After December’s announcement of a planned US pullout from Syria sparked a flurry of condemnations from hawks and mainstream media, it should come as little surprise that the reports of the US nearing a peace deal in Afghanistan are going the same way.
The New York Times prefaces its article by presenting peace as meaning “departing Americans would end up handing over the country to the same ruthless militants that the United States went to war to dislodge.” They then heavily quote unnamed experts opposing such a deal.
These sort of policy reports always come plenty of official support. In this case, Trump’s national security aides and the Pentagon leadership are both vehemently opposed to ending the war, and are trying to scare Trump out of making peace under any circumstances.
The argument is that even though the Taliban have already agreed to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS out f Afghanistan, there might conceivably be a terror attack on the US after a pullout, “and Mr. Trump would shoulder the blame.”
Underpinning all of this is what the Pentagon wants, which is what the Pentagon always wants, to stay. Officials say the Pentagon wants to keep a “counter-terrorism force” in Afghanistan after the war.
Which is as good as saying there won’t be an end to the war. The US already broached the idea of keeping a base, and the Taliban nearly withdraw from the talks entirely over it. Such a deal is a non-starter, and everyone knows it, which is why it’s being pushed hard by those opposed to a deal.
As always, the reports are meant to give the illusion of consensus about not ending the war, quoting a handful of Obama-era officials and a lot of unnamed “experts” by way of arguing that the war must continue. 17+ years is not enough for them.
The liberals and the progressives who find one of their voices on foreign policy in the NYT are becoming ever more hawkish just as they were in Cold War 1.0.
Not for nothing has Bernie been called the Hubert Humphrey of the 21st Century.
The whacked out media has never seen a US War they don’t adore.
“The argument is that even though the Taliban have already agreed to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS out f Afghanistan, there might conceivably be a terror attack on the US after a pullout, “and Mr. Trump would shoulder the blame.”
Wow. What a reach. As if terror attacks only originate in countries where we don’t have troops. You’d think that after a while these people would stop insulting our intelligence. That was bullsh*t when it was crammed down our throats after 9/11 and it’s still bullsh*t.
Exactly. Had the same thought too … So, being there and through our destabilizing actions (bombing weddings and funerals, supporting native bully-boys as they terrorize the population, etc.) creating enmity and future terrorism is OK. But leaving the field and later some terrorism being sourced there would be a disaster? So the terrorism that comes from the Saudis, Pakistan, Egypt, and other “friends”? What do we do about that?
“departing Americans would end up handing over the country to the same ruthless militants that the United States went to war to dislodge.”
Hmmm, I was under the impression that we went there to destroy the 911 terrorists … not the indigenous Taliban movement of Afghanistan. As we have seen, when you are dealing with the natural native group, 17 years is not enough to “dislodge” them … they have nowhere else to lodge!
“Officials say the Pentagon wants to keep a “counter-terrorism force” in Afghanistan after the war.”
After the war? What the hell have they been doing there all this time except supposedly fighting terrorism as their main point??
Pepe Escobar has dubbed the US an Empire of Chaos. I think that’s true, but an Empire of Bullsh*t had to precede it. How else do you convince some tribes of talking monkeys that they are better than other tribes and to go beat them to death?
So is this “pullout” a good thing or bad thing? I think it’s bullsh*t. They’re not going anywhere. Pencil whipping some numbers in the media doesn’t change anything. We’re still busy supporting terrorists.
The US went to war in Afghanistan to dislodge al Qaeda, and claimed the Taliban was “against us” in that effort.
Now al Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan.
Now the US is (again) supporting and using al Qaeda against its enemies, this time in Syria and Libya.
So why are we fighting the Taliban, still, for claims they did what we are now again doing?
Here’s to the hundred years’ war.
End war profiteering and drug money laundering and the war ends, instantly.
At this point, it seems that all “official” do is contradict Trump.