NYT Afghan War Propaganda
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Throughout over 18 years of US aggression in Afghanistan since October 2001, the NYT consistently misreported about the conflict.
Like other establishment media, the Times glorifies wars of aggression, falsely pretending they’re liberating struggles — far from it.
Longstanding US imperial aims are all about establishing dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations — naked aggression, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, economic terrorism, and other hostile actions its favored strategies.
A same-day article discussed the illusion of restoring peace and stability to war-torn Afghanistan.
The US didn’t attack the country and occupy its territory to leave, the same true about all nations it targeted for regime change.
NYT propaganda pretends otherwise, saying:
The Trump regime’s “deal with the Taliban recognizes the limits of American power” — while occupation of Afghanistan continues and hot US wars and by other means rage against other countries, notably Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and Nicaragua.
The Times: Trump’s so-called deal with the Taliban “is a ticket out of Afghanistan (sic) for American troops who’ve been there far too long.”
“It is a quiet end to a conflict that began with vibrant clarity, if not strategic vision, and descended into bloody ambiguity (sic).”
Fact: US aggression against Afghanistan was planned months before 9/11.
Fact: All US wars have strategic aims. The US came to Afghanistan and other countries it attacked to stay — by occupying their territory directly and/or by installed puppet regimes.
Fact: US aggression in Afghanistan had nothing to do with “vibrant clarity” or a threat to national security, everything to do with wanting another imperial trophy.
Throughout its history, Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empires, defeating would-be conquerors, foiling their aims, America’s lost war the latest example, a lost cause from early in the conflict — reality concealed, never publicly admitted.
The Times: “The Afghan government was not involved in the negotiations.”
“There’s no formal cease-fire and the agreement is only a step toward opening negotiations between the Taliban and other Afghans on a power-sharing agreement…”
Fact: The so-called “Afghan government” has no legitimacy, a pro-Western/US installed proxy regime rejected by the Taliban for good reason.
Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam, the Times correctly called endless war in the country “a symbol of…futile (US) foreign entanglements” — ignoring a major difference between both conflicts.
In April 1975, defeated US forces ended a decade of aggression in Southeast Asia.
The Trump regime/Taliban deal won’t end US occupation of Afghanistan, notably because regardless of whether Pentagon forces stay or leave, a CIA paramilitary army remains in the country with no intention to leave unless forced out militarily — which may be a chapter in the war to follow.
Its presence as an occupying force makes resumption of conflict ahead highly likely, notably when the Taliban learn they were betrayed.
The Times and other establishment media support all US wars of aggression — always against nonbelligerent nations, never for threats to national security.
Hours after Bush/Cheney launched aggression on Afghanistan, the Times propaganda machine expressed support for what demanded denunciation.
The broadsheet pretended a US bandit act aimed to destroy terrorists the US created and supports — notably since the CIA recruited, armed, trained, and supported Mujahideen fighters against Afghanistan’s Soviet occupiers in the 1980s.
Fighters Ronald Reagan called “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers” are today’s Taliban.
Pre-9/11, Taliban officials met with US oil giant Unocal in Houston regarding construction of a trans-Afghan pipeline.
The 1999 US Silk Road Strategy Act aimed to develop US regional business opportunities, along with undermining, destabilizing, and isolating Russia, China and Iran – a new Great Game to control vital resources in this strategic part of the world.
Clinton regime talks with Taliban officials broke off in 1999, resumed by Bush/Cheney, again ending unsuccessfully.
The mother of all 9/11 false flags followed, Afghanistan attacked four weeks later, a war to transform the country into a vassal state by brute force, what the Taliban wouldn’t surrender voluntarily — nor are they likely to achieve what they seek now.
It’s their country. They want war ended, US forces out, Afghanistan’s sovereign independence restored — polar opposite US strategic aims not abandoned by Saturday’s Doha signing ceremony.
The Times reinvented history, falsely saying US war in Afghanistan was retaliation for “the 9/11 attacks and the pressure to go after those responsible…”
The CIA’s 9/11 attacks provided the phony pretext for attacking Afghanistan and other countries on the US target list for regime change.
US war OF terror rages globally, never on it, the Times and other establishment media pretending otherwise — reinventing history and state-approved propaganda consistently featured at the expense of truth and full disclosure, never when conflicting with the official narrative.
Saturday’s Doha signing ceremony created the illusion of winding down war in Afghanistan.
At best, there’s a pause in what’s gone on endlessly for over 18 years.
Hot war could resume any time ahead, pretexts easy to invent.
All US wars are based on Big Lies and mass deception.
Establishment media truth-telling would destroy pretexts for waging them.
What never happened before since at least the mid-19th century US war on Mexico, stealing half the country, surely won’t happen ahead.
The US is a warrior nation, peace and stability hostile to its imperial agenda, naked aggression serving it — why endless wars rage in multiple theaters without resolution.
VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”