Why are people falling for the lie that the true war on terror is in Afghanistan?
It is true that the war in Iraq has removed needed resources from the battle in Afghanistan but arguments to escalate the effort in Afghanistan are wrong. Both wars, as known and executed today, needed to stop.
There is no legitimate location for the US to vent its frustration at extremists. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Not the Philippines. Not Nigeria. Not Cuba. Not Venezuela.
So where should we send our troops? Home.
To understand how Afghanistan came to be the base (literally the base or al Qaeda in Arabic) for extreme militant Islam Americans need to pick up some history books and understand the enemy we face. The desire of citizens to not be involved but to hold their politicians responsible for a response to 9/11 created the situation where our country was coerced into an inappropriate response to terrorist attacks.
The mechanisms that allowed al Qaeda to flourish and grow from the late '80s to the present stem from state sponsored support in America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These mechanisms enabled and encouraged extremists to gather and train in Afghanistan to repel and defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
That is an over simplification to be sure but doing the homework is your responsibility. Catch up and then read on.
America has come full circle to a point where we are required to do something to counter the activity that we helped establish. After the Soviets fell and withdrew in the early '90s we simply left the country of Afghanistan for dead. The 4 million mujahideen that fought as our proxies against the Soviets were simply discarded and forgotten. Their families left to rebuild their lives all on their own.
I know, a real tear jerker for the average American, right? Well, it is the root of the generation of fighters we are now seeing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the source of much of the hatred for America seen in the Muslim world. Our enemies are fueled by our hypocrisy and complete disregard for life.
With the Iraq war now unpopular (we fight wars based on popularity and political capital, sick isn't it? Again, a source for our distrust and hatred in the Muslim world) but the American hunger for payback not yet satisfied, politicians are ranting about how we must re-focus efforts on Afghanistan.
In the middle of both these wars the American public has failed to reach any conclusions about the underlying reasons and rational for these wars and the reasons that we have not yet "won" against these "dirty, uneducated" enemies. How can our military, the greatest in the world, not have crushed and destroyed the opposition by now? Hasn't anyone wondered about this over the past 7 years?
America has gone about responding to the terrorist attacks in the wrong manner. The people of the US do not want to hear any ideas about tuning the other cheek, Christianity is for Sunday morning and bumper stickers, Jesus didn't know shit about changing the world or dealing with evil enemies... right?
The fight against our own foreign policy blunder soldiers is not in the conventional army, it isn't going to be solved by troops at the business end of a weapon. Armies are trained to fight armies. Al Qaeda and their cohorts are not an army. They are an organisation bound by ideology and common purpose.
The war on terror is flawed in its beginnings but to be sure it will only be successful when it is fought on the same plane in which it exists. Western governments must commit money and support to Muslim governments and organizations that are moderate and opposed to the militantism of the extremists.
US soldiers fighting on Muslim lands, and all the death and damage that brings, only acts to fuel the source of motivation and recruitment for these groups. Our bombing, shooting and disrespect for the average Muslim in these countries is enough to drive any moderate local against us. Our solution is creating the future generations of our enemies. So long as we create more extremist fighters, we will be perpetually bogged down in and endless fight.
The Soviets faced this same enemy. The end to their war came only when their war bankrupted their country. Is America in a financial position to wage an endless war? The US government hasn't even asked the average citizen to sacrifice to pay for the war. We are putting the cost of these wars on the backs of our kids, grand kids and so on. All to what end?
This war will be won with a moderate Muslim face challenging the extreme true believers.
In the '90s our only hope against feuding warlords was the Taliban. At the request of oil companies we actually recognised the Taliban and assisted to centralize their rule. Osama operated on their fringes and due to 9/11 we threw out all hope for stability and progress in the region by doing the one thing the Muslim world cannot and will not stand for: occupying their territory.
Focusing military might in Afghanistan and not Iraq is a false argument. Pulling back all military power is the true solution. Our culture and media have us so afraid of talking our way to a solution. Our wrongful belief in our just cause and our over blown notion of our military capacity has us thinking we can sit back and watch the military solve all our problems in the world.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan is the wrong answer. The Soviets made the same mistake in the late '80s. Our fate will look a lot like theirs but worse given the current situation in the world oil markets.
The coming disaster is written out from history on the wall for all to see. Americans would rather sit back and listen to politicians tell us what we want to hear rather than do our homework and demand a proper response from the government.
The Taliban can be dealt with in Afghanistan. Shia militias can be consolidated and put in charge of Iraq. Those who can do something about extremists, the moderates, can be held responsible and given the support they need to make a difference in the affairs of the Muslim world.
What the world needs now is American people who think for themselves and don't fall for the Afghan lie.
Contributing article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750386
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that America contributed to the current situation in the Middle East over the past few decades. We abandoned the Afghans after we helped them repel the soviets in the 1980's and we abandoned the Iraqis after Saddam was defeated in the first Gulf war. Is the problem that we are helping people or that we are failing to fully commit, pulling back and abandoning them in their hour of need because of war popularity issues at home?
Trying to conquer Afghanistan would be as ill-advised as it was for the Soviets. Providing security for moderate governments while ensuring their sovereignty is an entirely different animal in my opinion.
What would happen to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East if we completely reversed our policy in the midst of our stated purpose? What ramifications would there be in the current global political calculus if U.S. military might was suddenly no longer a factor in the foreign policies of these nations? How would nations view possible U.S. commitments in the future if they were to benchmark those commitments against historical U.S. failures to follow through?
I agree that military might alone will not solve the problem but I think it is an important factor. Batman might call it a necessary evil.
Thanks for adding my blog. I reciprocated. I appreciate your opinion and a war veteran and thank you for your service.
I appreciate your strong social science perspective. My perspective is based more in the practical application and a process approach but I'm always learning.
Populist and protectionist ideas of an American with drawal from the region are absurd.
I think an improper aproach to American power projection has been in place since at least the early '90s. The military is seen as the decisive factor in any negotiation or dilemna. Toby Keith's popular view of "we'll put a boot in yer ass" makes the point.
The problem with the "big stick" approach is when you use it all the time, especially when inappropriate, it no longer looks like a big stick and people begin to learn how to dodge it.
When using conventional forces to fight unconventional warfare it is a bit like holding the stick in the middle. No matter how hard you swing it you can only do so much damage. Sometimes you end up pounding yourself in the process.
I see two basic truths in our use of military means historically and definitely in the region:
1. We ultimately end up fighting the forces we trained.
2. How our forces conduct themselves is just as important as why they were sent there.
Depending upon to what degree we reverse our policy, I think we would actually be suprised to the reaction of the region. Replacing value on human life (that isn't just American or Israeli) would do wonders for our conduct and our perception.
I'm not so worried about their politics not factoring in American military might in their calculations any less than they are concerned of how oil might not impact our economy. The realities and interwindings are too deep.
My view is that our future operations in the region must have the face of moderate Islam and our involvement must be centered in the special operations / para military approach.
The kind of culture change that must happen for us to reach any of our goals in the longterm will only happen through an Islamic paradigm shift. That transformation will not happen under external pressure (specifically at the point of a US gun).
The initial fall of the Taliban, our march into Baghdad and the speed of the Gulf War ground campaign all attest to the size of our stick. It's time we stop allowing true enemies to practice sparring with it.
To the first point: "Is the problem that we are helping people or that we are failing to fully commit, pulling back and abandoning them in their hour of need because of war popularity issues at home?"
The problem is we are not helping people AND we fail to fully commit when the responsibility is ours.
Iraq now and Afghanistan in '89 have little in common.
America used the Mujihadeen as a proxy against the Soviets and then tossed them to the side after they accomplished their mission (more than 1 million Afghans died in the war and 5 million became refugees in neighboring countries.)
Despite any reasons given for starting the Iraq war or not ending it, the war in Iraq is now a battle of the US against Iraqis who oppose forgeign occupation. We're killing those who are fighting to be free from us.
Abandonment of the Iraqi people must be prevented but military operations and the occupation must end. The immediate future of Iraq will not be peaceful. Our surge success myth is simply a timeout. Many internal issues must be resolved but the firepower added by foreign powers is the first problem.
I think the notion that war is a "popularity issue" for the US is exactly the problem. The mob mentallity called for blood so we got it in two ill-concieved wars.
Post a Comment