By Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the U.S. Empire’s big arguments for
continuing to occupy Afghanistan is the fear that the
Taliban might regain control over the country. The
idea is that the Taliban might harbor al Qaeda or
other terrorist groups who would use the country to
plan terrorist attacks in the United States.
Is that a valid argument for continuing a brutal
10-year occupation of the country, one that continues
killing and maiming people?
Absolutely not.
For one thing, there are plenty of regimes around
the world that are antagonistic toward the U.S.
Empire. Consider: Cuba. North Korea. Venezuela. Burma.
Syria. Iran.
What difference does it make that such regimes
don’t like the Empire? Are any of them invading and
occupying the United States? Sure, the citizens living
under such countries are living under brutal
tyrannical regimes but that is obviously something
completely different from such regimes’ invading and
occupying the United States.
Is the fact that a foreign regime is antagonistic
toward the U.S. Empire sufficient justification for
the Empire to invade that country, oust the regime,
and install a new, pro-U.S. regime?
Absolutely not. That makes the U.S. Empire the
aggressor power in the conflict — the power waging
what the Nuremberg Tribunal called a “war of
aggression, ” a war crime.
But, it is said, the Taliban participated in the
9/11 attacks by harboring Osama bin Laden and the al
Qaeda terrorists.
Actually, the Taliban did not participate in the
9/11 attacks. If the U.S. Empire had even one iota of
evidence supporting that thesis, does anyone honestly
believe that President George H.W. Bush would have
gone to the United Nations to seek permission to
invade Afghanistan? Of course not. When another
nation-state attacks the United States, like Japan did
in 1941, you can rest assured that the United States
is going to defend itself without seeking permission
of the United Nations.
Don’t forget, also, that the U.S. government
furnished millions of dollars in foreign aid to
Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks.
So, what is the Empire’s complain about the
Taliban? No, not that it was and would be a tyrannical
regime. After all, don’t forget that the U.S. Empire
loves tyrannical regimes, so long as they are loyal to
the Empire. Consider: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Iran (under the Shah), Iraq (under Saddam Hussein in
the 1980s), Bahrain, Yemen, Chile (under Pinochet),
Argentina (under military rule), and Pakistan (under
Musharraf), to name a few.
The Empire’s beef with the Taliban is that it
refused to comply with President Bush’s unconditional
surrender demand for Osama bin Laden. Even though
there was no extradition treaty with Afghanistan, Bush
demanded bin Laden’s extradition anyway … or else. The
Taliban was willing to deliver bin Laden to an
independent tribunal upon the presentation of evidence
indicating bin Laden’s participation in the 9/11
attacks.
But Bush made it clear that his demand was
unconditional. He refused to show any evidence showing
bin Laden’s complicity in the attacks and refused to
permit bin Laden to be tried by an independent
tribunal.
That’s why Bush’s forces invaded Afghanistan.
Yet, today, bin Laden is dead. Thus, there is
obviously no possibility that the Taliban, if it
regains power, could continue to refuse to extradite
bin Laden to the United States for trial.
Don’t forget also that the root of anti-American
terrorism is the U.s. Empire’s presence in the Middle
East. End the presence, and the terrorist threat
dissipates, as does the harboring rationale.
Is there a possibility that the Taliban could
conspire with terrorists to attack the United States.
Of course, just as there is the possibility that the
regimes in Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Burma, and
others, even China and Vietnam, could do the same
thing.
But such a possibility does not warrant the
continuation of the 10-year occupation of Afghanistan,
an occupation that produces more anger and hatred with
each new bombing and killing, all in support of a
brutal U.S.-supported dictator who owes his power to
U.S. military forces and fraudulent “elections.“
Is the possibility that suspected terrorists could
live in Afghanistan if the Taliban were to regain
power a sufficient reason to continue the occupation?
Consider the fact that a man named Luis Posada
Carriles lives here in the United States. He’s the man
that Venezuela accuses of masterminding the terrorist
bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner over Venezuelan
skies, killing dozens of innocent people. Even though
there is an extradition agreement between the United
States and Venezuela, the U.S. government continues to
refuse to grant Venezuela’s extradition demand.
Does the U.S. government’s harboring of Carriles
justify a military attack on the United States? Of
course not. I think most Americans would say that if
Venezuela started bombing sites where Carriles was
supposedly located, they would consider Venezuela to
have started a war of aggression against the United
States.
It is obviously in the interests of the U.S.
Empire, especially the Pentagon, CIA, and the
military-industrial complex, to fill Americans with
fear and dread. When the citizenry are afraid, they
think less rationally and are more inclined to go
along with the warfare-state’s lies and deceptions to
maintain their grip on power and taxpayer money.
No nation on earth has even the remotest military
capability or even the interest to invade and occupy
the United States. The terrorist threat against the
United States is rooted in what the U.S. Empire is
doing overseas, including its decade-old deadly
occupation of Afghanistan. The Empire is bankrupting
our nation with spending and debt.
This would be an opportune time to bring all the
troops home and discharge them, close all the foreign
military bases, and terminate all foreign aid to
everyone. This would be a great time to dismantle the
Empire and restore a limited-government republic to
our land.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the
Future of Freedom Foundation.