http://www.alternet.org/story/144318/why_should_we_get_out_of_afghanistan_be
cause_imperialism_is_a_fool%27s_game?page=entire
Why Should We Get Out of Afghanistan? Because Imperialism Is a Fool's Game
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted December 3, 2009.
Imperial occupations have become geometrically more difficult since the
Second World War. Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
15 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
In Special Coverage
Belief:
Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence?
Greta Christina
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Congress Can Kill Outlandish Bonuses for Wall Streeters: Why Won't They?
Sam Pizzigati
DrugReporter:
The Feds Are Addicted to Pot -- Even If You Aren't
Paul Armentano
Environment:
What's Cap and Trade? A New Video Breaks it Down and Reveals the Plan as a
Scam
Janet Redman
Food:
Righteous Porkchop: Vegetarian Rancher Explains How to Raise Animals the
Right Way and the Ills of Factory Farms
Tara Lohan
Health and Wellness:
25 Years Since the Bhopal Disaster, We've All Become Victims of the Chemical
Industry
Gary Cohen
Immigration:
Italy's Media Wrestle With Immigrant-Bashing
Sandip Roy
Media and Technology:
Teflon Dick: How Cheney Uses Media For Protection
Linda Milazzo
Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik
Politics:
"Tea Party: The Documentary" -- Attending a Bizarre Movie Premiere for
Right-Wingers in Washington
Adele M. Stan
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How Our Health System Screws Over Women
Barbara J. Berg
Rights and Liberties:
What the FBI's Murder of a Black Panther Can Teach Us 40 Years Later
Jeffrey Haas
Sex and Relationships:
6 Tricks to Sex After a Divorce
Julie Bogart
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much
Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
The First Projections for Water in 2010 Are Out: Prepare Now for Another Dry
Year
Peter Gleick
World:
Honduras: What Now?
Thelma Mejia
More stories by Larry Beinhart
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg
Digg
What is Digg?
20
What the FBI's Murder of a Black Panther Can Teach Us 40 Yea
11
The Feds Are Addicted to Pot -- Even If You Aren't | DrugRep
9
A Humanitarian Disaster in the Making Along the Chad-Cameroo
7
What Do Levi Johnston, Evangelicals and Oprah Have in Common
7
George Will: Get Off My Lawn You Hippie Dope Fiends! | Right
Powered by Digg's Users
Should we get out of Afghanistan?
Yes. Here¹s why.
Imperialism, in general, is a tough business.
Influence, dominate, manipulate, sure. But an occupation is a different
story. It can only succeed in a state that is contiguous, as Chechnya is to
Russia and Tibet is to China. Success demands utter ruthlessness: secret
police, assassinations, the murder of civilians, and leveling neighborhoods
and sometimes entire cities. Open societies like ours find that hard to
tolerate.
Good intentions reform, rebuild, bring democracy, modernize, civilize,
liberate, pick up the white man¹s burden don¹t turn the trick.
There is a classic sequence. A rebel group commits violent acts. The
occupying power reacts with force. This alienates the population. If it
doesn¹t, the rebels push until they get the reaction they need. The
rebellion grows.
Imperial occupations have become geometrically more difficult since the
Second World War. The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally different
the occupiers are from the locals, the worse it gets. It doesn¹t matter if
the foreign power is there "by invitation," as the Russians were in
Afghanistan and the United States was in Vietnam.
Afghanistan, in particular, is a tough place to run an occupation.
Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in six months. Then it took
him three years to conquer Afghanistan. He only settled things by taking an
Afghan bride, then moving on.
In the 19th century, at the height of its imperial power, Great Britain
fought two wars against the Afghans. The first time, the Afghans destroyed
an entire British army. The second time, the English attained a limited
victory. They put a puppet on the throne, who gave them control of
Afghanistan¹s foreign policy (to keep the Russians out), but otherwise
withdrew from the country.
In 1978 an indigenous Marxist group took power in Afghanistan. Its goal was
to modernize: liberate women, change marriage customs, abolish usury and
cancel farmers¹ debts. These things upset many of the Afghan people and an
insurgency began.
Early in 1979, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan asked the Soviet Union
for help. The Russians were obligated by a treaty, and with some reluctance,
sent advisers. The situation deteriorated, and at the end of the year,
Soviet troops entered the country.
The Russians were tough. The Russians were ruthless. They carpet-bombed,
bulldozed, and planted land mines. Over 1,000,000 Afghans died, 1,200,000
were disabled, 3,000,000 were maimed or wounded, and 5,000,000 fled the
country.
Six hundred and twenty thousand Soviet troops served in the Afghan War,
80,000-104,000 at any give time. Fourteen thousand died, 496,685 were
wounded or contracted serious illnesses, including 115,308 cases of
infectious hepatitis.
The Soviet Union withdrew, defeated, 10 years later.
That was followed by a civil war, which the Taliban won.
Why, then, don¹t we get out of Afghanistan?
The terrorists!
-Estimated number of Al Qaeda members now operating in Afghanistan,
according to the U.S. national security advisor: 100
-Number of U.S. troops who would be stationed there if General Stanley
McChrystal¹s leaked request were granted: 120,000
--Harper¹s Index, November 2009
So that doesn¹t quite make sense.
How about, if Afghanistan goes (where?), then Pakistan goes! And Pakistan
has nukes! And that¹s really important! But when the Taliban ruled
Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar hosted Osama bin Laden, Pakistan was actually
more stable.
Christopher Hitchens says we need a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to
contain Iran! Hah! Take that!
The answer is, Huh? Wah?
Iran was at war with Iraq from 1980-'88. It had at least 1,000,000
casualties and an estimated 300,000 dead. Is Iran likely to do that again?
Or invade Afghanistan and get into a quagmire like we¹re in? Maybe they are
that stupid.
Better them than us.
The war in Afghanistan has cost $228 billion (costofwar.com), so far. And we
seem to take one and a half steps back for every step forward.
So why are we there?
The real answer is, we¹re embarrassed.
The sole superpower in the world defeated by semi-literate, religious wackos
from medieval times? Hey, we proved that we could succeed where the Russkies
failed! Thus demonstrating our superior superiority! Except we haven¹t,
quite yet, and if we withdraw, we¹re failures like them and if Obama pulls
out the Republicans will label the Democrats weak war-losers for another 50
years!
That's the same reason the Russians stayed. The same reason we stayed in
Vietnam. The fear of admitting a mistake and the fear of the domestic
political consequences of that admission.
How do we get out of Afghanistan?
Get Osama bin Laden.
Nobody seems to remember, but this whole thing started with a small gang who
hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center and who hoped to
commit more such heinous acts. They were led, we¹ve been told, by Osama bin
Laden,
We asked the Afghans for bin Laden. The Taliban were willing to turn him
over to another country for trial, but not to the United States. So we
invaded.
Even before we commenced hostilities, the goals had shifted; to launch a
global war on terrorism, and specifically, to invade Iraq.
Let¹s go back to basics.
Osama bin Laden conspired to commit mass murder. He deserves to get got.
That¹s a legitimate target and a legitimate mission.
It¹s hard to believe that for $20 billion or $40 billion or $228 billion,
with all the resources of the United States armed forces and the
intelligence services of all the Western countries, we can¹t get him. If
that¹s what we want to do.
In any case, it is an achievable objective. Making Afghanistan a stable,
democratic, Western-friendly country, instead of a narco-state, or an
oppressive theocracy, or a divisive collection of squabbling tribes, is
probably not.
President Obama should call in his generals and intelligence chiefs and say,
³Get this guy." If they can¹t, he should fire them like President Lincoln
used to do, until he finds the General Ulysses S. Grant who can get the job
done.
If they can¹t do it, then yes, the entire U.S. military and intelligence
establishment is a failure.
If they can do it, it¹s a success.
It makes the essential statement that has not been made all these years,
that America cannot be attacked with impunity.
Then we can withdraw. Without embarrassment.
See more stories tagged with: obama, afghanistan, empire
Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog
Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." His latest book is
Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinh...@earthlink.net.
