The war on errors
More lives now hang in the balance with Obama’s plans for Afghanistan
By Kevin Uhrich 12/09/2009
Over the years, we’ve noted with some regularity that already senseless war becomes that much more difficult to justify when it is waged carelessly and stupidly — absent forethought about any of the many horrific unintended consequences such conflicts tend to create — as our now 8-year-old War on Terror attests.
Along with editorials, we’ve written news stories about our wars’ various participants and casualties, easily localizing much of the material from Pasadena and its neighboring communities. That hasn’t been as difficult as one might hope. There are few people these days not personally touched by what’s happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East — again, due in large part to the blunders of our political, corporate and military leaders.
In addition — and like few of our brethren alternative newspapers — we’ve also kept readers apprised of the consequences of the war with The Count, giving folks too busy to read entire stories the weekly body counts involved in our militray efforts overseas.
Now that President Obama is about to send 30,000 more service men and women to Afghanistan, bringing the total to almost 100,000 troops — nearly as many as are now serving in Iraq — our lead news story this week is also about the war: A feature on an ex-Marine-turned-Fuller Theological Seminary student who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now advocating withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan, which he sees as just another quagmire in which Americans needlessly die.
“Violent Islamic militarism cannot be defeated by [the] military. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to kill Christianity.’ It’s not possible,” 27-year-old theology and ethics student Jake Diliberto tells reporter Joanna Buickians. “It’s bigger than what a government or state can do. The war today is not a war of state-on-state actors, but a war of cultural misunderstanding, religious fanaticism and a giant divide between the rich and the poor.”
To say we are against war is something of a misnomer. We actually loathe war. Always have, always will, largely because most wars, not just the one in Afghanistan, are waged for ends as unachievable as those Diliberto mentions. For us, the lyrics to Edwin Starr’s Vietnam-era hit song “War,” reminding us that “War can’t give life; it can only take it away,” are as true and pertinent today as they were in Starr’s day.
But the question today is: How do we reconcile our admiration for Obama — who is currently being forced to spend his first years in office untangling the hopeless messes made by his predecessor, including the War on Terror — with his recent decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan?
Of course, the argument could be (and has been) made that American military forces are already up to their holsters in Afghanistan, a mission that began as a hunt for the “Waldo”-like Twin Towers mastermind Osama bin Laden, who was never found, only speaks via video when the global “terror threat” needs to be raised and is presumably currently traveling somewhere through the rocky terrain of Pakistan.
Wherever he really is (if, in fact, he really is), bin Laden is apparently not in Afghanistan, and neither are most of his al Qaeda minions, leaving only the indigenous and tenacious Taliban to fight, which they would probably do among themselves even if we weren’t there. The truth is, about the only thing left in Afghanistan to fight over is a broken nation in need of rebuilding, which appears to be at the heart of Obama’s plan.
That plan (it’s at least nice to have a chief executive with a plan for such things, no?) is to establish some political stability — even if that means our current partners are ultimately voted out of office and replaced — set goals, benchmarks, a date for withdrawal, and get some of Afghanistan’s neighbors (and Afghans themselves) involved in the country’s recovery
“After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” The Christian Science Monitor quotes from Obama’s prepared remarks last week at West Point. “These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”
It all sounds very reasonable, or, if not reasonable, much more sensible than anything the previous administration ever attempted.
But what if Diliberto is right?
For guidance, we again turn to Starr, who nearly 40 years ago asked: “War: What is it good for?”
Answer: “Absolutely nothin.’”
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
War has it's uses. Just ask the jews of WW2, or the now liberated Iraqi's. B.O. Is a smart man and understand this basic truth. For a deeper and well written explanation of justified war, see Obama's brilliant, Bush-esk Nobel Prize acceptance speech. (linked bellow).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi...