American Jingoism

Part II: Afghanistan

Recently Obama proposed his budget, and the projected budget of his first term. It’s an ambitious, progressive agenda and like the big spending liberal he is he actually plans to cut the deficit. I had high hopes initially– if Clinton could get our budget back in the black maybe Obama has a shot at getting this thing under control. Indeed, Obama claims his programs will be payed for by “winding down the war in Iraq” (5). This sounded reasonable to me. After all, our country spends close to a trillion dollars a year on defense (so much for the Stimulus Monster); about as much on our own as every other country in the world spends combined (6). So of course, cutting the bloated Defense budget could help with the deficit. Neglecting, of course, one glaring math problem:

Obama may plan to bring 12000 troops home from Iraq, but he’s sending 17000 to Afghanistan. Obama’s actually proposing 5000 more soldiers than there were before!I previously stated that America overwhelmingly agreed with the troop reduction, but it shocked me to find out that a similarly high percent (65%) approve of the troop surge in Afghanistan (7).

Why would Americans support Peace in one country but not the other? In short, jingoism. Americans tend to think that Afghanistan is responsible for terrorism, for 9/11, etc. and that war with them will avenge our loss and make us safer. The reality is that we know Osama bin Laden and all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Yes, the same Saudi Arabia that we get our oil from. We also know that Al-Qaeda rebuilt in Pakistan, not Iraq.

So, why have we been maintaining nearly 18000 troops in Afghanistan since 2001 when in the grand scheme of things, they have little to do with our national security? There aren’t any major Peace in Afghanistan movements, at least none with the profile of Peace in Iraq movements, and I have to think a lot of this comes from ignorance of Afghanistan’s political situation.

Since the late 1970 Afghanistan has been decimated by civil wars. The Soviet Union invaded in the 1980s, and that’s when we decided it would be a great idea to arm a bunch of local warlords to keep the country in control (anyone who’s seen Watchmen knows what a great strategy that is), a policy that opened up the vacuum filled by the Taliban. It must be noted that the Taliban is different from Al Qaeda. The Taliban is a radical Islamofascist political organization, but they are not the wide terrorist network that caused 9/11. And though it would seem that we redeemed ourself by removing the Taliban from Afghanistan (or, moving them to Pakistan if you like) in 2001, our continued occupation has bred insurgency. Sound familiar? Here’s an inventive perspective I found online:

Even if the United States de-escalates its war in Afghanistan, the country will not be stable as long as the poppy trade provides huge sums of money for violent militants… Instead of waging endless spray-and-burn campaigns that alienate ordinary Afghans, the United States should allow planting to proceed unmolested, and then buy the entire crop… That sum would be better spent putting cash into the pockets of Afghan peasants than firing missiles into their villages (10).

A ridiculous solution to a ridiculous war.

(5) http://tinyurl.com/TimesObamaBudget
(6) http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
(7) http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
(10) http://tinyurl.com/BostonglobeAfghanistan