A War of Absurdity

Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president's national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:

"The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best intelligence data available to our government. That means that al-Qaida, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan--so why are we having a big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate, al-Qaida will inevitably come back.

Why? It's not like al-Qaida is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all, U.S. officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and the Afghan mujahedeen, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes.

There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are interested in bringing al-Qaida back. On the contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has led to their demise.

As such, while one wishes that the Afghan people would put their houses in order, these are not, even after eight long years of occupation, our houses. Sure, there are all sorts of angry people in Afghanistan, eager to pick fights with each other and most of all any foreigners who seem to be threatening their way of life, but why should that any longer have anything to do with us?

Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, "Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. ... For Arab youths who are al Qaeda's primary recruits, 'it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior U.S. official in South Asia."

It's time to declare victory and begin to get out rather than descend deeper into an intractable civil war that we neither comprehend nor in the end will care much about. Terrorists of various stripes will still exist as they have throughout history, but the ones we are most concerned about have proved mighty capable of relocating to less hostile environments, including sunny San Diego and southern Florida, where the 9/11 hijackers had no trouble fitting in.

There is a continued need for effective international police work to thwart the efforts of a widely dispersed al-Qaida network, but putting resources into that effort does not satisfy the need of the military establishment for a conventional field of battle. That is the significance of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked report calling for a massive counterinsurgency campaign to make everything right about life in Afghanistan, down to the governance of the most forlorn village. The general's report aims not at eliminating al-Qaida, which he concedes is barely existent in the country, but rather at creating an Afghan society that is more to his own liking.

It is a prescription, as the Russians and others before them learned, for war without end. That might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.

 

 

Comments

[MosheDayanHero]

Thewre are about 20,000 Taliban terrorizing Afghan people.
There is no chance the minuscule contingent, hardly bigger than the NYPD can defeat them in the challenging mountainous region like Afpak border.
Enough speeches.
More trained and battle hardened troops now!!
Mor special forces now!
Begin rebuilding the country now!!!
Don't ask, demand troops from NATO alies now!
Demand money for oil rich nations for reconstruction now!!!
No more speeches!!!!

[greyhound2]

If you are so adamant, why don't you put on a steel pot, backpack and rifle and go there yourself instead of wanting other people to sacrifice their sons to do the dirty work for you. Also, why don't you get out your checkbook and pay for it.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

I second the motion.

[Caracoid]

Oops. Please read the following three comments backwards. :-)

[Caracoid]

the middle of the last century. Don't believe it? Read a book. Their brutality made us look like the Dalai Lama. They now have virtually no means to project force to positively effect world events because they have chosen to spend the money on themselves. Actually, not such a bad idea, huh?

If what you said to the Republicans was the following, you would get what you wanted:

If we intervene or not in foreign affairs, the world will hate us. The rest of the world only cares about themselves, and trying to save them from themselves is so quixotic as to be partially insane. As your fellow Americans, we love you but want you to keep us safe at home. And that includes a strong economy first. So we'll have to pull in our horns and spend less on the military.

Saying words like "as your fellow Americans" and "keep us safe at home" will make a Republican melt in your arms and coo like a lovebird. Believe me, acknowledging the disdain a conservative has for the cynicism of the world's chattering diplomats, while reminding them that in today's world its too dangerous and costly to stick your neck out WILL work. And there WILL be political harmony once again in American foreign policy.

Just be honest with yourselves, acknowledge, quit the hyperbole and you will get exactly what you want. Unless you like the drama, which the feminine Left does. ;-)

[Caracoid]

Think what you want, but no Republican wants to do the wrong thing morally. If you don't at least accept that, we're lost. Republicans are ruled by the masculine. In men, there are wolves--who don't care about right and wrong--and there are sheep dogs. Luckily, most men are sheep dogs. They derive fulfillment from protecting and being loved for it in return. Republicans are snorting around looking for a way to protect YOU. You may disagree with their methods, but hitting the sheep dog for trying to protect the flock is counter-productive.

Also liberals, stop defending the dictators. You look life you've fallen prey to Stockholm Syndrome and you end up making convoluted arguments about how people really want to live under horrible regimes. That's BS--just admit it and move on. What you really want is just not to get involved in all these wars! Deep down inside you care about as much as conservatives do as to what happens to Afghanistan--or anywhere else. What you want is peace and prosperity in this country.

Now, this is where you get what you want:

Europeans hate Americans not for the fact that we spend 30% less on social welfare or for our interventions. They hate us because we toppled them as the center of the world. Remember, the last time they had any power, they we're lording it over brown people like slave masters. That's through

(cont.)

[Caracoid]

Full disclosure: I am a libertarian (by way of the Republican Party) and I'm here to tell you how to get exactly what you want. You're just doing it in COMPLETELY the wrong way. First, there has to be some real honesty here.

Republicans:

You have to admit that you rather enjoy being the top-dog in the world, and maybe that plays a bigger part than you'd like to admit when handling foreign affairs. And sometimes you may be just as interested in seeing America exercise its strength as see justice take place in the world.

Democrats:

Stop calling Republicans "war mongers," assuming all anti-American assumptions are true, and that all problems in the world are the result of the America butterfly flapping its wings resulting in a typhoon hitting Bangladesh. This does nothing more than infuriate conservatives in a deep, visceral way that you will probably never know. Conservatives are much more apt to think of fellow Americans as family and they have a far stronger sense of loyalty (even when they maybe should just drop it). So the sense of anger, sadness and betrayal amongst conservatives is off the charts--just leave it as a conservative thing and take my word for it. Your think you're pissed off?

(cont.)

[gatoblanco]

If Obama pulls our troops out of Afghanistan and then there's a terrorist attack on the U.S., another Democrat won't get into the White House for a decade or more to come. This is the sad truth that I'm sure Obama knows.

[socalsue]

I sure hope that Robert Sheer sent a copy of this editorial to the White House.

[JimShanor]

No pure Hawk or Dove should make policy without reason. Robert Scheer was right, but unpopular, at the beginnings of dissent over US Vietnam policy. His reasoning in this article makes sense. Amen.

[powercosmic]

We're in Afghanistan for one reason and one reason alone, the Middle Eastern Oil.

Afghanistan has no oil of its own but it borders the important ones that do.

With some bases in Afghanistan Big Oil Black ops mercenaries can do their thing and stir trouble in the unfriendly democracies.

Why? Well, Oil is important to our economy but thats not why we're there, we're there because you cannot wage war without access to oil. Jets, Tanks, and Navy Ships all need lots and lots of diesel and jet fuel.

Look, Obama couldn't pull the troops if he gave the order because the powers that be would bury him.

What you going to do?

[amazingbeavis]

Folks, we can't hope that Taliban won't bring back AQ when we leave, we have to know it.
If we leave, Taliban won't have a lot of problems taking back Afghanistan. They did it before and they will do it again. So we have to know they they won't bring back AQ with them.
That is why the only way this ends well for us, is a deal with Taliban where we agree to leave and they agree to dump AQ and share the power with the Shia.
The latest statement from Taliban says that they are not interested in attacking the West, they just want us out. I see it as opening a door for negotiations.
However, this is why we must show resolve now, to make them understand that they'll have to compromise instead of just waiting for us to leave.

[WorkingClass]

A while back there was a story about a little girl killed by a leaflet drop. Pretty much sums up the entire so called war. If Obama was an honest man he would end it.

[NeoconGal]

But what about all the people who are making a tidy profit out of the war?

[WorkingClass]

What about them? I hope they rot.

[jimpager]

The question...will Obama bring a generation of peace, or another war? Generals created Tonkin, which led to fifteen years of Vietnam and 58,000+ casualties. Generals created "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that led to eight years of Iraq and 4000+ casualties. Generals tell us they "Lose Afghanistan" without 40,000 more troops...

When generals kill...

1. The victim's brothers/sisters become enemies.
2. Their Mothers/Fathers become enemies.
3. Their close friends become enemies.
4. Their children become enemies.

This is not political, economic, or religious. Same would happen if someone occupied America. There's a "multiplier effect." For every kill, you create five new fighters, AND five new supporters. The more efficient your killing, the faster you lose the war. America killed 2m in Vietnam (of 17m) and there were more VC when we left than when we arrived. You cannot "fix" social problems with military solutions. I didn't have children after Vietnam, because I suspected the military/i­ntelligenc­e agencies believed in perpetual war and would come for my children next. And here they are. Obama will be asked to expand the war to include Pakistan/Iran (new "dominoes"). Obama is being played...and sold the same line sold to LBJ. The generals tell you you're not smart enough to question them and historians ask you how you could be so stupid. Ask LBJ or Bush. And how do you fix America's economy by increasing the war budget? How many Americans will die? Please stop this insane war.

[serenegeezer]

jimpager could not possibly be any more on the money. We have seen in the last decade the actualization of Eisenhower's warning.

[raskefing]

Great article . wonderful to see on this comments that Americans are begining to see that this war, just as Iraq is only about profits and power.
Please help us in the rest of the world by not supporting this plunder of other nations resources.
We are all children of the one god, and one day if Americans are not careful your soldiers will be placing you under ' HEAVY MANNERS ' on behalf of the financial elite and the military elite right in the good old USof A .
We have always admired and respected America as a place of justice, fairness and freedom,please fight to keep it that way.

[Rescisco]

We seem to have no tangible foreign policy goal except to confront the al-Qaida menace, and we insist on doing that in a place where they ain't. Mr. Sheer has it right when he says "there is a continued need for effective international police work to thwart the efforts of a widely dispersed al-Qaida network." The only unanswered question about Afghanistan is how much longer and how many more must die before our awareness of the absurdity of our involvement sinks in? To paraphrase a question from another mistake, who wants to be the lask American to die for an absurdity? We need to make overt the covert stupidity and cluelessness of the pro-war position here.

[DredLockRasta]

I would beg to differ. There's nothing tangible about war against Al Qaida. Our foreign policy efforts on other fronts are much more tangible, (emphasis on the word efforts). Peace in the middle east, preventing nukes in Iran and North Korea, improving relations with Russia, to name a few, those are tangible efforts..

[NeoconGal]

Foreign Policy efforts. You must be joking.

[Caracoid]

If it were 100 al Qaeda operatives, you might have a point. But estimates for al Qaeda's elite Black Guard--the praetorian guard designated to protect Osama bin Laden--alone are between 200 and 500 operating in area. Was the general talking about the leadership? Only Afghanistan? I suppose you could say that at any given time there are approximately 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan before they slip back over the boarder into Pakistan.

Just checked the quote from CNN and right after he mentions the 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan he says:

"The problem is, the next step in this is the sanctuaries across the border." (Afghan-Pakistan boarder)

Oddly, he then goes on to say about the Taliban (not al Qaeda):

"But I don't -- I don't foresee the return of the Taliban, and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger, imminent danger of falling."

Now he doesn't mention what "return of the Taliban" means. Right now they control a sizable amount of Afghanistan. I assume he meant to control the government of the country.

I also question the extent to which al Qaeda has lost its support amongst the Taliban leadership. If al Qaeda have been so marginalized, why do the Taliban continue to protect them? Especially when there is a $25 million bounty on Osama's head and getting rid of al Qaeda would probably result in a US exit and a much easier return of them to power in Afghanistan.

[amazingbeavis]

Because that is one HUGE bargaining chip and they have no need to use it now.

[Caracoid]

Not quite sure why they haven't played that card already or wouldn't want to use it now. Especially since we are currently talking about the possibility of leaving the Taliban alone and just going after al Qaeda. And if not now, when?

[ray01]

Caracoid-sorry to inform you but Osama Bin Laden, a CIA asset, has been dead since late 2001.
He died of renal failure in Pakistan.

[Caracoid]

If the Taliban only had to give us evidence of Osama's death---which they would surely have--in order to get us out, don't you think they would have by now if they weren't in deep with al Qaeda?