The War Against Terrorism: Why Does America Want a Repeat of 9-11? [57*-26]

Do These Pictures RIng a Bell, Folks?


Terrorism is Alive and Well Yet We Pretend That It Isn't

I LISTENED to President Obama's speech this evening, June 21, 2011, almost 10 years after Osama bin Laden's attack on America and a month after he finally saw justice at our hands for doing it. I am saddened that the political exigencies of the day drove the President to announce a premature, in my opinion as well as those of his military leaders, draw down of NATO and U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan; the time is not ripe yet, not for another 18 months or so. It seems a bit oxymoronic (is this a pun?) for the President to say in one breath: "We have put al-Qaeda on the path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done." while in the next breath announce a troop reduction that General Petraeus, the most successful general to-date in the Middle East wars, is dead set against because it gets in the way of "getting the job done."

In the aftermath of the President's speech, the news presented the viewpoints of several citizens; those views were virtually unanimous in one respect, he didn't do enough, he should have brought more, if not all, troops home; bin Laden is dead, so why are we still there; we have our own problems. I want to scream! I want to take these people and lock them all up in a theater for a few days and run movies of 9/11, twenty-four hours a day until they get a clue! Just because Osama is dead folks, doesn't mean terrorism is dead; the the terrorists are mad as hell at us and would just love to have a sequel to 9/11. What about that is hard to understand and remember??

If you are having a hard time understanding this right now, just focus on those pictures above and imagine the 3000 plus people that perished in the hell created by the terrorists who took advantage of the complacency that you want to fall back into a mere 10 years after those pictures were taken. A complacency that has been a hallmark of America's many failures as a Nation in the past and is about to again. All you will do is get a bunch more innocent Americans killed in the next terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan. Please explain to me why, after we have spilled so much American blood and spent so much American treasure to get al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, that you want to leave the job undone and let him back in again? I just don't understand your logic; help me understand it.

Osama bin Laden

Why Do I Say Afghanistan Again?

BECAUSE the Afghan government and people are not ready to go it alone yet and the Taliban and al Qaeda are still strong enough to come back and reestablish themselves. Why aren't they ready, Hell, we have been there for almost ten years already, what is wrong with them?? Wellll, you will need to ask President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that question; they were the ones who decided to abandon President Karzai and the Afghan people in 2002 in favor of starting the war with Saddam Hussein.

I was working in or around the Pentagon from 1988 to 2008 as a civil servant for the Air Force; part of the time in the area of Readiness. (If fact, I was put on active duty during the first Iraq war while I was in the Army National Guard. I almost volunteered to go over to Kuwait to get a second campaign ribbon to go along with my service in Vietnam, now isn't that esoteric, I decided against it but wouldn't have anyway because the war was over too soon.) I was well aware of what our military was capable of handling and it wasn't what our National Military Strategy called for, not by a long shot. By 2000, we were a hollow force, to use a phrase that was popular then; we had enough, this is unclassified now, combat and support ground forces to conduct one war the size of Iraq and a holding action in separate locations. Our Air Force and Navy, but not Marines, were in much better shape. In the 2000 budget, Congress and the President grudgingly began increasing the size of the defense budget, but, the damage had been done.

With this knowledge, President Bush, after defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and driving them and al-Qaeda into neighboring Pakistan, broke several major strategic miltary rules even 2nd luitinents know not to break; 1) don't split your forces when you aren't forced to and 2) when you have the enemy on the run, chase them into the ground. Gereral Custer, of Little Big Horn fame broke the first rule and look what happened to him. Every Union Army general until General Grant broke the second rule and the North damn near lost the Civil War as a result! President Bush broke both rules. If President Bush had focused on Afghanistan and concentrated America's diplomatic and military resources there instead of Iraq, chances are pretty good we wouldn't be there today.

Instead, America abandoned the Afghans in 2002 just like it abandoned the Afghans in 1992 after President Reagan used them as a proxy to fight the Soviet Union. This abandonment ultimately led to the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan and the safe-haven they provided to al Qaeda. These weren't the only times America got peoples hopes up only to let self-interest lead to the deaths of many innocent non-American lives; there was the:

  • 1993 - President Clinton abandonment of Samolia UN relief operation begun by President H. W. Bush after the "Blackhawk Down" incident.
  • 1991 - President H. W. Bush encouraged Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein only to pull the rug out from under them when they needed support
  • 1986 -Presidents Reagan and Bush leaving Russia to flounder after Collapse of the Soviet Union
  • 1961 - President Kennedy's halting of President Eisenhower's Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba shortly after it kicked off leaving many Cuban rebels to suffer at the hands of Castro

Afghanistan has never really been a stable country, ever! It is a sad thing to say, one of its most stable, cohesive periods was under Taliban rule. Afghanistan historically has been a tribal culture that doesn't take very well to central authority, sort of like our anti-federalist in America, when you think about it. What is needed to protect America from another 9/11 is just the opposite, a stable, pro-Western country with a viable, functioning central government.

Can anybody truthfully say that is what they have now? Can anybody truthfully say that is what they will have if we pull up stakes and leave now? By your comments, how many of you truly believe that if we leave now, the Taliban won't take over again? By your comments, how many of you truly believe that if we leave now, that al-Qaeda won't set up shop again in Afghanistan? By your comments, how many of you truly believe that if we leave now, that al Qaeda won't start planning the death of America from Afghan soil again?

I, for one, absolutely believe all of those things, if we leave now and I would rather that not happen; but that is just me.

My Esoteric

Please Take the Poll

What do you think of President Obama's Troop Withdrawl Plan?

See results without voting

© 2011 My Esoteric

More by this Author

Comments 20 comments

Ken Barton profile image

Ken Barton 5 years ago

By pulling out early Obama is hoping to persuade America that he's back doing his job, but in truth, he'd just be setting things up for the next escalation of the war on terror. He works for Big-Business who make the Billions per day we're being forced to pay in this war, and Big-Business isn't ready to stop draining the American people of what little we have left.

profile image

mib56789 5 years ago

Speak your mind MY Esoteric. I know President Obama has Advisors who make recommendations and is faced with the daunting daily tasks of making weighty decisions of which everybody says NO! MY TASK FIRST! IT'S THE PRIORITY! ACCEPT MY RECOMMENDATION AND SAY IT'S YOUR DECISION.". The buck stops at his desk. But in his spare time, maybe he might read a few HUBs. You never know! I'm glad he's pulling out the troops. PERIOD!

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Hehe, MIB, Obama might learn something from the Hubs alright. I did some editing based on some comments a friend made plus the fact that I composed it about midnight and had more time to think about it.

Ken, thanks for your comment but to tell the truth, I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

jo miller profile image

jo miller 5 years ago from Tennessee

I had some of the same fears you had when listening to the speech: it seems likely the Taliban will take over again. And I think that would be tragic. However, I also heard Taliban now numbers about 25,000 and we'll still have 70,000 troops there after the withdrawal. Afghanistan is not the only country that could harbor al-Qaeda terrorists. What do we do about those countries-- Yemen, Somalia, Libya? Maybe we should learn to fight smarter. Is military might the only option we have?

I'm just asking. I don't have all the answers yet.

Ken Barton profile image

Ken Barton 5 years ago

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough My Esoteric - I'll be clearer.

I think Obama is bringing home our troops to make himself look better to the American people. I think he released the 30 million gallons of reserved oil, to make himself look better to the American people. Both, so come the next election he'll get re-elected.

Bringing our troops home before they finish their job is an insult to every service person that has lost their lives in the war against terror.

Politics kept our service men from finishing their jobs in Korea & Vietnam, and now it looks to do the same again.

When I mentioned Big Business, I specifically meant weapon manufacturers & Oil Industries, who are making Billions of dollars from this war every day. Politicians, including Obama do exactly what they say if they want to stay in their offices.

By pulling out before the job is done, Obama guarantees our next generation of soldiers will have to go back again. It's just that simple.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for you comment Jo, The 25K Taliban are the hard-core fighters. I suspect that is all they needed to take over the country originally. Ultimately, it isn't about the number of troops we have there, it is about giving the Afghan leadership enough breathing room to establish firmly establish itself. Before that can be done, however, effective, permanent control over the countryside must be established with the Afghan military ultimately providing the security, and they aren't there yet. We are on the brink but if we pull out now, the Taliban will, in my opinion, come back and take over and bring al-Queda with them.

Neither Yemen nor Lybia have governments that support al-Quaeda; either one in the case of Lybia but I don't know where the opposition stands in Yemen, so that makes them different than Afghanistan. Somalia, on the other hand could be another Afghanistan, unfortunately but we have had a counter-insurgency operation going on there for quite some time now, I suspect.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks Ken, that is much clearer to me. While I do agree with you there was a political calculation made in his decision to start the drawdown, I am not sure he had much choice to do something; I had hoped it wasn't as big as it was as soon as it was. What is it, some 75% of the American public now want Obama to pull out now just so we can go back in 10 years and do it all over again after the next attack? I think he must acknowledge that feeling to some degree as well as keep to his initial plan; he was between a rock and a hard place. Also, remember like Bush I, with his tax hike, and Bush II with his TARP, both moves diametrically opposed to their core principals, being in a war is very much against Obama's. Yet, he took it on anyway, going against his party because it was the right thing to do. Consequently, I can't be quite as hard on him.

As to the strategic oil release, that one took me by surprise and it sure pissed-off a bunch of Conservatives. The release was a joint venture between the US and the International community. No doubt it might have the fallout effective of making him look better but I think the real motive was to give a psychological shock to the oil market in order to lower prices, which it did, at least for today, with the hope that will translate into lower prices at the pump thereby releasing more money into the economy. I have my doubts, but it is certainly worth a try.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I just had to comment about this. I had the most views I ever had in one day on a hub, 50, and how many comments were given? Zero, count them, Nada, zip, zilch, etc, etc. Even more surprising, and very disappointing, only one person was interested enough to vote in my poll. To whoever that person is, thank you very much for caring.

Meathead 5 years ago

The reason you got a lot of hits is because by some miracle, your article was on the Google News front page of many readers. The reason no one left comments is that it's obvious after one paragraph that these are the ravings of the guy at the end of the bar that never did anything but knows how to solve all the world's problems. Thanks Archie Bunker.

oldebile 5 years ago

we dfid more there with a coupe hundred cia and special forces than 100000 troops

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your comment Meathead, if you only knew; Archie Bunker indeed.

Oldebile, thank you for a much more sensible comment. Even more so, because it is so true, as far as it goes. To do what needed to be done once the Taliban and al-Qaeda were booted out would require a lot more than the few hundred CIA and Special Ops guys, plus the 10,000 or so Naval and Air Force support forces off the coast of Pakistan and elsewhere. The question is how should they be used. Our brilliant commander who saw fit to split our forces and go after the wrong enemy used what was left to fight a Soviet style campaign, with, as you were implying, the same results.

The proper use, and it would take more forces than what Bush left behind or what Obama has in there now would be a true counter-insurgency campaign that takes an area and holds it for a very long time until locals AND the central government first of all learn how to get along and then are trained enough to hold it themselves. We can't do as we have ALWAYS done, leave our earstwhile allies in the lurch when we have solved what we think is the primary objective, killing bin Laden. Our primary objective, in my opinion, is to make sure al-Qaeda never uses Afghanistan as a platform to attack the United States ever again. Those that want a pull-out now, obvioiusly don't see it the same way.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Buy the way Mr. Meathead, I must apologize for brushing you off with such a brief reply. I should have continued a bit by asking why is it you were only able to attack my character, without knowing a thing about it, rather than counter the logic I offered which was right in front of your face with your own logic, or, was that beyond your abilities?

Glassy profile image

Glassy 5 years ago from Aus

Nice Hub My Esoteric.

Ken Barton, you are exactly right about big business and wars, if only the American people were better informed of this information, they would be outraged. There is the real reason that the war is being fought and there is the false front for the public, which is the war on terror. It's just a diversion for the big business interests.

The thing that gets me angry the most is, many good soldiers that are fighting for their country are now dead and big business is making a huge profit at their sacrifice and to rub more salt into the wound, the tax payer foots the bill, whilst the war profiteers roll in their extended fortunes.

Why is the US not interested in securing Libya? Well there are companies from the UK, France, Italy and Germany which have more oil interests than them, so they are the ones doing the fighting there. If there is not much money to be made in Libya, then why would the US continue the fight?

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your comment, Glassy. This is interesting. While I don't agree with your reasoning as to why we are at war, at least the current set of wars, (if you were talking about the Spanish-American War, that was absolutely a business inspired war) I am in total lock-step with you and Ken about big business getting unreasonably enriched because of them. With Cheney-Rumsfeld at the helm, there was no question in my mind who was going to get very rich ON purpose. With Obama-Gates at the helm, there will still be many contractors making a dishonest buck, but more (not all, mind you) of it will be due to State Department and Department of Defense ineptness as opposed to true graft (I was a DoD analyst at the fringes of this from about 1991 - 1998)

While you have every right to by angry, Glassy, and for basically the reason you state, from my point of view, that is a collateral reason and not the fundamental one. I truly believe the war in Afghansistan/Pakistan (not Iraq) is being fought for a legitamate reason.

Glassy profile image

Glassy 5 years ago from Aus

OK, maybe you are right, but have you heard of the Trans Afghanistan natural gas pipeline, supposedly worth 14 trillion?

And is this pipeline really in the making or just false claims in your opinion?

rafken profile image

rafken 5 years ago from The worlds my oyster

Nice hub but I disagree. No matter how many troops are sent or how long they stay, I think the Afghans will remain the same, with tribal alliances. The priority now should be: the SAFE return of troops. Besides, the fight on terror is eternal, as one set is beaten another will appear. At least we know who and where these ones are.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Glassy, I will have to look the pipeline up, haven't heard of it yet.

Thanks Rafken. That's the rub isn't it. The history of Afghanistan mitigates against a successful outcome, doesn't it; no outsiders, in a couple of thousand years have been able to subjegate the Afghans (just like the Vietnamese) and, except for the Taliban, I am not sure they have had a stable central government that held sway over the countryside for very long.

But, as I see it, that leaves the U.S., not just Obama, between a rock an a hard place. If we pull out in toto now, the Taliban will, in my opinion, almost certainly reestablish themselves as supreme ruler in Afghanistan. Besides being a humanitarian disaster that will be on our heads, we will have been responsible for opening the door for al-Qaeda to reassert itself in Afghanistan to lick its wounds, recruit, retrain, plan, and finally carry out a successful attack on America again. To me, that is a certainty.

What is not a certainty to me is that we will fail in helping the Karzai gov't, as corupt as it is, to become strong enough by the end of 2014 to stand up to what remains of the Taliban at that time. It just seems more prudent to me to do what we can to make sure al-Qaeda never has a chance to have a safe haven in Afghanistan again. Keeping the out of there, gives us the chance to keep the pressure up on Pakistan to do more in their country to put the Taliban and al-Qaeda down. If we leave Afghanistan, I doubt that we will have any more leverage there either.

Glassy profile image

Glassy 5 years ago from Aus

Hmm, 2014 is the proposed completion time of the so called pipeline. If it is true, then it all makes sense that they would wind up operations by that time. Profits made, tax payer billed, job done.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Glassy, Here is what I found, mainly from Wikipedia although I think I found the article you are getting your information from. The TAP (Trans-Afghan Pipeline) was initiated in 1995 to circumvent Russia's control of oil flow in the region; America had no part. It went through various phases but ultimately failed by 1998. It was reestablished in 2002 with American oil companies looking for some involvement but because of the war it was basically dropped by 2005.

In December 2010, an agreement was signed between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India (interesting) to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan. I notice that America is not party to this agreement. The project is to be financed by the Asian Development Bank of which the U.S. owns a 12.5% stake.

As to Unocal, they led a 1996 foreign consortium called Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd to build the pipeline. Because the Taliban were party to the agreement and they bombed our Embassy in Africa, Unocal withdrew from the Consortium in 1998 when the project collapsed. There is no guarantee that Unocal will get the work this time around, but it would not be surprising.

As to Obama timing the pullout so that we will be gone right when the pipeline opens, that seems to be a bit of a stretch since is pullout date was set well before they knew when the pipeline would be finished.

It seems to me that the orignal project was a reasonable one which an American oil company had a chance to make good money on. Now, many years later, somebody is trying to make political hay because that same reasonable project may actually get done by the same American oil company but now it is tainted as sinister because an American president is making his war plans based solely on enriching American businesses via the military-industrial complex. tsk-tsk, lol.

Glassy profile image

Glassy 5 years ago from Aus

Great research. I originally got my info about the pipeline from another Hub, which i can't seem to find right now and i wish i could find it. It explained other interesting things.

I still think the reasons for any war these days are covered up and it's all about business.

There are many countries that have had recent conflicts where the US hasn't intervened and if there is no money to be made for the war profiteers, they just impose sanctions.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article