Obama Wake-Up Call: Afghanistan is No Threat to US

By Dave Lindorff

American foreign policy is moving from the absurd to the ludicrous.

Back in 2002, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
managed to snooker the people of the United States, or at least a large
number of us, into believing that Iraq, a pathetic Third World country
ruled by a corrupt tin-pot dictator, was a grave danger to America,
akin to Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1940. We learned how absurd that
claim was when two hundred thousand American troops backed by the
mightiest air force the world has ever seen, slammed into the country
in March, 2003, and the Iraqi military simply folded up, and the Saddam
regime along with it.

Now, President Obama appears ready to make an even more absurd
claim, namely that the gravest threat facing this nation is posed by
the country of Afghanistan. Now I’ll grant that Afghanistan, with a
population of 33 million, is at third bigger than Iraq, which had a
population of 24 million, at least until the US invasion and occupation
led to the death of over a million of Iraqis. But aside from that,
Afghanistan, a land-locked nation that lies between Iran and Pakistan,
is far weaker and more primitive even than Iraq.

By any measure except population, Afghanistan suffers in comparison
to Iraq. It has no air force at all. It barely has an army. Most of its
people are illiterate and live in rural areas. Its people are extremely
poor—among the poorest in the world. In many ways, Afghanistan is
actually less a country than a region populated by a variety of feuding
tribes—tribes that have different languages and cultures and even
different racial backgrounds.

Do we really believe that this desperately poor and war-torn nation poses an existential threat—or any threat at all—to the US?

Oh please.

Okay, we know that there is a gang of mostly Arab terrorists going
by the name of Al Qaeda that is hiding out in eastern Afghanistan, and
that its leaders have allied this organization with the Taliban—the
ousted rulers of Afghanistan who were pushed out of the capital of
Kabul by US forces in 2001 following the 9-11 attacks. But since that
relatively easy military incursion, all the US and its 34,000 troops in
Afghanistan have managed to accomplish, besides installing a crooked
puppet regime in the capital city, has been to create more and more
hatred for the US as an occupying power, by killing large numbers of
Afghan civilians through brutal raids on villages and by use of
overwhelming and inherently indiscriminate airpower and
remote-controlled missile-equipped drone aircraft.

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest
military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama,
is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country,
effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there.
Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America
among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle
to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which
raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

Let’s get it straight. No Afghan has ever, to my knowledge, harmed
the United States. I’m not sure most Afghanis, if they could scrape
together the money to go to the US, would even know where this country
is. (Okay, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you where Afghanistan
is, either, but at least we have libraries, and computers, which the
geographically challenged can turn to in order to locate the place.
That’s not true for the people of Afghanistan, who have neither.)

For eight years, America has been attacking and destroying a country
that is about as dangerous a threat to America as is Mali, or Haiti, or
the Comoros Islands. If Obama follows through and doubles the number of
troops fighting over there, it will just make this whole policy twice
as stupid.

I’m sorry. I know Al Qaeda is a nasty gang, well funded by sources
in Saudi Arabia, and well trained in the fine arts of terrorism by the
CIA, which back in the day saw the group as a good proxy for harassing
Soviet troops that were occupying Afghanistan. But if eight years of
constant war by US troops in Afghanistan has been unable to stop or
even seriously undermine Al Qaeda, I cannot understand the logic of
doubling down on the bad bet.

If the US wants to defeat Al Qaeda, it needs to enlist the support
of the governments of the countries where Al Qaeda is operating, and it
needs to eliminate the outside financial support for Al Qaeda. The
first prong of this strategy would require convincing the governments
of Afghanistan and Pakistan to get serious about driving out Al Qaeda.
That should not be difficult. If we stopped killing Afghanis, and if we
stopped firing rockets into the sovereign nation of Pakistan, killing
innocent Pakistanis in the process, and massively insulting the
government of Pakistan, and if we instead offered aid to both
countries, contingent upon their taking serious action to eliminate Al
Qaeda, we would quickly see these foreign intruders in both countries
driven out. As to the second prong, why is the US continuing to treat
Saudi Arabia as a valued ally if it continues to allow wealthy Saudis
to sent financial support to Al Qaeda? Yes Saudi Arabia is a major
provider of oil to the US, but the US is the major supplier of arms to
the government of Saudi Arabia. It’s easy to see where the US could
tighten the screws to end the flow of money to terrorists.

And then there is this: The Vietnam War destroyed the presidencies
of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. The Iraq War destroyed the
presidency of George Bush. Obama, if he orders an expansion of the war
in Afghanistan, and thus takes ownership of that conflict, will be well
on the way to destroying his own presidency.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book
is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now
available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39305';
digg_title = "Obama Wake-Up Call: Afghanistan is No Threat to US";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\nAmerican foreign policy is moving from the absurd to the ludicrous.\r\n\r\nBack in 2002, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney managed to snooker the people of the United States, or at least a large number of us, into believing that Iraq, a pathetic Third World country ruled by a corrupt tin-pot dictator, was a grave danger to America, akin to Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1940. We learned how absurd that claim was when two hundred thousand American troops backed by the mightiest air force the world has ever seen, slammed into the country in March, 2003, and the Iraqi military simply folded up, and the Saddam regime along with it.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As my Irish friends would

As my Irish friends would say, "Aw Jaysus..."

We're NOT at war with Afghanistan, nor its people and unlike the Soviets, we never have been. We're at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, all of whom happen to be hanging out in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones who attacked us on 9/11 -- remember?

The invasion of Iraq was an illegal, immoral, unnecessary, and pre-planned operation of opportunity. Believe it or not, however, there ARE bad people out there, and they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- where we should have concentrated all of our efforts in the first place.

There is a mafia in Italy too

And the Mafia has arguably done much more damage to the people of the US than Al Qaeda did. Yet we don't send the army over to bomb Sicily, Rome, Milan and Venice, and we don't send special forces all over the Italian countryside to assault families and villages. We support the Italian police and cooperate with them in trying to shatter the Mafia gangs.

Al Qaeda is simply another criminal enterprise. But because they are in the poor country of afghanistan, we are systematically destroying the country in a vain effort to go after that gang. And we are failing.

And you think that makes sense?

Had to reach for that one,

Had to reach for that one, eh? Apples and oranges, as La Cosa Nostra is much more prevalent in the US than in Italy. Also, the Mafia are not a bunch of well-financed religious fanantics who kill at random for the publicity.

Having been in one, I hate war. Having also been in the Middle East, I know that these people are very, very dangerous. They are way beyond common criminality, as they are not in the game for monetary profit, but to gain their perverted idea of Paradise.

As I said in another post, Obama is quite aware that there is no "victory" to be gained in Afghanistan, as we are NOT at war with a country, or its people. We are at war with a very dangerous, fanantical, well-financed group of religious martyrs. And, they are attracting followers from all over the Middle East. If we don't at least cut their "leadership" head off, they WILL hit us again.

I suspect that Obama will try to stablize the area, and then ask for help from the UN, and our NATO allies. I totally support him in that endeavor.

Dave and Bill

Although I agree with Bill, and have pressed for action in Afghanistan, Dave's point is the one that has been missing from this Nation's conversation during the Bush madness:

We DON'T aggressively pursue MOST evil folks because that does MORE damage than simply remaining civilized.

(I've pressed this point myself for years----to no avail).

We CAN navigate in Afghanistan however IF we are willing to pay for a far more expensive endeavor there. (Yeah yeah, the money has already been spent a hundred times over in Iraq, but if it hadn't...)

As Bill points out, the Afghans are not our target. Further, if ANY organization on earth succeeded in the mass murder of Americans -in a single blink of the eye- then we WOULD go after them. That includes the Mafia (though as Bill notes, they are already contained by there own psychology: earthly greed versus a desire for paradise).

I'm not sure any of us are capable of modifying our views, but I have found it instructive to think of what could have been if Iraq never happened, and those resources were spent on Afghanistan:

-MASSIVE aid to the Afghans.

-MASSIVE numbers of non combative "troops" (Intel, Doctors, etc.)

-etc.

I understand that we might not agree on the premise:

That the Afghan government supported those who attacked us and we are in Afghanistan in order to KILL them.

and that

Many Afghans might not agree as well.

Still, there was a way to prosecute this action and Bush did everything he could to F it up.

Jim

Just to point out: the

Just to point out: the "Afghan government" at the time we entered that country was the Taliban. Karzai may be an "oil puppet," but he is light-years better than the Taliban, who facilitated the 9/11 attack on the US. And, he can be replaced by the Afghani people.

The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and OBL all share the same religious fanatacism, along with an eagerness to commit mass murder for their "cause."

As Dave pointed out, they are primarily financed by other wealthy religious fanatics from Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the UAE, and Syria. These are the people that suppress women, condone the rape of children, kill innocent people, and are the opposite of what Islam teaches. They are an anathema to what the majority of the Islamic world believes in.

Dubya and the neocons only made them stronger by invading Iraq, and now that disastrous pre-planned PNAC misadventure needs to be corrected. Concentrating on the geographical focal point of the problem, Afghanistan, is about Obama's only choice at this time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.