Dave Lindorff: Wake-Up Call to Obama: Afghanistan is No Threat to America

[bigtree]

from Buzzflash: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/192

{snip}

Let’s get it straight. No Afghan has ever, to my knowledge, harmed the United States. I’m not sure most Afghanis, if they could scrape together the money to go to the US, would even know where this country is. (Okay, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you where Afghanistan is, either, but at least we have libraries, and computers, which the geographically challenged can turn to in order to locate the place. That’s not true for the people of Afghanistan, who have neither.)

For eight years, America has been attacking and destroying a country that is about as dangerous a threat to America as is Mali, or Haiti, or the Comoros Islands. If Obama follows through and doubles the number of troops fighting over there, it will just make this whole policy twice as stupid.

I’m sorry. I know Al Qaeda is a nasty gang, well funded by sources in Saudi Arabia, and well trained in the fine arts of terrorism by the CIA, which back in the day saw the group as a good proxy for harassing Soviet troops that were occupying Afghanistan. But if eight years of constant war by US troops in Afghanistan has been unable to stop or even seriously undermine Al Qaeda, I cannot understand the logic of doubling down on the bad bet.

If the US wants to defeat Al Qaeda, it needs to enlist the support of the governments of the countries where Al Qaeda is operating, and it needs to eliminate the outside financial support for Al Qaeda. The first prong of this strategy would require convincing the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to get serious about driving out Al Qaeda. That should not be difficult. If we stopped killing Afghanis, and if we stopped firing rockets into the sovereign nation of Pakistan, killing innocent Pakistanis in the process, and massively insulting the government of Pakistan, and if we instead offered aid to both countries, contingent upon their taking serious action to eliminate Al Qaeda, we would quickly see these foreign intruders in both countries driven out . . .


full article: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/192

[Mari333]

1. amen. n/t

[NightWatcher]

2. this is based on the myth that 18 guys with boxcutters brought us down on 9/11 (wait, dont flame)

Even so, these 18 were predominately SAUDI, directed by a SAUDI, funded by a SAUDI......

Afghanistan is PIPELINE territory and nothing more. They are no threat whatsoever

[zipplewrath]

7. Not state actors

You're using names of countries as if these were "state sponsored" activities. The threat that is being faced around the world is that there is significant "extragovernmental" action going on. These are loosely organized groups of people with similar aims which cooperate across state lines outside of the instruments of government. This doesn't mean that certain individuals inside of those governments aren't invovled. But to a great extent they are operating outside of the direct interests and guidance of their own governments and countries interests. They are able to develop governmental like power, without actually ruling any particular country. In the case of the Taliban, they were used by Al Queada for access to governmental like powers. It is why we needed to intervene in Afghanistan. The problem is that you "attack" a country which isn't particularly resisting you. The people you are after have no interest in "defending" their host country. They'll leave and go elsewhere until you leave and then they will return. As has been suggested before, the reason that the Iraq war, and Bush's unilateral strategy in general has been such a failure is because in order to deal with these nonstate actors, requires international cooperation on a very deep level. Think Interpol and similar organizations. The mafia makes a good metaphor. As long as the Mafia could run off to Sically to avoid capture and prosecution, they could be difficult to fight. It is only when these people can be chased across state lines that we can truly begin to impact them.

[newtothegame]

10. While I wouldn't argue that we have a reason to be in Afghanistan, OR Iraq...

the pipeline argument needs something to back it up. Where are the stories from troops who've seen a pipeline being built? Or pictures? Or anything? The "no blood for oil" argument is at best a slogan until we get people bringing back proof...

ed for sp

[Captain Hilts]

3. If the Afghani government actually had control over its country, this view might be valid.

But they don't, so it isn't.

[ThomWV]

4. This is not much of an argument, but Afghan poppies do us much harm

In the sense that the resultant heroin is so destructive and Afghanistan being the source of the raw material to make it gives is some reason to be involved there. I know the argument is weak at best but I don't think all counterarguments can be dismissed.

[bigtree]

8. well,

. . . the new line from the Pentagon (and Hillary: narco-terrorists) is that they have to confront the drug trade which they say is fueling the resistance. That's actually shaping up to be a major component of their plan forward in Afghanistan.

[Chulanowa]

11. So we get to combine our actions in Colombia with our strategy in Viet Nam?

Oh goodie

[bluestateguy]

5. He is doing what he said he would do in the campaign

and keeping a promise.

[bigtree]

6. I don't know why that's used here as an argument

I understood that the attacks into Pakistan that he was referring to were limited to pursuit of those suspected of responsibility for 9-11. The problem with the drone strike just made is that the 'targets' described by the U.S. military look to be associated with resistance to the military occupation in Afghanistan, not figures directly related to the 9-11 attacks.

With the logic behind a policy which conflates all resistance to the U.S. military presence in the region with opposition to al-Qaeda we'll be going back and forth with these attacks into perpetuity as the collateral killings fuel even more violence directed at the U.S., our interests, and our allies and foster even more individuals willing to align with any existing resistance against that aggression.

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

[ihatehannity]

12. let's get realistic

if we give them money... who's going to know what they are spending it on...

Give me 10 bucks and I won't spend it on beer... i promise...