What are they talking about?
Consider these quotes from today’s New York Times which paints a somewhat rosy picture of Obama’s (May he live long and prosper) startling new strategy of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.
The Jalrez Valley is a test case, the first area in Afghanistan where President Obama’s strategy of increasing troop levels has been applied, and it is a promising early indicator.
But in Afghanistan, a complex patchwork of tribes, ethnicities and rivalries, it remains unclear whether the early success in this area can be replicated.
“I learned everything I know about the Jalrez insurgency from ‘The Sopranos,’ ” Colonel Gallahue said. “At the foot soldier level, it’s economically driven.”
In the rules of counterinsurgency, soldiers must move quickly — but carefully — to solidify gains.
“It’s moving as fast as it can,” said Matthew Sherman, the Americans’ political adviser. “If we force it, then it won’t work.”
The article is full of words like “indicator, early success, gains," etc. and in the last quote it is merely referred to as “it.” I included the good Colonel Gallahue’s quote because it is possibly one of the stupidest remarks I’ve read lately. However what is left out entirely is what this ephemeral goal is, …exactly. Yes, I know, the supposed goal is eradicating terrorism wherever it may lurk or at least that is the official jargon. And mix in some nation building and viola, zee master plan haz been revealed. Of course some people like me merely refer to it as imperialism and murder but then I’m one of those fringe lunatics so this must be considered as well.
And so you rightly ask well doesn’t our military presence, blowing up weddings in Afghanistan, followed promptly by blowing up the funeral resulting from blowing up the wedding, etc. mean that we are creating more terrorists? The answer of course is yes but then that is the whole point for national leaders since it is the mayhem and slaughter of war that helps keep them in power which of course is the real goal. Accruing more power and keeping it so that they can stay in power for as long as possible. It’s all that matters to national leaders generally speaking. If bugs get squished along the way, not to worry. It’s also why Obama regales us with tales of scheming blood thirsty enemies everywhere. Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, are all potential threats to U.S. lives. What Obama is really saying is how much we need his leadership and how important it is for us to trust that he will protect us. Even if Korea, Iran, and the rest really aren’t a threat, which of course they are not.
At the bidding of Obama Pakistan is now planning to widen the war against the Taliban. Apparently, perhaps as soon as this summer, there will be a joint U.S./Pakistani assault on Waziristan. More innocents will die, burnt offerings to the empowerment of Obama the peace candidate.
Revenge for army action in Waziristan could cause carnage across the country, severely testing hard-won public support for taking on the Taliban, even destabilizing the country. It would also add to the humanitarian crisis of people displaced by fighting, which stands now at some 3 million.
“Carnage across the country” will only be used as an excuse for our continued presence in a war without goals. Terrorism is a national leader’s dream come true.