A Nation in Despair

Who are we and what have we become? We are entrenched in two wars: one for "security" and the other for "freedom." But what are we actually doing? Why are we in Iraq? Why are we in Afganistan? How are we spending money on these impeding conquests? These are all good questions, and some people think they have the answers.


Let's first start with Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? The "mission" was to kick out Saddam Hussein and "secure" the country from insurgents, assholes who are continuously trying to pry into the country. Sound familiar? It should. How did we get this power to go into other countries with very little evidence and backdrop? Well, it could go back to the Roosevelt Corrolary and the "carry a big stick" policy. Controversial, yes. But, lets just play along. Suppose if this was a good objective. What's next?

So, in 2003, we capture the dictator, Saddam himself, and execute him. Okay, so the target is down? Not so fast. Remember the "insurgents" that are trying to take over the country? No, not the first-world ones, the other ones. The poorer ones. Yeah, so they obviously need to be taken out. So, Bush II decides to keep the soldiers there. You know, to secure the area. (Roll eyes.)

Musharaf shaking hands with Bush

This is all bullshit, and the best way to see it is by looking at Colin Powell and his resignation. Colin Powell was the most popular member of the Bush administration. He is the returned from the First Gulf War as a legend. But, here's the truth: he supported the Second Gulf War. He wanted the United States to defeat Saddam Hussein, but he didn't want us to TAKE OVER the whole country. He felt the United States, the country he was fighting for, was crossing its limits. So, he left office. But, again, Colin Powell wasn't just another appointed official in Washington...he was one of the best we have seen in decades, maybe centuries. Man, this must've been bad, right?

Hamid Karzai

But, no, Powell was a "Rockefeller Republican" - a Liberal Republican-- he is not the best example. So if you disagree with this opinions, consider this. Iraq and Afghanistan are very similar- in terms of a lousy government, sharia law and martial rule- to Pakistan, who has had a dictator for over 20 years.  This man, Parvez Musharaf, was not sanctioned by the United States, but was rather supported by it. In fact, when Musharaf was still in power, as he recently resigned, Bush funneled over $15 billion (Newsweek) to Pakistan. Even recently, Obama approved a $7.5 billion "loan". What is all this money all about? So, the first $15 billion dollars was sent over after 9/11 to "take care" of the Taliban. But, why is it still there? Corruption. But, putting that aside, why doesn't the United States take similar action in Afghanistan or Iraq? Oh, yeah...because of the gas.

Wait, there's gas in Afghanistan? No, obviously there isn't. So, why are we still there? Afghanistan has a government, arguably a better one than Pakistan. It, along with Iraq, has democratically elected officials, who are far more experienced and less corrupt than those in Pakistan. Don't believe it? Okay, well, lets take a look. So the men in question are Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan), Nouri al-Maliki (Iraq) and Yousaf Raza Gillani (Pakistan). Karzai, who ran for President in 2004, won with an overwhelming majority in the popular electoral system. As far as his experience is considered: Karzai was a fighter against the Taliban after they requested him to serve alongside the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). He declined, accusing the agency of having no respect for the Afghani people. In his own words, against the Taliban, their foreign allies (such as Pakistan) and their Arab influences, "They have killed Afghans, they have trained their guns on Afghan lives...we want them out."

Nouri al-Maliki

Al-Maliki was a rebel against the Hussein administration and was nominated by his party to the Prime Minister post after it won the general elections in 2006. And then there's Gillani. Yeah, okay, so he was "elected" fairly by the Parliamentary system Pakistan follows, but his integrity is questionable. On the 11th of February in 2001, the then Assemblyman from Multan was arrested by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), whose job is investigate Political corruption and enforce anti-corruption legislation. But, its more than just integrity that mars Pakistan. After Musharaf allegedly assassinated the beloved former Prime Minister Banazir Bhutto, the nation fell in love with her family. So much so as to so-called "elect" her husband to the Presidency. Here's where things get really sketchy. Apparently, Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's husband, is to be replaced by their son once he finishes his education in Oxford. Is this not nepotism? Let me answer that for you: yes, yes it is nepotism. Probably the best example of such political blasphemy in our "modern" world.    

Yousuf Raza Gillani

So, why are we wiring cash to Pakistan instead of sending troops? Because here's the thing. The United States is not paying Pakistan to fight anyone. No. Uncle Sam is paying Pakistan so it could enter the country and "fight" without the Pakistanis screaming "Bloody Murder" to the UN. I mean really...it makes too much sense. The Iraqi army was able to fend off the victims of the recent Church bombings. Afghani troops are about as numerous as the United States's (354K Afghanis, 402K Americans). So, what makes the Pakistanis better? Their inability to fend of terrorist such as the attacks in Islamabad or their inability to help the victims of floods. Of course, the latter is a questionable con; after all, some first-world countries are better at serving in foreign relief  than domestic missions.          

Bottomline: there needs to be more done in Pakistan, at least more than just wasting billions of dollars. Remember, these are the guys who are housing the Taliban and other terrorist groups.