Editorial
Politics
of the Absurd
Barack Obama resembles George Bush more and more with each passing day. Bush was notorious, when faced with a dilemma, for spouting absurdities. A word was even coined to describe them – “Bushisms”. While Obama is undoubtedly much more intelligent than Bush, this only results in his absurdities being slightly more sophisticated than those of Bush.
When he announced his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama resorted to a number of sophisticated Bushisms. The first was the claim that failure to win the war in Afghanistan would cause irreparable damage to U.S. and European national interests. This is patently absurd. If the future of the western world depends on conquering the people of Afghanistan, a small and poverty-stricken nation with no ability to do any significant harm outside its own borders, then the western world is far weaker than even the most optimistic Marxist may hope.
The notion that the U.S., Britain, Canada and a “holy alliance” of European countries can conquer Afghanistan is equally absurd. Many have tried, but none has ever succeeded. Alexander the Great, at the height of his power, was forced to concede that Afghanistan was impossible to rule. His losses there to continual revolts contributed significantly to stopping the expansion of the Macedonian empire and to its eventual decline and fall. The powerful Persian empire also never succeeded in conquering Afghanistan. Nor did the Mogul empire. The British, at the peak of their imperial power, invaded Afghanistan three times – 1839, 1878 and 1921 – and were humiliated and driven out each time. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and were defeated by 1989. They lost up to 50,000 soldiers and the defeat played a significant role in the collapse of the USSR. The U.S. and its allies have now been in Afghanistan for over eight years and are no closer to defeating the Afghan people than they were eight years ago. The experience of all invaders of Afghanistan has been the same – invading Afghanistan is easy, but leaving it alive is much more difficult. So, for Obama to think that sending 30,000 or even 100,000 more troops will bring victory is the height of self-delusion and absurdity.
One of the “goals” claimed by Obama in announcing the most recent troop surge was the destruction of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. After eight years of supposedly pursuing that goal, not only has the U.S. failed to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it’s policies have led to the establishment of Al Qaeda networks in Iraq, Indonesia and, apparently, in many countries of Europe. So, it is absurd to claim that the destruction of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan will eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Europe. In fact, it is far more likely to have the opposite effect, assuming it can even be accomplished.
Finally, there is the ultimate piece of absurdity in Obama’s announcement, his declaration of a 2011 timetable for the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. troops. On the one hand Obama claimed that the war must be won at all costs and on the other hand he declared that, win or lose, the troops would start coming home in 2011. He can’t have it both ways. Most observers have concluded that the promise of a troop withdrawal was simply a lie to appease the anti-war component of his supporters. But, that too is absurd. Those Democrats speaking against the war in Afghanistan who are not serious and are simply political opportunists do not need to be lied to in order to guarantee their support. Those who are serious in their opposition to the war are not likely to be taken in by transparent lies.
Obama’s resorting to absurdities to justify U.S. imperialist foreign policy demonstrates that the politics of absurdity is not a feature of low intelligence and incompetence. Rather, it is a by-product of the clash between the interests of the imperialists and the interests of the people. Obama could, instead, tell the truth to the American and world’s people – that the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism or security or democracy and everything to do with geopolitics and the desire of a declining empire to seize control of strategic energy resources. But then support for the war amongst the American people would drop from 45 percent to somewhere in the single digits, so Obama is forced, like Bush, to resort to lies and absurdities to justify the unjustifiable.