"We did not ask for this fight." Obama said in a speech two Decembers ago. He explained later, "Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."
In this quote, Obama's words do have some degree of truth--but like all other speeches, they primarily target the emotions, using superfluous language to divert from the complexity of the situation and instead identify for the public who the good and bad guys are. However, as is evident, there is a lot of history left out of Obama's claim--history which many Americans sadly don't even know about. It is that history which the government and media work so diligently to cover-up, and if anything, create a narrative to justify.
Historically, the United States government supported the Mujahadeen resistance group in overthrowing the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan--not because they were concerned about the stability and prosperity of the country--but because they were in the midst of a cold war with the Soviets, simply using Afghanistan as a battlefield. To secure a victory against the soviets, the CIA financially supported, armed, and trained Mujahideen soldiers. The United States' support proved to be sufficient to force the soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan, but it came at a great cost--the blood of the soldiers and innocent Afghan citizens who were killed as a result of the billions of dollars of weaponry the US provided Afghanistan resistance groups with.
In the years that came after, the Taliban was born as a faction of the Mujahideen resistance movement. Much of the weaponry that the United States had provided for the Mujahideen now ended up in the hands of the Taliban. With people, weapons, and money, they eventually rose to power, enforcing a fundamentalist Islamic government.
Back in Obama's quote, he says that the Taliban is a radical movement that "seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war." He didn't mention, however, was that it was our VERY weaponry that helped the Taliban in engulfing the region. It was our very support--though we were solely focused on the cold war--which grew the resistance movements, out of which the Taliban was eventually born. Had we not thrown billions of dollars into the conflict, the resistance groups would never have been able to secure a victory, and the issue of terrorism in our society would not be as prominent as it is today.
This expresses an inconvenient truth--the origins of the conflict in Afghanistan don't point nearly as much to the Mujahideen as they do to us, but you will never hear any American politician voicing regret for that, or telling the story like it is. However, some words said by president Jimmy Carter in a late 90's interview give clue as to why the origin of the Taliban is very distorted throughout the government and media--not simply because of intentions to cover-up our early involvement, but pure ignorance. Carter's words in this 1998 interview: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
In the interview, Carter spoke of a pre-9/11 world. He himself had yet to witness the disastrous effects the Taliban on our homeland--mainly the 9/11 attack--which former U.S. ally Osama Bin Laden was allegedly behind. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan now place in the top 10 countries for civilian deaths as a result of terrorist acts. Both countries are also rated "5" on the global terrorist indicator chart. And, because of the September 11th attacks and other linked events, the United States also ranks in the top 10 for civilian casualties as a result of terrorism. Though we have not felt the impacts of large-scale terrorism after 9/11, smaller acts of terrorism still linger and threaten the population. David Lightman of the Miami Herald says of terrorism in America, "Terrorism today is more likely to come as small-scale attacks, such as last November's shootings at Fort Hood military base in Texas, where a gunman killed 13 people, or the failed attempt May 1 to set off explosives in Times Square." All these factors show that the government who indirectly fueled the future growth of terrorism through billions of dollars worth of weapons, did not do so because of a slight miscalculation--they simply were ignorant, and perhaps blind to the catastrophic effects of what they did.
Our government, thirty years later, has improved, but is not much different. Less than a month ago, just as Afghan president Hamid Karzai was under increasing pressure by the United States to free the government and society of corruption, two Afghan government officials linked to the CIA were arrested on corruption charges. Mohammed Zia Salehi, one of Karzai's top aides, is most prominent government figure accused of corruption. Another significant figure in the corruption investigation is Hamid Karzai's own brother, Ahmed Ali Karzai. Dan Farber of CBS World News writes about the president's brother, "Karzai has been on the CIA payroll according to U.S. officials, and has been accused of gaining power via the drug trade and making deals with tribal warlords and Taliban fighters."
This news hit stands after over a year and a half of the Obama Administration reassuring the American public that they were working diligently with administrators to put an end to governmental corruption in Afghanistan. As early as March 27th, 2009, Obama remarked in a speech, "And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior..."
Obama has been "helping" the Afghan government to eliminate corruption for almost two years now, while it has just become clear that high-up government officials are directly linked to the Taliban. New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti said of the recent corruption investigation, "The ties underscore doubts about how seriously the Obama administration intends to fight corruption here. The anticorruption drive, though strongly backed by the United States, is still vigorously debated inside the administration." So, just as we indirectly supported the Taliban years ago, we are providing troops for and financially supporting a government which is in fact linked to the people we are fighting, which is completely contradictory. We are feeding military power into the hands of government officials, who meanwhile are dealing money with the Taliban and making top dollar off of the drug trade. On top of that, Obama had stated he wished to eliminate the corruption which "causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." A year and a half later, it is the American people who, after enduring several years in a plunging economy, housing market, and job crisis, are realizing the emptiness of Obama's words and losing even more faith in our leaders.
In his speech on September 7th, 2001--just days before the terrorist attacks--George Bush articulated an important governmental concept. As the concept he outlined still proves to be completely true for Afghanistan, it can be applied just as easily to the United States--as was apparent fifteen years ago, when the Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan, and less than fifteen days ago, with the recent corruption investigation.
"Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader, " Bush assured the American people. "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."
No comments:
Post a Comment