Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWill the Afghanistan war end in 2009?
Results so far:
| Yes | 8% | 2 votes | Total: 24 votes | |
| No | 92% | 22 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesMany lies were told to the American people about why we were sending troops into Afghanistan in 2001, even thought those lies provided enough public support for the government to go to war. Today, many truths are coming out that are reversing that support, which gives me reason to believe that the U.S. government can no longer sustain this war into next year.
The myth of Al Qaeda has almost been completely busted. You might hear the phrase "Al Qaeda-linked" from time to time but the idea that there's a highly organized and incredibly funded international terrorist group called Al Qaeda was dropped from media reports a couple of years ago. They tried to convince us that they really meant that the Taliban and not Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11, but very, very few are buying that one.
The idea that the government is truly looking in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden no longer flies, either. The military has openly admitted that when they had bin Laden in their sights they were told by their superiors to back off. The FBI has admitted that there just isn't enough evidence to indict the man for the crime of 9-11 and even George Bush told the press corp that he wasn't really worried about Osama bin Laden. Add to that the reports that bin Laden has been dead since December of 2001 and another reason for being in Afghanistan is out the window.
In a recent interview with the Foreign Policy Journal, the retired Lt.Gen. Hamid Gul, former Director General of Pakistan's ISI, gave his thoughts on the reasons for the war in Afghanistan. He believes that corporate America wanted to use Afghanistan for an oil pipeline to ensure that the Chinese would stay out of the region but when the Taliban refused, the Americans decided on a regime change. He also suggests that the Muslim monetary policy of outlawing usury (collecting of interest) was a threat to Americans as was the loss of the drug trade in which the CIA uses to fund its Black Ops. One more reason for the war in Afghanistan, says Gul, was to use Afghanistan in order to partner with India and Israel against Pakistan and it's nuclear capabilities. The western response to Lt.Gen. Gul's candidness has been to label him a supporter of terrorism and refuse him admission into either the U.S. or Britain.
The most important truth that convinces me that the war in Afghanistan won't last much longer is the simple fact that we've lost it. The politicians who had such hubris to think that the U.S. could actually win a multi-theater war should have spent more time studying history and learning from the warriors of the past. An empire can only handle one major war at a time and never. . . never trust your war to private mercenaries. They're too difficult to control (Machiavelli).
By the end of the year the truth will win out, and the American People will demand that our military stop being used for corporate gain. More and more soldiers will start claiming Consciencious Objector status while our young simply avoid military service altogether. This war cannot be sustained even without the financial issue. It's only a matter of time before we bring the troops back home.
Learn more about this author, Sandi Crain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Whether We Like It Or Not
This is an uncomfortable issue, dividing the head from the heart. We watch the ugliness of suffering civilians and returning coffins and instinctively want nothing of it. Our hearts vote "Out now!" and also we distrust the motives of those urging us to stay. But if you take some time to consider it, you may find yourself in company with, not only, "butcher" Bush but also "cuddly" Obama. How can it be that, far from reversing Bush's policy, Obama has come to the same conclusion and even bolstered America's presence in Afghanistan? Why Afghanistan?
It may take two to tango, but one is enough to start a war as Poland discovered in 1939 and America on 9/11. Those responsible, Al Qaeda, though a worldwide "franchise", were based in Afghanistan, guests of the Taliban. This organisation of terrorist training camps was no shoe-string operation. To illustrate its scope, British special forces in Tora Bora found lists of more than 2000 of the Queen's subjects (of America's closest ally) who had trained in those camps and the group as a whole is estimated to have tens of thousands of adherents. So the decision to invade in November of that year was obvious, logical and supported by a large majority of Americans.
But that was then and this is now. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were defeated in November, 2001, more rapidly and easily that almost any commentator had anticipated. Now, though, eight years later, what are we still doing there with no immediate prospect of victory in sight?
Two compelling reasons, military and political, will ensure that US forces will be engaged through 2009 and beyond.
First the military. The popular image of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan is that their immense military machine with its enormous preponderance of capability and firepower was slowly worn down Vietnam-like by the bravery and selfless sacrifice of the mujahideen guerillas. It is true that those doughty warriors paid a terrible price for their victory. But, as in Vietnam, the price in blood was only half the story. For the first few years of the war the mujahadeen were slaughtered to very little purpose. It was only when paymasters, notably the US and Saudi Arabia, provided modern weaponry that they could effectively bleed the Soviets, eventually causing them to give up the fight.
Now here we are, Nato and the US military, facing the same dilemma as the Soviets in the mid 80s. The resurgence of the Taliban is not just evidence of their formidable martial virtues, but is the result of hundreds of millions or even billions in military assistance from America's enemies to defeat America and the West. This means that militarily this war will not be easy to win and if we are to win, will take a commitment measured in years and perhaps decades.
Second the political. The conventional wisdom is that American "aggression" in defeating bin Laden will only result in the creation of "a hundred bin Ladens". This is exactly the wrong way round. It is the weakness and decadence of the West which invites and encourages attacks. When president Clinton withdrew Delta Force and the Rangers from Somalia following the loss of 18 soldiers and gruesome television footage of their bodies, Osama bin Laden used it to illustrate American weakness and suggest that the West would crumble just as the Soviets had.
Defeat in Afghanistan would be a dual calamity. Not only would it attract many more to the cause of Jihad against the West, it would also leave the paymasters of the Taliban free to redirect their resources. The quickest way to end a war may be by losing it. However, losing in Afghanistan would not be the end of this war. This is a war against extremists who simply hate us for what we are, and there is nothing we can do short of conversion to their faith which will appease them.
Even if victory is not in sight, we must continue to fight if we value our freedom and independence.
Learn more about this author, John Moloney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics in the Middle & Near East
- Will the Iraq parliament's proposed oil law help reduce tensions between sectarian groups in Iraq?
- Should the US have freed up millions in aid to Palestinians in the face of a civil war there?
- Should Shimon Peres remain president of Israel or should a new leader take charge?
- Should Israel allow Gazans, fleeing Hamas rule, passage to sanctuary in the West Bank?
- Is the Taliban taking back Afghanistan?
- Is Iran already at war with the US?
