Many proponents of American militarism have repeatedly boasted about how the great U.S. military machine had "routed" the Taliban following Bin Liden's successful attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. These same militaristic minded proponents argued that America had "won" by defeating the Taliban, despite the fact that most of the top Bin Laden al-Qaeda extremists are still alive and well today.
If we "defeated" the Taliban in the late fall of 2001,….and we didn't take 'our eye off the ball' in Afghanistan in early 2002…..by preparing to attack the sovereign country of Iraq….then why is this happening in 2008?…..
In Afghanistan, the Taleban now claim to have influence across most of the country and have extended their area of control from their traditional heartland in the south.
They are able to operate freely even in Wardak Province, neighbouring the capital Kabul, as a BBC camera crew who filmed them recently found.
Does that sound like the Taliban has been "routed"?
Does that sound like the Bush/Cheney orchestrated "war" on the Taliban (let alone al-Qaeda) has been "won"?
More importantly, if the vaunted words of bringing freedom to the Afghan people has, somehow, curtailed the extremism of radical Islamic types…..why this….in 2008?….
Six years ago the Taleban found it hard to recruit. They put their increasing success now down to official corruption, the slow pace of reconstruction and the presence of foreign troops. Link
Many American militarists refuse to acknowledge that our military presence in Islamic countries produces MORE Islamic extremists, not less. John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani ridiculed Ron Paul for having the audacity to raise this point in a GOP primary debate. How does 2008's "increased success" in extremist recruitment inside Afghanistan speak to that specific issue?
And most importantly. How long would our local communities put up with this kind of stuff before we would look for alternatives?….
A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.
Two days ago, the Red Cross said that at least 250 Afghan civilians had been killed or wounded in insurgent attacks or military action in the previous six days. It called on all parties to the conflict to avoid civilian casualties. Link
Many times I've tried to 'Americanize' for readers what our American military is actually doing in Muslim lands. I've set forth 'what ifs'…..for example: What if Canada, exercising their right to protect themselves, attacked northern Michigan communities for the purpose of routing out a loose knit band of international drug kingpins? And while the Canadian military carried out their 'national security' campaign….Michigan civilians were oftentimes 'accidentally' killed in the process.
Should Michigan citizens, in my hypothetical, simply endure the, you know, "collateral damage", because, after all, Canada is only trying to get the bad guys? Or should the Michigan citizens rise up and attempt to throw the "protectors" out of their state?
Finally…..from the BBC articles….comes a sentence that belongs in the "No Sh*t Hall of Fame"…..
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
The bigger issue facing Americans, and particularly American Leaders, is why they refuse to even acknowledge this most basic of human dynamics.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
What exactly are you arguing?
Umm….American military installations on Muslim lands, or American military occupations of Muslim countries is followed by blowback.
Yet, Americans are told that the blowback is because they hate our freedoms.
Secondly, the international criminal element responsible for attacking the U.S. on 9-11 is flourishing. We have been told the "war" was against "terror". That is ridiculous, of course, but behind the stupid label is a concept of fighting the international Islamic extremist criminals. We're losing in that effort primarily because of, you know, Iraq.
Thirdly, look at today's Beacon print edition top headline.
So sending the military into Muslim countries bad, sending the military into (Muslim) Afghanistan, good.
That's what I thought you might be arguing despite the total inconsistancy.
Why on earth would anyone think sending more troops into Afghanistan and across the border into Pakistan will have any better results than what we've seen in Iraq? Is revenge worth it?
Mr. larry d.,
The supposed reason for going into Afghanistan was to apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden (remember him?), and destroy Al Qaeda. However, once we had defeated the Taliban which had harbored bin Laden, Bush decided that Iraq was such an imminent threat that he pulled troops out of Afghanistan and attacked Iraq. This resulted in not enough support to maintain Karzai's government anywhere but Kabul. That is why the Taliban is resurgent and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are doing quite well.
I thought those fellows from NATO were helping out in Afghanistan–it was seen as 'the way to do things' in comparison to Iraq not too long ago.
Now you tell us Iraq's the model–more troops, clamp down, unilaterally overwhelm, etc., etc.
It gets confusing but I'm catching up.
Is the Reverend reversing his prior position in support of the Afghanistan invasion now (and his desire to invade Pakistan), due to the fact that Muslims will fight back and it will be a recruiting tool to be used against the USA ?
Or are we continuing to pretend that concern somehow only applies to Iraq ?
Or is it the fact that there is still a Taliban, even though they no longer control Afghanistan ?
I have to second larry here. I'm not sure what you are driving at.
You fellows have brains of granite.
al-Qaeda is the only "enemy" America officially has.
al-Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.
The purpose…..and I don't give a sh*t what neoconservative minded folks say about this…I'm still factually correct…..the purpose of sending our military to Afghanistan was to get the enemy…al-Qaeda. The Taliban willingly gave safe haven to America's enemy and therefore, had to be driven from power.
BUT
We didn't finish getting the enemy. We fell far, far short of seriously killing all the bastards who planned and carried out 9-11. Americans believed W. would snuff out al-Qaeda….root and branch. Hell, I even believed it for about 90 days.
By not finishing off the enemy….and don't tell me we couldn't have done it……W. betrayed America and all Americans. By conducting an international criminal act against Iraq instead of finishing al-Qaeda off….W. committed an impeachable offense and once again, betrayed, in a fraudulent manner, the American people.
Never in history have we witnessed, and yet done nothing about, such presidential abuse of power.
Do you ever ask yourself why Congress never does anything about the presidents various impeachable and criminal acts? Or why democrats like Obama mysteriously vote for criminal programs like the telecommunications citizen spying 'scandal'?
For all their talk, the dems in Congress know Bush is right on many issues and they appreciate the fact that there haven't been any attacks here since shortly after 9/11. What they say publicly is just meant to keep dupes voting dem, because they don't have anything else to offer.
I take offense, Rev. My brain is only half granite. The other half is mush.
But at least I don't say crazy things like Al Qaeda is the only enemy we have. You should read the list of terrorist organizations sometime, not to mention the existence of states like Iran (and Saddam's Iraq, formerly).
Since Al Qaeda is an international organization present in a minimum of 60 countries worldwide (probably way more), they can't be snuffed out so easily.
Besides, your original post sounded to me like you were being criticial of the fact that we were in Afghanistan at all, that's why I asked you questions about it.
Bush hasn't committed any impeachable offenses regarding Iraq. Can you imagine Congress attempting to impeach Bush for Iraq, a war that Congress voted FOR ? That would be the mother of all hypocrisies. I will only accept that if Congress impeaches itself first and removes itself from office.
Mr. larry d.,
I have asked myself why the Democrats let Bush off the hook. The answer I come up with has nothing to do with Bush being right. For as long as I remember, the Republicans have been successful at painting the Democrats as being soft on Communism, terrorism, or whatever ism is handy, whenever they try to reign Republican excesses. Additionally, they are nearly as corrupt as the Republicans with lots of telecom money bankrolling them. Pelosi, as House Minority Leader, signed off on torture, making her as impeachable as Bush. By the way, have you noticed that the Constitution says that in case of high crimes and misdemeanors the president SHALL be impeached, not may be impeached.
Congress voted for the Iraq Resolution, swayed at least somewhat by the abuse of intelligence by White House officials.
We have a Senate Committee finding demonstrating just that.
frank is correct…..Democrats think they are playing it safe. Obama may even be thinking he is playing it safe. It is faulty thinking.
When the Protect America Act nonsense was passed by all these weak sisters in August, 2006…the same dynamic was at work. Stupid Democrats thought if something "happened" before they got back to work….they would be blamed.
Helles Belles…..Democrats get blamed, no matter what the hell happens.
Oh Rev, stop with the bs already. I've shot this nonsense down in flames over and over.
You are still trying to blame Bush for Congress' pre-war Iraq vote. What a pantload that is. For the MILLIONTH TIME, here are the facts – Democrats and Republicans BOTH thought Iraq had WMD, because that's what the CIA TOLD THEM. That's also what British, Russian, and French intelligence told them. That's also what the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION told them. That's what Saddam's own generals told them. The CIA TOLD BUSH what the intel showed, not vice versa. Bush didn't create the pre-war NIE, the CIA did. Saddam violated 14 UN RESOLUTIONS, most of them regarding those WMD. Saddam was shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone. Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. BILL CLINTON MADE OUR IRAQ POLICY ONE OF REGIME CHANGE WITH THE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT IN 1998. Saddam interfered with the UN weapons inspectors the entire time they were in Iraq. Saddam corrupted the Oil For Food program. Saddam had a nuclear weapons program previously, and the British STILL stick to the truth of those 16 words. Joe Wilson LIED.
If Bush told people Saddam had WMD (and he did), that's because that's what our intelligence agencies TOLD HIM, and he believed them.
Not to mention the fact that members of Congress are fully grown human beings, capable of making their own decisions, and if they don't have the strength of their own convictions, they shouldn't be in positions of authority in the first place. While there were Congressional members who didn't think the Iraq war was the wisest course, I doubt there were ANY who trusted Saddam on the WMD issue.
Of course, now, when it's politically convenient, they can pretend otherwise, and do.
More than half of the House Democrats voted against the Iraq resolution.
No need to trot out the bluster. The White House purposely created an " imminent threat" of Iraq. That was the lie. You will never agree that THAT was a lie….but it was.
Mr. King,
Do you really think that Congress got information from the CIA independent of what the administration cherry picked? Why do you think Tenet got the Medal of Freedom (or whatever it was)? And now Bill Clinton is not a certified liar? Remember, that is why he was impeached. Sadaam Hussein's own son-in-law told that us the weapons were destroyed in compliance with UN sanctions (before Sadaam killed him). Weapons inspector Scott Ritter confirmed this. Iraq was the most heavily surveilled nation in the world, and because of the UN sanctions, we knew more about what came into and left Iraq than any other nation.
The crude forgery that the nuclear propaganda was based on even had the forged signatures of the wrong people, people who were no longer in office. What did Joe Wilson lie about?
After Bush used this document as the basis of his untruthful assertion about Iraq's supposed nuclear program in the State of the Union speech, Wilson related the contradictory results of his mission and that Bush should have known better.
Sadaam may have been a bad guy, but was neither an imminent threat, nor any reason to take attention away from the hunt for bin Laden.