The end of the American engagement in Afghanistan produced a moment of stocktaking for the nation. Everything about this war will inevitably be reviewed by commentators. Its origins in the attacks of September 11, 2001 are already at the center of all attention. So is its crucial role as a prelude to the real war in Iraq. There are other important considerations, such as the evolution that led to the replacement of the previous generation’s carpet bombing strategies with drone warfare or the much more complex question of how the tragedy of war serves people. interests of the military-industrial complex.

The economic war that is truly eternal

READ MORE

Then there is the torture. The Bush administration preferred to call it “enhanced interrogation” and saw it as essential to the success of all their missions abroad. Last week, Tyler Weyant, deputy director of operations at Politico, sought the advice of retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus on the subject of “what went wrong after the September 11th “. Weyant specifically raised the question enhanced interrogation. The general responded with this simple statement: “It has done a lot of damage to our reputation. “

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary Definition:

Reputation:

The entirely superficial feeling of having a good reputation in society closely tied to achievement, which in modern times has permanently replaced the neglected notions of honor and moral quality that ancient civilizations used to judge the integrity of a person

Contextual note

Reputation was not the only victim of the practice of torture by the US military. Petraeus added that diplomatically, “it has damaged our relations with countries where we have black sites.” This is a side effect that the media rarely mentions in their reporting on the practice of torture by the US military. Petraeus seems to claim that black sites are not problematic on their own or would not be if they remained black, which means hidden in plain sight.

Black sites only become problematic when the media gets wind of them, as happened in 2004 when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal erupted. What Petraeus finds regrettable is the effect on allies that the United States has asked to host such sites. After all, these nations too have reputations to uphold. Associating with sadistic foreign criminals may not perform well among their own people. Their complicity in hosting American sites dedicated to torture is quite simply damaging to their public relations. This in turn becomes detrimental to the interests of the United States itself, as it could in the future dampen the appetites of those governments to cooperate with Washington on other illegal operations. At least Guantanamo is in a country the United States doesn’t care about and refuses to cooperate with.

This line of reasoning demonstrates another characteristic of political morality today. In the past, political entities, whether ruled by kings or princes, used torture not only to extract information, but also and perhaps primarily to intimidate and instill fear. Machiavelli identified this goal as a basic need of any successful leader. It is more important that the use of torture be known than hidden.

The times have changed. Reputations are now created and nurtured exclusively through the media. The fear and apprehension that governments can create today stem from the expensive, visibly awe-inspiring and instrumentally oppressive technology they use to establish and enforce control over their own people as well as instill fear in their potential enemies. The technology includes weapons used by the military and police, but also increasingly powerful and ubiquitous surveillance technology.

In other words, torture as an official means of instilling fear has become obsolete and is even considered shameful. She developed a public image identified with the barbarism and bad practices of primitive societies. If a government now resorts to torture, its interest is to avoid bringing it to the attention of the media.

The official moral status of institutions and public figures, as well as the range of values ​​that contribute to the moral status of an individual or an institution, no longer derive from the values ​​promulgated by recognized moral authorities, whether religious or philosophical. Only the media have the power to determine whether their audience approves or disapproves of certain types of actions.

Historical Note

With the advent of the Global War on Terrorism, the Bush administration coined the term enhanced interrogation simply to distract the public from its perception of torture. The fact that the war was no longer waged against an army but against the abstract notion of “terror” meant that it would not be the tortured who would suffer but the terror itself.

The film “Dark zero thirty», Published in late 2012, less than a year after the assassination by the Navy SEALs of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, illustrates Hollywood’s usual collaboration with the CIA and the Pentagon. With the same seriousness as many other media productions designed to influence the public’s perception of the need to resort to aggressive tactics in the interest of suffocating terrorists, the film specifically sought to make reinforced interrogations appear useful and productive. , and therefore morally acceptable.

In 2016, Ardoise reported that David Petraeus, who had resigned from the CIA just a month before the film’s release, was at the time opposed to torture and could have talked about the film. “When the film Zero Dark Thirty was released in December 2012, some friends of Petraeus encouraged him to speak out against his claim that information gleaned under torture led to the tracing of Osama bin Laden, a thesis he knew to be false. At the time, however, Petraeus was embroiled in the scandal surrounding an adultery case with his biographer that prompted his resignation. He does not say anything. Film critics praised the film. Torture has maintained its positive reputation.

On the Bush administration’s judgment of the Democrats on the practice of torture, Adam Serwer writing for The Atlantic in 2018 noted that Barack Obama summed up his position on torture before taking office, saying “we need to look ahead rather than look back.” Throughout his eight years in the White House, Obama maintained a policy of refusing to hold anyone responsible for torture. Reinforced interrogations were no longer encouraged or celebrated, as was the case by the Bush team. She was tolerated and even secretly admired.

With Donald Trump in the White House, the wind began to turn against the practice of torture, even in Hollywood. Democrats realized that if this was left in the toolbox of someone as obnoxious as Trump, there was cause for concern. In 2018, Fox News recalled former George W. Bush Vice President Dick Cheney to explain that there was no raison to worry. “I think the techniques we used were not torture,” Cheney said. “A lot of people try to call it that, but it wasn’t considered torture back then. People want to go back and try to rewrite history, but if that was my call I would do it again. “

No longer mired in scandal and with Trump out of sight, Petraeus can now speak openly about the detrimental effect of torture on the country’s public relations. “The use of improved interrogation techniques in other places then found its place, in a way, in Abu Ghraib,” he noted. It was indeed a shocking moment when the audience got to see what an enhanced interrogation really looked like. Without the survey report of Seymour Hersh, Abu Ghraib would have remained a secret. But even after this monumental scandal, the practices continued and could be justified years later by Hollywood.

One wonders what Petraeus meant by “in a certain way” when he mentioned that torture techniques “found their way into, in a way, Abu Ghraib”. The very idea that torture finds its way, as if it were some kind of sentient being, should surprise the reader. But “in a way” sounds like he thinks it would have been better if Hersh’s reporting had never happened.

Petraeus added another observation, noting that the US military “relied too much on drones in the effort in western Pakistan from 2009 to 2011”, in some cases creating more enemies than drones have. eliminated. Again, it is not the lives lost or damaged that deserve his concern, but the fact that such acts can create new enemies.

Whether it’s an individual or an institution, managing your reputation has never been easy. This is something that CIA generals and directors fully understand.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Fair Observer.

DESPITE EVERYTHING that has transpired in the lives of those of us who watched the horrific events unfold in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, the two decades that have passed since have passed in a blur. What reminds me the most is that I now teach university students who were not born on September 11th.

One of the striking things as an American, when I thought back to that Tuesday a long time ago, was that I was then a very recent arrival in Ireland and on the NUI Galway campus.

I was totally concerned about learning the ropes in a new job and in a new country, albeit familiar, when a colleague told me that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I immediately assumed that it must have been a small plane that had strayed and sought to continue my work.

In the minutes that followed, however, it became apparent that immensely more vile events were taking place and I retreated to the bed and breakfast where I was staying temporarily where I tried to absorb the unfathomable. The common theme in the media coverage, following an unprecedented attack on American soil, was that “it changes everything”.

Everything has been changed

And the commentators were right. As a personal anecdote, I felt the magnitude of the impact of 9/11 on my first trip back to Boston a few months later. I was invited to my old law firm’s Christmas party, which was held in a restaurant on the top floor of a downtown skyscraper. I entered and left these buildings regularly both as a law student and during my brief stint in the practice of law.

As such, I strolled through the great hall dressed in a suit and, after casually nodding my head to the person behind the reception, I made my way to the elevator. I then heard a loud voice – “HEY, YOU, STOP!” I didn’t think he could have spoken to me and waited without turning around for the elevator to arrive. Two tall men then emerged from a side room and questioned what I was doing.

After September 11, the oft-ignored rule that guests must log in was strictly enforced. In addition, an ID was required. I explained that I had been abroad and was not aware of the strict entry rules. Reluctantly and a little in disbelief, both men let me continue after complying. Still rather shaken, I remember thinking as the elevator went up, “Wow, this is really different.” “

Looking more broadly at the developments in the intervening period requires revisiting a temporarily stunned New York first. On September 14, 2001, while standing in the middle of the wreckage, he put his arm around a firefighter and was surrounded by a crowd of first responders chanting “USA!” On several occasions, President George W Bush has exclaimed with enthusiastic applause: “I hear you. And the people who knocked down those buildings will hear from us soon!

Start an unholy war

Americans, in my opinion, longed for revenge on the criminals who murdered thousands of their fellow citizens. Yet although the United States quickly determined that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network were behind the hijacking of the airliners that flew into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, President Bush ruled on September 20 that the mission would be more important – that there would be a “global war on terror” being waged.

This ill-defined and therefore unlimited war was much desired by the neo-conservative movement and the elements of the military-industrial complex. The first was driven by the idea defended by some right-wing intellectuals that America had a duty to be the world’s policeman and to export American-style democracy to all corners of the planet. Because, whether these distant women and men knew it or not, they wanted and really needed this type of governance which, despite its flaws, is the best there is.

And it is not overly flippant or conspiratorial to point out that the latter could count on huge profits in the future from the sale of excessively expensive weapons of war and the enormous resources that have been invested in the supply. increased internal security. The bottom line is that $ 8 trillion has been spent since September 11.

The United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Entry into Iraq was justified by the Bush administration on the grounds that Saddam Hussein’s regime had “weapons of mass destruction”. The purpose of the war in Afghanistan, which ended chaotically in Kabul last month, was to “get those who attacked us on September 11, 2001 and ensure that Al Qaeda cannot use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack again “in the words of President Joe Biden.

There were no such weapons in Iraq. Even the late Senator John McCain, a hawk, finally admitted it was a mistake. What if the war in Afghanistan had two goals and America wasn’t there to build a nation, why was the United States in situ 10 years after achieving its so-called goals? Lies abound in this environment – and the consequences of the “war on terror” have been devastating.

Two of them are particularly pronounced. The first is that any moral authority that the land of my birth retained at the dawn of this century has been wasted. The world was on America’s side on September 11; that support eroded rapidly and considerably.

A changed America

Second, the rise of isolationism in the United States. Americans have seen young soldiers return in body bags and with physical or emotional wounds that will never heal. They have seen thousands of deaths in the Middle East and tens of millions displaced as a result of interventions. They also know that former allies increasingly view what our civic religion teaches us as a “shining city on a hill” with skepticism and a threat to international stability.

The bottom-up philosophy, if you can call it that, is “we take our ball and go home”. America first, in other words. This sentiment – which spawned Donald Trump’s presidency and now leads President Biden to disappoint America’s oldest and dearest friends – can be traced in an admittedly crooked line to 9/11 and, in particular , with a largely regrettable course of action. which was undertaken in response to this.

The geopolitical legacy of that infamous date has proven to be complex, incongruous and deep. Indeed, everything has changed, totally, and not for the better. Putting this sad reality aside just for today, and despite the rather detached lens through which many Irish people see America in 2021, it is both important and heartwarming from my perspective to see the 11 September widely and solemnly recalled here.

Several times this week I have heard the voices of the survivors of the victims of a barbaric atrocity. It is incredibly moving to listen to them. Twenty years may have passed, but those who were lost on September 11 are clearly missed more than ever by those who loved them. May they continue to rest in peace and never be forgotten.

Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a law professor at NUI Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.fr.

Quiet shot of Boston International Airport and Logan. Then there was the sound of air traffic controllers, who released American Airlines Flight 11 for take off. Vote from 11/09/2001.

The first episode rightly claims that before the turn of September 11, 1979:

The first turning point that put the world on this path was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After a long, frigid opening that includes attacks on both World Trade Center towers, with gruesome footage of US Flight 11 and United Flight 175 crashing into their respective towers, we return to this Soviet invasion.

You can also read Cartel Review: Gang war saga which is captivating with amazing shows

Speaking to a mix of experts and people involved in the fighting at the time, from Mujahedin leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to Milton Bearden, a CIA agent in the country, Knapenberger described how the United States assisted the rebels to fight against the Soviets. But soon after leaving the Soviets in 1989, a power vacuum arose, tribal power returned, leaving room for Osama bin Laden to join the Arab push to fight the country’s next civil war. It also leaves room for one of the warring religious groups, the Taliban, to consolidate power.

There is also a discussion of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993:

It is led by humanitarians on what happened to al-Qaeda, then on the first attack perpetrated by bin Laden and al-Qaeda: the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya. And Tanzania after the USS Cole bombing. However, the plot failed at the last second, making them look like rehearsals.

While we’re not looking for other cutscenes like Nat Geo, we’re a bit embarrassed by how Turning Point handles attacks. As the narrator and interviewees say it is one of the most important days in US history. The music and tone of the opening segment make it sound more like a real crime drama. About Investigation Discovery that great behavior on September 11th.

It is too early to treat September 11 as if it were just another historic event.

We have to talk about the war on terrorism. It dominated our foreign policy at least until the mid-2010s. But you feel the turning point is half the story if you go through today with a few details. But ignore what scares those who see it or people like us who just got rich from three countries.

And so far, at least, no information on how we funded the Mujahedin in the 1980s and how it affected us. While bin Laden and the Taliban have expanded their respective spheres of influence, this is nothing new. Numerous reports, analyzes and documentaries, even in the years immediately following September 11, provide the same information. Putting everything in a collective context makes sense. But we wonder if this holds true for people whose heads have been under a rock for the past two decades.

You can also read the review of “Modern Love Season 2”: a very useful mixed bag of the best type for not trying to defeat its predecessor.

We return to the Pentagon, where American 11 will fall. A woman was talking about getting up for a presentation, to make a presentation, and all of a sudden it got dark. While recording 9/11 from New York, there were some botched errors, such as providing footage and audio to Fox 4 News. If they’re going with Fox Station in New York, it’s Fox 5.

Suppose you are interested in documentaries on 9/11 or documentaries on the war on terror. In this case, there is nothing better than The Turning Point: 9/11 and The War on Terror. Who go in depth and achieve very little.

On August 15, the world was shocked when the Taliban launched a final assault by seizing Kabul to complete their takeover of Afghanistan. But how the Taliban managed to take over all of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks begs the question of whether this was orchestrated. The Taliban continued unabated and Afghan forces surrendered to them without a fight. President Joe Biden says coalition forces raised an Afghan army of 300,000, but they were not seen and the Taliban encountered no resistance. Despite their large private militia, the warlords allowed the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was forced to flee just hours before the Taliban took control of Kabul. This happened after foreign forces announced their withdrawal in response to a deal reached between the United States and the Taliban.

From the start of the debate on the bad Taliban and the good Taliban until the recent Doha talks, pundits and the strategic community projected that the Taliban was on the verge of taking control of Afghanistan. It had been in the process for years. The Taliban have proven to be smarter, faster, and more powerful than the US-led international coalition, and the US has lost interest in pursuing an asymmetric warfare that has claimed lives and cost the US economy ever since. that the United States declared war on terrorism in the country in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

At its first press conference held on August 17, since the takeover of Afghanistan, the Taliban leadership announced that it had liberated the country from foreigners after 20 years of struggle. In addition, the Taliban announced a general amnesty and a call for women to join the government. So far, there has been no bloodshed and the Taliban have not hampered those fleeing the country, despite lingering concerns about the safety of those fleeing the country. The Taliban present themselves as a more moderate and attenuated group.

Since the 1990s, the Taliban’s strategy has evolved considerably, both militarily and non-militarily. The Taliban emerged as an ideological foundation made up of loosely linked and loosely organized local groups. The organizational structure, strength and strategy of the Taliban, on the other hand, show that the group is not only a tenacious enemy but also a strategic actor with coherent action. The Taliban were deeply opposed to the Afghan tribal system and focused on rebuilding the Islamic Emirate, and their commanders enjoyed local autonomy, allowing them to be both flexible and cohesive.

The Taliban have succeeded in exploiting the situation in Afghanistan. Ethnic tensions, the lack of local administration and the rejection of foreign forces have all been used by the Taliban to make inroads among the Afghan people. The Taliban managed to build narratives against more than ten thousand foreigners who led different and exclusive lifestyles with no regard for the local language and culture. In addition, the Taliban have used the murder of innocent civilians by the forces, as well as the corruption, irregularity and lack of integrity of international aid, to create rhetoric that instils resentment against foreigners and influence the local people by their side. The Taliban started in rural areas, which they easily conquered, then moved to cities, assassinating key figures and threatening Afghan forces to surrender to save themselves and their families.

The Taliban first achieved their objective in the south and east of the country, taking refuge in Pakistan, opening new fronts in the north, marginalizing the local Afghan administration and establishing their regime on the basis of Islamic laws and isolating US-led coalition forces. When the Taliban leadership realized that the international coalition would be forced to accept the realities on the ground, they accelerated their march towards Kabul. The United States did not assess the situation on the ground. Contrary to the US defense prediction that the Afghan capital could fall within three months, Kabul fell to the Taliban in less than 10 days. The Taliban retained control of the strategic initiative, foiling the strategy of the international coalition, which lacked clarity. Over the past three months, the Taliban have ramped up their preparation with weapons and logistics, and led a coordinated assault to gain full control of Afghanistan, forcing the United States to withdraw earlier than expected.

The war on terror had a limit for American forces, which could not resist an effective and organized Taliban in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. It was an asymmetric warfare in which small groups of the Taliban also used guerrilla warfare and were able to fire and maneuver to maintain the tactical offensive against much more powerful US-led coalition forces. The US dependence on Pakistan in the war on terror was also a mistake, as Islamabad exploited US military aid for strategic purposes and sheltered terrorists, including Al Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden. After more than two decades of war, more than 6,000 American lives have been lost, more than 100,000 Afghans have been killed and it has cost the United States Treasury more than $ 2,000 billion, the determination of the United States to continue the fighting eventually weakened. Additionally, over the past decade, the United States has shifted its resources and focus to the Indo-Pacific region, where the intense play of the great powers requires the United States to focus more than any other region. because they face a difficult challenge from China to control the region.

The Taliban’s most recent avatar is more sophisticated and relatively peaceful. Its leaders are in talks with all the major powers involved in the region to seek legitimacy. Although the Taliban have promised peace and non-violence, as well as an inclusive government that respects women, the press and citizens within the framework of Islamic law and the national interest, this may not last. The Taliban are linked to Islamic groups full of cadres with extremist convictions who would be emboldened by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Concerns will remain about the Taliban’s ability to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism that could pose a threat to the internal security of the United States, its allies and democratic nations. Not to mention the current geopolitics, which could involve all the major powers in the region, including India, China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan, because the stakes are too high. Afghanistan’s mess is not over, it has only just begun.

END OF ARTICLE