Wikipedia entries are so much fun to read. They impound a kind of anarcho-construction of “knowledge” or “reality”, that which is factual unless challenged and changed on the page. So, the entry on War in Afghanistan starts with the clause “The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001…” I like that word “The” that starts it, as if this were the only such war in that land or the only such war worthy of the label. This is THE WAR. This reflects what is called American exceptionalism, or is it just American provincialism writ global? I remember when the war began, and, yes, it was in the fall of 2001. Can it be that 11 years have passed? Why is this war taking so long? I thought the U.S. military was such a terrific military. We spend enough money on it. Do you mean it hasn’t been enough?
So, next the entry tells us who “launched” the war, and it was the United States and some of its satellite nations, the usual suspects like Britain and Australia and then NATO. The attack was called “Operation Enduring Freedom”. More like enduring bloodletting, division, and a real pain in the butt.
I like this part: “the stated goal of dismantling the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. ” This has taken 11 years? It’s not finished yet? Actually, al-Qaeda was never much of an “organization”, not compared to a few Marine platoons. It had “training camps” for would-be terrorists. The satellites spotted these. Al-Qaeda now is a brand name that the U.S. invokes whenever a new jihad group springs up in any one of a dozen or more other countries to which the U.S. dispatches 50-150 operatives as a foothold for new Afghanistans (Where are these countries? And what have they done to us?). The U.S. government has a production line, turning out new enemies, new bases, new drone operations, and new contingents of American forces.
Next, we read that there was a secondary goal: “The United States also said that it would remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state.” Yes, I remember that too. Bush wanted that. Obama does too. He wants this in many other places too. Hillary Clinton says this explicitly. She says this defines who we Americans are and what we stand for. Are these birds for real? Sadly, they are. Hillary says that the U.S. “will not pull back our support for emerging democracies when the going gets tough. That would be a costly strategic mistake that would undermine both our interests and our values.”
Although no one in these far off lands has done anything to endanger American interests or values, Hillary thinks that they are doing something to us by scrapping with one another or having their internal domestic disputes or tearing down religious monuments or whatever they are doing that bothers her and the rest of Washington, but which doesn’t affect America’s domestic tranquility one whit. “What have they done to us?” is better asked of the federal government. What indeed have they done to us? Murray Rothbard asked “What have they done to our money?” It’s a lot worse now. What have they done to every other part of American life and society? It boggles the mind.
Hillary says “We will keep leading, and we will stay engaged,” including in hard places where America’s interests and values are at stake.” Adding: “That’s who we are. That’s the best way to honor those whom we have lost. And that’s how we ensure our country’s global leadership for decades to come.”
It’s the best way to destroy America, Hillary. Those “we have lost” are gone, dead and buried. Sunk costs. No rational person is going to base foreign policy on sunk costs. That’s purely a false emotional appeal. And what is this “global leadership”? What does it amout to in reality? POLITICS and WARFARE. It amounts to war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war in Libya, and new wars if these blind leaders have their way. It comes to continual interference in the politics and societies of other states. Continual entanglements, with no visible gains in American interests or values. America’s leaders cannot solve its own massive problems, but they project grandiose plans to blunder overseas for decades to come.
In Afghanistan, “the war has expanded into the tribal area of neighboring Pakistan.” Now the U.S. has expanded its warring into Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Mali, etc., and it’s applying severe economic pressures against Iran. The U.S. is looking for trouble in the Pacific and Central Asia. The CIA’s drone warfare is out of control and only now are criticisms beginning to be voiced by mainstream sources.
There are surely some sensible persons who are ambitious and would like to run the foreign policy of the U.S. in a more sensible way, but they are unrepresented in the upcoming national election. There are surely some sensible persons among those in power and in the mainstream media, but if they are speaking out, they are being drowned out.
The foreign policy of the U.S. needs to be shut down. Unless some state has declared war on domestic and continental America, the U.S. should not be introducing its forces into those countries. Is that too difficult a rule to follow? Historically, it served the U.S. well, even if the U.S. broke it from time to time. Now U.S. leaders have lost their minds. Their rule now is to insert forces anywhere overseas that they want to under the loosest of pretexts. They have replaced the rule of neutrality with the rule of interference. Hillary calls this “leadership”. I call it blindness and stupidity.
