Tuesday :: Dec 2, 2008

Afghanistan Is Not A Good War

by paradox

There’s an excellent military analysis in the New York Times today that I urge everyone to read fully. Afghanistan is not Iraq, shoving more troops in will not work, help from allies will not work, nothing will work but at least a decade of occupation, with all the death, maiming and horrendous cost that involves.

For what? To make sure Afghanistan doesn’t produce terrorists? That’s very nice, after ten years and untold thousands of deaths what do we then do about Pakistan? Well?

Occupying countries is a failed approach to combating terrorism, war is always a basic failure on a human level anyway, but the objective is not worth the cost, even factoring in the massive assumption that success is possible or eventual, hah. Again, how many empires has Afghanistan reduced to failure once they were foolish enough to try and occupy that impossible place, that “theme park of problems”? All of them.

I’d like to know how the appalling conventional wisdom that Afghanistan is our “good” war was set. Good for what? Nothing. Good in the respect that it exacts revenge or vengeance for those who hurt us so badly? That could have been easily accomplished without a war of occupation, and this blithe acceptance as “good” from anything that came from the twisted criminal soul of George Bush never should have been allowed to gel, even if the circumstances were understandable.

The United States does not have to occupy Afghanistan, it is not a good war, we will fail there like all imperialists have throughout the history of the world, and one day we will finally leave, wondering how in the hell we ever convinced ourselves it was necessary, let alone virtuous.

paradox :: 9:42 AM :: Comments (32) :: Digg It!