Published: November 04, 2009 01:11 pm      

Chasing Taliban in Afghanistan a fruitless mission

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? The Taliban, the force we are opposing, are not international terrorists. While certainly a repressive religious group, they don’t have designs outside the area, contrary to what both the Bush and Obama administrations have suggested.

The Taliban don’t have plans to attack the U.S., and never did. Both administrations have sought to mislead us into thinking the Taliban and al-Qaida are identical.

Neither the Taliban nor Afghanistan attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Al-Qaida did. Just like the lies told to justify the Iraq invasion – that it was involved in 9/11, that it had weapons of mass destruction, that it was a threat to America – the case against the Taliban is fabricated.

Although al-Qaida was based in Afghanistan in 2001, a country only partially controlled by the Taliban, the Taliban had nothing to do with planning or taking part in the 9/11 attacks. Actually, the attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany, by an al-Qaida cell. Al-Qaida is hardly a coherent, centralized operation.

President Obama also justifies increasing the Afghan war on the assertion that if the Taliban return to power they will allow or even aid al-Qaida’s international terrorist aims.

The Taliban were, in the past, reluctant hosts to al-Qaida in an uneasy relationship (John Mueller, Foreign Affairs magazine, April 15). A Tribune-Democrat article of Oct. 7 quotes U.S. National Security adviser James Jones as saying that al-Qaida has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan and that its presence has diminished.

The Taliban probably wouldn’t welcome a group that plans international terrorism, one that might make it a target of the West. Most terrorist attacks, such as the one against the London underground in 2005, are by groups loosely connected with or inspired by al-Qaida, which consists of “a few hundred people running around in Pakistan” (Mueller).

It is hard to see the justification for our wars and attacks in the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, and our open threat to attack Iran. Mostly they are detrimental to U.S. interests, creating hatred and potential enemies.

We have replaced the British and French imperialist forces, which in the early 20th century occupied and tried to control these oil-rich regions. That we are there to help these countries or bring democracy is just propaganda, and no reason to invade them, where our wars have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. We are wildly unpopular in Pakistan, and NBC News recently reported that most Afghans “don’t feel threatened by the Taliban and aren’t asking for American protection.”

Obama, despite ambiguous campaign statements, was elected because the public thought he would get our military out of the Middle East.

Is he now going to sink us in deeper?

A state of endless war prevents our country from facing and solving its real problems, and undercuts our liberties.

Contrary to slogans, wars don’t defend freedoms; they always become the excuse to take away the rights to debate and speak freely. Big Brother’s state in the novel “1984” always had wars and enemies to keep the populace in constant fear and suppression.

Republicans have claimed militarism as their patriotic ploy, and Democrats fear to oppose wars for being called weak on defense. This combination makes war virtuous, peace subversive.

We can maintain our safety without occupying Middle Eastern countries. Our armies need to be withdrawn. Our leaders project a U.S. presence in Iraq until at least 2013 and Afghanistan for 10 more years. They can be and should be withdrawn quickly.

Some fraction of the money we are spending on these wars could be wisely used in the reconstruction of these devastated regions. In some way, we need to learn to mistrust our reliance on and belief in the virtue of our military prowess.



Jim Scofield of Richland Township is a professor emeritus of English at Pitt-Johnstown.