Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
     
	Flexible Afghanistan War Objectives:  
	And the Agony Grinds On  
	By Ramzy Baroud 
	Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org, March 8, 2010 
	   Washington and its willing mouthpieces in the media have for 
	years been trying to sell us the preposterous war in Afghanistan. While they 
	attempt to convince us that the war is predicated on a faultless military 
	logic and moral wisdom, it remains in fact a tragic adventure with no 
	decipherable objectives, and involving several countries, private 
	contractors, and all sorts of firms seeking to make a quick buck.    
	The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact 
	that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily 
	unwinnable.    The decision of the US to continue with its brutal 
	military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its 
	limited and highly selfish political logic.    Let us start by ruling 
	out some of the ridiculous assumptions that have permeated this war since it 
	began in 2001. First, we were told that the war was aimed at eliminating 
	al-Qaida.  However, a retied CIA Station Chief who has served in the Middle 
	East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff, has claimed that, “al-Qaida 
	is finished in Afghanistan.” He further argued that, “the Obama 
	administration, like its predecessor, claims we are fighting terrorism 
	there. That is simply not true. It is a pure counterinsurgency issue.”    
	Indeed, even the most ardent war hawks are exerting little effort to 
	delineate the link between Taliban and al-Qaida. If the link is infused, it 
	is readily unleashed to demonstrate al-Qaida’s links to Pakistan’s tribal 
	areas, thus urging ‘action’ in that part of the country, and not in 
	Afghanistan.    Thanks to the random military ‘strategy’ of the US and 
	its allies, al-Qaida has spread in all sorts of directions and branched off 
	to many al-Qaida offshoots in various parts of the world. Without a 
	centralized leadership in the military sense, al-Qaida inspired groups and 
	individuals now are now working for localized sets of objectives and respond 
	to different stimuli.    So if it’s not al-Qaida that is inspiring the 
	awesome, although largely futile firepower and military surges in 
	Afghanistan, then what is? This is where the idealists come in. They talk of 
	nation-building, Western-style democracy, regional security and so on. Some 
	of them genuinely mean what they say, and some don’t believe the present 
	military surges and Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s rural area fight to the death 
	will yield its intended results. Still, they contribute to the illusion that 
	good intentions – starting with the initial hype about saving Afghani women, 
	then ‘liberation’ from foreign terrorists, then democracy and 
	nation-building, and so on – had anything to do with this bloody war. With 
	their insistence on using such positive terminology, they continue to 
	provide Washington’s political elites – and Kabul’s as well – with the 
	benefit of the doubt that while we may disagree with their methods, we still 
	trust their overall intentions.    It behooves those 
	democracy-inspired, nation-building enthusiasts to remember that Washington 
	has done much to stifle genuine democracy movements around the world since 
	its occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Palestine and Lebanon remain the most 
	obvious examples. As for nation-building, compare the astronomical amounts 
	invested in financing the destructive war in Afghanistan and to prop up the 
	corrupt puppet regime in Kabul, to the miniscule sums devoted to enhancing 
	the country’s stone-aged economic infrastructure. The US military budget for 
	this year is set to exceed $693 billion, not counting the $42 billion set 
	aside for Homeland Security. According to CostofWar.com, the financial cost 
	of war in Afghanistan alone has exceeded the $256 billion; both wars in 
	Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the $1 trillion threshold.    The 
	war in Afghanistan cannot possibly be defended on any moral grounds. The 
	official death count of Afghani civilians in 2009 is estimated at 2,412. The 
	actual death toll is probably far, far higher, as polls do not account for 
	the many more who perished in distance villages across the south and east, 
	areas that are not accessible to outsiders. The death of these innocent 
	people alone should silence the few who still speak of ethics and morality 
	in relation to the disastrous war.    But not everyone is so overtly 
	misguided in their assessment of the war. Some fully understand that the war 
	in Afghanistan is a self-seeking, political and strategic venture. Still, 
	they giddily welcome it, including one Con Coughlin whose recent article in 
	The Telegraph was tellingly entitled, ‘India and Pakistan must bury the 
	hatchet for the Taliban to be crushed.’    The India-Pakistan 
	rapprochement is seen as beneficial only insofar as its potential to ‘crush’ 
	someone else. And considering that that someone else is not a band of 
	aimless terrorists, but a well-grounded, grass-roots, popular insurgency, 
	the price of that “crushing” is likely to be tens of thousands of innocent 
	people. Coughlin uses the same haughty and generalized language of “militant 
	Islamist groups” to be crushed, failing to understand or appreciate the 
	distinctiveness of each and every situation, whether in Afghanistan, 
	Pakistan or anywhere else. Instead, Coughlin nonchalantly expresses concern 
	about the danger these militants pose to “the survival of the ruling 
	classes” in Islamabad. What a compelling reason to get Richard Holbrooke, 
	Washington’s special envoy to the region all fired up over the need to 
	preserve the survival of the ruling classes, not just in Islamabad, but in 
	Kabul and Delhi as well.    The war in Afghanistan has turned into 
	find-an-objective-as-you-go military march to nowhere. It is proving futile 
	and indefensible on every ground, be it political or military or moral. 
	Moreover, as Haviland Smith concluded in his grim assessment, “it doesn’t 
	really matter that we think of ourselves as benevolent liberators, it only 
	matters that Afghans think of us as foreigners occupiers.” When will we all 
	face up to this reality?   - Ramzy Baroud 
	(www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the 
	editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a 
	Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available 
	on Amazon.com.   
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |