The great one1, Barack Obama, is somewhat disingenuous.
The Boston Globe reports excepts from his speech in which he claims the Bush War in Afghanistan to be his very own:
“The situation is increasingly perilous. It’s been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . . Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer. . . .
“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you. . . .
“I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. . . .
What he mean to say was, “We will conquer Afghanistan”. In Afghanistan it is not winning ground that counts it is holding ground, and imperial missions tend to be expensive. One might even begin to think of South Vietnam, and how quickly that army simply melted away when left to their own devices. The fundamental premise that the invaders are fighting against Al Qaeda is simply nonsense. If Al Qaeda now deploys armies it and its top leadership should be relatively easy to identify, despite rumours that they were hiding in Pakistan. If the conflict is with, in its origins, a Saudi organization, Al Qaeda, why are Pashtuns and other Afghanis dying in conflict with foreign armies? The reasons for the resurgence of “the Taliban” are not that difficult to understand, and they include such insignificant factors in the daily lives of the people as governmental corruption, invasion by foreigners, the localization of civil society and disruption of infrastructure due to an experience, the effect of the drug trade, the impact on a tribal and rural society, and so forth, not to mention merciless murder from drone attacks firing “hellfire” missiles on civilians.
What is the mission that makes sense? The suggestion is that the imperialists are seeking to control the oil and gas pipelines of Central Asia, and secure them from others including the Russians, the Chinese and perhaps the Indians. In other words, it is the Great Game all over again.
What do I know? A good question. The editors of The New York Times write:
With his new comprehensive plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama has asserted leadership over the war that matters most to America’s security — the one against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
We do not underestimate the difficulty of succeeding against these deadly adversaries. But it was greatly encouraging simply to see the president actually focusing on this war and placing it in the broader regional framework that has been missing from American policy. That is a good first step toward fixing the dangerous situation that former President George W. Bush created when he abandoned the necessary war in Afghanistan for the ill-conceived war of choice in Iraq.
The New York Times further observes:
If Afghanistan falls, if Pakistan falls, extremists will unleash even more fury. That is a threat to us all.
The extremists in Israel are doing just that. For example, refer to Amos Harel’s article in Ha’aretz, via Chris Floyd, for a specific instance of religious intolerance. The great journal of record, but not observation, fails to notice it seems what is happening or the implications of its manifestations, such as the Lebanon War of 2006 and the recent slaughter of Gaza.
Still it might be said the US President properly should address the energy problem, and in accordance with the long and noble tradition by violence rather than by fair trade. The military industrial complex is a heavy burden for any country, and the American version on a per capita basis weigh heaviest of all, in all probability critically detrimental to the well being of the civilian population at large.
ELSEWHERE:
Rachel Maddow interviews Juan Cole on the Obama speech and the situation in Pakistan. Juan gets a plug in for his latest book, which is called, “Engaging the Muslim World”.
Gareth Porter, at AntiWar.Com reports that “Strategists Cast Doubt on Afghan War Rationale”. Perhaps violence is the wrong strategy now, and thus was for the previous strategies in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brett Scrowcroft , for example, are plainly very intelligent people, but they are limited by their adherence to the violence paradigm.
David Kaiser reviews the “Confusion in Afghanistan”.
Juan Cole sees the Afghanistan expansion explanation as another Domino Theory with attended mission creep.
Footnote:
1. In comparison with G W Bush, Obama is a giant, not to mention the magnitude of the problems he has been left to deal with, and we are still within a few months of his inauguration. I wonder at the principal winnowers and shapers of this policy are, although I recall this is the line that Obama took in relation to Afghanistan in the election campaign.