[lbo-talk] How Obama took over the peace movement

Dwayne Monroe dwayne.monroe at gmail.com
Sat Mar 28 20:52:53 PDT 2009


Chris instructs:

I know you don't want to hear this, but none of Afghanistan's neighbors want the US to leave. Iran, Russia, and China must not have gotten the news that the war in Afghanistan is really about controlling energy supplies. Actually, US forces in Afghanistan are being supplied through Russia, which for some reason seems to want to encourage US efforts to undermine Russia's position as an energy provider. Ah, the mysterious Russian soul!

And later:

None of them want a messianic Sallafist country supporting Islamoid movements in the Caucasus or the 'Stans or among the Uighurs. Iran has the world's worst heroin problem. Iran wants Afghanistan pacified.

And later still:

It's a civil war. Roughly speaking, for our purposes, between the urban secularists in Kabul and the rural traditionalist rest of the country. Just like in the Soviet-Afghan war.

.............

And yes, of course Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and so on all agree Afghanistan should be "pacified".

Who wants unrest, particularly of the trans-border kind, knocking on your door?

But what's the plan? What's the method? And what are the prospects?

So far, the (apparently internationally approved) plan has been to pursue endless search and destroy missions. There's supposed to be development too -- the cynical, yet well deployed Augustan carrot to the crazy pants Caligulan stick. But only a subset of a subset of the "urban secular" cosmopolitans of Kabul -- along with their Western friends hanging out in secure compounds and conspicuous luxury hotels -- seems to be enjoying the benefits. Years ago, I read that tens of thousands of Afghan children were homeless, wandering the mostly ruined streets of Kabul. 'Uh oh' I thought, 'somebody forgot to read their Sun Tzu. Lots of desperate young folk equals new recruits for the groups you're reportedly trying to stamp out.'

Maybe that problem should get a little more attention.

But no, the Anti Terror Friends Network decided some time ago that the best way of handling the 'problem' of Afghanistan was via the little Dutch boy strategy: a finger in the breach to keep a compromised dam intact.

The 'finger' is bombing sorties, house searches, strafing runs against wedding parties and other things guaranteed to totally not suppress civil war and defend the interests of those besieged "urban secularists".

The violence isn't a moral issue alone, but also tactical. That is, even judged purely on its own terms, the Afghan mission has been a colossal failure. Is this how Yi Soon Shin would handle the situation? Would Alexander be so stupid as to believe the best way of bringing a territory to heel was by keeping his forces relentlessly occupied putting out fires?

People aren't merely "messianic Sallafists" supporting "Islamoid movements". They're also practical creatures who know when they're being treated like crap. Perhaps if NATO and its constellation of NGO camp followers managed to do more than apply a coat of green paint to a crumbling school and complete one new road every six years the majority of people currently looking to the "messianic Sallafists" for imperfect aid would have a different option.

But of course, they don't. Because, as empire builders go, Washington is peopled by a race of pygmies hiding behind walls their ancestors built.

Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, etc -- no doubt realizing the very hard work and oceans of cash required to truly "pacify" Afghanistan -- are content for now to assist the Americans and their program of peace through storm of steel.

We're at nearly one decade and counting. And yes! The "messianic Sallafists" have been kept mostly in country dealing with Americans. Success. Well, that's good. Of course, it costs a small fortune and, like that old story of the auto glass repairman who drummed up business by driving around, smashing car windows, acts as its own justification.

.d.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list