Eight years ago, the United States invaded Afghanistan on a pretext that appears, in retrospect, even flimsier than those we later invented in order to kick of our adventure in Iraq. You may recall. The Taliban were "harboring al Qaeda." By this logic, we could have bombed Hamburg to the ground, but never mind. The Taliban were and remain nasty characters. They treat objects like women and look at what they did to those lovely Buddhas. On the other hand, although they had achieved temporary superiority in the ongoing internecine conflicts that have roiled in Afghanistan ever since the first foreigner imagined that Afghanistan was a single country, they were never exactly the sole legitimate rulers of the Afghan nation. Indeed, an overstuffed buffet of tribal and ethnic antagonists continually warred against them, and they likewise existed in a state of heady indecision when it came to Afghanistan's great drug traffickers, who sometimes do and sometimes do not overlap those ethno-tribal warlords, chieftains, allainces, etc., who were sometimes allies and funders of convenience, sometimes enemies whose satanic crops were to be totally eradicated.
The United States, to its partial credit, wasn't entirely unaware of these circumstances, and sought to use them to its advantage, conducting an air war and some special operations ground missions while leaving the bulk of the ground fighting to its various imagined Gunga Dins in the so-called Northern Alliance. This hodgepodge of sketchy characters managed something resembling a victory. Al Qaeda, whatever that was, scattered into the hills, and America . . . stayed. I would like to extrapolate some lesson from this, but fail. Having achieved its bullshit objectives with relative martial ease, and having by then already set its cataracted sights on Iraq for no good reason whatsoever, the Bush administration, partially in thrall to its own ballooning, Chuchillian self-regard, partially convinced by the authentic Ivy-League gibberish of its resident neoconservative sages, and largely, I suspect, because they suffered from every first-time novelist's curse and could not conceive a proper ending, decided to stick around and give the Afghans, whomever they were, exactly what it was that they had never once shown any particular inclination to develop, deploy, or receive from abroad: democracy!
Eight years later we remain. The Taliban are supposedly "resurgent," and our nominal allies newly restive. The Obama, who won an election by treating America to a year-long self-help seminar and then made off with the registration fees, has rededicated America to the unidentifiable, indefinable, ineffable, unimaginable task of doing something or other in Afghanistan, now with 50% More Troops! The conflicts in which we now find ourselves embroiled are of course conflicts that have been going on for decades, centuries; our presence merely exacerbates them, and from time to time we get lucky and blow up a village from the air, a feat that no internal Afghan faction could ever manage without us. So in a very limited way, I actually endorse Touch-of-Gray spokesmodel and world-famous Man-atee Tom Friedman's conclusion: And it is not all our fault.
But Friedman is such a virtuousic idiot that even at his most almost-true-ish-esque, he only manages to emphasize and exacerbate his wrongness. Yes, it is true that America is not responsible for the fact that Afghanistan is a patchwork of divided loyalties, dissolving and reforming partnerships, and constant vying for power, territory, resources, and supremacy, that it was so long before we arrived and will remain so long after we're eventually forced to leave. And yet . . . it is our fault that we are there. It's our fault that we interposed ourselves in the first place. America did not roll out of bed and awake in the middle of the Hindu Kush. We did not hide in the wardrobe and stumble out the back end into the harsh Helmand snow. "[A]fter eight years [...] one really has to ask not whether we can afford to lose there but whether we can afford to win there." After eight years?
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Nothing Is Fucked Here
Labels:
Afghanistan,
America,
Friedman,
The Wages of Empire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
after 8 years, you say. Well, maybe it's too early to tell (remark attributed to Chou En'Lai). My 'progressive' congressman supports this lunacy, and I despair, but the Empire has inertia. It's what we do.
They treat objects like women
Oh dear.
"The Obama, who won an election by treating America to a year-long self-help seminar and then made off with the registration fees, has rededicated America to the unidentifiable, indefinable, ineffable, unimaginable task of doing something or other in Afghanistan, now with 50% More Troops!"
I really hope that doesn't mean to imply that Obama had said he was leaving the land of knit blankets in short order and then decided to stay. Cause he didn't. He said "we're bombing the wrong darkies" all along.
Sometimes you have to destroy the empire in order to save it.
The Taliban were "harboring al Qaeda." By this logic, we could have bombed Hamburg to the ground, but never mind.
Do you really believe this? That's not a rhetorical question -- I am genuinely interested as to whether you believe all the (so far as I can tell, untrue) things that would have to be true for this to be a sensible statement.
That sure looks like a rhetorical question to me, jimbobboy, and by looks like, I mean: is.
What ironic is that between Carter and King Bush I the United States fought against, aside from the the whole democracy nonsense, what it is supposedly fighting for now. And I have to say that despite Colonel Landa's questioning of the Dear Leader, it still does not absolve his prior actions, and he definitely deserves a swastika cut into his forehead.
Stop criticizing the Federal Government as helmed by Our Obamessiah.
He is still in his first term! Bush had 8 years! Therefore it's all Bush's fault!
Also... Tom Friedman texted me from his swanky Bradley Blvd Bethesda mansion and said,
"IOZ is just another wingnut who won't accept my immensely prodigious intellect."
And we all know that Friedman NEVER is wrong, especially when he's defending Our Obamessiah.
"That sure looks like a rhetorical question to me, jimbobboy, and by looks like, I mean: is."
What if IOZ didn't know the definition of rhetorical? That's not a rhetorical question, either.
See, 'cause he actually DOES want to know if you really believe that.
lulz at Foxtrot. He's not real.
I'm not "real"? Interesting. What, then, am I?
Oh I get it. I'm not on your ideological team, so therefore I must be fake.
Please tell me, Nutella... how do you discern reality? With a dowsing rod coated in whale semen?
What the fuck are you talking about, man?
That sure looks like a rhetorical question to me, jimbobboy, and by looks like, I mean: is.
You seem to have mistaken my meaning. And by "seem to have mistaken my meaning" I mean "are wrong."
Really and truly, foxtrot, your typing registers as nothing but clicks and whistles. I ask along with Enron what the fuck your point is, and ask as well whether you were listening to the dude's story.
As for the Kabul/Hamburg divide, the point of course is that some nation state, but definitely not the responsible parties, had to be made the scapegoat for 9-11, and that Afghanistan was at the time the likeliest, because it appeared to be the safest, target. Now things aren't so clear, and the liberals who backed both the initial invasion and the Obama presidency have to look their own hypocrisy in the eye. Is it simply rhetorical whether we bombed Hamburgers or Pashtuns in retaliation for our dead New Yorkers? Yes, insofar as neither Hamburgers nor Pashtuns were directly responsible for the dead New Yorkers. "Harboring" terrorists was just a way of justifying our blind, ill-thought-out reaction to an act of agression most Americans were disinclined to understand.
A couple Friedmen units from now should give us a clearer view of where we are.
g-nome, that's the not the part whose rhetoricality was brought into question.
Also, seeing as how Bush and Co were reported to have been set on invading Iraq and were swayed to go to Afghanistan first because that's where Osama Bin Laden actually was, I don't see how your claim that Afghanistan was chosen at random holds up. That is not to say we should have invaded, but seeing as how the Taliban willingly turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda bases where as Hamburg most certainly did not, one can see why some might consider one to be slightly less arbitrary than the other.
Monsieur IOZ, though he is smart and amusing, tends to take slippery slopes when finding equivalencies. Thus, as there were terrorists in Hamburg and terrorists in Afghanistan, they are EXACTLY THE SAME! Or something. It's hard to tell sometimes, what with all the lebowski references and the tongue pockets that our cheeks all have.
"I'm not "real"? Interesting. What, then, am I?"
A very astute, and well reasoned individual. A man who is open minded and takes not the sides that his compatriots take but rather evaluates each situation individually and draws his own conclusions. A man who surveys the worlds and sees not black and white, nor liberal and conservative, but rather the whole interconnectedness and beauty of it all, so complex and yet so simple. So calming and yet so overpowering, all at the same time.
I'd say that you're a hero, but what's a hero really?
Yeah. That whole "where Osama's hiding" aspect of Afghanistan certainly explains our continued presence.
Or at least, it does so rhetorically.
There seem to be a couple folks in this thread who could stand to reread their Aristotle.
g-nome and the reasons for our continued presence speak to what made us go there in the first place, self evidently. Nothing has changed at all in the past 8 years. It's EXACTLY THE SAME!
I'm not sure I see the collection to Aristotle, Walter.
The god damn plane has crashed into the mountain!
Also, Chuck F. Ucknut, just one question: Mad Dog 20/20 or Thunderbird?
This is the best damn comment section on the internets.
Terrorists are non-state actors. Mr. Nut Toast - do you doubt much/all of 9-11 was planned outside of Afgahanistan? What could happen there than would make you, Patriotic US Citizen, safer?
Or maybe, just maybe, if we extricated ourselves from the day-to-day politics of the swarthy peoples, they wouldn't want to kill us so much. Also, we could live with ourselves. I can dream, right?
Ah, fuck it. Why can't these dumbass sand niggers see we bomb them because we love them.
Where the hell is Mr Fun?
The sexual tension in these things is just about hitting the limit, Squirrel. I'm thinking orgy next thread.
You've a short memory, Nutty. To "harbor terrorists," in US State Department-speak, means to be a third world country which happens to have terrorists living in it. Remember that in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein was likewise accused of "harboring terrorists" - meaning that terrorists happened to live somewhere within the borders of a country he ostensibly ruled, albeit beyond his actual influence.
The Taliban had as much ability to meaningfully "harbor" al Qaeda in their pre-9/11 heyday as they had to harbor passing weather patterns. That they chose to profit from the presence of al Qaeda in their country - by occasionally exchanging paltry amounts of guns and drug money - made Afghanistan no more a state sponsor of al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia or Dubai... or, for that matter, the United States, if you care to recall where al Qaeda actually came from.
Al Qaeda received more money and training from sources in Western Europe than it ever did from the Taliban. Hence the line about Hamburg. The only difference between killing Afghans and killing Europeans is that the former is much more likely to appeal to Americans.
I've already got my pants off...incidentally, Rowan. Bring me monsieur and Cuynet and we are fuckin rollin. Let's get Ashley in here, too.
Listen, numb nuts, I'm not saying that Afghanistan was a good idea. I'm saying that it's not the same place as Hamburg. I know that's hard to understand, but maybe if you misconstrue my arguments and take them to illogical extremes, project other opponents of yours on the expansive canvas that is my soul, things will all start to fall in place for you guys. Might as well call me a NAZI while you're add it, and remember that, because I stated that Afghanistan had more to do with terrorism than Hamburg, I voted for Bush 56 times and regularly masturbate to pictures of Dick Cheney's dick. Don't ask me where I got them. They were fucking hard to come by and you can't have any. I might show you my Condoleeze Rice bukkake session tapes if you behave, but you prolly won't so don't get your hopes up.
We could all benefit from rereading our Aristotle.
But a more immediately fruitful exercise than, say, reviewing the definition of "rhetorical" might be to check whether one's interlocutor is getting minimal credit for good faith.
If you object to "Do you really believe this?" then strike "really" and the sentence that follows. Expanded, and stated as neutrally as I can manage, it becomes:
Do you believe that there was no moral or practical difference between Germany and Afghanistan as regards "harboring terrorists"?
Recalling the original quote ("By this logic, we could have bombed Hamburg to the ground"), I see three possibilities:
1) Meant sincerely and literally.
Nah. I am still kind of exercised over Randy Newman's heightism, but even I am not that literal-minded. I took the image of Hamburg's obliteration as intended to spice up the post. Which it did!
2) Meant sincerely and figuratively.
To my mind, a real possibility. By this interpretation, M. IOZ figures that the government of Germany harbored the Hamburg terrorist cell in a way that was equivalent, or at least comparable, to the way that the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda. Not the way I understand events, but hey -- reasonable people can differ. In this case, a lot.
3) Meant insincerely -- a throwaway line.
Also a real possibility. But I like to know when a point is being advanced seriously, and when it's all in fun. And sometimes I'm too thick to know which it is from context. So, M. IOZ, if you'd indulge me -- Germany = Afghanistan? Or not?
I think the order of increasing culpability and enablement, with regard to violent activity against innocent US citizens, is:
Germany < Afghanistan < Pakistan = Saudi Arabia < Detroit < Washington, DC
I would just like to add that Friedman's article lays the basis of American failure in Afghanistan on the darker hordes, and not the militarist-cum-narcotraffickers who came from fifteen thousand miles away to set up some puppet democracy where they can lay pipeline to subvert Iran. People forget that the reason Afghanistan is fucked is because we fucked it, abandoned it to the Taliban after the Ruskies pulled out, because the intentions of the United States were the exact opposite of what was posited in that Aaron Sorkin film. As the occupation of Afghanistan was never for the Afghanis in the first place, it was gonna fail them in any case.
The German government was more culpable than the Taliban, who never had the capacity to do anything about their resident militants, whether they wanted to or not. Given the justifications at hand, we'd have been more rational and more justified in invading the eurozone.
That the idea strikes a few of you as so totally and thoroughly unthinkable, so utterly laughable, so completely absurd, so obviously an insincere exaggeration, so plainly a mere rhetorical device, as opposed to the bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan, which you somehow imagine to have been any less ridiculous, should cause you to reexamine your own assumptions, which are all wrong.
Examining assumptions leads to madness.
we should have bombed that flight training school in Florida.
Pipelines are the new game like Enron said. The US isn't interested in building them though- they're interested in controlling them (continental pipelines are hugely expensive and require real regional cooperation). The US's protection racket over Europe and Asia was based in part on it's ability to shut down sea lanes with it's navy. The US has been scrambling for a while to adjust to the new Eurasian Pipeistan reality. A big part of that adjustment is refocusing our garrisoning of the planet toward Eurasia, with the Caspian Sea region as the new Volga gap. In that context, permanent bases and air corridors without significant air defenses was the main objective of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US is finding out however that dots on a huge land mass look more like targets than strongholds. I think Obama's renewed interest in Afghanistan has mostly to do with land power envy and wanting to fill in the dots at least in Afghanistan. For all the reasons IOZ mentions, it's a doomed project.
OR the School of Americas...
"That the idea strikes a few of you as so totally and thoroughly unthinkable, so utterly laughable, so completely absurd, so obviously an insincere exaggeration, so plainly a mere rhetorical device, as opposed to the bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan, which you somehow imagine to have been any less ridiculous, should cause you to reexamine your own assumptions, which are all wrong."
You still having trouble with this, eh? I know, it's a tough lesson. See, the point we're trying to make here is that people can disagree with you without being raving idiots full of bad info.
You may say de Germans are slightly worse than the rag heads, and we may say the other way around. That doesn't make us towel head hating bomb-o bombykins any more than it makes you an antiGermanite.
Seeing as how the idea of "culpability" leads always to some subjective assessment, I'm not sure how you can be so arrogant about who is more to blame, Hamburg or whatever the big city in Afghanistan is (Oman?). Oh, that's right, it's cause you're smart enough to see how stupid everyone but you is, but now smart enough to see how you're everyone?
But, that's like, just your opinion man.
In a different vein, if I ever get my hands on a time machine, I want to go grab 1975 Eddie Murphy, make him watch Pluto Nash and Haunted Mansion, then see if he kills himself.
You still having trouble with this, eh? I know, it's a tough lesson. See, the point we're trying to make here is that people can disagree with you without being raving idiots full of bad info.
Yes. People, in the abstract, can.
Damn, IOZ, I'm not a homophobe or nothing, but you're pretty gay.
IOZ's just jealous that he didn't think of a cool Internet handle like Niggarachi.
"osama, this guy in hamburg wants money from the Saudis to attack America"
"ok, pay him"
Hence, Hamburg.
The Taliban, happy in their little country, looked at the US mood and offered to give up Osama given proof of his complicity. Said proof was not forthcoming.
I guess I'm unclear on the meaning of the word "in." And the meaning of the word "we." And I won't even get into the word "Afghanistan." Are "we" even "in" "America" for that matter?
If you ask me Obamer should summarily declare the entire U.S. military contingent in Afghanistan, including all mercenaries and private "support personnel," to be naturalized citizens of that country of Pashtun extraction and Muslim faith and see what happens. It would certainly be more interesting than this doomed Groundhog Day of a half-assed colonial adventure!
Don't know exactly what I was expecting, but I felt that odd tingle of surprise in the cognitive knob to read IOZ at 5:31, and find that comment to be completely responsive to my question. Yes; we do seem to occupy distinct realities.
I checked my assumptions, and couldn't find anything wrong. But ya know, it's just like that when you take your assumptions to the shop, and they never make that noise when somebody else is listening.
And it looks like NutellaonToast and I do occupy the same reality, but I don't know who is newer to the neighborhood. Pls. advise, so we can figure who get the maps and the fruit basket.
Why do I get the feeling that if we had bombed Hamburg, things would be going along much more smoothly now? U.S. troops would be occupying the city, trading their Lucky Strikes for the favors of loose German women, and somewhere a 21st-Century version of Marlene Dietrich would be crooning Lili Marlene to an audience of appreciative black-market-penicillin smugglers. At least those Germans know how to be occupied in style.
All the Freidman ever wanted... was his afghan back. It really... tied the room together....
jimbobby, I get the split hairs, but you are still an idiot.
If you can't handle Germany, how about Saudi Fucking Arabia, asswad?
There were 19 hi-jackers all from one nationality, so by your idiotic nomenclature:
Saudi Arabia > Afghanistan.
And kafka, pipelines would be a nice extra, but the "reason" why we are in Afghanistan is that it is the largest producer opium in the world, still a greatly demanded commodity, if you didn't know.
You ever dealt drugs? Here is how it works: the U.S.A. gets their protection cut AND determines who makes the $$$ on distribution, like any good mob don. Its really funny that our "street-seller" England got the fuck out of the business, leaving us to deal with many swarthy factions that we don't understand, but we can't admit that right now, so "staying the course (+50%)" is the way to go!
jimbobby, I get the split hairs, but you are still an idiot.
Umm .. lessee, what was it Bérubé said about this place? Oh, yeah:
The field must be cleared of competing lefts.
Yep; that's about right.
the "reason" why we are in Afghanistan is that it is the largest producer opium in the world, still a greatly demanded commodity, if you didn't know.
Well, I have to admit it's a novel theory.
Berubay is a leftist?
Really and truly, foxtrot, your typing registers as nothing but clicks and whistles.
So, you are a fan of The Gods Must Be Crazy?
Muster up, soldier! There's a Coca Cola bottle falling your way!
I ask along with Enron what the fuck your point is, and ask as well whether you were listening to the dude's story.
Given that there are many "dudes" in this thread, and a few relevant to IOZ's primary post, I'd wonder which dude you mean. But if you need a road map, I'm making fun of Giles Goat-Boy Friedman because I agree with how IOZ reads Friedman. Friedman seems written by Barth, and I like to imagine him trying to mate with goats because that's how he strikes me -- a naif who has found his naive self at Hopkins and can't sort out why nobody takes him as seriously as he takes himself.
Nutella on Toast, I'm not so sure about, but I'll trade hollow witticisms with him/her as long as it amuses.
Berubay is a leftist?
Hee, hee! Good one, Enron!
OK, look, Solar Hero, I get the agitprop, but you're still an idiot.
See, it's perfectly OK to claim, in a silly-assed kind of way, that the nominal government of Afghanistan in 2001 were in fact helpless bystanders to anything that went on inside that nominal country.
It's also perfectly OK (although spectacularly silly-assed) to claim that the very real government of Germany ought to be held culpable and punished (by, if need be, carpet bombing) for anything that happened within its borders, with or without its knowledge, during 2001 or before.
It is not perfectly OK to claim that US policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan ought to be derived from this silly-assed shit.
Dudes (if I may call you so) -- is this the position you want to stake out and hold? You may be more fucked than Afghanistan.
Solar Hero- I wish more people did opiates but sadly it's a small industry. Afghan's 2007 record opiate production (93% of world production) had an export value of $4 billion. $4 billion is a little less than the cost of one Nimitz-class suppercarrier (planes and crew not included). The value of marijuana produced in the US alone is about $36 billion for comparison.
The Afghan war is estimated to cost $864 billion so far- about $10 billion a year. That's more than twice the value of annual Afghan opiate production. That's a subtle theory you have there...
If you can't handle Germany, how about Saudi Fucking Arabia, asswad?
There were 19 hi-jackers all from one nationality, so by your idiotic nomenclature:
Saudi Arabia > Afghanistan
Actually, dickfoot, only 15 of the 19 were Saudis. FAIL.
"Osama Bin Laden"
gesundheit
Berubay is a leftist?
Yass--MB represents the sort of Nixonian-frat-boy left, ie DNC regs.
Interessanter Beitrag
Post a Comment