Posted on 11/12/2001 2:06:17 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
November 12, 2001
THE WAR IS A TRAP
We've taken the bait
Two months into the war, and the Americans were hard-pressed to point to a single success, never mind the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. The argument that the Afghan war is a quagmire waiting to swallow them seemed more credible than ever, and significant voices of dissent were beginning to be raised, in Europe if not quite yet in America. Then, suddenly, a "victory" – the Northern Alliance, our foot-soldiers on the ground, scored a major success with the taking of Mazar-i-Sharif, and our laptop bombardiers exulted: On to Kabul! Ah, but not so fast…
'TOTAL MAYHEM'
President Bush was quick to announce that "We will encourage our friends to head south, but not into the city of Kabul itself." Oh? And why not? the media wanted to know. Bush was vague on this point, but his guest, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, was more forthcoming, bluntly stating that the last time these guys took Kabul – from the Soviets – they carried out "total atrocities," and "mayhem" was the order of the day: "And I think if the northern alliance enters Kabul we'll see the same kind of atrocities being perpetuated against the people there." He might well have added: and, just like last time, Pakistan will have to deal with half a million refugees, as Afghans fleeing their "liberators" pour over the border in an unstoppable human wave.
NO CUDDLING
The American reluctance to cuddle up to the Northern Alliance is justified on a number of levels. To begin with, Musharraf is right about their thuggish proclivities: Human Rights Watch has detailed their sorry record on this score. After all, the very success of the Taliban in overthrowing them to begin with was due, in large part, to the Northerners' brutal campaign of pillage, rapine, and mass murder, which did not exactly endear them to their subjects. The Taliban, for all their ferocity, seemed like they might be an improvement over the Alliance: at least the violence of the former was predictable and focused on implementing some concept of law, even if it meant an absurdly extreme interpretation of the Sharia, or Islamic law. The violence of the Northern Alliance was – and is – utterly lawless. Just on moral grounds alone, they are insupportable (unless, of course, you're Bill Kristol or Richard Perle, in which case the horrific human rights record of our unsavory Afghan allies is just another way to show how tough-minded we are).
THE AFGHAN SNAKE PIT
On practical grounds, however, the Northerners are even less attractive as a potential proxy force for the US. To begin with, the ethnic make-up of this tenuous Alliance makes its victory highly unlikely: for it is an alliance of three minorities which, taken together, add up to barely 50 percent of the population. Tajik supporters of (Tajik) President Burhanuddin Rabbani and Uzbeks of the Junbish-I-Milli party, have joined together with the Shi'ite Muslim Hazara of the Hezb-i-Wahdat against their common enemy of the moment. Riven by intense rivalries, these disparate and fully autonomous groupings have continually fought one another over the years, and could turn on one another at a moment's notice. And then there is the problem of the lack of military leadership….
A DEAD END
Nominally headed by President Rabbani, the Northern Alliance was up until September dominated by its military leader, the Tajik Commander Ahmed Shah Masood. Masood's untimely assassination at the hands of Bin Ladenite agents threw the leadership into the hands of a very dicey character, even by Afghan standards, Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum. In the 1980s, Dostum joined with Soviet puppet President Najibullah in fighting the anti-Communist insurgents: when the rebels took Kabul he decided to go with a winner and abruptly switched sides. The Taliban regime sent him fleeing northward, where he established his own fiefdom headquartered in Mazar-i-Sharif; although he was being aided by Russia, India, and Iran, Dostum couldn't hold on even to that, and was soon driven out of the country. He took refuge in Turkey, and, on his return, once again joined up with the Northern Alliance: the Uzbek commander was the logical successor to Masood until he, too, was killed by the Taliban, struck down a few weeks after Masood's death, during the siege of Mazar-i-Sharif. Without military leadership, and with the support of a rapidly shrinking sector of the population, the Northern Alliance is a strategic dead-end, and the Bush administration knows it.
WAR BY PROXY
The success of the proxy force strategy rests on the task of somehow appealing to the Pashtun majority in the central and southern regions of the country, including the area around Kabul, but there is little chance of that at the present juncture. The only other contender for Pashtun loyalties who might be enticed into the ranks of the Alliance is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, onetime leader of the Islamic Party, known as the Butcher of Kabul: his siege of that city in 1992 resulted in 20,000 civilian deaths. Not many relish the thought of Hekmatyar's return. In any case, he has just announced that he might indeed return – to fight at the side of the Taliban.
INTO THE QUAGMIRE
As we get bogged down in the details of which tribe should get which ministerial post in a postwar government, the distance from the original cause of the war grows until the connection between the two is so tenuous as to be nonexistent (or, at least, deniable). Only the other day, US combat commander Tommy Franks did indeed deny it, declaring that the targeting of Bin Laden – "dead or alive," as Bush put it – is not the goal of the US military mission. But then, what is the goal? The overthrow of the Taliban? The restoration of the Afghan monarchy? The "liberation" of Afghan women? The implantation of democracy in the most inhospitable soil imaginable? The conquest of Afghanistan by US troops and the creation of a giant Bosnia in the midst of Central Asia? As the original justification for the war gets lost in a welter of political and military maneuvers, any and all of the above will tend to fill the vacuum – and we will have fallen into the very clever trap Bin Laden has laid for us.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DEFEAT
The bombing of the Beirut barracks, in which 241 American soldiers were killed, and the assaults on the Khobar military outpost in Saudi Arabia, must surely serve as a warning to American policymakers who might otherwise not hesitate to establish a US military presence in Afghanistan – or anywhere in the region. Our own bases on the Saudi peninsula are precarious and exposed enough as it is, without setting ourselves up for an even larger-scale potential disaster. If the logistics don't defeat us, the weather and the Afghans' well-earned reputation for being fiercely resistant to foreign invaders will – and this is one instance where a defeat is out of the question, as far as the Bushies are concerned.
THE POLITICS OF ESCALATION
As usual, our warmongering punditocracy, insulated by ignorance and motivated by sheer bloodlust, is clamoring for Bush to "unleash" the Northern Alliance and biting at his heels about the likelihood of sending in US ground troops. Their darling, Senator John McCain, is palavering about the alleged necessity of this course, and this chorus, together with the "on to Baghdad" crowd, is howling for escalation. The Bushies, for their part, seem torn, caught between the Powellian strategy of using both military and political pressure to split the Taliban and get at Al Qaeda, and the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz school of steady escalation. Clearly, the administration realizes that the "northern strategy" of using the Alliance as a proxy force would unite most Afghans against the foreign invaders. What they aim to do is to isolate Bin Laden, both politically and militarily, casting Al Qaeda in the role of the foreign invasion force. It is a tricky maneuver which may be impossible for the President and his Secretary of State to pull off, not so much due to resistance on the part of the Taliban, but because of political pressure on the home front. The McCainiacs and their neocon handlers are pushing for an American Jihad, fought by American troops, on the ground in Afghanistan, and if the Powell strategy doesn't bear fruit before the onset of winter the momentum for escalation may be unstoppable.
AN ASTUTE ANALYSIS
I was struck by something the writer Tariq Ali said to an interviewer, in answer to a typically leftoid question:
Q.: "What would you say is at stake in this war? What is the center of the dispute: access to gas and water in the Middle East, establishment of hegemony in the Islamic world, assuring a permanent U.S. presence in the region, or none of the above?"
Tariq Ali: "I really don't believe that this war was begun for economic gain. We, on the left, are always quick to look for the economic reasons and usually we're right, but not this time. I think the war was basically a response to domestic pressure after the events of September 11. There were choices to be made. The US could have decided to treat this for what it was: a criminal act and not an act of war. They chose war. Obviously they will use it to strengthen and assert US global hegemony on all three fronts: political, military and economic, but first they have to get out of the situation they're in."
The situation, I might add, we are all in. It is a very astute analysis, one that avoids America-bashing and Bush-bashing while identifying the tragic dilemma faced by this administration. Although he doesn't quite say it, Ali clearly sees that Bush is right on one major point: we didn't start this war. We didn't choose this battle, it has been chosen for us. But how we fight it is vital to the question of whether we succeed or not, or else create a worse disaster.
AT WHAT PRICE?
And here we stumble on real reason for this war: the need to appease domestic opinion, to appear to be doing something – anything! – as long as it looks and feels decisive. Furthermore, our leaders, of course, are only human: they, too, have emotional reactions, which often overshadow the national interest. Vengeance on behalf of the victims of 9/11 is emotionally satisfying – but the question is, what price will we pay for that satisfaction?
VENGEANCE VERSUS THE NATIONAL INTEREST
The US national interest is in no way served by the destabilization of Pakistan, and the news in this regard is hardly comforting: the latest is that Islamabad is relocating its nuclear weapons out of the country. Kashmir is about to explode, and this could trigger a nuclear exchange with Pakistan's arch-rival, India. Across the Muslim world, the "street" is roiling and ready to explode in a paroxysm of rage, bringing down pro-Western governments from Cairo to Riyadh, threatening even Turkey. Such a pan-Muslim uprising would throw the world economy into chaos, with the West's access to oil blocked: our recession could well turn into a worldwide depression.
GOD HELP AMERICA
A war fought against this ominous backdrop would soon take on the character of a global cataclysm. The most farseeing advisors to the President surely see this: God help us if they fail to convince Bush. For in that case, we are all screwed, and nothing short of a miracle can save us.
Because we had a disipated hedonist in office. Now that we have actual leadership, it would be remiss to simply allow the murder of 4500 Americans to go unavenged. Or, do you wish us to just continue to accept such violations?
It's at least worth us taking a shot at doing what we can to help the creation of a stable coalition government there, if possible.
Otherwise, the Taliban or some other radical group could well be in charge in twelve months, and we'd be in the same situation we were on 9/11, all over again.
Maybe that's inevitable anyway, but we can't be sure unless we give it a try, and thus we should indeed try.
It's like the old Western movies -- we're kicking out the Taliban because they're like the corrupt sheriff who was actually part of the criminal gang tearing up the town (and the surrounding towns). But just kicking out the corrupt sheriff accomplishes little if you don't make sure to fill the vacuum with an honest sheriff who will nip any future crime in the bud. Otherwise any remaining thugs can just take over the town again as soon as you ride out into the sunset.
It's in our own national interest to try to help the good guys in Afghanistan (or lacking that, the less rabidly anti-American guys) to take and hold power in Afghanistan.
Personally, I'd rather not have to invade Afghanistan every four years to track down the latest band of government-sponsored terrorists. The best way to do that is to try to build the foundations of an Afghani government that will prosecute terrorists instead of support them. The best way to do that is to give the new government more incentive to do business with us than to attack us. But that won't happen if we just kill off their old government then "get the hell out", as you say.
We need to stay, at least in spirit, and build a relationship with the new government there. Or else we'll be back to square one in a few years.
I can be succinct too: You are entitled to your mistaken, uninformed opinion.
Insert poultry "buc buc buc" noises here...
Thanks for the laughs.
Maybe that's inevitable anyway, but we can't be sure unless we give it a try, and thus we should indeed try.
We've "given it a try" too many times to count, from Somalia to Bosnia to Haiti to Kosovo and so on and so on. There simply is no record of a single success; just a ton of wasted taxpayer money, enriched corrupt officials and Western consultants, an impoverished population, and authoritarianism. What is the saying about continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results being the definition of insanity?
Post-WW II Japan, Germany, post-cold-war Russia, not to mention Panama, and a lot of others we had a hand in helping a new government to form, but hadn't fought a war with first.
Would you care to retract your bogus statement?
What is the saying about continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results being the definition of insanity?
And what's the old saying about the dishonesty of mentioning only the things that support your claim, and pretending that counter-examples don't exist?
No.
They are still unavenged. The WTC and Pentagon were attacked by Saudis and Egyptians and we have bombed Afghanis who did not participate.
This is an excellent point he's making. I'm not familiar with this writer; he's good. Is he relatively new?
Post-WW II Japan, Germany, post-cold-war Russia, not to mention Panama, and a lot of others we had a hand in helping a new government to form, but hadn't fought a war with first. Would you care to retract your bogus statement?
What on earth are you talking about? First, Germany and Japan, as already discussed, essentially rebuilt themselves without US assistance, most of which was political (denazification etc).
And post Cold War Russia???? You are holding this up as a great success of nation-building??? Do you have even a minor clue about where our money was wasted in Russia? Corruption is STILL estimated at 15 billion dollars a year. You think Russia is a great success of our nation-building? Seriously, I would really like to know why you feel this way. What is your criteria?
And Panama??? This is your only other example of successful nation-building? You call this a success? Been to Panama lately?
And what's the old saying about the dishonesty of mentioning only the things that support your claim, and pretending that counter-examples don't exist?
THESE are your counter-examples??? Again, what is you criteria for success? Otherwise, I rest my case.
The Northern Alliance will be our next problem.
But "problem" is a relative term. An unruly -- "unstable" -- Northern Alliance will require all the more American/UN presence there, more arms sales, more government-funded NGOs, more high-paid Western consultants. Once the interventionist train is boarded, there are nothing but good times ahead for those who make their living off of the New World Order.
Scapegoating is a hostile social - psychological discrediting routine by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves and towards a target person or group. It is also a practice by which angry feelings and feelings of hostility may be projected, via inappropriate accusation, towards others. The target feels wrongly persecuted and receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism; he is likely to suffer rejection from those who the perpetrator seeks to influence. Scapegoating has a wide range of focus: from "approved" enemies of very large groups of people down to the scapegoating of individuals by other individuals. Distortion is always a feature.
Last line in the definition is sooo true. The trouble is 9 out of 10 humans respond to emotional arguments before rational ones. The general masses don't even know it to be the case. Only brainier individuals and those who run the mass media do and act upon it respectively. Should they call you a coward; there is another good read for you.
Post-WW II Japan, Germany, post-cold-war Russia, not to mention Panama, and a lot of others we had a hand in helping a new government to form, but hadn't fought a war with first. Would you care to retract your bogus statement?What on earth are you talking about? First, Germany and Japan, as already discussed, essentially rebuilt themselves without US assistance, most of which was political (denazification etc).
Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who was so massively ignorant of history...
Let's make Japan the object of today's lesson, shall we? You said that they "essentially rebuilt themselves, without US assistance".
I see.
So tell me, just what do you think Douglas MacArthur and the US occupation forces were doing in Japan from 1945 through 1952?
MacArthur was appointed the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers and set up shop in Yokohama. Most historians describe MacArthur as being the "virtual dictator" of Japan in the post-war years, and they're absolutely correct.
MacArthur ruled Japan by decree, his directives had the force of law.
On September 2, 1945, he issued General Directive #1, ordering the Japanese to disarm. Seven tons of samurai swords were confiscated and shipped to San Francisco.
By decree, he implemented women's suffrage and equality in the workplace, dismantled the war industry, implemented the country's first free elections (April 1946), formed labor unions, broke up monopolies (the Zaibatsu industrial cartels - Nov 6 1945), and implemented open instruction in schools and mandatory school attendance.
He dissolved the existing police forces and released all political prisoners.
He lifted all restrictions on political, civil, and religious freedoms.
He removed Shintoism as a state religion (Directive of December 8, 1945) and oversaw the conversion of two million Japanese to Christianity.
He "encouraged" the emperor to publicly renounce his divinity and reject the Japanese concept of racial superiority (January 1, 1946).
In February 1946 he personally wrote (with the help of his staff) the new Constitution for Japan which went into effect in 1947. It's strikingly similar to the US Constitution (free speech, sovereign power lies with the people, government broken up into legislative/executive/judicial branches, guarantees for human rights, amendment via bills passed in the legislative branch then ratified by the people, etc.) As a result it made the emperor purely a figurehead. The main departure from the US Constitution was Article 9, which outlawed any Japanese army or military action, clearly something the Japanese would not have adopted on their own initiative.
He and his office wrote over 700 new laws which were rubberstamped by the Japanse congress (Diet), including the abolition of the hereditary ruling classes and nobility, liberalized divorce, and massive land reform -- under the latter 89% of Japanese farm land was converted to ownership by the farmers who worked it. Five million acres changed hands.
He implemented public health programs including vaccinations, which saved an estimated two million lives (more than the Japanese war dead), helping to increase Japanese life expectancy by eight years for men, fourteen for women.
During the first half of the occupation, Japan's media was subject to a rigid censorship of any anti-American statements and controversial topics such as the race issue. MacArthur also placed restrictions on the Japanese Communist party.
In 1952, the San Francisco treaty ended the American occupation of Japan and returned the country to self-rule.
At the start of the occupation in 1945, Japan was a feudal dictatorship with a state religion. At the end of the occupation in 1952, due to the directives of American General Douglas MacArthur, Japan was a capitalistic democracy with a bill of rights, and has remained so for the next 49 years.
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about how Japan "essentially rebuilt themselves without US assistance"?
What was that you were saying about how all the US attempts at nation building have been abject failures?
I repeat -- would you care to retract your bogus claims?
THESE are your counter-examples???
Yes, they are. Unlike you, I actually know a bit of history. I note that all *your* examples date back no farther than the Clinton administration. Gosh, maybe that might explain both the failures themselves, and your own short-sightedness.
A bit of advice -- history extends back just a bit farther than the Clinton inauguration. Go learn something about it (you'll find it those things called "books" in the library), and maybe your next pronouncements won't be so laughably ignorant and wrong.
Otherwise, I rest my case.
Good, because it would be sad to see you dig yourself any deeper.
MacArthur ruled Japan by decree, his directives had the force of law. On September 2, 1945, he issued General Directive #1, ordering the Japanese to disarm. Seven tons of samurai swords were confiscated and shipped to San Francisco. By decree, he implemented women's suffrage and equality in the workplace, dismantled the war industry, implemented the country's first free elections (April 1946), formed labor unions, broke up monopolies (the Zaibatsu industrial cartels - Nov 6 1945), and implemented open instruction in schools and mandatory school attendance. He dissolved the existing police forces and released all political prisoners. He lifted all restrictions on political, civil, and religious freedoms. He removed Shintoism as a state religion (Directive of December 8, 1945) and oversaw the conversion of two million Japanese to Christianity. He "encouraged" the emperor to publicly renounce his divinity and reject the Japanese concept of racial superiority (January 1, 1946). etc etc etc
You made my point entirely: the billions we spent "rebuilding" the world after WWII was primarily focused on de-nazification and de-emperorization. Where did I say otherwise? As far as building their modern industrial societies, they for the most part did it themselves. You can be as sarcastic as you like; that does not change the fact that the core of your argument is a complete non-starter.
You're seriously deluded, aren't you?
Just who do you think you're fooling here? Other than yourself, I mean.
For seven years, the entire nation of Japan was taken apart, politically, economically, and socially, and then reassembled from the ground up into something entirely different by direct orders from the occupying US forces.
Then you come along and laughably call this "rebuilding themselves without US assistance".
Give it up, son, no one's buying your nonsense. Least of all me. You were caught being an idiot, the honorable thing to do would be to retract your original statement. Instead, you say *I* prove *your* bogus point?
Seek help, man.
Tell you what -- I'll start a new thread on this topic tomorrow, and let the history-minded Freepers play referee on this one. This ought to be fun...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.