Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Measuring a War Gone to Hell
Measuring a War Gone to Hell by Tom Engelhardt
In the list of metrics is this gem:
"Number of al-Qaeda base camps estimated to be in Afghanistan today: 0. (All reputable experts seem agreed on this.)"
Tom Engelhardt does not mention, nor does anyone else seem to either, the "big picture, what is really happening, question".
Here's my take: the military invasion of the Middle East, which began in Afghanistan and then quickly shifted to Iraq, was always about establishing military authority in the region because that's what Israel's agents in Washington (half the so-called Neocons, with the backing of AIPAC-subservient members of Congress) wanted. They claimed the invasion was to establish "democracy" in Iraq which would then spread through the area. This was a giant good-sounding lie. They weren't looking for democracy at all, but a "friendly" gov't waving the democracy banner, which would in fact be subservient to the primary authority in the region (Israel, with the American military providing the muscle to achieve it's goals). Proof can be seen with what happened with "democracy" in Palestine where voters choose/elected the "wrong" gov't, and that "democracy" was immediately trashed. No, the goal wasn't democracy, it was something that could be called democracy but really a puppet state.
What's the shift from Iraq to Afghanistan really all about? It's an attention diverter, plain and simple, away from the epic, collasal failure in Iraq. No, it's not intended to "win" in Afghanistan, which nobody thinks is possible, but to divert attention to somewhere else for the purpose of buying some number of years while they figure out what to do next. Iraq is already a distant memory, according to the "news". To make matters much worse, of course, if the fact that we still have some 200,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq while the opposition to the occupation solidifies. Will these people be withdrawn before they are kicked out, or will there be massive fighting in Iraq again? Which will come first is the question, because "victory" is nowhere in sight.
My best quess is that many of the troops in Iraq will be moved out, many to Afghanistan, leaving a relatively small number in Iraq to protect that massive embassy in Baghdad. These forces will be under constant attack (the people of Iraq want the occupier out), and they'll use airstrikes to "secure" their area, which will bring about huge casualties and protests ... eventually forcing the withdrawal of all forces from that country ... at which time Iraq will either break up into 2 or 3 countries, at least one of which will align with Iran going forward.
To make a long story short, we'll leave Iraq with no accomplishment whatsoever, and then we'll leave Afghanistan, with no accomplishment whatsoever.
But it's not that simple, of course. The price America will pay for this hasn't hit us yet, because the money to pay for it came from debt that our children will spend their lifetimes repaying, never mind the cost of losing what could have been, such as universal health care.
To understand how this happened, you have to look to the protaganists and the lies and distortions they spread to conceal their real missions (greed on the part of the Military-Industial Complex and Big Oil, and Israel's security, achieved via their "might is right" belief system) - and continue to spread to this day, and then - in a perverted way - it all starts to make sense. For in-depth details, search on "Ray McGovern" and/or "Juan Cole" starting with links provided here and those in sidebars accompanying these articles, and The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
And the propaganda machine which delivered the "news" with all of it's lies and distortions can be read about by clicking here.