News Report tonight - Afghanistan

[Non Sum]

As I recall a faction of international Islamic ‘warriors for God’ (Jihadies) calling themselves ‘Al-Qaida,’ conducted some radical, unlicensed, and deadly, renovations on a couple buildings in Manhattan, and another 5 sided building adjacent to the Potomac River, all on 9/11/01.

Tracking some of these felonious faction’s fellows into the sovereign nation of Afghanistan, the US requested that the legitimate government/party leadership (and former clients of the US, i.e. ‘Taliban’) do us the favor of locating and delivering up the aforementioned suspects. The Afghan government respectfully declined. The US reaction indicated that the “request” was in fact a ‘demand,’ and so it invaded this innocent nation, displaced its government, and replaced it with one more amendable to our demands.

The continuing war is more an insurrection conducted by the Afghan people, centered around the displaced government and an assortment of local tribal leaders, united against a foreign invader (not unlike the Free French Vs the Nazis).

Personally, I always side with the invaded against the invader. Just as I’d side with any individual who is attacked Vs her attacker. Despite what our school teachers used to say, it does matter who started the fight.
NS (Never Starts)

[stilltrucking]

Washington Post 04/30/2007

[eyelidlessness]

I think the question (who is the enemy?) is probably more complex and relevant than most responses are giving credit for.

It's worth pointing out that, as in most wars fought by the US, the original stated war aims were varied but have evolved over time. Originally it was stated as a "police action" scenario, in a pretty literal sense: to apprehend the perpetrators of the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. It quickly grew to include a goal to oust the Taliban from control of Afghanistan, and to establish a state more amenable to US interests (some claimed this was to establish "democracy", but not all did).

The "police action" rationale is plainly laughable. No further discussion is needed.

It might be conceivable that there was originally a goal to end Taliban control of Afghanistan; the US has a history of turning on previous allies of convenience*, and after all the Taliban are a challenger to external hegemony. But that was a relatively easy-fought battle, and even with the resurgence of the Taliban in recent years, it simply doesn't have the power it did before the war.

The war has been reframed as a counter-insurgency war; that is, a suppression of Afghani resistance to US military presence and occupation. This is an important distinction because while the Taliban is often cited as an enemy in the media, most military leadership is careful to point out, quietly, that most of the targeted enemy can't be labeled Taliban except by begging the question—the mantra is that the Taliban is the enemy, so the enemy must be the Taliban.

In truth, the war strategy in Afghanistan (or AfPak, as the border is the site of much of the conflict) has taken a lot from the strategy in Iraq, which includes hushed negotiations with, and even buy-off of, enemy factions—yes, including even elements of the Taliban. So even in the minds of the military, the "enemy" is vague and amorphous.

Moreover, the Taliban is not just more active in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, but even has more sympathy from the Pakistan state and military forces than from their Afghani counterparts. And as we know, Pakistan remains a US ally—notwithstanding our repeated and ongoing drone attacks on Pakistan territory against objections from Pakistani officials that these bombings mostly target civilians and only strengthen the resolve of "militants" and "insurgents".

And the fighting that takes place is largely against unidentified "militants", many of whom have no ties with the Taliban other than by virtue of sharing a common enemy. And without trying to glorify them, the only objection the US has to many of these "militants" is that they object to the US military occupation.

Ultimately, the broader answer is that there is no clear enemy nor even a clear objective, in the war strategy; and the simpler answer is that the enemy is the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly in Waziristan. Ultimately there is no endgame for the war but the continuing cost (in lives, money and social unrest) undermining US resolve to suppress resistance to US resolve.

* Note that the US was never particularly affiliated with the Taliban movement, but with its precursors.

[mnaz]

well said, eyelidnessness. I think there are some BIG OIL objectives as well. that, and strengthening our (incredibly corrupt) afghan puppet regime's tenous grip on power, for many geo- strategic reasons, not least, keeping pressure on iran (from both sides-- iraq on the other). speaking of iraq, are we going to keep up those payoffs that led to a decline in violence? what if we don't? within days of the troops leaving (find it hard to believe they're "all gone"), attacks increasing on the iraqi puppet regime already. what if it escalates again? more troops?

and you're right. who are the enemies? or allies? pakistan is the "ally," which just happens to give support behind the scenes to the "enemy."

I tell you what. you'd think this war would be unpopular after 9 years, the same old "war on terror" bullshit rhetoric, even from our man obama, and absolutely no clear statement of vision as to what "victory" actually means, staring down yet another quagmire, but just get out there in cyberspace and try it. try to criticize this escalation and you're in for a fight, I guarantee it. the taliban is so reviled (and if all the stories are true, rightly so), that most of us still want to continue to sacrifice our blood (and theirs, many-fold) and treasure to "win." that's what I'm hearing and seeing.

[eyelidlessness]

well said, eyelidnessness. I think there are some BIG OIL objectives as well.

I don't think oil is a particular focus in AfPak, but energy resources are, for sure. The TAPI pipeline is a major issue. Another major issue is mineral resources; Afghanistan has long been thought to have massive mineral deposits, and there was recently a discovery of huge bauxite deposits. The military commentary on this discovery was quite interesting, as they were quite excited at the prospect of investment, but very careful to say it's not clear what the impact of such investment will mean for Afghani society.

That said, I don't think resources were the driving force behind starting, or escalating, the AfPak war. They're more of a… bonus.

that, and strengthening our (incredibly corrupt) afghan puppet regime's tenous grip on power, for many geo- strategic reasons, not least, keeping pressure on iran (from both sides-- iraq on the other).

We have a winner! AfPak is basically a play for hegemonic leverage. Afghanistan itself isn't particularly interesting to the US, and Pakistan only because we've invested in their nuclear weapons capability as a counterbalance against India (and to a lesser extent, Iran).

There's a supreme irony here, in that Iran has been instrumental in both US success in Afghanistan and US success, as well as failure, in Iraq. They've played every side of both wars so well that they're ultimately going to be untouchable for the foreseeable future. Sure, the US has agents on the ground trying to destabilize the mullah regime, but ultimately that's the extent of what can be done.

speaking of iraq, are we going to keep up those payoffs that led to a decline in violence?

Almost certainly not directly, but we'll probably be continuing to send aid to Iraq for the rest of forever (until the country collapses under the weight of having a completely bullshit government with almost no backing from anyone) and it wouldn't surprise me to see them keep up the payoffs.

what if we don't?

We'll be watching Iraq fall apart.

within days of the troops leaving (find it hard to believe they're "all gone")

Despite the clever language, they've never claimed anything of the sort. They're ending "combat operations", but keeping a large deployment of "security" and "intelligence" and "advisory" forces (does this sound familiar?), as well as a large military-equipped force under State Department command, as well as a much larger (and increasing) private force under various auspices (including the former Blackwater).

attacks increasing on the iraqi puppet regime already. what if it escalates again? more troops?

More likely it'll be fought in "secret" (much like the wars in Laos and Cambodia) by the aforementioned "non-combat" forces, with plenty of information available but scant media coverage. With that said, another US escalation isn't inconceivable. It's just unlikely because of the unpopularity of that war.

I tell you what. you'd think this war would be unpopular after 9 years, the same old "war on terror" bullshit rhetoric, even from our man obama

I think that anyone who expected different from Obama wasn't listening to his platform. AfPak is his bread and butter. He was more aggressive, particularly on Pakistan, than even McCain (who had already ratcheted up his aggressive tone to match that of Bush).

With that said, I think cracks in support for the war are showing. It's becoming a lot more visible, and with that comes growing resentment of the long war. But it may be years—as in, until someone who isn't an "historic" Democratic president is in office—before an antiwar movement worth speaking of is organized.

and absolutely no clear statement of vision as to what "victory" actually means, staring down yet another quagmire, but just get out there in cyberspace and try it. try to criticize this escalation and you're in for a fight, I guarantee it.

We must go to sites with totally different demographics. A lot of what I'm seeing is either outright opposition to the war, or opposition to the strategy. That doesn't mean there aren't people clamoring to support Obama, but for the most part they're doing it despite their feelings about his policies.

the taliban is so reviled (and if all the stories are true, rightly so), that most of us still want to continue to sacrifice our blood (and theirs, many-fold) and treasure to "win." that's what I'm hearing and seeing.

I don't think there is going to be, ultimately, the resolve to win. There just isn't a strategy for "victory" that Americans will stomach. Maybe I'm being naive. But I think we'll more likely see some kind of half-cocked withdrawal plan marketed as "victory".

[Doreen Peri]

I feel educated. (to the degree that I can comprehend.. )
It's all so Orwellian. What a seer Orwell was.

The enemy is anybody they want it to be in order to advance their goals and the goals are continually changing.

And when I say "their", I wonder who are they? One face is no different than the other. Obama is Bush only with a different face? Maybe? I don't know. The whole thing is clearly very complicated.

It's a game of Chess.... and Risk...

Anyway, that's what I got out of reading your post, eyelidlessness. But I'm really into simplifying because my brain is very small.

[eyelidlessness]

The enemy is anybody they want it to be in order to advance their goals

Yes, and this is probably the best lesson anyone can learn about US foreign policy. Just because the US treats, say, Israel (or Egypt, or Iraqi Kurdistan, or the Philippines, or or or...) as special today does not mean there is a special affinity for those peoples or even their governments, and it doesn't mean that relationship will exist tomorrow. The US used to be friendly to:

- Hamas (through Israel by proxy, as a challenge to the PLO);
- the Afghani mujahideen (as a challenge to the Soviet Union);
- Saddam Hussein (as a challenge to the Ayatollah Khomeini);
- Manuel Noriega (as a challenge to radical nationalist movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and quite probably also to facilitate running drugs into US inner cities; the CIA documents are still classified, but they disrupted his attempt to disclose his role with the CIA during his trial);
- Pervez Musharraf (mainly to maintain internal "order", so as to preserve Pakistan's power balance with India);
- Suharto (as a challenge to various nationalist movements, both inside Indonesia and in areas it conquered following its independence)...

This list could go on rather endlessly. At any rate, the point is, all of those were supported by the US until they became recalcitrant or inconvenient, and then they were dumped or attacked. And their public support in the US has ebbed and flowed in kind.

and the goals are continually changing.

In a narrow sense, yes; in a broader sense, not so much. But just as in chess, a pawn may be useful today and fodder tomorrow. The goal of the game is always the same.

And when I say "their", I wonder who are they? One face is no different than the other. Obama is Bush only with a different face? Maybe? I don't know.

Well, Obama and Bush have had very little to do with the trajectory of US foreign policy, which has been pretty consistent since the end of World War II (and even then, not much different since the Monroe Doctrine; and even then, not much different since the colonial period), with some modifications along the way as circumstances changed. Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan policies are more or less identical to those of Bush's last couple years, but quite different from the earlier years—the circumstances had changed, and a new strategy became necessary. But it's not to say there are no differences between the two; there are minor differences in approach, but by and large the overarching aim is the same.

The whole thing is clearly very complicated.

I think it's less complicated than people think. The US is behaving exactly the same as any other empire in its position would do, and those in charge are pretty much doing what would be expected of them.

[Doreen Peri]

eyelidlessness -
How do you know all this stuff?

Well, Obama and Bush have had very little to do with the trajectory of US foreign policy, which has been pretty consistent since the end of World War II (and even then, not much different since the Monroe Doctrine; and even then, not much different since the colonial period), with some modifications along the way as circumstances changed. Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan policies are more or less identical to those of Bush's last couple years, but quite different from the earlier years—the circumstances had changed, and a new strategy became necessary. But it's not to say there are no differences between the two; there are minor differences in approach, but by and large the overarching aim is the same.

What exactly IS the trajectory of the US foreign policy?

What is the overarching aim? To take over the world? Just guessing... I mean, why does it look that way to me? I hardly know anything about history other than what I've learned in school and learned a little bit here and there along the way ... I mean, I'm certainly not nearly close to being as educated about the history of american foreign policy as you are.... But from what I do know, that's what it looks like to me. Am I being naive?

[eyelidlessness]

eyelidlessness -
What exactly IS the trajectory of the US foreign policy?

What is the overarching aim? To take over the world? Just guessing... I mean, why does it look that way to me? I hardly know anything about history other than what I've learned in school and learned a little bit here and there along the way ... I mean, I'm certainly not nearly close to being as educated about the history of american foreign policy as you are.... But from what I do know, that's what it looks like to me. Am I being naive?

In a simplistic sense, yes. The overarching aim is to take over the world. And it would be naive to not see that.

In a broader sense, every empire's aim (and, I would argue, that of every state, or even that of every institution of authority) is to control and expand its domain, whatever that domain is.

It's important to keep in mind that the US has been conceived as an empire since its inception, and that that was one of the major reasons for the Revolutionary War; the British Empire had claimed much of the New World as its frontier, and its policy was to prevent western expansion of the Colonies.

Since that point, the US first began expanding west of the Mississippi River, then into the Caribbean, then into Central and South America (with the Monroe Doctrine), the Pacific (the Spanish-American war), Asia (through World War I, and into the Cold War), Europe (World War II), the Middle East and south Asia (WWI, WWII through present). In a very serious sense, the US has already taken over much of the world. It has overwhelming firepower and strategic military positioning throughout the world, which basically grants veto power in most global affairs.

So when it came to Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, and so on…), there was never a question of whether the US would employ an imperialist policy, but which imperialist strategy would be used.

The Middle East and south Asia are central to this policy; the Middle East's resources have been described by the US as the "greatest material prize in world history", and control over how (or whether) those are developed, and who benefits, is currently the most important strategic leverage in the world (but other resources such as nuclear fuel, mineral ore and clean/renewable water are competing for that position). South Asia is important for its value to Asian and Eurasian powers like India, China and Russia, all of which are more formidable competition to the US than any other power today. So it's no surprise to see US foreign policy focused in that region.

What's often not discussed is that the US is just as entrenched in Latin America. This is partly because the US imperial strategy there has become more subtle, and has even lost some traction. But it's primarily because the US has claimed the entire western hemisphere as its domain since Monroe. It's simply not news.

But to add a little more depth to the "take over the world" point, one thing that gets missed is that competing powers also cooperate. The US is happy to have a relatively autonomous European region, because Europe typically acts in the interests of the US (they saw to that with the Marshall Plan). Economic agreements like NAFTA or organizations like the WTO may benefit competing powers like China and Mexico (well, it benefits the upper classes in each), but they also fit into the overall US strategy. And so on.

[stilltrucking]

Just a couple of random quotes and a statement of obscurity. I been reading along with you eyelidlessness but have not found to prescence of mind to reply. My mind is so muddled these days. At first I thought you were being naive but I am appreciating your thougths more as I chew on them.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtop ... 37&t=17848

we're a paper tiger
with a soft underbelly
we got stealth bombers with global reach
via tankers lots a gas
but we can't keep the peace
anywhere
http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtop ... lly#p63170

I been reading about something called "the white-male" effect. it might relate to this thread.