To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
Well in regards to Afghanistan not a single person directly responsible for the hijacking of the flights on 9-11-2001 were from Afghanistan or citizens of that nation. Every person directly responsible for the attacks on 9-11-2001 are dead. In fact the direct perpetrators of 9-11-2001 were
Saudi Arabian nationals, Egyptian nationals and Lebanese nationals. Of the Hijackers who's nationalities are undetermined, none have been suspected of being Afghani nationals. By the logic of the above quote The US ought to be invading and occupying Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. That is not happening. It is beyond the scope of this piece to discus why but anyone who has watched Farenheight 9-11 knows why we do not.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
As we know Al-Qaeda is in fact an international phenomenon made up of varied Jihadist groups with a common ideology that Crusaders ought to be out of Islamic lands. We also know that the group of "Al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan are in fact the remnants of those Mujahadeen that fought the Soviet Union with our direct economic and military help. Al-Qaeda is in fact a creation of the US intelligence agency who thought that supporting a Islamic fundamentalist group that was opposed to Communism was a good idea. The US policymakers had absolutely no problem with fundamentalist Jihadist blowing shit up when it was the Soviets bearing the brunt of the abuse. It may also be the case, and I say may, that the fundamentalist terrorism in Georgia is the direct result of such meddling in Afghanistan. As I have shown in my post on the
historical ties of the Taliban and the US (
Ron Paul also expounds on this] It's pretty clear that the US had absolutely no problems with dealing with the Taliban government. It is the height of hypocracy to turn around and start talking junk about a government that the US was more than willing to cut energy pipeline deals with. And of course Obama didn't even discus why "America and our friends had turned elsewhere." The defeat of the Soviet Union was all that the US was interested in. It's not like policy makers in Washington had no clue what was going on there.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Note the highlighted text. This is the Bush Doctrine that many of us are accusing Obama of regurgitating. It was President Bush who took the position that anyone who had any so called "terrorists" within' their borders were targets. Except of course Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt. Right?
Gary Leupp makes the point:
But neocon strategy has always required the simplistic conflation of disparate phenomena, and the exploitation of public ignorance and fear, in the execution of policy. Who are they, after all? The invasion of Iraq required the Big Lie that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. The earlier invasion of Afghanistan required the clever sleight-of-hand by which the mainly Saudi Arab but international al-Qaeda was equated with the purely Afghan Taliban. “We don’t distinguish between terrorists and the governments that support them,” Bush declared.
So it is clear that Obama is in fact continuing the Bush policy. Afghanistan and Taliban are the enemy because we say their government supports them.
And in support of my earlier point:
The fact is, there was and is a difference between al-Qaeda, an international jihadist organization that wants to reestablish a global Caliphate and confront the U.S., and the Taliban, which wanted to stabilize Afghanistan under a harsh interpretation of the Sharia but maintain a working relationship with the U.S. And now, eight years after being toppled, the Taliban are back with a vengeance, demonstrating that they have a real social base. Moreover a Pakistani Taliban has emerged across the border as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.
Here is Obama's big lie. The velvet gloved sleight of hand. The truth is far more detailed. Again from
Gary:
The Taliban never invited Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan; he was there when they took power, guest of a warlord who had been hostile to themselves. He had flown in from Sudan, booted out by the government there following a demand from the U.S. The Taliban extended to him the hospitality required by the pashtunwali code, in appreciation for his services in anti-Soviet struggle in the 1980s. But as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair have documented on this site, from 2000 the Taliban initiated talks in Frankfurt with the EU, facilitated by the Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat, to transfer bin Laden out of the country. Mohabbat was employed from November by the National Security Council to negotiate with the Taliban about bin Laden’s fate... The Bush administration also dispatched Mohabbat repeatedly to Kabul---three times in 2001---to discuss bin Laden. In other words, at minimum, on can say that the State Department knew, and we should know, and Obama should know, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are two very different things.
So lets set the record straight. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan who extended to him the customs that any govermment would do. Upon a request for extradition of Bin Laden, the Taliban, reasonably asked for proof of his crime. After all NO country simply hands over people without proper documentation. On top of that the Taliban was in the process of extraditing him. Problem was that Bush did not have either the respect or patience to be "diplomatic" and therefore invaded to the country. So I re-iterate Obama is simply carrying on the tragic mistaken policy of the Bush administration.
Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
In a matter of months Pakistan a country with, you know, deliverable nukes, had it's president tossed, Al-Qaeda move in and had it's northern territories overrun with ousted Taliban. JUst like what happens in an occupation where the previous govt goes over the border to shore themselves up for a retake.
Oh and provisional government? Oh that's what colonial powers do. Toss the legitimate "non-compliant" government and replace it with one that will co-operate. Oh the resolutions
sound really good too But really lasting "peace" was what the country had (like Iraq) before the 'international force" got there. And really it's not the US's job to bring "lasting peace" to Afghanistan. The only legitimate interest the US has/had in Afghanistan is to locate Bin Laden.
blah blah blah about Iraq
The Iraqis voted that the US had to leave. End of discussion. Bombs still go off there. The country is fractured and each major group has it's own ghetto. Thanks dude.
Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
A legitimate government? Really? That's why this new plan has American taxpayer money going into the hands of "tribal elders" right? Anyone paying attention knows that the "legitimate government" in Afghanistan has control of maybe 20 square miles. I exaggerate but in reality the central government is viewed as a puppet of the US (it is) and has control of little more than Kabul.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
No actually the Taliban has an issue with being overthrown. Al-Qaeda opposes all crusader presence in Islamic lands. We've already demonstrated that the Taliban and Al-Q are not only not the same, but have different goals in mind. The "Brazen" attacks on the Pakistani people is in direct response to Pakistani involvement and cooperation with the US, you know the government that attacked their government. So the suffering of the Pakistanis is a direct result of US overthrow of, and occupation of Afghanistan. I wont' even get into the drones. Not that this was not predicted.
I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Understand people, this is an open ended event. Part of the entire problem with this so called "war on terror" is that it is not dealing with the root problems. Top of the list is the issue of Palestine. So long as the Palestinian issue is not dealt with there will be problems. Period. Secondly, since there is absolutely no way to control what people think, there will always be extremists, extremist networks and extremist allies. And really lets be clear that extremism cuts a lot of ways. And if all extremism, including that of the US is not dealt with, then this is simply about power plays.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions
Well then Obama opposed the Iraq war for the entirely wrong reason. The Iraq war ought not to have been fought simply because Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq had not threatened the US. The war in Iraq was justified on the basis of outright fraudulent claims and documentation. The war in Iraq is simply put, one large international war crime by the US and it's allies. Period. The opposition is not about "military restraint" and "long term thinking". The opposition to Iraq is simply about not doing illegal shit.
If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
Really. Security? We have already demonstrated that the Taliban was not in any way shape or form opposed to working with the US in terms of securing oil pipeline deals. We have already demonstrated that the Taliban was not opposed to removing Bin-Laden from Afghanistant to a neutral party and was in fact in negotiations to do so. So the fact of the matter is that the invasion of Afghanistan has made the US less secure by pissing off a whole lot of people who may not have been pissed off before. The invasion of and continued occupation of Afghanistan puts the government of Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation at risk of collapse or of being taken over by more extreme elements. How does any of that make the US more secure? As has been correctly noted by Republicans, the brighter Taliban and Al-Qaeda members will simply sit this latest phase of the occupation out until the US leaves. And if they are going to do that, then what is the difference between leaving in 2011 and now? Oh that's right an election cycle.
It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat
C'mon man, aside from the blatant fear mongering, What part of the Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt does he not understand. What part of the Taliban had no part in plotting or carrying out 9-11 does he not understand. Even
TD Jakes has acknowleged the legitimacy of the Taliban fighting a group who has invaded their homeland. There will be no defeating the Taliban because Afghanistan it their home. They will not surrender.
This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.
This is why the entire we will disrupt Al-Qaeda is stupid. The fact of the matter is that the bombings in London were done by a local group of Jihadist cells. It was planned and executed
in London not in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. Same with Amman. And Bali has a entirely home grown group with it's own internal issues. It is incorrect and flat out wrong to make the argument that somehow 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan and 2 years is going to make any difference in Bali, London or Amman, or Palestine.
-- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.
Translation: Never mind the troops we already have there. Never mind that we overthrew your last government. Never mind our involvement in your war with the Soviet Union. Never mind those predator drones overheard. Never mind that we and the "Security council" decided you needed an interim government designed by us. Never mind that your president, our boy, was elected in what you understood to be a fraudulent election. Oh and let's not talk about that pipeline.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.
Translation: We gave y'all billions of dollars so your ISI could keep these people in check. What the hell have you been doing with all that money. We're scared to death that a nuke is going to land in the hands of those people. Scared. To. Death. We've seen what those things can do. After all we've dropped a few on Japan. Going forward we will do whatever we can, including death from the sky to make sure those nukes are safe or taken safely out the country.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I swear I have heard this speech in a meeting before. "Civilian surge that reinforces positive action"? This is sales pitch language. Read that sentence again. It says absolutely nothing.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
The argument about Afghanistan being another Vietnam is not based on whether Afghanistan can be stabilized. Afghanistan was stable before the US got there. Afghanistan will be stable as soon as the US leaves. The only thing causing instability in Afghanistan is the presence of the US. Period. Full stop.
Secondly, the problem with Vietnam was that the Vietnamese had no intention of allowing foreigners to occupy and defeat them. Period. Same with Afghanistan. There are only two options for "victory" in Afghanistan: Genocide or withdrawal. What Obama is doing is putting off the latter option since the former cannot be done these days.
Thirdly this so called coalition of 43 countries has been shown to be a farce. How many of those countries who are not England, France and other NATO allied countries were
under the gun to support the US in Afghanistan like they
were to support the Iraq war? How many of those countries are supporting the war in Afghanistan are doing so contrary to the will of the local population?
Fourthly: In regards to the "vicious attack from Afghanistan" We have already shown that to be false. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt. They planned, trained and coordinated their attack within' the US. They trained on US soil. They took flight lessons from US flight schools. But disregarding that, even if we allow for Al-Qaeda being in Afghanistan, it was Al-Qaeda and not the Afghan government or people. It's like saying that Israel's attack on Gaza was a vicious attack by the US since US arms were used and the US stands firmly behind Israel. Are we willing to take that responsibility?
Lastly in regards to "risk of additional attacks on our homeland." Further troop deployments will do nothing to drop the risk of further attacks on the homeland. Anywhere there is anyone with an Axe to grind with the US, there is a risk. There is always risk. Life is risky. Furthermore the most serious and immediate risk to the homeland comes from within'. The number one means of reducing the risk of a future attack on the US is to deal head on with the continued oppression of the Palestinians and the propping up of corrupt Arab governments.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.
These people are just as deluded as those supporting the extra troops.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
$30 billion this year? This year? This year has less than 30 days left in it. Is he saying that we're in for 30 billion in the next 29 days? Or is the total cost of this year's operations going to cost $30 billion? In either case where is this money coming from? I cannot understand the logic of spending $30 billion that we claim we don't have on a war of dubious purpose and justification and not having national single payer health insurance. The US cannot continue to spend this kind of money AND reduce the deficit. It cannot do these things without a serious impact on social programs, education or infrastructure projects.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.
This single sentence undermines everything pro-troop said before. If you can't kill or capture them all then you cannot end the threat posed by such persons. And if you can't kill them all then they can form networks. If they can form networks... So in the end Obama admits that the solution is not military. Therefore he admits that in terms of "national security" there is no point to the surge in troops. If he truly believes the above statement, then he knows that he's pulling a fast one on the American people. And if he's pulling a fast one on the American people why? I suggest that it has to do with
the pipeline.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
Total bull right here. The US has one of the largest piles of tools of mass destruction on the planet. It has the largest military budget on the planet. It has them spread out world wide. And this country has actually dropped nukes on civilian populations. The US provides cover for Israel a country that is believed to have upwards of 200 nuclear warheads (I'm not clear as to whether such a claim has been confirmed). Even if Israel does not, the US regularly sells weapons to Israel, who is in violation of numerous UN resolutions, that are used against civilian populations. To think that this fact is out of sight to, and a major motivation for those who would join Al-Qaeda is to be stupid. The talk of "all options on the table" for "deterring" Iran from it's sovereign right to develop nuclear capabilities (civilian or otherwise) is also the height of hypocrisy and stupid foreign policy. That also does not go unnoticed by would be Al-Qaeda recruits.
We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
Is this for real? the UN which has a security council with veto power over everything largely made up of previously colonizing and slave trading powers? The World Bank with it's structural adjustment programmes (or is that the IMF?) that has messed up many an economy? NATO? NATO? Who's reason for existing was to fuck with the Soviet Union? And continues to aggravate Russia. Really?
United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
Ok I want to know what kind of weed is smoked in the whitehouse and whether I can get some. Does Obama REALLY want to talk about the last 6 decades? Really? Is he REALLY prepared to have that conversation? Seriously whatever drugs they are on over in the Oval office, crackheads want a taste.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.
Wowwwwwwwwwwwww. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Does Obama actually believe the shit that came out his mouth? OK lets be fair The US government doesn't care for world domination, It does what it does on the behest of large corporations most of whom are headquartered in the US. Well no that's not right either. The US has declared a policy of near space dominance. Yes the US has declared that it intends to be the supreme power in space. No world domination my ass. Spy satellites in space where the US goes and tells other people "you're building a nuke right here and you need to stop." Look, I know way too much history for that line to even come close to passing the smell test.
I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose.
NO doubt Mr. President. Let me tell you how it could have been done. All you had to say is this:
"We went into Afghanistan with one purpose and one purpose only to capture Bin Ladin dead or alive. Preferably alive to face justice. We will continue this fight until he is captured or his dead body is brought to us. That is all. We can end this tomorrow if Bin Laden is turned over to us. We will sit down with any party who can help us get this done."
No one, left or right would have objected to this declaration. Not even I.
