Why Are We Occupying Afghanistan Again?

Dr. William Brydon, the only British survivor of the 1842 defeat of an entire British army between Kabul & Jalalabad

Although the phrase has been reworked and endlessly repeated-- primarily by high school history teachers-- I believe it was George Santayana who first said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (in the first volume of The Life of Reason). Today, though, I have nothing to say about Alexander the Great, the Czarist Russians, The British, the Great Game or the Soviets and their misadventures in Central Asia. Let's keep this little history lesson all post-9/11.

Eric Margolis is best known as "an expert" on the Middle East, primarily in Canada, where he's a contributing editor for the Toronto Sun and a go-to journalist for all things Asia and all things Islam. Here in the states we know him as someone who CNN and Fox use frequently. He made his bones embedded with the mujahadeen when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan before most Americans knew what embedded journalists were. Margolis is a conservative, though decidedly not a neo-conservative.

Yesterday he endeavored to teach his Canadian readers a little history about the current conflict in Afghanistan without once mentioning Alexander and Roxanna, the Simla Manifesto, or even Leonid Brezhnev or Mikhail Gorbachev. He starts with a version of another much-quoted aphorism, California Senator Hiram Johnson's 1918 statement that "The first casualty when war comes is truth," although some insist he got it from either Aeschylus or Sun Tzu. Margolis's point is that the current tragedy in Afghanistan is based on an utterly false premise, that "we've got to fight terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home." Few know better than him, through years of on-the-ground, gritty first hand experience how utterly untue this is. Americans, though they oppose escalating the war and though they tend to be unfocused and confused about Afghanistan, also tend to think the World Trade towers attacks were planned out either by the Taliban or by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan with the connivance of the Taliban. "False," says Margolis.

The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by U.S.-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.

Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Taliban received U.S. aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies.

Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Barack Obama insists 68,000 or more U.S. troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from re-acquiring "terrorist training camps."

This claim, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public... Taliban are the sons of the U.S.-backed mujahidin who defeated the Soviets in the 1980s. As I have been saying since 9/11, Taliban never was America's enemy. Instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. should have paid Taliban to uproot al-Qaida.

The Pashtun tribes want to end foreign occupation and drive out the Afghan Communists, who now dominate the U.S.-installed Kabul regime. But the U.S. has blundered into a full-scale war not just with Taliban, but with most of Afghanistan's fierce Pashtun tribes, who comprise over half the population.

Obama is wrestling with widening the war. After eight years of military operations costing $236 billion US, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of "failure," a.k.a. defeat. Canada has so far wasted $16 billion Cdn. on the war. Western occupation forces will be doomed if the Afghan resistance ever gets modern anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

The U.S. is sinking ever deeper into the South Asian morass. Washington is trying to arm-twist Pakistan into being more obedient and widening the war against its own independent-minded Pashtun tribes-- wrongly called "Taliban."

Washington's incredibly ham-handed efforts to use $7.5 billion US to bribe Pakistan's feeble, corrupt government and army, take control of military promotions, and get a grip on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, have Pakistan's soldiers on the verge of revolt.

Obama has been under intense pressure from flag-waving Republicans, much of the media, and the hawkish national security establishment to expand the war. Israel's supporters, including many Congressional Democrats, want to see the U.S. seize Pakistan's nuclear arms and expand the Afghan
war into Iran.

Obama should admit Taliban is not and never was a threat to the West; that the wildly exaggerated al-Qaida has been mostly eradicated; and that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is causing more damage to U.S. interests in the Muslim world-- now 25% of all humanity-- than Bin Laden and his few rag-tag allies. The bombing in Madrid and London, and conspiracy in Toronto, were all horribly wrongheaded protests by young Muslims against the Afghan war.

We are not going to change the way Afghans treat their women by waging war on them, or bring democracy through rigged elections.

The U.S. presence in Afghanistan, which, understandably is now widely looked at by the people there as a horribly foreign and often brutal and deadly occupation of their country, is making the resistance bigger, stronger and more widespread. In Friday's Boston Globe Bryan Bender pointed to American intelligence reports showing that the insurgents battling U.S. troops are fighting for lots of reasons but being religiously motivated Talban supporters is not high on the list of most of them; some are anti-Taliban. Only about 10% of the insurgency is Taliban-oriented now. No doubt, though, thousands will flock to collect the bribes Obama is leaning towards giveing Afghans who agree to forsake the Taliban.

Americans don't get Afghanistan, don't get Pashtunwali and need to pack up and leave the Afghans to themselves. As Alan Grayson (D-FL) said a few days ago, the best foreign policy is to just leave people alone. Grayson:

I’ve been to 175 countries all around the world including Afghanistan, including every country in that region, and what I’ve seen everywhere I go is that there are some commonalties everywhere you go. Everywhere you go people want to fall in love. It’s an interesting thing. Everywhere you go, people love children. Everywhere, they love children. Everywhere you go, there’s a taboo against violence. Every single place you go. And everywhere you go, people want to be left alone. And that’s the best foreign policy of all. Just to leave people alone.

Make sense to you? Grayson was one of the 32 Democrats who voted against the supplemental budget to fund the war back on June 16. No Means No is an opportunity to thank him and his colleagues and to encourage other members of Congres sto get on board. Please click the link and lend a hand.