There was a time when the war in Afghanistan was a “good war”: the United States was attacked on 9/11. Aside from the lunatic fringe that does not count in history, the rest of the world applauded the U.S. effort to clear Afghanistan of a fanatical gang that offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.
The war in Afghanistan, and the Western attempt to make the country a more livable place, was the counterpoint to the “bad war” in neighboring Iraq: a war with no sense, no justification, motivated by Washington D.C.’s oil greed — or, in Freudian re-actualization, a form of the child overcoming the father.
This distinction between a “good war” and a “bad war” has been diluted over time. Today, nobody misses Saddam Hussein. Against all expectations, Iraq has achieved a minimum degree of order and security, even if this minimum, which has always been precarious, has meant the destruction of the country's Sunni political structure, or, in other words, the emergence of Iran as the main actor on the Middle East stage.
While reasons for slight relief exist in Iraq, Afghanistan’s “good war” is at risk of turning into a lost war. More accurately, into an abandoned war. There are signs that the United States and Great Britain are disposed to “hara-kiri.”
Barack Obama, in his most misguided speech yet, already communicated that July 2011 will be the date of dismissal. I’m not a military expert, but any rational person would pose the fateful questions that the Sunday Telegraph did in an editorial yesterday: What if by July 2011, the Taliban gives an “illusion of stability,” only to attack later? Won’t the settlement of a date, without any concession or reference to the real situation on the terrain, be a strategic surrender before the enemy?
David Cameron, British prime minister, says no. Being even more generous than Obama, Cameron repeats the G8's official position to establish an ultimatum: five years maximum is the time that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has to put the house in order.
This ultimatum is interesting for two reasons, both lamentable.
First, it signals NATO’s irrepressible desire to leave Afghanistan at any cost, a disposition that does not encourage the troops and which only strengthens our enemies.
Above all, it puts a bomb in Karzai's hand: an invitation to fight the Taliban, and in case of failure in the next five years, the certainty of being devoured by them when NATO’s troops leave Kabul. Will this be the best incentive for the Afghan government to be ruthless with the insurgency?
Sept. 11, contrary to what was said and written, didn’t mark the beginning of a new era. It meant the opposite, the end of a long cycle of Western setbacks against Islamist enemies — a cycle that started with the Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power in 1979, and one that multiplied, in renewed acts of terror in Mogadishu, Kabul, Nairobi and finally, New York.
Pulling out from Afghanistan, giving the country to its old butchers, will not be just another Western defeat and an inexcusable betrayal of the 2000 men who fought on the terrain and will not return. It will mean the certainty that the war which wasn't won in the Middle East will end, sooner or later, by visiting us at home.
A guerra perdida?
Tempos houve em que a guerra do Afeganistão era a "guerra boa": os Estados Unidos tinham sido atacados no 11 de setembro. E, excetuando as franjas lunáticas que não contam para a história, o mundo aplaudiu o esforço norte-americano para limpar o Afeganistão de uma quadrilha fanática que oferecia santuário a Osama Bin Laden.
A guerra do Afeganistão, e a tentativa ocidental de tornar o país um espaço mais habitável, era o contraponto à "guerra má" no vizinho Iraque: uma guerra sem sentido nem justificação, motivada pela ganância petrolífera de Washington - ou, em reatualização freudiana, uma forma do filho superar o pai.
Essa distinção entre "guerra boa" e "guerra má" começou a ser diluída pelo tempo. Hoje, ninguém chora Saddam Hussein e, contra todas as expectativas, o Iraque conseguiu um mínimo de ordem e segurança, ainda que esse mínimo, sempre precário, tenha determinado a destruição da estrutura política sunita do país, ou seja, a emergência do Irã como ator principal no palco do Oriente Médio.
Mas se existem motivos de tímido alívio no Iraque, a "guerra boa" do Afeganistão corre o risco de se tornar na guerra perdida. Ou, mais propriamente, na guerra abandonada. Porque existem sinais de que os Estados Unidos e a Grã-Bretanha estão dispostos a esse "harakiri".
Barack Obama, no mais insensato discurso do seu mandato, já avisou que julho de 2011 será a data da despedida. Não sou especialista militar, mas qualquer pessoa racional formula a questão funesta que o "Sunday Telegraph" coloca no editorial de ontem: e se até julho de 2011 o Taleban conceder uma "ilusão de estabilidade" para atacar depois? Não será o estabelecimento de datas, sem qualquer concessão ou referência à situação real no terreno, uma rendição estratégica perante o inimigo?
David Cameron, premiê britânico, diz que não. E embora seja mais generoso do que Obama, Cameron repete a posição oficial do G8 para estabelecer um ultimato: cinco anos, máximo, eis o tempo que o presidente afegão Hamid Karzai tem para colocar a casa em ordem.
O ultimato é interessante por dois motivos, ambos lamentáveis.
Primeiro, porque sinaliza a vontade irreprimível da Otan em deixar o Afeganistão a qualquer preço, uma disposição que não anima as tropas e só fortalece os inimigos.
Mas, sobretudo, porque coloca Karzai com uma bomba nas mãos: um convite para lutar o Taleban; e, em caso de falhanço nos próximos cinco anos, a certeza de que será devorado por ele quando as tropas da Otan abandonarem Cabul. Será esse o melhor incentivo para que o governo afegão possa ser implacável com a insurgência?
O 11 de setembro, contrariamente ao que foi dito ou escrito, não significou o início de uma nova era. Significou, pelo contrário, o fim de um longo ciclo de recuos ocidentais face aos inimigos islamitas - um ciclo que começou com a chegada do aiatolá Khomeini ao poder em 1979 e que se foi multiplicando, em renovados atos de terror, em Mogadíscio, Cabul, Nairói. E finalmente Nova York.
Retirar do Afeganistão, entregando o país aos seus antigos carniceiros, não será apenas mais um derrota do Ocidente e uma traição indesculpável aos dois mil homens que lutaram no terreno e não regressaram mais.
Será a certeza de que a guerra que não se venceu no Oriente Médio acabará, cedo ou tarde, por nos visitar dentro de casa.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Elon Musk’s recent push to launch a new nationwide party ... not only comes off as pretentious but also sets a fundamentally new trend in U.S. politics.
It is doubtful that the Trump administration faces a greater danger than that of dealing with the Jeffrey Epstein files, because this is a danger that grew from within.
I find your definition of war to be in line with those who would redefine “victory” eternally, in order to simply say that “America lost!”…
There is no war in Iraq & Afghanistan right now. In Iraq, the regimen of Saddam Hussein is long gone, he is dead, his family is dead, his armies were shattered & disbanded…the war is over.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is exiled and decimated, there is a new government installed, and Al-Qaeda has been entirely destroyed in the region…the war is over.
What we are engaged in is an occupation, and an attempt at nation-building. The people of the U.S. do not approve of either, and President Obama was elected, in part, to end this occupation…he has not done so, and we are angry with him.
If the Taliban moves back in to Afghanistan after we leave, it really is none of our concern…that is the problem of the new government in power there. Our beef with the Taliban was that they would not hand over Osama Been-hidin’, and they chose to protect him instead…if they return to power, and allow Al-Qaeda to use the country as a base of operations again, we will return and smash the country all over again. It is in their interest not to do business with Al-Qaeda, and if they pick back up with them, they are incredibly stupid.
But at this point it seems Osama is probably dead anyway, and we have no interest in keeping our military in Afghanistan to toy around with guerrilla forces hiding in the mountains of Pakistan…and every time we bomb one of their locations, we do collateral damage to civilians. Americans are opposed to this, and frustrated with our government, that they will not just pull our forces out of a region we have no real interest in, and cannot afford to interminably occupy…it is looking more and more like it’s nothing but a big welfare payout to the military industrial complex.
I find your definition of war to be in line with those who would redefine “victory” eternally, in order to simply say that “America lost!”…
There is no war in Iraq & Afghanistan right now. In Iraq, the regimen of Saddam Hussein is long gone, he is dead, his family is dead, his armies were shattered & disbanded…the war is over.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is exiled and decimated, there is a new government installed, and Al-Qaeda has been entirely destroyed in the region…the war is over.
What we are engaged in is an occupation, and an attempt at nation-building. The people of the U.S. do not approve of either, and President Obama was elected, in part, to end this occupation…he has not done so, and we are angry with him.
If the Taliban moves back in to Afghanistan after we leave, it really is none of our concern…that is the problem of the new government in power there. Our beef with the Taliban was that they would not hand over Osama Been-hidin’, and they chose to protect him instead…if they return to power, and allow Al-Qaeda to use the country as a base of operations again, we will return and smash the country all over again. It is in their interest not to do business with Al-Qaeda, and if they pick back up with them, they are incredibly stupid.
But at this point it seems Osama is probably dead anyway, and we have no interest in keeping our military in Afghanistan to toy around with guerrilla forces hiding in the mountains of Pakistan…and every time we bomb one of their locations, we do collateral damage to civilians. Americans are opposed to this, and frustrated with our government, that they will not just pull our forces out of a region we have no real interest in, and cannot afford to interminably occupy…it is looking more and more like it’s nothing but a big welfare payout to the military industrial complex.