Afghanistan: The long, forgotten war
Robert Zaller
Issue date: 3/7/08 Section: Ed-Op
The one rap that Bush may not deserve is blame for allowing Osama bin Laden to escape entrapment in the Tora Bora mountains in December 2001. We could not have assembled sufficient forces of our own to have cornered him, and worked with what we had--local militias playing both sides of the street, and a Pakistani intelligence that had run the Taliban as an asset (with our once-enthusiastic support). It would have taken a good deal of luck to have captured Osama, plus intelligence resources of our own that were absolutely nonexistent. That he should still be at large more than six years later is, of course, another matter. A cynic might conclude that the Bush administration prefers him that way, perhaps to avoid offending his Pakistani hosts, or perhaps for the same reason that Big Brother wants Goldstein on the loose in George Orwell's "1984." But the simpler explanation is sheer incompetence. After all, this is an administration that hasn't hit much of anything in Afghanistan since Pat Tillman.
Meanwhile our NATO allies, having slogged through six years of war with us though mostly out of firing range, are increasingly skittish. Once upon a time, they too enjoyed long imperial wars; but no longer. NATO upped for the war after Sept. 11, in compliance with the alliance charter which states that an attack on any member state is an attack on all. Of course, the presumed target in Cold War days was a frontline state like West Germany - the idea of an attack on the United States from bases in Afghanistan would have been as fantastic a notion as an assault from Mars. Times are changing.
You might wonder why NATO was even still in existence in 2001, the Soviet empire it was built to contain having collapsed 10 years earlier. Great empires do not let their satellites go, however, as the member states of the Delian League learned nearly 2,500 years ago when they tried to throw off the yoke of imperial Athens. In the case of the U. S., NATO provided a handy cover to expand its military control of Europe up to the Russian frontier. It's a story for another day, but nothing demonstrates the political impotence of the European Union more than its continued thralldom to so-called American security interests.
Meanwhile our NATO allies, having slogged through six years of war with us though mostly out of firing range, are increasingly skittish. Once upon a time, they too enjoyed long imperial wars; but no longer. NATO upped for the war after Sept. 11, in compliance with the alliance charter which states that an attack on any member state is an attack on all. Of course, the presumed target in Cold War days was a frontline state like West Germany - the idea of an attack on the United States from bases in Afghanistan would have been as fantastic a notion as an assault from Mars. Times are changing.
You might wonder why NATO was even still in existence in 2001, the Soviet empire it was built to contain having collapsed 10 years earlier. Great empires do not let their satellites go, however, as the member states of the Delian League learned nearly 2,500 years ago when they tried to throw off the yoke of imperial Athens. In the case of the U. S., NATO provided a handy cover to expand its military control of Europe up to the Russian frontier. It's a story for another day, but nothing demonstrates the political impotence of the European Union more than its continued thralldom to so-called American security interests.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
DAVID
posted 3/09/08 @ 5:13 PM EST
It is terrible that the Afghanistan war is called the forgotten war The News Media you never hear from them about this war I guess they could care less all they think about is making news about Iraq even there you do not hear the good news that the surge is making a differents and there is a good change we can win the war. (Continued…)
Ian
posted 3/10/08 @ 10:53 PM EST
I was hoping to leave a calm, intellectual comment to this editorial; however, your opening line about McCain being a "Rambo wannabe," made it very difficult to read-on and take the rest of your editorial seriously. (Continued…)
Taylor
posted 9/30/09 @ 6:29 PM EST
I am sorry to say that i would have to disagree with Ian i think that this editorial is very good and has a very good point i think there should be more news about afghanistan and whats happening because they are covering Iraq and we know that right now we are on the same situation we have been in for a while now and that we should try to focus on a war that not only needs to be won and ended but also is more important i feel that the war in afghanistan is more important than the one in Iraq because it poses more of a threat being that the Taliban and Al Queda are very mad and if we left they would take the chance to attack again this time perhaps could be more worse so i would say that this editorial covers the truth and i think that what the writer said about McCain is opinionated and should not have any say as to where you read the article or not thank you
Post a Comment