If You Want to Stop Terrorism, You Have to Stop Being Terrorists

I was thinking on writing up a piece on Afghanistan and why I oppose the current militaristic approach in dealing with this country. Afghanistan has essentially become “Obama’s War,” and the same mentality of dealing with terrorism has changed very little from the policies of the Bush administration. This lack of change comes as no surprise because as much as the two major parties claim to be distinct representations of the American people, they are both nothing more than accessories to corporate competitiveness. The standard belief on the left and even some on the right, for why we invaded Iraq is that we wanted to control their oil. In a way that is true, but oil was even more of an incentive for invading and occupying Afghanistan.

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognized long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple [oil] pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project.” [ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]

I don’t want to go too much into the evidence regarding the true motives for invading Afghanistan because there is a ton out there (if you want to look this up, look at UNOCAL and the issues surrounding the Afghan government’s refusal to give them the pipeline contract), but the point here is that the United States’ purpose in Afghanistan has never been innocent. The control of that country is about a politically, military, and corporate strategy, mostly involving the control of oil. That is not to mean so American people could have more access and less expensive oil, it is so oil companies can control the price and distribution of oil around the world.

Perhaps President Obama is sincere about his fight against terrorism (though I doubt this). But even if he is sincere this method of fighting terror has clearly failed and needs to be reevaluated. The West has such little understanding about Middle Eastern culture and mentality. Certainly, there are many who wish to do Americans harm today, but in their eyes they are very much justified. Terrorist activity in the region has increased on an incredible scale since we have invaded the region eight years ago. What happens when a country who has been the victim of a terrorist attack (a terrorist attack, not by another country, but by a network of rogue religious fanatics) fights back by invading and occupying a country that may contain bases for these groups, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and destroys the country’s infrastructure? What happens is that more people, who were not part of the minority of religious fanatics, become very angry at the United States, not because they “hate liberty” but because this country has killed members of their family, or destroyed their town.

There is no society that desires to be taken over by a military power. Even if Afghanistan is one day stabilized was it worth the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who had to die in order for this western stabilization? In history we often struggle with the concept of “progress.” What is progress? Would American friendly governments in the Middle East be considered progress? Would the sacrifice of all these people be worth it? I personally believe that if any group of people must make a sacrifice in the name of progress, that group of people should be the one to decide if they will indeed make the sacrifice, and furthermore, they should be the ones to decide what “progress” means. I highly doubt the people of Afghanistan have the same definition of progress that the American government has.

Those who oppose my view may ask: well then what do we do? Just leave Afghanistan and let the country be run by terrorists? Well not exactly. I’m very much practical in that I understand pulling every troop out of the Middle East immediately is inconceivable. However, a gradual removal of armed forces, and a replacement of food, medicine, and other infrastructure help would be the best solution. As the famous historian Howard Zinn said, “If you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop being terrorists.” …and that’s what war is, it is terrorism. To the Afghan people, we are the terrorists, and all our presence will do is to continue the endless cycle of terrorism and counter-terrorism that has plagued the modern world.