Truthdig: October 6, 2009
Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes
everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not
downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the
president's national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones,
concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:
"The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than
100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on
either us or our allies."
Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best
intelligence data available to our government. That means that al-Qaida, for
all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan-so why are we having a
big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has
relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like
John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate,
al-Qaida will inevitably come back.
Why? It's not like al-Qaida is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and
dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign
imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets
because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all,
U.S. officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and
the Afghan mujahedeen, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be
surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents
are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters
couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes.
There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan,
including the Taliban, are interested in bringing al-Qaida back. On the
contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are
unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has
led to their demise.
As such, while one wishes that the Afghan people would put their houses in
order, these are not, even after eight long years of occupation, our houses.
Sure, there are all sorts of angry people in Afghanistan, eager to pick
fights with each other and most of all any foreigners who seem to be
threatening their way of life, but why should that any longer have anything
to do with us?
Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging
on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, "Hunted by U.S. drones,
beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the
bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in
Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S.
officials. . For Arab youths who are al Qaeda's primary recruits, 'it's not
romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior U.S. official in
South Asia."
It's time to declare victory and begin to get out rather than descend deeper
into an intractable civil war that we neither comprehend nor in the end will
care much about. Terrorists of various stripes will still exist as they have
throughout history, but the ones we are most concerned about have proved
mighty capable of relocating to less hostile environments, including sunny
San Diego and southern Florida, where the 9/11 hijackers had no trouble
fitting in.
There is a continued need for effective international police work to thwart
the efforts of a widely dispersed al-Qaida network, but putting resources
into that effort does not satisfy the need of the military establishment for
a conventional field of battle. That is the significance of Gen. Stanley
McChrystal's leaked report calling for a massive counterinsurgency campaign
to make everything right about life in Afghanistan, down to the governance
of the most forlorn village. The general's report aims not at eliminating
al-Qaida, which he concedes is barely existent in the country, but rather at
creating an Afghan society that is more to his own liking.
It is a prescription, as the Russians and others before them learned, for
war without end. That might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense
industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants,
but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem
that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the
terrorists do.
Democrats With Guts
Congressman Alan Grayson's fighting talk gave Republicans a taste of their own bitter medicine on healthcare reform
Far from surrendering to immediate Republican outrage and demands for apology, Grayson stood firmly by his stance, teasing his opponents that he'll apologise, but "to the dead and their families" for government's failure to improve the system. In fact, Grayson has since stepped up his rhetoric in a recent media blitz, calling Republicans "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" and "a lie factory" whose only approach to policy is obstructionism. By failing to produce a counter-proposal in the following days, Republicans have effectively proven Grayson's point.
This kind of pugnacious spirit is common among Republicans but very rare among Democrats, which is largely why Democrats so often get trampled in legislative battles where they have the upper-hand politically, intellectually, morally, historically and inopinion polls. Grayson's star power has surged since his remarks. While the GOP has designated him public enemy number one, Grayson has lit up the Democratic base.
What's unique about Grayson is that he's passionate about championing liberal causes, and he forcefully calls out the lies of his Republican opponents and the vapidity oftoday's conservative movement. With the significant rightward shift of the Democratic party in the last few decades, progressives are hardly represented in American government any longer. Though there are a few notable exceptions, none have quite the determination Grayson showed this week.
In the last 30 years, Republicans have yanked America further to the right than was once conceivable. Democrats have been complicit in this. Many Democrats sat idly by – if not supported – Republicans starting unnecessary and destructive wars, violating the Constitution and international law, redistributing wealth upward from the working poor to the rich, letting tens of millions lose their health care, and actively ignoring the threat of global climate change.
Democrats have effectively allowed Republicans to morph the word "liberal" from an adjective into a smear. This continues today, despite the fact that conservatives have steered America to one of its darkest places yet. President Obama's self-consciouslyconciliatory approach plays right into this meme. The zeal with which Republicans continue to promote their agenda, despite its immense failures, provides a stark contrast to the tepid Democratic spirit.
This is why Grayson is not a typical Democrat, and why he's exactly what Democrats have needed for a long time. The party dominates the House, has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and boasts a popular president – yet continues to get pushed around the bullied by the GOP, which is less popular than ever and has no serious proposals for solving today's problems. What gives? A lack of fortitude.
Capping an era of great political cynicism and unprecedented domination of money in politics, progressives have lost their footing and have tumbled behind conservatives, facing an increasingly steeper mountain to climb as Democrats continue to capitulate to the perpetrators of these quandaries. In an age where campaign contributions from wealthy, narrow interest groups are so critical to political survival, the incentive for ordinary Democrats is to play the game, not change it.
With the Democratic party slowly morphing into a watered-down Republican party, progressives have grown increasingly cynical of politics. Many feel little incentive to vote or participate in the political process. A Grayson-like fervor for liberal causes can help recapture this waning enthusiasm, perhaps eventually motivating Democrats to be real progressives again.
The internet age provides as much potential for political self-harm as it does opportunity, but Grayson seems happy to take the heat in his stride. Democrats need representatives who genuinely believe in liberal values, who have the courage to fight for their beliefs, and who won't prioritise political expediency over doing their job the right way. "We need Democrats with guts," Grayson said of the whole matter. He's right.
No comments:
Post a Comment