On the 18th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the illegal US occupation of Afghanistan continues as the longest overseas war in American history. Although President Donald Trump recently declared that peace negotiations over the withdrawal of US troops with the Taliban are “dead,” reportedly because of the death of a US soldier from a suicide bomb attack in Kabul last week, the status of future negotiations is still unclear.
The Costs of War Project has found that about 147,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan War since 2001, more than 38,000 of them civilians. However, corporate media continued to defend the “forever war” in Afghanistan by concern-trolling over an “overly hasty” withdrawal before the recent collapse in negotiations (FAIR.org, 1/31/19).
If signed, the deal would have had the US withdraw 5,400 of its 14,000 troops in Afghanistan within 135 days—bringing it down to about the same level of troops stationed there at the start of the Trump administration—with additional phased withdrawals contingent upon the Taliban’s promise to prevent Afghanistan from being a launching pad for international terrorist attacks, and progress on a political agreement between them and the Afghan government.
The Washington Post (8/19/19) suggests the Afghan War will turn out just fine if we just give it another year or 17.
The Washington Post editorial board’s “Trump Risks Turning a Chance for Success in Afghanistan Into a Shameful Failure” (8/19/19) dismissed the deal as “weak” and a “flimsy accord,” and argued that there’s “little reason to abandon the country in haste.” The Post argued that Obama’s reduction of troops in Iraq was a “mistake” and cautioned that Trump should avoid repeating Obama’s mistake of “committing to troop pullouts from conflict zones without first ensuring that the result is not a political and military disaster,” citing the potential danger of a Taliban takeover and a strengthening of extremist groups. The editorial did not weigh the potential human rights abuses by a future Taliban government against the tens of thousands of civilians actually killed by the ongoing conflict; the only deaths the paper mentioned were those of US troops.
The Los Angeles Times (8/14/19) painted an especially ludicrous picture of the US as a benevolent savior in Afghanistan, after warning that an “overly hasty downsizing” of US military and civilian presence could risk “some of the progress made in human rights and development,” expressing concern that a reduction in “thousands of people” working at the US embassy and civilian aid programs would be “premature.” The LA Times said this despite massive USAID programs already having been criticized as “a failure and a waste of taxpayers’ money” by government watchdog groups, and functioning primarily as a pipeline of public funds into investors’ pockets (CounterPunch, 12/5/12).
When not editorializing against the Afghanistan negotiations in their coverage, corporate media went out of their way to grant anonymity and a platform to “critics” who characterized full US military withdrawal after almost 18 years of occupation as “premature” (New York Times, 9/7/19; USA Today, 9/8/19) and worried about the US “giving up its leverage” (NBC News, 9/9/19).
The New York Times (8/2/19) gave a platform to retired generals Jack Keane and David Petraeus to lobby for keeping thousands of “Special Operations forces” in Afghanistan:
“US troops in Afghanistan have prevented another catastrophic attack on our homeland for 18 years,” General Keane said in an interview. “Expecting the Taliban to provide that guarantee in the future by withdrawing all US troops makes no sense.”
The Times might have pointed out that the September 11 attacks were carried out by militants based in the United States and recruited in Germany.
CNN (8/16/19) highlights concerns about withdrawal rather than concerns about unending war.
CNN’s “Trump Meets Security Officials on Afghanistan as Concerns Mount About US Withdrawal” (8/16/19) featured anonymous “critics” who found that the “US/Taliban peace plan” could “end America’s longest-running war,” but “could also trigger a surrender for the US and a betrayal of the Afghan government.”
The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) reported:
Critics of a prospective deal said any agreement with the Taliban amounts to defeat for the US-led effort, saying the Taliban seek to reclaim control of the country, not battle extremists or work with the Afghan government as the US had hoped.
The Washington Post (8/16/19) found that:
Some critics have expressed concern that the United States could be giving away much of its leverage by announcing a troop withdrawal up front, before progress in inter-Afghan negotiations has been achieved.
NBC News’ “US Withdrawal From Afghanistan Could Trigger ‘Catastrophic’ Civil War, Ex-US Diplomats Warn” (9/3/19), was based on an Atlantic Council commentary by nine former diplomats:
“A major troop withdrawal must be contingent on a final peace,” the former diplomats wrote. “The initial US drawdown should not go so far or so fast that the Taliban believe that they can achieve military victory.”
Who are these “critics,” and how come journalists don’t go out of their way to tap other kinds of sources for their reports? While there was no shortage of sources critical of US withdrawal efforts in these reports, corporate media hosted a narrow spectrum of debate by leaving no room for sources critical of the war’s moral and legal legitimacy who advocated a complete withdrawal.
The Intercept (8/21/19) notes there is concern not only about what the US’s enemies would do after a withdrawal, but also about its allies.
The discussion also left out those who were critical of the “peace talks” for reasons that differ from those of hawkish government and military officials. Legal scholar Marjorie Cohn and the Costs of War Project have criticized the US/Taliban peace talks, arguing that they wouldn’t have led to real peace because they ignored the role of regional Afghan militias, funded and directed by the CIA, in subverting peace (Intercept, 8/21/19). These CIA-backed forces have violated laws of war designed to protect civilians by engaging in torture and killings with near impunity, pushing people toward the Taliban. Central to the US/NATO coalition’s security strategy, these militias carry out approximately seven times as many offensive operations against the Taliban as the regular Afghan forces (New York Times, 12/31/18, 8/12/19).
Not only do corporate media credulously assume that the US has always been interested in peace, conveniently forgetting that the US rejected offers from the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden over and surrender soon after the invasion (Intercept, 8/22/17), they also erroneously presume that the US possesses the legal and moral prerogative to enforce a deal to determine the future of Afghanistan.
While it’s certainly true that things could get worse if the US withdraws, these reports conveniently omit that the US military’s very presence is a major obstacle to peace in Afghanistan. Political scientist Robert Pape studied every suicide bomb attack in the world since 1980, like the one ostensibly responsible for scuttling the peace talks. His finding: 95 percent of all suicide bombings are a response to military intervention, and often occupation (Nation, 12/2/15). The Taliban have long held that a complete withdrawal of foreign troops and an end to the occupation is a necessary precondition for any political settlement with the Afghan government.
Although the Afghan government and the international coalition—primarily the US—have caused most of the civilian deaths during the first six months of 2019, media scholar and FAIR contributor Greg Shupak is correct to point out (In These Times, 8/1/18):
The United States and its partners also share blame for Afghan civilian deaths caused by anti-government forces. According to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg conducted after World War II, a war of aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” What this means is that whoever starts a war is responsible for all the atrocities that occur in that war. The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was a war of aggression. The attack was not authorized by the United Nations, which means it was illegal.
FAIR has documented that corporate media have often covered for the US government’s role in cultivating Muslim extremists (Extra!, 1/02), and for its effective cooperation with Osama bin Laden’s explicit strategy of bogging the US down in expensive, bloody wars in Muslim countries (Extra!, 7/11).
The Afghans are one of the least happy populations ever recorded (Gallup, 10/26/18). Yet corporate media’s propagandistic coverage discourages the US from doing the one thing that might help change that: get out.
One would think that the example of 69 years of utter, complete, abject failure at “defeating” insurgencies could teach the myopic USAmerican military machine and their alleged bosses that it can’t be done.
Insanity…
Of course, to be fair the Gangsters for Capitalism are mainly engaged in global resource theft for a massive fossil-fueled consumption and pollution machine, not “defeating insurgencies”…
Why the US should leave is clear.
Why it stays is rarely examined.
Why are geostrategic and resource goals left out of so many otherwise scathing critiques of the horrors visited upon Afghans by imperious imperialism?
If Iraq was “about the oil”
Then what the fuck is Afghanistan about?
Hi, Josh here. Great question. I’ll just say that writers can’t include all the information they’d like to for concision’s sake. Articles that are too long won’t get as many readers or shares. Forgive me. However, I did actually link to a few sources in this piece that address those concerns. Here they are:
1.) http://inthesetimes.com/article/21347/war_on_terror_george_bush_afghanistan_occupation_civilians_msf
2.) https://socialistproject.ca/2010/12/b445/
Afghanistan is about control of the region’s natural resources and its geographic location as a strategic gambit in the latest round of the capitalist game to determine who controls the trade routes (including projected oil / natural gas pipelines—-[Taliban / Unocal pipeline discussions in 1999]) from Central Asia to market both regionally and in an international context. EARTH magazine and the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN had extensive articles to this effect nearly ten years ago. Another source of unimpeachable information is the U.S. Geological Survey, both from its scientific papers (there are several levels of these) and its newsletters and press releases….this info is not exactly a secret…it’s in the public domain. Also examine the numerous newsletters and corporate bulletins from the minerals / extractive industry corporations. Of particular interest is (are?) the discovery of valuable rare earth minerals deposits in Afghanistan—-China has a near monopoly on mining and refining these chemicals so necessary to the manufacture of gadgets related to the instruments and toys of the digital revolution. I repeat: this information is not a secret—it is readily available to those who take the time and trouble to access it.
What is Afghanistan about —is the question. I have to agree with ancient history which still seems to be in play today. Afghanistan is ,” the graveyard of empires.”
It certainly did that for Alexander the Great and Russia too, for the curse seems to be right on time for 21st century America, At least in Vietnam, the military could recognize a losing proposition and get out——but in America, we not only have generals who can’t win, but they can’t leave a losing war either.
“The Times might have pointed out that the September 11 attacks were carried out by militants based in the United States and recruited in Germany.”
— and by Saudis, not Afghans
During the period in which suicide bombings killed one American soldier (and several Afghans) — apparently Drumpf’s reason for cancelling the talks — up to 1,000 Afghans were reportedly killed by U.S. forces and their allies. Israel likes to kill 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed, but 1,000 is a new height.
I have heard that the US has 17 different spy agencies…..did they have that many on 9/ 11? And if yes——–what did the spies know and when did they know it?
I do not know how many spy agencies the U S has.
However, the CIA did warn President Bush about it and he ignored it. That is truly awful. However, ignoring warnings is surprisingly common historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
No doubt that the troubles created by conflict are often of one’s own making. But the angst over Afghanistan has more to do with egos and misplaced idealism powering imperialism. And it comes with the human cost of the machinations needed in these unpredictable and dangers games.
One only has to consider the women of Afghanistan: in the search for goodwill, local allies and optics, they live a life based on promises only really backed up by the US’ word. There is little doubt that any deal with the Taliban to bring peace would at best resign them to the home and chatteldom. Many of the more outspoken and courageous (MPs, Pilots, Media, any one dared work or become known) will be lucky to find exile before the Taliban finds them.
The ethical case is considerably more difficult than an issue of arrogant aggression. It should also be acknowledged that the reason negotiations are getting so far is that the internal politics of the US no longer values things like women’s rights, secular institutions or the role of the state in distributing justice (economic, civil, criminal and more). Once these are tradeable, the Taliban are potential business partners.
A cut losses and dump would at least be as much of a human tragedy as the continued stress and hurt of conflict. Nor does history teach us that peace at any cost is a price worth paying; one could say the same for any struggle that hurts or inconveniences those benefiting from the status quo. Possibly, unilaterally taking a decision to end a war might be reflecting the same fallacies that led to unilaterally starting one. A slower, more nuanced and learning approach might be better to understand and approach this problem.
I’m not sure that you can say that “cut and dump” would be as much of a tragedy as ongoing war, although I do acknowledge that there would potentially be some unfortunate setbacks to women’s rights and for a period. I do not think that the morally compromised invading and occupying force can ever be the one to set things right in another country, without other long-range ramifications. If we are concerned about possible civil rights setbacks, then a more neutral party such as the UN should be brought into the negotiations to find a way to guarantee a broader peace.
Opium, that’s why we’re still there. With the added bonus of rare earth minerals. Tons of minerals. Obama served his overlords, trump is serving his. Trillions 2.4 trillion to be precise. In new shiny weapons of war. As the debt continues to grow unabated, regardless of party. The BANKSTERS, whose avarice knows no limit will ensure that the third temple is built
Well said, Mr. Cho, How many mega-tons of bombs have we manufactured, bought and dropped on the Afghan countryside? Seems I remember we even used a MOAB.(Mother of all bombs) Every bomb we use there has to be renewed to keep our forces up to snuff. This to the delight of our Military/Industrial complex. Why would we not want to spend another Trillion or two of our taxpayers money, and another ten years playing Whack-a-mole, as long as the arms factories are providing JOBS and PROFITS? The Ignorant Masses need to wake the hell up and put an end to this farce. Too many Americans are living in the streets, lacking medical attention, going hungry. Let the Afghan people sort it out for themselves, their entire history has been war, after war. Let them honor their petty gods, we will never change anything there as the last 18 years have shown, over and over again. Lots of theft and exploitation mostly by our ‘contractors’. What a waste of lives and treasure…..
Well said, Mr. Trudeau. The egregious stupidity of denying the US Holocaust on Afghanistan is a war of naked illegal aggression is easily cured by reference to a globe or map of the world. There are no Afghanistan military in the USA slaughtering Americans. There never were.
Well said, Mr. Trudeau. The egregious stupidity of denying the US Holocaust on Afghanistan is a war of naked illegal aggression is easily cured by reference to a globe or map of the world. There are no Afghanistan military in the USA slaughtering Americans. There never were.
Government’s tale of what happened on 911 was exposed as a lie, with the issuance of peer reviewed engineering study that concluded Building 7 did NOT collapse into its footprint at free fall speed due to office fires, as reported by NIST and 911 Commission. Therefore, Building 7 was rigged for demolition, the owners of the building knew in advance, the entire day was a false flag. We need independent journalist, like those working at FAIR, to stop perpetuating the myth
The official USG account of the September 11, 2001 attacks has completely collapsed. Sooner or later someone high up in public life is going to point that out, and then all hell is going to break loose. We are going to have a constitutional crisis, probably in the not too distant future.
Maybe you know it and maybe you don’t, but just to make sure, I will tell you: what you call
the “corporate media” is a conglomeration of companies owned or controlled by American
Jewish zealots who have transformed our once fairly free press into today’s mega propaganda outlets which promote Israel’s interests and attack the legitimate interests
of the Palestinian people. Try to find a little bit of courage in your profit dominated souls.