Let me ask you something: What do you take away from a proposition that goes like this: “We lose more Americans in traffic accidents every day than have died engaging in this activity … or that one”?
Well, any sane person
answering this question will say that the proposition implies, it is kosher to
engage in one activity or another if it results in a smaller number of dead
Americans than “we” lose in traffic accidents every day. And so, you ask
yourself, “Is this a proper criterion by which to weigh the correctness of
engaging in activities known to result in dead Americans”?
A sane person would think to
himself: No; that’s not proper. In fact, this is nothing short of madness, and
anyone making a suggestion of this sort should be told to seek the help of a
mental health professional. Well then, maybe someone should talk to Gary
Anderson. It is that he spoke the unspeakable in an article he wrote under the
title: “Time for the U.S. to reconsider peace deal in Afghanistan,” published
on February 15, 2021 in The Washington Times.
Adhering to the Pax Americana
agenda of the neocons, which recommends the stationing of American troops
everywhere in the world, especially the Arab and Muslim countries, Gary
Anderson was so horrified by the thought that President Joe Biden might
withdraw the troops from Afghanistan, he found the argument he thought will
convince the President to keep the troops where they are. And so, Gary Anderson
wrote that because more Americans die in American traffic than die in the
Afghan war, it stands to his kind of reason that American troops should stay in
Afghanistan.
This is such an astounding
thing to say, it could be that Gary Anderson invoked the crazy argument because
another argument that's already in circulation, has gotten nowhere trying to
spread nonsense. And so, Anderson used the crazy argument anyway, but it too
fell flat. As you’ll see, it is a two-parts contention, and here is how goes
the first part of the argument that describes it:
“The US agreed to a peace deal
in Afghanistan with the understanding that the Taliban would break relations
with al Qaeda before we would withdraw the remainder of our troops. The Taliban
have not held up their part of the bargain, and we should halt all further
troop reductions until they fulfill their part of the agreement; it is as
simple as that”.
And here is how the second
part of the argument goes:
“We have built a working
democracy –– however imperfect –– in Afghanistan. That democracy is supported
by majority of citizens, most of them in major urban areas. The Taliban hate
this and will continue to try to gain control of the country”.
Now you can appreciate why the
argument that's in circulation fell flat. It is that, according to its content,
the Taliban have the final say on the withdrawal of the American troops. For
now, the Taliban choose not to break relations with al Qaeda or even pretend
to, so as to keep the Americans where they are because the status quo suits
their purpose.
But when the Taliban will feel
that the Americans have served their purpose, like do all useful idiots at some
point, those same Taliban will pretend to break relations with al Qaeda, will
see the Americans out of their country once and for all, and will rekindle the
relationship with their al Qaeda brethren. It is as simple as that, and yet it
escapes mentalities of the Gary Anderson caliber.
As if this were not enough,
Anderson ends his article on a truly bizarre note. Here is what he wrote:
“When we left South Vietnam
in1973, we did so with assurances from the North Vietnamese that they never
intended to keep. Today, there is no South Vietnam. We still have leverage to
curb the worst angels of the Taliban's nature. We owe that much to the
thousands who have died in the war”.
This is a massive triple
blunder with which to end an article, like I've never seen before:
First, the truth is that the
North Vietnamese never gave any kind of assurance to the Americans who were
kicked out of South Vietnam, not in an orderly fashion as suggested by
Anderson, but in the most humiliating manner you can imagine.
Second, Anderson laments that
today, there is no South Vietnam. This is correct, there isn't, and that's a
good thing. But look how much has been accomplished by a unified Vietnam. The
country has even become one of America's best friends, and in some ways ally.
To dislike an outcome such as that, is to reveal a disease of the spirit that
is absolutely sickening. And Gary Anderson has made a virtue displaying his.
Third, Anderson is repeating
the horrendous absurdity, brought into the American discourse by the neocons,
that the way to honor the soldiers who died in a war, is to send more soldiers
to die in the same war. And this too can only be the product of a diseased
mind.
The man needs help, and someone close to him should bring it to his attention.