The United States intervention in the Middle East and South Asia will not end terrorism.
Instead, it will destabilize countries, increase economic debt and civilian deaths.
“A war against Afghanistan or other neighboring states poses great risks and may not achieve the ends that the United States has proclaimed, namely ending terrorist attacks against American, Israeli, European or other targets,” history department chair Robert Buzzanco said in a 2001 Houston Chronicle article.
“It may alienate allies, create new enemies and prompt a larger cycle of violence,” he said.
Afghanistan is now officially the new commander in chief’s war. President Obama will send 17,000 more soldiers to fight against the forces of the Taliban and aid the border with Pakistan.
Is this a continuation of the bellicose era of the Bushes?
These are not humanitarian troops Obama has ordered to send. Instead, he refers to them as aid to the people in Afghanistan, meant to defeat al-Qaida and keep us safe.
“This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires,” Obama said in a written statement.
The United States isn’t in Afghanistan to solve the problem of the spread of extremism, the Taliban or to make peace. None of these will be solved with violent approaches, Obama said Tuesday.
During his presidential campaign, Obama made firm his opposition to the war on Iraq and criticized former President Bush’s “surge” of sending more U.S. troops into combat.
“We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that the situation is going to improve,” Obama said on an NBC News interview with Tim Russert in October 2006.
Now, he is beginning to follow the steps of the former president by ordering additional troops to fight the ongoing war on terror.
The contradictory statements made by Obama pose the question of what the U.S. wants to do in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is there to strategically satisfy interests.
Then, what are the goals of a U.S. mission in Afghanistan? Maybe this is a move to get closer to Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, and possibly put oil pipelines in the Caspian Sea region.
In addition, the U.S. Army is offering citizenship to immigrants with temporary U.S. visas who have foreign language skills and want to enroll, the New York Times reported on Feb. 14, the first time this has been done since the Vietnam War.
“We must recognize that this war will be fought disproportionately by working-class whites, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and other minorities,” Buzzanco said — yet another familiar tactic used by former President Bush after Sept. 11.
Despite the U.S. forces demand to end civilian conflicts, according to a U.N. report, the U.S., Afghan and NATO forces were responsible for 39 percent of Afghan civilian deaths. Also, militants were to blame for 55 percent of the 2,118 civilian deaths.
The number of civilian casualties inflicted by foreign troops such as the U.S. Army is a sensitive issue. Moving troops from one place to another will not make the region more safe or peaceful.
As Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”