This Is News?

It was commonly agreed the two decades and trillions of dollars we spent in Afghanistan were mostly a failure. True, our presence drove the Taliban underground, but the fact they continued to exist confirmed how compromised this mission was.

Not that we're the first superpower to fail there. Afghanistan is credited with undermining what remained of the Soviet Union following their decade-long war in the nineteen-eighties. (Nope—it wasn't Ronald Reagan, Republicans. Sorry.)

Yes, Afghanistan is a toughie.

The announcement that we were withdrawing only brought a muted response. Amid the chaos and upheaval of 2021, it takes a lot to make page one.

More interesting is the response to the Taliban's re-emergence. Yes, bad news always trumps good. That's how we're wired. But is this re-emergence and the ineffectiveness of Afghanistan's security forces really a surprise?

Is this really news?

Remember what happened in Iraq when we, um, laid Saddam Hussein to rest in 2006? There were no contingency plans then, just as there are no contingency plans now.

Naturally, Republicans have suddenly grown a conscience and are decrying the humanitarian crisis unfolding under Taliban rule.

Not that I deny it or am in any way okay with it. The Taliban are Afghanistan's version of Republicans; a political entity happy to rule via fear. Like all psychopaths, they can rationalize any and all behavior. Were the world a good and just place, the Taliban would be in a bin suspended above an enormous meat grinder, and its adherents would be dropped in one by one. 

But the world is not a good and just place.

My regret is that we didn't prepare a plan of escape for the Afghani who assisted the American effort at great risk to themselves, and in our haste left valuable military infrastructure behind. Worse is leaving the entirety of Afghanistan's female population to the sadistic whims of the Taliban.

To those Republicans who suddenly find themselves in possession of a moral compass, I offer that the same has been going on in Nigeria for years under the Boko Haram. Where was your concern then? Oh, that's right. Nigerians are Black, and there was a Republican president in office.

(Whew. So hard to keep track of you and your shape-shifting concern!)

Beyond the poor planning, what of our military? We lavish billions and billions of dollars upon them, continually buying the newest and most cutting-edge toys and this is what we get? They couldn't oust insurgents with grade-school educations? 700 billion fucking dollars for a 0 – 0 tie? 

Whew. I'm going to need a moment to process this.

If I can presume the majority of the world is outraged by the Taliban, it will quite literally take the world to extinguish them.

If I can presume the majority of the world is outraged by Boko Harum, it will quite literally take the world to extinguish them.

Asking one nation (albeit an enormously wealthy one) to take this on single-handedly isn't going to work. It gives the sub-humans who constitute the Taliban and Boko Harum one big, giant, solitary target.

I mean, who doesn't love to hate the United States?

To too many, it gives them what I will call—for lack of a better word—street cred. But if a coalition of un-hated countries also played a part, it could assume the weight of moral legitimacy

Shame could be a thing again. Imagine.

A Mosque in Manhattan

For a country founded on religious tolerance, New Yorkers seem in critically-short supply as they protest the construction of a mosque in Manhattan, supposedly on the site of 9-11.

First off, the proposed construction is only “on the site" of 9-11 to a real estate agent; the actual location is more than two blocks away. This is hardly the nyah-nyah-style provocation New Yorkers and conservatives are framing it as.

Islam had as much to do with 9-11 as Christianity does the opposition to gay marriage.

Religion is a prop. Something to cloak yourself (or your issue) in. Middle-eastern terrorists co-opt Islam the way conservatives do patriotism, God, fiscal responsibility and national security.

We’ve seen this movie before. Now would be a good time to remember it.

Furthermore, if allowing construction of a mosque in Manhattan is the ultimate in ‘disrespect’ to the victims of 9-11, where does the continued freedom of Osama bin Laden rank?

Just wondering.

Profiling

Liberals are upset that proposed security measures for people boarding flights in the Middle East will subject them to ‘profiling’. In other words, these policies could victimize Middle Eastern populations by making them the objects of racism.

One-hundred percent of airplane-related terrorist acts have originated in the Middle East. Yet applying more-stringent security measures there and no where else is racist. Is that correct?

Presumably, the answer is to apply our boundless financial and physical resources equally throughout the globe, if only to avoid the appearance of profiling. Heighten our presence in al Qaeda hot spots like New Zealand, Mongolia and Switzerland.

Okay. Got it. And yes, I’d like fries with that.

If a woman has her purse ripped from her shoulder by a male of a certain appearance, is she sexist or racist if she holds her purse a little tighter when approached by individuals matching the description of the thief, or is she a sentient human being applying the knowledge of experience?

If a store clerk apprehends half-a-dozen people for shoplifting, is he biased if he watches people matching their description more-closely, or is he applying what he has learned through past events?

Terrorism and war are ugly. They are humanity at its worst. Life's sad constant. But to suggest we're racist in our pursuit of a threat that originates in a specific part of the world amongst a specific population is insane.

And in 1944, I suppose these same critics would have pursued Nazis in Bangladesh.

Please. Spare me.

There’s enough genuine racism in the world. We don't need to manufacture it.