Out of Afghanistan

The new Commander-in-Chief of the US military, President Barack Obama, has announced that he’ll be ordering 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. For those who voted for Obama, especially those sporting the tee shirts whereupon the “O” in his name was replaced by the peace sign, this may come as a surprise. It shouldn’t. The truth is that Obama hasn’t lied about his support for Endless War; people just chose to believe something else, that Obama is for peace. Of course, he is for removing troops – but not all of them – from Iraq, but re-deploying soldiers and marines to Afghanistan would not, in my book, qualify him as a peace-making president.

Afghanistan is a losing battle. Invaders over many centuries have known that. Indeed, one has to wonder why the US and NATO wanted to invade Afghanistan. After all, the 9/11-Al Qaeda argument is thin: weren’t the alleged perpetrators from Saudi Arabia? Chasing after Bin Laden (or whomever) in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan has proved ridiculous. He hasn’t been “smoked out” as the former president said he would, and he never will be. Besides, what’s to gain by it? Bin Laden is one of those people that, if he didn’t exist, he’d have to be invented. I’ve been convinced that he is just that: someone invented to fill the role of bogey man par excellence.

Afghanistan is the centre of poppy growing, and never forget that illegal drugs and commerce in them is big business. Could it be that the US, etc. wants to control this business in these tough economic times? Now, it’s said that the Taliban are in on the drug trade. Before, it was said that they stopped much of it, for religious reasons. In fact, the West’s warlord friends were and are running it. Think about it: if the Taliban were opposed to it, as was reported in the past, then, as it went on in the days of their rule, their opponents, the West’s friends were running it. With the Taliban deposed, it is hardly likely that, in a weakened state, they took over the drug trade from their now-strengthened opponents, is it? No, to allege this is just propaganda. Moreover, we now link the Taliban to Iran, but that wasn’t the case before, either, as they are not Shi’ites, and this is likely not the case now. Other strategic considerations might be Russia.

...and so on. These are the excuses for military adventures. The fact is that people are getting killed, troops are being needlessly sent to yet another country other than the one they are supposed to be defending (their own), and the American policy of Endless War continues, the policy that started with Pearl Harbor and has continued in one way or another ever since. We have a country that is so constructed as to be unable to function without some sort of war going on. Barack Obama knows this, and he’s cool with it.

The one lesson learnt since Viet Nam is that it’s best if we keep the war out of the papers and off of the television. This will continue. This is even true of "progressive" websites. Iraq is more or less off the so-called “progressive” websites like MoveOn or True Majority, those thinly-veiled Democratic Party fund-raising machines. Also, there is no mention at all of Afghanistan. The Credo Action website has a petition to the Defence Secretary to come up with a long-term strategy on Afghanistan before sending in more troops, though it doesn’t oppose sending more troops per se. It reads (with my emphasis)

"Secretary Gates, we urge you to reconsider the timing of your proposal to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. We do not want to see Afghanistan turn into another Iraq. While we recognize that more troops may be needed there to serve a long-term strategy, we believe that it is unfounded to deploy the troops before such a strategy (including an exit strategy) is in place. Additionally, we encourage you to exhaust all other possible options before putting more American troops in harm's way."

In other words, these so-called “progressives” come right out and endorse the Afghan occupation. That is reprehensible, but not surprising. Reprehensible, because Afghanistan is another American imperial adventure, an invasion and occupation, with all the destruction, killing, and disruption of the lives of the people living there as any other invasion and occupation. It is understandable, because “progressives” in this country aren’t. “Progressives” -- liberal supporters of the Democratic Party – have a long history of supporting American imperialism and unquestioning deployment of troops in other people’s countries, bidden or not, in spite of the evidence proving that this is never in our long-term interests. These “progressives” swing round to an anti-war position in the end, but not until they’ve cheered on the military blunder in the beginning. Then, they come to see the consequences, and change their tunes. Their president is no progressive, either: the president they’ll cheer through killings, bombings, shattered returning troops and all.

The foreign occupation of Afghanistan is wrong. It is always wrong to invade another country. Afghanistan was picked for invasion because it is very poor, very weak, and because the people there are very different from ourselves, and thus easier to dehumanise and hate and kill. It’s also stupid to invade Afghanistan. It’s militarily difficult to occupy and control, because of terrain, and because the people there are very effective at making their dislike of invasion manifest. If Iraq is a quagmire, it will have nothing on Afghanistan.

Why is the conventional “wisdom” of American foreign policy – the Endless War – never really questioned or challenged? Why is it always a case of being sort of against war, but falling into discussions of long-term strategies, or exit strategies and the rest: that is, entering into the discussion accepting the premises of the military invasion? Why aren’t these premises rejected out of hand for what they are? This is war: killing, bombing, maiming, dismembering, disfiguring, destroying. People are dying. Their homes, cities, villages, and towns are being destroyed. Everything dear to them is a target for bombs, bullets, and other more horrific weapons. At the same time, those bombing and shooting are becoming something less than human. Is it any wonder why so many people serving in the military come home broken in body, mind, and spirit? It all adds up to needless destruction and death.

If you enjoyed this blog, add it to your bookmarks: