Bill Maher had a lively crowd at his table Friday night on "Real Time," including Gavin Newsom and Alan Cumming, the Irish comic actor. At one point in the discussion, Bill Maher made a point which has occurred to me over and over again, that the entire case against Afghanistan and its role in the attacks of 9/11 seems to be built on the complex of dreaded jungle gyms (which Maher may have called monkey bars) which show up in the standard stock footage every time we hear about bin Laden's training camps. Maher had ealier inteviewed Robin Wright (the journalist, not Mrs. Penn), and she had confidently assured us that we cannot allow Afghanistan to become a "failed state," or it will become a breeding ground for terrorists. Thus, we have no choice: we have to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely to nation-build even though, as with Iraq, this was not part of the original mission statement or war authorization.
Maher wondered to his panel (which also included P.J. O'Rourke) whether the world actually needs a whole "failed state" in order to breed terrorists, or in order for them to plot an attack against the United States. I think a fair reading of the Report of the 9/11 Commission, which gave full credence to the testimony of Khallid Sheikh Mohammed at a point before we knew he had been systematically tortured, leads one to the conclusion that the actual plotters of the attack were in no need of Kandahar, Afghanistan or even a children's playground in order to put together a successful conspiracy. Atta & the other ringleaders were apparently radicalized by contact with the West while attending school in Hamburg, Germany, and held their meetings at the local mosque and in their apartments. If bin Laden was a funding source, and if Khallid Sheikh was actually the mastermind, it nevertheless does not follow that they needed a whole "harboring country" in order to proceed with their plans to enter the United States, train in American flight schools and hijack the aircraft. It seems also doubtful whether the prior attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 in any way relied on the existence of a "safe haven" for terrorists; similarly, the attacks on American embassies in Africa in the 1990's did not require the Taliban or a whole country full of radical Muslims as preconditions.
In his speech on Tuesday night, President Obama emphasized, to deafening applause, that Afghanistan would not be used to "launch" attacks against the United States again. This is more or less the standard formulation of the thesis, but it points to an almost superstitious approach to anti-terrorism in this country. If Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan when the attacks of 9/11 occurred, then the U.S. military must fight, for seven plus years and counting, in that country so that bin Laden can't use that country again. I'm sure this plan, as formulated, will probably succeed. There are, however, two billion Muslims in the world; the largest Muslim population anywhere is Indonesia, where we are not fighting any battles at all. And what is it about fighting a land war in Afghanistan that would prevent another group of 15 Saudi "muscle" hijackers from going to work for another Egyptian (probably radicalized originally in the Muslim Brotherhood, not al-Qaeda) and UAE national (Mawran al-Sheihi)? What would have worked in 2001 was to act on the good work of American intelligence agencies which discovered clear evidence of the plot, and all without (a) a "war on terror," or (b) an invasion of Afghanistan. The clearest rationale I can think of for the war on Afghanistan in the first place was that it distracted the American people from thinking about these fundamental, obvious facts.
The problem of "bad conditions" in Muslim countries is simply far too diffuse to approach the problem by pacifying every trouble spot with the U.S. military. Added to this difficulty is the widely acknowledged problem that "collateral damage" in the form of civilian casualties in Afghanistan probably results in greater risk to American security.
I think it's unfortunate that President O, who is beginning to find his stride in very positive ways in other areas, feels the need to double down on this original American mistake. I can understand the political exigencies; it's more important to appear tough on terror than it is to make any sense. But Maher's simple question reflects what I think is a lucid perspective on Afghanistan. One looks at the war and can find no rationale, no matter how far your gaze. Alice in Wonderland looked down the road and said she could see nothing. The King complimented her on her vision; one must have astonishing eyesight, he said, to see nothing at such a great distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment