Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks -- which the Taliban had nothing to do with -- led to the toppling of the Taliban's regime. Given the Taliban's limited interest in issues outside the "AfPak" region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.
The very notion that al Qaeda needs a secure geographic base to carry out its terrorist operations, moreover, is questionable. After all, the operational base for 9/11 was in Hamburg, Germany. Conspiracies involving small numbers of people require communication, money, and planning -- but not a major protected base camp.
That's about the first 1/3 of the article, and people should definitely read the whole thing, but just on its own, it pretty much demolishes Obama's overt rationale for fighting in Afghanistan.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's very important for us to oppose the rise of the Taliban, entirely apart from any concern about terrorism. But that's the sort of priority that's clearly not a military one. It has to do with supporting and rebuilding the material well-being and the more tolerant foundations of Afghan society.
The key points that Mueller makes are not interpretive, they're factual. In fact, in the interview I heard, he said that he shouldn't be able to get published making this argument, because it's so boring. Unfortunately, however, basic truth remains as unpopular as ever it was during the Bush/Cheney regime. And thus it's not necessary to refute irrefutable facts, one can simply ignore them. (Sort of reminds you of the single-payer health care debate, doesn't it?)
This provides yet another perspective on all the other truth-denying or truth-squelching national security moves that Obama has taken recently. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, there is simply no coherent argument to be made for what we've been doing since 9/11. From the very beginning, when Bush kept reading My Pet Goat, rather than devoting full attention to the ongoing attacks, virtually everything we've done in response to 9/11 has been wrong-headed, misinformed, ill-conceived, or else has been undercut by policies and practices that are wrong-headed, misinformed, and ill-conceived.
From the very beginning, Obama's core constituency was people who trusted him more than any other candidate to fundamentally oppose and change the direction of our response to 9/11. But the more clearly one understands how deep the wrong-headedness went, and how little Obama is willing to rethink, the more unmistakable it becomes that Obama is anything but what his earliest supporters took him to be.
This need not continue to be the case, of course. He still has the opportunity to change course. But that's becoming more and more difficult with every passing day, and with every repetition of a Bush/Cheney narrative. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons Obama may continue on this fundamentally mistaken path is because of progressive supporters who are similarly misguided in thinking that they are "supporting" Obama by giving him blind, Bush-like devotion, rather than challenging him, as all democratic leaders should be challenged when they are seen to be making questionable decisions.
The points Mueller makes above are clear and compelling. But they do not jibe with 7 1/2 years of lies.
So much the worse for the lies. |
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox