By N.S. Palmer
What would victory in Afghanistan look like?
That’s a question nobody wants to discuss. We hear vague talk about timetables, the Taliban, and the need to “accomplish our mission,” but people carefully avoid talking about what the mission is.
Of course, to understand the mission, you need to understand why the United States invaded Afghanistan in the first place.
But months before the 9/11 attacks, the Bush-Cheney regime had already started planning to invade Afghanistan on behalf of the oil industry, which wanted to build an oil pipeline through the country and considered the country’s Taliban government too unreliable as a partner.
Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks were only an excuse to invade Afghanistan, just as they were only an excuse to invade Iraq. American troops were never there to catch Osama bin Laden or to avenge the 9/11 attacks.
Afghanistan’s Taliban government and its people played no role at all in the attacks, and Osama bin Laden played only the minor supporting role of a scary-looking Arab boogeyman. Everyone else in the world knows it. Only in the United States, where the population is addled by infotainment and starved for real information, does a large minority of people still believe the official story.
So if the real reason for invading and occupying Afghanistan is to secure the country for exploitation by multinational oil companies, what would “victory” look like? It would have to include an Afghan government that:
- Represents multinational oil companies against the Afghan people.
- Does what the US government tells it to do, at least most of the time.
- Is powerful, organized, and ruthless enough to crush any resistance.
- Allows the US and other Western powers to use Afghanistan as a staging area for attacks on other Middle Eastern countries.
In other words, Afghan president Hamid Karzai would have to look a lot like the Shah of Iran, which the US and UK put into power after overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953.
It’s pretty obvious why people want to talk vaguely about “accomplishing the mission” but want to avoid defining what the mission is.
To define the mission is to condemn it.
Copyright 2010 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.