|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
Good News for the TalibanPosted on Feb 18, 2009By Marie Cocco We seem to have spent our way into allowing our friends the Pakistanis to enter into a peace treaty, or something that looks like it, with the Taliban. The United States has spent $864 billion pursuing security, or justice or vengeance—take your pick—in the years since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service. That does not include the billions spent on homeland security. It does not include anything for the Obama administration to spend on a long-term program to bolster the fragile stability in Iraq or, more urgently, to counter the disintegration of it in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. That is nearly $100 billion more than the economic stimulus package President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. Republicans, who expressed sudden and sanctimonious revulsion against spending at home, had no such pangs when they voted, blithely and often blindly, to spend without restraint on foreign policy and military fiascos abroad. The point of it all, at the outset anyway, was to uproot the Taliban and al-Qaida from Afghanistan, where the devastating attacks were plotted, and promote a more just and presumably more stable civil society. But like novices placing all of our bets on the day’s hottest stock, we now have been rewarded with the cruelest outcome on our investment. Pakistan has, in essence, ceded rule of pivotal tribal areas near the Afghan border to an entrenched radical insurgency. It has officially agreed to allow the imposition of an extreme form of Islamic law that, among other things, bans education for girls and condones brutal forms of retribution. In recent months, insurgents in the region have assassinated secular political opponents, conducted beheadings and shuttered—and bombed—schools for girls. Advertisement Anyone hoping that Obama’s decision to dispatch an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan could demonstrably alter this perilous circumstance is delusional. Obama himself does not see only military action as the solution to the problem—though he came across as disturbingly political in tone when he told Canadian television that he still thinks the effort in Afghanistan is “winnable.” The qualification he put on the term winning was to define it as making sure that the region is not a “launching pad for attacks against North America.” This limited scope should have been the mission all along, which became hopelessly lost in the Bush administration’s grander vision of a global war on terror. Unfortunately, though Obama has long criticized his predecessor’s record in Afghanistan, he has little time in which to change course. It is not at all clear that a down payment of additional troops will buy him much more of it. He is distracted by the implosion of the economy, with its daily torrent of bad economic news—not to mention clear skepticism in the markets about his various recovery plans, from the stimulus measure to the second round of financial industry bailouts to the newly unwrapped plan to address the foreclosure crisis. Now Pakistan, our supposed ally, has made a truce with fanatics. But the fanatics are the reason we went to war. They are not the type to wait while the American president copes with the fallout from rotten decisions made by a relative handful of homeowners who could not afford the mortgages they should never have been given by unscrupulous lenders. In the aftermath of 9/11, one of the few endeavors to be properly executed was the investigation by the commission that probed the origins of the attacks. One of its conclusions was that a singularly dangerous time for the United States occurs during the earliest months of a new presidency: The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred only about a month after Bill Clinton took office; the second just eight months after George W. Bush did. Obama is correct that there ultimately is no military solution to the terrorist threat. But he’d better come up with another answer, and do so pretty quickly. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Sepharad, February 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Folktruther, there was an interesting article by Ethan Bronner on p. 5 of the 2/25 NYTimes, headlined “In Israel, Jew and Arab Sing, But Political Chorus Is Heard.” Concerns Yemenite Jew Achinoam Nini (best known as a singer in Europe because her Yemini heritage adds ethnic depth to her music) and Mira Awad (best known in Israel and Arab world as singer and actress) who, with their artistic collaborator Gil Dror, are working on four songs to enter in the 30-year-old Eurovision Song Contest. Nini has refused to appear in occupied West Bank, opposes settlers, and is active in the peace movement as is Awad.
But many on the left and some in the Arab community condemned their selection as prettifying an ugly situation. The two women were surprised, then, seeing the leftwing movement turn into a Hamas apologist and the political leadership move farther right (rightwingers once threatened to bomb Nini), both feel a bit orphaned. (Which may be how Inherit feels; I certainly do.)
All four of the songs they’re working on are written in Arabic, Hebrew and English—and are not the “Kumbaya” sort of thing but reflect the real difficulty of trying to coexist. They are qualified to do this, I believe, as they have been friends and worked together for eight years.
Nini wrote in her blog a condemnation of the Islamists of Hamas, calling on her “Palestinian brothers” to join together and destroy what she called the ugly monster Hamas. Predictably she was blasted as supporting the Gaza operation, but she denied this, saying that “What I wrote is what my friends in Gaza were telling me, that they were threatened by Hamas.” For her part, Awad said that her vision of an independent Palestine does not include “an extreme religious state where people they don’t like are shot in the leg.” And both women were upset at the rightward veer in the elections.
Can you understand this?
Nini said it was important for everyone to put their two-cents worth in for peace and coexistence. Our two-cents is music.” She said that they were friends, and of course they argue but “the beauty is that we offer an example of what coexistance could look like.”
My two-cents is trying to explain one side to the other in various forums such as this one, and I doubt I’ve made much progress. But the things I have accomplished in my life in other areas—civil rights voter registrations, FoI Act, sunshine laws for newspaper access—have all been done by being somewhere between opposing extremes and trying very hard to find common ground and small goals to inch toward. Eventually you get there. Of course in the Middle East as in our country’s grossest imperial adventures the extremes aren’t equally righteous. But there is always a middle way supported by many moderate people (who are afraid to come out from behind their shutters for good reason)that is better for all concerned. If the extremes are both war and total reconciliation not possible, don’t you think trying to strike a balance that brings out the moderates and at least stops the damaging of peoples’ lives is worth trying for? Netanyahu’s election is a setback, but he has at least spoken of economic improvements in the West Bank. That would help a great many people, and not likeing him or his politics is not enough reason to disengage completely. Of course you can and probably will disagree, but I wanted you to know what I really do believe in.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, February 22, 2009 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
Well it looks like, Folktruther, you will continue your nitwitted comments against the Realtruther, Shenonymous. It’s all right. I wasn’t really expecting you to less than one-dimensional. Invent away as you wish and keep living in your own apparatus of animosity. I am sorry, as I would have appreciated to have intelligent discussion but I see that is impossible given your jaundiced internal eye. Just remember your view of the state of women in the world when you think of your wife and daughter.
I am not racist, nor a racist. Can you make that distinction? Can you say that about yourself?
I did not say there was “Muslim” imperialism. That was another one of your usual twists of tongue emerging from a twisted mind. I said Islamist imperialism, which is historical fact. Since you are not educated enough, apparently that is something that was missed in your learning. I see why we cannot have a genuine discussion. You can only pontificate from the ignorant point of view, exemplified by your limited resources. Ah, such is the nature of being prepossessed.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 22, 2009 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
Shenonymous- you obviously supprt Zionist ethnic cleansing under the guise of supporting Muslim women, a position that can only be rationalized becaue you are a dingbat. Half the people US-Israel are starving, bombing, destroying their homes, etc are women of course, including female children. But your bigotry against Muslisms is so great, and you identify so much with Western imperialism, you can’t accept the simple truth. There is no such thing as Muslim imperialism, the product of a dingbatty mind.
American racism against dark skinned Muslims is only the latest form of bigotry, it having previous existed historically against Indians, African-Americans, Latinos and east Asians, among others. It is part of a larger anti-Foreigner bias, exmplified by the famous American tant that if you don’t like what we’re doing, go back where you came from. The US has killed millions of colored skin people in imperialist wars, and, under Obama, is se to kill millions more. With the approval of bigoted Americans. It is currently being pandered to in the anti-immigration hysteria against Mexicans.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, February 22, 2009 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
Folktruther, you said “In your case your explicit racism and bigotry against Muslims, which now focuses on Hamas the only defenders of the Palestinians, is devoid of any ssense[sic] of rationality or justice.
You simply side with the oppressor against the oppressed, like the other Zionists, under various guises, like the defense of women. And the US power structure has been captured by Zionists which support this ethnic cleansing. To the detrement[sic] of the American people as well as the Muslims.?
You are wrong. I am not a Zionist and I am not bigoted against Muslims. I am bigoted against imperialist Islamists. Hamas is an Islamist terrorist faction. I find it very odd that Hamas is the sole defender of the Palestinians who it is claimed have been persecuted and subjected to inhumane treatment for 40 or so years. That is quite a fiction since surrounding that very tiny country of Israel is the huge Arab empire, who then let the Palestinians suffer all by themselves all these years until a terrorist group sees an opportunity to take up the banner. It is a known fact the Arab agenda is to destroy Israel. Problem is, Israel will not be destroyed. We can come up with a whole battery of reasons, such as acquisition of material resources (oil off the coast), strategic politico/military location, religion vs. religion. It doesn’t really matter anymore. Israel is there to stay and they and the Palestinians will have to figure out a way to co-exist. Or, the Palestinians will have to migrate to somewhere else. Now we already have said several times, the other Arab countries do not want them. There is an ugly history of their being rejected by their own kind. Or, there will be a continuation of war. And we know that Israel has won six or seven of the six or seven wars already and have the sympathy and armament support of the West (USA in particular).
Railing against the abhorrent abuse of women, which happens in every ethnic group and race, but for the moment, I am focusing on the monstrous and wretched male dominated culturally sanctioned abuse of the Muslim women, is not a guise. I am a woman and nothing you say can take that away from me! I have the greatest compassion for these women. I do what is within the scope of my own resources for them. They are awakening and many of them will die or suffer because of it but they will prevail in the end. It is inexorable.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, February 21, 2009 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment
“In the aftermath of 9/11, one of the few endeavors to be properly executed was the investigation by the commission that probed the origins of the attacks.”
x x x x x x x x x x x x
What the 9/11 Commision did was not an investigation at all. It was a Bush Administration-controlled lie, a whitewash and a cover-up from beginning to end, as was every government report that came out durning the Bush Administration dealing with the events of 9/11, from the heckuva job Brownie FEMA report to a NIST report that was a texbook case of scientific fraud.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, February 21, 2009 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment
By dihey, February 19 at 3:04 pm #
Dear Tamzin Jans
May I remind you that President Bush demanded that the Taliban arrest Bin Laden, hand him over to “us”, or else.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified in part by “getting Bin Laden”, in part to close or destroy his training camps. Most experts on Afghanistan agreed that it was then more likely that El Qaeda could arrest the leaders of the Taliban than the other way around.
What was the relation between Bin Laden and the Taliban at that time? The Taliban, at the behest of Bin Laden had destroyed its major source of income, the poppy trade. In return Bin Laden had become the “paymaster” of the Taliban.
x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=xx=x=x=x=x=x=x=x
dihey,
Would you mind providing a link to these “experts”? I would be curious.
Thanks.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 21, 2009 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment
Shenoymous- there are 58 Muslim countries, as I recall, all of them, with a few exceptions, much poorer than Wesstern countries. A major reason that are poor is because US imperialism has supported reactionary power systems that prevent the destruction of feudalist elements that would allow them to develop economically.
The Muslim peoples are now in the historical process of throwing off Western imperalism, especially US imperialism, which is now trying to mantain its hold by massive violence against the population.
In Palestine the US-Isralis have destroyed their economy, and are rapidly evicting Palestinians from their homes and land. The Palestinians have been partitioned up into non-contiguous parcels of land which makes a unified economy largely impossible. Israel is currently raiding villages where the apratheid wall is going through to abduct Palestinians for imprisonment, torture and death.
According to Chomsky the Gazan slaughter was preplaned and agreed upon between Bush and Obama. All the major Israeli parties supported the war. All the major parties support the partitioning of Palestine into Bantustans isolated from each other. this makes the agreement on the two state solution a meaningless slogan, under which guise Israel continues its ethnic cleansing.
The new premier, Natanyahu, rejects the two state solution explicitly, making it difficult for Zionists like Sehpharad and Inherit and yourself to maintain a pretense of justice for the Palestinian people. In your case your explicit racism and bigotry against Muslims, which now focuses on Hamas the only defenders of the Palestinians, is devoid of any ssense of rationality or justice.
You simply side with the oppressor against the oppressed, like the other Zionists, under various guises, like the defense of women. And the US power structure has been captured by Zionists which support this ethnic cleansing. To the detrement of the American people as well as the Muslims.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, February 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment
More fruit of the poisonous tree leading from 9/11.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, February 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
About fell out of my chair, Folktruther. There is something we agree on: the plight of the Muslim women. I just heard a few Saudi women talking about that very gruesome situation this morning on public radio. If there is something we can agree on, then there might be hope for Gaza. I won’t call you nitwitted if you won’t call me dingbat. It is so on-the-playground language. But go ahead if you must.
Don’t you think, Folktruther, that if there were an attempt to develop the economy of who, the Palestinians? because they are the only ones in the Arab empire that needs that kind of help, that hate-America factions such as Hamas, would not interfere and appropriate the help? They showed their colors at doing just that when help was sent with UN trucks. And please answer this question: Why do not the other Arab nations help the Palestinians? I’ll tell you why. The poverty and misery of the Palestinians do the rest of the Arab empire a service. They can be pointed to as being the oppressed by the western superpowers. Even so, I cannot disagree with you on the American imperialistic efforts in the last 8 years. And I agree that it must be made to stop. It might just happen with this new President.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 21, 2009 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
You are quite right, Shenonymous, that the chief barbarism of Islamic power systems is their oppression of women. Especially the Saudi Arabian version, which the US has supported for over the past half century. Women are not even allowed to drive cars or bicycles in Saudi Arabia, or work in the economy.
The most progressive ISlam society was Iraq under Sadam and Baith socialism before the US invaded, women more nearly acheiving social equality. Since the US occupation, the oppression of women has increaed,like the oppression of the entire population. Since all the US wants to do is exploit the population, under the guise of imposing Feedom and Democracy, it supports regimes that oppress women along with everyone else.
The most effective way to eliminate this discrimination is by developing the economy, which is impossible under American imperialism. Because the American occupying power is as bigoted as you are against Muslims, and uses its backwardness to help oppress the population.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, February 21, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
Good news for the Taliban is always extremely bad news for the Muslim women of the country where they are and in which women are miserably oppressed. As the Taliban attempts to extend their rule or authority over other nations by territorial acquisition or through economic or religious authority, or political dominance, the practice of subjugation of women will be the creeping curse.
Report thisBy oldog, February 21, 2009 at 4:42 am Link to this comment
I know that Americans don’t ‘get it’ when talking about Muslim countries so perhaps a little perspective might help.
In Pakistan, return to Sharia Law is like saying in America: “Let’s go back to Christian ideals in our national Law.” Many people would welcome this. Remember the Religious Right’s sweep of the elections in 2000?
If American policy does not distinguish between an entrenched Muslim cultural absolute and political extremists who use religion to excuse their grab for power, we will never ‘get it’ right.
Every time we lump the words Muslim, fundamentalist, Sharia Law and other matters of faith to billions of Muslims with terrorists extremists, we are helping people like Osama bin Laden to attain legitimacy.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, February 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment
You wonder “what is the mission”, MichaelMCB? I believe this country’s Elites are desperate to prove the pundits and nay-sayers wrong; that a foreign army *can* win in Afghanistan, and that maybe the Brits lost in the 19th Century, and the Soviets lost 20 years ago, but *we’re Americans*, baby, and “these colors don’t run”!
So they’re willing to risk thousands of lives on both sides and what’s left of this country’s economy, just because they’re too proud and stiff-necked to admit defeat!
Report thisBy MycallMcb, February 20, 2009 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
I hope that the Obama will learn from history and pull the US troops out of Afghanistan. The British, the Russians (twice) and now the Americans (all be it for announced good but unclear intentions) cannot win there. What is the mission? Truely stated and outlined in your comments Marie. Obama is sending 17,000 additional targets for the Taliban snipers and bombers without a change in strategy it will only create more casualities and more ill will. We don’t belong there…. it’s their land, their religion & traditions, when we leave they can fight it out among themselves until they realize that they need to change. If we want to do something good. Use the money instead to relocate people out of the religious oppression and the poverty of ideals represented by the fundamentalists. Buy up the poppys and direct it to medical and not recreational purposes. Money better spent. Or come up with other more creative or different solutions that can represent real change as advertised. Does everyone still believe the fairytale that OB Laden pulled off the 911 attacks from some cave in Afghanistan without a phone….
Report thisBy Paul_GA, February 20, 2009 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
It’s *their* country and *their* peace plan; if they’ve made a horrendous, even fatal mistake by serving up sharia law to the Taliban on a silver platter, let *them* (and their neighbors) live with the consequences, I say, while we beat feet back home and change this country’s grand strategy from offensive to purely defensive (it’ll cost a lot less, for one thing—which should be a major consideration in these terrible economic times).
Report thisBy dihey, February 19, 2009 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
Dear Tamzin Jans
May I remind you that President Bush demanded that the Taliban arrest Bin Laden, hand him over to “us”, or else.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified in part by “getting Bin Laden”, in part to close or destroy his training camps. Most experts on Afghanistan agreed that it was then more likely that El Qaeda could arrest the leaders of the Taliban than the other way around.
What was the relation between Bin Laden and the Taliban at that time? The Taliban, at the behest of Bin Laden had destroyed its major source of income, the poppy trade. In return Bin Laden had become the “paymaster” of the Taliban. President Bush could have resolved his objectives quickly and much more cheaply by offering to replace Bin Laden as the Taliban’s paymaster. That solution was probably too original and simple to have arisen in his brain. Apparently President Obama does not get it either.
Report thisBy Tamzin Jans, February 19, 2009 at 3:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear Ms. Cocco,
May I remind you that the reason the US went to war was not to get the Taliban nor Al Qaeda but to capture Bin Laden who was accused of plotting 9/11. I know it is a long time back and everyone is forgetting why the US went to war anywhere but the fact is that the many countries who supported the invasion of Afghanistan did so because of 9/11 and to find and punish the culprit.
Dismantling the many training camps was a side issue that was permitted in order to never again see another 9/11 happen.
The Taliban, as fanatic as they might be, were hardly the people involved in killing anyone on 9/11 except in furnishing the training camps. They, too, wanted proof of Bin Laden’s guilt and were willing to hand him over. The proof of guilt was never provided to them.
The US/NATO troops have been in Afghanistan over seven years now and they have not managed to squash anything but think that Pakistan should stop the so-called Taliban in its territory simply because it gets money from the US? Those Taliban were in Afghanistan previously and were pushed into hiding in Pakistan and now this becomes Pakistan’s problem due to the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan. I think a little bit of sharing responsibility would help a great deal here.
Pakistan is negotiating with these neo-Talibans in the hopes of peace. Isn’t that the ultimate goal? Bombardments have not helped and, on the contrary, have killed innocent civilians and this in turn creates an issue of anger and a desire for revenge.
President Obama is correct that no military action is the solution at this point. I think Pakistan is doing the right thing so I do not understand the subject of your article stating that this is a “good news for the Taliban”. It is good news for all in the region, if it works towards peace and, perhaps some of the US troops can finally go home!
—
Report this“Let the beauty you love be what you do.
There are a thousand ways to kneel and kiss the earth” - Rumi