An alternative title would be: “What is the USA doing in Afghanistan?” And the reply would be: erring more than getting things right, despite good intentions. Even the normally praiseworthy virtue of persistence depends on the best possible evaluation of a variety of factors, in order to not be damaging to the community and the actual entity demonstrating persistence, functioning as its coffin. In the world of business, such a distinction is particularly evident, given that the almighty dollar is not greatly given to philosophy and forgiveness. It is unmerciful on those who do not know how to shrewdly assess all the “pros” and “cons” of any business transaction. Someone once said that money and health do not tolerate effrontery.
According to the article “Vietnam replay: A war that can’t be won”, written by William P. Polk, professor of history at Chicago University and president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs, published in Portuguese, under the title “Lições do Vietnã”, in “Le Monde Diplomatique, Brasil” on 28-11-09 (page 21), it is calculated that the overall cost of the Afghan war - which has already lasted eight years - will cost the US economy between $3 and $6 trillion, in other words, more than 25% of the US gross domestic product.
With just half of this spending, poor Africa (the adjective is really unnecessary) would take a great leap forward in terms of quality. With the essential prerequisite that the use of such resources allocated to the continent be closely scrutinized by the donors themselves, or by a reliable international agency. This is because a common practice among some governors of destitute countries is that of diverting a large portion of such assistance to their personal bank accounts situated in Switzerland or other Tax Havens. This problem will only be resolved when there is more flexibility regarding use of the term “sovereignty”. At the present time, as a rule, the crooked politician says, in a firm voice: “We do not allow foreigners to come snooping into the accounts of our country!” A mere excuse for preventing generous donors, generally Americans and Europeans, from overseeing use of the considerable amounts involved. However, I will not go into this aspect any further here, as it strays from the main topic of this article. I only wish to add that, at the time of the Marshall Plan, destined for European recovery following the Second World War, a large portion of the money sent by the American government in order to boost the south Italian economy ended up returning to banks in the United States - in the current accounts of Mafiosi of all types and styles.
According to the aforementioned William P. Polk, comparing the current conflict in Afghanistan with the situation found during the Vietnam War, (...) “The corruption of the South Vietnamese government” (supported by the Americans) “was monumental. Officials stole aid money and food given to their people; and they sold to the enemy Viet Minh equipment and arms given as war material by the US”. He adds that “In Afghanistan, the government we condoned and effectively installed is involved in the drug traffic, sells offices in the police, army and civil service, decides law cases by the size of bribes, steals everything its officials touch, and has been caught selling ammunition to the Taliban. Everything is for sale. The re-election of Hamid Karzai was not a travesty; it was a joke...”
How does so much investment in Afghanistan (in money and lives) benefit the USA, if local government is evidently not reliable and currently detested to an ever greater extent by the Afghans themselves? And the hatred shown by the population for its own government ends up extending to its “sponsor”, the USA, considered to be a “foreign occupying force”, irrespective of the reason for its presence. The people of no country whatsoever can tolerate living under military occupation.
History demonstrates that there is an instinctive reaction against foreign troops “assuming control in our country”. The only exception of which I an aware - and I am not well-versed in history - occurred in Japan, following its defeat by the USA. This is due to the fact that the Japanese had a certain degree of guilt regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a prior declaration of war. Besides this, the American government did not abuse its power as an occupying force. Certainly due to the fact that I was born with a mysterious and instinctive propensity to consider myself a kind of “world citizen”, I have never really understood why such a violent aversion exists to the presence of foreigners. In general, I even find their presence pleasing, if they show themselves to be friendly and “non-superior”. However, this is not the usual instinctive reaction. And the USA encourages such Afghan aversion when, attacking strongholds allegedly held by terrorists, it ends up involuntarily killing civilians, including children, given that many of these strikes are performed by unmanned drones.
Why did the USA invade Afghanistan soon after 11-9-01? Because it was there that Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the attacks, was to be found. And the Taliban supported him, or at least did not restrict his actions. However, one can be sure that Bin Laden is no longer to be found in Afghanistan and that he left the country a long time ago. It is said that he is hiding in the tribal zones of neighboring Pakistan. This finding led the Americans to bomb locations in Pakistan where Bin Laden and his followers could have found a safe haven. Conclusion: more deaths, now Pakistani casualties, the majority of whom are non-combatant civilians. Thus a further source of anti-western hatred is born. Before long, the USA will be at war with Pakistan, or at least “half” of the country. And Pakistan, although a relatively underdeveloped country, is in possession of nuclear weapons.
A few days ago, the USA started to use aircraft to attack Bin Laden’s followers in Yemen, an established breeding ground for terrorists. As far as I remember, around half of the terrorists that were on the hijacked passenger planes on 11-9-01 were of this nationality. If a large number of Yemeni civilians are killed as a result of such bombing, the possibility cannot be ignored of the Americans becoming involved in a “fourth war” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen). And perhaps others, if the terrorists migrate to neighboring Arab countries - not to mention Iran, in view of the danger of this country developing nuclear weapons.
By way of parenthesis, I would venture to say that Iran likely has the “secret” (not so secret really....) objective of developing a nuclear weapon, but not to use it against Israel. Its intention is dissuasive, in order to create something like a balance of power in the region. This is because if it ever used its bomb, Israeli and even American retaliation would incinerate Iran on the very same day, or the following day. Ahmadinejad would be a cadaver and the grave digger of his country, hated for various generations - and he is aware of this. What the bold-faced Iranian president really desires is that Israel and the international community believe that it is not possible to toy with Iran and that the country deserves to be respected, as it already has, or is close to having the power of nuclear armament. And his argumentative defense will always be the following: “If Israel has, or suggests that it has nuclear weapons, and is not harassed on this account, why is it that only Iran will be subject to sanctions even when there is no certainty that the nuclear power in question is not strictly destined for peaceful purposes?” In my opinion, there is a certain degree of bluff in the firmness and mystery shown by the Iranian president.
Before the four small fires spread, forming a single large conflagration, it would be more prudent for Barack Obama to follow his natural vocation - not that of his Secretary of Defense - in order to confront important international problems with the intelligent understanding and pacificism that he demonstrated during his electoral campaign and during the first few months of his government. As William Polk says, “Terrorists do not need Afghanistan, remote and poorly served by communications and transport: the 9/11 attackers were based in Europe, and future terrorists could attack from anywhere”. So, I ask, why remain in Afghanistan?
After a turbulent occupation for ten years, the Soviet Union ended up withdrawing from Afghanistan, and with losses of all kinds. In all certainty, it was this useless war that was the final blow to the dream of implementing socialism on a global scale. Socialist countries do not become rich. They may even be fair and just, but not rich. And the scanty resources that the Soviet Union had available ended up going down a drain represented by a counterproductive conflict of long duration.
Does that stated above mean to say that we should leave those engaging in terrorism to freely act in a destructive manner? The obvious answer to this question is “no”. It is up to the western world to remain alert, on the defensive rather than the attack, led by the most powerful and organized nation in the world - for the time being... Together with such vigilance, there is a need to place the greatest possible emphasis on the task of convincing the populations of invaded countries that the western world does not intend to crush them or dominate them indefinitely. And such assurance should be sincere.
Principally, encourage debates on television between followers of Islam and the western world, but prohibiting mutual offenses and only permitting arguments. In these debates concerning opinion, even members of the Taliban and those engaging in “jihad” would be able to participate, with diplomatic immunity, guaranteeing their return to their respective countries following the debates. Such a policy is already being cautiously put into practice in Afghanistan, with a large number of American civilians making contact with the local population. It should not be forgotten that Muslims are fiercely indoctrinated from their first years of life. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Muslim becomes a Muslim. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Christian becomes a Christian. Only a constant exchange of points of view can change this, little by little, breaking down prejudices on both sides. The BBC and some other television stations, including Al Jazira, could transmit the debates. It is possible that the basis for a single religion could arise from such an exchange of points of view - something that would be a huge step forward in the direction of world peace.
Prior to Moses, the world was inhabited by many gods. Apparently, monotheism was an advance. However, so many “monotheisms” arose (e.g., Christianity and Islam) that, in a certain way, polytheism returned to the planet, although in the form of a smaller number of deities. Jehovah, Christ and Mohammed represent the same single god; however, their followers battle against the “other” gods, which are basically one and the same “god”. They argue that there are many representatives, but only one god.
There is a great deal of inconsistency in these contests. If such inconsistencies were limited to pious prayers, there would not be any problem. The danger is that such beliefs become transformed into ideologies and even bloody territorial disputes. Israel insists that Jerusalem is its city, for both religious and historical reasons. The Palestinians make the same claim. And both worship a single god. How one asks, if both sides guarantee that there is only one god? Does this not, it is argued, allow the conclusion to be drawn that polytheism has returned to civilization in another guise, while refusing to admit the obvious?
There is much more that could be said regarding this topic, but the reader has now earned a well-deserved rest.
(7-1-10)
