Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

A Response to an Unspoken Sentiment

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

opednews.com

"If we weren't fighting them there... we would be fighting them on our own shores."

Have you heard that one? To be truthful, we haven't been hearing as much of that particular sentiment since the focus of the war has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan.

But the underlying belief remains the same. Certainly it must; otherwise, what are we doing there? We did invade before we knew of vast mineral wealth there, did we not?

The unspoken belief must be that we are fighting in Afghanistan because there are "insurgents" there who must be contained as they would, if left to their own devices, do us wrong. They are bad guys. That must make us the good guys in this rustic world.

Writing this response to this inchoate belief came to me while reading the excellent article by Dean Hartwell that gave responses to statements one tends to hear from a certain segment of the political spectrum. The "If we weren't fighting them there..." statement seems to me to be a fair argument to address.

Let's begin with our military's current emphasis, in our ongoing Afghanistan adventure, on counterinsurgency, or what the military, which loves acronyms, calls COIN. Much of what we are attempting to accomplish in Afghanistan these days, recently under General Stanley McChrystal and now under his erstwhile boss, General David Petraeus, boils down to this: While engendering as little collateral damage (meaning killed and bloodied innocents, and maybe demolished structures, and other such vexations) as possible, we good guys endeavor to extinguish the violent activities of those we call insurgents.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the origins of this body of insurgents, but neither have I seen evidence that a large percentage, or much of any percentage, in fact, of these people have come to Afghanistan from countries other than Afghanistan. In other words, most of these people are violently resisting and attacking a military from another country that is without their consent occupying their soil. And we call them insurgents.

Perhaps we Americans are not so soft that, were a foreign military to occupy our shores without our consent (and it is difficult to imagine a condition of consent), we too would rise up and perform whatever violent activities we could devise to drive that invader from our shores. Were we to do that I doubt we would consider ourselves insurgents. More likely we would consider ourselves patriots. Wasn't there something back in our history books about our once being in a situation similar to that of the insurgents in Afghanistan, when those of us resisting occupation adopted guerrilla tactics to evade and expel the despised invaders?

But what about al Qaeda? Weren't they the bad guys once? Maybe they are fueling the insurgency.

Probably al Qaeda comprises a portion of the insurgents, and they do indeed mean us harm. That gives us a bit of more complication in our black hat/white hat movie. We have on one hand an organization sworn to do us grievous harm, and on the other citizens enraged at our invasion of their country. But we won't let that little bit of complexity complicate our plan. We are the strongest country in the world, the one and only superpower, and no backwards third-world mix of bedraggled guerrillas can prevail against our might.

But does the way we are pursuing our amalgam of enemies make much sense? Does al Qaeda in any way distinguish itself from the other unbranded guerrillas defending their country? Do the guerrillas themselves distinguish themselves from non-fighters? Of course not. And here we are, playing the part of the British in the Revolutionary War as we march--now propel our heavily armored hummers and tanks--through towns and villages and pastures, as subtle as an aircraft carrier among sailboats, seeking our guerrilla quarry and dismayed when they don't reveal themselves like targets in a practice field.

I recently read that there are about two hundred active members of al Qaeda on this planet. As we motor and tank our way through the countryside of Afghanistan seeking insurgents or al Qaeda or whomever, sometimes finding worthy targets and maybe avoiding the same fate while regrettably leaving a few mangled civilians as well in our demolished and fume-filled wake, should we really be surprised, first, that we will never know if or when we kill the last living member of al Qaeda, and, second, that we are ever breeding more and more so-called insurgents with every passing day and every shot and violated civilian?

Of course, we have methods other than shouldering our armored way through provincial crowds to gather our information about who is insurgent, or who al Qaeda. For a long time it was interrogation of the captured, but now of course it is torture.

And how's that working, America?

With the vitriolic hatred we have inspired in the Muslim world, perhaps if not fighting them, whoever they are, there, now we really would be fighting them on our own shores. But at least in that scenario we would know who they were.

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop the Occupation Now

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Dr. Dial is a psychologist and medical illustrator who for well over a decade has worked as a freelance medical and science writer and editor. She is an editor for OpEdNews, having contributed a number of articles to it about hydraulic fracturing, (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Seeds of destruction: It's NOT just about food

Who Turned Scientific American?

Who the Frack's Really in Charge?

Why Barack Obama Does Not Disappoint Some Folks

Fracking: Water Issues--Colorado-centric, but applicable to all

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Fracking but Should Be Afraid to Ask

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments