Afghanistan Election Fraud and the High Price of Empire

It is amusing, if remarkable, that there are still some players in Washington who try to maintain the fantasy that Afghan President Hamid Karzai governs with anything akin to legitimacy.

Karzai, an alleged oil industry fixer awarded control of his country by occupying powers, has always served with strings attached.

And the Afghan people have been quite aware of that fact.

It is true that, at different points over the past eight years, Karzai has enjoyed measures of popular support, thanks to alliances with warlords and drug dealers, the inflaming of ethnic rivalries and an awareness that he was the one distributing all those billions of dollars from the United States.

But, aside from a slick sense of dress, Karzai has never had much going for him in the political department.

So he has, out of instinct and by necessity, relied on fraud to "win" the elections that have kept the Afghan president and his minions in power.

That was not much of a problem during the Bush-Cheney years. The men who assumed control of the United States after losing the 2000 popular vote by more than 500,000 and then shutting down the recount of votes in the contested state of Florida were not going to gripe about the mangling of democratic processes in distant Afghanistan.

But the fantasy is getting harder to maintain now that Bush has retired and Cheney has repositioned himself as the planet's primary defender of torture.

So we get the "news" -- not from the satirical Onion but from the nation's newspaper of record -- that US officials are trying to prevent Karzai from declaring "victory" in the exercise in fraud that naive commentators still insist on referring to as an election.

The Times was as delicate as possible in reporting the predicament:

WASHINGTON -- On Monday, as the vote-counting in Afghanistan was nearing an end, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was briefed by the American ambassador in Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry. The same day, the ambassador delivered a blunt message to the front-runner, President Hamid Karzai: "Don't declare victory."

The slim majority tentatively awarded Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan's fraud-scarred election has put the Obama administration in an awkward spot: trying to balance its professed determination to investigate mounting allegations of corruption and vote-rigging while not utterly alienating the man who seems likely to remain the country's leader for another five years.

Another way of putting it might be to say that US officials are finding it increasingly difficult to construct a rationale for allowing the man they put in charge of Afghanistan to remain in charge of Afghanistan.

This is not a new problem.

Colonial powers have faced these challenges throughout history.

It is one of the wages of empire.

And's that's the problem with the US presence in Afghanistan.

While it may have been initiated with a practical purpose -- to hunt down the plotters of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and to rid the country of its terrorist-friendly Taliban leaders -- and while it may have been reimagined as an experiment in the sort of "nation building" that presidential candidate George Bush once decried, this imperial endeavor has ended up as imperial endeavors invariably do.

The United States, a country founded with the purpose of breaking the chains of empire, has gotten into the dirty business of constructing and maintaining them.

The machinations required to maintain Hamid Karzai in a position to enrich himself and his favored warlords -- even when it involves making excuses for electoral fraud and worse -- are precisely the sort of "entangling alliance" about which George Washington warned in his farewell address to a young nation.

This is what Secretary of State John Quincy Adams pledged to avoid when he told the Congress in 1821 that:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will (America's) heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

America has drifting far from the moorings of her establishment.

The continued occupation of Afghanistan provides evidence of how far.

But it also does something else.

It provides a pivot point.

Those who would have America return to the most fundamental, the most essential, of her founding values with regard to foreign policy should see Afghanistan as the starting point for a renewal of those values.

The work of extracting US troops from that distant land -- and from the service of Hamid Karzai's fraudulent presidency -- is, of course, about Afghanistan. But it is also about America.

How do we pursue it?

Aggressively.

If our representatives in the House have not signed on to Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's resolution to "require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan," they need to be encouraged to join the 97 current cosponsors. This is a bipartisan measure and many of the newest cosponsors are conservative Republicans, so don't fall into the trap of thinking that only progressive Democrats care about bringing the troops home.

If our senators are not siding with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who has called for a flexible timetable to bring the troops home, tell them to join with their colleague to challenge the Obama administration's wrongheaded surges of more troops into a quagmire.

If our news media fails to tell the full story on the nightmarish turns that the occupation has taken, tune in to the Brave New Foundation's terrific Rethink Afghanistan project. And read Tom Hayden's smart analysis, with its unblinking assessment of the administration missteps.

Hayden reminds us that: "August was the cruelest month for American forces in Afghanistan, with at least 49 killed, not including possible last-minute reports. The August numbers exceeded the previous high of 43 in July, as a result of the new escalation of fighting approved by President Obama. The President is expected to approve another troop increase shortly, which will inevitably increase American casualty rates in the 18-24 months of "hard fighting" forecast by the Pentagon. At a rate of 45 American deaths per month, the toll on Obama's watch would be 1,080 additional American deaths through 2011, as the President heads into a re-election."

Those are unsettling numbers, as are the numbers of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. They call for a renewal of antiwar activism. To make it happen, link up with Progressive Democrats of America, Peace Action and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, all three of which have taken the lead in arguing that those who really care about Afghanistan and America must work to get the United States out of the business of occupying distant lands and propping up puppet presidents.

Comments (34)

1. Hey, Dreyfuss now looks like John Nichols! Even has a name that spells John Nichols......

   Short stop......gotta go retrieve my f*&king cell phone...f*&k!

   Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 2:46pm

2. If there was ever any doubt that Nichols is a Chomsky/Zinn radical extremist, this thread puts that doubt to bed.

   the US has made Afghanistan a colony of the US? What an idiotic remark.

   Everyone agrees that the elections in Afghanistan are neither pretty nor perfect. But,tell us about the great history of elections in Afghanistan prior to the year 2000 Mr Nichols?

   And since you're so into imperialism, tell us about the secret plans by NATO to divvy up control of Afghanistan? Which sections do the British, Germans, Canadians, Netherlands, etc. get?

   <Today we have nearly 200,000 troops in Afghanistan today – half of them Afghans, who participate in 90 percent of ISAF operations and increasingly are taking the lead. Of the 100,000 forces in ISAF, nearly 40 percent are provided by NATO and partner countries – and, I should note that 40 percent of the coffins that are being sent back are not from the United States. This is most certainly not an American war. It is a global effort, in which NATO Allies and partners are making a huge investment and suffering significant losses.

   Ultimately, we together will want to see the Afghan National Security Force become capable of securing the Afghan population by itself. It's getting there, as I said, but more needs to be done. We at NATO have established a Training Mission for the Afghan National Army and Police. To grow to its approved strength of 134,000 members, NATO Allies are expanding a Trust Fund to cover the costs of sustaining the Afghan Army over the long haul. European Allies and partners this year pledged some $350 million to this fund, and the United States is spending $5 billion this year and over $7 billion next year to train, equip, and sustain the army and police.>

   http://tinyurl.com/kwlb6t

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 5:13pm

3. well,

   mr. nichols,

   don't forget mr. obama's campaign slogan was

   "Hope you can Change!"

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 8:20pm

4. Why are we training an Army in Afganistan?.....to secure the Afgan population? "Secure"???? what the hell is that? The Tabliban are Afgans...they are a political movement. It appears we want to kill them all. We said the same of the NVA. When will we learn?

   Posted by notsleepy at 09/10/2009 @ 8:49pm

5. I heard Nicholls on some show asked if he thought Obama, regarding Afghanistan, was going to be fated to be the next Johnson. He said he hoped so because the alternative was being the next Breznev. Wise.

   Posted by onthehelm at 09/10/2009 @ 9:14pm

6. Wait a minute here......, isn't Afgahanistan the place, isn't an international coalition the force, and isn't rebuilding friendship with islamist and their infrastructure exactly the "true cause" that all the leftist have been screaming for all during the Bush Administration?

   Has there been a "dimensional shift" or a shift in the time space continuim that I missed? Maybe I was "left behind!!!!

   Posted by BigPasture at 09/10/2009 @ 10:56pm

7. The US hasn't paid the full price for empire yet, but will, sooner than later: collapse of the US as we've known it & once loved it. Just as the USSR disappeared but Russia remains, so will the US transform when the full price of military madness & ideological greed is extracted.

   Posted by sloper at 09/11/2009 @ 12:58am

8. Afghanistan's future is the business of the Afghan people. Western governments cannot recreate Afghanistan in their own image. We went into Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaida, and the Taliban got in our way. The war has been totally screwed up, and support for it is fading. If the "Central " Government doesn't function, then you work on the local level. However, I don't think the American people have any confidence in Republicans or Democrats in Washington. Another attack will happen, and, like the Pakistani people forced their government to act, Americans will force Washington to act.

   Posted by pjcasey at 09/11/2009 @ 11:52am

9. So I guess the question is, which is worse: the puppet Obama, the puppet's puppet Karzai or the puppet-master neocon /zionist mob who run the whole show?

   Posted by DejaVu at 09/11/2009 @ 1:31pm

10. >>>America must work to get the United States out of the business of occupying distant lands and propping up puppet presidents.<<<

    Well, I agree with this statement!

    I think the problem though is MUCH more complex than what you have describe, JOHN NICHOLS.

    I also don't think you are appreciating the "politics" at play here, as Obama continues to undermine one of the central themes against him in the election - "Obama can't keep America safe."

    If left to its own devices, what do you think would happen in Afghanistan? Do you even care about THIS issue, JOHN NICHOLS?

    Certainly, if Afghanistan becomes a haven for terrorists again, and ANOTHER attack on America is orchestrated from this country, there will be no progressive agenda in America, as Obama would be toast!

    Obama clearly understands this, and it is hard to imagine "thinking progressives" - as opposed to "reflexive progressives" - not coming to the same conclusion.

    That said, we should look for alternatives to "occupation", and Afghanistan could be a great test case for serious "internationally-sponsored" nation building activities that build modern political and economic structures that would make the Taliban and their terrorist guests obsolete.

    Right now, all the Afghan people see is military muscle from America, which obviously feels like occupation. Creating new economic activity to supplant the opium trade, while building real incomes for the average Afghan is what is going to metamorph occupation into a serious economic development that Afghan people can respect.

    Jatropha would be a great crop substitute for opium, and the oil from this plant could help create a greener planet since this plant fuel actually has better technical properties than jet fuel.

    Nation-building, not occupation!

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/11/2009 @ 2:52pm

11. The Afghans have not asked for the current regime in Kabul not only corrupt, but without any legitimacy either since they have not asked anyone for nation building and this regime has little to do with their history or traditions.

    There have come others anxious to nation build them many times and they have defeated each and every one since Alexander. Don't know, but suspect the Taliban is local and their own, while the US and NATO will find they are just the latest foreigners whose "interference" is to be defeated....

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 09/11/2009 @ 7:33pm

12. Oh well, as soon as the CIA or the Pentagon can find a replacement for Karzai – perhaps in CA or on Chevron's staff, like Karzai was – then the US can have Karzai killed, like it did Diem in Vietnam. Assassination, the all-American imperial way.

    Posted by sloper at 09/11/2009 @ 8:39pm

13. Wasn't this supposed to be the real battleground against terrorism and Iraq a diversion?

    Mr Nichols and other left wing propagandists must think we have short memories. Liberty and BP have nailed this one accurately this presently is a European/US venture in Afghanistan nation building that Bush had little interest in.

    The real anti-al Quaeda operation, joined with liberation from a tyrant and a genuine attempt at fostering a democratic state, was Bush's Iraq venture. Something that generally is acknowledged by all but the most myopic opponent of GW's better war.

    The relevant question is could the former Iraq bad/Afghanistan good peddlers but now suddenly both bad, lie straight in bed? And why, more importantly, could a "moron" like Bush get it so right and an intellectual like Obama get it so horribly wrong?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/11/2009 @ 8:50pm

14. Iraq bad?

    Not for this administration which has kept Gates for continuity, and the US remains in Iraq while it ramps up in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. Last I read McCain agreed with Obama's current Iraq withdrawal schedule.

    Could be total troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq under this administration may just top the totals deployed under Bush.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 09/11/2009 @ 11:31pm

15. A common element to many non-state military groups has been growing and smuggling narcotics. If there was no black market for heroin or cocaine, this would undercut their funding immensely.

    This suggestion may be counter-intuitive to some but if the US and other allies were to decriminalize possession and sale of heroin and cocaine and allow legal importation of such items, it would vastly undercut the market value of these products. The downstream effects could also be an economic boon in terms of reduced prison populations for drug distribution.

    The rationale behind this isn't 'the ends justify the means' but more an acknowledgement that the war on drugs is an enormous waste of manpower and resources that could be better applied.

    Prior to 1918, these agents were legal in the US and included in many foods, drinks, as well as pharmaceuticals. But it was after the Boxer Rebellion in China that the US Treasury was empowered by Congress to deport individuals selling these products as part of a nationalistic purge of any Chinese dissidents that opposed US expansion in China at that time. The possession of these items were grounds for deportation in some cases but the confiscation and taxing was largely the venue of the Treasury Department. It wasn't until after World War I that this duty was handed over to the Department of Justice, now handled by the Drug Enforcement Agency. So, our perception of these drugs has been largely forged by history and precedent during the latter part of the 20th Century.

    It seems to me that we should rethink the approach as some European countries have already done so that we can (1) stymie black market smuggling, (2) devote police resources to treatment, and (3) create a less criminal approach and more $$ penalty.

    Posted by Robert Zeid at 09/12/2009 @ 07:44am

16. So I guess the question is, which is worse: the puppet Obama, the puppet's puppet Karzai or the puppet-master neocon /zionist mob who run the whole show? Posted by DejaVu at 09/11/2009 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    here's a deja vu for you:

    it's always the jews' fault.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:18am

17. Nation-building, not occupation! Posted by Metteyya at 09/11/2009 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    nation building is just another word for imperialism, a modern substitute for "the white man's burden".

    if the Taleban, read a majority of the Afghani people, wish to return to medieval times, we should let them.

    we can also lay to rest the myth that 9/11 was planned in Afghanistan. it was planned and coordinated in germany with support from Saudi and Pakistan.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:24am

18. you gotta say one thing about Karzai, he's a snappy dresser.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:25am

19. Emile, I love the hat.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 10:30am

20. we can also lay to rest the myth that 9/11 was planned in Afghanistan. it was planned and coordinated in germany with support from Saudi and Pakistan.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:24am

    When did Kahlid Sheik Mohammed travel to Germany? After all, he was the master planner

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 11:41am

21. Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:25am | Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 10:30am |

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aepm3FcShD8

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/12/2009 @ 12:06pm

22. Posted by lrjones4 at 09/11/2009 @ 8:50pm |

    "The real anti-al Quaeda operation, joined with liberation from a tyrant and a genuine attempt at fostering a democratic state, was Bush's Iraq venture."

    Buahaha...hit em where they're not...good strategy!

    "Something that generally is acknowledged by all but the most myopic opponent of GW's better war."

    20/20...but thanks for that flashback to one of many rationales for that "Mission Accomplished"...though it was more of a fait accompli.

    "The relevant question is could the former Iraq bad/Afghanistan good peddlers but now suddenly both bad, lie straight in bed?"

    Why should what was said by the left and ignored for years by Bush be held against them?

    If I ask you to retrieve honey from a hive, but then whack the hive with a stick seconds before you start the task, is it the same request?

    "And why, more importantly, could a 'moron' like Bush get it so right and an intellectual like Obama get it so horribly wrong?"

    Something to do with having sufficient density to bend light and affect optics.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/12/2009 @ 12:15pm

23. Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 08:24am

    Nation-building does NOT have to be a euphemism for imperialism. It's up to us whether we leave a place better than we found it, and seek international control and legitimacy over "any" nation building activity.

    I think this is where Obama and Bush differ - Bush was not interested in nation-building at all, and certainly was not interested in backing an international effort to make this happen.

    The "Obama is the same as Bush" crowd simply does not understand the different politics Obama faces with doubts about his ability to keep this country safe. They also do not understand how to transform a post 9/11 invasion and occupation in Afghanistan into something that actually helps the Afghani people.

    Maybe improving the human condition in impoverished countries does not concern you, EMILE, but I don't see how you can call yourself "progressive" if this is your position.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/12/2009 @ 5:01pm

24. "how to transform a post 9/11 invasion and occupation in Afghanistan into something that actually helps the Afghani people."

    Saving 40,000 Afghan babies and 7,500 Afghan pregnant women every year doesn't "actually" help them?

    "Bush was not interested in nation-building at all"

    God you're stupid.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/12/2009 @ 5:53pm

25. Maybe improving the human condition in impoverished countries does not concern you, EMILE,

    NOT with troops. war does not help the Afghani people.nor Iraq. all we have done is add to their misery.

    I'm not sure what I call myself, but I do know what to call you. naive.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2009 @ 7:08pm

26. Metteyya, please. So we protected the baby oil ministry?

    Don't offer the nutcase fodder.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/12/2009 @ 7:12pm

27. "The real anti-al Quaeda operation, joined with liberation from a tyrant and a genuine attempt at fostering a democratic state, was Bush's Iraq venture."

    The Iraq war has certainly militarily defeated and discredited AQ in the eyes of and with the help of an Arab and Muslim people in a rich and prosperous country in the heart of the Middle East while preventing this same country from devolving into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords. It has contained Iran and made them less likely to use nukes as a detterent to attack Bahrain. It has eliminated a genocidal dictaorship that slaughtered millions of Muslims. Iraq certainly is a genuine democracy in a way that Afghanistan cannot even be compared to. The war certainly has ousted a major state sponsor of jihad and assassination linked to terror plots around the world, and this regime did on numerous occassions plot and carry out jihad against America (Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack, numerous suicide bombings in Israel, dozens of assassinations worldwide, attacks on US aircraft in the north after 1991 every day for a decade, an attempt to assassinate President GHW Bush, and Iraq praised 9/11 as "just the beginning of a larger revenge" on its state media AND tried to carry out at least one foiled terror attack against an American target in 1998). The Iraq war has killed thousands and thousands of jihadists and prevented a complete Talibanization of one of the more advanced and cultured Middle Eastern countries. It further eliminated a horrifying Stalinist dictatorship that killed millions and was comparable to North Korea, to the jubilation of its Muslim victims who praised America and sacrificed more than any other people on the earth today to work with Americans in order to combat jihad...

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/12/2009 @ 7:20pm

28. ...

    But, still, ALL this granted....

    When you call it:

    "The real anti-al Quaeda operation"

    Is that really as fair as calling it a GENUINE attempt at creating a new democracy?

    The latter comment is okay because Afghanistan isn't really a true democracy, and Iraq is.

    But do you mean to say that Iraq is an anti-AQ operation but not Afghanistan? Surely you must realize that the Afghan war did more to demolish and disperse AQ than anything else the US could have done after 9/11? Afghanistan was a NATION-STATE RUN BY AQ!

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/12/2009 @ 7:26pm

29. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/12/2009 @ 7:26pm

    I think it is important to distinguish between al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban is essentially an Afghanistan/Pakistan Islamist phenomena. The common link being Pashtun tribalism. Its aims are essentially parochial and in that it differs from al Qaeda which is an Arab movement that seeks to restore, how ever crazy that may seem, a universal Golden Age of Islam.

    Thus al Qaeda's internationalism and its threat to Western countries along the lines of 9/11 , London , Spain and Bali (which, whilst on Indonesian soil was a concerted attack against Westerners).

    The Taliban's big mistake was to assume that having been nurtured into political prominence by the US as a bulwark against the atheistic Soviet invaders, America would not attack it simply because it would not give up al Qaeda which was operating freely in Afghanistan. Something that lost it government and no doubt provides a very good reason, for its various manifestations, to be wary of getting done over again because of links with that organisation.

    As far as Iraq being the real centre for a body blow to al Qaeda, from which it is unlikely to recover, it matters little whether al Qaeda streamed into that country to have a go at defeating America. That was to be reasonably expected. The reality is that it took an awful hiding in terms of deaths 4000 to Sept-Oct 2006 and just, if not more importantly, its rejection by what could be considered its natural constituency, anti- American Arab insurgents. What a defeat that they sided with the Americans.

    My guess is that Obama, is being a little less than honest about the enemy in Afghanistan/Pakistan because Al Qaeda resonates better with Americans and enables him to deal with the Taliban under that guise.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:29pm

30. It does seem that at present al Qaeda is best dealt with by using good intelligence and policing methods. That needs to be backed with what in normal times would be considered pretty draconian anti -terrorism laws. We presently have a few Somali Australians who are in prison awaiting trial for a plot to attack an Australian Army base in NSW.

    It seems they went back to Somalia, after bring indoctrinated by local Somalis associated with a Mosque in Melbourne. The terrorist organisation they had contact with in that country before returning to Australia, to do the dirty deed, was an al Qaeda associate.

    Unfortunately for them our federal police had been listening in to their mobile phones for a considerable time. The Left here is seeking to have our "anti-civil rights" anti-terrorism laws overturned.

    Some of those accused have said they wanted to pay back Australia for its anti-Islamist terrorism involvement in places like Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Our Left wing PM who thinks Iraq was a mistake and ended Australia's military involvement there, now tells us that we are in Afghanistan to prevent the sort of terrorism these Somalis were planning. You can't win with politicians. In your country or mine.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2009 @ 9:21pm

31. Even after 8 years of war on Afghanistan, in the name of war on terror and installation of a democratic government , US is in still in deep water.Obama's word about change is correct.The US strategy in Afghanistan changed from bad to worse.He thinks more troop inclusion will help there.And that is not going to happen. Afghan President Karzai is surviving , as the President of the "Kabul" with the help of NATO forces.US and co are not talking about the election fraud in the Afghan election.They want to keep their proxy there at any cost.LONG LIVE these kind of DEMOCRACY. PEACE TO THE WORLD.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:25am

32. "it matters little whether al Qaeda streamed into that country to have a go at defeating America. That was to be reasonably expected. The reality is that it took an awful hiding in terms of deaths 4000 to Sept-Oct 2006 and just, if not more importantly, its rejection by what could be considered its natural constituency, anti- American Arab insurgents. What a defeat that they sided with the Americans."

    True, but to play devil's advocate here, AQ could reasonably be expected to infiltrate ANY Muslim country invaded and occupied by America, and could also be reasonably expected to resort to the same brutal tactics of chainsawing, blowing up, raping, torturing, drilling, lighting on fire, and suicide bombing everyone in sight that they used in Iraq in order to combat us. Thus, one could reasonably assume that the moral and humane efforts of American troops to build water purification facilities, hospitals, schools, ect. and to give billions in humanitarian aid to these countries in order to improve infant mortality rates and save thousands or tens of thousands of lives would ultimately win the hearts and minds of a majority of any given Muslim country's population when the only alternative is AQ's barbarism. So, why Iraq? Why was Iraq the real place to inflict a major blow on AQ, instead of Saudi Arabia or Syria or even Iran? I think that Saddam's egregious Stalinist North-Korea-like human rights violations, his crime of two genocides, his countinued slaughter of 20-25,000 Iraqis every year, and his indirect starvation of thousands or tens of thousands on an annual basis through his manipulation of the sanctions regime, is even more important to emphasise than the fact that the Iraq war has severely weakened and humiliated and discredited AQ.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/13/2009 @ 12:43pm

33. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/13/2009 @ 12:43pm

    One reason Bush invaded Iraq is that it had been American policy to remove the Saddam regime from power since 1998 for all the reasons that you mention. That is indisputable and in my opinion makes Iraq a moral American war on a similar footing to the rationale for its participation in WW2, which was to remove two regimes similar to the overtly fascist regime of Saddam Hussein.The body blow to al Qaeda was just one of those unintended consequences that followed.

    Why Iraq is so important as a changing point in al Qaeda's fortunes is its discrediting through its rejection by Iraq's insurgents. Iraqis have a long history of civilisation that predates Islam and were much too sophisticated and even secular to take on board the stifling control of the al Qaeda religious fanatics.

    You mentioned why not Saudi Arabia? In fact it got short shrift from the regime there for much different reasons viz it challenged the ruling elite.

    If you check you will find that support for al Qaeda plummeted in Muslim countries, during the Iraq war and remains very low today. That, it has been suggested, is primarily due to its indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims and most likely has also been affected by its humiliation in Iraq.

    I think it is important to bear that in mind so the West doesn't chase a militarily defeated and culturally discredited foe that has far less significance these days than in did for a few years around pre and post 9/11.

    Further it seems reasonable to assume that America and Europe have been free of al Qaeda attacks because of the very stringent security in place backed up by strong anti-terrorist legislation, rather than through chasing phantoms in Afghanistan and the wild west province of Pakistan.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2009 @ 3:07pm

34. Keep in mind these neo-cons are the direct descendents of the guys who were telling us 40 years ago that "Big Minh" and Thieu were "great democrats (small d)".

    Posted by Mask at 09/14/2009 @ 07:51am