Check for web archive captures
Setting a Bad Record
By lindamuralidharan on 2020-03-27 23:46:42
There is so much written and said and to learn about the corona virus that I don't want to repeat much of it. I hope the
readers here have already checked out much of what has been said about how the President (you know, the one who gets
things done?) has complicated and worsened the American effort to deal with the virus, about so much to be angry about in
what some other people and politicians have said, about so much to be distressed about certain thoughtless behaviors of
many everyday people, about so much to praise among effective politicians such as some of the governors, and about so
much to be thankful for in what exposed health care workers are doing day after day. I will instead look at some of the other
things going on in relation to our country and its policies and actions. The Afghan War has long since set a record as
America's longest war. That is a terrible record to hold under any circumstances but when it is an unnecessary, failing war
of questionable legality, the dubious record is even more horrifying. I guess I even like the word disgusting. Some of you
may have forgotten or been too young to know that the attack on the country of Afghanistan was uncalled for in the first
place. Osama bin Laden led Al Qaeda to launch the unspeakable attacks on American soil in 2001. He was given a place to
scheme and plan in Afghanistan since he had worn out his welcome in his own country of Saudi Arabia. The theocratic rule
of the harsh Taliban did not share his world view although they did share his stringent and more or less minority version of
his religion. Both accepted a version of Islam. bin Laden wanted to wage war on and perhaps even defeat Western countries
and most any place that would resist his idea of Islam. The Taliban on the other hand wanted to continue and expand their
theocracy within Afghanistan. [caption id="attachment_13868" align="alignright" width="155"]—
Bamyan statue severely damaged by Taliban[/caption] As with most modern "governments" of that, country they ruled from
Kabul and held a lot of territory after prolonged battles with various war lords, but in some regions war lords or local leaders
were not really subject to rule from Kabul. A situation on the ground that is true to this day although there is a different
government in Kabul. Under George W. Bush prior to the 9/11 attacks the US held some talks with the Taliban about such
issues as trade. If I recall correctly the Taliban wanted to be more or less part of the world's functioning and economy and
were not wanting to proselytize outside of their home country. At that point in time, Bush did not seem unduly bothered by
the Taliban wretched treatment of women and their ultraorthodox banning of such things as music for enjoyment. Vary harsh
punishments accompanied violations of their rules. A number of activists, particularly women, lobbied the Clinton and Bush
administrations to take some kind of stand or action against the Taliban because of their misogyny. No significant action
advancing the cause of women was undertaken After 9/11 though, Americans demanded that the Taliban hand over bin
Laden for his crime. The Taliban operated under a common middle Eastern custom of hospitality which could at times even
extend to "enemies". They believed they would lose face if they simply obeyed Western demands and were playing for
time. At one point Americans were asked to show proof of bin Laden's guilt. People with deep knowledge of the people and
the region and with no political gain in mind, said that after two or three months of negotiations, Sheik Mullah Omar would
comply and either surrender bin Laden or send him to a neutral country that would likely extradite him to a Western country
to stand trial. Unfortunately some of our politicians who are too eager for war, too short sighted to play the long game,
exploited the widespread desire in the USA for revenge and the impatience of the populace as a whole. Thus we attacked an
entire country full of people who meant us no harm and whose government itself was not a direct threat to the USA. Some
will recall that in Congress a lone person, Representative Barbara Lee of California, voted against the start of the war. Oh,
will she forever be one of my heroines. Competent diplomacy was not given a chance. Some of you know the next phase of
this pathetic history, with the US and allied forces easily driving the Taliban from power in Kabul. And then.......dramatic
drum roll.....George W. Bush stopped meaningful efforts to wage either a mopping up military action or a strategic effort to
consolidate existing gains with plans and efforts to set up a functioning, relatively democratic governmental system
emanating from Kabul. Then President Hamid Karzai begged the US to up their material and troop support for the
government. Bush looked the other way and focused on the immoral and illegal war in Iraq in stead. [caption
id="attachment_13869" align="alignleft" width="260"] WASHINGTON - JULY
13: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill July
13, 2006 in Washington, DC. Committee members pressed Khalilzad about what the U.S. plans on doing in Iraq in the face
of rising sectarian violence and the inability of the Iraqi military to stand up so U.S. forces can stand down. (Photo by Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images)[/caption] Afghan gains and allied consolidation of peaceful sections of the country outside of
Taliban control diminished. Many people reported that the US all too often chose a corrupt local official or vicious war lord
to support as opposed to a relatively honest local official. The war from the standpoint of the American allies deteriorated.
And so year after year, whether we emphasized training of Afghan troops or support for democratic elections in the country,
we basically lost the war against the Taliban which morphed into an entity that was both opposed to the Western allies and a
coalition determined to rule again from Kabul. Generals and diplomats and Washington bureaucrats all had a role in making
hash of this our longest running war. Troops on the whole are well trained and ethical at least a good part of the time except
that their being there in the first place to start a war with a country that never attacked us nor planned to was immoral to say
the least and most certainly unwise. So many of us pointed out the unfriendly habit Afghans had had through the centuries
of defeating and dispatching foreign efforts to rule or dominate the country. We were essentially ignored. Certain people, at
least one former ambassador of ours included, became so fed up with Washington denseness on the subject of wrongheaded
policies in Afghanistan that they quit their posts altogether. The errors made in our name were of many types. Surges vs.
some kind of peaceful rapprochement among the villages, olive branches sometimes offered at the wrong times and to the
wrong people, failure to understand the danger from the Pakistani intelligence establishment. Pure and simple, Pakistan
wants influence in Afghanistan no matter who rules there because they don't want India to upstage them in that poor,
beleaguered country. As a Muslim theocracy, they are not particularly loathe to tacitly tolerate Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
SOW YORK TIMES PCSTSCLEER
DIRECTORATE 5&3
THE C.1.4. AMD AMERICA’S
SECKET WARS IN AFGHANISTAN
AND PARISTAWN
STEVE COLL
one
[caption id="attachment_ 13876" align="alignleft" width="196"] Directorate S book jacket.
Dense factual report by Steve Coll[/caption] One book that no lay person is likely to read is "Directorate S: The C.I.A. and
America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan", by Steve Coll. However, if you should wish to try a very dense and
pretty accurate, detailed account of a great American failure, you would read it. At least in parts. I am slogging and only
half way through after some time. Worth it to me. Yes, President Trump campaigned on ending foolish wars (I'm not sure
who coined that particular phrase, I think it was left leaning Democrats) and by whichever name he referred to them and it
was one of the very few of his positions that warmed the hearts of progressives. He has not done much that is productive to
implement that promise, but at the moment he is making an effort. It is ham handed and unlikely to succeed but President
Trump has authorized Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to negotiate for peace with the Taliban. [caption
id="attachment_13870" align="alignleft" width="180"] Secretary of State Mike
Pompeol/caption] There are any number of flaws in the current approach and talks are pretty well stalled at
& KYRGY£S LAN
; A z =
k ' “Toshkent_ - :
_ TURKMENISTAN.
Ashgabat
“Tehran aaa
IRAN i Islamabad
PAKISTAN Se.
p+ New Delhi
ae ic a. 3
ao ae eee \ ©2020 HERE this point. First, the US did not include the supposed
government of Afghanistan, the officially recognized one, and the one ensconced in Kabul and basically in charge of the
Afghan Army that is fighting along with the European/ American allies against the Taliban. Second, we give more weight to
Zalmay Khalilzad than to the dueling politicians in Kabul. Yes, Ghani and Abdullah cannot agree who came in first in the
elections but each has definite political support of some large segment of the population. Kahlilzad has been advising the
US in peace and war regarding Afghanistan for decades. He needs to go. We need fresh faces, fresh views. The approach
being used now is not working and probably will end up like many previous efforts to win or lose with peace in
Afghanistan. There is, however, a better, more practical, and more complicated way. It also requires people who can take
the long view. [caption id="attachment_ 13872" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Afghan child[/caption] There are several countries in the region that have
very pertinent issues with the fate of Afghanistan. These include Iran, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. Of course,
the US and European allies have an interest in the outcome of this record breaking war. Meaningful peace would involve
negotiations and agreements by all of these. They would, in fact, need to agree to and be willing to guarantee support for an
agreement that took into account varing interests but that gave no advantage to any one country. What kind of power
sharing could be hammered out among Taliban factions and the Kabul establishment I don't know. But it definitely will not
work if attempted in isolation from the interests and influence of the larger region. I hope that this President can effect a
true peace and I doubt it will occur without the principles of international involvement I have just elaborated on
