Both Iraq and Afghanistan wars fail

Afghanistan: a destructive and losing situation for Afghans, US troops, US taxpayers; generating instability and violence in Central Asia; creating problems not solving them….

This site, stopafghanwar, has sought to gather information that illuminates why it is justifiable to oppose the US government’s war/occupation on Afghanistan. We have logged 343 posts since the site was begun by George Hartley back in November, 2009. Posts have covered diverse topics, including: Afghan government corruption, the use by warlords and druglords of private armies and militias to control local populations in areas not under Taliban influence, US contractor abuses, civilian deaths, infrastructure destruction, refugees, US troop casualties and deaths, the costs in dollars to US taxpayers, the confusion and ineffectiveness in US military strategies, how the war/occupation fits into the US imperialist goal of maintaining control over oil in the Middle East and Caspian Sea regions, the flawed Afghan elections, detention and torture of Afghani citizens, the use of cluster bombs and drones by the US air force, the lack of reconstruction, the brutality of the occupation, the need for negotiations with all parties, and so on.

We’ve been inspired by the brave voice of Malalai Joya through her book, Women Among Warlords, her extraordinary courage, and her articles and speeches. Joya writes in the “Introduction” to her book:

“We need security and a helping hand from friends around the world, but not this endless US-led ‘war on terror,’ which is in fact a war against the Afghan people. The Afghan people are not terrorists; we are the victims of terrorism Today the soil of Afghanistan is full of land mines, bullets, and bombs – when what we really need is an invasion of hospitals, clinics, and schools for boys and girls.” Then, a few sentences later: “We are caught between two enemies – the Taliban on one side and the US/NATO forces and their warlord friends on the other….During his election campaign, the new president of the United States, Barack Obama, spoke of sending tens of thousands more foreign troops to Afghanistan, but he did not speak out against the twin plagues of corruption and warlordism that are destroying my country. But for Afghans, Obama’s military build up will only bring more suffering and death to innocent civilians, while it may not even weaken the Taliban and al-Qaeda.”

We also need to be reminded that the Iraq war and occupation also do not represent “success” stories and should not be used as examples to justify the continuation of the war/occupation in Afghanistan

US actions in Iraq, from 1991 to the present left the country in ruins, insofar as the majority of the population is concerned. On the Dec. 22, 2010 post, I offered selected parts of a series of articles and reports that help to confirm the environmental destruction and the human misery among Iraqis caused or facilitated by the US-led war and occupation. My general point then and now is that the Iraq war is an illegal war, war crimes were committed, and the country has been devastated and its people subjected to great harm and death. (see

http://stopafghanwar.blogspot.com/2010/12/iraq-war-will-not-end-with-us-troop.html, or google “stopafghanwar, Iraq war will not end with withdrawal of US troops".)

"The US leaders said that we were invading Iraq to “liberate” it. Tom Engelhardt summarizes in the following paragraph from his book, The American Way of War (2010) the “devastation” that US forces brought to the country.

“Since then, Saddam Hussein’s killing fields have been dwarfed by a fierce set of destructive US military operations, as well as insurgencies cum-civil-wars-cum-terrorist-acts: major cities have been largely or partially destroyed, or ethnically cleansed; millions of Iraqis have been forced from their homes, becoming internal refugees or going into exile; untold numbers of Iraqis have been imprisoned, assassinated, tortured, or abused; and the country’s cultural heritage has been ransacked. Basic services – electricity, water, food – were terribly impaired and the economy was simply wrecked. Health services were crippled. Oil production upon which Iraq now depends for up to 90 percent of its government funds, has only relatively recently barely surpassed the worst levels of the pre-invasion era” (155)

The majority of Republicans polled still think our war/occupation in Iraq is a “success.”

Polls done in December, 2010, by the Pew Research Center and by the Gallup Poll Third, found a bipartisan split among respondents, with Republican majorities viewing the war as the “right decision” and as a “success,” while a large majority of Democrats holding the opposite views. These findings are unsettling, particularly because of the Republican political gains in the 2010 US congressional and state elections and their right-wing and militaristic agendas.

Pew Research Center poll – http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Gallup poll – http://www.politicsdailey.com/2010/08.21/iraq-war-seen-as-failure-by-53-percent-of-americans - e.g., 70% of the Democrats say it will go down as a failure, while 60% of Republicans think the war will be judged as a success.”

Some of the delusions of our foreign policy decision makers

One important implication of presenting Iraq as a “success” story is that it helps to rationalize US interventions and long wars and occupations in other places, including Afghanistan. The idea is that if we continue long enough in a given war, then it will turn out better than if we withdraw “prematurely.” Derek Leebaert explores this kind of thinking in his book, Magic and Mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Policy.” Leebaert identifies six delusions, two of which are especially pertinent to the present discussion:

“A sensation of urgency and of ‘crisis’ that accompanies the belief that most any resolute action is superior to restraint; it’s a demeanor that’s joined by the emergency man’s eagerness to be his country’s revealer of dangers, real and imagined.”

“The repeated belief that America can shape the destiny of other countries overnight and that the hearts and minds of distant people are throbbing to be transformed into something the way we see ourselves” (pp. 7-8).

Good War, Bad War - Nonsense!

Captured by such delusions perhaps, or by the imperatives of imperialistic constraints, US leaders, most illustriously President Obama, have defined the US-led Iraq war and occupation as a “bad” but successful war, and the Afghan war as a “good” war. Well, to repeat a point made many times on this site, we believe that the Afghan war is misbegotten and horrible, not a “good” war. Every war is unimaginably destructive, especially on the surroundings and people caught up in and trapped by this or that war. In this sense, the so-called successful Iraq war is another nightmarish example in these terms. If anything, the Iraq war should not serve as an example for continuing the Afghanistan war but as an example for ending it now.

A cop out - President Obama’s “Oval Office Speech on Iraq,” August 31, 2010

On August 31 of 2010, President Obama gave a speech in which, among things, he said that we had achieved our military goals in Iraq and thus:

(1) “the American combat mission in Iraq has ended [not true];

(2) “[we] have removed nearly 100,000 troops from Iraq….[and] closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis….[and] moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.”[but over 90 bases remain in US hands, including the biggest bases]….

(3) “all US troops will leave by the end of next year” [now its 2014 - maybe].

(4) He also said that there is an “elected government” in power” [fragile, with Sunni participation fragile and key decisions about the distribution of oil revenues still to be made] and

(5) the Iraqi people have rejected“sectarian conflict” [there still violent attacks, though down in number but trending upward]

There are two principal implications of President Obama’s speech. First, the speech emphasizes that the US occupation forces and allied for forces have achieved victory, or something like it, in Iraq. Second, the speech suggests that the US war/occupation can serve as a model for how to deal effectively with authoritarian governments, insurgents or “terrorists” in other parts of the Middle East, Central Asia, or anywhere else in “developing countries.” The strong thrust of the speech is that the US has the right to intervene anywhere it identifies a threat to the US or its allies in the developing world, launch attacks by the US military and special forces, and attempt to replace a government that is antagonistic to US interests or “a failed state” or strengthen a government that acts in US interests. This latter point suggests that US leaders prefer governments, even dictatorial governments, that will advance or protect US interests regardless of the effects of the people of a given country. This has been true of many US interventions in many “developing” countries for the last 150 years or so. (See a partial but detailed documentation of this point in William Blum’s Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.)

Bush-like

We think that President Obama’s declaration of a successful end of the US combat involvement in Iraq is disappointingly close to Bush’s misbegotten statement of “mission accomplished.” Today, Iraq represents seven years of turmoil and violence for millions of Iraqis, and counterproductive costs in life and resources for both Iraq and the United States. Obama says nothing in his speech about the devastation of Iraq’s physical and social infrastructures or the great harm we have done to Iraqi civilians – children as well. Rather, Obama’s statements bring to mind I.F. Stone’s belief that “all governments lie,” or the title of David Swanson’s recent book, War is a Lie.

The Compass of Compassion

I found these words in a book I've just finished reading by Carl Safina, The View from Lazy Point. The book focuses on Safina's experiences during a year observing "nature," all sorts of birds, fish-life, and various habitats, while also discussing the mostly bad news about how humans are destroying the earth's habitats. On the last page of the book, Safina writes these inspiring and uplifting words:

"The compass of compassion asks not, 'What is good for me?' but 'What is good?' Not what is best for me but what is best. Not what is right for me, but what is right. Not "How much can we take? but "How much ought we leave?' and "How much might we give?' Not what is easy but what is worthy. Not what is practical but what is moral. With each action we decide whether to sow the grapes of wrath or the seeds of peace.

"The compass of compassion suggests that very few things, each simple, are needed. We shouldn't hate people for the group they were born into, or because we hold conflicting beliefs about things that cannot be proven, seen, or measured. We can't infinitely take more from - or infinitely add more people to - a finite planet. While living in a world endowed with self-renewing energy, we can't run civilization on energy that diminishes the world. If we can get these simple things under control, I think we could be okay. Simple does not mean easy. Yet more than ever before in history, we can now understand what's needed. But nations need to act boldly and soon. Time runs short at an accelerating pace" (p 356).

US diplomatic facilities expanded, no firm date for a drawdown of US troops

The following four articles provide indications that the US will continue to have an enlarged diplomatic presence in Afghanistan over coming years and and that the US military will remain in Afghanistan after the July, 2011 drawdown date first mentioned by President Obama in December of 2009. It was in December, we may recall, that President Obama announced an increase in troops to be deployed to Afghanistan. At that time, the President also referred to the possibility that some US troops would begin to be withdrawn, beginning in July 2011. However, he never specified how many troops might then be withdrawn or if any troops at all would be brought home. He emphasized that any such drawdown of troops depended on conditions in Afghanistan and what his generals recommended.

There are two points that strike one from the four articles to which I refer below. First, the US government shows every indication of having a diplomatic and military presence in Afghanistan for years to come. Second, Republicans and the President seem to be virtually on the same page when it comes to a drawdown date. President Obama has said that some troops may be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011, but not necessarily. Republicans say this is too ambiguous and they want a policy that excludes any date or timetable. They suggest that we should leave it up to the generals who are in command. That could be in July 2011, or many years after that.

The first article reports on the contruction of US diplomatic facilities. The other three articles report on Republican opposition to any date or timetable for the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.

First article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/03-5

Rahim Faiez reports in an article posted on Common Dreams.org that the "U.S. government will spend $511 million to expand its embassy in Kabul," according to the US ambassador Karl Eikenberry. The construction project is "a demonstration of America's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. Faiez writes: "The project stated earlier this year and currently employes about 500 Afghans. Once construction is under way, more than 1,500 Afghan workers will be employed." There are other building projects in the works. Over the last two years, the US government has signed two contracts to expand American diplomatic facilities in Kabul and consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat provinces that total $790 million, according to Eikenberry.

Second article: http://antiwar.com/2010/11/3/republicans-vow-to-target-already-disavowed-afghan-drawdown-date

Jason Ditz reports for Anti-War.com that House Republicans "have promised [that] one of their first orders of business is to attack President Obama's policy of possibly drawing down the number of US troops in Afghanistan." Ditz points out that Obama would probably have no trouble with such a Republican initiative because he, the Secretary of State, and his generals have never committed the US government to a firm drawdown date.

Third article: http://antiwar.com/2010/06/24/obama-disavows-july-2011-afghan-drawdown-date

In an earlier report last June, Ditz reports that President Obama announced that there would be no "hasty exit" from Afghanistan, clarifying that "the July 2011 drawdown date he set himself in December" (2009) was a date when the withrawal of an unspecified size would begin only if conditions on the ground in Afghanistan were sufficiently stable, that is, there existed a stable and legitimate Afghan government and an Iraq army and policy force capable of maintaining security.

Fourth article - Just Foreign Policy, Nov. 3, 2010, adds further evidence (see below) that the Republicans, not only in the House but also in the Senate, will be pushing for legislation that explicitly rules out any date or timetable, however conditional it might be, for a drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.

McCain hopes for fresh look at Afghan policySteve Holland, Reuters, Wed Nov 3, 2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A21K320101103

'Republican Senator John McCain said on Tuesday in the wake of big Republican victories in Congress that he hopes President Barack Obama will take a fresh look at U.S. war policy in Afghanistan. McCain won re-election to his Arizona Senate seat by a large margin, ensuring he will retain have a strong voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee as its ranking Republican member.

"In an interview, McCain told Reuters he was looking forward to a December review the Obama administration is preparing to give an update on the U.S. troop increase Obama ordered a year ago to try to repulse a strengthened Taliban.McCain, who is expected to visit Afghanistan soon, said he would like to see a change in Obama's decision to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Afghanistan next August."I can only speak for myself, but this date for withdrawal that the president announced without any military advice or counsel has caused us enormous problems in our operations in Afghanistan, because our enemies are encouraged and our friends are confused over there," he said.

[...]