I know. More than a few readers are gasping at that
blasphemy and infidelity. Some may even be sharpening their pencils for the
original draft of a critique in rebuttal. However, before you begin, hear me
out.
Although our political and military leaders will
deny this, it was never the purpose of Al-Qa'ida to defeat the U.S. or bring
down its government. AQ simply did not have the resources to accomplish that.
AQ's purpose was to destabilize America financially and militarily. It was no
accident that bin Laden's targets on 9/11 were the World Trade Center -- the
monoliths were the icons of America's economic power -- and the Pentagon, the
very heart and brains of our military.
That was nearly ten years ago. Today the U.S. is
humbled by a recession that will not end, crippling unemployment that reduces
revenue and increases governmental costs, a burgeoning national debt, and a
weakened, but extremely costly, military with ground forces stretched thin to
the breaking point. That is our lot today, but did bin Laden cause all of this,
of course not. There are several other factors, and the astute reader knows
them all. However, the Great Recession was exacerbated by the two wars that
were a direct consequence of bin Laden's attack on our shores on 9/11. Reuters
reports, -- the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
to the U.S. Treasury, [eschewing] more imposing costs yet to come, according to
a study released [recently]. The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and
could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs
of War' by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)" That is not chump
change. Now who do think caused that expenditure on the part of the U.S., bin
Laden, of course, totally in line with what he intended.
What he achieved, however, exceeded all his
expectations. Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch writes,
"Greeted as if World War II had been won, the killing of Osama bin Laden should
have been a reminder of the success of the Global War on Terror
for a man with few troops and relatively modest amounts of money
who somehow managed to land Washington in a financial and military quagmire."
Put a different way, bin Laden achieved his goals due to American abject
stupidity.
Let us go back a few years. President Bush launched
two wars of choice (formerly known as wars of aggression) against Afghanistan
in Oct. 2001 and Iraq in March 2003 to a cheering American public (Americans
were duped into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11). We cheered our
great leader, and we cheered our brave troops who were preserving our way of
life, while thinking our forces were omnipotent.
Years later we are still fighting those wars. Bush
sent our troops into bin Laden's backyard, the explosive Middle East on the
other side of the world with unsecured and extended supply lines. This is a
lesson of how not to fight a war.
America played right into bin Laden's hand. Nearly
a decade into the Afghan War there are the air strikes, night raids, assassinations, roadside bombs, and soldier and civilian deaths, we are assured, will continue to 2014 and beyond. In a war in which every gallon of
gas used by a fuel-guzzling U.S. military costs $400 to $800 to import, time is no object and -- despite the panic
in Washington over debt payments -- neither evidently is cost. Over the past few
months there have been several military and civilian disasters in Afghanistan,
proving that the Taliban can strike anywhere, any time. The most consequential,
of course, happened recently. Insurgents shot down a U.S. military chopper,
killing 30 Americans, most of whom were members of SEAL Team 6, the very best
of our best. It was the deadliest single loss of life for American forces in
the war. After nearly ten years of war in that primitive land, we just
experienced our worst defeat. This is progress?
It gets worse. Engelhardt writes, "In Iraq,
meanwhile, in year eight of America's armed involvement, U.S. officials are still wangling to keep significant numbers of American
troops stationed there beyond an agreed end-of-2011 withdrawal date. And
the State Department is preparing to hire a small army of 5,000-odd armed
mercenaries (with their own mini-air force) to keep the American "mission' in
that country humming along to the tune of billions of dollars. In Libya, the
American/NATO war effort, once imagined as a brief spasm of shock-"n'-awe
firepower that would oust autocrat Muammar Gaddafi in a nanosecond, is now in
its fifth month with neither an end nor a serious reassessment in sight, and no
mention of costs there either."
In the meantime al-Qaeda has moved on, Afghanistan
being a little bit unfriendly for their taste. Their operations have moved to
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, Iraq, and who knows where else.
Engelhardt continues, "In Yemen and Somalia, the drones, CIA and military, are being sent in, and special operations
forces built up, while in the region a new base is being constructed and older ones expanded in the never-ending war against
al-Qaeda, its affiliates, wannabes, and any other nasties around. (At the same
time, the Obama administration is leaking information that the original al-Qaeda teeters at
the edge of defeat, even as it intensifies
the CIA's drone war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands.) And
further expansion of the war on terror -- watch out, al-Qaeda in North Africa! --
seems to be a given."
Lamentably, he adds, "Meanwhile back in Washington
-- not, mind you, the Washington of the debt-ceiling crisis, but the war
capital on the banks of the Potomac -- national security spending still seems
to be on an upward trajectory. At $526 billion (without the costs of the
Afghan and Iraq wars added in), the 2011 Pentagon budget is, as Lawrence Korb,
former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, has written, "in real or inflation adjusted dollars " is
higher than at any time since World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam
Wars and the height of the Reagan buildup.' The 2012 Pentagon budget is
presently slated to go even higher."
Columnist Ray McGovern, a CIA veteran of 27 years,
reports, --58 cents of every dollar in federal "discretionary spending' now
goes to the Pentagon. It might be worth noting that the Soviet Union --
America's "great enemy' -- imploded 20 years ago. Despite the lack of a
threat from a major power, the U.S. military spending equals that of all the
other countries of the world put together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his State of
the Union address in 1957, "National security requires far more than
military power. Economic and moral factors play indispensable roles."
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel in the USAF, writes, "Eschewing
Ike's wisdom, our government today equates national security with astronomical
defense budgets and global military intervention, never mind the damage done to
our economy or to our moral standing."
He adds, "Afforded the luxury of space provided by
two oceans, rich natural resources and the wisdom of the founders who forged a
representative democracy (however imperfect) based on personal liberty, the
United States had the option of preferring peace and prosperity to war and
destitution. Yet, partly because we've come to believe in our own military
omnipotence, we seem today to be determined to choose the latter option of war
and destitution. We persist in dissipating our economy and our energy in endless
military action, a fate Ike perhaps had in mind when he said, "Only Americans
can hurt America.'"
Osama bin Laden is now dead, courtesy of a black
ops performed by SEAL Team 6, a piece of information that was disclosed by a
mouthy bureaucrat in Washington who should have kept his mouth shut. However,
bin Laden was destined to die by the sword for his fundamentalist Islamic
beliefs, and, I suspect, was prepared for that eventual outcome. His death is
beside the point. The point is: Did bin Laden achieve his goals? Look around at
what is happening now to our great nation. Then, reader, you can answer that
question yourself.
1
1
1
