Is America Threatened by 'Terrorist' Forces in Afghanistan?

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-20-09 11:14 AM
Original message

Is America Threatened by 'Terrorist' Forces in Afghanistan?

Republics demanded virtue. Monarchies could rely on coercion and “dazzling splendor” to suppress self-interest or factions; republics relied on the goodness of the people to put aside private interest for public good. The imperatives of virtue attached all sorts of desiderata to the republican citizen: simplicity, frugality, sobriety, simple manners, Christian benevolence, duty to the polity. Republics called on other virtues—spiritedness, courage—to protect the polity from external threats. Tyrants kept standing armies; republics relied on free yeomen, defending their own land." -James A. Monroe The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government

A great deal of the responses and posts about the occupation in Afghanistan have expressed support for the escalating mission there citing threats to the U.S that would supposedly come from that country if we abated our military actions and left the Afghans to sort out their own problems.

The premise of those arguments that cite a threat to the U.S. coming from Afghanistan is that there are terrorists there determined to harm the U.S. - like the 9-11 hijackers did - and that our military actions in that country have prevented (and are preventing) another terrorist attack on our soil. I'm just not convinced of that.

The original 9-11 hijackers and their accomplices didn't need the Taliban in Afghanistan, in particular, to train or equip them. They certainly relied on a network of funds which allowed them to find safe haven in the U.S.. Two of the hijackers, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi received flight training at Florida’s Pensacola Naval Air Station. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm)

Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, "had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801315.html)

11 hijackers were reportedly living in Florida and New Jersey, spending time in cites of California and other spots around the U.S. before they set out on their deadly mission. So, certainly they needed money and other support.

But, the point is that there is nothing special about Afghanistan which makes it a launching pad for attacks against the United States. Many of the Taliban in that region (about 90%) don't have regular or ready access to even rudimentary technology, like cellphones. And, there is nothing particular to the 'training' alleged to occur under al-Qaeda or the Taliban's guidance which would give a terrorist bent on a violent attack on America any advantage that couldn't be obtained anywhere else. It's not as if these types of dangerous adversaries are necessarily restricted to the areas that our forces are now occupying, or even right outside of that occupation zone, in Pakistan.

Certainly, these resistant, armed elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan represent a threat to the precarious regimes in power and authority. The resources that potential terrorists would have access to from compliant and complicit regimes is a danger. And, there is a remote possibility of a change in government which could advantage objectionable groups in the countries.

But, the issue of the governance of these nations we're occupying isn't a zero-sum game. It's not a necessarily lasting remedy to just replace an objectionable regime with a friendly one. There is still the prospect of a resistance movement to that imposed regime-change upsetting the balance of power to the degree that's occurring right now in Afghanistan surrounding the activities of reportedly corrupt Karzai regime.

There's also the limiting issue of the demonstrated counterproductive effect in the region of the presence and operation of U.S. forces against the population. It is a documented fact that the primary effect of our 7-year plus military interference in Afghanistan has been a swelling of the ranks of those who have resigned themselves to violent resistance against our military advance on their homeland. The result of our interference has been an aligning of once disparate groups there with our nemesis, al-Qaeda, in support of that resistance.

When do we acknowledge that, as Obama's own Pentagon leaders and advisers have said (ultimately), that our grudging military is no longer the solution, but the problem in Afghanistan?

I believe we're going to see a move by our allies, as they reluctantly sign on for another extension of their commitment in Afghanistan, to separate their own goals there from America's retaliatory mission to avenge the 9-11 attacks. The fight in that country has become a battle against the effects of that flailing offense against any and all targets that could be identified as 'militant' or 'insurgent'. That may well serve the defensive needs of the invading and occupying NATO forces, but it is a self-perpetuating fight against the effects of their own misguided militarism.

It should be remembered that the original foment against the U.S. from these terrorist elements advantaged itself from resistance to our opportunistic military presence in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region. Despite our retaliatory moves against those who chose to attack our nation for that trespass, we did, in fact, pull back from some of those overt military bases and outposts in deference to the protesting populations.

I believe that our allies would welcome a separation of their own mission assisting NATO in Afghanistan from the U.S. grudge match against al-Qaeda. That's what it has been, that's what it is today; a grudge match. Most of the targets of our military attacks are not directed against any original 9-11 terror cell, but rather the leaders and elements of resistance to our swaggering attacks across their sovereign borders.

There are certainly dangerous elements of that resistance, but their main enterprise is to draw America and our allies further into our self-generating militarism, in order to draw even more of the population of Afghanistan and Pakistan into support and participation in violent acts against the U.S., our interests, and our allies. Our military occupation and its planned escalation will undoubtedly continue to contribute to all of that in a tragic way.

What I am hoping for from the Obama administration is a definition of the mission there which separates our own need for justice in apprehending or eliminating the original 9-11 terrorists from the task of quelling the violent resistance to our presence and toward the regimes we're so intent on protecting. That will take a 'surge' of diplomatic activity which will not bear any overreaching or overbearing military campaign across the border with Pakistan.

We will likely not be successful in eliminating every individual who says they're aligned with one of the terrorist rival groups, like al-Qaeda or elements of the Taliban, but we can foster an environment where these objectionable groups' main enterprise of recruiting the resisting and displaced population to their violent cause is stifled and replaced with our own lure of ungrudging mutual assistance and development.

As the president has said, 'al-Qaeda isn't building schools, hospitals, or homes . . . they're destroying and tearing down, not building up the people in Afghanistan. We must make certain that our main enterprise is similarly constructive and that our military activities don't overshadow or negate our diplomacy and outreach which will be essential to the 'success' we all say we want to see there.