Hell and High Water

Billy Graham's lasting damage was to persuade
the young George W. Bush to abandon
his wastrel ways, at which he excelled,
and instead seek the path that has
led him to where he is now,
a calamity for the nation and the world.
Graham's burden is heavy indeed.
--Richard Cohen

You say it is the good cause
that hallows even war?
I say unto you:
it is the good war that hallows any cause
--Friedrich Nietzsche
_____________

Though he continues to favor a troop withdrawal, Obama said he would not choose "a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water" (In Iraq, Obama Hails U.S. Security Strides.)

Obama also favors sending an additional 7,000 U.S. troops to the war zone in Afghanistan. So both presidential hopefuls are willing to continue and extend the war in Afghanistan. This sameness of thought got me thinking about the nature of the conflicts.

There are two wars being fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, for a total of four wars. Two are defined by U.S. interests; the other two are defined by the interests of the Iraqi and the Afgani people. The two in each country are not the same.

The U.S. war in Iraq was won when Saddam was toppled. The deaths since "Mission Accomplished" were incurred while trying to build a nation of disparate elements, a war that should not concern the U.S.; it is of no benefit to the U.S.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan ended when al-Qaeda was isolated in the confines of the border regions. Al-Qaeda's defeat was the point of the exercise, and that was achieved. Further military action is a misapplication since the Taliban is an internal Afghan issue, unless they support al-Qaeda terrorism. It is a safe bet that continued military action against the Taliban only strengthens this tie.

Only internal political action can achieve peace and stability in Afghanistan. The Taliban must be integrated in the peace process. Afghanistan will never be a stable nation unless the Taliban are reintegrated into society. It is even possible that they will be the dominant power in the nation. That is democracy, however. It's messy.

Obama wants a political settlement in Iraq yet places his bets on military action in Afghanistan. This seems either disingenuous or callow. Ranger's discomfort is that our civilian leadership with no military experience prefer military action in Afghanistan over political accommodation.

The continual false labeling of the Taliban by U.S. policy as terrorist insures the anti-coalition forces a job there. But where are the Taliban to go -- they are part and parcel of the country. It's not like a U.S. inner city where you could just gentrify and push them somewhere else.

Politics is the art of the possible. Politicians can get by with platitudes and sound bytes; soldiers cannot. War is not the solution to the Afghan situation. The entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is such a mish-mash that applying military force is like prescribing an aspirin for a heart attack. It may be a palliative, but it does nothing to remedy the situation.

Still, most accept the lie that we are being saved by the sacrifices of our troops. The fact is, our troops are not dying for our liberty, but for that of Afghanis and Iraqis. They have possibly died allowing for Iranian hegemony in the region.

The welfare of the U.S. citizenry is a distinctly different issue from the welfare of the Iraqis or Afghanis. Will either of those countries care if we bankrupt ourselves for their freedom?

Iraqis greeted the visit with a mix of anger and anticipation.

"The main thing that we need is to get rid of the Americans," said Mona al-Essawi, 19, who works for a women's clothing store. "If [Obama] will take his soldiers and leave Iraq, then I will even invite him to dinner at my house."

Yankee, go home.