Legions forward.
Hey, what can I tell you? For a few days, it almost smelled like Obama would resist the call to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops into the hell-hole that is Afghanistan. That cloud of wispy optimism has 
surely passed, and while the announcement, as of this writing, has not yet been made, it's clear that something like 30,000 to 35,000 more American bodies will be placed between the religious fanatics, drug smugglers, blood-stained warlords, and underworld entrepreneurs that dominate both sides of the Afghan struggle. To what end? Well, we've been promised that Obama will explain his strategy in a nationally-televised address this coming week. My guess is that it will be somewhat reminiscent of Bush Jr.'s address announcing the surge in Iraq - a change of strategy concentrating on the fundamentals of securing and holding territory, investing more dollars in reconstruction, and promoting regional cooperation. Bush's speech was in the wake of the major disaster that his team had created in Iraq, prompting the U.S. institutional foreign policy establishment to, in essence, reassert itself and save the empire. In Obama's case, concern for the empire is at the very center of his administration, and the burden of rescuing it will continue to be consigned to our "all-volunteer" military force. Whatever the stated strategy may turn out to be, that is the underlying motivation.
One would hope that rooting out corruption will not be offered up as a goal. I think, after eight years of this war, we are at least owed a little honesty. Corruption is the platform for the Afghan government; it cannot stand without it. Karzai and company are reliant on many of the same characters that ran the country into the ground following the Soviet departure; a patchwork of petty kings profiting on the immiseration of their countrymen and women (and particularly women). Much has been said about how much better the current government is than the Taliban. What doesn't get mentioned is that the Taliban was a step up from what preceded it; and that what preceded it was bankrolled by us for more than ten years. The Taliban itself is made up of people who benefited from the billions we spent on training the mujahedeen during the 1980s. Just as during that period, it is clear that we are in Afghanistan for reasons that have very little to do with the Afghans themselves. The stated goal is to keep that country from becoming a haven for Al Qaeda and other similar organizations that attack western targets. It seems to me that an important part of that mission is not making thousands of new enemies every month we operate in that region.
Some might think that ending this conflict would be political suicide for any president. That may be so - it's hard to say for certain, since the country seems divided pretty evenly on the topic. It's never been a
comfortable thing to do what's right. If stopping these wars cost Obama his job, I would hope he would consider it well worth the cost - I can think of worse things to be remembered for... like driving us into another decade of this pointless death and destruction. But to ignore the political calculus of overseas military entanglements is to ignore history. Absent vigorous anti-war activism right here at home - to the tune of many, many thousands in the streets - all of the prevailing political winds will blow Obama toward increasing deployments of military resources to the Afghan "trap", as Bin Laden called it. As I've said in this blog before (probably too many times), this is one of the perils of empire: our foreign policy is supported by a professionalized foreign legion made up of volunteers and mercenaries (or, if you prefer, "contractors") and floated by borrowed capital, thereby insulating the vast majority of our population from the actual costs of war.
If this were still a democracy, as opposed to an empire, we would be right back where we were in 1964-65: on the cusp of a conscription-fueled popular revolt against an unjust war. As it is, we're... well... next to nowhere.
luv u,
jp
surely passed, and while the announcement, as of this writing, has not yet been made, it's clear that something like 30,000 to 35,000 more American bodies will be placed between the religious fanatics, drug smugglers, blood-stained warlords, and underworld entrepreneurs that dominate both sides of the Afghan struggle. To what end? Well, we've been promised that Obama will explain his strategy in a nationally-televised address this coming week. My guess is that it will be somewhat reminiscent of Bush Jr.'s address announcing the surge in Iraq - a change of strategy concentrating on the fundamentals of securing and holding territory, investing more dollars in reconstruction, and promoting regional cooperation. Bush's speech was in the wake of the major disaster that his team had created in Iraq, prompting the U.S. institutional foreign policy establishment to, in essence, reassert itself and save the empire. In Obama's case, concern for the empire is at the very center of his administration, and the burden of rescuing it will continue to be consigned to our "all-volunteer" military force. Whatever the stated strategy may turn out to be, that is the underlying motivation.One would hope that rooting out corruption will not be offered up as a goal. I think, after eight years of this war, we are at least owed a little honesty. Corruption is the platform for the Afghan government; it cannot stand without it. Karzai and company are reliant on many of the same characters that ran the country into the ground following the Soviet departure; a patchwork of petty kings profiting on the immiseration of their countrymen and women (and particularly women). Much has been said about how much better the current government is than the Taliban. What doesn't get mentioned is that the Taliban was a step up from what preceded it; and that what preceded it was bankrolled by us for more than ten years. The Taliban itself is made up of people who benefited from the billions we spent on training the mujahedeen during the 1980s. Just as during that period, it is clear that we are in Afghanistan for reasons that have very little to do with the Afghans themselves. The stated goal is to keep that country from becoming a haven for Al Qaeda and other similar organizations that attack western targets. It seems to me that an important part of that mission is not making thousands of new enemies every month we operate in that region.
Some might think that ending this conflict would be political suicide for any president. That may be so - it's hard to say for certain, since the country seems divided pretty evenly on the topic. It's never been a
comfortable thing to do what's right. If stopping these wars cost Obama his job, I would hope he would consider it well worth the cost - I can think of worse things to be remembered for... like driving us into another decade of this pointless death and destruction. But to ignore the political calculus of overseas military entanglements is to ignore history. Absent vigorous anti-war activism right here at home - to the tune of many, many thousands in the streets - all of the prevailing political winds will blow Obama toward increasing deployments of military resources to the Afghan "trap", as Bin Laden called it. As I've said in this blog before (probably too many times), this is one of the perils of empire: our foreign policy is supported by a professionalized foreign legion made up of volunteers and mercenaries (or, if you prefer, "contractors") and floated by borrowed capital, thereby insulating the vast majority of our population from the actual costs of war.If this were still a democracy, as opposed to an empire, we would be right back where we were in 1964-65: on the cusp of a conscription-fueled popular revolt against an unjust war. As it is, we're... well... next to nowhere.
luv u,
jp
Comments