Ex-CIA agent: Argument that Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t"

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that Americans will be killed in a future terrorist attack.

Part 6 of Brave New Foundation's "Rethink Afghanistan" documentary series brings you three former CIA agents on the record to explain why.

We were told that we went to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists there, so we wouldn't have to fight them at home. That was eight long years ago. What about today?

Here are the facts:

Today, Al Qaeda no longer exists in Afghanistan. Defeating their erstwhile allies, the Taliban, will do nothing to stop terrorist attacks on the U.S., because the Taliban has never aspired to attack Americans on U.S. soil.

Yet, because of the U.S. occupation, extremists are being pushed across the border into Pakistan, creating the very real risk of nuclear-armed terrorist cells.

There is no "victory" to be won in Afghanistan. There is only the prospect of further destabilization of Pakistan, increased hostility against Americans throughout the Muslim world, and an increased likelihood of future terrorist attacks on the United States.

Help build a movement to change this misguided policy. Bring this discussion to your community. Organize a grassroots screening of Rethink Afghanistan.

Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertgreenwald

Comments

[PrimusElijah]

Hmmm, so what happened when we left Afghanistan high and dry the last time? We helped break it over two decades ago and it's still coming back to bite our a$$. I'm with the Colin Powell school of thought on this one...."we own it." This is no time to walk away from our responsibility, again.

[demigod]

The attack on 9/11 could have been planned in any hotel room in any city anywhere. Terrorists don't need a country to run amok in to attack the United States. Even killing bin Laden would not buy us peace, he would become a martyr to thousands of followers. We are not buying security by staying in Afghanistan, that is an illusion. We are only killing people we don't like, and paying people to do what we want. That will never end. If we leave, more moderate people might - in time - rise to positions of power, and the ranting haters may lose followers. I don't know what to do about Pakistan - we should have thought that through long ago when they tried to enter the nuclear club. But we couldn't stop them, like we can't stop Iran. They have the money, and Israel has shown the world the value of the bomb. No one can tell you what to do when you have one. We have shown the world what happens when you don't, you get invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jrbw 2749]

Although you're correct that planning terrorist attacks can take place anywhere, the training of terrorists cannot. You need camps to train would be terrorists in the art of sabotage, weapons, explosives etc. That type of training and access to weapons and material cannot take place in a hotel room. The camps also serve as a place of indoctrination where many like minded individuals are taught their ideology of hate. Even during the 1970's, would be terrorists from Europe were sent to Middle East training camps to learn their craft. These camps were run by the PLO and others. It is crucial that we identify potential failed states where terrorists are given access to train and plot to carry out future attacks. Strengthening these countries, bringing them into the 21st century, modernizing their military and police are all essential if we're going to stay one step ahead of the terrorist organizations.

[jeliz]

In fact, in the link below you'll find a photo of a young Osama bin Laden, when we were arming the Afghanis, about two-thirds of the way down on the right.

[jeliz]

And let us not forget, we supplied arms through Carter, Reagan and Bush I to Afghanistan when they were fighting Russia; and these people were then called "Afghani freedom fighters," our allies, not Taliban. So we were guilty of militarizing the militants before they supposedly attacked us.

http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=360

[pomegrante]

Bob Baer is very credible;he and Ray McGovern are worth listening to.

[junaidnoori]

What's happening in Afghanistan is essentially an expansion of violence, albeit a little slower, that was seen during the Russo-Afghan war. The US army is no longer taking on just the Taliban: there are former Northern Alliance commanders, ex-Army, ex-Police, ex-alot of things joining a network of anti-coalition fighters determined to "oust" the US army. The war isn't meant to score "major" US casualties. They know that won't happen. The war isn't meant to minimize their own casualties. They know many of them will die. The war is meant to prolong the violence, until public support runs out.

The Afghan rebels in the 80's had a saying: you have the watches but we have the time.

[jalaroc]

Al Qaeda no longer exists in Afghanistan because of the U.S presence there. If we left Afghanistan today, Al Qaeda would move back in tomorrow and there wouldn't be a darn thing the Afghanistani army could do to prevent it. This articles's argument is ridiculous on its face because it doesn't even bother taking any of its reasoning to its logical conclusions.

[den1953]

We are safe from terrorism in this country simply because the country voted out Bush,the Republican fear factor is gone they no longer can use there power to scare the hell out of people!

[mikerobjohn]

Look, let's face it, Bin Laden attacked the US because the Bush Administration allowed him to, PERIOD!

[junaidnoori]

As an Afghan, allow me to give my $0.02 on the matter.

It was Abdul-Rasul Sayyaf, a Northern Alliance commander and current parliamentary member, who initially invited Osama Bin Laden TO Afghanistan after Sudan had expelled him.

When the Taliban took over, they decided to allow Bin Laden to remain in the country because of his efforts in the Afghan-Russo war. That, and the fact that Bin Laden were being protected by the Haqqani tribe led by the infamous fighter Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani.

According to Pashtunwali, or Pashtun Law, a guest cannot be expelled once the invitation has been accepted by him. He/she may only leave on their own accord.

[tbone99]

Please explain then why was there resistence to the Russian "guests"?
After all they were "invited "by the then president.

I think you are trying to stretch your 2c into a dollar.I'm sure Afghanis do not allow "guests" to dictate their family lives as the Taliban has done by pushing women's rights back into the stone age.

[junaidnoori]

Erm... that's not exactly how it works.

The Parchamis and Khalqis (the two Afghan Communist parties) were reviled by the vast majority of Afghans who preferred the rule of exiled Zahir Shah, and later, his cousin Daud. The Russians being considered "guests" is a laughable comment as they came in as an invading force. They killed over a million Afghans. They bulldozed homes, incarcerated villagers, burned fields, raped women, etc. etc.

Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, came in and joined a contingent of Abdullah Azzam's force that was FIGHTING the very invading force. He fought mostly in areas like Khost and Kunar, so he would establish a strong relationship with the Pashtuns in the area. Most Afghans in the south, believe it or not, have a more favourable opinion of Bin Laden than they do of the Taliban. This is precisely why so many groups fought against the Taliban during the civil war but supported its descision to protect Bin Laden when the US invaded.

As for the comment that the Taliban "pushed women's rights back into the stone age", where were women's rights before the Taliban came? I don't care what people say or think about the Taliban (I couldn't care less about them), but stop acting like women's rights were any better under the rule of Burhanuddin Rabbani. That's just plain historically inaccurate.

[GreatNews27]

I TOTALLY disagree. The war in Afganistan is making us safer. If by 'us' you mean the MIC and if by 'safer' you mean wealthy.

[Telemachus]

"MIC" = Military-Industrial Complex. Yes?

[tbone99]

WE certainly can't say we are fighting to advance the cause of democracy in Afghanistan .
Just in the past month horrific laws have been passed that have removed some of the few protections that Afghani women have, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/14-9

In addition very few Afghan women will be allowed to vote because they can only vote in a place staffed by female officials . They are lacking 14,000 such officials due to the fear women have of what actions the male population will take against them.

Thus fighting in Afghanistan is about as related to democracy as our protection of Kuwait , a monarchy that allowed women no rights , in their dispute with Iraq. in the the first Gulf war.

[msbeal]

There is great deal of false information out there about Afghanistan. There is also of course honest differences of opinion. In way of balance, all those who want to abandon Afghanistan now should read Peter Bergen, respected foreign correspondent, argument's.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html

I believe both sides are right. Hun? We should leave Afghanistan as soon as possible but we should stay just long enough to set up their police and military to prevent a new Taliban state with their 'guests,' Al Queda.

[1dogs2]

While I have been extremely leery of our involvement in Afghanistan from the outset, I have a problem with Greenwald's failure to address the fact that the Taliban DID give sanctuary to AQ, which allowed AQ to devise and implement the 9/11 attack without interference and then refused to deliver the masterminds for legal process. Clearly it IS a danger to American interests to have radical governments, even if their interests are primarily local, that allow groups hell-bent on committing acts of international terrorism to operate freely within their borders. Granted that the US response made matters worse (which might not have happened had the Bush administration not gone off on the Iraqi misadventure and had the Rumsfeld Pentagon not chosen to let Bin Laden escape), but nothing in Greenwald's argument suggests what positive steps the US should take (as opposed to the simplistic advice that we stop making the situation worse).

[Durango]

I agree.

And it would appear that events are taking place behind the scenes that may offer some hope for a solution.

[IntellectuallyHonest]

What's the real reason for the Armed Forces being in Afghanistan? So that the defense contractors can continue to make profits once we leave Iraq? I don't see what we'll accomplish either except spend a lot of money that we don't have, kill innocent people and watch as our soldiers get picked off.

[jcorrington]

Agree. Its not about terrorists anymore, its about our failing economy. War is good business, simple as that.