Friday, June 25, 2010

The Afghan war is lost

As if we didn't already know. Lost in the sense that it's unwinnable. Surely the "Taliban" will never "defeat" NATO in the traditional sense, but neither will NATO defeat the "Taliban". This of course is the intent of the war: not victory; not an exit strategy; sustainability. Like Vietnam, a delicate balance between not actually making progress yet also not embarrassing themselves, drawing unwanted negative attention to the war that would dissolve the political will to keep us there - or at least not nurture the political will to demand we withdraw.

On the eve of the now-shelved Kandahar offensive, General McChrystal was dismissed as commander of the Afghan campaign. His replacement is General David H. Patreaus - endorsed by the "evil-doers", who the reader will recall was the author of the so-called Iraq "surge" that supposedly pacified that country; in reality all he did was pay off some insurgent leaders to call off their dogs. Apparently they were too conservative in doling out the cash, because Iraq is as violent and chaotic a place as ever. Irregardless, his nomination all but assures there will be no withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future, and with June being the deadliest month of the entire war - the longest war in the history of the United States, there is absolutely no reason to believe the situation will improve, even if you are ignorant or in denial of the fact that they have no intention of actually winning.

Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly clear, and not just from alternative news sites - what the establishment calls "conspiracy theorists" (also "domestic terrorists") - that the "Taliban" are fighting us using our own cash and weapons. And in a war where "winning the hearts and minds" is supposedly so critically important, the wanton slaughter of civilians continues unabated, making it obvious to anyone paying attention that the United States, if it's committed to anything in Afghanistan, is committed to making sure the Afghan and Pakistani people never forget why they loathe us.

The end of this war can be brought about one way: when the average American slob wakes up and realizes that they do not hate us because we're free, they hate us because we slaughter them indiscriminately - men, women, children, innocent, combatant, all. When he or she realizes that we're not trying to secure victory, we're not trying to destroy the Taliban, we're not trying to create a stable and democratic government in Afghanistan; our only goal is to secure massive profits for the military industrial complex which is the main recipient of funds loaned to our government at interest by the banking cartel. And, as an added bonus, massive amounts of drug money - from opium, hashish and marijuana; drugs that were practically non-existent in Afghanistan before we invaded - laundered and leveraged through the banks. Money which, according to the UN, kept many banks afloat during the current economic crisis.

To put it more simply, the war will end when the people awaken to the reality that this war is a racket, and the powers that be are faced with two choices: withdraw or risk open revolt. Perhaps this will be one positive development to emerge from the McChrystal fiasco: attention will be focused on a war the establishment has been doing its utmost to distract you from. But seriously, wouldn't you rather be reading about Juran van der Sloot?