USA Gets Ass Kicked By Taliban—Will Flee Afghanistan Early

Yeah, the Taliban probably don't process the world that way, do they? And maybe that's part of the problem. On the one hand, Americans tend to assume everybody should think that way—that a Walmart and stuff should make them happy. On the other hand, if "Made in China" isn't the main thing Americans are handing out, but instead "Made in the USA" bombs and missiles turning kids into collaterals, hearts and minds will go to the Taliban.
What this blog has been saying for years, the New York Times affirmed (finally) yesterday, in blunt terms, that even an American general could understand:

• "the surge of American troops over"
• "Taliban still a potent threat"
• "American generals and civilian officials acknowledge...'It's a very resilient enemy."

No fucking shit, Sherlocks.


Who would have thunk it? The Taliban, who oh...defeated the fucking Soviet fact helped more than anything to sink that empire, turned out to be a very resilient enemy.

And who, more than the USA, should have known that? Americans, after all, helped make the Taliban such resilient, hard-as-stone, fighters against much better armed and trained militaries.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reported yesterday that NATO views the current situation in Afghanistan as a big road sign saying—get out sooner, not later:
"The retreat of western forces from Afghanistan could come sooner than expected, the head of Nato has said as he conceded that the recent Taliban strategy of 'green on blue' killings [Afghan troops killing NATO troops] had been successful in sapping morale."
And he sure as hell doesn't mean morale of the Taliban—he means your morale, and that of American and NATO troops serving in the stupid war in Afghanistan.

As this blog pointed out a long time ago, unless the USA was willing to commit genocide in Afghanistan, killing pretty much every single Afghan, the Taliban were not going to be defeated. The Taliban are as much as part of the fabric of Afghan society as the Tea Party is in America. Plenty of experts on Afghanistan had been pointing out for many years that staying and surging in Afghanistan were stupid wastes of lives.

Yet another sign of Barack Obama's horrid naiveté regarding Terror War policy, he actually fulfilled his campaign promise of throwing away more American lives in Afghanistan. The day Osama bin Laden was fish food, Obama should have declared glorious American victory in the Terror Wars, and ordered our troops, all our troops, the hell home.

But, as George W. Bush, sinisterly promised us, the USA would now be at war forever with the endless incarnations of shadowy alleged terrorists. 

The facts are, however, that the USA has killed far more innocent, poor, people in the Terror Wars, than it has squelched terrorism. Indeed, the often insanely brutal acts of war crimes against civilians by American military perpetrators has created vastly more terrorists than it has killed. And of course, that equation—that acts of desperate carnage against Iraqi and Afghan civilian populations make more terrorists against the USA, was used as a justification for continuing and surging the desperate acts of carnage.

Yes, definitely, one of those horribly stupid, self-perpetuating cycles of murder and mayhem  accomplishing the very opposite foreign policy result claimed for it.

Surging Idiocy

CIA pic of DCI chief David Petraeus. Most famous or infamous for pushing the really lame-brained "Surge" strategy or mentality, Petraeus is now hiding out in Langley, probably hoping nobody notices he's around to ask about how Afghanistan went bad. However, the New York Times recently reported Petraeus' next stop might be president of Princeton University.
One of the best examples of brain-dead-stupid bullshit being promoted as a winning strategy by American generals was the notion of the "Surge". As its chief author and proponent, General David Petraeus, recently admitted, the Surge had nothing much to do with winning militarily. It had chiefly to do, in Iraq, with ethnic cleansing and partition (dividing Iraq instead of uniting it), and bribing the Iraqi insurgency to stop killing Americans—which the insurgency was doing with increasing success and ferocity prior to the Surge.

By giving tons of money and guns to people who had just the day before been bad guys, the Americans bought a semblance of peace and order, enough to make the final getaway not look like too much of a humiliating defeat of the American Empire. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, even Petraeus well understood that his counterinsurgency strategy was going to be a much harder sell. 

For one thing, a big component of the Afghan Surge strategy involved generating respect in the population for its utterly corrupt government. The Karzai government is hated by pretty much everybody, from the Taliban to Barack Obama. Its corruption and double-dealing is well known. So, why should we expect the Afghan regular citizen to give a rat's ass about his democratically-elected crook?

Since Petraeus admitted the US military could only play whack-a-mole with the Taliban—chasing it out  or suppressing it in one area as it showed up in another—a full-blown commitment of US resources to building Afghanistan into a modern state was required to win the war. And that would have been a decades-long commitment that Barack Obama was unwilling to make, in part because he rightly viewed the American people as being unwilling to make it—especially not when they can't even commit to rebuilding the infrastructure of the USA!

Should we feel sad, glad, or in my case affirmed once again in how so fucking right about so many things I constantly am? 

Nope. Too many corpses and too much blood shed to no purpose (except to keep the arms merchants and generals happy)—once again.

This exorbitant, extravagant, pathological addiction to violence, manifested by the love of Americans for Grand-Theft-Auto-style kaos, and adoration of the greatest murder machine in history—the United States military—needs to stop.

How striking was the reaction in Libya, amongst the government and the people, who mourned and regretted the killing of a US ambassador—a merchant of diplomacy. Compare that to the widespread hatred of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan, where the very Afghan police and army built up by General Petraeus to fight the Taliban are instead regularly attacking and killing American occupation forces.

Yet, the Times reported this utterly amazing conclusion on the part of the US government concerning future prospects for peace in Afghanistan: "American officials say they hope that the Taliban will find the Afghan Army a more formidable adversary than they expect."

Well, the Taliban should find it a formidable adversary, given how many Taliban have obviously infiltrated the Afghan Army and national police. The US government is now reduced to the amazingly stupid notion and policy that as soon as the US military exits, then the Taliban can just work things out, peacefully of course, with the Karzai government.

Karzai will likely be on a fast plane out of Afghanistan, with another planeful of Afghanistan's money right beside, as soon as the Americans pull out. If there's even a civil war afterward, I shouldn't think it would last very long. Taliban triumphant.

I have pointed this out many times. But this isn't a hard thing to figure. If troops from another country were occupying the USA, killing Americans, who they called "terrorists", you would not love those occupiers. You would want to kill them. So, why do you figure it will be different in somebody else's country?

Oh yeah, one other thing—if Mitt Romney wins—get ready for lots and lots more dead Americans. Because Romney intends to keep the troops indefinitely in Afghanistan, no doubt providing an invasion base, among other things, for his planned war against Iran.

So, yeah, Obama is a murderous asshole. But as we've said, he's still a better choice than Romney—assuming you think fewer, rather than a lot more, dead people, is a good thing.