Now, that is pile of blather. Who wrote that crap, Monty Python?
I think you are being sarcastic.
Yes, she is being ironic, ff. It's Saturday night. Time to crack open the Gilbey's and crank up some blues on the Victrola.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. What!? I have good word from Washington DC that everything I say is right on target. Do you want links? Are you arguing with me? Why don't you believe in government anymore? These people stake their lives protecting us overworked and tired taxpayers enjoying government credit cards, free dental/medical and incredible pension plans besides generous salaries and "fringe" benefits such as taking the day off while they went to the doctor for nothing; going to the dentist every three months because of an alleged toothache and flying around the world understanding the "situation" so they can more closely guard us tired and haggard taxpayers that about to go belly-up. How dare you suggest what you said! This is incorriglble speech! 0bama isn't going to like you, you know.
That's where the poppies are grown. Bingo! We have a winner Johnny! Tell her what she's won! Of course there is the Pipeline too, and flanking Iran. The Taliban's biggest sin, from the point of view of the Anglo-American Bankster Cartel, was that they had virtually eliminated the Poppy Fields. You're talking hundreds of millions in drug profits all dried up. As well seeding drugs into the American Culture was one of the angles for destroying our culture and our ability to resist the Bankster Hostile Takeover. As well the CIA counts on that "off budget" money for funding activities that no decent American would support. The CIA has been one of, if not THE, largest importers of Heroin into the U.S. since at least the Vietnam War. Which as like the Afghan Conquest was really about Drugs and Oil.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Exactly.
Why, your behaviour is absolute sacrilege! Have you no disgrace? There are over 25,000,000 government workers ready and willing to serve you at all times for the GREAT and MAGNIFICANT causes of and about America throughout the world. And here, I tremble on this thread confronted with you as you strike your mighty sword down, snickering as though I can not arise and tell you the fallacy of that you think or consider. I can only guess you have the Internet to claim as your sole legal source for understanding the purpose of modern American government. Why aren't you watching the news catching the truth out of Washington DC? What happened to your confidence? Well, let me tell you you here and clear, proud princess, I speak of truth and justice and the American way! America needs Afghanistan as the last vesige of Democracy! Say it with me... chant it ... yes we can! Afghanistan! Yes, we stand ... Stand by your government! Elect the man or woman or your choice on the two party ticket to change the course of events! YES WE CAN! IN AFGHANISTAN!
LOL
With the high-speed printers that the US government has it doesn't need money from poppies for the CIA; maybe a few rogue agents moonlighting on the side. Obama is keeping troops in Afghanistan because Israel wants them there to prevent an anti-Israel regime from taking power. Obama knows if he terminates military operations in Afghanistan then he's not going to to have any chance in getting elected for a second term. The Israeli lobby, which arranges funding for election campaigns, will just put its money and manpower behind some other toady. This was the case with Bush. Only at the end of his second term did Bush balk at bombing Iran, a move that was high on the lobby's agenda.
Because it's there?? Seriously, we're there partially for the same reasons that Germany/Russia/et al took a hand in the Spanish Civil War: it's a good spot to test out new weapons and tactics for future wars, i.e., a live war laboratory.
_________________________________________________________________________Why Are We In Afghanistan?
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
#2. To: farmfriend (#1)
#3. To: buckeroo (#2)
Yes, it for the world's good as America is a just nation and knows everything even when it appears to be a mistake. And if you don't believe me ask anyone in Washington DC.
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
#4. To: farmfriend (#3)
#5. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
(Edited)
#6. To: Max (#5)
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#7. To: Max (#5)
“At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders….”
#8. To: buckeroo (#4)
Are you saying that you don't believe me?
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
#9. To: farmfriend (#8)
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#10. To: farmfriend (#8)
#11. To: farmfriend (#1)
Why Are We In Afghanistan?
#12. To: buckeroo (#10)
How dare you suggest what you said! This is incorriglble speech! 0bama isn't going to like you, you know.
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
#13. To: randge (#6)
Precisely the opposite because he is a practiced and a damnable
politicianLIAR.
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
#15. To: buckeroo (#14)
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
#16. To: Original_Intent (#11)
#17. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
So, please tell me: why are we in Afghanistan?
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest