The United States has lost the war in Afghanistan, albeit without declaring so. Since the administration of Hamid Karzai has failed to control the country with 150 thousand soldiers from the United States and the coalition, it shall no doubt collapse swiftly without those soldiers, making room for the Taliban to control the country once again. This is my translation of President Obama's speech and his announcement that his country would withdraw 30 thousand U.S. troops in the course of 15 months, i.e. in the period before the upcoming American presidential elections, while the rest of the troops are to be withdrawn by the end of 2014, if Obama returns to the White House. As I monitored reactions to the President's speech in the following days, I found that the keyword, or his slogan in Washington, was “political solution”, which is a euphemism for military defeat. The United States is now seeking someone from Taliban to engage, while the Taliban decline to negotiate at present because they see an end for the American adventure [in Afghanistan] in sight. I do not understand why Barack Obama is defending a war waged by others, especially as he has built his reputation, on his way to the White House, on the basis of opposing such wars. When he spoke about his plan to withdraw troops gradually, he started by reminding the Americans and the world of the terrorist attacks perpetrated by al-Qaeda in 2001, and how the new threat to American security no longer targeted soldiers, but rather innocent men, women and children. However, I would like to remind him that the siege led by the United States against Saddam Hussein's Iraq predated al-Qaeda's attacks by ten whole years, and led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of malnutrition and disease. This was then followed by George W. Bush's war on Iraq, which claimed the lives of another million Iraqis. It has now been proven, conclusively and unequivocally, that the Bush administration had deliberately falsified the premises for the Iraq war; neither was there a nuclear program pursued by the Saddam Hussein regime, nor was there any kind of link between it and al-Qaeda. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the War on Terror then ended with major defeat. While Afghanistan is on its way to being controlled by the Taliban once more, Iraq, with its present sectarian government, will become an Iranian protectorate ran by the Supreme Leader from Qom and by the Ayatollahs themselves. As for terror, it only became more virulent and widespread, while al-Qaeda branched off into many al-Qaeda-style organizations, and is now represented across the majority of Middle Eastern countries. Nevertheless, President Obama is still talking about not giving al-Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan, overlooking the fact that Osama bin Laden was killed in the U.S. ‘ally' Pakistan, and that the remnants of his gang are dwelling in the border area with Afghanistan, freely moving between the two countries. The U.S. President even spoke of building a partnership with the people of Afghanistan (the same political solution mentioned above), even though this people has proven across history that it does not want an alliance with a foreign power, and even though the last ten years have shown that this people does especially not want an alliance with the United States. How does Barack Obama justify his advocacy for Bush's losing wars? I found him doing so using the logic of the neoconservatives, who launched these wars and killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims: He warned against a new form of isolationism, as did the neoconservatives before him, and called for integration and engagement with the outside world; but I do not understand why this has to involve military invasions. Robert Gates, who is leaving the Department of Defense after having served under both George W. Bush and Obama, said in an interview with Newsweek that he served the United States when it was a superpower and had a strong economy. However, the situation has now changed, Gates said, and he does not want to be part of a nation and a government being forced to dramatically scale back its engagement with the rest of the world. In other words, he is talking against isolationism, echoing Obama and other senior politicians in Washington. Of course, Robert Gates is a key partner in the wars that led to America's military, political and economic defeats. With such discourse, he seems to be looking for an excuse to escape the sinking ship, while President Obama looks for excuses for the losing wars of others. The translation of all of the above is that the U.S. has lost the wars planned by the Likudnik neoconservatives against Arabs and Muslims, some of which having found their way to execution prior to the terrorist attacks of 2001. We have paid the price before, and we are still paying the price today. [email protected]
