A War of Absurdity
Wednesday 14 October 2009
by: Robert Scheer, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo Illustration: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted From: soldiersmediacenter
/ flickr)
There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are interested in bringing al-Qaida back. On the contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has led to their demise.
Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president's national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:
"The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."
Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best intelligence data available to our government. That means that al-Qaida, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan -- so why are we having a big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate, al-Qaida will inevitably come back.
Why? It's not like al-Qaida is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all, U.S. officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and the Afghan mujahideen, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes.
There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are interested in bringing al-Qaida back. On the contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has led to their demise.
As such, while one wishes that the Afghan people would put their houses in order, these are not -- even after eight long years of occupation -- our houses. Sure, there are all sorts of angry people in Afghanistan, eager to pick fights with each other and most of all any foreigners who seem to be threatening their way of life, but why should that any longer have anything to do with us?
Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, "Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al-Qaida is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. ... For Arab youths who are al-Qaida's primary recruits, 'it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior U.S. official in South Asia."
It's time to declare victory and begin to get out rather than descend deeper into an intractable civil war that we neither comprehend nor, in the end, will care much about. Terrorists of various stripes will still exist as they have throughout history, but the ones we are most concerned about have proved mighty capable of relocating to less hostile environments, including sunny San Diego and Southern Florida, where the Sept. 11 hijackers had no trouble fitting in.
There is a continued need for effective international police work to thwart the efforts of a widely dispersed al-Qaida network, but putting resources into that effort does not satisfy the need of the military establishment for a conventional field of battle.
That is the significance of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked report calling for a massive counterinsurgency campaign to make everything right about life in Afghanistan, down to the governance of the most forlorn village. The general's report aims not at eliminating al-Qaida, which he concedes is barely existent in the country, but rather at creating an Afghan society that is more to his own liking.
It is a prescription, as the Russians and others before them learned, for war without end. That might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.



Comments
This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.
"In the end, it would seem
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 16:40 β ProgressiveObserver (not verified)What is win ? Fascist
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 16:57 β tioche (not verified)The Taliban aren't an
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 17:31 β Anonymous (not verified)Afghanistan in its current
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 23:57 β Anonymous (not verified)'..some of our leaders need
Thu, 10/15/2009 - 03:29 β Anonymous (not verified)'..some of our leaders need
Thu, 10/15/2009 - 03:34 β Anonarcmous (not verified)As Americans, we were deeply
Thu, 10/15/2009 - 15:01 β hb (not verified)We never needed another
Thu, 10/15/2009 - 20:49 β jahf (not verified)We never needed another Vietnam and we need to stop this destructive madness.
But then, what "we" need or don't need was never really a consideration, but only a convenient way to lie about why "we" need to do things that are obviously against our own interests (not to mention against our own putative standards of moral conduct).
Al Qaida is a pretext. Just
Sat, 10/17/2009 - 03:07 β Anonymous (not verified)Al Qaida is a pretext. Just like in 1953, ingerence in Afghanistan is purely for oil. How comes both hamid Karzai and Zalmai Khalizad were UNOCAL officials? If you still doubt, read or re-read Pepe Escobar's "Pipelinistan" or his more recent "Obama does Globalistan". "In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do." Well, yes, but the in "battleground" the most important part is "ground" to run pipelines.
This country's "leaders"
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 23:50 β John L.Opperman (not verified)To quote the immortal Stan
Tue, 10/27/2009 - 16:41 β Frances in California (not verified)