For years, military preparation and the war itself enjoyed wide support in the United States. At present, public opinion is questioning whether this support has added to the security of Americans or put it further at risk. Indeed, the end of a failed war in Afghanistan has called into question whether this war was bad from the start.

Al Qaeda had provided shelter to those who planned the attack on targets in the United States. They were a small group in a largely rural country that had repelled many powerful invaders, including the Soviet Union. Afghanistan’s largest population consisted of communities more identified with their tribes than with Afghanistan itself. A major government force, the Taliban had strong support from Pakistan and were seen as opposition to Soviet influence.

Within the Taliban’s sphere of influence, the United States chose to aid a sect of warlords who would oppose Russian influence. After the United States started a war against Iran, the Taliban leadership offered opportunities to end the conflict in exchange for a guarantee of safety from the Taliban religious leader. Taliban leaders have also offered to help the United States locate Osama bin Laden, as part of a deal to end the conflict. These offers were rejected by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and President Bush. American policy was guided by inadequate intelligence. He was also limited by the assumptions that nations were made up of elite rulers who were on our side either in a cold war against nation-states on the wrong side, in a cold war against communism, or in a declared war. against terrorism.

Afghanistan’s largest population consisted of communities more identified with their tribes than with Afghanistan itself.

Nation states were the recognized actors. Agreements with them on the economic use of their territory or of their military bases could be concluded without taking into account the culture or the voice of the people who resided in those countries. If intelligence sources could have heard the voices of the Afghan tribes, they would have recognized the diversity of the Taliban. Some Taliban were associated with the Pashtun tribes crossing the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some had leaders linked to Pakistani intelligence circles. Some Taliban groups had the non-confrontational goal of acting as traditional government. This group has consistently opposed Al Qaeda. Others militated against the imposition of a government in Kabul brought there by a foreign power.

With the retreat of the Soviet Union, the United States lent its support to the Mujahedin warlords. Their influence was strongly felt within a movement of Taliban sects which played no role in the terrorist attacks against the United States. The United States’ war on Afghanistan was aimed at supporting a government of our creation, a military force that we formed and supplied, and an endless series of bombings targeting the Taliban forces. These raids resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties as collateral damage and great sympathy for part of the Taliban’s message – to get foreign military forces out of their country. The US government supported a corrupt government in Kabul, tolerant of corruption, while also publicizing the programs we funded in cities providing education and human rights to women. The liberating consequences of this openness for women’s rights are, however, the product of Western influences. It was not shared by the majority of Afghan women who faced the world’s second-largest rate of child mortality and hunger and subjected to drone bombings killing or maiming their families.

Pentagon spokespersons proclaimed that the American invasion was working, that we were creating a Western-style government, defended by their dedicated military and a partner in a war on terror. The recently released Afghanistan Papers revealed that many senior U.S. military officials have long known that the claims used to garner growing support for the government in Kabul were not true. The United States and its NATO allies were unable to win. The soldiers would continue to die, and the gunmakers were the only victors because they are the ones who benefit the most from endless wars.

What have we learned? A generation earlier, the Pentagon Papers had revealed that a similar lie had been used to prolong the Vietnam War well beyond when more bombing would make a difference. Now, with a chaotic end to a major military intervention in Afghanistan, we have one more chance to ask what has been gained by military actions in Afghanistan – as well as Vietnam, Iraq, Panama and the wars by power of attorney in El Salvador and Guatemala. Was it worth the cost in dollars and lives?

With the current threats of escalating tensions between the nuclear superpowers, the stakes have grown too high to risk another military miscalculation. The conflicts with Russia and China are political, diplomatic and economic, not military. But the $ 1.3 trillion allocated this year for military purposes includes $ 933 billion for the DOD Overseas Contingency Office, including $ 59 billion for that same goal at the State Department. An additional $ 62.3 billion goes to 17 intelligence agencies. The National Nuclear Security Administration receives $ 15.5 billion for nuclear weapons projects. And an additional $ 296 billion is spent on veterans care. [4] This item is essential to assist returning soldiers with lost limbs, head trauma, traumatic stress and the moral damage faced by many who have come to believe that the injuries they inflict on civilians are from an unjustifiable cause. Other costs include a steadily increasing national debt of $ 93.8 billion.

Approval of this level of funding is assured by testimonials from military “experts” without mentioning their functions as members of boards of directors or consultants to the largest military companies. The heart of the matter is that these military advisers live in a world where force is the tool to overwhelm other countries, in short, the worldview that brought us the tragedies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. .

What is new is that some courageous members of Congress are proposing legislation to curb the war machine. Diplomacy and greater respect for international law are needed, but the first step is to cut the hawks. We have an opening.

Currently, four bills are underway to reduce the grip of the war machine. The ICBM law would curb the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and finance a universal vaccine against the coronavirus. The Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act (HR 2850) would pave the way for an end to the threat of nuclear war. The Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act (HR 4718) would prohibit sales of US arms to countries violating international human rights law or international humanitarian law. Finally, the No First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act (S. 1219 and HR 2003) would establish a policy of non-first use of nuclear weapons for the United States.

By pushing for the adoption of these measures, we can help ensure that our senators and elected representatives know that their constituencies are no longer accepting a large military drain on the federal budget and, instead, are putting us first. protect against the real dangers of climate change and disease pandemics.

Marc Pilisuk
PeaceVoice