Solsticewitch13's BOS: Afghanistan and "The Runaway War"

Afghanistan and "The Runaway War"

by Jeffrey Imm

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/blog/imm-articles/153.html

Today, the mainstream news media is excited over an article in the
Rolling Stone entitled "The Runaway General," which is about NATO General
McChrystal, and alleges that McChrystal has made derogatory comments
about members of the Obama administration. Pundits are excitedly
calling for McChrystal's resignation for such offensive remarks. But while the
mainstream news media has focused on the "runaway general" comments,
it continues to ignore the "runaway war" in Afghanistan itself.

For the past three years, both the Bush and Obama administrations have
sought an exit strategy from an Afghanistan war that it never knew how
to fight because the war started off without a definition of who it
was supposed to fight. Both in the beginning and the end, the Afghanistan
war has been muddled by vagueness that has led to a confused mission
and direction.

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Afghanistan war decision was
authorized by the U.S. Congressional
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted on
September 18, 2001, stating "the President is authorized to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he
determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons."

A week after the 9/11 attacks, we still didn't have all the answers as
to who and what groups were involved in the attack, and the rationale
was still being addressed. It is perfectly reasonable and
understandable to have such a vague definition of the force necessary against nations
such as Afghanistan, where the ruling Taliban provided support and
camps to aid Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attackers. We continue to have plenty of
discussion in defense authorizations about how much money our defense agencies
need to fight this and other wars, but we have very limited discussion
as to who and what the enemy is, how we plan to "win" such wars, and
what "winning" means.

The Afghanistan war began on October 7, 2001. By December 2001, the
Taliban fled Kabul and Kandahar, and it has been generally understood
that Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders fled into Pakistan. But we had to
expect their return. The Taliban were not simply foreign fighters but
had a basis and an anti-human rights ideology that had significant
support in Afghanistan, as well as in Pakistan. Taliban leaders and
members were Afghanis. So while endless debate over tactics, cities,
figures, and campaigns have been discussed over the years, the root
issue of the ideological basis of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has
remained off-limits for discussion by American government and military leaders.

But for all these years, government and military leaders have claimed
that they could develop a strategy for a war in Afghanistan without
ever seriously or honestly answering the most important question: WHY?

The FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations for $680 billion
passed by Congress in October 2009, included a request for $73 billion
for the Afghanistan war in FY2010, with an estimated $300 billion
authorized thus far for the Afghanistan war. Where have the American
people been asking what the plan is, what the strategy is, and even
who the enemy is, nearly 9 years, 1,000 American soldiers lives, and $300
billion later? Why haven't Americans demanded this from their
leadership? History will not judge America kindly on the confusion over the war in
Afghanistan.

The beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war was in August 2007, when
theBushadministration praised and promoted
Pakistan President Musharraf for holding a "peace jirga" with
those sympathetic to the Taliban. Pakistan President
Musharraf stated that the "Taliban are a part of
Afghan society," as not all Taliban members were "terrorists."
Pakistan

Daily Times reported Musharraf's views that "those among them who
are not committed to endless violence must be brought into the political
mainstream." In August 2007, the BBC reported that the "idea of a joint
Afghan-Pakistan peace jirga was first suggested by Mr. Karzai during
talks with US President George W Bush in September." On
August 14, 2007, U.S. President Bush called Pakistan President Musharraf to praise him
for his "peace jirga."

August 14, 2007 was the initial surrender in America's "war of ideas"
regarding the Taliban, by allowing the vision of the Taliban as
"part of Afghan society," and allowing a vision of the Taliban to return to a
"political mainstream." After August 14, 2007, the question in the
"runaway Afghanistan war" was not whether America would lose in
defying the Taliban ideology, but how gracefully America could lose, and
bi-partisan efforts continued to seek an acceptable "exit strategy" to
minimize the appearance of a short-term Taliban victory. The problem
for those who sought to "get out" of Afghanistan has been the steady
violence by the Taliban has made it politically unacceptable for
American leaders to openly surrender militarily. American
governmental leadership openly abandoned any "war of ideas," and has
sought only to settle for not being militarily embarrassed. But it got
to that point because the war in Afghanistan was always a "runaway
war" that never defined an ideological enemy from the beginning, as too
inconvenient for American leaders and Americans.

By September 2007, and on a regular basis, the Afghanistan government
(supported by United Nations and U.S. leaders) sought to negotiate
a settlement with the Taliban to avoid an embarrassing military
surrender. On September 29, 2007, Afghanistan President Karzai offered
to meet notorious Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace discussions and
offered to give Taliban members a place in the Afghanistan government.

By October 2007, Bush administration State Department individuals
supported President Karzai's calls for such negotiations with the
Taliban. A year later, in October 2008, Karzai and Bush administration
military leaders all called for negotiations with the Taliban,
including current U.S. Defense Secretary Gates.

By February 2009, the new Obama administration was continuing to fall
in the footsteps of the Bush administration, despite its claims of
seeking to become more "active" in the Afghanistan war, with
media reports of expectations of "secret talks with 'persuadable' Taliban leaders."
Later that year in October 2009, multiple media reports stated
that the Obama administration would accept some type of reconciliation
with Taliban members that renounced violence.

In November 2009, Obama administration envoy Richard
Holbrooke told the media that "We're not in Afghanistan
to build a perfect democracy" and that "very clearly that the majority
of the Taliban do not support Mullah Omar’s extreme views and that
there is room for them to rejoin the social and political fabric of
Afghanistan if they renounce al-Qaida and reintegrate peacefully into
Afghanistan."

By January 2010, the "allied" nations fighting the
Afghanistan war, were anxiously seeking to "buy off" the Taliban with
$500 million in pledged funds to stop the fighting.

By May 2010, President Obama held White House meetings with Afghanistan
President Karzai (who in April 2010 reportedly threatened to "join" the
Taliban), agreeing to reintegration talks between the Afghanistan
government and the Taliban, while making the stipulation that such
reintegrated or reconciled Taliban within Afghanistan have to say they support "human rights."

Such recent calls for surrender in the war of ideas with the Taliban
resulted in no outrage among the American public, which outside of the
lone protest at the White House by Responsible for Equality And Liberty
(R.E.A.L.), were basically received with a shrug-shoulders
reaction by the American public, and even most women's rights organizations.

Americans gave shrug-shoulder acceptance to the White
House's May 2010 acceptance of calls for negotiations with adherents to the same
Taliban ideology that trained a Pakistani-American man to plan a car bomb
terrorist attack in New York City's Times Square on May 1, 2010 -
an unrepentant individual who would have made the same attack "100
times" over if he could.

In the plethora of "who, where, when, how" facts about the Times
Square "bomber," little has been considered about the "why" - just like the
Taliban ideologues that trained him. But emails
by the Times Square "bomber" show that he rejects democracy and human rights, and seeks
the creation of an Islamic caliphate. Such denial of human rights to others
and seeking to impose the supremacism of one identity group over
another is consistent with what political scientists call a "supremacist"
ideology.

The predictable reaction that I get to such references to "supremacist"
ideologies is an eye-rolling, smirk from foreign policy specialists, counterterrorism professionals, and others. The comparison of the Taliban's ideological views defying
religious freedom and terrorizing minorities to American "supremacists"
such as the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan has been frequently
received with bemusement by such "experts" who assure me that such American
historical experience has no bearing on groups as "complex" and
"multi-faceted" as Taliban ideologues.

Nonsense. Supremacists draw their inspiration from the same source, no
matter what their rationalization - racial, religious, ethnic, or
otherwise - their supremacist views are based on hate towards people
who are different. The rationalizations may be different - tribal cultures
or Southern cultures, interpretations of Sharia law or Jim Crow laws,
slavery of black Americans or slavery of women and non-Muslims. There
are endless ways to justify hate and endless ways to demonstrate
supremacist hate through discrimination, oppression, segregation,
violence, and murder. But all the rationalizations of hate never
change the root cause that seeks to deny our universal human rights for one
another.

Such hate is not readily bought off or beaten with military, law
enforcement, or foreign policy tactics. It never has been and it never
will be. Preposterous claims that "reintegrated" Taliban will
magically accept "human rights" to give American politicians cover for an "exit
strategy" are just as absurd as the idea that we could have abandoned
the 1960s war of ideas against white supremacism in America when it
got too difficult and too divisive by simply accepting some members of the

Ku Klux Klan statements that they would now accept black civil rights.
The most painful part of the American failure in Afghanistan is that we know
better. Our government
leaders go to former Communist USSR military
members (people we fought against) for guidance on what to do in
Afghanistan, rather than look to America's own history in dealing with
supremacist views in our own country. We will do ANYTHING other than
deal with the war of ideas.

Two weeks after U.S. President Obama's White House meeting with
Afghanistan President Karzai agreeing to "reintegration" or
reconciliation of Taliban members who renounce violence and accept
"human rights,"
the hate of religious supremacism reared its head once
again in Afghanistan, demonstrating that no matter what is "agreed
upon" regarding the Taliban supremacists, the root problem of religious
supremacism within Afghanistan will remain unaltered.

On

May 31, 2010, hundreds of protesters at Kabul University called
for the death or expulsion of any those who might seek to convert Afghans
to Christianity. On June 1, 2010, a member of the Afghanistan Parliament
called for the death penalty for any possible Christian converts.

AFP and ICC reported that Abdul Sattar Khawasi, deputy secretary of the
Afghan lower house in parliament,
called for the death penalty of Afghanistan citizens choosing to
become Christians, shown in a television program
showing Afghans being baptized with water.

Khawasi stated: "Those Afghans that appeared in this video film
should be executed in public, the house should order the attorney
general and the NDS (intelligence agency) to arrest these Afghans and
execute them."

RAWA also reported that "Qazi Nazir Ahmad, a lawmaker from the
western province of Herat, said killing a converted Muslim was ‘not a
crime.'"
On June 8, 2010, 1,000 Afghanis marched in the streets against
Christians, calling for "punishment" against those who sought to
become Christians.

What was America's response? A deafening silence -- just as it has
been for nearly 9 long years of war and loss in Afghanistan. A disgraceful
silence in the war of ideas that will leave a continuing legacy of
violent extremist that will plague the world long after the final
"exit strategy" of our military in Afghanistan is completed.

The runaway war in Afghanistan has always been about tactics, rather
than strategy, because strategy requires that you have to ask WHY. The
answer of religious supremacism in Afghanistan is simply an answer
that American leaders have never been ready to begin thinking about -
1,000 American soldiers dead and $300 billion later. If the Afghanistan
war was a result of the 3,000 Americans killed in the 9/11 Attacks, what
should be the action of American public to 1,000 American soldiers
killed in a war without a strategy or a clearly identified enemy?
Don't the 1,000 American lives lost in Afghanistan deserve the same respect
as the 3,000 American lives lost in NYC and Washington DC? But to too
many Americans, Afghanistan is something that they would rather not think
about, even as our tax dollars, and the lives of our sons and
daughters are being consumed in a war where our leaders seek to surrender in the
war of ideas to the enemy. Don't such sacrifices deserve an honest
answer to the question of WHY? Don't such sacrifices deserve an honest
assessment of the ideas that Americans are fighting against?

But the one thing we know NOT to do - is fight hate with hate.
Americans have seen this in their own history in the war of ideas against
what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called "white supremacy." In fighting such
racial supremacism, we know that the one thing that does not
work is demonizing all members of an identity group. There were angry black
Americans in the 1960s who did seek to blame all whites as the
problem, and even some
who called all whites as "devils." But Americans know from
their history that demonizing an entire identity group for the
supremacist views of some does not work. Some of us lived through
those days, and we know this not just from history books but from life
experience. What Americans know is what did work is not demonizing all
members of an identity group, but challenging members of an identity
group to reject supremacist views. We saw that work through Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and his dream of racial equality in America.

Yet despite this historical knowledge on the effective way of
challenging supremacist views, we still have those in America, who
seek to blame supremacist views of those like the Taliban by demonizing all
Muslims, all practices of Islam. While the White House was appeasing
the Afghanistan government in seeking "reintegration" of Taliban
supremacists within its government, some Americans were planning a
protest of a mosque in New York City, and some were calling for a New
York City mosque to be blown up. While members of the Afghanistan
parliament and Afghan protesters were calling for the death penalty
and "punishment" against those Afghans who accepted Christianity, some
American were protesting a planned mosque in Staten Island. Americans
have seen the rise of modern day groups that view intolerance as the
answer to those that reject human rights, by demonizing all Muslims,
with groups that have signs and shirts that read "Islam is of the
devil." Americans have seen this sort of thing before - we know
how counterproductive such demonizing and alienating tactics are.

We all know the ethical mathematics that Two Wrongs Don't Make A
Right.

Americans know better. They don't need to be taught what to do. They
need to reach for the courage of their convictions on who and what
they are as a nation, and as a people that believe in the truths that we
hold self-evident, in the equality, liberty, and freedoms that define what
America is - not just some, but for all - regardless of your race and
regardless of your religion.

The United States of America suffered through a Civil War and 100
years of conflict after that learning the hard way about how to confront
supremacist ideologies. It struggled with a supremacist terrorist
organization, the Ku Klux Klan, that at one point had 4 million
members, and many more sympathetic to its vision of hate. America ultimately
became is a survivor of the cancer of supremacist hate, but it was not
without casualties and not without cost. America saw families divided,
communities divided, and a nation divided on how to come to grips with
a cancer of supremacist hate within our own nation. Dealing with the
cancer of supremacist hate in our own nation was painful, but we
survived. Many will say that America's success in fighting supremacism
is due to its "unique foundations" in democracy and freedom. Tell that
to the many slaves that suffered for 100 years in America. Tell that
to the people of different races who couldn't eat in the same
restaurants, go to the same schools, go to the same bathrooms, live in the same
neighborhoods, worship in the same churches, and even ride in the same
seats on the bus. While I love America as much as any patriot, lets
not deceive ourselves about our unique exceptionalism in struggling
against hate and inequality. Lets not buy into to the conceit that only
Americans have the culture and the wisdom to be responsible for
equality and liberty.

Because if we buy into to the conceit that only Americans can be
responsible for equality and liberty, then America will end up with an

endless world war against those who seek to promote international
supremacist hate and violence. America will end up not only being
ineffective in the runaway war in Afghanistan, but also being
ineffective in similar challenges around the world.

No we can't bomb our way out of Afghanistan, we can't shoot our way
out of Afghanistan, and the endless manipulations for an "exit strategy"
without military embarrassment are doomed to failure. The Taliban
supremacists have been determined to ensure such humiliation to
America, which is why they have not yet stopped fighting, even when American
leaders signaled their willingness to surrender on the war of ideas
nearly three years ago. The Taliban supremacists have gotten great
satisfaction at seeing America's president agree to "reintegration"
negotiations with Taliban supremacists, two weeks after a Taliban
trained bomber sought to kill many in New York City.

Our surrender on what WE BELIEVE is much more damaging to America than

any military surrender could possibly have been. The Taliban
supremacists are winning the war of ideas that really matters, but not
because they have the superior argument. They are winning the war of
ideas because we aren't fighting it. They are winning the war of ideas
because we have never made equality and liberty a priority in
Afghanistan.

The Taliban supremacists have counted on the idea that Americans are
too afraid to demand that the Afghanistan government and people defy the
religious supremacism of the Taliban. They have counted on the idea
Americans will not hold the Afghanistan government and people to a
standard of human rights that other pluralist democracies must have. The
Taliban expect that after the last American troops leave that ultimately they
will victoriously regain control of the Afghanistan government.

What the Taliban supremacists don't expect - just like the white
supremacists in America didn't expect - is that we would find the
moral courage to call for change. What they don't expect is that
America will use its experience in American history, and expect that the
Afghanistan government and Afghanistan people don't allow culture or
religion as a disguise to rationalize supremacism and hate.

What the Taliban has never expected is that the American people and
its government would expect that Afghanistan too is responsible for
equality and liberty. They always believed that Americans were too frightened,
too intimidated to do so -- even after the 9/11 attacks, even after
1,000 American soldiers lives lost in Afghanistan, even $300 billion
later.

That is a choice that the American people and its government can still
make. The choice to be consistent in our historical knowledge of how
to defy supremacist ideologies is a choice that we can still make. But if
we do not make such choices, lets not just blame General McChrystal or

President Obama or President Bush. If we do not make such choices, we
know all too well where the responsibility belongs. It belongs with
all of us -- American and Afghanis -- who are
all responsible for equality and liberty.

------------------------

[Postscript: To those who scoff at the comparison of supremacist
issues, I challenge you to re-read this article, replace the word "Taliban"
with "Ku Klux Klan", and replace the words "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan"
with "Alabama" and "Mississippi."]