Bin Laden is Dead but his Ghost still Haunts America
Osama bin Laden is dead, but his strategy to bankrupt America lives on. Don't expect Obama to exit Afghanistan anytime soon. by Evan Mazur
(libertarian)
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama bin Laden, founder and financier of the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has finally been killed and Americans are rejoicing. Perhaps now the Obama administration will declare victory and bring the troops home? Don't count on it. Long ago, America's mission of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists transformed into a mission of nation building. In 2002, President George W. Bush stated that he was "not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden, and numerous other figures in his administration also stated that Bin Laden was not the issue, as did former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Fast forward to 2010, and CIA Chief Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser General James Jones, and retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor have all confirmed that there are less than 100 members of Al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan. By Barack Obama's own definition, America is now safe. In a February 2009 interview, CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked Obama about the importance of capturing Bin Laden and the president replied
I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.
Bin Laden is now dead and there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, so Obama's stated goal has been met. But do not expect American troops to be pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon. Former Republican and 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root, a man who originally supported the war, wrote in Dec. 2009
If we are going to fight this war, we had better be able to answer the simple question: "Why are we in Afghanistan?" While watching the NBC Evenings News on Wednesday night, I heard two very disturbing statements by 4-star General Stanley McCrystal, the commanding general of our war efforts in Afghanistan. First he stated we were there "not to conquer, not for glory, not for money…but rather to help the Afghan people shape their future." Is that why we're there? Silly me. I thought we were there to punish and destroy our enemies in the war on terrorism.
I think that right now the debate surrounding Afghanistan is presented as either we get up and leave immediately because there's no chance at a positive outcome, or we stay basically indefinitely and do quote unquote whatever it takes for as long as it takes.'
Clearly, Obama intends to keep troops in Afghanistan for the long haul. But the very presence of American troops in "the graveyard of empires" is exactly the problem. Retired Colonel Ann Wright, who resigned from the State Department on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion, stated in an interview
Many Afghans with whom we talked say that the aggressive U.S. military operations for the 'security' of Afghanistan are counterproductive. They believe that as long as the U.S. military is in Afghanistan there will be many who will fight against the U.S.—just as they did against the Soviet soldiers—and will destroy the schools, clinics and roads that the United States has built.
Such a statement does not inspire confidence that America will succeed in it's nation building mission, nor does Afghan president Hamid Karzai's statement that he'd prefer the Taliban to the United States, and the fact the America is indirectly funding the Taliban certainly doesn't help. Forcing the U.S. to stay in unwinnable foreign occupations has been the stated goal of Osama bin Laden. A translation of his 2004 taped message stated
we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
All Praise is due to Allah.
So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.
Though Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda's numbers in Afghanistan are insignificant, they need not even exist at all for their bankrupting strategy to succeed. Speaking of the 9/11 attacks and referring to America as 'the serpent', in 2003, Sayf Adel, a military commander and senior figure in Al Qaeda stated:
Our ultimate goal of these painful strikes against the head of the serpent was to prompt it to come out of its hole. This would make it easier for us to deal consecutive blows to undermine it and tear it apart. It would foster our credibility in front of our nation and the beleaguered people of the world. A person will react randomly when he receives painful strikes on his head from an undisclosed enemy. Such strikes will force the person to carry random acts and provoke him to make serious and sometimes fatal mistakes. This was what actually happened.
The first reaction was the invasion of Afghanistan and the second was the invasion of Iraq. The mistakes might happen over and again and there might be other random reactions. Such reactions prompted the Americans and their allies to deal powerful strikes to the head and other important parts of the body of our nation, which has been in hibernation for almost two centuries. God willing, these strikes will help the nation to wake from its slumber.
The Afghan president considers America to be the enemy, Afghani citizens continue to fight the presence of American troops and destroy the roads and schools that America builds, America continues the war in Iraq, and the latest costly and random reaction of "the serpent" was the attack on Libya, which may yet develop into a full-blown war and subsequent nation building mission. Clearly seeing that things were not going well, Congressmen James P. McGovern (D) and Walter B. Jones (R) coauthored a Washington Post editorial titled "The solution in Afghanistan: Get Out" and wrote
The new Republican majority in the House came to power in large part by promising to control spending and reduce the deficit. This war has already cost us more than $450 billion; combined with the war in Iraq, it is estimated to account for 23 percent of our deficits since 2003. Where is the outcry from the Tea Partyers and the deficit hawks? Fiscal conservatives should be howling that this war is being financed with borrowed money. Those who support the war should be willing to pay for it.
And where is the liberal outrage? Those of us who are tired of being told that we can't afford green jobs, unemployment or health care should be screaming over our Treasury being used as an ATM when it comes to supporting the Karzai government.
To be fair, there are a handful of prominent critics on the left, center and right. But most Americans are silent about the enormous sacrifice our country has made in blood and treasure. They should be calling, writing or otherwise speaking out.
What are we giving up to maintain the status quo? Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz told the House Veterans Affairs Committee in September that the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, including interest payments on the money borrowed for these wars and care for our wounded soldiers and veterans, is likely to total $4 trillion to $6 trillion.
Simply put, we believe the human and financial costs of the war are unacceptable and unsustainable. It is bankrupting us.
Yes, America finally killed bin Laden and that's something everyone can be grateful for, but his death was not due to the presence of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, but from intelligence gathering and a surgical strike in Pakistan that reportedly involved no civilian casualties. Such a focused strike was exactly the plan former Congressman and 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr had in mind. Congressman Ron Paul, who originally voted in favor of the use of force in Afghanistan on the condition that troops would be used to focus on the terrorists, came to regret that decision because the nature of the mission changed from that of terrorist hunting to nation building. Like Barr, he wanted to focus not on conducting a war in Afghanistan but on Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts. In 2001, Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. The bill
Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001... [It authorizes] the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
In the end, a precision strike in Pakistan, not a costly war in Afghanistan, prevailed in getting Bin Laden. If Barr's solution or Paul's legislation was followed, the bankrupting war in Afghanistan could have been avoided, and we wouldn't even be in Iraq or Libya. The debt continues to hang over America like the Sword of Damocles, the struggling dollar has weakened to the point of point of being called a "national security issue", and even the United States Joint Forces Command issued a 2010 report stating that America's tremendous debt could lead to a "hard landing" and "a decreased ability of the United States to allocate dollars to defense." So long as Obama continues the misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere, Osama Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting America will continue to haunt us and one day the sword will drop and cut off the head of "the serpent" that his cohort Sayf Adel envisioned.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Evan Mazur only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Evan Mazur is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
We have implemented a new forum for reader comments. If you have not yet
established a new account in the new Nolan Chart vbulletin Forums, you will need to REGISTER in order to
post a comment to this article. To learn more about this recently implemented change,
read about the decision to add the new vbulletin forums to the site.
