Afghan military intervention justified by a 'great lie'

[IndianaGreen]

This is from Australia, where opposition to the war in Afghanistan is being fueled by Aussie casualties:

Wilkie is the former defence analyst who resigned from the Office of National Intelligence to protest at the Howard government's false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading Iraq in 2003.

Andrew Wilkie: Afghan military intervention justified by a 'great lie'

Friday, August 27, 2010

By Peter Boyle

Labor government and Liberal-National opposition leaders have responded to the latest casualties with old fashioned jingoistic rhetoric about the soldiers' lives being sacrificed for freedom and democracy on behalf of all Australians. This has become the routine tactic for deflecting discussion on whether Australian soldiers should be in Afghanistan.

However, this question has become unavoidable with the August 27 Sydney Morning Herald report that the Director of Military Prosecutions was considering prosecuting some commandos before a court martial for killing children.

The potential charges relate to a February 2009 incident in Oruzgan province in which Australian forces killed a teenager, two younger children and two babies, along with one adult.

Sydney Stop the War Coalition's Pip Hinman told Green Left Weekly that the possible prosecutions provided more evidence that the war was neither justified or winnable.

<snip>

“Wilkie is correct that this war is based on a lie”, Hinman told Green Left Weekly. “The lie is that this war is about 'fighting terrorism'. In fact, this war of occupation and terror against the Afghan people is more likely to drive more people — not just in Afghanistan but around the world — to respond with terrorist acts.”

She said one of the original excuses for the war — to help the women in Afghanistan — was also a lie. “Despite all the talk from the pro-war camp, women remain marginalised and dispossessed, as Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission statistics indicate.”

The statistics showed violence against women was becoming even more prevalent in areas controlled by the occupying armies and their Afghan allies than it was in Taliban strongholds, she said.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45189

[Gman]

1. Yup. K&R

[KakistocracyHater]

2. sadly true, a deep tragedy

*

[golfguru]

3. The longest war in Afghan is now a classic quagmire

Longer than Viet-Nam, longer than Korea, longer than Iraq.
And no end in sight. Two dozen soldiers killed in last couple of days.
Billions of dollars needed at home wasted in Afghanistan.
We are propping up a corrupt regime of Karzai there.
Afghanistan does not have the depth of educated people like in
Iraq who can govern effectively.
Poppy production is rampant with 2/3rds of entire world's supply.

Stop the madness, declare victory (or defeat who cares) and come home.
Most of Al Qaeda is now in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. So limit the war
with Al Qaeda with remotely guided drones to kill high value targets.

And speaking of wasting precious dollars (borrowed from China with interest)
why do we still have soldiers in Germany, S. Korea, Okinawa and more?
I thought those countries are stable and democratic.

[IndianaGreen]

4. The only thing Obama will get out of his war, and it is now his war

are more names on a future black marble monument.

[Chulanowa]

5. Of course, let's forget all about the guy who caused the huge fucking mess in the first place

As a Republican, his name is sacrosanct, after all.

[IndianaGreen]

6. You mean the war criminal Bush that Obama commended in his speech last night?

I want Bush prosecuted, not commended!

It was Obama, and not Bush, who escalated the war in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is Obama's war now!

[Chulanowa]

7. Here, let me explain this to you, using a similar example

Between 2001 and 2003, Bush pushed through massive tax cuts.
These tax cuts are set to expire in 2011.
Arguably these tax cuts are returning taxation levels to what thye "should be"
However Republicans are calling Obama's non-renewal of the cuts a "tax hike."

Between 2002 and 2009, Bush continuously neglected Afghanistan and drew resources from that battle for the more "glamorous" war in Iraq.
As a result, manpower dipped considerably and our swift victory turned into an eight-year quagmire.
Obama elevated troop levels to a level comparable to what had originally been in Afghanistan to start with, as well as some extra to deal with the shit sandwich caused by years of neglect
Democrats are calling this an "escalation."

You want Bush prosecuted? Yeah sure. Just as soon as people stop pretending Kennedy was a hero, dig up Nixon and rescind his pardon, let the truth about Reagan come out, and put Bush Sr. on trial for what he did in Somalia and to the Shia and Kurds of Iraq. It'd be nice - but it's not going to happen. This is called an unrealistic expectation.

In the end all you're doing is giving Bush a free pass because it's more fun to bitch about how Obama doesn't shit chocolate ice cream.

[golfguru]

Forget history for a moment, we can't change history

but explain why it was a good idea to escalate troops in Afghanistan
and MORE IMPORTANT, why is it the right policy to KEEP IT GOING.
IOW why is it a good policy for the PRESENT and the FUTURE.

[Chulanowa]

9. I try to not forget history.

It may be inconvenient for your feigned outrage, but it's still important for the subject at hand. Historical facts such as Bush's troop depletion in Afghanistan being a major point of criticism of him by Democrats right up to the Inauguration. History like us cheering for Obama when he campaigned with a promise to return focus and effort to Afghanistan.

But I digress.

Point of fact, Option B is worse. As shit as things are now, a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is worse than what it is now. Now, as a progressive, I know you couldn't give a flipping fuck WHAT happens to brown Muslims who talk funny, especially in an election year. But me, I'm a liberal, a leftist, and I do give a shit what happens to these people. And again, I'm not going to "forget history" and pretend that the Taliban are going to improve the lives of Afghans.

Tell me, do you question the necessity and wisdom of our occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan after we utterly demolished them in World War 2?

[golfguru]

You are digressing all over

First, I did not say forget history....I said "forget history for a moment"
because I was curious how you would defend the escalation in Afghanistan by
president Obama.

Your defense is based on your hypothesis that "a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is worse than what it is now".
Fact is Taliban did not plan and execute 911. It was Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda leaders are now hiding in
Pakistan. Like stupid fools, we are gifting Pakistan Billions every year, yet Pakistan refuses to excise
Al Qaeda leaders from their western provinces. ANd they have forbidden us to invade those provinces.

The most important thing you and Obama do not understand is that we can not protect Afghanistan from
Taliban for ever. The country consists of rugged mountains and the people are fiercely tribal toting
rifles in every man's possession. Tanks and ground vehicles and bombers are useless there.
No power has ever subdued Afghanistan for long periods and Americans won't either. Nine long years later
the Taliban is still alive and able to fight. If the Afghani people will not get rid of Taliban, then
no body else can. Taliban lives on because it obviously has support amongst locals.

Therefore to a student of history it is obvious that a war such as our troops are asked to fight is
an exercise in futility. It is a stupid war, no better than Viet-Nam.

[Chulanowa]

11. Ditch the straw man.

"Fact is Taliban did not plan and execute 911. It was Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda leaders are now hiding in Pakistan."

And? Fact is, 9/11 doesn't enter into my equations or rationale at all. I said nothing pertaining to this, and certainly do not feel that 9/11 justified our invasion of Afghanistan. I suppose you simply can't muster an argument against what i actually did say, that Afghanistan under the Taliban would be worse than it is now?

"ANd they have forbidden us to invade those provinces."

Well? Make up your mind! Are you for or against escalation? Seriously, I'm puzzled here. You're grabbing your sack and screeching about that Obama returning troop levels in Afghanistan to something operable, but you also seem to be lamenting that we are not invading another country. That's just fucking dumb.

"The most important thing you and Obama do not understand is that we can not protect Afghanistan from Taliban for ever."

Nor do we need to. We simply need to protect them long enough for the Afghans to become capable of doing the protecting themselves.

"Tanks and ground vehicles and bombers are useless there."

Point of fact, they're not. They've actually been doing their jobs pretty well. of course, there's more to a military operation than throwing artillery at something and hoping it goes away. Realizing stuff like that requires lucid, creative thought, which seems to be in short supply at times.

"No power has ever subdued Afghanistan for long periods and Americans won't either."

Well, again, Alexander (Well, Seleukos), Temujin, and Timur all had some pretty good successes. Also it depends on what you mean by "subdued." One could make the lucid argument that the United States has subdued Afghanistan for the last thirty years, since our fingerprints are all over the events within that state.

Here's the thing though; we don't have any long-term designs on Afghanistan. I know that Alex Jones or someone has filled your head with notions of some sort of latter-day American Empire, but the fact is... we don't want Afghanistan. However, because of the guy who's water you're carrying, we're there, and we've got to clean up the mess we made.

"Nine long years later the Taliban is still alive and able to fight."

Three years and a six-year intermission, you mean. I know you're reading off a card, but you could at least pay a few moments of attention. This war has lasted this long explicitly because of Bush - you know, the guy who's defense you are manning right now. The majority of that has bene spent with the military being unable to conduct its operations to secure Afghanistan, thanks to Your Man Bush siphoning troops to fight in a much bloodier (and thus more glamorous!) war in Iraq.

If the Afghani people will not get rid of Taliban, then no body else can.

Sheer genius! Why do we need cops? if rape victims can't protect themselves... Oh well! Burglarized? well, you should have had a better alarm system! Killed? Shoulda fought harder, douchebag!

:eyes: thoughtless drivel like this is why "progressives" disgust me.

"Taliban lives on because it obviously has support amongst locals. "

Some, yes. Not broad support, but some support. As far as guerrilla movements go, they're certainly no Viet Cong. The people of Afghanistan do not want the Taliban in power. If they did, believe me, we would know. As you helpfully point out, for the last three thousand years, the major export of Afghanistan has been asskickings; if the people of Afghanistan wanted the Taliban in charge, not only would they be in charge, but we'd be getting several hundred headless mutilated bodies flying back to the US every day. We're not even seeing the kind of resistance the Russians were getting.

"Therefore to a student of history it is obvious that a war such as our troops are asked to fight is an exercise in futility. It is a stupid war, no better than Viet-Nam."

Again with reading from the card.

There are some casual similarities with Viet Nam;
American soldiers are involved
It's in Asia
Opium is popular

As I pointed out above, the Taliban is no Viet Cong. The Viet Cong was South Vietnam. Our little enclave of Saigon only existed in Saigon. Outside that city, it might as well have been North Vietnam. The Viet Cong and NVA had broad support in the south. They had promised land and financial reforms, and they had delivered. Diem and his shaky successor governments exemplified a neo-feudalist rule of plantations, religious persecution, and mass murder.

over in Afghanistan the only support for the Taliban comes from those it can pay off or intimidate; this is not a good recipe for such a guerrilla movement. I dunno if you've ever read any of the major treatises on guerrilla warfare, golfguru, but without popular support, the movement will crumble under pressure. The fortune of the Taliban thus far has been our lack of pressure; the Afghans show every sign of having no desire to live under the auspices of a bunch of mud-caked refugee camp sadists. Unfortunately the Taliban happens to be better-armed than the people of Afghanistan, and so we end up being the major barrier to Taliban rule at the moment. Our presence is tolerated by the Afghans. We've managed to hold on to that for several years, and while we could do better, it would seem we could have done a whole lot worse, too (Iraq comes to mind)

It's a stupid war. But it's a stupid war that we are involved in. And it bears repeating; nobody can wave a magic wand and make everything work out. Starting a war is easy; wrapping one up is godawfully hard.

[golfguru]

10. n/t

[golfguru]

8. n/t

why is DU posting my post twice when I clicked only once?