Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

I cheered the Afghanistan invasion. I was wrong. – The Week

It is a clich to say that certain eras "end not with a bang, but a whimper," but the old trope is true in Afghanistan. U.S. and Taliban officials signed an agreement over the weekend that should lead to the withdrawal of American troops from that country a development mostly overshadowed by the spread of coronavirus and developments in domestic presidential politics.

That shouldn't be the case. Attention must be paid. Along with the war in Iraq, the Afghan experience defines the U.S. interactions in the world in the 21st century a righteous display of might that ultimately devolved into an unending, unsolvable, exhausting slog.

The war began on 9/11, when hijackers flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon another plane crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside killing 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers. More than 2,300 American servicemembers have died in Afghanistan over the last generation, while estimates say that 157,000 people died there during the war including more than 43,000 civilians. Everything about the war has been a tragedy.

The invasion of Afghanistan is the only U.S. military offensive that I have wholeheartedly rooted for during my adult life. A few weeks after 9/11, I drove from my home in Kansas to New York via the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania to witness history for myself. Smoke was still wafting from the bowels of the Twin Towers. Like Americans everywhere, I wanted revenge.

I didn't believe for one second that the Al Qaeda terrorists hated us "for our freedom," the easy explanation offered Americans during the early days of "why do they hate us?" questioning after the attack. But thousands of civilians had been killed in the first days after 9/11, it was widely believed that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed and in the heat of the moment, it seemed that such massive violence must be met with equally massive violence. When Vice President Dick Cheney went on TV the next weekend to hint at the likelihood of torture in the coming conflict promising U.S. personnel would work on "the dark side, if you will" even that seemed to make sense to a nominal pacifist like myself.

I was wrong. We all of us who cheered the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were wrong.

We were wrong because we ignored world history. There was a reason that Afghanistan occupied over the years by the British, then by the Soviets was already known as "the graveyard of empires." For cultural and geographic reasons, no would-be conqueror of the country has ever fully subdued its people. Responding to the 9/11 attack was not necessarily America's big mistake. Staying and trying to recreate Afghanistan in something like our own image was the crucial error, both hubristic and well-intentioned we thought we could be the conquerors who left the country better than we found it. We are not.

We were wrong, too, because we ignored our own history. By the time 2001 arrived, the memories of America's misadventures in Vietnam had mostly faded, pushed down the memory hole by the end of the Cold War and U.S. battle victories over a series of weaker foes, including Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. The military establishment turned its attention in the late 1970s and 1980s to the task of confronting the Soviet Union, forgetting whatever it had learned about counterinsurgency wars. America's leaders were prepared for tank battles and seizing capitals and were less ready to deal with guerilla warfare. The tactical lessons of Vietnam might have helped had they been implemented earlier, but Americans also ignored the bigger strategic lesson: that it doesn't ultimately serve U.S. interests to get bogged down, thousands of miles from home, fighting rebel guerillas on their own land. We're bad at it.

We were wrong, finally, because the real enemy the stateless terrorists of Al Qaeda were not the opponents we wanted or were prepared to fight. When Pearl Harbor happened, the United States conquered Japan. When the USS Maine sunk in Havana Harbor, Americans went to war with Spain and ended up governing Cuba and the Philippines. Al Qaeda terrorists roamed from Saudi Arabia to Germany to, yes, training camps in Afghanistan in preparing for the 9/11 attacks. But there was no chance the United States was going to invade Riyadh or occupy Hamburg. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan because 9/11 felt like war, so we responded like we always do in war we took over somebody else's land. And then, for good measure, we stupidly went and did the same thing in Iraq.

That was never the wisest strategy against Al Qaeda, which could melt away from the battlefield and reorganize somewhere else. Indeed, Osama bin Laden wasn't brought to justice for nearly a decade he was hiding out in Pakistan when U.S. troops found and assassinated him. American forces have remained in Afghanistan since then, fighting and dying for nearly another decade.

It has long been clear that it is time for America to cut losses and come home. Most U.S. veterans say the fight hasn't been worth it. Me? I no longer want revenge not when it comes at the costs of more dead and injured, not when so many of the new dead and injured weren't even born when 9/11 occurred.

But we should not fool ourselves. The end of American involvement in Afghanistan will not mean the end of that country's civil war. There are probably calamitous days ahead for the people of Afghanistan. That is to be deeply lamented, but there is not much the United States can do to solve that problem. The tragedy there will continue. After a generation of losses, the least-bad thing we can do is end our role in it.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

More:
I cheered the Afghanistan invasion. I was wrong. - The Week

Are Afghan Elites Ready for an Afghanistan Without America? – The National Interest Online

An unwinnable war is now a potential opportunity for diplomatic victory. That is what President Donald Trump, U.S. Special Representative Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, and Khalilzads team have achieved with the help of Qatar and Pakistan through Saturdays accord with the Taliban.

The U.S.-Taliban agreement is no peace deal. At its core, it exchanges a full U.S. military withdrawal for Taliban counterterrorism guarantees. But it does more than that. It includes a Taliban commitment, in exchange for the release of some five thousand prisoners, to participate in a political dialogue with other Afghan leaders, including those from President Ashraf Ghanis government, on their countrys future. And in doing so, the agreement forged by Khalilzad and lead Taliban negotiator, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, provides a real pathway to responsibly end Americas longest war and the broader forty-year Afghan civil war.

On Saturday, an emotional Secretary of State Mike Pompeo underscored the historic opportunity before Afghan leaders, stating that they must not fail to seize it. He implored them to think beyond their personal interests.

The ball is now in the court of Afghanistans leaders. The Taliban appear to have implicitly consented to Ghani playing a lead role in forming the committee of Afghans with whom they will negotiate. But Ghani, unfortunately, has not changed his stripes. His priority remains staying in power by any means, even if that requires upending the peace process.

On Sunday, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah accused Ghani of trying to monopolize the intra-Afghan process. Abdullah has endured almost six years of a miserable arranged marriage with Ghani, who has largely disregarded their power-sharing arrangement, which was brokered by then-Secretary of State John Kerry.

Abdullah and Ghani faced off again in Septembers presidential elections. After a four-month impasse, the Afghan election commission, stacked with Ghani loyalists, declared Ghani the victor. The election commission failed to conduct an audit on three hundred thousand disputed votes mandated by the complaints commission. Yet another election was stolen from Abdullah by Ghani.

Ghani wants to be inaugurated as president once again on March 9the day before the intra-Afghan talks are scheduled to begin. Through this game of brinksmanship, Ghani aims to leverage Americas desperation for the talks to succeed and gain its approval for his second term.

For Ghani, the intra-Afghan talks are not a means toward resolving this conflict. He is using them to project his authority, though neither the Taliban nor his elections rivals regard his presidency as legitimate.

This weekend, Abdullah complained that Ghani has been monopolizing the process of determining which Afghan figures will sit on the opposite side of the table with the Taliban later this month. And Ghani also refuses to release the five thousand Taliban prisoners before the March 10 talks as mentioned in the U.S.-Taliban accord. But the Taliban have said that they will not participate in the intra-Afghan talks unless those prisoners are released.

America must be firm with Ghani. The clock is ticking. Ghani, bizarrely, claims that Trump congratulated him on the agreement signed on Saturday, though the Afghan government is not a signatory and did not even attend the ceremony. The White House has not yet released a readout of the call. One can only hope that Trump, in reality, read Ghani the riot act. There is indication from the administration that Ghanis time is up and that once the intra-Afghan process gets rolling, his presidency will be replaced by an interim arrangement including the Taliban.

The intra-Afghan process will be rocky and long; leaders of Afghanistan, both Taliban and non-Taliban, have less than fourteen months to get it right. The process must be inclusive. It cannot amount to a mere intra-Pashtun reconciliation. The desire of non-Pashtuns for decentralization must also be addressed. The Talibans hegemonic impulses must be restrained. A statement released on Saturday by Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada strikes a conciliatory tone. Akhundzada called on his fellow Afghans to work together and find a solution to our problems in light of the religious and national values of our people.

Peace will come when the Afghans decide they will stop fighting amongst themselves. But what Khalilzad was able to achieve on Saturday was no easy feat. The effort to end the Afghan war has lasted more than half of the entire wars duration. American officials first held secret talks with Mullah Omar aide Tayyib Agha on November 28, 2010.

The Obama administration eventually began a meaningful exploratory process with the Taliban. But its many outreach efforts eventually failed.

Trump was wise to select Khalilzadan American of Afghan origin uniquely capable of completing this weighty taskand give him both a clear mandate and his full backing. Khalilzad was able to not only overcome spoilers in Afghanistan and nearby, but also Americas own wily generals and allied politicians, who are adept at playing the media game and helped upend Obamas efforts to end the war.

Khalilzad succeeded where his Obama administration predecessors failed also because his team dropped prerequisites, though it cleverly rolled some back in as confidence-building measures. A ceasefire was rebranded as a reduction in violence agreement.

Khalilzad also came to terms with the reality of the need to bring regional statesnamely, China, Pakistan, and Russiaon board, instead of working at odds with them.

And above all, he and Trump abandoned the fantasy that a resilient Taliban would somehow agree to an indefinite U.S. military presence after more than 18 years of fighting.

Khalilzad has much more work ahead of him. His mandate has expanded beyond negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban. He must now broker a broader peace among Afghans. And to do so, he should tell Ashraf Ghani that its time to go.

Arif Rafiq (@arifcrafiq) is president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, a political risk advisory company focusing on the Middle East and South Asia.

Image: Reuters

More:
Are Afghan Elites Ready for an Afghanistan Without America? - The National Interest Online

Op-Ed: Where is Afghanistan heading to? – The Khaama Press News Agency

Photo by: Matthew Karsten

DISCLAIMERThe opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views ofThe Khaama Press News Agency.We welcome opinions and submissions to Khaama Press Opinions/Exclusives Please email them toinfo@khaama.com.

Afghans witnessed a historic and unprecedented measure ever taken for de-escalating the decades-long war after the peace agreement inked on 29th February in Doha. The war between the US and the Taliban which started after the tragedy of 9/11 has apparently come to an end. Based on the pact, America withdraws its all forces within 14 months and the Taliban pledged to cut their ties with major terror groups and to not let Afghan soil be used by terrorists.

The peace accord along with some major clauses also contains an item based on which the Afghan government is to release 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000 government captives who will be freed by the Taliban. The very article has been a hot potato over the last three days after President Ghani denied the release/swap.

Ghani a day after signing the pact told reporters that he has not agreed with any side on freeing the prisoners. He added that the issue belongs to the Afghan government and Taliban and asked the US to remain impartial.

This contentious article is apparently making the situation worse for the intra-afghan talks which are planned to kick off in the coming seven days. As per the spokesman of Taliban political office based in Doha, the ten-day gap between the very agreement and intra-afghan talks is a trust-building period in which prisoners swap will take place. Taliban also urges the swap as their prime condition for the parley with the Afghan government.

On the other side, President Ghani said that there is no guarantee for the prisoners not to rejoin the battlefield, taking into consideration this threat, any potential swap or release will be conditions-based.

This argument which can most probably ruin the given opportunity for restoring peace needs to be solved on urgent bases. Taliban have recently announced to resume their operations against Afghan forces and foreigners to remain untouched. The announcement presumably seems to be made as retaliation for the denial of release by the Afghan government and to pressurize President Ghani to comply with the clause on prisoners release.

Taliban dubbed their 19-year long war as Jihad against invaders and freeing Afghanistan from occupation. Now With the resumption of war against Afghan forces, the Taliban not only defy their own claim for waging Jihad against Americans but also proves to be a proxy group.

A week-long reduction in violence (RIV) which culminated in signing the peace deal was too optimistic for a war-free nation. People of Afghanistan have never been so hopeful and overjoyed as they were after the Doha agreement. People across the country have been celebrating the measure by dancing on the street. They gave charity to express gratitude for the violence-free week being granted. Afghan soldiers who could not go to their villages utilized the opportunity and met their families, some did this after years. Gravediggers, coffin makers and morgue owners have been out of business but were still thankful. The (RIV) week was rare and unprecedented which was welcomed by the entire world. The violence reduction sprang up hopes of Afghan people for a truce which will be followed by a nationwide peace. They even thanked the Taliban for abiding by the pledge of non-violence week.

After the recent announcement by the Taliban, all the optimism and hope for peace and stability seem to go in vain. The war apparently does not seem to end and killing innocent people does not seem to stop. This will be rather shameful for the Taliban targeting Afghan soldiers for no reason and incentive. This measure will also defame the Taliban on the international level after they were recognized partially as a political address to negotiate with rather than an insurgent group.

The destiny of the Afghan people is looking to be very implicit. Now, this is up to the Taliban to welcome the desire of Afghans for peace and deal with the conflicts through negotiations. Talks between Taliban and America concluded in peace thus there remains no excuse for the continuation of war with Afghans. Taliban as Afghans can very easily conclude in a deal with their countrymen.

Excerpt from:
Op-Ed: Where is Afghanistan heading to? - The Khaama Press News Agency

As peace talks in Afghanistan move forward, the IRC calls for urgent investment in long-term development – International Rescue Committee

Kabul, Afghanistan, March 3, 2020 Responding to the peace deal reached between the Taliban and the US Government, possibly paving a way for a significant reduction in violence, Vicki Aken, Afghanistan Country Director for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), said:

This mornings attacks highlight the importance of ensuring that all stakeholders are equally involved in peace negotiations. Peace made between the US and the Taliban must also secure peace within the country. Failing to do so puts the lives of everyday Afghan women, children and men at risk.

The decades-long conflict in Afghanistan has devastated the lives of more than 9 million Afghans who are in need of humanitarian assistance and forced millions to flee their homes and seek refuge. The IRC welcomes all genuine efforts to reduce violence and pave the way toward sustainable peace in Afghanistan.

However, real peace in the country cannot just be something negotiated in a foreign capital, it must also be worked out in all of Afghanistans 394 districts.Lasting peace must meaningfully include the voices of women, youth, and minority groups. Women and girls, in particular, have made remarkable strides towards reclaiming personal agency in the last two decades; any deal negotiated must not come at the expense of their fundamental rights.

The IRC is already mobilizing resources to meet the urgent needs of those in areas previously inaccessible to humanitarian agencies due to violence and insecurity. We urge the international community to renew its commitment to maintain a focus on Afghanistan to ensure that peace is supported with adequate resources for every Afghan woman, man, and childto recover, rebuild, and move the country forward for the long-term.

The IRC has been working in Afghanistan since 1988 providing aid to the most vulnerable. With more than 1,700 staff and volunteers, the IRC reaches more than a million Afghans each year with education, protection, water and sanitation, emergency response, and economic recovery programs.

About the IRC

The International Rescue Committee responds to the worlds worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is at work in over 40 countries and over 20 U.S. citieshelping people to survive, reclaim control of their future, and strengthen their communities.Learn more at http://www.rescue.org and follow the IRC on Twitter & Facebook.

More:
As peace talks in Afghanistan move forward, the IRC calls for urgent investment in long-term development - International Rescue Committee

What Is the Real Story of Buttigieg’s Service and Time in Afghanistan? – The Real News Network

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Pete Buttigieg: America deserves a commander in chief who knows what that sacrifice means, and who will honor the sacred promise we make to our veterans.

Mark Steiner: Welcome to The Real News, Im Mark Steiner. Yes, Pete Buttigieg. He really weaponizes his time in the military and his six month tour in Afghanistan, pun intended. What did he really do over there? How did he become an intel officer? Why was this officer a chauffer? What is so potentially dangerous about a Buttigieg presidency in this context? What was this outfit, the Afghan Threat Finance Cell, or AFTC as it was known, that he was assigned to? What did they do? What was their role in this war and why does it matter, and what questions should Buttigieg and the others who are running for president have to answer about these wars, and the wars we dont want to see come? Were joined by a man who knows a bit about all this. Matthew Hoh, who wrote Heaven Protects Us From Men Who Live The Illusion of Danger: Pete Buttigieg and the US Military, that he wrote for CounterPunch. And welcome Matt, good to have you with us, as always.

Matthew Hoh: Thanks Mark.

Mark Steiner: And Matthew Hoh is an activist and a writer. Hes a member of advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans for Peace and World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan to protest the escalation of the war under Obama. And previously, he had been in Iraq with the State Department, and served combat tours of the US Marines as an officer in Afghanistan, and is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. So, Matt, it is good to have you back, and I really love this article you did for CounterPunch, its something that I think needs to be talked about in this way. Lets talk a bit about what we know and why its so important to know about Buttigiegs service in the US Navy, how he became an officer through a direct commission, and what is that, because it seems to serve a purpose but its really unclear how he got in, for privilege. So, talk a bit about what all that means.

Matthew Hoh: Well, thanks for having me on again Mark. And it is important, because Buttigieg is doing well in the polls nationally. He won in Iowa, came in second in New Hampshire, and we have Super Tuesday coming up, and hes doing well. And he is campaigning, a large part of his campaign, is based upon his military service. In his speeches, at his campaign rallies, you will see posters of him in uniform. On his TV advertisements, there is video or photos of him in uniform carrying a rifle, and in the interviews, speeches he does when hes behind the podium at the debates, he says things that, to paraphrase him, are along the lines of, I know about war and peace peace, and I know about these issues, regarding, say, Iraq and Iran or Afghanistan and Libya or whatever, Because I was in the Navy, because I was in Afghanistan, because I went to war. He says things like, I know the meaning of sacrifice. I know what it means to go to war. I know what it means to live in a dangerous combat zone.

So, its important because this is what he is using to set himself apart from the other candidates. This is something that he is using to basically state why he has the experience to be president, because his other experiences are pretty limited, particularly when compared to the other front-running candidates, all of who have had years, I mean, decades of elected service and have filled other roles.

Its also very important too, and this is I think why I started to write the piece, because in the United States, the military is a, as I said in the piece, a para-clerical organization. I wouldnt want to say quasi-religious, it is a religious organization. And the idea that you question the military, you question somebodys record in the military, what they actually did, and in this case where someone is using it too, Buttigieg is using it to define why he would be a better president, that you are committing a heresy, that you are blaspheming.

You see this, and Ive seen this in the last few days with the responses Ive gotten to my essay. It basically breaks down along the lines of, How dare you question a veteran? This is a very serious problem we have in the United States. This is a reason why we continue to be not just sustaining and continuing these wars, but on the verge, seemingly weekly, of getting involved in new ones. The ability to question the military and the militarism in this country, again, it borders on the heretical.

Mark Steiner: One of the things you write about here is that he got his commission as a captain through something called a direct commission. And that, no matter, you talked about being able to look through his records, there was no record. Let me just read what you wrote here. You said, There is no record, and here Ill offer the possibility that his record in incomplete, of his attendance at any form of military schools or his participation whether as a mobilized active duty officer or a drilling reservist. His record contains only one DD-214, which is a record of his active service. And those were important. So, lets talk about that. Why is it important to know this about him? I mean, let me just say it in one context here. A lot of guys in, say, Vietnam, didnt see combat. They were pushing papers. But everybody went over. So, why is this important?

Matthew Hoh: Again, because this is what he is campaigning on. When, say, the question of General Soleimanis assassination by President Trump or the question of the United States pulling its forces, supposedly pulling its forces out of Syria, we know that didnt really occur, they were just redirected to the oil fields in Eastern Syria. But you know, when he receives questions like those, Buttigieg will say, and again, to paraphrase him, he will say My experience has informed my decision making on this. And when you look at his record, he really doesnt have much military experience. He received a direct commission, which, a direct commission means that you are literally appointed as an officer of the US military, that pen is put to paper, and voila, you are a military officer, and in this case he was made an ensign that way.

Most likely, the campaign And I will say this, too. As I went through his autobiography, as I went through a number of interviews, a bunch of different articles on this that have been written over the last year, his campaign repeatedly has denied requests for more information about his military career. So, when you look at his military records, which are available, I believe it was The Hill, the newspaper The Hill first released, at least notified people that his military records were available, you will see a large part of them are redacted, but thats personal information. And again, a large part of it is redacted, but again, thats personal information. The information that is available is important because it shows how often he actually wore the uniform.

It shows, as you stated, Mark, in my essay, that he never attended any schools, he never attended any form of training. He never received whats called an MOS, a military occupational specialty, or in the Navy they call it a designator, but just to keep it simple here, lets use you use the common term, MOS, right. He never received that qualification as an intelligence officer. And heres this other thing about the direct commission, is that it requires no selection process. It requires no training. Theres no hardship. So, whereas the vast, vast, vast majority of the men and women who are officers in the US military go through the service academies, go through ROTC or go through officer candidate school and theres selection involved, theres training, its hard, its difficult. Pete Buttigieg did none of that. And he was a young man at the time, he was 28 or so roughly. So he certainly could have done this if he wanted to.

This direct commissioning program, theres a practical for its existence in that in times of crisis or emergency, the United States military can just bring in specialists, doctors, lawyers, people that have specific skills that the military requires at the time. But theres also a political aspect of this, and as I note in the essay, Hunter Biden is probably the most famous, or infamous You know, Hunter Biden received a direct commission into the Navy, and then was discharged for a positive drug test within about a month of his commissioning.

But in my time in the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps I dont believe does direct commissioning, but I have met a bunch of Naval officers who were direct commission. Some of them were public relations people that were brought in because they had that skill, they had that talent, and others were political. They had benefactors, in the Bush administration or in the Obama administration, who got them these appointments because somebody was high up in the campaign, someone donated a lot of money. And thats what seems to have been Buttigiegs route, was during the 2008 campaign, he met somebody, when he campaigned for Obama, he worked for Obama, he met somebody who was able to secure him in this position. And so with a kind of a magic wand, pen on paper, he becomes a Navy officer. Never does any training, theres no records of his time with the reserve unit.

There is anecdotal evidence, there are people who are part of the reserve unit who speak highly of him, and so it does seem like he did at least on occasion. How often we dont know, because the campaign wont say this. How often he actually went to the unit we dont know, but it seems like he did. The reports are positive, and you could imagine that, hes a very smart man. He seems like hes very personal and very positive. He probably would be a very good junior officer, but he just didnt do the work, and you have to also now get into speculation because the campaign wont release more information. Did he even have the security clearances necessary to do the intelligence work that he claims he did, or that he says he was, yeah

Mark Steiner: Well lets just get to that. Theres a couple of things you said here I really want to kind of tackle. So, one of them is that you wrote about people who live like Buttigieg, an illusion of danger, that he would become a dangerous president. What does that mean to live with an illusion of danger, making you a dangerous president? You wrote that a couple of times in different ways.

Matthew Hoh: Yeah. Well, I think its something our country goes through daily. Whether its in the practical, whether its the fact that one person had, of however many, literally at this point billions of air travelers in the last 20 years, one person tried to light a shoe on fire and blow up an airplane, and we still ritually take our shoes off when we go into the airport, right? So, as a nation, whether its those color-coded terror alerts, whether its the fact that we are okay with the NSA listening and recording all our conversations, all our text messages, all our email, all these types of things, when there is no danger, or the danger is so minimal that it is statistically insignificant. And we go along with it because there is something in our society that worships this danger.

You could see this also too in other ways, and I point this out in the essay. Were a nation that has more guns than people. Why is that? Because people have these fantasies of having to protect their home from armed intruders, or these fantasies that they need these assault rifles because theyre going to have to fight the government at some point. We live as a people, as a society, with these dangers.

And when you get it down to the individual level, when in a case of Buttigieg, where he did go to Afghanistan, saw no combat from everything we can see, did not work on intelligence matters, was attached to an intelligence unit, but seemed to have, according to his own words, spent most of the time driving other officers around, driving them to meetings, not going into the meetings, waiting with the vehicle outside. But then, coming back and saying things like he does to CNN and to other places, and this is what he said, he said, I didnt kill bin Laden, but what I was doing was dangerous.

Well, I mean, when you have that kind of chutzpah to say those kinds of things, to run your presidency on a very shallow military record, you have to wonder, what is he going to do in office when he is confronted by the generals and the admirals, and the generals and the admirals always lie. I include a Dwight Eisenhower reference to that, Eisenhower speaking about that as well. Its something his granddaughter relates, that Eisenhower said, looking at his chair in the Oval Office, and Im sure Ive said this on The Real News before because its one of my favorite quotes, but I think it really tells us so much about the US military and the American government, is that he said [inaudible 00:14:29], he says, Im scared for this country when a man sits in this chair who doesnt know the military the way I do.

And he doesnt mean that you need to be an expert strategist, you need to be a tactician, you need to know operations, you need to understand logistics. It means that you need to understand that the generals and the admirals always lie, and if you look at Buttigieg, I dont think he has that understanding. His photos, and there are lots of photos online of him with various generals, various colonels, and he is like a kid at a football game. He is excited. He is just wide-eyed and grinning, not even grinning, a huge smile.

You get this, his work did not put him in a way to, one, truly understand war, to truly understand the significance or the reality of combat, the complications of it, the fog of it, all these types of things. But also, two, I dont think he was ever in a position to really get that the generals and the admirals lie all the time, and certainly nothing about how he presents himself would lead you to believe that when they come into the Oval Office, if he is president, that he is going to stand up to them. Rather I think, because he has this image he wants to protect of being a part of the military, that he would continue to use the military as a political tool, to include going along with whatever the generals and the admirals want.

Mark Steiner: So, let me conclude with this in the time we have left. One of the things you write extensively about in the article I think is important, he was assigned to this group called the Afghan Threat Finance Cell. And you talk about them in the context of the Afghan war, and the drugs in Afghanistan and what their role was with that, and how this all kind of really played a part that the media doesnt want to get into because its so complex about that and about how the Taliban was really funded, in large part, by our allies in the Middle East, by the Gulf states and war, and how this feeds into one another. He wont address it, none of the candidates will address it. The media will not address this because its too messy. I can remember this stuff from back in the Vietnam War, the same things, with importing heroin and opium coming out of Vietnam and Laos, and the same thing was going on, but this in some ways is a much larger scale.

Matthew Hoh: Yeah, this goes back to the 19th century. This goes back to the China trade. I recommend the books of James Bradley, Alfred McCoy. There was a documentarian called Al Profit, a writer named Julian [inaudible 00:17:16]. There have been books and books written about how, not just, complicit is probably too weak of a word, that the US military, US intelligence agencies, US government, have been arm and arm with drug lords and organized crime, going back nearly 200 years now, at least 180 years now. And its no different in Afghanistan. And so, theres this Afghan Threat Finance Cell, which dates back to in the years after 9/11, Treasury Department had this idea that, Look, were going to try and stop the money traveling between the terror groups and their financiers.

And of course, it really has never come to anything, because most of the financing for these terror groups, these Sunni terror groups, comes out of the Gulf monarchies, comes from our allies. The Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Emiratis, you know what I mean? The Kuwaitis. And so, it really has been, again, this kind of goes back to the topic, the title of the essay, with regards to an illusion of danger. Its really been this illusion about fighting both terrorism as well as, too, its ties into the war on drugs. And this is an issue that Look, I mean, the opium crisis at its peak was killing 200 Americans a day just a couple of years ago. There has been no investigations from the US government, from our Congress, as to that linkage between the Afghan War, where in the last 20 years weve seen poppy cultivation go from zero to 80 to 90% of the worlds heroin and illicit opium production, and this opium crisis in the United States, or this opiate crisis in the United States.

So, when you start to pull these things apart and you see that people like Pete Buttigieg are at least assigned to these units, and come away with the idea that everything that we are doing there is right and just, and that the workings and the apparatus of the United States government are correct and authoritative and are necessary, you really get into this idea that this will be a very dangerous president. I mean, this was a man who was attached to this unit thats purpose was to disrupt the drug trafficking in Afghanistan. It was run by the the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the biggest drug lords in Afghanistan have been in the Afghan government, have been in the Afghan military. I mean, until he was assassinated, the biggest drug lord in Afghanistan was President Karzais brother in Kandahar, Ahmed Wali Karzai.

So, you have these nexuses, you have these things that, as you said Mark, are really messy, really sloppy, and they dont get brought up, and they dont get questioned. Now this gets back to what we originally talked about, about how with the veneration, with the deification of veterans, with the unquestioning of the US military, these things continue to propel themselves. And theyre just not effecting people over overseas where tens of millions continue to suffer from these wars, but they have a very real effect here on the United States. Again, there is literally no investigation by the US Government, no investigation by major American media on, well, okay.

I mean, again, is it just a coincidence that poppy production has soared in Afghanistan at the same time that US opiate crisis has begun? You get shouted down as youre a complete conspiracy theorist, but I think any rational person, would say particularly knowing, as we brought up, the history of the U S governments relationship with drug lords all throughout Asia, through the Mediterranean, after World War II et cetera, that this is not conspiracy. This is actually, there is real history to this, and certainly we could talk for hours about all the different things I understood when I was over there about the drug trade, how the Afghan Air Force that we were giving these planes and helicopters to, use those planes and helicopters to move drugs out of the country. How there is very real evidence that some of the American military members in Afghanistan who were killed by Afghan soldiers were killed because of issues involving drug trafficking.

I mean, theres all kinds of things that have just been shut away. And when you step back and look at Buttigieg running for president, it makes sense that you have a man who has this elusory military record, this is the basis of his running for office, where most of his experience seems to come from. That and being the mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana. You have to say, hey, look, we have a real problem in this country and its going to propel things to be worse if we dont put some type of brake on it.

Mark Steiner: Well Matt Hoh, its always great to talk to you. I appreciate your time, the work that you do, bringing this to the fore. Thank you so much for joining us here on The Real News.

Matthew Hoh: Thank you, Mark.

Mark Steiner: Oh, thank you. And if any of you were thinking here about Pete Buttigieg, please listen to this broadcast. Read the transcript, think about what were talking about here and what this is really all about. Im Mark Steiner here for the Real News Network, thank you all for joining us. Let us know what you think. Take care.

More here:
What Is the Real Story of Buttigieg's Service and Time in Afghanistan? - The Real News Network