Our National Cognitive Dissonance
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
– Bertrand
Russell
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on the Sunday gab circuit that rooting al-Qaeda out from Afghanistan is our only goal in that country. That’s interesting, considering that the "maximum estimate," according to National Security Adviser James Jones, says there are at most 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Since there are roughly 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, we already outnumber them 1,000 to one. Why does Gen. Stanley McChrystal insist we need more troops to avoid mission failure?
Our biggest problem is that we don’t really know what we’re doing there. On ABC’s This Week, Hillary said, “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
That’s in stark contrast to what Pentagon types have been putting out. In the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen wrote, "The most common questions that I get in Pakistan and Afghanistan are: ‘Will you really stay with us this time?’ ‘Can we really count on you?’ I tell them that we will and that they can."
In a recent appearance on al-Jazeera, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “[B]oth Afghanistan and Pakistan can count on us for the long term.”
The Pentagon has been trying to make Afghanistan the spine of its Long War, a concept that envisions 50 years of low-level armed conflict that will ensure the gravy caisson keeps rolling along. They probably don’t like Hillary saying we don’t have a long-term stake there.
McChrystal was supposedly fuming when Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who was once commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, sent cables to Washington saying that sending more troops there was "not a good idea."
One of McChrystal’s top advisers on Afghanistan, counterinsurgency "expert" David Kilcullen, says the counterterrorism mandate isn’t "at the top of my list" for reasons to be in Afghanistan. Kilcullen thinks it’s far more important to stay the course in Afghanistan to preserve NATO, the dinosaur alliance that hasn’t had a useful function since the Berlin Wall came tumbling down 20 years ago.
Secretary Clinton said, “I have made it clear that we’re not going to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a certification that if it goes into the Afghan government in any form, that we’re going to have ministries that we can hold accountable."
We’ll never be able to hold Afghan ministries accountable. We’re stuck with Hamid Karzai, who just stole two elections, and whose brother is a heroin dealer on the CIA payroll, and who has ties to the Taliban. Oh, yeah, Karzai’s going to clean up his act hubba hubba ’cause Hillary told him to. He’s said to be forming a "high-level anti-corruption unit" to investigate graft among his senior officials. One suspects this anti-corruption unit will consist of the same crooks he assigned to rig his elections.
Hillary told ABC, "This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all of these wonderful things."
Problem: that’s precisely what McChrystal proposes to do with his "classic counterinsurgency" plan, based on the Pentagon’s cockamamie COIN doctrine that amounts to giving birth to nations at gunpoint.
A recent report by the Army indicates that troop morale in Afghanistan is sagging. That shouldn’t surprise anybody. "They’re tired," says psychologist Barbara Van Dahlen. Who wouldn’t be? The Army has been at war for eight years and change, and there’s no end in sight.
There’s also a significant question, one straight out of World War II rhetoric: was this trip necessary? I sense that as the war timeline shifts right, more and more of our rank-and-filers in uniform sense that the sacrifices they’re making are for naught. Much of service for one’s country is Orwellian. It involves accepting the brainwash one is constantly fed, even though at heart one knows it’s untrue. A break comes at some point, though, and that’s why we’re seeing so many cases of PTSD and other mental problems with our war veterans.
Our woebegone wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become our national cognitive dissonance. By now, all but the rabid among us know that our military adventurism is a counterproductive waste of effort, that we create two or more terrorists for every one we kill or capture, that our military and its supporting civilian and political structure have far more control of our government than they should.
Can we change course? Not easily. Can President Barack Obama put us on a vector of enlightenment? We’ll see. I for one am full of doubts on that score.
Read more by Jeff Huber
- $80 Billion Down the Plumbing – November 1st, 2010
- Bull Feather Merchant Marines – October 25th, 2010
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Care – October 20th, 2010
- Long Warfare Theory – October 11th, 2010
- Uncle Bob Wants You – October 4th, 2010





Gorbachev to Obama: Get out! | America at War
November 18th, 2009 at 7:03 am
[...] more by Jeff Huber Our National Cognitive Dissonance – November 17th, 2009 Bad Apples – November 16th, 2009 Reading the Af-Pak Tea Leaves – [...]
RickR30
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Hillary's action and statements as of late are interesting. She's outBidening Biden, one day she'll say something cogent, the next she's insulting Pakistanis in their own home. But it interesting to hear here stray from the neo-con line.
Now, to solve the problem of corruption, can we please stop sending money by the cratefulls over there to be handed out to anyone and everyone with an rusty pistol. Is no one aware that we are the source of corruption?
@JeffryHuber
November 18th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Yes, we are the source of corruption.
Guest
November 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
When is Jeff Huber become aware that it is our money that "others" are accused of being corrupt with? How much decision does the Karzai government have over actually spending the money that comes from the occupying forces? The biggest contracts that Karzai government issues are for the supply of diesel fuel to feed the USAid electricity generating plant. This monster is inefficient, and its reconstruction cost many times what it should. Now, as an Indian company has brought electrical power lines from the neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the price of electricity should be lower and supply steady. Instead, USAid is insisting on getting the trucks come accross the dangerous roads all the way from Turkmenistan. Well, it is our contractor that does the work on this plant, and it is our govenment that can at any time stop it. And if this stops, there would be no more profits for Karazi friends and relatives in the lucrative oil transport. So, why then try to keep Afghanistan dependent on this plant? Who REALLY profits?
Steve_Hogan
November 18th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Vector of enlightenment? Obama has been in office for 10 months and hasn't done squat. Even when what he says makes sense, he doesn't follow up with action. Close Gitmo? That's on hold. Pull out of Iraq? Not so fast. Bush's deficits were reckless? Triple the record shortfall in his first year!
It seems that the only promises he doesn't intend to break are the ones he should: health care take over and the cap and trade nonsense.
Let's face it: Barack is a puppet. He's bought and paid for. The banksters and corporate giants are pulling the strings. Nothing is changing. This man and his hapless administration are a menace to society. And to think we've got 3 more years of this. Be afraid.
gary
November 18th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
when we go broke that is when we will realize that you cn't have a budget where "security" eats up half your income
paulBass
November 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
i just wonder if this kilcullen guy walks around with mcchrystall wearing a pith helmet and carrying a whip.
anti_republocrat
November 18th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
How refreshingly honest of Kilcullen! Yes, a major objective of the war in Afghanistan is to justify NATO so it can continue to sop up a few extra weapons produced by our MIC. As Olbermann said a long time ago, "The purpose of the war … is … to have a war…!"