[Peace-discuss] Afghanistan: Why?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Obama et al. are simply lying when they say that we are "in" [= killing people 
in] Afghanistan to "stop terrorism" - unless terrorism be (properly) understood 
as armed resistance to US invasion and occupation of the oil-producing region.  
--CGE


On 6/29/11 3:35 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> [Questions like this one may lead us to recognize that Barack Obama, like most 
> other US politicians, had bought into the geopolitical policies of America's 
> tiny corporate elite - as a condition of his being taken seriously as a 
> presidential contender. (Compare the fates of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.) The 
> war in Afghanistan was never about terrorism and always about US control of 
> the region that contains most of the world's energy resources - the "world's 
> greatest material prize" said the State Department after WWII - a region the 
> approaches to which extend from North Africa to the Indus valley, and from 
> Central Asia to the Horn of Africa.]
>
> The Unanswered Question in Afghanistan Is, Why?
> Wednesday 29 June 2011
> by: Jim Hightower, Truthout | Op-Ed
>
> Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, captured during the opening remarks at 
> the Annual Meeting 2008 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, 
> January 23, 2008. (Photo: Annette Boutellier / World Economic Forum)
>
> America's long, long war in Afghanistan has drained more than 1,500 precious 
> lives and a trillion dollars from our country. But, finally, this enormous 
> outlay paid off this year with the capture and killing of that al-Qaida demon, 
> Osama bin Laden, who attacked America and was the reason our military went 
> into Afghanistan.
>
> Oh, wait -- Osama wasn't in Afghanistan, was he? He was comfortably ensconced 
> in an urban compound in Pakistan, whose leaders are supposedly our allies in 
> the bloody Afghan War. And it wasn't the war effort that got bin Laden, it was 
> old-time spy work, culminating in a raid involving a small team of Navy Seals, 
> a dog and two helicopters.
>
> So why have two presidents and a decade of Congress dumped so many lives and 
> so much money into a country that poses no threat to us? Afghanistan is an 
> impoverished, anarchic, largely illiterate land that's split into ancient 
> tribal factions and innumerable fiefdoms controlled by rival warlords. They 
> have no desire or ability to attack us, some 8,000 miles away.
>
> The only reason we're given for being in Afghanistan is that we must keep the 
> al-Qaida terrorists network from establishing bases there. But -- like bin 
> Laden -- al-Qaida left this country years ago and now operates transnationally 
> in Pakistan, Yemen, Uzbekistan and elsewhere, including England and Germany.
>
> Yet, we're told we must continue to pour American lives, dollars and 
> reputation into Afghanistan. But ... why? To create a central, democratically 
> elected government with a 300,000-member army and police force, we're told. 
> But why? To stabilize the country, they say. But, why? To keep al-Qaida out, 
> they repeat, closing the endless loop on a Kafkaesque rational.
>
> Stay informed with free Truthout updates delivered straight to your email 
> inbox. Click here to sign up.
>
> Yes, President Obama has finally started a slow withdrawal of U.S. troops, but 
> that'll take at least three years, more than $300 billion and untold numbers 
> of shattered lives. The questions remains: Why?
>
> At least one person was giddy with excitement upon hearing President Obama's 
> announcement on June 22 that all of America's combat troops would depart from 
> Afghanistan by 2014: Hamid Karzai.
>
> "A moment of happiness for Afghanistan," exulted the incurably corrupt, inept, 
> weak and pompous Afghan president. Our leaders put this ingrate in power, and 
> both the lives of our soldiers and billions of our tax dollars have been spent 
> to prop up his sorry excuse for a government -- yet he's the one saying "good 
> riddance." It puts the dumb in dumbfounding.
>
> The dumbest and most shameful aspect of America's 10-year Afghan War is the 
> pretension that Karzai represents an exercise in democracy-building. Installed 
> in the presidency by dictate of the Bush-Cheney regime in 2002, he is widely 
> despised and ridiculed by the people and has clung to power only through 
> flagrant electoral fraud, not only in his two presidential "elections," but 
> also in last year's parliamentary contest.
>
> Karzai was PO'd that 62 candidates he favored lost or were disqualified by the 
> country's independent election commission because of fraud. So, Hamid 
> haughtily set up his own special court to review those results, while also 
> bringing criminal charges against several of the independent election 
> commissioners.
>
> Last week, only one day after Obama's withdrawal announcement, Karzai's 
> kangaroo court disqualified the 62 parliamentary winners, replacing them with 
> his chosen ones. Of course, the 62 winners are refusing to budge from their 
> seats. This has created a governmental stalemate, but that suits Karzai 
> perfectly, for it allows him the defacto power to rule without parliament. As 
> a top opposition leader puts it: "Karzai does not believe in the rule of law; 
> he thinks democracy doesn't work in his favor."
>
> It's both insane and immoral for our leaders to cause even one more American 
> to die for Karzai. Tell Obama to bring all of our troops home, pronto. The 
> White House comment line is (202) 456-1111, or www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
>
> http://www.truth-out.org/unanswered-question-why/1309351163
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss