Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow Politic arrow Get Out of Afghanistan and Everywhere Else
Aug 27 2009
Get Out of Afghanistan and Everywhere Else | Print |  E-mail
Political Views
By MWC News   

Translation
Bookmark and Share

ImageGet Out of Afghanistan and Everywhere Else
by Jacob G. Hornberger

If there was ever a classic example of a quagmire, it has got to be Afghanistan. Hey, they’re going on 8 or 9 years of killing the terrorists and just now getting a good start. What began out as a quest to kill or capture Osama bin Laden has morphed into long-term occupation of the country.

Hardly a week goes by without reports of new deaths, including Afghani citizens and U.S. soldiers or allied foreign soldiers.

Yet, despite the constant death toll and the lack of a well-defined mission, the Pentagon insists on the importance of continuing the occupation of Afghanistan.

Why?

Because the Pentagon knows that if the troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Middle East, Americans might well begin asking the questions they should have asked in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came crashing down and the Soviet Empire disintegrated: What do we need a huge standing military force for? What do we need an overseas empire for? What do we need the enormous expanse of military bases across America for? Indeed, what do we need the Pentagon for?

The fact is that despite deeply seeded fears and anxieties that the federal government has succeeded in engendering within the psyches of the American people, there is no nation on earth that has the military capability of invading and occupying the United States. To cross either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans with an invasion force would require tens of thousands of ships and planes, a capability that is nonexistent among all foreign nations.

Of course, the big bugaboo that the Pentagon now uses to justify its existence (along with the enormous tax burden necessary to sustain its enormous military) is terrorism (as compared to communism, which was the bugaboo prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Empire).

But the threat of terrorism is a direct result of what the Pentagon did both prior to and after 9/11 as part of its aggressive, interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. That threat has remained constant, of course, given the continuous killing of people in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 8 years.

But the Pentagon knows that by withdrawing from Afghanistan and the Middle East, that constant threat of terrorist retaliation plummets. At that point, the only risk of terrorist retaliation would be from some disgruntled person whose family members or friends were killed by the U.S. military sometime in the past. There’s no need for an enormous military to deal with that possibility, and the Pentagon knows it.

If the Pentagon withdrew from the Middle East, military officials know that people might well ask, Why stop there? Why not withdraw from Europe? After all, the Cold War ended long ago. Why not withdraw from Japan. It surrendered soon after the atomic bombs were dropped. Why not withdraw from Korea? The war there ended decades ago. Why not withdraw from Africa? What business do the troops have there?

In fact, the only argument that the Pentagon will have left is the one it was making in 1989 to justify its continued existence: the drug war, especially in Latin America.

The Pentagon knows, however, that there are risks with that justification. One big risk is that people all over the world, including the United States, might finally decide to bring an end to this decrepit old war by legalizing drugs. Reputable and credible people from all over the world are now arguing that that is the only solution to the drug-war horror. In fact, in a move toward legalization Mexico recently legalized possession of small quantities of illicit drugs.

Moreover, the Pentagon knows that one of these days Latin Americans might start asking a discomforting question: If the American people will not permit the U.S. military to wage the war on drugs in the United States, why should Latin Americans permit it to wage the drug war in their countries?

The best way to avoid having Americans asking why we still need a big military force is simply to continue the occupation of Afghanistan. Not only does the occupation provide constant proof that there are still terrorists to kill, it also generates its own never-ending supply of terrorists. The Pentagon knows that under those circumstance people are less likely to question the existence of an enormous military, along with all the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to support it.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, publisher of Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax by Sheldon Richman.


This_Category
Category:: Political Views

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 709

Comments (4)
RSS comments
1. 27-08-2009 09:30
The Pentagon is only part of the problem. Large American corporations need the military to redeem their bad investments with the blood of young Americans. If access to or security for, oil is the ultimate justification for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, it must be pointed out that it really doesn't matter who pumps oil, as long as they pump. Right now our embargo of Iran and vastly reduced Iraqi production, keep the supply limited and the price high, providing a bonanza for U.S. oil Corporations who use their political clout (in league with the Israeli lobby) to sell Congress on the idea that we must "secure" oil supplies. Without the actions taken against Libya, Iran and Iraq, the price of oil would likely be at $30.00 or less. 
 
In addition, if investors knew that they could not count on the U.S. military to redeem their investements in politically, socially or economically unstable counties, money would pour into the United States as investors sought safety for their investments.  
 
In short, our overseas military efforts have increased the price on a variety of commodities, and limited investment in the United States. Without the adventurism, we would likely be a full employment economy swimming in capital. 
 
Jim Corbett
Guest
corribean46@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">James Corbett
2. 27-08-2009 12:23
And another thing... 
 
If we used, just one quarter of the Military budget to secure our airlines, ports, and borders, we could become the most secure country in the world and a haven for everyone, everywhere, who wanted to preserve their wealth.
Guest
corribean46@gmail.colmNOSPAM! ">jim corbett
3. 27-08-2009 16:01
Right Questions, Wrong Time
Projecting the same logic back in time, these same disgusting people murdered one of the US' most enlightened presidents and his brother and his som. In their obsessive, irrational fear of socialism and communism they have wrought havoc all over the world among friends and foes alike. 
 
These, therefore were the right questions to ask, this logical analysis is long overdue but this is the wrong time. The majority of the world's population is either too busy dodging bullets and bombs, scratching an impoverished living from war-spoiled lands or caught up in the consumerist cycle of life "as seen on TV" and playing "the only game in town". 
 
If your drunken driver is hell-bent on achieving a speed record and all the passengers are enthralled in their drunken singalong with the radio the end result is obvious and inevitable. 
 
It's very clear that the voices of sanity are marginalised, given that in all the hullabaloo and furore that mushroomed out of 8-11 the sound of that key question "Why do they hate us?" sounds like a whisper.
Guest
allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson
4. 27-08-2009 20:29
Right Questions, Wrong Time
Sir'  
Look carefully at your lines: 
"Hardly a week goes by without reports of new deaths, including Afghani citizens and U.S. soldiers or allied foreign soldiers." 
 
I will rewrite it, with respect, "Hardly a week goes by without reports of new deaths,nullincluding Afghani citizens and U.S. soldiers and their allies
 
The US is a foreign force in Afghanistan!  
 
The wording gives a clue to the American ethos,'Us and Them'. 
So I agree with your sentiments, but the exclusive American sentiment is part of the problem. 
 
I like to know why Britain 
is full of US Forces, who are they going to defend Britain from? North Sea seals?
Registered

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:

Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Jacob G. Hornberger Afghanistan Pentagon
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: