War and Politics
With talk of the Afghanistan war much in the news, I had put off writing about it. I do read the latest news and opinions, but frankly I have more immediate personal issues to work through and spending too much time thinking about politics and war can be detrimental to anybody's personal life. On the other hand, ignoring what happens in the country where we live leaves the choices up to those who are paying attention.
The right criticized Obama for taking time to decide whether to add more troops to the Afghan campaign as McChrystal had demanded. Make no mistake, he did demand when he went public. I have said this before but it bears repeating. Obama said a general has a responsibility to figure out how to win a war, a battle. A president has to look at how it all impacts his whole nation.
The right further complained that Obama took too long to decide to escalate the war. So he should have rushed to just do it without figuring out how to pay for it, what we would gain as a nation from it, how it would be seen by Afghanistan and its neighbors? I might disagree with his conclusion, but I totally think it was right to take time while considering such a costly escalation.
Based on its history and culture, Afghanistan seemed to me a lost cause when Obama promoted it during his campaign. Didn't we have our chance there and blew it? But for anybody who thinks he has pulled a G.W. Bush, saying one thing while campaigning but doing another once in office, he didn't. He said all along that Afghanistan was the thing that Bush walked off from finishing and it should be finished right. His concerns obviously go beyond Afghanistan to the nuclear possessing Pakistan.
Does that mean he's right in what he's doing now? Not in my opinion. I did not even listen to his speech because I am not fond of listening to any politician's speech. I knew the details would be online, and was pretty sure what he had decided. I am, however, tired of these wars where we think we can go overseas and change another country's political agenda through our guns.
To add to this, the term war on terror (which he doesn't use but Republicans still do) irks me every time I hear it. The use of terror is a tactic and in addition one the Bush administration wielded to get their own political aims-- be scared, very scared and stop thinking. Terror is induced to get political aims. We hear Cheney trying to use it every time he says that unless Obama does what he thinks he should (which would change as soon as Obama did it), we will be attacked again. I have a feeling his manipulation of G.W. Bush explains a lot of those eight years.
Cheney and Bush acolytes continuously say they kept us safe during their administration while not counting 9/11 or the continual wars overseas with their cost of life, maimed bodies, and endless debt as the right wing refused to pay for the wars as they went (didn't even count them into the yearly budget). If we felt the war was needed, we should have raised taxes to pay for it. We should have made sure our troops went into it fully armored.
When we invaded Afghanistan, it was to get Osama bin Laden but then when they had a chance to get him in Tora Bora they lost it [What went wrong at Tora Bora]. What happened there is not disputed. Why it happened still is.
If you believe whoever controlled the federal government at that time wanted to capture or kill him, you probably also believe they did not plan to attack Iraq from the time they came into power. Could they have ever gotten the American people to go along with that war if they had captured bin Laden? Were they incompetent or was it something else? How do you fight a war on terror without terrorists to inspire it? Call this a conspiracy theory and I will agree. Such theories aren't always wrong.
There is no proof that al Qaeda planned an attack on US soil after 9/11. They did claim credit for the bombings in Spain and Bali. Spain at least does seem to be their work. In the United States we have had foiled attacks; but so far as I have read, none were planned by al Qaeda. They didn't need to. We were busy self-destructing ourselves, and under Obama we are continuing. Are we out of Iraq? Not that I have heard and the death goes on there. Can we fix Afghanistan's political structure? Do you also believe in Santa Claus?
To justify the enlargement of the Afghani war, the Taliban have become the enemy to fight since our intelligence sources say there are likely only maybe 100 al Qaeda in the country (although that border is still porous). Keep in mind we supported the Taliban (and Osama bin Laden) during their war against the Soviet Union-- a war that ended up nearly bankrupting the Soviets and dissolving their holdings outside Russia.
We are apparently paying the Taliban (and maybe indirectly al Qaeda) today through our contractors who pay for safety to go about their business. Want to guess who pays the contractors? We also pay for the Taliban's war against us by not stopping the poppy crops, by allowing heroin to be exported to the world as drug of choice for those into destroying their own minds. Could we stop that trade and cut down their income? My guess is yes but people in Afghanistan would definitely turn on us as without it what do they use to make money?
The Taliban didn't attack the United States. What they did was have a horrendous government which treats their people (especially women) abominably-- at least to Western eyes. They gave refuge to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist training camps (which are more like empty fields with a shack at one end and a few posts to go through physical training). We came in and bombed those 'camps', drove the Taliban into hiding, let Osama get away, let the leader at that time of the Taliban also get away as he still leads them, left a limited military presence behind, accepted a corrupt government to run the country, and took off for Iraq which had nothing to do with any of the terrorist attacks but was run by a bad guy and had a lot of oil.
It would have taken a lot of courage and political capital to admit Afghanistan was unwinnable. You think the right wing is fussing now. It would have been peanuts to what they'd have said if Obama had said we are getting out. I read that the one thing Americans won't forgive in a leader is a perception of weakness. The problem with Americans is in general they don't have the foggiest notion of what weakness really looks like; so it's all about that other word-- perception.
Would it be nice if Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East lived peaceably, arguing mostly over what factory to site in what neighborhood? You betcha. It's not something we are likely to see while we continue to use our own terrorist tactics to attain it, where we are more caught up in perception than in reality. There are ways to get people to see there are better ways to live but bombing innocent civilians by mistake isn't likely to be on the list.
As long as Americans are manipulated by those who use terrorist tactics to get their aims, we aren't likely to see any improvement there or here.
(more tomorrow on this)
12 comments:
I have no problem with Obama taking his time to decide on how to proceed in Afghanistan. However, if we are using "terrorist tactics" to fight jihadis and taliban then does that make our military people on the ground in Afghanistan terrorists Rain?
What happens in a war with innocents being killed might lead to people being angry and becoming terrorists but that was NOT what I meant by my use of it with Bush/Cheney. I guess I should have been clearer in my statement. I was referring to when they talk fear, when they tell the American people to do something or they will die themselves.
Their tactics of terror have been through the things they say and it has worked time after time as Americans through their fear have allowed things to be done that they might not believe right otherwise. And no, the soldiers are not terrorists in my eyes. How someone over there might see it, I cannot say.
Fear is used on people all the time to get political aims. We are currently seeing a lot of it with the health care debate or global warming. Sometimes the fear is based on real things and sometimes not but being afraid isn't a good way to make choices.
False Expectations Appearing Real is often what FEAR really is. You can see a danger and act to deal with it but not let fear dictate how.
To further clarify, I can see how generals might opt to use terror as a tactic (do something very bad to scare a local populace into cooperating). War is not a game and does what it has to do which is why it should not be entered into lightly or with some rah rah attitude. But even if they did, which I am not saying they would, then it would not be the soldiers at fault as they carry out orders or pay the price. War seems to me to be an ugly business, even when it's needful, from all I have read and understood of it from those who have actually had to fight one.
For some reason, one year ago I adopted ignorance and set my mind to hope, even knowing that a politician is a politician no matter how big or small. The Russians could not defeat the Taliban. We have yet to figure where are the Taliban. And yet, in all of his careful consideration, Obama still concluded with the Surge. I will never understand why humans think war can be a solution. It's never worked. It only hurts everyone, and even waylays the future.
And whether someone is considered a terrorist, a martyr, or a freedom fighter depends upon from which window you view the world.
I'm gonna go live on the moon; I hear water has been found there.
Excellent post. As you well know, I favor getting the hell out of there, for no other reason, because the people don't want us there just like they didn't want the Soviets there either.
I don't think we need to sacrifice our sons and daughters for people who don't want us there.
The Taliban treated their people horribly by Afghan standards too. When we helped the Northern Alliance liberate Mazar-e-Sharif, the people greeted us like heroes. They celebrated much the same as the French did when we liberated them from the Nazi’s.
And Rich had one mistake in his article. Obama is not sending just fewer than McChrystal’s maximum number he is sending fewer than the minimum number requested by McCrystal.
One thing that has appeared to change in the last couple of years is that Pakistan is no longer off limits to our soldiers and bombs. I have read two books on the fighting in Afghanistan and it was known by our people on the ground that people were attacking us and then fleeing over the border to safety only to come back later and attack again. And also the highest bidder can easily rent the Afghani’s loyalty. I am not sure if we thought that the Pakistani’s were truly our ally and they could be trusted or if we were afraid to irritate a nuclear power. We are still debating what allowed us to be attacked so successfully at Pearl Harbor 68 years ago.
And most of the Afghani's gladly welcomed us when we got there to defeat the Taliban. We did not go there to occupy the country and make it a province like the Soviets did. We went there to help the Afghans take their country back from the Arabs while defeating the people that had attacked us on 9/11.
PS maybe Obama knows something now that he did not know during the campaign. Maybe he needs a bunch of troops in Afghanistan because Iran is next door and we may need a bunch of troops to be in the area in a hurry.
Well i hope that Iran is not going to be another big war, bigger than the rest. If it turns out to be so, then some of what is predicted in Revelations could well come to pass. A very scary thought to anybody who loves the earth and wants peace-- unless they are fundamentalists who welcome the end for all the people who didn't do what they wanted.
We had a chance in Afghanistan but if we had stayed to occupy (and we have stayed to do that all around the world), then that might've change. It just seemed like then if we had really done it, Afghanistan might've been a chance for the different Middle Eastern country that we say we needed. We ran off to Iraq instead. Now the Taliban have regrouped, under their original leader, and as far as we know bin Laden is still able to plot attacks. We have no real idea where he is. With the kind of wealth he has, he could be using a false ID and anywhere in the world or in a cave in northern Pakistan.
McChrystal has said he's happy with what he has for the surge; so maybe it was what he wanted all along. Like you said, maybe they both did what they needed to do politically to get what he wanted and have Obama look okay to ... well I have no idea who Obama wants to look okay to.
I think we pretty much agree on what we did in Afghanistan. And I hope we do not go to war with Iran too. Most Iranians do not want war with the United States. Most of them want Iran to be more like the United States. But the ruling elite and revolutionary guards hold brutal power over the nation and that is a problem for us and the region.
For anyone following this thread and the debate, Maureen Dowd had a good column of the reality of what we face there: A Game that is not so Great. If Obama had been wiser in how he approached any of this, it might have gone better when we changed administrations. Now Karzai, proven to be corrupt, thinks he has us over a barrel. I guess we will see.
Brim over I acquiesce in but I contemplate the list inform should have more info then it has.
Whats's Up i'm fresh on here. I came upon this forum I have found It exceedingly helpful and it has helped me loads. I should be able to contribute & support others like its helped me.
Thank You, See Ya Later
Hey im new to this. I came accross this board I have found It quite accessible & its helped me loads. I hope to contribute & aid other users like its helped me.
Thank's, Catch You Around.
Post a Comment