ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
Blog PostsAfghanistan: Waging War for Peace?
By Michael McGehee at Oct 07, 2009 |
|
We can’t fight our way to peace anymore then we can fuck our way to virginity.
So it goes to say we don’t want peace.
What do we want? To liberate the people of Afghanistan? Considering our support for the Northern Alliance and various warlords and drug lords, that is hardly a believable claim. A look at their geographic location and how they fit into an agenda of global domination by an imperial government that is 5% of the country but spends 50% of the world’s military budget to maintain nearly one thousand foreign military bases and block potential competitors seems more likely. Afghanistan has long been coveted by brutes and that the modern day brute wants to take a stab [sic] at it is not surprising.
Decades ago Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky noted that foreign investment was linked to state repression and then followed it up with a “propaganda model” to show how the media is complicit.
Eight years of aggression in Afghanistan the only question our press can ask is, “Can we still win?”
Their models are still true.
What is going on in Afghanistan is not defense, it is aggression and the sooner we come to terms with this the sooner we will leave.
The question is not whether we can win – only a mind bent with jingoism would think so. The question is: should we be there at all and, if so, in what form – military?
The UN Charter, for good reasons, defines the legitimate use of force as being for defensive purposes only. Either one is defending against an armed attack or the threat is so severe that the UN Security Council authorizes the use of force.
This blog piece will not deal with how the veto power and other undemocratic aspects of the UNSC make the council ineffective. That can be put aside for another time.
What happened on September 11, 2001 was awful. Nothing justifies what was done. But it was not an armed attack and neither did the UNSC authorize our use of force. Therefore it was unjustified, immoral and illegal. Asking whether we can win at aggression is a disturbing question.
Between September 11 and October 7 there was not another attack. It was an isolated incident. Again, as bad and criminal as it was, our response was not warranted.
We are not defending ourselves in Afghanistan. Our war is a war of aggression. Period.
Should we help the people of Afghanistan? Are we in a position to? Are we obligated to? After decades of criminal policies, that is the least we owe them. But war is not the answer.
By Jones, David at Oct 07, 2009 18:03 PM
It is an overly broad understanding of "defense" that the capitalist state uses. National interest and projection of power are better regional frameworks but of course that logic can then be applied to the rest of the globe without limits.
As for "helping", only a time machine provides a way of helping without first creating a great deal of violence and misery. There are no good alternatives and no good short term outcomes for the people of that region. Thwey are screwed coming or going, no matter what course the world powers take.
Reply this comment
Re:
By McGehee, Michael at Oct 08, 2009 06:41 AM
no doubt they use a broad interpretation of "defense," but we also hear comments like "we have to fight them there so we dont fight them here" which implies we are defending ourselves in a literal sense. and of course anyone who believes that needs to have their head examined
i dont think its fair to say there are no good short term alternatives for the people of that region, mostly because we havent tried anything but military force and propping up thugs.
Reply this comment