Afghanistan destroys Empires. Ask Great Britain, ask the Russians. The US is well along the same course, but rather than being blinded by nationalism, or ideology the American poison of choice is the continued mismanagement of priorities by the corporate elite. The corporate elite are running the foreign policy bus off a cliff and bankrupting the US in the process.
“Among multiple layers of deception and newspeak, the official Washington spin on the strategic quagmire in Afghanistan simply does not hold.
No more than “50-75 ‘al-Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA, have been responsible for draining the US government by no less than US $10 billion a month, or $120 billion a year. “
120 billion is a tidy sum that would go a long way in the ‘butter’ rather than the ‘guns’ department.
“A recent, detailed study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the war on terror has cost the US economy, so far, from $3.7 trillion (the most conservative estimate) to $4.4 trillion (the moderate estimate). Then there are interest payments on these costs – another $1 trillion.
That makes the total cost of the war on terror to be, at least, a staggering $5.4 trillion. And that does not include, as the report mentions, “additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending”, or a promised (and undelivered) $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan.
Who’s profiting from this bonanza? That’s easy – US military contractors and a global banking/financial elite.”
Well, it is good to see that someone is making money during this downturn of the economy, although I’d hate to be the person having to explain the American public why the coffers fly open so easily when it comes to Military contractors and yet seem welded shut when it comes to public expenditures such as social security and health care.
“In the famous November 1, 2004 video that played a crucial part in assuring the reelection of George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden – or a clone of Osama bin Laden – once again expanded on how the “mujahedeen bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.” That’s the exact same strategy al-Qaeda has deployed against the US; according to Bin Laden at the time, “all that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note, other than some benefits to their private companies.”
The record since 9/11 shows that’s exactly what’s happening. The war on terror has totally depleted the US treasury – to the point that the White House and Congress are now immersed in a titanic battle over a $4 trillion debt ceiling.
What is never mentioned is that these trillions of dollars were ruthlessly subtracted from the wellbeing of average Americans – smashing the carefully constructed myth of the American dream.”
The problem, back in the US, is that ordinary people are not being represented in Congress. Americans, for the most part are a kind, generous people. They may hold some funny notions about egalitarianism (and religion and…), but on the whole they are not the ignorant, jingoistic warmongers that the media often paint them to be. If the interests of the majority of American’s were actually respected, instead of a small section of the elites, the US would truly be that ‘shining city on the hill’. Yet the prosperity of the average American is being sacrificed on the altar of war so that a narrow slice of the populace can profit.
“It all comes back, once again, to Pipelineistan – and one of its outstanding chimeras; the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline, also known once as the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, which might one day become TAPI if India decides to be on board.
The US corporate media simply refuses to cover what is one of the most important stories of the early 21st century.
Washington has badly wanted TAP since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban; the talks broke down because of transit fees, even before 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to change the rhetoric from “a carpet of gold” to “a carpet of bombs”.
TAP is a classic Pipelineistan gambit; the US supporting the flow of gas from Central Asia to global markets, bypassing both Iran and Russia. If it ever gets built, it will cost over $10 billion.
It needs a totally pacified Afghanistan – still another chimera – and a Pakistani government totally implicated in Afghanistan’s security, still a no-no as long as Islamabad’s policy is to have Afghanistan as its “strategic depth”, a vassal state, in a long-term confrontation mindset against India.”
Is the War all about the pipeline as the article suggests? More research is needed into the topic, but it would be hardly surprising to observe that this is one of the overarching goals of the war in Afghanistan.
“It’s mind-boggling that 10 years and $5.4 trillion dollars later, the situation is exactly the same. Washington still badly wants “its” pipeline – which will in fact be a winning game mostly for commodity traders, global finance majors and Western energy giants.
From the standpoint of these elites, the ideal endgame scenario is global Robocop NATO – helped by hundreds of thousands of mercenaries – “protecting” TAP (or TAPI) while taking a 24/7 peek on what’s going on in neighbours Russia and China.
Sharp wits in India have described Washington’s tortuous moves in Afghanistan as “surge, bribe and run”. It’s rather “surge, bribe and stay”. This whole saga might have been accomplished without a superpower bankrupting itself, and without immense, atrocious, sustained loss of life, but hey – nobody’s perfect.”
Are the strategic resources in the region worth the devastation of the Western world’s largest economy? The movers and the shakers in the US seem to think so.
14 comments
July 16, 2011 at 10:18 am
Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empire « Dead Wild Roses | MyMegalinks
[…] See more here: Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empire « Dead Wild Roses […]
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Bleatmop
The only reason why I ever supported the war in Afghanistan was a “You break it you bought it” mentality. That was back when I actually believed this so called reconstruction was going to happen. With OBL dead and an Afghan parliament that tries to pass legalizing rape law I figure we can’t get out soon enough.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Or just sterilize all the Sharia Law-loving men and put all women immediately in charge of all legislative branches of that country with NATO forces to protect them and a full UN contingent to educate and train them without interference by the neanderthals.
But since we’re not allowed to crush an enemy, and we are barely allowed to fight, we get years and years and years of the crap we’ve seen there which only serves the power barons discussed in the article.
I don’t buy the 50-75 al Qaeda argument. Pretty sure it’s more than 50-75 troops attacking NATO forces at any given time. The real problem are the tens of thousands who hide and support them because they’re either a) afraid of what will happen once NATO is gone, or b) bent on protecting their “women are like dogs” way of life.
Because of both those things, as much as I hate that war I still think we need to finish it.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Bleatmop
But needing to finish, I’m assuming you mean we stay there until “victory” has happened? As a non-troll question, what do you envision this victory to be like and how do you envision us getting to that point, especially considering the bleak conditions that limit our ability to win as you outlined above?
I ask because I used to be on the same lines as you, but then when they started passing pro-rape laws, it was my revelation that no matter the military outcome, we still lose. Even the US’ hand picked man could not be counted upon to move their country forward.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“What do you envision ‘victory’ to be like?”
I think for me it’s more a matter of getting things to zero rather than something as ambitious as “victory”.
There’s a few forces at play with me: 1, like someone said (you or Arb?) we broke it, we fix it. 2, also like you’re saying, they’re passing pro-rape laws. I can’t in good conscience justify abandoning people in that situation over finances. 3rd is a belief to not leave the world to those we despise.
Where my view gets even crazier is that yes, it has cost us a fortune, but I don’t think we deserve the convenience of a withdraw.
So how do we get things to zero? With all the limits we’ve discussed, i think it’s impossible under the circumstances. But do we pull out and leave all this pro-rape, acid-throwing $hit behind us and instead try to just forget about that place in the world? I can’t do it. Option 1, massive reprogramming. Option 2, wipe out the neanderthals and put the women in charge of everything to really mess with the guys’ heads. Both are very, very ugly, sure, but how else do you get rid of a mentality that makes a man not deserving of wives or children? I say conquer or convert. At worst you’re the world’s a$$hole for the next 50 years, but how bad is that? Nobody seems to be mad at the Spanish anymore for wiping out/converting the Mayans out of their barbaric ways.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm
The Arbourist
Nobody seems to be mad at the Spanish anymore for wiping out/converting the Mayans out of their barbaric ways.
We are talking about the same Spanish representatives that would fire up the ole Witch BBQ if you burped the wrong way right? How different would it have been if the New World has some of the nasty domesticated animal diseases the Old World had at 1492. Further food for thought, can you imagine the revulsion the Maya felt at the Spanish because of their stakey-goodness-heretic flambe? Wiping out 9/10ths of the civilization that existed and enslaving the rest seems… well, a little brusque for our modern times and supposed level of civility, no?
But do we pull out and leave all this pro-rape, acid-throwing $hit behind us and instead try to just forget about that place in the world?
I believe you have to declare “Mission Accomplished!” first, then you can leave, would be the correct sequence of steps. I do not mean to be glib Vern, but if it comes down to the choices you describe, your support must also fall on to the methodologies used by the Soviet occupying forces as well, because they approached Afghanistan with the gloves off and also failed quite miserably.
1, like someone said (you or Arb?) we broke it, we fix it.
I think I said that awhile back, but I think our definitions of ‘fix’ might be out of resonance a bit, as adding more bombs and death is not part of my solution (usually), nor am I necessarily attributing bombs and death to yours Vern, it just seems it could get rather blood thirsty if the options we have are only conquer or covert.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Bleatmop
A few thoughts:
1. By getting back to zero, I assume you mean getting back to the way things were before we invaded. Wouldn’t that include a Taliban government supporting and taking guidance from Al Qaeda? Of course that’s not what I think you mean, but it does explain why saying getting back to zero doesn’t explain much to me.
2. Conquer has happened. It’s not going so well.
3. Convert whom from what into what?
4. I’m pretty sure people are still pretty critical of how Spain handled that how Mayan thing. I’m pretty sure they still get blamed for it. It doesn’t affect world politics much because A) Spain is important relatively to the worlds going on and B) They Mayan people are not. B is mostly because of what A did to them all those years ago.
5. Interesting thought of putting the women in charge. I doubt it could be done, given the cultural aspects of Islam. Interesting nonetheless.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Arb, America doesn’t fight like the Soviets do/did. For one,our soldiers don’t put kids on spigots and roast them over a fire in front of their parents, but we covered that in your pro-Soviet post before.
Moving on, before you start quoting essays on the historical similarities between the Roman Praetorians and today’s Special Forces or some hooplah like that, indulge me with a practical, personal perspective for once centered not around your perception of our humanity as a society, but rather a specific, pinpointed problem looking to be solved, which is the problem of women being abused, disfigured, or killed where we have an immediate and permanent way to prevent that abuse from happening in front of our eyes. Now that we’re there, it’s happening under our watch and because we’re there, I believe we now own it. So how to we stop it?
My way, the throwing acid in girls’ faces, “honor killings”, and all else stops with us having a real military presence there, not this U.N.-like one. My way we’re hated for our “conquering” and interfering in their culture for the next 50 years, but I say so what.
Your way (I believe), we stand by and watch all that happen for the next hundred years, all the while patting ourselves on the back for being so “humane” and “tolerating and trying to understand other peoples’ cultures”.
So my specific question is: what is your specific suggestion for solving the abuse problem in Afghanistan, and how fast would you think your suggestion would solve it? No rhetorical questions like, “We are talking about the same Spanish representatives that would fire up the ole Witch BBQ if you burped the wrong way right?” Please indulge me with a direct answer as to how you see the problem over there getting solved in a practical way (i.e. not taking 50 years and having girls maimed in the meantime) using pacifism and diplomacy.
I’ll put it a different way: My way stopped the Nazi’s from killing Jews, and not only that, basically wiped out Naziism save for a few nutjobs running around today. With REAL military force, this happened in <5 years and we've never looked back. Do you believe a pacifist, diplomatic approach would have stopped the Nazi's and saved the Jews in that amount of time or less?
I don't give a $hit about any pipeline through Afghanistan or any puppet regime we put there. "Mission Accomplished' to me will be when all of the heathens in that country have their hands and balls cut off for doing what they do to their people, and if that still doesn't stop them, their heads can be cut off, too. Respectfully, I don't believe if you were there, that you could walk away from that abuse against people that was happening and say, "it's not my problem because I shouldn't have been here in the first place." Now that we're already in that country and it continues to happen on our watch right under our noses, I believe it is now our problem. We bought it, essentially.
Sorry – I've recently watched "Love Crimes in Kabul" and it's extremely disturbing as to how those f–kers think.
LikeLike
July 24, 2011 at 10:19 am
The Arbourist
Arb, America doesn’t fight like the Soviets do/did. For one,our soldiers don’t put kids on spigots and roast them over a fire in front of their parents, but we covered that in your pro-Soviet post before.
Torturous death, versus death by aerial drone. Dead is still dead Vern. What I find interesting is, many times when providing historical context, I get called on being biased or anti-American. Judging yourself by the standards set (a la Nuremberg, if we actually followed those laws) might be good place to start if we want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world as a defender of human rights and freedoms instead of wearing the ideals as a cloak for imperial policy.
indulge me with a practical, personal perspective for once centered not around your perception of our humanity as a society,
Pragmatic solutions divorced of context can present some very disastrous outcomes precisely because the larger picture is not taken into consideration. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are both “pragmatic solutions” to problems and have some merit when ethical considerations and moral context is ignored.
Now that we’re there, it’s happening under our watch and because we’re there, I believe we now own it. So how to we stop it?
Okay, lets imagine that we have to, at all costs stop people from celebrating christmas. What do we do? How would that look in civilized(?) society? How do you root out a deeply entrenched cultural tradition that is emblematic of a certain way of life for people? Comparing christmas to honour killings is a bit of stretch, but I use it to illustrate how ineffective it is with the tools we have over there (guns and bombs, and some humanitarian aide) to systematically declare a practice over. How far would we have to go over here to ban christmas? Now take all the crap and hoopla that would happen here, transplant it to Afghanistan where people are more poor, more desperate, more ignorant of the world around them…plus they have guns and every one of them looks like the ‘enemy’. Vicious pogroms and repression lay down this road, Vietnam is a testament to the futility and barbarism of this sort of thinking. 50 years hence, the US will still be looked on as fomenting a terrorist war against the people of Vietnam, there shall, in my opinion, be no vindication or validation by history of that particular atrocity.
So how to we stop it?
Several solutions present themselves the one axiom that is common to them is that for rights and freedoms to exist a civil structure must be present for justice and law to exist. If this was actually our goal in Afghanistan we would not currently be propping up the corrupt Kharzi regime, but rather allowing the people of Afghanistan to choose the face of government they present to the world. Clearly, it would not be much to my, or anyone else in the West’s liking but at least it would be a representation of what Afghanistan is, as opposed to any tyranny we impose on it.
Look at India and the British Empire. If we are talking about suffering of women under a formalized structure, consider the caste system of India. People, because of no notion other than birth, slotted into occupations and life paths with no chance of ever improving their lot, imagine the misery inherent in that structure. The Caste system was profoundly misunderstood and abused by the British Empire, they exploited the caste system to their economic advantage and to the cultural disadvantage of the Indian people, who when expelling the British in 1947 also found impetus to reform their society and the caste system to a certain extent. Under British colonial rule for 163 years (1783-1947) the caste system more or less remained intact.
So given that affecting cultural change via imperial domination can be a lengthy ineffectual proposition, why attempt it? Nothing is going to change in Afghanistan until, internally, the timing is right. We should do our utmost to encourage secular, democratic society with the economic carrot of trade and investment, but past that we are just adding the the carnage of a society and country in tatters.
LikeLike
July 26, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Dead is still dead Vern.”
I disagree. How and why one dies is relevant, which is probably why we have Murder vs. Manslaughter and various “degrees” of both in court. To me (at least), the death of a child by being thrown on a burning pile is very different than an accidental death by a drone attack.
To your point, however, you may not consider how a country wages war as a differentiator – simply that war is being waged and it cannot go well – but I think the question here is “Is military action ever necessary?” I present that it is. Perhaps this is because I can see the phrases “humanity” and “military action” existing in the same sentence.
“Pragmatic solutions divorced of context can present some very disastrous outcomes precisely because the larger picture is not taken into consideration. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are both “pragmatic solutions” to problems and have some merit when ethical considerations and moral context is ignored.”
We’re not talking destroying a race here, just as the goal in WWII was not to stop the Germans – it was to stop the Nazi’s – a religious nutbag mindset that agreed with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Even then, America didn’t want to get involved in a problem that they didn’t see as theirs. Nonetheless, I submit that military action is the only way the Nazi’s could have been stopped in such a short time period, and the only way military action is the only way to stop the religious nutsbags in Afghanistan who believe its ok to treat their women and children worse than animals.
We’re in a safe environment of discussion on the web and we’re not policy makers so let’s not worry about “disastrous outcomes” here. You must have an opinion on what you think would solve the specific “acid in the face” problem any sooner than military action can, and I’m interested to hear it.
“Vietnam”
In many ways there’s comparison between the two wars, but in so many ways the two simply aren’t comparable. America in many ways “grew up” after that war both in terms of our engagement – the treatment of the people we’re fighting, and even the treatment of our own military forces. I find many on the left don’t really believe that the military has changed – that soldiers are soldiers, and that war is war. For reasons too lengthy to list here, I disagree and I believe soldiers who serve/have served will disagree as well. They view the citizens of the country they are fighting in as innocents that they desire to protect.
“If this was actually our goal in Afghanistan we would not currently be propping up the corrupt Kharzi regime, but rather allowing the people of Afghanistan to choose the face of government they present to the world.”
I disagree here as well. I believe Kharzi was our choice that was the “best of the worst”. I don’t think anyone thought he wouldn’t be corrupt – that whole region is whether we’re in there or not. However, if he could be bought he could be coached, and therefore he could hopefully be predictable. Trust it to the people at this stage, and I believe you’d have an even bigger mess than exists there now. These people are intimidated on a daily basis, and have been taught that choice is decadent and evil. Elections are nothing if safety cannot be secured, and like I say, I think now that we’ve inserted ourselves into their lives, we owe it to them to deliver them at least that no matter what the cost.
for rights and freedoms to exist a civil structure must be present for justice and law to exist.”
But how do you put a civil structure in when they blow up roads, schools, and basically any form of civility in the country at the first opportunity? Security must exist first, and their religion, and their “law” is not civil. Far from it.
I go back to my solution which would be for us to back an all-woman party in that country and send in a military force to back them up. Create that sort of civil unrest and see how the system shakes out.
“… the Tyranny we impose”
I almost completely disagree here. If I even ventured to call it “tyranny”, I’d maybe put our “imposing” at 5%, tops, compared to what they face and deal with without us. I’ve heard as much from soldiers and officers. I beg you to watch that documentary I mention and then tell me honestly that we’re the worst thing that exists there.
“So given that affecting cultural change via imperial domination can be a lengthy ineffectual proposition, why attempt it?”
I’d go one further and ask why would attempt it half-assed? Just like with the Nazi’s, give us the troops we need to at least do it fast and get the country secure. Then continue the support:
“We should do our utmost to encourage secular, democratic society with the economic carrot of trade and investment, but past that we are just adding to the carnage of a society and country in tatters.”
I think we’re doing far more good than that, but that’s where we’ll likely remain in disagreement. I agree that our best influence is through trade and investment. We are, after all, capitalists. ;) I don’t think the Afghanis can still be trusted to protect that trade and investment on their own, however.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0308/Women-s-rights-in-Afghanistan-lose-steam
Looks like some good things happening, but more work is still needed.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 9:32 am
The Arbourist
Arb: “Dead is still dead Vern.”
Vern: I disagree. How and why one dies is relevant, which is probably why we have Murder vs. Manslaughter and various “degrees” of both in court. To me (at least), the death of a child by being thrown on a burning pile is very different than an accidental death by a drone attack.
We do have distinctions in between manslaughter and murder because, to a certain extent, we have the rule of law as a feature of our society. In Afghanistan, such a legal framework does not exist. For families that lost their children to hands on soviet atrocities or hands off american atrocities the end result is the same. Hate for the occupying forces and further support for the Taliban.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 9:46 am
The Arbourist
Nonetheless, I submit that military action is the only way the Nazi’s could have been stopped in such a short time period, and the only way military action is the only way to stop the religious nutsbags in Afghanistan who believe its ok to treat their women and children worse than animals.
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 that did not punish Germany so heavily for WW1 could have stopped the entire mess that is WW2 from happening. Impoverish and denigrate a state and its citizens, and they will be pushed toward radical actions. Conflating WW2 with the Afghanistan situation, and saying that because Hitler was stopped by force of arms therefore the Taliban in Afghanistan will be stopped by force of arms is a statement that lies on shaky grounds at best. Force of arms has been tried in Afghanistan several times in the past and has failed miserably for the occupying forces in each and every case. The indicators are that the US occupation is following the same general pattern.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 9:55 am
The Arbourist
You must have an opinion on what you think would solve the specific “acid in the face” problem any sooner than military action can, and I’m interested to hear it.
Of course I would be in favour of military action if it actually solve the specific problem of the maiming and scarring of women in a society. Unfortunately, the military method does not work in most cases. Imposing your ideals on another leads only to more ingrained resistance and hostility toward your cause. The treatment of women in this society is horrible and should be changed, but against the backdrop of human misery and needless death that typifies our world, its significance pales. There are many bigger systemic problems at work inequality fuelled by capitalism for instance is a huge driving force for the misery we are seeing today. Capitalism, in its current state, pillages the world and will eat itself, sooner or later. Without rational inputs about human values, ecological impacts and egalitarian considerations we will be seeing many more “Afghanistans” in the future.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 10:11 am
The Arbourist
Elections are nothing if safety cannot be secured, and like I say, I think now that we’ve inserted ourselves into their lives, we owe it to them to deliver them at least that no matter what the cost.
Just like the elections in Iraq? Check.
The price to put Afghanistan back together again will be pulling the USA apart. Elite consensus during Vietnam quickly soured after the costs on the balance sheet became a obstacle to profit and sustainability. What is troubling is that so many of the corporations are flourishing during this particular war, at a grievous cost to the American people, is that elite support has not faltered yet because times are good for that particular segment of society. So, while the USA pleads poverty at home, it continues to spend billions on military campaigns that have little benefit for the American public at large. It seems like a recipe for disaster domestically speaking.
If one were cynical, it might be supposed that reactionary elements in the US are pulling for bankruptcy in the US as a means to strip the last vestiges of social welfare away from the people and establish a unabashed Corporatocracy in the place of the mildly democratic system that is currently in place. Cynicism aside, it is important to note that ‘disaster capitalism’ works and it might be a tool that will be used to ‘reform’ current American society.
LikeLike