Obama with Afghan "leader" Hamid Karzai
So after brow beating Pakistan's civilian government for weeks to scuttle their peace plans with the "Taliban" in the Buner border region, the Pakistan military has lurched into the area flattening villages and displacing hundreds of thousands. Just more horror affecting a few million people that you and I won't see or even hear much about (unless an American soldier gets killed).
This offensive against the "Taliban" (what our government and media call anyone who takes up arms against the US military or their regional proxies) comes just as President Obama meets with the "leaders" of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and announces a brand new strategy to fight the Af-Pak war.
It also comes just a few weeks after the Pakistani government questioned the existence of "Al Qaeda" itself and denied it was in their country.
Here we are, 8 years on in Afghanistan, and President Obama is giving speeches in which he feels it necessary to actually tell us why "we" are in central Asia. Eight years of war and occupation and we still have to be told why the US is in Afghanistan? Could there be any better proof of the total moral bankruptcy of this war?
And why is DC in Afghanistan? Obama couldn't even keep it straight in his speech. At first he tells us that "we" are not there to dictate to the tribal peoples of these areas but in the next breath he tells us how he wants to protect the human rights of all in the region, especially women and girls. Noooo, that wouldn't involve dictating to the people of the region at all.
But mostly Obama justified the Afghan war, ludicrously, as a defensive war and he invoked, repeatedly- the "threat" from "Al Qaeda" that would exist if the "Taliban" took over. Now, "Al Qaeda" is whatever our government says it is. "Al Qaeda" is anyone who doesn't want the US in the region. Somalis who fight US backed warlords or their Ethiopian allies are not justified in doing so- nope- they are "Al Qaeda". Iraqis who fight the US are "Al Qaeda in Iraq". Afghanis who fight the US are "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda". No one is fighting the US because it has invaded their countries and installed puppet governments. No- all armed resistance to the US is from "terrorists" and "extremists" and "Al Qaeda" because our intentions in the region are just oh so darned good and without any self interested content whatsoever.
Side track question here. Just what would a legitimate resistance to the US military in the Middle East look like- one that our government would not call "terrorists" or extremists? Can our DC denizens even envision such?
So we are in Afghanistan to fight "Al Qaeda"- the guys who attacked us on 9/11. Now that reason is patently absurd. First of all- we have been told, in the past, how "al Qaeda" was all but defeated and how Osama didn't matter. But once again- just when DC needs to justify an escalation of war "Al Qaeda" (about which we are never told specifics or given hard facts) is a mortal threat to the entire planet again. Second, the notion that a "safe haven" was needed to carry out 9/11 is absurd. The plans laid for that attack could have been formulated and planned anywhere- and they mostly were! Terrorists don't need a base of operations. And they generally don't invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fixed fortifications or bunkers as we were spectacularly lied to about.
By the way? What does this "Al Qaeda" want? Well basically to establish a living hell on earth and torture puppies. That is, almost without exaggeration, what DC presents as the motives of their "enemies" in the region.
What about the "human rights" reason? That is a lie as well. The United States isn't concerned about the "human rights" of Saudis as it gladly supports one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. It does not care that the Maliki government in Iraq is filled with Shia extremists who are enforcing Sharia law on a country formerly the most secular in the Arab world. Doesn't care much that the current government in Afghanistan is also ruling by the dictates of the harshest interpretations of Islamic Law. But we are supposed to believe that the US is fighting for "human rights" in these regions?
The truly insulting thing about all these bogus reasons for the Af-Pak war are that they are so easily seen through by anyone who takes two minutes to examine them or who has even a minimal capacity for empathy. Say what you will about the necessity of the Cold War- but at least that had some coherent and plausible rationales behind it. The justifications for the "War on Terror" are laughably incoherent and false, and obviously so.
So if it isn't the idiotic excuse that the almost completely fictional "Al Qaeda" is going to attack and kill Americans, for no other reason than because we are innocent Americans who love freedom and they are evil ghouls who hate freedom, and if it isn't the "Human rights" and "Democracy" angle then what is the reason for why DC is in Afghanistan or for that matter- Iraq?
What about the oil and natural gas reason? In a twisted way I would actually be comforted if that were the case. Make no mistake, the US is going to exploit those resources for itself but I don't think even that self serving reason is the justification for these wars. After all- US oil companies would sign deals with the most unsavory of regimes on Earth and would do so gladly if it got them access to oil. War is not the most efficient route to secure resources.
The horrifying truth of the matter- the sickening reality of why the US is fighting the Af-Pak war is that it is war for war's sake. War is the reason. War is a government program that needs to be kept going. There is no definition of victory because victory is not wanted. The wars in the Middle East and Central Asia are being fought for the sake of war itself! War is a big part of the US economy and has been for decades and it is an end unto itself. The means isn't war- war is the end- perpetual never ending war.
When will this war end? I think this political discussion board poster sums it up best. He is talking about Iraq but it is true for the Af-Pak war as well:
The poster of that comment you cited seems to be operating under the premise that the Iraq War is a means to an end. The end being a free and secular Iraq favorable to US interests. That simply isn't the case.
The Iraq War is an end unto itself - a long simmering war with tolerably low casualties and extremely high overhead to enrich the Beltway players and MIC.
The war will go on for as long as Washington thinks they can get away with looting the American taxpayer and using their children for cannon fodder.
When they feel that the American people have been pushed to the precipice of the end of their tolerance (the one-party rule is genuinely in jeopardy) they will begin an overly extended troop draw down milking it for every last nickel.
Then with an Iraqi puppet ensconced, the remaining US forces will retreat to their permanent bases and "embassy" from where they can continue pillaging Iraqi resources.
The Empire will then be extended permanently that much further. After which the propaganda machine will go to work whipping up the next enemy (your guess is as good as mine) to do it all over again when the ever reliable short memories of Americans make it possible.
And if they fail in keeping their permanent bases - so what? They have already been built and paid for and trillions of dollars have been transferred from the citizenry to the MIC parasites. The war is without concrete goals because the war itself was the handsomely profitable goal.
GareGarretsGhost
Comments
When war is profitable you get more of it.
You'd think that after seven decades of uninterrupted warfare the populace might catch on, but obviously people don't care when they're so far removed from the fighting and misery and the cost at home is imperceptible.
Not a bad column - except for the typically and shamefully uncritical acceptance of the myth that "Al Qaeda" planned and executed 9/11. To use a few of Dowd's own words: Anyone who takes two minutes to examine the evidence or who has even a minimal amount of common sense and intelligence, knows that the "official theory" of 9/11 is a lie. That Dowd and practically all other antiwar bloggers and columnists refuse to question, let alone criticize the "official theory" is downright scandalous - and greatly undermines their own credibility.
Excellent job, Mr. Dowd -- the most insightful and honest article on the Af-Pak war I've read in a long time! Thank you!
I agree completely with your theory about the war. But the question is what are the implications of this theory for those who are trying to stop "war for war's sake." You might be interested in a speech I gave a couple years ago:
****************************
It's About Power
a speech by Doug Fuda
(November 11,2006)
Well, there's good news and bad news in the latest election results. The good news is that the American voters have rejected the Iraq war in the only way possible – by voting decisively against the ruling party. The bad news is that the Democrats have done nothing to deserve their victory – they have supported the war and the violence every step of the way and never lifted a finger to impede the neocon agenda. And in all likelihood the war and occupation will continue, maybe with some new window dressing or change in tactics, but the core policy of intervention and domination will be unchanged.
There is a vast gulf between ordinary folks and the professional politicians and militarists and war apologists in the media. The architects of the war – the American War Party, led by Bush and the neocons and including virtually all the leaders of both major parties, view the war from the point of view of power politics and public relations and a "might makes right mentality." But the American people have an evaluation of war that is based more on common sense and morality.
Common sense as in maybe the type of governments they have in Iraq or Lebanon or Syria is none of our business. Morality as in maybe it’s wrong for our so-called leaders to send the US Army half way around the world to attack and invade and destroy a defenseless nation that has never attacked us and then claim they are acting to defend America.
Somehow we have to translate this underlying common decency and antiwar sentiment of the people into something concrete and effective that can reverse the disastrous course we are on.
We in Antiwar League don’t pretend to have all the answers but we do have some fundamental beliefs that are worth your consideration:
First, we cannot focus only on the Iraq war but rather we must challenge the whole “war on terror” system. Iraq is only part of the overall war on terror, which is designed to put us on a permanent war footing, a war that will last for generations. It would be a great tragedy indeed if withdrawal from Iraq only presents the War Party with an opportunity to get involved in new, more dangerous wars, perhaps against Iran or Syria.
Secondly, perhaps the single most important lesson we must draw from the Iraq catastrophe is about power -- cold, naked power. We can’t hope to prevent future Iraqs by a transfer of power to different individuals or a different political party. In fact it is the highly centralized warmaking power of the federal government that is itself the greatest threat to peace. We must not seek to hand that power to a John Kerry or a Hilary Clinton or even a Ralph Nader or Cindy Sheehan. We must dismantle that power. No one should have that kind of power, because, as they say, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Assuming that our goal is to shut down the war on terror and dismantle and decentralize the federal power, in other words, to cut the bastards down to size, I would go one step further.
We can not rely on the politicians to do what has to be done. We have to do it ourselves if we want to save America. And we don't have to go to Washington DC to fight the war machine. The War Party's control is absolute in D.C., bolstered by a cheerleading media, byzantine secrecy, and massive quantities of military/industrial complex dollars.
But we don't have to try to change federal policy directly; rather we must actively refuse to cooperate with it at the level where we can fight effectively -- the local and state level. I call this the Antiwar Home Field Advantage.
Here are some examples of things to do:
1. Actively obstruct the military recruitment of our kids. Parents, teachers and students should demand of local school officials and city government that they defy the federal "No Child Left Behind Law" and expel the recruiters from our schools even if they threaten us with a cutoff of federal funds. We must not "sell" our children to the Masters of War for federal blood money. Tell them to shove it.
2. Indict Bush and/or his accomplices. Let's go to local and state courts and law enforcement officials and demand that they investigate the possibility of a conspiracy by federal officials to start a war of aggression. They have seized control of the Massachusetts National Guard in order to commit mass murder. Let's bring the Guard home now, prevent further deployment and indict the perpetrators. Rumsfeld is now a private citizen. Let's start with him if we can't get at Bush right away.
3. Refuse cooperation with the totalitarian Homeland Security project. "Department of Homeland Security!" The name itself is anti-American, Nazi-type language. We don't talk that way in Roslindale. These homeland security fanatics are creating institutions and technologies and whole industries that will alter our lives and our culture in unimaginable ways for decades to come. They are infiltrating our local police and fire departments with huge influxes of federal dollars for Homeland Security, in effect gaining control over these local institutions. One simple example: the MBTA police are now going to conduct random searches of our bags and take away our pocket knives and nail files and arrest us if we refuse. That's not gonna stop terrorists. It's just to make us afraid and more obedient to Big Brother. Let's put a stop to it.
4. We need to investigate 9/11 -- We will never know the full truth about the attacks if we rely on the federal government to investigate itself. First they failed to protect us in spite of their mega-billion dollar national security state, then they failed to conduct a serious investigation of that failure, instead plunging us into the endless war on terror which threatens to become a WW III. Everyone knows they are covering something up. How long are we going to put up with this?
Here's a proposal: two of the planes seized in the attacks originated at Logan Airport in Boston. We should demand that the governor of Massachusetts appoint a new independent panel with full investigative powers to get at the truth of what really happened.
These are just some examples of projects of resistance and refusal that are possible when we begin to advocate a localist strategy to challenge federal power. Similar efforts may already be underway in many places but we need to duplicate these efforts in thousands of communities. We should declare that we have a home field advantage against the War Party and that we intend to use it to peacefully but decisively dismantle the war machine. So that Iraq will end but more importantly so that it will never happen again.
Thank you.
**************************
Please contact me if you'd like to hear about what we are trying to do in the Boston area.
Doug Fuda
Roslindale, MA
Antiwar League
Guy,
Exactly. There is no cost to our elite for these wars against hapless third worlders on the other side of the globe. They can't inflict any real harm on this country and the attacks they can make- "Terrorist" ones- only serve to further strengthen DC.
Worst case scenario for the parasite MIC and the Beltway players is that they "lose"? And what does that entail? Picking up their toys and coming home- building a monument to the rubes from flyover country who died fighting in it- and then it is off to plan the next elective foreign war against another absurd cartoon bogeyman- and they get dumber and more idiotic with each passing decade. I fully expect the next "Mad Man" (all enemies of the US are "mad men" by the way) will be wearing a cape and mask and live in a "secret lair".
A very good speech, Doug, with some interesting ideas for resistance and refusal. Alas, most people don't have to time or desire to read anymore, and I venture to say most readers of Dowd's column won't go on to read your (equally long) speech. Furthermore, have you any concrete and encouraging successes under your belt since giving the speech 2 1/2 years ago? Unfortunately, I doubt it. "Change" comes at a snail's pace, if it comes at all, and Obama has shown time and again in the last 3 1/2 months since taking office that no real, tangible change will coming from his end. "Status quo" and "Politics as usual" should be his mottos.
Kurt,
I accept that criticism. Let me just say this: If two Russian skyscrapers were knocked down by terrorists in 2001 and that was the spring board for a Russian Invasion on the other side of the globe - and the terrorists they had arrested for this deed had been kept in dungeons for 7 years and tortured and then Russia announced that it was inventing a whole new justice system - a military one- just for the "masterminds" of the skyscraper attack- trials that would not be open to the public . . . let me just say I would be slightly incredulous and I would be inclined to say that such actions are not indicative of a government with nothing to hide.
Doug,
Thanks for the post. I have long held that there is no change possible through the two party fraud and any effort expended trying to appeal to DC would be absolutely a waste of time. Local action, as you described, would be far more effective.
I would like to say that my sense of morality is why I am opposed to these wars, and that is part of it- a big part of it, but frankly- what galls me the most is how much of a chump DC takes me for in their justifications for these "wars". The sense of insult to my intelligence and the affront to my common sense is actually what animates the core of my opposition.
The devolution into empire, with its attendant business of perpetual war to sustain itself, is complete. Perhaps amending the Constitution to replace the single executive with two annually elected counsuls (like Rome before the Ceasars) term limited to a single would weaken the trend to empire. But so long as the appearance of war = profit exists, probably not.
Christopher,
Another brilliant column helping me to reevaluate my perception. I have spent years searching and arguing over the "reasons" for the fake "war on terror", never having considered that the war itself was always the end.
I still wonder if peak oil is real and if the global chess match is about determining who owns the last drops of oil...
It may be that "our" goal is not just to wage war , but to actually nurture reactions - which can then be relabeled as "al Quaeda" .
In essence the game may be to breed discontent and violence in order to justify the original big lie .
The difference in cultures and lack of real understanding by most Americans , I think , allows for the governments propaganda to take hold .I'm not sure what can be done to stop this massive hoax - one that will surely take many many lives ...
Kurt asks if we have any concrete successes under our belt? The answer is yes. Nothing spectacular but we have a new type of organization centered in Boston that includes people from across the political spectrum and also promotes a concrete, strictly antiwar platform. We are developing new strategies and tactics to achieve that platform, including localist means of fighting the DC War Party. We are also prepared to figure out a way to reach people who do not read long articles.
We intend to change the existing old-fashioned Antiwar movement (which is collapsing due in large part to the Obama effect) or to replace it. Anyone who wants to learn more and/or help us is welcome to contact me directly. This comment section does not allow links but you can go to our website (antiwarleague.com) to learn how to reach me by phone or email.
Doug
Wow you nail it Chris, and Doug I agree with your points on 9/11 too. I have been pushing an agenda with my Jobs for Afghans to try to wake people up to the fact that if we flooded Afghanistan with money and jobs, for a fraction of the price of the occupation, the "Taliban" problem disappears. (JobsForAfghans-DOT-org)
But of course it's not as profitable. I see a silver lining of hope to this economic crisis, for the first time in many years a sufficient number of people are no longer fat and happy, and may start to question closely where all their money went. DC and its supporters may have over-reached their greed. They weren't happy looting the trillion or so dollars through the Iraq War, merely miring the country in endless debt. Now they want peoples' very homes and IRAs and 401Ks, and they are getting them. They are gleefully bargain-hunting the mutual funds that workers had to sell at all-time lows just to eat.
The challenge is to make the links clear on who to blame, so people understand how they've been had with bogeymen of the month for the MIC, who are the same people who also own stock in BoA and Merrill Lynch. The Tea Party movement is a sluggish awakening of people looking around for someone to blame. I think right-wing radio and TV's attempt appropriate their anger and to define it as merely anti-Obama shows they are running scared. Now is the time to reach out, link up, and educate with articles just like this, same with 9/11 Truth.
Doug's platform is right on. I urge you and your astute commenters here to go post at sites like military-DOT-com and ALIPAC-DOT-org, and Facebook Tea Parties. ALIPAC is mainly concerned with illegal immigration, but it has a huge audience and an "other topics" area with vigorous discussion. These are the VERY people from "flyover country" that WE need to reach, who are feeding their kids to the MIC. What I hit over and over:
1. Your money didn't just disappear. Someone took it. Here's who and how (MIC, Iraq War, bogeyman of the month, bailouts for billionaires)
2. Impeach the Executive Branch, no matter who is sitting in it. Obama now seems intent on not punishing torturers, keeping FISA powers, keeping the Military Commissions Act, and fighting war for war's sake, as you point out Chris, to name a few. Now it's not Obama or Bush who is the enemy, it's the Executive Branch. In many countries, when the people win their freedom, they have to go through three of four presidents one after the other until one understands the people mean business and gets it right for awhile.
3. Show how campaign contributions from the MIC and the financial services industry to congresscritters results in 100,000 or 200,000 or more PERCENT returns on investment. People must understand. We need stories of wiped-out grannies who are collecting cans chaining themselves to congressmens' desks. I do a little of this analysis here:
"This Crisis Made Me Buy a Smaller Villa"
mydd-DOT-com/story/2009/5/9/195133/3067
Let's party like it's 1773!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!