Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
Fri Aug 13, 2021, 01:11 AM Aug 2021

Penny thoughts on Afghanistan




...I'm thrilled Pres. Biden has decided to make good on his objections as VP to keeping troops in Afghanistan. He reportedly opposed then-President Obama's 'surge' of forces to defend Kabul, so his decision to withdrawal troops from there is a natural extension of those earlier sentiments.

The President is getting some flack today from predictable quarters, rw harpies cynically warning about political backlash for Democrats (they hope), because the Taliban will predictably take over there.

My personal view is that it's been inevitable, right from the start, that the Taliban would fill any vacuum the U.S. leaves in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul which our troops have propped up with their blood and sacrifice is always going to represent everything the Taliban has been resisting since our initial invasion. Like Saigon became Ho Chi Min City right after American troops left Vietnam, the Taliban isn't going to leave any of that in place after we bug out. No one should be surprised by this.

My criticism is that it made no sense to wait this long - to hunker down around Kabul for an eternity while the Taliban consolidated power; years and years after Pres. Obama made his 'surge' of forces with the dubious intent of putting the Taliban on their heels, to 'give the Afghan government room.'

It was a wrongheaded notion that should be a learning experience for any president thinking about nation-building behind the intimidation of our military. Whatever consequences we experience now (mostly Afghans paying that price) should serve as a huge caution against embarking on such a foolish scheme, but I fear it'll just be used as a cudgel against the man in office who would have made the right choice years ago.


I wrote extensively on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years, and continued writing a bit about Pres. Obama's continuation of those deployments across sovereign borders. For whatever it's worth, here's a look back on one comprehensive essay I wrote at the time of the surge of forces into the country to defend the Afghan capital and it's beleaguered president (Jan-02-09).

What's largely forgotten is that more troops lost their lives in Afghanistan during the Democratic administration, mostly as a result of the surge of forces, than during Bush's terms in office.

I don't make much of a fuss about these things these days, but if I did, it would be uncompromisingly similar to this earlier article. Hope it's an interesting read for folks here, not really meant to be as confrontational as it was for me way back when. Just a looking back post for my journal...


Tweaking the Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan

In the bloodiest year yet for the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan, 155 American troops and 138 NATO troops were killed in 2008. Those deaths were casualties of the policies of the U.S. dominated NATO which has our troops engaged in missions there ranging from aid and reconstruction; defense of outposts in cities and the border region near Pakistan; patrolling and protecting supply routes; and intercepting and destroying weapons and the combatants who use them in resistance to NATO's nation-building occupation.

The drift of the mission of our forces in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, has been to the desperate defense of the Afghan regime which was installed behind the 'shock and awe' of our invasion following the 9-11 attacks. Like the privileged regime in Iraq which was enabled into influence and authority with votes cast in a dubious election by a minority of citizens under the heavy-hand of their country's invaders, the regime in Kabul relies on their own 'Green Zone' of defense of our military forces as their seat of power to lord over the impoverished country.

It's that opportunistic area of concern surrounding the Afghan regime that the Pentagon has recently designated to receive the bulk of forces which are to be reduced from the Iraqi theater. Some 20,000 to 50,000 troops are to be sent from Iraq to Afghanistan to escalate the occupation of the cities and towns surrounding the Afghan capital and to aid in the desperate defense of the government against the myriads of separate factions which have evolved out of NATO's cynical attempt to dominate the millions of Afghans with their puny, destructive forces.

Some of the forces reduced from the Iraq occupation will undoubtedly be sent to help defend remote outposts which have served as a wavering front-line of defense against invading forces from growing ranks of the disaffected among the exports from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan who enjoy safe-haven across the border into Pakistan and who have identified themselves with and been inspired by the freedom and impunity of the original 9-11 fugitives who were allowed to escape there.

When the next administration in Washington and Foggy Bottom begin to direct their new assault on whatever they decide is vital to defend in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will be threatening to unleash every instigation of resistance to the presence and activity of the U.S. military on Muslim soil which originated as motivation behind the first bombings the US embassy Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole bombing in Aden in 2000, in addition to the 9-11 attacks.

When those terrorist attacks were perpetrated, there was only isolated resistance and violence directed against U.S. interests and allies in the region. In the bloody aftermath of the Bush administration's provocative invasion of Iraq, terrorist acts of violence have increased and expanded across the globe.

As early as May of 2003, the Brookings Institute found that the invasion of Iraq had "increased the risk of attacks in the United States and Europe by increasing the level of Islamist and anti-American rhetoric, by diverting the attention of political leaders from the central issue of the war on terrorism, and by encouraging the view among the public that the war on terrorism is nearly won."

A Brookings study found that, "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities. "

Now, at the apex of the results and effects of that resistance to the increased and proliferating U.S. military presence and activity in the region over the years since the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon is poised to stage some sort of sustaining defense in Afghanistan of their own representation of 'democracy' in Kabul against whoever would resist the codifying of Bush's swaggering advance on their territory. The Arab resistance to that advance by NATO forces threatens to be withering and devastating to those U.S.-dominated troops that have been directed to oppose the myriads of factions defending their own piece of their occupied country.

The only lesson that our military invasions have imposed on the region is the one which the authors of the deployments purport to oppose; that of the efficacy of military force and violence as an ultimate avenue to power and authority. In Iraq and Afghanistan, those who support the U.S. military-enabled regimes and seek protection behind our dominating forces are considered 'democratic' and legitimate -- while those who choose to be or find themselves outside of that imposed influence are to be opposed as 'insurgent' or 'radical' in their opposition and defense of their chosen territory against NATO's selfish advance.

In fact, the next opportunity for Afghans to 'vote' on the composition of their imposed authority in Kabul is on the horizon for 2009. The increased occupation is also designed to facilitate that election and to provide the same sort of 'with us or against us' choice that our invading and occupying forces in Iraq offered the citizens there.

The plot which is emerging in this Potemkin defense of democracy in Kabul is one which is already well-know to Afghans. Opposition communities will be occupied and intimidated by our forces while supportive communities will be protected and enabled in the run-up to the balloting. The outcome of the vote will likely resemble whatever minority composition of the Afghan population feels unencumbered by the regime's heavy-hand to cast their ballot in their favor.

The result, however, may well bolster whatever legitimacy the West wants to place on their enabled rule in Kabul, but the effect of the increased military activity will have a predictable effect of aligning the myriads of Afghans who are now being led to oppose one another, to band together in resistance against their country's foreign invaders. That will not serve the strategy that the Pentagon has voiced in the past months of recruiting the tribes in their campaign against those Taliban factions along the Pak-Afghan border which threaten U.S. interests and harbor the original 9-11 suspects.

Whatever the goals of the next administration are in their deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have already been corrupted by a mindset which assumes that our ability to seize and hold territory will impress more than it will repel. The next strategy appears to be an attempt to thread the needle of resistance to the U.S. advance on Afghan territory with a promise of 'stability' of their installed regime.

The counter to that bunk is that nothing at all has been done to address the original complaint of Muslims and Arabs in the way of our nation's swaggering advance across their sovereign borders; that the very presence of our military on their soil is an intolerable aggravation to their religion, values and their wishes - as well as a threat to a great deal of their own safety and security.

The devastating effect of our military intervention in the region, which has cost so many lives caught up in the way of the Bush administration's nation-building folly so far, will only deepen with every tweak and correction that intends to 'win' some sort of 'victory' outside of the pursuit of the original 9-11 suspects. No one expected our forces to prop up anti-democratic, corrupt regimes to counter the attacks on our nation and there isn't any great mass of support in America for investing lives and treasure continuing that pursuit.

I hope the next administration remembers the lessons of our interventions so far as they 'write letters to the families of the troops' who lose their lives for their strategies and schemes they've planned in the region for the future.




8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Penny thoughts on Afghanistan (Original Post) bigtree Aug 2021 OP
A few of us are closer in, one way or another. Tetrachloride Aug 2021 #1
I am sorry for any with friends or family there flotsam2 Aug 2021 #2
There's a reason why Afghanistan is called "the graveyard of empires". greatauntoftriplets Aug 2021 #3
yes, indeed bigtree Aug 2021 #8
I've yet to understand onethatcares Aug 2021 #4
on the face, it's historical folly bigtree Aug 2021 #6
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Tarc Aug 2021 #5
seems every generation, administration bigtree Aug 2021 #7

flotsam2

(162 posts)
2. I am sorry for any with friends or family there
Fri Aug 13, 2021, 01:34 AM
Aug 2021

but we have paid with billions of dollars and 2300 deaths and 20,000 casualties. We have paid and trained and equipped for decades and those we equipped and trained are collapsing with only token or in many cases no resistance. You can't make a people want a thing and that being true another 2 decades and 23,000 more Americans killed or maimed makes no sense. Work to get your people out-it is over.

onethatcares

(16,133 posts)
4. I've yet to understand
Fri Aug 13, 2021, 07:50 AM
Aug 2021

the true reasons for our military being there.

Was it for resources, democracy, to keep the Soviets or Chinese out and away from those resources, to promote womens rights?

Or just to train in another theater of war?

I don't say this with any snark. I just wonder how we can claim the right to impose a system of government on those that don't want it. Hell, we're having our own little problem keeping democracy alive in our own country.

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
6. on the face, it's historical folly
Fri Aug 13, 2021, 10:20 AM
Aug 2021

...the arrogance of the U.S. believing we can impose a govt. through force which is supposed to serve as an example against those who would take the government by force.

How say you, war or not?'
'Not war, if possible,

O king,' I said, 'lest from the abuse of war,
The desecrated shrine, the trampled year,
The smouldering homestead, and the household flower
Torn from the lintel--all the common wrong--
A smoke go up through which I loom to her
Three times a monster: now she lightens scorn
At him that mars her plan, but then would hate
(And every voice she talked with ratify it,
And every face she looked on justify it)
The general foe. More soluble is this knot,
By gentleness than war. I want her love.
What were I nigher this although we dashed
Your cities into shards with catapults,
She would not love;--or brought her chained, a slave,
The lifting of whose eyelash is my lord,
Not ever would she love; but brooding turn
The book of scorn, till all my flitting chance
Were caught within the record of her wrongs,
And crushed to death: and rather, Sire, than this
I would the old God of war himself were dead,
Forgotten, rusting on his iron hills,
Rotting on some wild shore with ribs of wreck,
Or like an old-world mammoth bulked in ice,
Not to be molten out.'

-Tennyson, excerpt from 'The Princess'

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
7. seems every generation, administration
Fri Aug 13, 2021, 11:18 AM
Aug 2021

...comes to believe at some point that our nation's defenses can be effectively deployed to coerce.

But the important and just question has always been 'should we,' and not just 'could we,' and also, what the long term consequences are to our aggression. That's something our modern presidents have rationalized away and just brushed past in pursuit of often political goals and ephemeral actions meant to impress or dubiously subduing violence with our own arbitrary violence.

Lessons not yet learned.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Penny thoughts on Afghani...