In Afghanistan--Continued Occupation is Immoral

The only army to ever subjugate Afghanistan after Alexander's was Genghis Khan's. And he did it by massacring (sp?) every man, woman, and child in Herat. Tamerlane did a pretty good job in that department, too. But, he managed to leave enough people alive to govern the city.

It's not called "the Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.

Cause, you know, we Pagans have Gods, and particularly in this case Goddesses of war, too.

We should heed what They teach, too.

Know that what McCain tries to dust off and call almost verbatim 'Peace With Honor' (Couldn't believe my ears, either) is... Not a winnable strategy unless we're willing to be real bad guys, and no one wants to be bad guys like that.

One thing we can say for America is that we don't believe in 'winning' like *that.*

But trying to 'halfway-sorta-kinda' do 'kinder, gentler' imperialism is both ill-starred in that place and not effectual.

We don't pay attention to what Afghanistan *is,* that's the problem. The Taliban has a way of cutting off people's daughters' heads, and that's no more popular there than in any tribal land.

It seems to me that playing ball with Kharzai serves very little.

People there need the means to really live for themselves, it's true, and I say, anything the U.S. military does there should mean that our military might has *their* back, rather than trying to make it be the other way around.

There are certain people there whose butts we have every right of vengeance to kick. These people also want to oppress people who are stubbornly-independent.

America is not impotent, here, militarily. But we need to understand that if we are to do any good there, we must be strong friends and *guests* in that country.

Or else go.

Afghanistan is presently like taking over what remains of a chess game when the previous player was trying to eat time and prove the opposition was a genius.

No one has ever won in Afghanistan by trying to take and hold territory, not since Alexander. That's the nature of the place.

The Taliban were a scourge on the people there before we got there, and they will be if we bail, no matter how much constructive stuff we can promote now.

We probably don't have the resources at this late date to do it properly, since Dubya had our eye off the ball for so very long. All the occupation really does is cost America mystique and it's given the bad guys practice at attacking our troops.

For all that, though, they ain't so formidable.

It's not like Iraq where a trained military was cut loose with a quarter million punds of high explosive.

Not being a pacifist like Starhawk, I do think that some violence is called for.

There are bad guys there who will reive and harm and oppress if allowed to.

But the question is, what are we *protecting,* and there, we need to be doing better.

Afghanistan isn't a nation in the regular sense. Won't be. It's a couple of cities amid ten thousand "Seven Samurai' situations.

The people do need better, but they also need warriors. But the war isn't the point. The objective, even the strategic objective, is peace.

The 'occupation' horse may have already let the barn seven years ago, but *interdiction* will be needed if all that the common people can build or be helped to build, is to survive.

Ideally, the US could back off from what looks like 'occupation' and *protect* something.

Violence doesn't solve problems. Only, at best, end threats.

But threats, there are, and have been, since long before the US took notice of what was happening there.

We do need solutions, there, for the villages and tribes and people, (And they may have their own already, if life's any judge.)

What we really can do is support, and *protect* those solutions. And that's a worthy occupation for a military.

You don't take and hold a country like Afghanistan.

But you can liberate one. Cause they're darn close to ungovernable, even by the likes of a Taliban to begin with.

Nice insights.

To take a more defense approach on Afghanistan, we could ask - war against what ?

And of course the answer of US DOS and DoD is - Against AQ.

Yet ? Director of CIA Panetta said days ago there are LIKELY 50 or less AQ in Afghanistan.

So, the argument could be made- and I'm sure many soldiers ask this - who are trying to kill and why ?

The entire effort has been flawed since its inception.

I noticed in my own research General Tommy Franks- the senior Pentagon architect of this 'war' ? Just up and left- and decided he'd take up banking and took a job on the Board of Directors at Bank of America- which John Thain said of BOA after the ML Acquisition ? BofAML will be the most powerful financial institution in the world.

Seems General Tommy Franks moved to the REAL power - and said to hell with the US military obligations.

I guess money does that.

Odd that money is actually given value by ALL participants in a society- money REALLY is a community tool- not to be hoarded or pocketed, after all- all you are pocketing is the integrity of the community that props up its value.

The same is probably true of words and language culture.

I suppose some greater challenge can come along to dwarf the failed US foreign policy in Afghanistan- WHATEVER it was about - I personally feel it was about paving access to the Caspian Sea - until mean ole global warming showed up to say- maybe all that oil in the Caspian Sea won't be worth anything anyway.

I'm PRETTY confident energy policy is directly tied to Iraq and Afghanistan - lies lies and more lies from the Bush folks - then again, look at BP - same thing - lies lies and more lies.

Now, imagine if the oil cartel managed to put in a puppet president in 2000- you'd EXPECT - lies lies and more lies.

And I do say- I think that's what we got from Bush.

On the plus side- Bush LIKELY has caused enough damage this nation will no longer be able to survive - so, on the plus side ? ironically ? the REAL threat ? WAS bush ? but more so ? at LEAST at the end of the day we can say- nationalism dies.

One world -one people- anything else is a delusion- unless of course, you wouldn't take a kidney or heart from a 'terrorist' if needed to live in a transplant operation eh ?

How sad we can look at Organs as if they are just organs - but when we look at the whole of the person - we say- 'terrorist- SHOOT'.

Tim Miltz

Don't mention all the flies that are attracted to fuel this oil fiasco into a phony religious war.