By Brigitte L. Nacos
The post-9/11 military actions in Afghanistan by the U.S.-led coalition were characterized as highly successful by the
political class and observers in the media and elsewhere—even after it became clear
that the top echelon of Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership had managed to
escape into the mountainous region of Pakistan. Instead of concentrating
on these obvious targets of U.S. counterterrorist efforts—most of all bin
Laden, al-Zawahiri und other core members of Al Qaeda, the Bush administration
made Iraq the centerpiece of its war against terrorism. The lack of attention
to the real culprits of 9/11 allowed the Al Qaeda leadership to strengthen its grip on its global terrorism network and
to reestablish a number of training camps in Pakistan as Mark Mazetti and David
Rohde reported in the
New York Times. Considering that Taliban forces, too, have regained enough
strength to become a factor in southern Afghanistan,
one would be hard pressed to still consider Afghanistan a success story in the
war on terrorism. An editorial
in today’s Washington Post laments that the United States once again remains
passive while Al Qaeda operates and strives in a new safe haven. The editorial criticizes
President Musharraf’s deal with the Al Qaeda allied Taliban but fails to point
to the real roots of the problem: The Bush administration’s failure to finish
the counterterrorist mission against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first
place—a mission that was—unlike Iraq--widely perceived as a legitimate
response.
Afghanistan was early on perceived as a success and victory in the war against terrorism; now, supporters of the war in Iraq and the recently announced increase in troop strength tend to speak about the need to succeed and win in Iraq instead of accepting failure and defeat. But except for citing some broad democratic ideals and the necessity to defeat terrorists, nobody has clearly defined what success and victory for the United States mean in the case of Iraq. This ambiguity leaves decision-makers with lots of leeway to put a positive spin on whatever events and developments take place. This is precisely what happened after British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declared,
We're pleased that
conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the
Iraqis, President Bush sees this as a
sign of success and what is possible
for us once we help the Iraqis deal with sectarian violence.
Seen in the same light, wouldn’t this also mean that the addition of more than 20,000 U.S. troops is a sign of failure? But who would think of logic, when it comes to spin...
Comments