Fraggin'

[unhappycamper]

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=3105

Fraggin'
By Bill Shunas
Spring 2015

Back in the day when US leaders were often poking our nose into the affairs of other countries and the war was hot and heavy in Vietnam, many would say that it was not our job to be the world's policeman. I was appreciative to have those who thought so as allies against the war. However, the idea that the US was the police would imply that all the countries we messed with were deserving of being messed with. That wasn't the case. but be that as it may, fast forward to 2015. We have ISIS which certainly needs policing. The question is if it should be policed by the US of A. Nope. Not in this century.

Back in the day many also said that Vietnam was somebody else's civil war in which we should not be involved. What's currently going on in Iraq and other Middle East countries is sort of like a civil war. There is a big difference which is that there aren't only two sides. There's Shia versus Sunni and Sunni versus Sunni. There is the state of Iraq, and there is the Islamist State. And then mix in the Kurds and various tribes. And don't forget the regional powers like Iran and Turkey. Even with all the various threads, you can say it is, in a sense, a civil war. That is because they are sorting out who's going to live and govern where. And by the way, we shouldn't be involved in someone else's troubles.

We are involved, however. That's because the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 precipitated the last twelve years of fighting. We have leftover troops and advisers there, stationed in this non-strategic country. And, of course, we have those who take this to mean we should send more to finish the job or make sure their predecessors didn't die in vain. And we have those who say we owe it to the Iraqis, and there are those who say we have to fight them there, or we'll have to fight them here. Remember that? I went to Vietnam to save San Francisco. We should help in the fight against the brutal ISIS, but only with intelligence gathering and supplies. The rest has to be sorted out by those who live there.

The main thrust of US foreign policy is to pursue American interests around the world. Most of the time this means pursuing the interest of American Capital. This does not preclude the idea of American leaders pursuing stupid foreign policy when it has nothing to do with advancing Capital. Take Afghanistan for example. Al Qaeda conducted the 9-11 attacks, and its leadership was stationed in eastern Afghanistan. It was reasonable to send operational troops in to take out bin Laden and company. Then most of Al Qaeda moved into Pakistan, but the US stayed to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Why the Afghan Taliban? Not nice people, but war for fifteen years? And no more attacking of the US being plotted inside Afghanistan? We sacrifice for this?

When Mikhail Gorbachev came into leadership in the Soviet Union in the mid-eighties he put into motion a plan to withdraw Soviet troops from their Afghan war. He realized that it was an impossible situation where tribal areas and tribal loyalties prevented any sort of lasting regime change. Nobody in US leadership seemed to learn that lesson from Gorby. Stupid is as stupid does.

And take Iraq for another example of Yankee stupidity. In the book "Hunting in the Shadows," author Seth G. Jones tells of a terrorist cell headed by al Zarqawi which later affiliated with Al Qaeda and became Al Qaeda in Iraq. This group was expressing the hope that the US would invade Iraq a second time, long before the invasion happened. They figured that it would aid in their recruitment, and they were right. Evidently other terrorist groups were of the same opinion. And they were right. Recruitment soared. Members of these groups may have been vicious and brutal people, but they understood the situation better than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Al Zarqawi and the others were also talking about establishing a caliphate so one wonders if these people were the ones who eventually formed the Islamic State and whether it would have come into existence if there had been no Iraq invasion by the US.

Mindless acts of war are also committed on a smaller scale. One such act was our helping to eliminate Ghadaffi in Libya. That turned into a disaster. Chaos came to Libya. New jihadists emerged. The US ambassador was killed. Terrorist training camps were established in Libya. Refugees with terrorists hidden among them made their way to Europe. All because hawks and vengeance seekers had it in for Gadaffi.

Physicians are given the advice "first do no harm." Foreign policy makers should take the advice, "first do no stupid." We seem to have been doing a lot of stupid in the last couple of decades. I suppose Bush felt it necessary for American oil interests to control the flow of oil in the Middle East by going to war in Iraq, but that wasn't a major problem as we see now that we are supposedly energy independent. That invasion was a huge mistake. And we don't need to be the world's policeman. Sometimes you get the impression from Washington that it is some sort of duty that the US undertakes. We have the military and the equipment so we should be intervening everywhere. This shouldn't be the case. ISIS will not be going away for awhile. There are military plans to take this or that city or territory from ISIS. This could happen if regional forces cooperate which is a question in and of itself. Winning back land on the battlefield is not easy, but simple attrition won't work. ISIS seems to be alluring to young people, and they have little trouble recruiting cannon fodder. We need to let the regional forces take care of matters.

Foreign policy decisions should have some sort of rationale, some sort of framework. We don't have to like the decisions, and we often correctly protest them. And sometimes these decisions are plain outside-the-box stupid. Much that we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan has been outside-the-box stupid. Aside from some natural resources, American Capital hasn't a whole lot to gain there, and any gains that are made would pale compared to what was lost in national treasure, world opinion and that illusive peace in the Middle East. It's a sorrowful thing. For now, aid to those fighting ISIS would be okay. More boots on the ground would be stupid — again.

[HassleCat]

1. Lesson of Vietnam

Thank you. So many people think the "lesson of Vietnam" was that we could have won, if we had just kept after it and not listened to the pinko protesters, and so on. Of course, we quickly forgot the real lesson, which was that military power can only do so much, and bombing the snot out of some country doesn't make the citizens embrace our version of freedom and democracy.

[malthaussen]

2. Mr Shunas appears to ignore the immense profits made by the MIC in these wars.

So I have to disagree with his assessment that the policy is unqualifiedly stupid. By the lights of the ruling class, everything is proceeding nicely. Seen the Dow, lately?

-- Mal

[NYC_SKP]

3. Recommended. (nt)