Since Iraq is finally threatening to eject US troops, while the for the first time since 2003 the US death toll in Afghanistan exceeds Iraq's, it's past time to ask: just why are we in Afghanistan and what is our mission?
Astonishingly, most Americans - including even avid news readers like us, I'm afraid - still know more propaganda than fact about Afghanistan's and the Taliban's role in 9/11. So please take a moment, take the poll (no peeking in the Wikipedia!) and then read the facts.
Also: excerpts from today's New York Times that make it clear why occupying Afghanistan might be even more dangerous than Iraq, and what we need to know to help save President Obama from likely disaster.
The correct answer is:
Saudis, Hamburg and San Diego cells, and an Egyptian
(Note that I didn't include the Al Qaeda brand name as a choice, since people of every persuasion love to apply it post-facto.)
I went to the Wikipedia to learn more about the Taliban's role in 9/11. And it says that according to the FBI, the Taliban had no role in it. Neither did the government of Afghanistan or Iraq, and not one participant was an Afghan or Iraqi national.
Why do so many people think otherwise? Roughly the same reason they were once comfortable blaming Iraq. In late 2001, any American who wasn't out for blood was desperate to prove their patriotism. And that's the Post 9/11 world we're still living in. You will still hear that if you don't agree we should occupy Afghanistan, you're some leftist peacenik, the scourge of the Democrats, with no concern for America's security.
The reality is exactly the opposite - and since he speaks as if he doesn't realize it, this could be disastrous for Obama's presidency.
Check out articles from today's New York Times -- which say little things our propaganda network has prevented us from understanding for the past 7 years. The Times offers some rare historical context.
Recent terrorism in Afghanistan has erupted as a direct result of the ongoing US occupation there - and indirect "blowback" from our past work:
A quarter-century ago, Maulavi Haqqani was a favorite of American and Pakistani intelligence agencies and of wealthy Arab benefactors because of his effectiveness in organizing mujahedeen fighters from Afghanistan, Arab nations and other Muslim regions to attack the Soviet forces that had occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Today he has turned his expertise against American and NATO forces. From his base in northwestern Pakistan, the aging Maulavi Haqqani has maintained a decades-old association with Osama bin Laden and other Arabs. Together with his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, 34, he and these allies now share a common mission to again drive foreign forces from Afghanistan.
Afghanistan attacks are not about religion or hatred of American culture, or any desire for another 9/11. They're about resistance to occupation.
And regarding suicide attacks:
Suicide bombing was unheard of in Afghanistan before 2001 and remains controversial, even among Taliban commanders. Many Afghans consider it to be contrary to Islam and to the tribal Pashtuns’ code of honor.
That's right - suicide attacks are about as popular with the Taliban as abortion clinic bombings are with Christians.
So, how in the world did the Taliban ever get held responsible for 9/11?
Remember? They questioned George Bush's vow of a "crusade" against the nations that might harbor terrorists the US had once trained, like Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Taliban responded that if the US wanted bin Laden, it must follow the law regarding extradition, and also provide evidence. They were even willing to try him themselves.
Pretty silly of them, eh? After all, what kind of paranoid could suppose that the "crusade" would involve attacks on Muslim nations with no connection to 9/11? And what lunatic would imagine the US might hold "detainees" without following habeas corpus or at least presenting evidence?
President Bush refused.
(Ever see Sam Peckinpah's amazing movie Straw Dogs starring Dustin Hoffman? In rural England, a big retarded guy accidentally kills a girl, and to prevent him from being lynched, Hoffman's American character David offers him shelter and winds up with his home destroyed and his family nearly murdered, as he personally kills the drunken lynch mob. It's just a bit like the To Kill a Mockingbird scene where Atticus and Scout Finch save Tom Robinson from a lynch mob (temporarily), except that in Straw Dogs the target is clearly guilty.
Bizarrely enough, the historical record shows the nasty Taliban taking the role of David or Scout. They had no operational role in 9/11. They were resisting a crusade and demanding due process.
Note that in the movie, the killer really is in David's house. I suspect in Afghanistan, it's as if David righteously said "I refuse to cooperate or give him up!" after quietly asking the retarded guy to chill at his own house. The evidence that bin Laden was actually in Afghanistan seems to be that he wasn't very mobile, we looked there for 6 years, and never saw him.)
The 9/11 hijackers were convened in Hamburg and trained as pilots in the USA. If insisting on due process is "harboring", the US could attack the mayors of Hamburg and San Diego. Ironically enough, several suspected 9/11 conspirators were brought to trial in Hamburg. The cases fell apart when the US refused to cooperate to let witnesses in our custody testify under oath. It was years before the mystified German prosecutors understood why: those witnesses had been tortured in Guantanamo Bay.
Following due process, the Germans had to overturn two 9/11 convictions. Should we bomb them, or just occupy them?
Finally, in a bizarre coming full circle, the Times reports that now Germans, Turks and others are going to Afghanistan to offer their own lives (and others' !!) for their idea of justice - to end the occupation there. People who condemned suicide bombing are making a special exception, just for us.
To be clear: I hate the Taliban and everything it stands for. But the USA has lost the moral high ground and needs to re-examine its occupation of Afghanistan. We are already suffering terrible consequences for failing to do so.
Why discuss this?
On our current course, Afghanistan could bring down President Obama much the way Vietnam brought down President Johnson, who inherited that unwinnable war. So let's dare to look closer - especially if we can help extricate our country and our favorite candidate from increasingly certain disaster.