In a move surprising nobody possessing a brain, Biden has both delayed and broken his promise to leave Afghanistan in the same month. One of the things he said during his campaign, a promise he made, was that he would be the president to end the war. But this is a political football. Many other presidents have made the same promise, and also broken it. That’s the reason the US is still there right now at all.

But why are US troops there in the first place? Did they attack us? No.

So how is the US, a country with an alleged constitution allegedly barring this kind of activity (apart from Congressional approval which has not been gained for acts of war which have not been called what they are), allowing this to happen?

Profit, power, and the enabling of globalist US hegemony – the usual.

To understand this properly, we have to go all the way back to the Carter administration, when Jimmy Carter authorized CIA activity in Afghanistan. Allegedly, this was to fight Russia, using Afghanistan as a base of operations. But what later was discovered was the existence of Operation Cyclone, whereby US money and training was going to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The US sent Zbigniew Brzezinski overseas to tell Afghani citizens that the land to the North was theirs, and that Allah was with them, cementing hostilities between the nations, so that when they wanted to, they could aim the mujahideen at Russia like a gun.

The problem is, these aren’t weapons. They’re people. And people aren’t always going to do what you tell them to. So the forces that the US trained would eventually result in a snowballing effect where they would become the forces now known as Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, and more. Hell, before the US got there, there hadn’t even been any suicide bombings. Suicide bombings became a favorite way to engage in jihad. For some reason. I wonder why.

Except you don’t need to wonder why, because the profit and power motives for having a persistent enemy to fight are obvious. For instance, part of the funding went to a camp in Khost, run by a CIA asset – one Colonel Tim Osman. In an article titled, “The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means”, Robin Cook – former Foreign Secretary in the UK – wrapped it up nicely.

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden’s organisation would turn its attention to the west.”

Tim was a founding member of Maktab Khadamāt al-Mujāhidīn al-‘Arab, or the “Afghan Services Bureau”, and to be clear, Russia is not some innocent flower. There were reports of torture and other war crimes, not the least of which was the already bloody conflicts that were occurring in the region, and with or without US funding and interference, the conflict would have happened. The question is, who would have been responsible, and what would the results have been? The Russian government is also corrupt, and I have no problem saying that there are no good guys here. It’s not as though the US was coming after anyone pure. The idea that many people have, which is that the US totally created anti-Russian sentiment in the region, and without them, the region would have been peace and roses, is false. Russia was an occupying force in the region, and a certain aggressor. Millions of Afghans were being killed and that’s inexcusable. At that point, were I in such a situation, I imagine I would reach out as well. Anyone willing to help would be a welcome ally. So the ASB became a funnel for training, armament, and more, as a response to Russian aggression. It gave bin Laden his first real experience in leading these people, which helped him lead Al-Qaeda in turn. So why was the US so eager to help?

Before 9/11 happened, on September 10, 2001, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said his department basically “lost” $2.3 trillion dollars. I don’t believe that for a second, and it seems like a handy excuse to hide a bunch of money to use for things like black budgets. But how would you hide the fact that you allegedly lost $2.3 trillion? Further, how would you make sure that nobody asks too many questions for fear of being associated with something?

Enter the September 11th attacks.

People pay most attention to the fact that the 2 large towers were knocked down. And there certainly is a lot to scrutinize there, not the least of which is eyewitness reports of explosions in the sub basement, before any explosions elsewhere. Or the fact that a ton of tests had already been run to see how you could easily knock down these sorts of structures, or the fact that World Trade Center 7 was knocked down without being hit by any planes. And hey, don’t pay any attention to the fact that a lot of the pillars looks like they had been affected by some sort of thermite, that the buildings fell in near-total freefall, or the fact that non-Arabs were arrested, or the planned attack on the George Washington bridge, or uh… yeah – there are a lot of questions.

But The Pentagon was also attacked. 38 people were in the section attacked and the Army Budget Office was destroyed. Funny how that works.

And if you thought THAT was a banger, get ready to guffaw. With exactly zero proof, the US government immediately blamed Osama Bin Laden: Tim Osman – their CIA asset, who they spent decades arming, training, and funding. See, for a while, the US government and Al Qaeda, under the leadership of Bin Laden, had been exchanging attacks. These attacks were regularly called retaliatory by both parties, and the US government had already spent a significant amount of time calling him a villain by his new name. So, the fact that this person who had already been drug through the mud would perpetrate something like this was not an alien concept to the already indoctrinated American people. Afghanistan had basically lost one occupying force and gained another. But the US government needed a reason to send in more, especially since they needed a windfall of profit, and what better way to soften the fact that your country is heading toward a centrally planned economic collapse then to engage in war?

They “found” passports in good enough condition, close enough to the impact site that they could identify elements of his network as the perpetrators of the attack. At least that’s what they want you to believe. This has led to a wide variety of jokes on the Internet, where the idea of fireproof passports has been memed significantly. But they had already spun their narrative, and they didn’t even need the passports to convince conservatives to froth at the mouth. They just needed it for a few other people. The narrative worked, and people had a big rally around the flag, and were suddenly United in vengeful thirst for a combat that most of them would never see. Armchair quarterbacking foreign policy is a great pastime of US citizens.

Scott Horton wrote a great book on this subject – Fool’s Errand – and when he wrote on Afghani grievances, he said they,

“… were the U.S. Army and Air Force combat forces stationed permanently at Saudi Arabian bases since the preparations for the first Iraq war in 1990, as well as their presence in other countries on the Arabian Peninsula…. The U.S. was using these military bases, bin Laden complained, to enforce the long-term sanctions policy against Iraq and the bombing of its “no-fly zones” throughout the 1990s. Bin Laden also routinely cited America’s unconditional support for Israel, which both occupied Jerusalem — considered to be the third holiest site in Islam — as well as the property of millions of Palestinians in the rest of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Additionally, he objected to Israel’s 1982 invasion and subsequent 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, as well as what he characterized as Israeli-centric plans to destabilize antagonistic states in the region, such as Iraq. Another part of al Qaeda’s public case justifying its war against America was U.S. support for corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East, which included Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen and Egypt. This support, bin Laden complained, came with the condition that these regimes keep oil prices artificially low and spend their profits on large purchases of American arms instead of using it for the benefit of the people.”

These seem like reasonable grievances don’t they? It’s easy to justify conflict if your enemies aren’t human, but if you start to think about the perspective of your alleged enemies, a lot of things become much clearer. Like how you can get people to destroy themselves in the name of destroying the enemy. The US for a long time has supported a long series of civilian casualties in its efforts around the globe, and this has not gone unnoticed. They’ve also supported mass human rights abuses while claiming to be champions of human rights. Basically, the US will engage in whatever hypocrisy is necessary to maintain their bottom line. Even if that means innocent people die. Bin Laden had seen the machine up close and was already opposed to it, but there was no actual evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks. There was, however, an incentive to not only profit and increase power, but silence a critic of the foreign policy resulting from US funding because the original reason the US went into Afghanistan was to stop a foreign power with whose evil they eventually competed.

40K dead civilians since 2001, and totally unnecessary.

The US eventually allegedly killed their CIA asset, but only after we had already got into Pakistan. They did it extrajudicially, in the middle of the night, not on the record, and then they chucked his body in the ocean. I don’t believe that happened for a second, but I’m one of these paranoid conspiracy theorists, so I wouldn’t anyway. The idea, however, of the US maintaining troop presence in Afghanistan nearly a decade after that, is relatively absurd. This is why Afghanistan has been a political football for the previous three presidential campaigns.

Obama promised to pull out, and he lied. Trump promised to pull out, and he lied. Biden promised to pull out, and he lied. Recognize a pattern yet?

The fact is, Afghanistan is still a hugely valuable resource. it gives the US government a foothold in the region, it allows them to monitor trade, it gives them access to natural resources, it gives them power and play in foreign policy discussions, it maintains a troop presence close to Russia (a thing the US government has wanted forever), and it allows the US government to constantly send military dollars over there, to maintain one of the biggest sectors of spending every year, a sector they falsely label defense.

Afghanistan never attacked the US. There was never a formal declaration of war and never any congressional approval. But that doesn’t matter to the Hawks. What matters is that they have a new and profitable war to fight. Scott Horton’s book goes over a lot more than what I pasted. Those were just the motives of some of the people to organize in their home country. There’s no evidence they ever attacked the West, but that doesn’t stop the narrative. The book also goes over the fact that the US government was involved in a significant amount of war in the Middle East which generally field the sentiment that the US was there to damage their world, and not just any given country, and were set of militants. It also goes over the fact that this war has been designed to basically never end, and to be what’s now colloquially referred to as a “forever war”.

The book also goes over the fact that the US has grown increasingly unfavored over there, as it destroyed a significant amount of infrastructure in many countries, and resulted in a significant amount of civilian casualties, not the least of which are children. Basically, for decades, the US has been meddling in the Middle East, and a lot of people have died because of it. I highly recommend reading that book, and I plan to read Scott’s new book relatively quickly. Consider it supplemental information to this article, because I’ve read this one multiple times, and it’s a gold mine of information.

But ultimately, the message is clear. The US basically engineers excuses for them to remain in a country conducting military actions against our constitution. And no, no president is going to end this war, at least not one that works for the duopoly. And the fact is, until the region is bled dry of its natural resources, it’s unlikely that there’s any end in sight. The US has their hooks in the place and it’s unpopular to bring up withdrawal. And even though Biden is promising to pull out of Afghanistan, the fact is that the promise includes leaving a bunch of private contractors to do the jobs that the soldiers were once doing. And it also involves leaving about 2500 troops there is well.

He never planned to leave. It was always a ruse to get the antiwar people to vote for him, the Iraq warhawk; rather than somebody who might actually have some principles, people gambled on Biden, and they lost. Same with Trump. Same with Obama. Biden not only lied, but he’s making it WORSE, and revoking accountability by hiring people who do a lot more off the books.

The answer is to stop supporting politicians. They’re not on your side, and they’re not going to do what you want them to. If that statement “isn’t true”, it’s because you’re already servile enough that their agenda to maintain the status quo and regimented, boilerplate mentalities already works for you, with no effort necessary. But the US is never gonna be isolationist, and it’s never going to adopt Ron Paul’s Golden Rule of foreign policy which he got booed for at a conservative “Debate™”. And let me take a moment to say that it’s pretty hilarious how hypocritical the conservative Christian right is that they boo a man for essentially quoting the Bible.

But I digress. My point is, the state is a gang, and they’re all about their protection pay, their blood money, their turf, and their contacts. They’re not gonna give all this stuff up easy, especially since it’s still making them fat stacks. So don’t expect presidents to break the mold and pull out, especially if you also don’t expect them to go somewhere else with the troops. They’re not gonna start mass military layoffs, and they’re not going to draw down any sort of conflict. They’re going to keep bombing and mass shooting the planet until the new guard of Hawks takes their place and follows suit.

By “forever war”, it really means that.

So next time a politician tells you that they’re going to help with the extraction of troops or the drawdown of this war, call them a liar immediately. If they give you static about that, feel free to bring up the fact that the war was started with no evidence, so you can assume that it won’t ever end without any either – even though most, if not all, of the evidence is on your side. The only true way to be anti war is to be anarchist and oppose the system entirely. Politicians will always be puppets.

“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War, a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.”

– Gen. Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket