This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Why the War on Terror is lost
Published on March 3, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates shares a quality with his more famous name sake:studied understatement is his way of speaking and this rhetorical choice was in full dispaly when he announced to the media recently that the NATO is in danger of becoming irrelevant in Afghanistan. There were howls of protest from the NATO capitals, but no one who follows the incresingly dismal news from Kabul can be in any doubt ablut the truth of Bill Gate's statement. The biggest mistake that George Bush made was to take his sight off Afghanistan and focus it on Baghdad and 3 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of wasted lives later the War on Terror is still being faught. A whole new front has now been opened up that did not exist in 2001.

The fact is the NATO countriesd have now got sick of the war and want to opt out. In fact the US Director of Intelligence has admitted that 360 of the 365 districts of Afghainistan have now increased Taleban presence. The President of the nation, Ahmed Karzai is now beginning to look and sound like a puppet and controls less than a third of the city of Kabul. Even the capital has seen resurgence of the Taleban. The tribal regions are now awash with opium and narcotics have become the single most important source of income for the people of Afghanistan. Because of the Iraqi Resistance the Taleban has learnt to harass the NATO troops using IEDs and roadside bombs.In Helmand province 6 british soldiers were killed and the retreat of Prince Harry was the result.

In Darfur, the USA has shown  remarkable patience, a quality it did not show in Kossovo. Most people all over the world now think that US policy with respect of the erst while province of Serbia, Bosnia and Kossovo, in which NATO airforce was ordered to strike at Serbia and militarily defeat the Serbs and further humiliate them by the unilateral declaration of independence of Kossovo was not the policy in Darfur. Are we to understand that European lives will be protected and not Arab and African. Why is the USA adopting a dual policy in Darfur. Bush's policy is a total failure and the Janjaweed Militia has now reequipped and is able to strike terror in the region. China is trying to pull its weight in the region  but Washington is prevaricating as usual.

Bush has left a very complex legacy on the foreign policy front. A never ending war in Iraq, an incomplete war on terror in Afghanistan and trouble spots like the Gaza, Lebanon and Darfur that can flare up at any given time.


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 03, 2008

My only comment on Afghanistan is that the Taliban are pouring in in their thousands, mainly from Pakistan and the mountain areas. The reprisals after 9/11 were not enough and the Taliban have been underestimated. They are determined to take back Afghanistan and they may well do so. The only solution is to purge them and there are not enough troops to do so. The war with the Taliban could go on for years.

You mention "remarkable patience' as far as the USA policy in Darfur is concerned. I read that as doing very little apart from food aid, a lot of which is seized by bandits in a country that is lawless with a government which, if not publicly, supports the Janjaweed in ethnic cleansing.

Darfur has been abandoned and we cannot blame the UN for that. 

on Mar 04, 2008
Personnaly, I'd say you lost about 60% of your credibility in your first sentance.

The US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates shares a quality with his more famous name sake:studied understatement is his way of speaking and this rhetorical choice was in full dispaly when he announced to the media recently that the NATO is in danger of becoming irrelevant in Afghanistan.


Find your mistake   
on Mar 04, 2008

Robert Gates not Bill. Sometimes one does get confused with the two names.

on Mar 04, 2008

The U.N. is responsibile for the Darfur situation, not Bush or the U.S.  Amazing how people who criticize the U.S. for military action are  the same ones who "blame" us for not doing anything. 

That is why nobody cares what "the world" thinks anymore.

 

on Mar 04, 2008

It's simple, we had reason to go into Iraq, we had reason to go into Afghanistan.  We have no reason to interfere in Darfur.  It's hypocritial for the left to whine that we aren't involved in Darfur, when they claim we had no reason to go into Iraq.

Darfur is a internal problem.  We have no ceasefire with either side of the problem there, so there isn't one to enforce.  Darfur isn't financing terrorist attacks against us.

It's telling that the left complains that the US isn't interfering in Darfur, yet to do so would actually be doing what the left accuses us of doing in Iraq.

 

The fact the Europe is losing it's will to fight Islamist Extremists merely proves what Isamist Extremist leaders say about the West.  To the extremists, the war has been going on for decades, and they are still up for the fight.  Cowardice and laziness are making the West want to give up after only half a decade.

If Europe hates freedom so much that they aren't willing to fight to maintain it, perhaps the U.S. should pull out of NATO completely and leave Europe to the end they deserve.

on Mar 04, 2008
If Europe hates freedom so much that they aren't willing to fight to maintain it, perhaps the U.S. should pull out of NATO completely and leave Europe to the end they deserve.


This sounds really good to me but common sense tells me it is a bad idea, we left them alone and we had to bail them out of WWI, death toll was 25 million, we left them alone again and had to bail them out of WWII, death toll was another 25 million, we stayed and they got us tied up in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, death toll less than a million. We left them alone and the terrorist did there thing all over Europe and then tried to spread their crap on our shores and we are still counting the bodies, so it is best we stay involved even if they are not.
on Mar 04, 2008
Robert Gates not Bill. Sometimes one does get confused with the two names.


thank you, it was simply nagging at me

The U.N. is responsibile for the Darfur situation, not Bush or the U.S. Amazing how people who criticize the U.S. for military action are the same ones who "blame" us for not doing anything.


Since the U.N. isn't a thing that exist by itself, and merely the what it's nation-members do with it, I would say we should blame the nation-states in it. Bush isn't responsible for those atrocities, and I find the conservatives in the U.S. who blame the UN of any wrong in the world to be as stupid as the people who blame Bush for every wrong in the world.

But 2 kind of people in the west should be blamed for those:

1) The coward way the governements refuse to acknowledge any form of genocide in Darfur. Since acknowledging a genocide makes a country, by international law, obliged to intervene. No governements want that, so they simply sit by and say : Oh dear, that's awful

2) The short-sighted lefty social groups that makes pressure on oil companies to stop doing business in Sudan because of the Darfur. Those companies mostly have been forced to sell those interest. To whom do you think they sold these interest? China, who simply doesn't care. So.. it means that we lost most economic leverage against Darfur that we could have used, and China got a bargain for oil.
on Mar 04, 2008
we left them alone again and had to bail them out of WWII, death toll was another 25 million


That's stupid. You didn't intervened in WWII to save their sorry asses, but to save your own sorry asses. You simply saw soon (as opposed to WWI) that it would be better to make a united stand against the Axis.
on Mar 04, 2008
That's stupid. You didn't intervened in WWII to save their sorry asses, but to save your own sorry asses. You simply saw soon (as opposed to WWI) that it would be better to make a united stand against the Axis.


That is almost true, our leaders knew we would have to get involved but the people who wanted peace at any price wanted us to stay out of the war because it was in Europe and they had not attacked us. Remember that Japan was the only nation to attack the United States during the entire war. Germany sent spies but they were caught within days of arrival and they never had a chance to attack us. The peace lovers argued that we should only fight Japan and leave Europe to the Europeans. Even after Hitler declared war on us to try to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union he did very little to attack us. We on the other hand as soon as Hitler declared war on us then started flooding Europe and the Soviet Union with troops and supplies. Yes, we bailed out the Soviet Union as well as all of Europe while fighting another war with Japan.

America is the only nation in history to successfully fight two completely different wars at the same time. We did not have to do this and our peace loving citizens wanted us to deal with Japan only because we should not fight and die for Europe, I like the idea but all it would do is make us weak in the long run so we stopped the enemy by fighting on his land not ours.

It is the same strategy we are using today in Iraq an Afghanistan and the peace lovers are giving the same argument that we should not have invaded Iraq and only waged war in Afghanistan.

It is also the reason we are not getting involved in Darfur, although it is a tragedy it has nothing to do with us and does not affect our interest abroad.
on Mar 06, 2008
It is also the reason we are not getting involved in Darfur, although it is a tragedy it has nothing to do with us and does not affect our interest abroad.


Remember, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
on Mar 06, 2008
It's simple, we had reason to go into Iraq, we had reason to go into Afghanistan. We have no reason to interfere in Darfur. It's hypocritial for the left to whine that we aren't involved in Darfur, when they claim we had no reason to go into Iraq.

It's not that simple, you had reason but at the same time your president declared war on terror not Afghanistan or Iraq singled out. I hope that you consider this information carefully.


Darfur is a internal problem.

Terror in the world that may effect YOU isn't?


We have no ceasefire with either side of the problem there, so there isn't one to enforce. Darfur isn't financing terrorist attacks against us.

Does it always boil down to your own countrymen? When do we have an evolved sense of love for one another and where does this attitude end?


It's telling that the left complains that the US isn't interfering in Darfur, yet to do so would actually be doing what the left accuses us of doing in Iraq.

The Left, The Right... the unsavory middle. If life were oh so simple as Right And Wrong... I mean there's this division in politics Right or Left... both grinding the axe between what is right and wrong. We're all human we all make mistakes, but there are two choices in every matter and all we should do is try to do the right thing and do no harm.

When I speak of "us" I do not mean to imply I'm American because I'm not. I think "us" really stems down to people of all nationalities, being "American" is hardly the justice to the word "us". Just think of what goes through your mind when I inform you that I am Canadian, do you sense the stereo types surfacing? Or do you draw the line logically between what I say?

As I have said before as I will reiterate again, there is right... the desire to do good and do no harm and there is wrong the desire to do harm and not care about the choices being made whilst shrugging the shoulders passing along excuses for making poor choices when in fact it should be "I made them, I hope for forgiveness however the only thing in my interest is to continue forward making the right choices instead" and do it despite opinion or malice directed towards you. All this is all good and said, but all I can do is pray that we all have the strength to go forth with positive and forthcoming qualities.

on Mar 06, 2008
Webnavigtor:
Does it always boil down to your own countrymen? When do we have an evolved sense of love for one another and where does this attitude end?


It comes down to the use of scarce resources. "We" (as in everyone who wants to "do good") can't stop every atrocity in every nation. "We" have to pick and choose what is worth fighting for and what isn't.

Since it takes scarce resources to "fight the good fight", no matter how many good fights there are, "We" don't have the resources to fight them all.

Darfur isn't the worst hell hole in the world, so what it is about it that makes it worth using our resources to "fix". Sudan itself is a hell hole of slavery and atrocity, why would we "fix" one area over the rest of the country?
on Mar 06, 2008
Please don't tell me you are 100% behind that outlandish statement made by... who was it? Bush? "You are either for us or you are against us". How exactly can you speak with such pretense Ted?

Do you sincerely believe the people in the "Hell holes" you speak of are not people at all but insects to be ignored? I don't think I'm deluded but obviously people who want to be helped will help themselves or try to with a little encouragement/temporary assistance. I think a lot more can be done than simply admitting defeat before any attempt is made at helping the world to become a better place.

Making a difference doesn't mean you have to have hundreds of thousands of troops on the soil and not to criticize the Afghanistan/Iraq situation either.

A lot can be done, if 'we' as in people of all nations, Americans,Africans,Asians,Canadians even.... whatever whoever wherever... put our minds to it. "We" < remember this word is not exclusive to one nation] can make a difference. I sincerely hope that there can be a difference made however. A challenge to be had, a challenge I know not even I can solve in so many words myself. (To admit situations are more complicated than my words of spite against bad xenophobic attitudes)
on Mar 06, 2008
No web, I never bought into the whole "if you're not for us you're against us" thing from Bush. Yes, there are things that can be done for the people of Darfur, but not a whole lot. Why? Because any "aid" we send will only end up in the hands of those who are making the place a hell hole. We can support efforts by private organizations working in Darfur (which is help, but part of the "not a whole lot" category.

But the fact is, other than secondary support, there isn't much we can do, or even should do. It's not that the people of Darfur don't deserve or need help, the fact is, there is no national interest for the U.S. to lend primary aid.

As the left likes to point out, we can't play policeman to the world. We shouldn't even try. That doesn't mean we hide our heads in the sand and help no one, but if our resources are going to be used to help people in other countries, there has to be some kind of national interest involved.

You and I should be out helping everyone who needs it in our own cities too, but the fact is, we have to decide how our own resources are best used. If we don't then we aren't much help to anyone, especially ourselves, for very long.

There are attrocities going on all over the world, and Darfur isn't even the worst hell hole on earth. So what is it about Darfur that demands our aid, when other need them just as much... maybe even more?
on Mar 06, 2008
When I speak of "us" I do not mean to imply I'm American because I'm not. I think "us" really stems down to people of all nationalities, being "American" is hardly the justice to the word "us". Just think of what goes through your mind when I inform you that I am Canadian, do you sense the stereo types surfacing? Or do you draw the line logically between what I say?


I am a Canadian (actually, I would prefer to be called a Quebecois) myself, and I have to reflect a little what you just said.

But if you really want our rich-countries to go into Darfur, all right. What do we do? Do we shoot at the rebels? We shoot at the governement? We go protect the civilian population, which is spread in a whole country, or try to protect the displaced peoples? Don't forget that if we act in a non-aggressive way, our militaries will simply be target. If you think we have a lot of coffins coming out of Afghanistan, let me tell you we would have WAY more coming out of Darfur if we step in to act as bodyguards.

I don't think us going in there will actually help matters, and it will be a big waste of money, of our soldier's troop.

People criticized that we haven'T interceded during the Rwanda's genocide, but again, what we do? We step in, and start shooting the Hutu population to prevent them killing the Tutis? We send soldiers in to personnaly defend every Tuti available in their home, spreading our (small) forces, making them vulnerable to retaliation?

It's easy to say "we have to do stop them". Quite another thing to go in there and start messing with other people's trouble. Not that it's not a worthy goal, but that we simply cannot really stop these. Would you step in, alone, to stop 4 peoples fighting against each others?
Meta
Views
» 141
Comments
» 21
Category
Sponsored Links