You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: "trying to make Afghanistan more stable" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. "trying to make Afghanistan more stable"
"I think we are trying to make Afghanistan more stable so the two countries can stand up to that extremism."

I think we've seen enough over the last nine years, and certainly during the latter half of previous century, to get well past the notion of the US military (or the armed forces of any powerful state) "trying" to do anything that benefits indigenous populations in far-away countries. But since we're not learning from historical precedent, maybe we can at least look at what the people in question are telling us right now, today:

Glenn Greenwald: Ex-Islamic radicals on what motivates -- and impedes -- extremism
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/16/terrorism/index.html

What it boils down to is that the very presence of foreign troops on their soil (let alone the many acts of violence, premeditated and not) serves only to aggravate. This is a fact. It not only stands to reason, but we are being directly told it is so.

I honestly have no patience for hair-splitting about what any politicians or military people are "trying" to do. You cannot divine people's intentions. Maybe Bush was "trying", in his feeble mind, to bring freedom to the Iraqis, who knows? Maybe Ken Lay was "trying" to run a successful business as best he could - maybe! I don't care what anyone is trying to do simply because I cannot *know* it. What matters is what actually happens.

And as best we can tell, what's about to happen is that by the time Obama's deadline for beginning withdrawal arrives, there will be more violence in Afghanistan and more violence in Pakistan, because we will have killed more people in both countries, and that's going to include a lot of dead people who never deserved to be killed. If any troops are ordered out of Afghanistan at that point, it will be to "stabilize" Pakistan. Intentions are irrelevant. More troops is more fuel on the fire, unless you're going to kill pretty much every male there capable of bearing a weapon.

Would you sit idly while an occupying force was "stabilizing" YOUR country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC