Glenn Greenwald notes the gap between the scale of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and the number of Al Qaeda members U.S. intelligence says are still there. Greenwald writes:
So between Afghanistan and Pakistan combined, there are a few hundred Al Qeada members total. All of this ongoing war and those hundreds of billions of dollars spent and those deaths and the decade of occupation, and those bombings and shootings and drone attacks and lawless prisons and habeas-stripping court precedents: it's all (ostensibly) for a few hundred extremists total hiding in remote tribal areas. A few hundred.
Emphasis Greenwald's, quagmire ours.
(H/T: Andrew Sullivan)
Leave a Comment:
Some of us have been saying pretty much this for years. Indeed, the anti-war movement was stronger under Bush. Didn't "candidate" Obama run on a platform of ending the wars and scaling back the over-reaching govt. abuse in the name of the War on Terror?
This blog post should be tweeted, facebooked, emailed, redditted, dugg, myspaced, whatever... but most importantly, submitted to all senators and representatives.
In fairness, candidate Obama ran on a platform of "finishing the job" in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq. President Obama is on-track to end the war in Iraq - albeit probably too cautiously - and is doing pretty much what he said he'd do in Afghanistan.
But you're correct on the government abuse thing - his civil liberties record does fly in the face of his campaign rhetoric. From what I understand, he lost a battle with the Pentagon early in his term (hence the backtracking on his original decision to release photos of Bush-era detainee abuse).
Thanks for the correction on the distinction between "ending" the Afghan war and "finishing the job." I had forgotten about that. I understand that you can't immediately suspend the entire operation and simply leave the country on its own. However, the 2011 deadline must not be endlessly pushed back; particularly (and I hate to inject politics into this, but...) until after the 2012 election. Should President Obama lose to a Republican (especially a *shudder* tea party type), the whole thing could blow up again.
I'm more concerned, though, about the civil liberties issues. Bush expanded the police state. Obama has kept it all, and perhaps expanded it further. Shameful.
Although I'm far from a supporter of the war in Afghanistan (though I'm not exactly against it - I'm giving the administration the benefit of the doubt until July 2011), there is the historical aspect which is worth noting:
Remember, last time we meddled in Afghanistan for secondary reasons (to kill Soviets, essentially), we left a country in shambles, causing wide-spread anti-Americanism, a well-armed Taliban, and a civil war that eventually came around to really bite us in the butt on 9/11. Secretary Gates has been pretty clear that his justification for continuing the war in Afghanistan is to prevent this from happening again - leaving Afghanistan in a war-devastated stalemate between the Karzai government and Taliban insurgency could very well come back to hurt the US quite badly in 10 or 20 years.
There's also a very real risk that the war in Northwest Pakistan could go sharply downhill due to a Taliban-led Afghanistan and an al-Qaeda backed insurgent movement in Waziristan et al, destabilizing a country with 60 nuclear weapons and a deep hatred of India. Al Qaeda's real threat to America isn't in its members, who are really troublemakers more than vicious warriors (not to trivialize the scores of people they've killed, of course). It's their presence in Pakistan as political leaders - al Qaeda is a syndicate, not a proper terrorist organization - and the possibility of them fomenting nuclear terrorism. This aspect isn't mentioned quite as often publicly due to political concerns, but it seems to be the main reason for Pakistan's moderated cooperation in the Drone War.
Now, none of this addresses the primary concern: is Afghanistan winnable, and if it is, is it worth the blood and treasure? Probably not. Are we causing more trouble in Pakistan than we can possibly solve? Probably. I really have no idea - this situation is extremely complex. But I think Greenwald is being a bit disingenuous in thinking that the war is about a few hundred al Qaeda, and criticizing it on those merits. It's really about the stability of Southeast Asia.
You mean South Asia. Southeast Asia would be Vietnam, Thailand etc. Other than that nit pick I agree with you except I have supported this war from the start partly about Al Qeada but also for the mayhem Cheney's policy (throwing Afghanistan under the bus after the Soviets left eventually leading to 9/11)) caused. It would be wrong and dangerous to through Afghanistan again under the bus.
If there really are only a few hundred insurgents we, and the Afghans ought to be able to do this thing. Question remains would the government remain stable, with or without meddling from insurgents.
It took only 9 members of Al qeda to wreck havoc in the US. It isn't the number it's thier motivation to do harm.
Not quite correct, if you are referring to 9/11. There were of course the 20 hijackers, but they in turn were supported by many more behind the scenes.
Can a small group wreak havoc? Of course. Tim McVeigh had only one accomplice, and he took hundreds of lives in OK. Fortunately, most of the plots we have seen lately are very poorly planned and executed. At this point, however, it would seem Al Qaeda is no longer the big threat it used to be. Certainly not a justification for the hundreds of billions still spent on defense, or the loss of liberties we have suffered in the name of the "global war on terror".
As someone who has been there pointed out to me, there is little infrastructure in Afghanistan. Regardless of the number of Taliban, or Al Qaeda, modern government might not hold. It is a country of loose tribal affiliations. But also for these reasons, because it would probably remain a weak government after we leave, it would be open for fundamentalists to come back, from anywhere, whether they were Al Qaeda, or Taliban, or not.
What is the source of Taliban material? How have they managed to maintain fire-power over these many years, considering their lifestyles would not support the idea of some secret military manufacturing base?
The Taliban has received outside support for years, especially from the Pakistani intelligence service. Their support has come back to bite them in the ass now, as islamic extremists have become a major threat to Pakistan as well, with the army and government being heavily infiltrated by extremists. This has left Pakistan in a situation where they are too weak to eliminate or even seriously weaken the militants, and the bribes they are paying for peace are becoming less effective all the time. On the other side, the US is demanding some signs of success in the Pakistani army's fight against the extremists after we have literally poured billions into Pakistan for that express purpose. So what do we get? Token arrests every once in a while to make sure the money keeps flowing in. It's an incredibly complex situation, and one where any definition of "winning" is probably going to be either unrealistic, or end up in a situation that doesn't satisfy anyone in the West.
In addition, a lot of sources for money exists from extremists throughout the middle east, Pakistan has been supportive, but also Iran has been known for many years to provide training and weapons to just about anyone willing to pay.