Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who are we fighting in Afghanistan? [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)13. They are soooo ungrateful.
It's sad.
[font size="4"]There Is "No War on Terror"[/font size]
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
One of the most telling signs of the political naiveté of liberals and the Left in the United States has been their steadfast faith in much of the worldview that blankets the imperial state they call home. Nowhere has this critical failure been more evident than in their acceptance of the premise that there really is something called a "war on terror" or "terrorism"[1]-however poorly managed its critics make it out to be-and that righting the course of this war ought to be this country's (and the world's) top foreign policy priority. In this perspective, Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than Iraq ought to have been the war on terror's proper foci; most accept that the U.S. attack on Afghanistan from October 2001 on was a legitimate and necessary stage in the war. The tragic error of the Bush Administration, in this view, was that it lost sight of this priority, and diverted U.S. military action to Iraq and other theaters, reducing the commitment where it was needed. __Of course we expect to find this line of criticism expressed by the many former supporters who have fled from the sinking regime in Washington.[2] But it is striking that commentators as durably hostile to Bush policies as the New York Times's Frank Rich should accept so many of the fundamentals of this worldview, and repeat them without embarrassment. Rich asserts that the question "Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?" A repeated theme of Rich's work has been that the Cheney - Bush presidency is causing "as much damage to fighting the war on terrorism as it does to civil liberties." Even in late 2007, Rich still lamented the "really bad news" that, "Much as Iraq distracted America from the war against Al Qaeda, so a strike on Iran could ignite Pakistan, Al Qaeda's thriving base and the actual central front of the war on terror."[3]
Other expressions of faith in something called the "war on terror" abound. Thus in a long review of several books in which she urged "[r]evamping our approach to terrorism" and "recapturing hearts and minds" around the world, Harvard's Samantha Power, a top lieutenant in the humanitarian brigade, wrote that "most Americans still rightly believe that the United States must confront Islamic terrorism-and must be relentless in preventing terrorist networks from getting weapons of mass destruction. But Bush's premises have proved flawed."[4] Most striking was Power's expression of disappointment that "millions-if not billions-of people around the world do not see the difference between a suicide bomber's attack on a pizzeria and an American attack on what turns out to be a wedding party"-the broken moral compass residing within these masses, of course, who fail to understand that only the American attacks are legitimate and that the numerous resultant casualties are but "tragic errors" and "collateral damage."[5]
Like Samantha Power, the What We're Fighting For statement issued in February 2002 by the Institute for American Values and signed by 60 U.S. intellectuals, including Jean Bethke Elshtain, Francis Fukuyama, Mary Ann Glendon, Samuel Huntington, Harvey C. Mansfield, Will Marshall, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Michael Novak, Michael Walzer, George Weigel, and James Q. Wilson, declared the war on terror a "just war." "Organized killers with global reach now threaten all of us," it is asserted in one revealing passage. "In the name of universal human morality, and fully conscious of the restrictions and requirements of a just war, we support our government's, and our society's, decision to use force of arms against them."[6] The idea that "killers with global reach" who are far more deadly and effective than Al Qaeda could be found at home doesn't seem to occur to these intellectuals. And like Power, they also make what they believe a telling distinction between the deliberate killing of civilians, as in a suicide bombing, and "collateral damage"-type casualties even in cases where civilian casualties are vastly larger and entirely predictable, though not specifically intended.[7] Throughout these reflections, the purpose is to distinguish our murderous acts from theirs. It is the latter that constitute a "world-threatening evil...that clearly requires the use of force to remove it."[8]
In the same mode, Princeton University international law professor Richard Falk's early contributions to The Nation after 9/11 found a "visionary program of international, apocalyptic terrorism" behind the events. "It is truly a declaration of war from the lower depths," Falk wrote, a "transformative shift in the nature of the terrorist challenge both conceptually and tactically.There is no indication that the forces behind the attack were acting on any basis beyond their extraordinary destructive intent.We are poised on the brink of a global, intercivilizational war without battlefields and borders." Some weeks later, in a nod to "just war" doctrine, Falk argued that the "destruction of both the Taliban regime and the Al Qaeda networkare appropriate goals.[T]he case [against the Taliban] is strengthened," he added, "to the degree that its governing policies are so oppressive as to give the international community the strongest possible grounds for humanitarian intervention."[9]
Peter Beinart, a liberal-leaning former editor of the New Republic and the author of the 2006 book The Good Fight: Why Liberals--and Only Liberals-Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again, wrote in the aftermath of Cheney - Bush's 2004 re-election: "Today, the war on terrorism is partially obscured by the war in Iraq, which has made liberals cynical about the purposes of U.S. power. But, even if Iraq is Vietnam, it no more obviates the war on terrorism than Vietnam obviated the battle against communism. Global jihad will be with us long after American troops stop dying in Falluja and Mosul. And thus, liberalism will rise or fall on whether it can become, again, what (Arthur) Schlesinger called 'a fighting faith'."[10]
Even David Cole and Jules Lobel, authors of a highly-regarded critique of Cheney - Bush policies on "Why America Is Losing the War on Terror," take the existence of its "counterterrorism strategy" at face value; this strategy has been a "colossal failure," they argue, because it has "compromised our spirit, strengthened our enemies and left us less free and less safe." The U.S. war in Iraq "permitted the Administration to turn its focus from Al Qaeda, the organization that attacked us on 9/11, to Iraq, a nation that did not. The Iraq war has by virtually all accounts made the United States, the Iraqi people, many of our allies and for that matter much of the world more vulnerable to terrorists. By targeting Iraq, the Bush Administration not only siphoned off much-needed resources from the struggle against Al Qaeda but also created a golden opportunity for Al Qaeda to inspire and recruit others to attack US and allied targets. And our invasion of Iraq has turned it into the world's premier terrorist training ground."[11]
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_On_Terrorism/ThereIsNoWarOnTerror.html
Bad people get what they deserve. Especially when they cross the white guy with money. Look at all the friends that horsefucking sonofabitch has.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Please provide an answer to the question posed in the OP: Who are we fighting in Afganistan. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2016
#128
We're fighting the POPPY MANUFACTURES....WE WANT TO CONTROL THE HEROIN TRADE AS ALWAYS!
ViseGrip
Jan 2016
#126
Historical note: I think the comment to which you allude came, non from Shrub, but from
KingCharlemagne
Dec 2015
#92
You know whose side we're on in Afghanistan? The "brown people", as you beautifully put it
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2015
#23
I wish I could forget the time Obama repeated Bush line Taliban never offered up bin laden.
Octafish
Dec 2015
#61
We have a commander in chief who knows that is not true, what a ridiculous thing to say
GummyBearz
Dec 2015
#9
Sibel Edmonds knew, so she was fired and slapped with a gag order when she tried to tell. nt
tblue37
Jan 2016
#120
Can you handle the truth? It's to OWN THE LAND. GOOGLE "Mineral wealth of Afghanistan"!!!!
WinkyDink
Dec 2015
#10
And yet there are millions of americans who think that 3000 American lives in NYC would mean
WinkyDink
Jan 2016
#130
Allowing our favored industries first dibs at a trillion dollar's worth of raw materials
arcane1
Dec 2015
#26
The US invasion of Afghanistan was justified and fully supported by many allies.
tabasco
Dec 2015
#46
Did you note that we're still wasting lives and money in Afghanistan, 15 years later?
Scuba
Dec 2015
#50
If that's the only way you can think of to apprehend criminals you're not very thoughtful.
Scuba
Dec 2015
#71
Hey if you want to defend one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, be my guest.
Scuba
Dec 2015
#81
In case you haven't noticed, we haven't taken them down, 15 years and a trillion dollars later.
Scuba
Dec 2015
#83
Historical note: the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to a court with international
KingCharlemagne
Dec 2015
#93
So 15 years later and why are we still there? How many decades do we need to be there?
Rex
Dec 2015
#55
''Money trumps peace.'' -- appointed pretzeldent George Walker Bush, Feb. 14, 2007
Octafish
Dec 2015
#73