Operation Enduring Misery

[Faaris 10]

Operation Enduring Misery

The Afghanistan Debacle

By MIKE WHITNEY

 

If we want to understand the Bush Foreign policy in Iraq, we only have to look at Afghanistan. The basic principles are identical.

 

There are approximately 11,000 American servicemen currently in Afghanistan, most of whom are stationed at military facilities, and most of whom contribute nothing to the overall stability or reconstruction of the country. Some are involved in the ongoing campaign against the resurgent Taliban in the south, although this has been mainly limited to bombing missions and special-ops (paramilitary raids). There has been no expanded effort to normalize life outside of Kabul, and the warlords and drug traffickers are basically left alone to carry on as they please.

 

An 11,000 man army is minuscule when it comes to meeting the obligations of restoring security to a country the size of Afghanistan. The Bush Administration knows it cannot be done with a force this size, and so should we. The notion of democratizing Afghanistan is a carefully nurtured illusion whose only reality is in the speeches of George Bush. There are no plans for rebuilding or unifying Afghanistan, the limited presence of the military proves that point.

 

The trifling commitment of resources also shows that the US will make no real effort to honor its commitments in Afghanistan. Prior to the war, Mr. Bush promised a "Marshall Plan" for the beleaguered country. Nothing even remotely resembling reconstruction has taken place. The current budget appropriation for Afghanistan is $3 billion, $2.3 billion of which goes directly to military and security requirements. That leaves a paltry $700,000 million for random "pet projects" that will look good for Mr. Bush during an election year. Perhaps, the contractors at KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root; Halliburton subsidiary) will slap together a girl's school or women's shelter to illustrate the peerless magnanimity of the occupier, but nothing of any consequence will really transpire; nothing that will improve the lives of the average Afghani.

 

These two factors, the insignificant size of the troop deployment and the insufficient funding for reconstruction, should prove beyond a doubt that the administration is not working to establish a democratic Afghanistan. Mr. Bush has kept his campaign promise of eschewing "nation building." Instead, Afghanistan has become another client state that will never experience normal security as long as the present occupation persists. The security vacuum spawned by the war and fostered by the callous disregard to the needs of the people insures that Afghanistan will continue to follow a downward trajectory into mayhem.

 

The Bush Administration has devoted considerable time to the formation of the Karzai Government, even though the government has no democratic legitimacy. Representatives of the Bush Administration interrupted the original Loya Jirga (Grand Council) to make sure that their man, Hamid Karzai, was selected, and that's exactly what happened. The former king, Zahir Shah, who was the popular choice of the people (He actually received 800 of a possible 1500 delegate votes in the first balloting) was sent packing after back-room dealings by the US produced the desired result. Since then, Shah has returned to his retreat in Italy.

 

Karzai may be a puppet, but he's an affable puppet, and one who has shown an uncanny ability to survive the numerous attempts on his life. He is sarcastically referred to as the "Mayor of Kabul", since his authority doesn't extend much further than the city limits. His cabinet is mainly comprised of American educated ministers, some who used to work at the World Bank. We can be certain that they passed the "free trade" litmus test required of all Bush appointees, and share the view that directives from Washington must be scrupulously followed. When the time comes for them to sign away Afghanistan's resources to America's rapacious energy giants, we can expect they will comply without any embarrassing displays of patriotic loyalty to the fatherland.

 

Outside Kabul, the central government really has no power. The countryside is a checkerboard of warlords, bandits and drug traders. The Taliban have been mounting resistance in the south, but their firepower is simply not equal to that of the US Military. The best they can hope for is to be a disruptive element, and try to win over the disenchanted peasantry. The American Military will maintain its preeminence over the disparate groups regardless of their attractiveness to the greater population and in spite of their ability to initiate hit and miss acts of terrorism.

 

Things are no better for the people living outside of Kabul than they were under the Taliban. The warlords and narco-traffickers are no less brutal then their predecessors and justice is as arbitrary as it was before. Although, both the UN and NATO have indicated that they will accept some role in bringing law and order to the countryside, nothing yet has materialized. As Mullah Omar was recently quoted, "How successful have the American's been in bringing democracy to Afghanistan?"

 

Not very successful at all.

 

Operation Enduring Freedom has been a great marketing tool for promoting aggression, but it has failed miserably in establishing democracy or providing even the minimum level of security for the Afghan people.

 

This same pattern of neglect is now appearing in Iraq. The military, which has been woefully understaffed from the onset, is now withdrawing to eight bases outside of Baghdad. This will preclude their further involvement in the arduous work of maintaining security. From their new location, they will conduct their paramilitary raids, fly-overs and routine maneuvers, but as far as being engaged in bringing peace to the beleaguered Capital, (and risking American lives in the process) that period is about over.

 

The oil fields have been secured; the pipeline routes will be protected, and business should be brisk. Everything else is incidental.

 

Just like Afghanistan, most of the money provided by Congress is being spent on military necessities and contractual obligations (Halliburton, Bechtel etc)

 

Only a small portion of the funds are being allocated for reconstruction, ($20 billion) and it has not had a measurable affect on the lives of Iraqis. The Bush Administration's promise of "liberation" and "democracy" looks like just more empty rhetoric, devoid of any real substance.

 

The proof of America's commitment to Iraq should come in the form of increased security and a positive move towards free elections. The US has made neither of these available. Instead, the administration is trying to control the outcome of the electoral process, while at the same time, pulling its troops out of Baghdad.

 

This can only result in disaster.

 

Iraq is a tinderbox, and whether the Bush Administration is able to manipulate the elections or not, will make no difference if they withdraw before order is established. Baghdad will simply descend into anarchy.

 

The administration has made a calculated judgment that they have to stop the daily hemorrhaging of American lives to get re-elected, so they have decided to pull back and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

 

We have already seen the results of this strategy by the dramatic increase in the death toll among the Iraqi police force. This pattern won't reverse itself without American intervention.

 

The Bush Administration is playing a dangerous game in both Afghanistan and Iraq. As the situation tilts more steeply towards catastrophe in both countries, the policy failures are more sharply defined. Even with a media that papers-over calamity, and an administration that can regurgitate lies on demand, the Bush plan for these countries is becoming more evident. It's a plan that provides only minimal troop deployments to control entire populations and their resources. This suggests that no importance is attached to the inevitable collapse of the existing social order or the violence that derives from that situation. It implies that whole states will break down along ethnic and tribal lines and devolve into a continual state of infighting and reprisal.

 

This is what we are seeing in Afghanistan two years after the war; a fragmented, failed state with no central government (of any consequence) and no effort by the occupying power to establish one. The drug trafficking, factional fighting and security vacuum are the logical corollaries of this new reality.

 

This model of societal disintegration is now being passed on to Iraq. The Bush apologists in the media will try to convince us that that this predictable chaos is actually the genesis of democracy, but the facts prove otherwise. If anything, Afghanistan is further away from democracy or even a coherent form of government than it was before the invasion.

 

Never the less, Afghanistan looks to be the paradigm that the Bush Administration is holding up as a symbol of success. It shouldn't surprise us then that they are trying to duplicate this model in Iraq or that the results are turning out to be equally tragic. The carnage appearing daily on the streets of Baghdad seems to have no affect on our pious President. We remain doubtful that any display of human misery will deter these men from executing their grand scheme.

 

 

[Sturgen 10]

I see you kind of forgot to mention your source, oh, wait, here it is, Al Jazeerah, not a real reliable source of information if I do say so myself. I prefer to read news not propaganda. Al Jazeerah's like Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine, you could watch (or read) for two hours and maybe find a few facts, but those are so buried in horse manure that you need a backhoe to find them.

 

Operation Enduring Misery; the Afghanistan Debacle By Mike Whitney

Al Jazeerah Feb 20 2004 1:30AM GMT

[LovetoCamp 9]

Dude, I read a column too...

 

The war on terror: The world doesn't get it -- yet

Larry Elder

February 19, 2004

 

 

The conversation began harmlessly enough.

 

Sunday morning, after breakfast, I walked out of the cafe and passed a gentleman sitting at an outdoor table. The man intently scribbled on a legal pad, engrossed in his subject. On the table among a stack of papers sat a book titled "Black History for Beginners." I smiled and said, "What do you want to know?"

 

The gentleman, a Mexican living in America for two years, laughed heartily at the offer by this black man to help him out.

 

"O.K.," he said. "When did blacks get the right to vote in America?"

 

"Well," I said, "it depends on what you mean by the right to vote. In some Northeastern states, some blacks voted from the founding of the republic. If you mean all blacks, this did not occur -- at least legally -- until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870."

 

So far, so good. The man, I soon learned, worked for a major news organization. "So," I said, "what do you think of the war in Iraq?" Before he responded, I told him I supported it, and that, in my opinion, nothing short of civilization stands in the balance.

 

He frowned and called the "pre-emptive war" unjust, wrong and built on a foundation of lies. He said that Bush sold the war on the assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and that the president connected the dictator to the events of 9/11.

 

"Yes," I said, "Bush did indeed, as did the international intelligence community, assume Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Weapons hunter David Kay called Iraq a more dangerous place than he originally thought and said that based on consensus of international pre-war intelligence, he does not see how Bush could have reached any other conclusion but that Saddam constituted a 'grave and gathering threat.' And Clinton's CIA director talked about a decade of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda."

 

"No," he said. "Bush lied. Condoleezza Rice accused Saddam Hussein of involvement in 9/11. I know. I had a transcript." Furthermore, he said, America helped create Saddam Hussein by supporting his regime in the Iraq/Iran war, and Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA!

 

"Worked for the CIA?" I said.

 

"Yes, during the Afghanistan war with the Soviet Union, America sided with the mujahideen whom Osama bin Laden supported."

 

"If you mean this country supported Iraq against Iran, a country that seized American hostages and shouted 'Death to the great Satan,' and we supported Afghanistan against the Soviets, primarily by giving them intelligence, point taken," I said. "If, by 'worked for the CIA,' you mean bin Laden possessed a CIA hall pass and drank coffee in the commissary, we part company.

 

"Assume I accept everything you say," I continued, "that Bush misled America on WMD; the Bush administration falsely tied Saddam Hussein to 9/11; that Bush and his oil cronies helped create Osama bin Laden; what purpose does the Bush administration serve by going to war in Iraq?"

 

"Two things," the man said. "First, oil. Second, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz ushered in the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' to enable the United States to remake that part of the world in its own image."

 

"How about something a little simpler?" I suggested. "We are at war with terror. Osama bin Laden told Muslims of their sacred duty to acquire WMD, including nuclear weapons, and use them against America and her interests. Also, we know Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and admitted possession of anthrax."

 

"What gives America the right to solely possess destructive arms, while denying the same right of other countries?" he asked.

 

"Several countries," I said, "possess nuclear weapons -- including France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan and Russia, with other countries attempting to achieve the same. Intentions count. For years, Islamic extremists attacked America and our interests, launching a war this country failed to acknowledge, let alone fight. Libya recently acknowledged its possession of WMD, coming clean -- by its own admittance -- because of the American-led war in Iraq. The father of the Pakistan bomb, at the insistence of the head of Pakistan, went on nationwide television and told of his transfer of technology and WMD components to North Korea and Iran. A document seized by our government written by a terrorist in Iraq fretted about America's resolve to stay the course, feared the construction of a democracy in Iraq and urged outside terrorists to help the process. Can you at least acknowledge we now live in a safer world because of Bush's 'pre-emptive war'?"

 

"No," he said. "We now have the entire international community hating America."

 

I reminded him of a political cartoon drawn before America entered World War II. It depicted a solitary English soldier -- shaking his fist at a swarm of approaching aircraft -- quoting a resolute Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "Very well, alone."

 

Oh, well, at least I enjoyed the breakfast.

 

[scoutmom 10]

Not to change the subject ... but

 

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was in reference to WHEELERS rambling posts, doing nothing but typing quotes and argueing with actual Scouters about how they should serve youth! LOL

 

Sorry for the interruption.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The administration doesn't appear to have any order about this campaign or have a plan or a direction.

 

I sincerely do not want to be correct.

 

FB

 

 

 

[Proud Eagle 13]

I guess no one believes the administration when they clearly set out the goals in Iraq. That has been done several times by several officials. I guess people will only be satisfied if the press publishes some sort of "secret plan" for Iraq. The objectives in Iraq are pretty easy to figure out, it isn't rocket science: allow the Iraqi's to create a new system of government for themselves (with at least basic democratic characteristics and recognition of the most basic human rights) help the Iraqi's restore basic services to their country help create the various capabilities needed for Iraqi's to secure their own country transfer power to the new government progressively pull out as the Iraqi's become capable of fending for themselves Now I didn't cut and paste that list from some "secret plan" leaked to the press, but rather compiled what I remember of the objectives outlined by the administration in press conferences, Congressional testimony, public documents, etc. The suggestion that there are no clear goals, or there is no plan is completely false. It is a lie. The plan in place may not be a good one, but there certainly is one. Obviously providing the operational details of the various plans to achieve the objectives could compromise the ability to achieve the objectives in some cases, so not all will be revealed. Also, any single lengthy, detailed, all inclusive plan would probably be ineffective and inflexible. Instead those charged with meeting the objectives are given guidance on how to achieve them, and then allowed to work out the details as best suites the actual situation on the ground. (Thus there is no 20,000 page "secret plan" to leak to the press.) I would certainly agree there is still much work to be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, most of the work to be done in both countries is work that must be done by the citizens of those countries. We cannot do everything for them. Even if we could and did do everything for them, it would be like feeding the man when you could have taught him to feed himself. These things will take time, they will take money, patience, and a willingness to see our friends in these countries make mistakes from time to time. It is sort of like teaching skills to a Scout. If older more experienced Scouts set up all the tents for a camp out, the job will be done right this time, but what happens when those older, more experienced Scouts move on? Instead we choose to demonstrate how to set up a tent, then let the Scouts try it for themselves. Certainly they will make mistakes this way, things like forgetting to tuck ground cloths under the tent, and so they will get wet a few times, but they will learn how to properly set up a tent. Perhaps a better analogy could be made to leadership development, but tents seemed a bit easier to write about. The thing to remember is that instead of getting wet, or friends in those countries may sometimes make mistakes that cost lives, or leave people without jobs, or other very unpleasant outcomes. We have to have some tolerance to those mistakes if those countries are ever to become self sufficient. I suppose we could take on full responsibility for providing all government services in those countries. We could create an absolute, permanent, military dictatorship run by generals and administrators from America. We could police every corner with American troops. We could staff the utilities and schools with American employees. We could turn those countries into colonies of the new century and only give them back their futures one tiny piece at a time, so as to prevent mistakes. However, neither America, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan, are willing to suffer through such a process. The price would be too high. The locals would have to suffer the indignity of being told they can't run their own country, of being deprived of the rights of self governance. The American people would have to be willing to suffer not just military casualties, but large loss of civilian administrators and functionaries. Those things, and the economic price, we would have to be willing to pay for many decades. I think if I was an Iraqi, I would want to have my country back as quickly as possible. I would want to do as much for myself as I could. If the choice was mine to make I would choose liberty rather than security. Perhaps the people of Iraq would choose the security of a foreign dictatorship, but I would guess they would rather have a home grown anarchy than a foreign occupation army.

[packsaddle 753]

Faaris, Welcome.

[WHEELER 10]

This was printed in the Battle Creek Enquirer before the Iraq war. Furthermore, with the Administration now seeking the UN help this letter is more apropos.

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hear that a new oath will be administered to new recruits of the military;

 

I solemnly swear to defend and uphold the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations (a communist organization whose constitution was written by Alger Hiss who was outed as a communist); it is my duty to further International Law (another communist idea); to protect Israel by destroying hostile Arab nations and be an emissary for American Cultural Imperialism by destroying Islamic teaching by undermining it with our own immoral vulgar, homosexual, baby-killing, woman-controlled democratic culture.

 

When our soldiers invade Iraq a message will be broadcast via radio, saying, We are the Borg. We are the United Nations. You will be assimilated into the Global Economy (another Marxist Idea). We are the Borg; We are America; We are the Collective. You will comply. Resistance is futile.

 

The new rallying cry of the American soldier will be, Hail Caesar! and march under the Eagle of the Roman Imperium.

 

[Sturgen 10]

huh?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Sturgen, I think what Wheeler is saying is that his fantasies are more appropos now than they were at some other time. I am somewhat dubious about that proposition, however.

 

(StarTrek-ophobes may stop reading here.)

 

And Wheeler, I figured you'd like the Borg. Their big enemy, 24th century Earth, is a clearly socialistic society in which not only have poverty and wealth and the banking system been wiped out, but there isn't even any money. (Except when the writers forgot that there wasn't supposed to be any money.) Heck, the starship captains don't even get paid!

[NJCubScouter 1389]

(Warning, more Trek)

 

Oh, and I forgot, Wheeler! Not only is 23rd/24th century Earth a socialist society, it has a real-live one-world government! It's even the capital of the entire United Federation of Planets! And everybody's happy about it! Oh, the horror!

 

And "gurlz" get to be captain! And admiral! Oh, I'm melting, what a world, what a world...

 

(Well, uh, fictionally real-live, anyway.)

[WHEELER 10]

Iraq was the next logical step. The fallacious argument of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their imminent threat of use was the perfect ruse to manipulate public opinion and congress into going for war. Iraq had great strategic significance for the growing globalization plans.

 

The seizing of Iraq is about the splitting of the Muslim World in two. It was about isolating Iran from the rest of the Muslim World and Islolating Saudia Arabia from the eastern half of the Muslim World. It is about controlling movement among them especially the poorer half that travelled by bus and ground.

 

The seizure of Iraq is just like when a doctor inserts a needle to apply medicine into the body. This about inserting a immoral vulgar "democracy" in order to "infect" the Muslim world in order to enervate with so-called "freedom" to obtain pornography and the free license of "artisits" to undermine Islamic Religious teaching. Enervating the men into forsaking the teaching of God for "freedom".

 

This is quite a coup. Iraq was perfect. Saddam because of his tyranny nobody would object with his taking down. His brutality gave legitamacy and cover for their other sublime objectives. The Iraqis as a people, most of them being non-religious, are ripe for democritization and its concommitant effects of puerility and immorality. They are hoping that this immorality will seep into Iran and Saudi Arabia thus rendering men soft, lazy and effeminate. Thereby ending all resistance to Globalization.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Wheeler, words fail me. (Well, almost.) You almost make me want to think the war in Iraq was a really great idea. (Almost.) You are living in some fantasy Universe. Anyone whether in favor of that war or not, can see that there is now at least a chance that at least a majority of people in Iraq will have a government that actually works for them, instead of killing them. It may not happen that way, and whatever does happen may not end up being worth the sacrifice we have made. But there was no chance for them at all, under Saddam Hussein.

 

As for Saudi Arabia become lazy, soft, whatever... I'm a little bit more concerned about the fact that people who get direct support from the government would like to see me, and all my countrymen, dead in a smoking hole in the ground like they did to 3,000 of us on 9/11. If the president invaded Saudi Arabia tomorrow, I would be right there. Well, I'm a little old to be right there, but I would support it.

 

I have to hand it to you, Wheeler, it takes quite a bit to prompt me to say things like I just said...