Many proponents of American militarism have repeatedly boasted about how the great U.S. military machine had "routed" the Taliban following Bin Liden's successful attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. These same militaristic minded proponents argued that America had "won" by defeating the Taliban, despite the fact that most of the top Bin Laden al-Qaeda extremists are still alive and well today.
If we "defeated" the Taliban in the late fall of 2001,....and we didn't take 'our eye off the ball' in Afghanistan in early 2002.....by preparing to attack the sovereign country of Iraq....then why is this happening in 2008?.....
In Afghanistan, the Taleban now claim to have influence across most of the country and have extended their area of control from their traditional heartland in the south.
They are able to operate freely even in Wardak Province, neighbouring the capital Kabul, as a BBC camera crew who filmed them recently found.
Does that sound like the Taliban has been "routed"?
Does that sound like the Bush/Cheney orchestrated "war" on the Taliban (let alone al-Qaeda) has been "won"?
More importantly, if the vaunted words of bringing freedom to the Afghan people has, somehow, curtailed the extremism of radical Islamic types.....why this....in 2008?....
Six years ago the Taleban found it hard to recruit. They put their increasing success now down to official corruption, the slow pace of reconstruction and the presence of foreign troops. Link
Many American militarists refuse to acknowledge that our military presence in Islamic countries produces MORE Islamic extremists, not less. John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani ridiculed Ron Paul for having the audacity to raise this point in a GOP primary debate. How does 2008's "increased success" in extremist recruitment inside Afghanistan speak to that specific issue?
And most importantly. How long would our local communities put up with this kind of stuff before we would look for alternatives?....
A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.
Two days ago, the Red Cross said that at least 250 Afghan civilians had been killed or wounded in insurgent attacks or military action in the previous six days. It called on all parties to the conflict to avoid civilian casualties. Link
Many times I've tried to 'Americanize' for readers what our American military is actually doing in Muslim lands. I've set forth 'what ifs'.....for example: What if Canada, exercising their right to protect themselves, attacked northern Michigan communities for the purpose of routing out a loose knit band of international drug kingpins? And while the Canadian military carried out their 'national security' campaign....Michigan civilians were oftentimes 'accidentally' killed in the process.
Should Michigan citizens, in my hypothetical, simply endure the, you know, "collateral damage", because, after all, Canada is only trying to get the bad guys? Or should the Michigan citizens rise up and attempt to throw the "protectors" out of their state?
Finally.....from the BBC articles....comes a sentence that belongs in the "No Sh*t Hall of Fame".....
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
The bigger issue facing Americans, and particularly American Leaders, is why they refuse to even acknowledge this most basic of human dynamics.
About This Blog