It seems that much of the American populace just doesn't even question the premises for staying in Afghanistan and for ramping it up there.
Some say that our occupation of Afghanistan is "the good war". Dammitall, but I just don't know what they mean, when they say this. It's a head scratcher. It seems as if a gazillion people heard the words "the good war" said somewhere, and then they assigned a few neurons to that, but haven't checked back to see if the concept actually means something or if it is in working order.
Some say Obama has to keep us there until we get OBL. 'Course the search for OBL was abandoned under Unitary Executive Humpty Dumpty the First, and Obama hasn't made getting OBL part of the plan. If getting OBL is supposed to be part of Bama's plan, then would someone explain that to Bama, please?
Some say we have to stay there until we dismantle AQ. But Gen. Petraeus seems to think that AQ has been pretty well run out of Afghanistan, no?
Then there is the idea we have to fight in Afghanistan because if the Taliban comes back into power, they are certain to treat women horribly. Of course, women are treated horribly all over the planet, such as in Saudi Arabia, Darfur, and the United States of America, for that matter. Wouldn't we be better off by focusing our resources right here at home, where women are being beaten to a pulp and sexually assaulted every day and all over the place? And once we get our own problems under control, could we then consider exporting our new-found success to other parts of the world, if possible?
I hear it said that we have to occupy Afghanistan in order to keep Pakistan's nukes secure. So, how is it that our troops in Afghanistan are keeping nukes safe in Pakistan, exactly? Does someone want to explain to Adm. Mullen that Pakistan isn't keeping their nukes secure? And how come when Bama goes to Europe and asks 'em to send more troops, he only gets a thimbleful? I mean, it's the Europeans who share the land mass and the potential nuclear radiation, not us. Why don't they find cause to send in more troops, if it'll keep nukes out of the hands of the Taliban? And, why does anyone think the Taliban has any capacity to get Pakistan's nukes anyway? Bill Moyers covered the subject of hysteria over Pakistan's nukes with Juan Cole and Shahan Mufti (guys who actually know the area), and they said the following:
SHAHAN MUFTI: I think you're right on. And I think it's problematic because this really harks back to the period right before the Iraq War, as well, where there was this hype that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
We were- we could have been convinced in a second that Iraq was about to use them. And it's unfortunate that the press did play its part in that problem. And the press is, once again I think, playing its unfortunate part where it is relaying all of these opinions that are coming from intelligence sources or whatever, and ruling this as information. And all of a sudden we're seeing the same sort of almost hysteria.
BILL MOYERS: Do you agree with Shahan, that you're seeing a repeat of the-
JUAN COLE: Yes. Yes.
BILL MOYERS: -official propaganda being disseminated as news?
JUAN COLE: Yes. I think that's exactly what's going on. I mean, especially with regard to the nuclear issue. There is no way on God's green earth that these scruffy tribal fundamentalists, in the North-West Frontier Province, are having anything to do with Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Which, by the way, are stored in secret places, and they're not assembled. And assembling them is a complicated process which requires various high-level military and civilian authorizations. And to put that nuclear issue front and forward is just a way of scaring the American public and putting pressure on Pakistan to do something they didn't want to do.
Hysteria about Pakistan's nukes kinda reminds you of something we've seen before, no? (Just substitute the word "Pakistan" for the word "Iran".)
Then we hear we have to occupy Afghanistan so it doesn't become a failed state, or because it's a failed state which we have to make succeed. But is it a failed state, or is it one that has never succeeded in the first place in emerging from a feudal tribal culture? And aren't there plenty of failed or nearly failed states around the world? Are we gonna occupy each of them with 68,00 troops, too?
Another line is that we have to occupy Afghanistan so that terrorists don't attack the United States from there again. But can't terrorists plot attacks against the west from anywhere on the planet? just like they coordinated the 9/11 attacks from Hamburg, Germany? Have you heard the news about Africa? Since AQ is not a place or a state, but an organization which is mobile, doesn't a huge military presence in one remote corner of the world end up being highly inefficient in combating AQ?
Some bring up the famous Pottery Barn theory, i.e., we can't leave without fixing all the pots we broke. Pardon, but there weren't a whole lot of pots for us to break in this barn, in the first place, were there?
Some think there will be civil war in Afghanistan if we begin to redeploy now and complete the exit in a year. Well, maybe there will be civil war, and maybe there won't be, depending on how many arms and how much money we pass around to shady characters who change sides faster than I change shirts. Yet, if we stay there another ten or twenty years, and further militarize the area, does this mean there won't be civil war when we leave? Within the context of our own culture, didn't we have a bigass civil war ourselves, once? And whose business was it, besides ours? Who. Are. We. to say that people in an entirely different culture are not allowed to have a civil war in their own context?
Now, just in case anyone missed it, the topic of this diary is QUESTIONING THE PREMISES for our occupation of, and current military ramp-up in Afghanistan. When you question the premises, what happens? Do they hold up? or do they disintegrate?