Get Rethink Afghanistan Updates
Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter Get E-Mail Updates
You can help

Archive for August, 2009

Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 31st, 2009

The New York Times over the weekend reported that the anti-war movement is gearing up to challenge President Obama on Afghanistan:

A restive antiwar movement, largely dormant since the election of Barack Obama, is preparing a nationwide campaign this fall to challenge the administration’s policies on Afghanistan.

This is the best news I’ve read in months, and it couldn’t come at a better time. General McChrystal just submitted his strategic review to the Defense Department, and he’s expected to ask for as many as 20,000 more troops. That’s a recipe for increased casualties (both civilian and military), continued waste of national wealth and damage to our national security. These are just some of the effects of the war in Afghanistan documented in Rethink Afghanistan, which, by the way, the New York Times mentioned in their piece:

“Rethink Afghanistan,” …is being produced and released in segments by the political documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald. In six episodes so far, Mr. Greenwald has used interviews with academics, Afghans and former C.I.A. operatives to raise questions about civilian casualties, women’s rights, the cost of war and whether it has made the United States safer.

The episodes, some as short as two minutes, are circulated via Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and blogs. Antiwar groups are also screening them with members of Congress.

I do have one quibble with the NYT’s characterization of the movement, however. Many of the groups mentioned have been consistent in their opposition to war, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican sat in the White House. While it’s true that many have been reluctant to publicly oppose President Obama, others have stood on street corners, badgered their representatives, held screenings of Rethink Afghanistan in their local communities, and worked against a massive public desire to sink into obliviousness now that George W. Bush is back in Texas. As Robert put it in the NYT piece, it’s been “lonely out there,” and the folks who’ve been out there from the beginning deserve a pat on the back for helping to swing public opinion against this war.

That’s not to say that there aren’t people working to kill the energy of the nascent movement to end the war in Afghanistan. Even some who were with us on Iraq are trying to stop the turning of the tide:

“People do not want to take on the administration,” said Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org. “Generating the kind of money that would be required to challenge the president’s policies just isn’t going to happen.”

…Others, like VoteVets.org, support the American military presence in Afghanistan, calling it crucial to fighting terrorism.

Hide and watch, Mr. Soltz.

(Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal.)

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 31st, 2009

The New York Times pegs the original sin of the U.S. policy in Afghanistan:

In hindsight, several current and former administration officials say they have come to believe the decision to turn a blind eye to the warlords and drug traffickers who took advantage of the power vacuum in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was one of the fundamental strategic mistakes of the Afghan war.

Someone will have to explain to me how we’re not compounding the error by pursuing a continued counterinsurgency campaign aimed at protecting from the Taliban a government comprised of the above-mentioned warlords and drug traffickers. NYT’s Helene Cooper and Carlotta Gall, emphasis mine:

Administration officials have routinely complained of Karzai’s failure to crack down on corruption and the drug trafficking fueling the insurgency.

Should Karzai win, either outright or in a second round, Obama administration officials could find a president in Afghanistan who has engaged in so much deal-making that he may be even more beholden to warlords than before.

Warlords and drug lords like Mohammed Qasim Fahim, Haji Mohammed Mohaqiq and Abdul Rashid Dostum dominate the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. They’re one of several reasons why the government on whose behalf we’re fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is not worth another American dime or drop of blood. (Stay tuned for a continuation of my series, “Meet Your Afghan Warlords,” to learn more about the thugs dominating Karzai’s regime.)

President Obama’s election was hailed by progressives as a bright, shining opportunity for the U.S. to regain its moral standing in the world. That’s not going to happen without a radical reordering of U.S. objectives and strategies in Afghanistan. As long as we continue to hold to the Bush-era assumption that terrorism requires a military response, we’ll remain in bed with thugs like these.

Get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Share this:
Comments Off
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 30th, 2009

I’ve been mulling over the dodgy answers (if you can even call them answers) given by Ambassador Holbrooke and Defense Secretary Gates when they were recently asked to define success in Afghanistan or to speculate about how long Americans should expect to be fighting a war there. In case you missed these, take a look.

Here’s my problem: this is a very basic question, and the answer is very simple. We’ve chosen counterinsurgency as our strategy in Afghanistan. Here’s the definition of victory according to The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, page six:

“Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the government’s legitimacy and stops actively and passively supporting the insurgency.”

Also, not unrelated is this passage on page xxv:

“…civilians must be separated from insurgents to insulate them from insurgent pressure and to deny the insurgent “fish” the cover of the civilian ’sea.’ By doing so, counterinsurgents can militarily isolate, weaken and defeat the insurgents.”

Defining success in Afghanistan is thus a very simple matter: Because the insurgents are the Taliban (whom we seek to defeat because their victory in the Afghan civil conflict would supposedly create an al-Qaeda safe haven), and because the Taliban is a movement inside the Pashtun ethnicity, we can precisely define the target population as the Pashtuns, who form the “civilian sea” referenced above that actively and passively supports the insurgency. So, they are the population which we must separate from the Taliban. We can thus restate the manual’s definition of victory by making it specific to the current conflict. According to counterinsurgency doctrine:

Victory in Afghanistan will be achieved when the Pashtuns consent to the government’s legitimacy and stop actively and passively supporting the Taliban insurgency.

That took all of five minutes, and I don’t have a government bureaucracy at my disposal to aid in my research, nor did my department publish the book. With that in mind, there are really only two possibilities:

  1. The ambassador and defense secretary actually do not know how to define victory within the U.S.’s chosen strategic paradigm of counterinsurgency (in which case they are incompetent and should be dismissed immediately); or
  2. They do in fact know the answer to this very basic question, and they don’t want to give it.

I don’t believe that #1 is true (although other criteria may prove them incompetent), and that leaves us with #2. That, in turn, leaves us with a question: why would these men not want to publicize the simple answer to the question of “success”? The answer, I believe, is that stating the definition for success out loud would allow for public discussion and evaluation of our strategy. U.S. policymakers want to avoid such an evaluation of where we are in relation to COIN doctrine’s definition of success for a very simple reason: our attempt at counterinsurgency has already failed.

For those that are new to this discussion, here’s a map showing the geographic distribution of Afghanistan’s main ethnic groups.

CIA Map of Afghanistan Ethnic Groups, 1997

CIA Map of Afghanistan Ethnic Groups, 1997

That light green crescent in the south denotes the Pashtun homelands, which extend across the border into Pakistan.

Now take a look at this map from the BBC denoting the level of violence in each district in Afghanistan:

BBC Map Showing Violence Levels in Afghanistan

BBC Map Showing Violence Levels in Afghanistan

BBC explains:

The “areas of militant control” indicate Taliban strongholds; “high risk areas” where there has been major clashes with insurgents; and “medium” or “low risk” are where there has been some or little violence.

Reuters further explains that this map

was produced in April 2009, before a dramatic escalation of violence ahead of the August 20 ballot.

Note that the April 2009 date of the latter map means that it was produced before the launch of the major operation in Helmand earlier this year. The Afghan NGO Safety Office noted that the increase in troops in the first half of 2009 failed to disrupt insurgents abilities to plan and execute attacks against the U.S. and allies:

“attacks in Kandahar have grown >50% over the year and in Helmand they have stayed consistent with 2008 rates.”

Not only do the insurgents continue to mount attacks from within the Pashtun “sea,” but the Pashtuns have, by and large, rejected participation in the processes of the Afghan national government. In overwhelming numbers, they stayed home during last week’s election.

Meanwhile, turnout was paltry in southern districts where British forces and U.S. Marines all but held the door for Afghan voters. Obama dispatched 17,000 additional combat forces to Afghanistan ahead of the election, but the threat of Taliban violence and reprisal apparently kept voters at home.

The Times of London reported Thursday that only 150 of the several thousand Afghans eligible to vote in the Babaji area of Helmand province cast ballots. Four British soldiers were killed there this summer, a toll the newspaper recalled with the blunt headline: “Four British soldiers die for the sake of 150 votes.”

This is a disaster for a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration and the COIN afficionados within it were banking heavily on the election to flip the Pashtuns, who, according to Bruce Riedel (one of Obama’s trusted advisors on Afghanistan), had never bought into the central government’s legitimacy in the first place:

The Pashtun belt in the south has been disaffected from the beginning. I think when we look back at this, the Pashtun majority in the southern provinces, to a lesser extent than the eastern provinces but certainly in the southern provinces, have never bought into the legitimacy of what happened at the end of 2001. They may not all support the Taliban, but they have never bought into the legitimacy of erasing the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan.

The administration was counting on the election to draw the Pashtuns into the political process. The widespread fraud and the refusal of huge numbers of Pashtuns to head to the polls, however, shows that the strategy failed.

A report from AFP puts a fine point on it, emphasis mine:

In some Taliban strongholds, such as Logar province south of Kabul, residents said turnout was negligible.

“In my village there are more than 6,000 people. Only seven voted,” mechanic Mansour Stanikzai told AFP in the provincial capital Pul-i-Alam.

The reason we had the election was to give legitimacy to the government, and we have failed in that goal,” said analyst Haroun Mir.

Taken together, the ongoing use of the Pashtun homelands as the base for the insurgency and the Pashtuns’ rejection of the processes of the central government show that after eight years, 807 U.S. military casualties, $228 billion dollars (so far; the full cost will exceed half-a-trillion dollars) and more than 20,000 Afghan civilian deaths, we have utterly failed to convince the Pashtuns in Afghanistan to “consent to the government’s legitimacy and stop actively and passively supporting the insurgency.”

In fact, as Dexter Filkins’ article in The New York Times shows, the massive election fraud will make it impossible for even the United States to endorse the legitimacy of the Afghan national government until questions of election fraud are adequately addressed, putting the political element of counterinsurgency (referred to by the COIN field manual as the prime element of COIN) into indefinite limbo while more and more U.S. troops spill into the country.

In other words, the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan has been a total failure.

Reports indicate General McChrystal will soon ask for 20,000 more troops for this debacle. The President and Congress should say no and end our military involvement in Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Americans know failure when they see it.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 25th, 2009

In an editorial board meeting with the Appleton Post-Crescent, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said it’s time for a withdrawal timetable for our forces in Afghanistan. Feingold was the first U.S. Senator to publicly state the need for a withdrawal date from Iraq. Today he became the first senator to say the same about our war in Afghanistan.

“After eight years, I am not convinced that simply pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well thought out strategy. And I have raised this issue with the President, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Holbrooke, the special representative to the area, and everybody else I can and have never been convinced that they have a good answer to the concern that I have, and that other people have.

It’s not surprising Feingold is dissatisfied with answers from Holbrooke and Gates. The former gave an uninspiring definition of success in Afghanistan: “We’ll know it when we see it.” The latter called how long we’d be fighting an active war in Afghanistan a “mystery.”

Feingold continued:

“So something I have not said before which I want to say here in Appleton is that I think it is time we ought to start discussing a flexible timetable when people in America and Afghanistan and around the world can see where we intend and when we intend to bring our troops out…

(Four) years ago I was the first senator in the United States – I announced it in Marquette, Wisconsin – to say we ought to have a timetable for Iraq. I believe that activism was important in moving us forward and having elections where people said it’s time to finish it.

“So we have to be dead serious about security. We have to maintain the ability to go after al Qaeda within Afghanistan. It doesn’t mean we give that up. But simply continuing operations there – and apparently there are going to be requests for many more troops – I’m not sure it’s a wise idea.”

Feingold has been out in front on this issue all year. Speaking with Jeremy Scahill on June 24, 2009, Feingold said:

“This is something I’ve been trying to hammer away at,” Feingold tells The Nation. “They admitted that it’s a problem, but where’s the follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on this issue.

Bravo, Senator Feingold.

(Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal. You can learn more about the threat the Afghanistan war poses to our security at Rethink Afghanistan, or by watching the latest segment, “Security,” on YouTube.)

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 24th, 2009
Orly Taitzs doubts on Obamas birth certificate are more mainstream than Lawrence Korbs support for escalation in Afghanistan.

It’s not easy to craft an argument more fringe than those of the Birthers, but Center for American Progress’ Lawrence Korb managed to get the job done in his recent wrong-headed piece on Afghanistan.

A recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 59 percent of Democrats want troop levels decreased in Afghanistan, versus 29 percent of Republicans. Roughly twice the percentage of Republicans support a troop increase in Afghanistan compared to Democrats. But here’s the thing: Republicans supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan comprise only 33 percent of their party, meaning that they are an even more fringe group than those who doubt/are not sure that Obama is a citizen–a group that claims an additional 25 percent of Republicans compared to the Surgers (let’s coin a phrase, shall we?). Surgers are the true extremists in American politics today.

That’s why it’s absolutely stunning to find a senior fellow of a supposedly progressive think tank like the Center for American Progress pushing Surger rhetoric.

Korb’s article admonishes the president to stop letting troop deployments in Iraq (and, implicitly, American public opinion) limit his troop deployments in Afghanistan. He calls a 21,000 troop increase earlier this year a “good start.” Korb’s piece includes all the assumptions that got us into the mess in Afghanistan in the first place: that the September 11 attacks were acts of war, not of grand-scale criminality; that Afghanistan was therefore a war of necessity, not of choice; that because it’s a war of necessity, the Afghanistan expedition justifies massive expenditures and commitment of personnel. In other words, Korb validates the basic frame of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy and of Osama bin Laden’s dreams: the War on Terror.

There’s good reason for the fringe Right to be enthused about policies that fall in line with the War on Terror frame. As George Lakoff and Evan Fritsch wrote in 2006,

The war metaphor was chosen for political reasons. First and foremost, it was chosen for the domestic political reasons. The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation…Once adopted, the war metaphor…gave [the president] extraordinary domestic power to carry the agenda of the radical right: Power to shift money and resources away from social needs and to the military and related industries. Power to override environmental safeguards on the grounds of military need. Power to set up a domestic surveillance system to spy on our citizens and to intimidate political enemies. Power over political discussion, since war trumps all other topics. In short, power to reshape America to the vision of the radical right — with no end date.

Osama bin Laden intentionally encouraged this kind of thinking as part of his anti-American strategy. According to a 2002 piece by Bruce Riedel:

Bin Laden’s goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, “provoke and bait” the United States into “bleeding wars” throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Now, notice that when Korb writes:

On the other hand, Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Our only choice after the Taliban refused to stop providing a safe haven and support for Al Qaeda was to go after those responsible for the attacks of September 11th.

He conflates “to go after those responsible for the attacks” with “a war of necessity.” There are only two groups of people who should be enthused about such a conflation: the radical Right and terrorists like Osama bin Laden, both of whom find this frame convenient for advancing their agendas.

Korb never says the words “War on Terror,” but his reasoning assumes the frame. Korb’s and others’ inability to shake this frame has me wondering whether some members of the progressive foreign policy community have Stockholm syndrome. When Korb last trotted out his justifications for escalation in Afghanistan using this frame, I wrote:

The War on Terror is a metaphor designed to bludgeon the progressive movement to death. Write that in stone. Tattoo it somewhere on your body where it will hurt. The phrase “War on Terror” blunts dissent, it undermines progressive values at home, and it plays directly into the hands of al-Qaida’s propaganda. People who perpetuate the War on Terror metaphor are, knowingly or not, undermining progress, justice, and peace.

The War on Terror frame is dangerous, and the policies that emerge from it make us less secure while failing to stop terrorism. Given the effects of the frame on American domestic policy and politics, though, it’s not surprising that Surgers are the only ones left supporting the War on Terror centerpiece in Afghanistan. What’s stunning is that an outfit like the Center for American Progress allows the preferred framing of this fringe group to show up on their letterhead.

One more thing. Korb ends his piece thus:

Peter, Paul and Mary put it well when they warned us some 40 years ago, “when will they ever learn?”

Now, I know Larry just plucked a random song out of the air that contained a line useful for making his point (George Bush did the same thing all the time with Bible verses). The thing is, Korb could not have picked a worse lyric to make his point. Here’s the full song, minus all the repetitions and the “long time passing” and the “long time ago”:

Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone?
Gone for husbands everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the husbands gone?
Gone for soldiers everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Gone to flowers, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?

When will you ever learn, Larry?

(Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal. You can learn more about the threat the Afghanistan war poses to our security at Rethink Afghanistan, or by watching the latest segment, “Security,” on YouTube.)

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 21st, 2009
Haji Mohammed Mohaqiq (photo from RAWA)

Haji Mohammed Mohaqiq (photo from RAWA)

This is the second in a series of posts to help Americans get to know some of the most powerful figures in the Afghan government for whom our troops are killing and dying. Today we’ll meet a warlord’s warlord: the kind that engineers immunity for his and his fellow war criminals’ crimes against humanity.

Meet Haji Mohammed Mohaqiq.

Mohaqiq was one of the leaders of the notorious Hezb-e Wahdat, which in late 2001-early 2002 targeted Pashtun civilians for violence because of their ethnic ties to the Taliban. According to Human Rights Watch, Mezb-e Wahdat was “implicated in systematic and widespread looting and violence in almost every province under their…control, almost all of it directed at Pashtun villagers. In scores of villages, homes were destroyed, possessions were taken, and men and boys were beaten and in some cases killed.…[T]here were several reports of rapes of girls and women. In Chimtal district near Mazar-e Sharif, and in Balkh province generally, both Hizb-i Wahdat [alternative English rendering of Mezb-e Wahdat] and Jamiat forces were particularly violent: in one village, Bargah-e Afghani, Hizb-i Wahdat troops killed thirty-seven civilians,” which, as of 2003, was the largest known intentional killing of civilians since the fall of the Taliban.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq managed to get himself appointed as a vice chair of the interim government and as Minister of Planning. During the 2002 loya jirga that set the basic shape of the new government, Mezb-e Wahdat was named by Human Rights Watch as one of the groups that used threats and intimidation against other delegates. Through their use of these thuggish tactics, Mohaqiq’s militia helped corrupt a process which many hoped would lead to greater civilian control relative to the warlords, but which led instead to the warlords’ solidifying their power. Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, of course, retained his positions of power.

Mohaqiq’s militia also became widely feared and loathed for their practice of kidnapping young girls, “forcibly marrying” them (what a useless euphemism for rape), and ransoming them back to their parents. They seemed to especially enjoy snatching girls who were on their way to school, leading many parents to keep their girls home rather than risk their abduction and rape.

But here’s the real kicker: once legtimized, Mohaqiq was one of the masterminds of the widely condemned legislation that granted warlords amnesty for their war crimes during the civil war. The UN sharply condemned the amnesty law, declaring “No one has the right to forgive those responsible for human rights violations other than the victims themselves.”

Here’s the kicker: Karzai just promised to carve out a new province for Mohaqiq in exchange for his support in the election.

So, to sum up, Mohaqiq was a commander of a militia known for using rape as a weapon of war and for human rights violations and war crimes. He deliberately targeted civilians. Then, once he obtained “legitimate” political power, he used it to block prosecution of himself and other warlords for war crimes. But hey–’the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ when you subscribe to counterinsurgency doctrine, so our policymakers have tasked our troops with fighting to make sure thugs like this stay in power in Afghanistan.

Haji Mohammed Mohaqiq is just one more reason why American policymakers should stop sending our troops to prop up a warlord-ridden narco-state government in Afghanistan. Get our troops out of there.

Learn more at Brave New Foundation’s Rethink Afghanistan site, which just released the latest segment of their documentary online: “Part Six: Security.”

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 20th, 2009

This is the first in a series of posts to help Americans get to know some of the most powerful figures in the Afghan government for whom our troops are killing and dying. We’ll get started with Karzai’s running mate in today’s election.

Meet Mohammed Qasim Fahim.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Fahim became first a defense minister and then vice president of Afghanistan. Prior to that, however, Fahim was a senior commander of the Jamiat-e-Islami militia. Here’s a quick introduction, courtesy of the Times Online:

Mohammad Qasim Fahim, one of two vice-presidential candidates put forward yesterday by Mr Karzai, is notorious for his role in Afghanistan’s civil war of the 1990s.

As a commander of the Jamiat-e-Islami militia, he was named by Human Rights Watch in its 2005 report Blood Stained Hands as a key commander in the Afshar Massacre. About 800 members of the Shia Muslim Hazara minority were killed in a bout of murder, rape and looting in a civilian area of Kabul in September 1992.

More on the Afshar Massacre from Blood Stained Hands:

As the report shows, in the lead-up to the attack, hundreds of people were killed in indiscriminate or intentional attacks on civilian homes, and thousands more were displaced. As documented here, militias murdered scores of civilians in front of their homes during the attack. Hundreds more were abducted and never seen again.

Fahim’s militia was implicated in the above-referenced Human Rights Watch report in war crimes which included:

  • deliberate targeting of civilians
  • indiscriminate targeting of civilians
  • abductions
  • killings of civilians in non-combat situations
  • robberies and general criminality

Fahim is a warlord and a war criminal. U.S. policymakers have tasked American troops with killing and dying on his behalf in a misbegotten counterinsurgency campaign. The reason? Well, he didn’t like the Taliban.

Fahim is one of several reasons why the warlord-ridden narco-state government of Afghanistan is not worth another drop of American blood.

Learn more at Rethink Afghanistan.

Share this:
Comments Off
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 19th, 2009

Brave New Foundation just released a new segment of Rethink Afghanistan. “Part Six: Security” includes ex-CIA field agents and station chiefs, along with journalists and regional experts who explain how U.S. policies in Afghanistan undermine American security. Take a look:

Incidentally, this release coincides with the release of a new poll by ABC News/WAPO showing cratering public support for the Afghanistan war.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by robertgreenwald on August 19th, 2009

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part six of Rethink Afghanistan brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents on the record to explain why. There is no “victory” to be won in Afghanistan.

Help build a movement to change this misguided policy.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Derrick Crowe on August 19th, 2009

During his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars earlier this week, President Obama validated the basic frame of the Bush Administration. Obama said that the war in Afghanistan “is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.” This statement accepts a frame designed to bludgeon the progressive movement to death: the War on Terror frame. Incidentally, it’s also really, really bad theology.

In 2006, George Lakoff and Evan Frisch wrote an article critiquing the War on Terror frame that should be required reading for progressives. In it, the authors argue that the war metaphor is a dagger aimed at the heart of the progressive movement in the U.S., chosen primarily to influence domestic audiences to acquiesce to radical right-wing policies:

The war metaphor was chosen for political reasons. First and foremost, it was chosen for the domestic political reasons. The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation. From within the war metaphor, being against war as a response was to be unpatriotic, to be against defending the nation. The war metaphor put progressives on the defensive. Once the war metaphor took hold, any refusal to grant the president full authority to conduct the war would open progressives in Congress to the charge of being unpatriotic, unwilling to defend America, defeatist. And once the military went into battle, the war metaphor created a new reality that reinforced the metaphor.

Once adopted, the war metaphor allowed the president to assume war powers, which made him politically immune from serious criticism and gave him extraordinary domestic power to carry the agenda of the radical right: Power to shift money and resources away from social needs and to the military and related industries. Power to override environmental safeguards on the grounds of military need. Power to set up a domestic surveillance system to spy on our citizens and to intimidate political enemies. Power over political discussion, since war trumps all other topics. In short, power to reshape America to the vision of the radical right — with no end date.

According to Lakoff and Frisch, Choosing and accepting the war metaphor also led to policy decisions that undermined American security and prosperity, playing right into al-Qaida’s hands.

What was the moral of 9/11?

To Osama bin Laden, the moral was simple: American power can be used against America itself. This moral has defined the post 9/11 world: the more America uses military force in the Middle East, the more damage is done to America and Americans. The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us.

That this was the “moral” of 9/11 has been borne out again and again in reports showing that U.S. policy choices in the Middle East are creating more terrorism, not less, including but not limited to Afghanistan.

The domestic and foreign policy repercussions of the War on Terror frame led me to pound out this little outburst earlier this year:

I must admit, I am exhausted by repeated attempts to pound this into the head of liberals, but here we go again: The War on Terror is a metaphor designed to bludgeon the progressive movement to death. Write that in stone. Tattoo it somewhere on your body where it will hurt. The phrase “War on Terror” blunts dissent, it undermines progressive values at home, and it plays directly into the hands of al-Qaida’s propaganda. People who perpetuate the War on Terror metaphor are, knowingly or not, undermining progress, justice, and peace.

To his credit, the President seems to recognize the dangers of the War on Terror frame. He is usually very careful about avoiding the phrase “war on terror” in his speeches. This rejection, however, is superficial. As the President’s speech to the VFW shows, he retains the basic outlines of the war on terror frame:

  • the 9/11 attacks were acts of war, rather than spectacular criminal attacks;
  • al-Qaida members are the new Nazis/Soviets rather than “religiously motivated Mafia,” as Bacevich put it in testimony before Congress;
  • the proper response to the 9/11 attacks, as acts of war, was not juridical but military.

All of these elements are either explicit or implicit in the President’s rhetoric. It’s not enough to throw out the explicit phrase “War on Terror” if you retain the basic War on Terror construct in your worldview.

The President’s juxtaposition of the phrases “war of choice” and “war of necessity” also displays some very bad theology and a lack of maturity. If you accept the distinction made by the President, the United States is not responsible for any of the mayhem loose in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan happened to us, or was elicited from us in a process over which we had no control. We didn’t choose because we couldn’t. We had no choice. Thus our violence has a different moral quality to it than that of the 9/11 hijackers and is required to impose order and safety on a violent world.

This, of course, is the basic outline of the myth of redemptive violence.

In short, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the story of the victory of order over chaos by means of violence.…Life is combat. Any form of order is preferable to chaos, according to this myth. Ours is neither a perfect nor perfectible world; it is theatre of perpetual conflict in which the prize goes to the strong. Peace through war, security through strength: these are the core convictions that arise from this ancient historical religion, and they form the solid bedrock on which the Domination System is founded in every society.

This, Wink writes in Engaging the Powers, is the religion of the national security state. It’s running free in the President’s rhetoric. It’s extraordinarily dangerous–the myth of redemptive violence, once accepted, reshapes any religion into a religion of self-justification and domination. By retaining it in his rhetoric, the President is, consciously or not, activating a pervasive and destructive theological frame caustic to justice and peace.

The President is factually and theologically incorrect. We had a deliberative process in the United States after the attacks that ended with a Congressional resolution. In other words, we chose. And, because we chose, responsibility for our violence and its consequences rests squarely with us.

We had a choice. We have a choice. We should choose to reject the basic assumptions of Bush’s discredited war frame and reverse the war policies that emerged from it. We should start with Afghanistan.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Peacemakers take action to lead the charge to end the war. Join forces with the over 100,000 people who make a difference.
FACT SHEETS

BLOG POSTS FROM DERRICK CROWE
BLOG POSTS FROM ROBERT GREENWALD
RECENT POSTS

SEARCH THE BLOG
Subscribe via RSS
Become a Peacemaker



Bronze Telly Award
QUESTIONS
For general questions, email us here.
For technical issues regarding this site, contact us here.

PRESS

For Press inquiries, please contact Kim at: bravenewfoundation.press@gmail.com



CREDITS
Director: Robert Greenwald - Executive Director: Jim Miller - Producer: Jason Zaro - Associate Producer: Dallas Dunn, Jonathan Kim, and Kim Huynh - Researcher: Greg Wishnev - Editor: Phillip Cruess - Political Director: Leighton Woodhouse - VP Marketing & Distribution: Laura Beatty - Production Assistant: Monique Hairston

LEGAL
Anyone is allowed to post content on this site, but Brave New Foundation 501(c)(3) is not responsible for that content. We will, however, remove anything unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, racist, or that contains other material that would violate the law. By posting you agree to this.





Brave New Foundation | 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232