[Peace-discuss] Pro-war propaganda

[Morton K. Brussel]

Kinzer is certainly "disappointing" in this interview.

He takes the point of view that what we're doing in Afghanistan is  
basically altruistic, only our tactics are wrong. He seems to assume  
that we can have troops there benignly, training a new Afghan army  
without harming anyone or eliciting antagonism.

Has he not learned the lessons of Vietnam, that we were there  
initially to train a Vietnamese army to fight the Communists better?  
--But somehow we got entangled in their training, gunfights in the  
field. Imagine, the Vietcong were shooting at us! Of course, we had  
to protect ourselves, ---and bring in more troops for our training  
didn't work well.

He does not consider that we may be, and wish to stay, in Afghanistan  
for geopolitical and natural resource reasons, i.e. for our broadly  
defined national security. His picture of our troops as basically  
good, if unsophisticated, guys can justify our presence there. Of  
course, this is nonsense. Is he really so naive about our hegemonic  
impulses?

It might be good to have him visit here again to confront his  
arguments. Yes, Kinzer has seemingly learned that military force does  
not make friends with people, but his statement that we could remain  
in Afghanistan as benign onlookers shakes ones confidence in his  
powers of analysis and observation---even giving him the benefit of  
doubt that he is sincere.

As to the chaos that would ensue if we left, it is pointed out  
endlessly that we only create chaos by our foreign arms laden presence.
--mkb


On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:32 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> The following seems to me to be a good example of the most  
> dangerous sort of pro-war propaganda we face.  It's not a neocon  
> rant but a liberal expression of critical support for the war in  
> Afghanistan.  Instead of explaining why the US should get out, it  
> suggests how the US can more comfortably stay in -- i.e., how the  
> US can "maintain our troop strength" in a country we invaded  
> (primarily, it is suggested, by being more culturally sensitive --  
> e.g., don't blow away wedding parties -- but put in terms of a  
> condescending pop anthropology).
>
> There's no consideration of why the US is spending so much money  
> and lives in Afghanistan -- it's taken for granted that we should,  
> apparently as part of the "war on terrorism."  It elides the  
> various excuses offered by the Bush administration for the attack  
> on Afghanistan (get ObL, revenge for 9/11, overthrow the Taliban)  
> and comes close to feeding the mythology that the Taliban attacked  
> the US on 9/11/01.  And it ignores the US refusal to negotiate with  
> the Taliban in 2001 over a trial for ObL.
>
> "If we leave immediately, I fear that violence would devastate that  
> country." But the US has brought the violence that is now  
> devastating the country. Killing Pushtun tribesmen to "stop  
> terrorism" is as much a lie as killing Vietnamese peasants to "stop  
> communism." (And there were plenty of liberals who offered  
> "critical support" for that.)
>
> 	Afghanistan: A Way Forward
> 	Tuesday 16 December 2008
> 	by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t
> 	An interview with Stephen Kinzer.
>
>     Last week, with President-elect Obama's blessing, Defense  
> Secretary Robert Gates announced the beginning of a troop "surge"  
> in Afghanistan...
>
> <http://www.truthout.org/121608R>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss