Katie LaWer and Chris Lee
“I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit,” President Biden said on August 31, 2021. This speech marked the end of the War in Afghanistan, for which American taxpayers footed a daily bill of $300 million over the past 20 years. Despite objectives to bring freedom and democracy to a struggling nation, the product of military presence was pitiful: Afghan forces fell to the Taliban instantaneously and efforts quickly shifted to ensuring that Americans and allies could escape the collapsing nation safely. Recognizing both the economic and human costs of intervention, we must examine the causes of the “Forever War” and how society can prevent further needless bloodshed.
The Forever War
The war in Afghanistan responded to the September 11 terrorist attacks, when Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked four commercial airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As a result of this tragedy, President George W. Bush vowed to “win the war against terrorism” and called for the Taliban regime to “deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of Al-Qaeda who hide on your land.”
After the almost-unanimous congressional decision to approve President Bush’s war declaration, the United States began to drop bombs on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001; 12 days later, the US army invaded with ground forces. For the next few months, American troops occupied Afghanistan in the pursuit of collapsing the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
In April 2002, American forces began to focus on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, after experiencing some victories in achieving the war agenda set forth by Bush. The President called for Afghanistan to be rebuilt as Europe was after World War II, leading Congress to appropriate over $38 billion in aid. During the next four years, significant progress was made, including the establishment of a reconstruction framework, constitution, and president.
Friction soon arose at the 2006 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit when 26 countries agreed that Afghan forces should begin to take increased control of the nation. “Our progress in Afghanistan is real but it is fragile,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. “At this time, many allies are unwilling to share the risks, commit the resources, and follow through on collective commitments to this mission and to each other. As a result, we risk allowing what has been achieved in Afghanistan to slip away.”
Opposing international opinion, the United States continued to send troops to Afghanistan, with 17,000 and 30,000 personnel deployed in February and December of 2009 respectively.
Osama Bin Laden’s assassination in May 2011 made the end of the War in Afghanistan seem within reach once again. The direct victory against a terrorist leader brought a sense of justice to victims of the September 11 attacks.
However, the cycle of promise leading to conflict continued. Even as political candidates across the ideological spectrum advocated for the end of the war, no realistic exit appeared feasible.
Finally, on April 14, 2021, President Joe Biden announced the definite end of the War in Afghanistan. Unlike his predecessors, Biden made it clear that the withdrawal was unconditional, and would not hinge on the reduction of attacks by the Taliban or the state of peace talks. He instead pointed to other ways the United States could help promote peace without having troops in the region.
The President supported his decision with the same objections he had made as Vice President: Osama Bin Laden had been assassinated and reasons for continued US presence were becoming increasingly unclear.
Ultimately, the United States spent over $2.3 trillion and lost 121,999 allied lives—the majority Afghan civilians and service members—over the 20-year intervention.
Military-Industrial Complex
The war never truly delivered on its promise to deliver freedom and democracy to Afghanistan. Despite declining public opinion of the “Forever War,” congressional representatives prioritized personal interests over those of the country.
Dwight Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex” in 1961, describing the symbiotic relationship between the United States military and government. This network of defense lobbyists and corporations works to increase political support for military spending, giving companies broad control over U.S. military endeavors and risking the initiation of wars to serve corporations’ greed.
According to a 2019 Sludge review, nearly a third of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense—in charge of drafting sections of the annual defense spending bill—own stocks in top defense contractors. California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Maine Senator Susan Collins—both members of the subcommittee—own $650,000 and $101,000 in defense corporations respectively.
The impacts of this conflict of interest are apparent. For instance, while many Congress members claimed that the United States should adopt fiscally conservative policy in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the same members advocated for the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act to increase military spending by $27.5 billion from the previous year.
Media Misinformation
The military-industrial complex further attempts to directly influence public opinion through media misrepresentation. Six corporations currently control 90% of the news viewership market, compared to 50 in 1983. These six companies have gained immense power to shape the narrative through their reporting and messaging.
The military-industrial complex has taken advantage of this by forming tightly knit relationships with media corporations. Boeing and ABC/Disney have an interlocking directorate, where board members of one company also sit on the board of another; Raytheon and General Electric, which owns NBC, has another.
Through these relationships, defense corporations misinform the public and set a false narrative of military progress. For example, media outlets claimed that the Taliban only had control of 44% of districts in Afghanistan in 2018. However, a report by the New York Times the same year revealed that they actually held over 66%. The military-industrial complex continues to work to obscure the results of military operations to justify continued intervention.
President Biden’s announcement to permanently remove all troops from Afghanistan also sparked a fury from the media that was not representative of public opinion. While 70% of Americans supported the decision to remove troops, programs across the political spectrum featured warmongering pundits insisting that the United States continue to engage in conflict.
Media outlets also portrayed the withdrawal as disorderly and unprepared. MSNBC featured the opinion of First Lieutenant Matt Zeller. “They didn’t plan for the evacuation of our Afghan wartime allies—they’re trying to conduct it now at the 11th hour,” he said. “We had all the people and equipment in place to be able to save these people months ago and we did nothing.”
Veterans like Zeller have a right to express their frustration: all service members deserve a safe exit considering the tremendous risk they undertook for their country.
However, the frustration with the American government’s treatment of veterans stems beyond the exit.
The military-industrial complex threw innocent individuals in the line of fire to greedily maximize profit by taking advantage of the unity 9/11 inspired. When they realized that the public was not falling for their schemes, they utilized the press—an essential component of democracy—to attempt once again to mislead the people.
While women’s rights and democracy were used as excuses to enter Afghanistan in 2001, veterans and their mistreatment are used in the present day as an excuse to stay. The military-industrial complex only cares about social issues when doing so benefits them.
Future Steps
The military-industrial complex ultimately views the end of the Afghanistan War as a defeat: defense contractors and corrupt politicians continue to search for ways to misinform the public and increase profits. In order to ensure that an event like Afghanistan does not occur again, there are various steps Americans should take.
First, we must work to educate every American on the military-industrial complex and its influence. Collective resistance is not possible if the majority does not know what occurs behind closed doors.
Second, Americans should scrutinize politicians and determine whether they are using their power in accordance with public interest. The military-industrial complex would hold severely limited influence without the political capital to push through legislation. Americans should ensure politicians know that having close ties with defense corporations is not an option—they must be held accountable.
Finally, even in times of crisis and great emotional distress, blind faith in “experts” is not an option. We must question the narratives set forth by corporate media and attempt to find the unskewed facts of a story. This can be accomplished by diversifying our media sources. While mass media seemed united in their efforts to enter Afghanistan in 2001 and stay in 2021, smaller, independent news organizations often reflected the true feelings of the American people and brought forth key pieces of information that had been overlooked by others.
Ultimately, the military-industrial complex will continue to lobby for more spending, endless interventions, and lives sacrificed for profit. Although the system may seem powerful and beyond reform, the weakening and eventual downfall of the military-industrial complex is a movement all must support.
Comments