> 've been thinking about the "blowback" argument against
> war, and I really don't see how it can be taken seriously.
Well, here's the way I see it. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to assist their ideological comrades-in-arms, Afghan commies who had managed somehow to take state power. The Afghan commies' intentions were to modernize their country--get some industry started, break down the old tribal stucture of authority, and so on. The Afghan commies, especially once they whistled up their Soviet allies, met with armed resistance from the old feudal society, and the latter found a willing ally in the US, who, in order to stick a finger in the eye of the USSR, supplied the war lords with munitions and money and training beyond their wildest dreams. The US deliberately supported the most radically fundamentalist elements because they were the most fanatical. US aid was extended not just to the nascent Taliban, but also to like-minded individuals and groups from around the Muslim world, such as OBL and AQ. These people always had their own agenda, though. They were happy to accept US aid so long as it suited their purposes and so long as the US was willing to give it, but they had about as much use for the US as they did for the USSR. Once they had won their war against the USSR and the Afghan commies, they turned their gaze on their former patrons, who had by that time angered them by stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and for a host of other reasons. Taking advantage of the training they had received from the US, they set out to strike a blow against their own former masters--only it was American workers who took the hit.
The US power elite didn't intend for their Afghan anti-Soviet adventure to turn out the way it did, but it happened nevertheless. Unintended consequences. Blowback, man.
"Blowback" isn't an argument one way or another for or against war, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq. It's an attempt to explain how 9-11 happened--what was the chain of events that led to this? It's also to some degree an answer to the question, "why," though the "why" question admits of deeper, more abstract analyses.
Jacob Conrad