Share

The Silent Winter of Escalation

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Soldiers rush for supplies in eastern Afghanistan. (Photo: John Moore / Getty Images)

    Sunday morning, before dawn, I read in The New York Times that "the Pentagon is planning to add more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan" within the next 18 months - "raising American force levels to about 58,000" in that country. Then, I scraped ice off a windshield and drove to the C-SPAN studios, where a picture window showed a serene daybreak over the Capitol dome.

    While I was on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" for a live interview, the program aired some rarely seen footage with the voices of two courageous politicians who challenged the warfare state.

    So, on Sunday morning, viewers across the country saw Barbara Lee speaking on the House floor three days after 9/11 - just before she became the only member of Congress to vote against the president's green-light resolution to begin the US military attack on Afghanistan.

    "However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint," she said. The date was September 14, 2001. Congresswoman Lee continued, "Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, Let's step back for a moment, let's just pause just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control."

    And she said, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."

    The footage of Barbara Lee was an excerpt from the "War Made Easy" documentary film (based on my book of the same name). As she appeared on a TV monitor, I glanced out the picture window. The glowing blue sky and streaky clouds above the Hill looked postcard-serene.

    But the silence now enveloping the political nonresponse to plans for the Afghanistan war is a message of acquiescence that echoes what happened when the escalation of the Vietnam War gathered momentum.

    During the mid-1960s, the conventional wisdom was what everyone with a modicum of smarts kept saying: Higher US troop levels in Vietnam were absolutely necessary. Today, the conventional wisdom is that higher US troop levels in Afghanistan are absolutely necessary.

    Many people who think otherwise - including, I'd guess, quite a few members of Congress - are keeping their thoughts to themselves, heads down and mouths shut, for roughly the same reasons that so many remained quiet as the deployment numbers rolled upward like an odometer of political mileage on the road to death in Vietnam.

    Right now, the basic ingredients of further Afghan disasters are in place - including, pivotally, a dire lack of wide-ranging debate over Washington's options. In an atmosphere reminiscent of 1965, when almost all of the esteemed public voices concurred with the decision by newly elected President Lyndon Johnson to deploy more troops to Vietnam, the tenet that the United States must send additional troops to Afghanistan is axiomatic in US news media, on Capitol Hill and - as far as can be discerned - at the top of the incoming administration.

    But the problem with such a foreign-policy "no brainer" is that the parameters of thinking have already been put in the rough equivalent of a lockbox. Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson approached Vietnam policy options no more rigidly than Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Barack Obama appear poised to pursue Afghanistan policy options.

    I was thinking about this when I left the C-SPAN building in the full light of day. The morning glow made the Capitol look majestic. Yet, it was almost possible to see, streaked across the dome, an invisible new stain of blood and shattered bones.

    Along with the grim patterns, there's a tradition of brave dissent on Capitol Hill. It's epitomized by Barbara Lee's prophetic statement just after 9/11 - and by an earlier kindred spirit, the fierce Vietnam War opponent Sen. Wayne Morse. If you'd like to see historic footage of them, retrieved from the nation's Orwellian memory hole, watch the "Washington Journal" segment by clicking here.

    On Monday, USA Today reported that the top US commander in Afghanistan "has asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000 soldiers, Marines and airmen" to raise the US troop level in Afghanistan to 55,000 or 60,000. Gen. David McKiernan says that is "needed until we get to this tipping point where the Afghan army and the Afghan police have both the capacity and capability to provide security for their people." Such a tipping point "is at least three or four more years away," the general explained. So, "if we put these additional forces in here, it's going to be for the next few years. It's not a temporary increase of combat strength."

    Is Afghanistan the same as Vietnam? Of course, competent geographers would say no. But the United States is the United States - with domestic continuity between two eras of military intervention, spanning five decades, much more significant than we might think.

    Bedrock faith in the Pentagon's massive capacity for inflicting violence is implicit in the nostrums from anointed foreign-policy experts. The echo chamber is echoing: The Afghanistan war is worth the cost that others will pay.

    --------

    

    Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Information about the documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" is posted at www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org. To view the C-SPAN "Washington Journal" interview that included excerpts from the film, go to: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-13214

  

»


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.

One should remember the

One should remember the description of the Viet Nam debacle. "The incompetent leading the unwilling, trying to do the impossible for the ungrateful." When will we ever learn? We have been there since 2002 which is longer than our involvement in both World Wars One and Two together. Apparently we do not have the ability to fight a war successfully. Therefore we should get out of the business of fighting wars right now. When will we ever learn.

Once again this writer is

Once again this writer is repeating the obvious (as he did in 1964): only the Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Obviously, the President does not have this authority & cannot usurp it (according to the separation of powers doctrine). The time has come & gone for scholars & laymen alike to require the Congress to state its case for war. These people cannot be allowed to meet & collect their checks while disavowing any connection or responsibility for the carnage & human suffering caused by the American military machine. Bob Pilgrim Pacifica

Yes! I am inclined to agree

Yes! I am inclined to agree that with the Pentagon's capacity for you all know what, and it knowing other people will really pay the brunt of the cost , and in as much as the US leaders could care less about how many of it's own is lost, to get the dammed Pipe through, if we think Afghanistan is suffering now just wait till Obama gets his surge!

I don't think that the US

I don't think that the US will ever learn that endlessly sending soldiers into the quagmire is not the solution. The idea that Afghanistan is a "good war" or a "necessary war" has been ingrained it seems into the general public's opinion. Unfortunately, in the long run, it is also not a war that the US will prevail without reason. Who are the enemies there? Al Queda? The Taliban? Unfortunately for the US, they are not easily visible and distinguishable groups. There are many tribes and many of them resist the US. There is a reason why Afghanistan has broken so many great generals before. The idea of American exceptionalism here is a myth and one that will cost lives of not only Americans, but also many more innocent civilians.

It's all so whacky!

It's all so whacky! Memories are non-entities! First of all, who STARTED the Taliban? You'd never guess, would you. WE DID...to mess up the Soviets in their already futile attempts to beat Afghanistan. They proved that fighting in that place is an exercise in futility. (So there WE are...) Furthermore, the Taliban crossed us up by lousing up the opium trade! So we lean steadfastly toward more involvement in that area. Talk about lose-lose! Surely Mr. Putin must be smiling ironically at what is happening (except for the possibility of our starting WW III, of course.) If you think that Iraq was bad, wait just a little while. Our new Prez better had remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. He may have them, but he's going to have a tough time dealing with his behind-the-scenes mentors. Fasten your seat belts. You ain't seen nothing yet.

I'd amend Anonymous to state

I'd amend Anonymous to state that "Apparently we do not have the ability to fight a guerilla war halfway around the world successfully". I disagree that our inability to "win" (whatever that might look like) is a sufficient reason we should end our involvement in Afghanistan, however. One should remember that the Afghan government we helped throw out actively participated in the 9/11 debacle; and the same regime will likely return to power should we simply leave. There are other arguments for leaving--based on economics, or morality, or practicality--but, unlike Vietnam, where the intent of the enemy was simply to gain control of the local country, the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces will attempt to expand far beyond the Afghan border. Vietnam withdrawal was a no-brainer; withdrawal from Afghanistan may mean we have to fight them somewhere else. The likely other place is directly atop the petroleum fields that keep our civilization running.

Obama could not have gotten

Obama could not have gotten himself elected if he had said that we should not continue to hunt AlQuaida. When he is officially president,,he can suggest new methods for hunting whatever remains of AlQuaida. Sending more troops to Afghanistan will mean a long and painful drawn out no-win conflict.The only people who will benefit from this will be the defense contractors and military suppliers. We have heard no sensible suggestions for why we should load everything into Afghanistan.Perhaps Obama can make an intelligent case for an occupation of Afghanistan,,,,,I'm waiting to hear it. If he arrogantly wades knee deep into the Afghan quagmire,bringing tons of bombers and drones,we will see the world and what remains of American peaceseekers reject him quite soundly. I am still hoping and praying he is a wiser man.

The Afghan "war" will

The Afghan "war" will escalate and other "wars" will be started simply because the people who run this government have been corrupted and bought off by the military/industrial empire that we have become. The only hope is that the economic crisis will morph into a free fall in the value of the US dollar, thus rendering us incapable of maintaining our war machine. This is usually the fate of empire, and it will probably be ours as well.

Thank goodness Barbara Lee

Thank goodness Barbara Lee still speaks for me... ....Hopefully, Pres. Elect Obama will be provided some sense of Afgan history...which reflects past failures of many empires in attempting to conquer these people. Hope we can believe in...hope he will come to his historic senses.

It has become obvious the

It has become obvious the the only solution to the dilema that exists for the NATO/U.S. military tacticians in Afghanistan is a diplomatic/political agreement with the Taliban that would include them in the central goveernment. These Pashtun tribal groups control northwest Pakistan, and increasing parts of southern Afghanistan. Pakistan is a very unstable nation state lead by another unpopular corrupt dictator that has nuclear weapons, and is in constant confrontation with India. Escalation of the continues NATO military occupation in Afghanistan is very dangerous and will continue to destabilize this nuclearized region.

I am amazed at the great

I am amazed at the great effort expended by most to steer away from comparison of our occupation of Afganistan with what we experienced in Vietnam when the similarities are so glaringly obvious: 1) Occupation of a country populated by factions that hate each other, but hate foreign occupiers more and are eager to fight against same 2) Propping up a puppet regime that would have no chance of even short term existence without our protection 3) Occupation of a country that has a long history of defeating and driving out all foreign invaders 4) A country overflowing with drugs and drug money that is being used to support efforts to push out foreign occupiers while lining the pockets of the corrupt puppet regime (and to support clandestine activities of our intelligence services) 5) Exposure to proxy wars being waged by regional powers (India and Pakistan in Afganistan, and China and the USSR in Vietnam) 6) Use of flawed/mendacious geopolitical excuses for our involvement (GWOT and isolation of Iran in Afganistan, and the Communist Domino Theory in Vietnem) 7) Oil as a driver of our occupation (the TAPI pipeline in Afganistan and potential oil deposits in the Tonkin Gulf off Vietnam) 8) A protracted/open-ended military engagement enabling vast flows of money to the military/industrial complex We are not in Afganistan to fight Al Qaeda - we are there to defend our puppet against the Taliban. However, the Taliban will surely achieve victory, just as the North Vietnamese did in Vietnam, and the US will lose the lives of many soldiers, a huge amount of taxpayer money, and take a significant hit to its reputation (as well as not having an oil pipeline). If we had built on the relationships established by Charlie Wilson when aid was provided to Afganistan to oust the Soviets, we would have likely seen a more moderate Taliban in control of Afganistan today, which would not have provided sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and would have allowed the construction of the TAPI pipeline. But it is too late for that now. We need to run, not walk, away from Afganistan, and let it sort itself out. Then maybe in 10 years of so, we can re-engage in ways that make more sense (and while waiting for that day to come, engage constructively with Iran). If we are truly interested in promoting regime change in the world to support democracy (not just as an excuse to trigger a thermonuclear war and Armageddon), then perhaps we may want to consider focusing on the following: 1) Myanmar - if there was ever a country needing a regime change, this is certainly right up there. 2) North Korea - probably the the biggest threat to global security in existence 3) Zimbabwe - the world is waiting for us to do something here, just as it did in Bosnia, and this could give us PR points of done right as well as secure an important source of natural resources The bottom line is that we lost in Afganistan before we even started, so it is time for us to withdraw, refocus, and move on (and stop listening to the NeoCON insanity).

Clemanceau said that it was

Clemanceau said that it was very difficult for a democracy to start a war and even harder to end one. We seem to be attempting to erase the first stumbling block by doing away with the little democracy we still retain. All evidence says Afghanistan is not winnable except in some brain dead Rambo scenario so we better call Sly. Boy is the US dumb..

We have been in or at least

We have been in or at least envolved in Afghanistan since Russia invaded in December 1979, 29 years! Remember the Olympics of 1980 and the wheat embargo? I cared for casualties related to that adventure in the spring of 1988, casualties treated in Pakistan. Don't waste to much time here, after nearly thirty years and untold billions, KIAs and WIAs. Call the White House and your Reps and keep calling. They know nothing about Afghanistan-nothing! Make a sign and stand with the Peace Vigilantis. Please

Mr. Solomon's premise is

Mr. Solomon's premise is dead wrong. EOS. America has been duped, brainwashed, plain and simple. The War Against Terra (TWAT) is a fraud designed to cover-up the DotCon economic collapse and, as ever, they're trying it on one-more-time - going so far as to bail-out the criminals that created the problem. FIND: http://worldreports.org/news and FFS WAKE UP!