Jay_Corvid (jay_corvid) wrote,

Bushs' Terrorist Factory

A report out today from the British Parliament warns that Afghanistan could, "implode with terrible consequences" unless more troops are sent to quell the mounting violence in that country. I have stipulated all along that the war on terror was best served by remaining in Afghanistan to finish what was begun, rather than by diverting our focus on what turned out to be a lame duck Iraq. We have not finished off Al Qaeda, have not captured the top two leaders, have not finished off the Taliban, nor captured their top leader.

During the run up to the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration warned that we would be in Iraq for as long as 15 years after the war to rebuild and ensure a stable government. That was in a country that had a single leader, and a military force that ruled the entire country. In Afghanistan, however, we pulled the vast majority of our troops out within six months of "victory", leaving the many local warlords with complete autonomy outside of the capital.

Further, the U.S. is not pouring reconstruction money into Afghanistan as it is in Iraq, which has lead to an explosion of the opium trade in that country. Opium is the single largest crop grown there, and is the only driving force behind their economy. The standing "government" dares not go after those in the drug trade because the reaction would lead to a near-immediate ouster of Kharzai, to be replaced by warlord-driven land grabs.

To quote the report, "There is a real danger if these resources are not provided soon that Afghanistan -- a fragile state in one of the most sensitive and volatile regions of the world -- could implode, with terrible consequences."

In his eagerness to move into Iraq, Bush abandoned Afghanistan and left it to the wolves. Iraq was far better off economically and had a much more advanced infrastructure than did Afghanistan, and yet the government's focus is entirely on rebuilding the oil-rich Iraq. Why did the Administration say that we must remain in Iraq for 10-15 years, but we pulled out of Afghanistan before the bodies were cold?

Within Iraq, less than a handful of the 52 most wanted Iraqi leaders are not in custody or dead 9 months after the start of the war, and the top three on the most wanted list are dead or writing poetry in a jail cell. None of those leaders played a dramatic role in making 9/11 possible.

Within the Afghan/Pakistani areas, the two top Al Qaeda leaders, as well as the leader of the government that supported them, are still on the loose and have been so for over 2 years since the Afghan war. All 3 played a dramatic role in making 9/11 possible.

And yet, Bush claims to be tough on terror. He is creating all of the circumstances required for terrorism to flourish in the very same country that produced the worst terrorists we have ever faced. Wide-spread poverty, economic instability, a rampant above ground drug trade capable of financing millions of dollars to terrorist organizations, and a weak, unpopular, and floundering government that is completely unable to defend itself or it's people. Without a government to protect them, nor economic opportunities to give them another option, Bush has created a breeding ground for terror, and has conveniently left in place several experienced terrorist leaders with an established agenda and a taste for blood.

And yet Bush has the stones to claim that someone else is soft on terror.

Jay Corvid
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded