The perverse logic of Afghanistan

When you ask many of the liberal left where they stood on the invasion of Iraq, they’re always dead against it. When it comes to Afghanistan however, it’s a different story. Many that were against the invasion of Iraq have some perverse idea that invading Afghanistan was perfectly justified.

This is a natural result of being brainwashed by the mainstream media who, what a coincidence, take the same viewpoint. Virtually the entire mainstream media are united nowadays in criticising the invasion of Iraq but consider bombing Afghanistan was perfectly justified. What perverse logic this is.

Why is the bombing Afghanistan justified when, as George Bush himself acknowledges, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia? Of the other 4, one was an Egyptian, one was Lebanese and two were from the Union of Arab Emirates. Why then bomb Afghanistan? Some even say that the bombing of Afghanistan was planned before 9-11 anyway.

The truth is, the bombing of Afghanistan served merely to kill and impoverish those that were in poverty and to replace one bunch of brutes, The Taliban, with another, The Northern Alliance. It also, as Noam Chomsky points out, served to give the US some international “credibility”in the same way that a mafia boss kills indiscriminately to show people who is boss.

The occupation of Afghanistan still continues today by the US and it’s allies. We hardly hear about the occupation of Iraq anymore but Afghanistan virtually never unless a Western soldier is killed in action. Robert Fisk’s latest article is a good read on why the US will never beat the Taliban (seems like the Northern Alliance didn’t last long then) no matter how long it remains in Afghanistan.


14 thoughts on “The perverse logic of Afghanistan

  1. It’s just a bloody mess – is there anything worth having in Afghanistan? Agreed the Taliban must be destroyed, but how to do it?

  2. One thing definitely worth having there is a hell of a lot of opium which provides the majority of heroin in the West. History shows that most dictatorships or oppressive regimes are usually overthrown or destroyed from within eventually. One thing for sure is that, as in Iraq, Western occupation of Afghanistan is probably making things worse rather than better.

  3. Geopolitically Afghanistan is very important…hence the Brits, the Russians, Pakistanis and the Americans have all wanted a piece and will continue to do so. It is a massively complicated state created by the British..another fuck up! I did my masters with a couple of was very much part of the Northern Alliance. Amazing to chat with him to gain an insight. Pakistan are so heavily involved.

  4. It is riduculous to think that the allinace can win in Afghanistan. First of all, the country consisits of a gazillion caves that make it pausible to hide a 747 from any radar. Second, as Fisks notes, the colective consciousness of Afghans is heavily tilted towards Extremesit Islamism and these guys play no games when it comes to dealing with enemies. It is a difficult situation we have created here and with their little frineds in Pakistan with the big toys, this situation can really come undone.

  5. Oh let’s not be all defeatist about this. Surely all the west needs to do is send Prince Harry back and he’ll sort out all these silly terrorists with a good dose of british common sense and stiff upper lip.

  6. The biggest question left out of almost all discourse about Afghanistan is curiously enough,”What do the Afghans themselves want?”Seems rather simple to me, but as the West rides in with grand plans of setting up semi-secular “democratic” subservient state, it’s very possible that this is the last thing that the Afghans themselves want.I’m not so sure that they are tilted towards “extremist Islam”, but we must remember that this is an extremely tribal area. What “we” want just might not be exactly what “they” want.

  7. you are of course quite right, troy, but can you think of a single example of u.s. foreign policy being shaped by the needs or wishes of the inhabitants of the country in question?

  8. I think to say the west needs to ask what the Afghans want…might be quite a task…and no doubt there would be huge conflict over it.

  9. I definitely agree that, as in all occupations that claim to bring “freedom and security”, the people of that country should be asked what they want. However, according to a poll of Afghanis by ABC News (below), most think the country is “moving in the right direction”. How reliable a poll sponsored by a mainstream news organisation is is open to question although they include details of their methodology at the end of the poll: the way Soft Mick, I’m not sure sending Prince Harry into one of the world’s biggest producers of heroin is such a good idea.

  10. Well invaders no. But as we’re told over and over again, US forces and their allies are not invaders – they are liberators. In which case, yes, once they’ve done their liberating, they should put it to the population to decide what they want. Of course, US style “liberation” never ends – it’s perpetual war for perpetual peace.

  11. I agree in an ideal world but in a country like Afghanistan…you’d be lucky…it is so factional. The British Government struggles doing consultations on some such simple things like windfarms. I would say that participatory development projects probably exist left right and centre across Afghanistan. Until you have a Government with any authority consultation is impossible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s