Don't touch that dial, folks!

We'll be right back after these words from our sponsors.

Homosexuality in Uganda

Guest post today, from fellow blogger Sora Ryu! Check out her blog, and a couple of my guest posts there, at www.writingsofryu.com.

As you know, a friend recently sent me a link to Dartmouth professor Jeff Sharlet's interview with Fresh Air on NPR regarding Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill. From there I read the excerpt from his article in Harper's Magazine entitled "Straight Man's Burden." I was particularly angered and saddened by the account of what happened to Juliet Mukasa. It is my strongest desire for a girl to never be trapped alone in such a homophobic, fanatic atmosphere and to never endure such a horrific abuse as a "corrective" gang rape. I wrote a blog post documenting my response in order to raise awareness on this issue.

The plight of gays in Uganda as well as the rest of Africa is an issue that needs more attention. Africa's Christian communities are being radicalized by scions from the right in America. In his most recent article in The Advocate Professor Sharlet reports:

"Antigay Americans are losing the culture war, so they’re exporting hatred to Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria — where their fervor is so welcome it threatens to sweep the entire continent."

These anti-gay scions are pastors and missionaries funded and encouraged by a secretive fundamentalist Christian society referred to as The Family or The Fellowship which tries to pull political strings in America and export their bigotry to Africa, the "ground zero" of their "spiritual warfare." Professor Sharlet who is an expert on The Family and has written a book on their underground exploits was the go-to person when The Family was forced to expose themselves and backpedal from their discriminatory views when the Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill first came to light.

However, although the media spotlight may have swung from this controversial bill, human rights activist cannot afford to forget it allow it to pass. The purveyors of "God-led government" are just as crazy and determined as Netanyahu's "irrational" and "apocalyptic" characterization of the imams in Iran:

"For the Moral Majority, then the Christian Coalition, then Focus on the Family, and now the more chaotic Christian nationalism of the Tea Party (“a new Great Awakening,” crows South Carolina’s DeMint), it’s not so much a question as it is a warning.

“We warn everybody that the future king is coming,” said David Coe, a leader of the Family. “Not just of this country or that, but of the world.” "

The real warning is not the end of the world but that if rational people sit back and turn a blind eye the righteous right of America and Africa - who among other things believe " it’s “the gays” who are attempting genocide: “They are a threat to our existence,” he [a Ugandan politician] told me [Sharlet]" and a host of other outlandish "schemes" perpetuated by a "gay city under Lake Victoria" - will attempt to kill off the gay population in Africa. While talking to a Ugandan missionary working for Faithful Servants International Ministries Sharlet noted this exchange:

"“What do you make of this Anti-Homosexuality Bill?” I asked. It was one of the hottest debates in the country, and a rare occasion when Uganda made international news. Said to be inspired by Americans, the bill would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death or life in prison. But Tommy heard only the word “homosexuality.”

“I do not believe in homosexuality!” he said, rearing up with indignation as if I’d just put a hand on his knee. “Absolutely not!” He crossed his arms over his burly chest.

“Of course,” I said, “of course.”

Teresa rubbed his shoulder. “Shh,” she said. “I don’t think that’s what he meant.”

I explained that I was interested in their view of the death penalty for homosexuality. Tommy shook his head. Tough one.

“Well, I’m totally against killing them. Because some of them can be saved, and changed. But the thing is, you can’t force them to stop. It’s been tried! But it don’t work.” He shook his head over the problem on all sides — the homosexuals, themselves, and his Ugandan friends, so on fire for the gospel that they’d gone too far in an antigay crusade. That’s how it is with Ugandans, he explained. They’re a bighearted people, but they get ahead of themselves sometimes. That’s where Americans could help.

“What they need,” Tommy proposed, “is a special place, like, for people doing homosexual things to learn different. A camp, like.”

“Keep them all in one place?” I asked.

“Yes. I think that’s what we have to try,” he said. “Because the thing is, the Bible says we can’t kill them. And we can’t put them in prison because that’d be like putting a normal fella in a whorehouse!” Teresa chuckled with her husband. A camp in which to concentrate the offenders — that was the compassionate solution."

Did you hear that? The most "compassion solution" for the gays is a concentration camp. When the Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda was drawn up, it was written to inspire similar bills throughout Africa. If this bill passes there will be a genocide. And the blood will be on our hands.

As Professor Sharlet notes the American right did not pull the trigger, but they certainly handed the Ugandan fundamentalists the gun. The fault will also fall on those who sat back and allowed the transcontinental bigots to have their way.

This issue is important and it deserves more attention. That is why this story graces the cover of the September issue of The Advocate. If you want to help out and spread awareness check out Four African LGBT Organizations Worth Supporting.

Other Human Rights Issues that Deserve More Press

The Atrocity of Rape in Congo Continues | Women's Interviews

"Rwandan and Congolese rebels systematically gang-raping nearly 200 woman and even infants over the span of a few days near a UN peacekeepers base earlier this month...The scale and pervasiveness of rape as a means of control in places like the Congo is astonishing and truly sickening. We cannot let stories like this desensitize us to what is happening."

Rape is being used as weapon of war and this is truly horrific. The UN was too slow and their peacekeeping troops failed to prevent the tragedy. More needs to be done by the UN and African governments to address what happens to people in corners of the world often overlooked and forgotten. Such war crimes shouldn't be allowed to happen to innocent civilians. No woman deserves to be raped.

Also no person deserves what happened to this woman:

"a Saudi couple brutally hammered 24 nails into their Sri Lankan maid’s hands, legs and forehead after she complained about the work load. It is frightening and deeply saddening to think that such human atrocities are happening all over the world."

The Daily Femme has been documenting the cruel and degrading treatment of the mostly female foreign domestic workers who suffer in places like the Middle East. More of the media needs to take up these forgotten women's cause and without silly, demeaning headlines like "and you thought your workday was hard."

Finally we cannot forget about the reformist Green Movement in Iran and what they have endured for free elections:

"The protests, which had started over election fraud, had grown into huge demonstrations against the Islamic regime, the largest in Iran since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah, in 1979. But in the weeks that followed, Iran’s ultimate political authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, endorsed Ahmadinejad’s victory and condemned the protests; riot police and Basij, armed with knives and guns, were sent into the streets to attack the protesters. Between forty and eighty people were killed, Mousavi’s nephew among them, and thousands were arrested.

In show trials held in August, more than a hundred detainees were paraded in court, many of them thin and pale and clearly terrified; according to Amnesty International, many detainees had been beaten, tortured, and raped by guards and interrogators, often at secret detention centers. Several “confessed” to an improbable range of political crimes, including treason. Since then, most have been released on bail, including the Iranian-Canadian Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari, who fled the country. But hundreds of others have been sentenced to harsh prison terms, and at least five sentenced to death. Two have already been hanged for the crime of moharebeh—warring against God."

This comes from a New Yorker article I already mentioned but one that I feel needs more attention.

Even though I have expressed that an American or Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites would be a bad idea for international relations I do not support President Ahmadinejad's repressive regime. His opponents in the 2009 elections supported full rights for women and do not share their president's view of the Holocaust (Ahmadinejad believes it never happened). However their movement to retake Iran from it's Supreme Leader has been forgotten by the West and even President Obama has distanced himself.

“They were wrong,” my friend said. “And their leaders misunderestimated—to paraphrase your former President Bush—just how savage the regime could be.” Adopting a mocking tone of voice, he added, “ ‘What, you thought that with your vote you’d get change? That you actually had a choice?’ ” A friend of his had been detained and released after agreeing to sign a statement of repentance. “His interrogator told him, ‘This time you have no choice. You either submit or I’ll ram this stick up your ass. That’s your choice.’ ”

Understandably, the Green Movement is virtually silent in Iran now. There has been no accounting for the human rights violations and lost of dignity the reformists had to undergo. They live without democracy and in fear.

If sanctions and diplomacy do not work and bombing Iran will mean WWIII, President Obama's administration should speaks words of inspiration to the Green Movement, encouraging them to take back their country. The time for stepping over Ahmadinejad's toes is over. If we want an Iran we can negotiate with and do not have to bomb, the time for regime change is now.

It is repressive regimes like the ones in Iran and Uganda that do not care about human rights and perpetuate human suffering.

- Ryu

The Official Fitchpork Media Guide to Independent Music

Alright, so you want to be cool.  I understand.  Everyone wants to be cool.  And I know why you're here: because I'm cool.  Really cool.

Well, to be cool you have to like indie music.  So what is "indie" music?  I'm here to clarify a few misconceptions about "indie."

First: contrary to popular belief, indie does not mean "independent."  Indie music originated in Indiana with the first-ever indie band, The Pavement.  After The Pavement came a lot of other bands from Indiana, and now "indie" music can come from as far away as New York and California.

There are a few major indie bands you need to know about to be cool.  Here they are.  Grab your cool-person sunglasses and get ready for...

The Pavement -- The first indie band, Gary, Indiana-based rockers The Pavement got their start as a tribute to the popular hair-metal band Ratt.  One day, they tried to write their own music, inspired by Ratt's "Round and Round," and the results were magic.  The Pavement quickly became known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, while remaining true to their hair-metal roots.  Unfortunately, after their first album they sold out.

Coolness status: Corporate whores!

Modesto Mouse -- Hailing from Modesto, California, this Beach Boys-inspired surf-rock band singlehandedly revived surfer music.  Modesto Mouse-inspired bands now dominate indie music, from surf rockers Death Cab for Cathy, surf rockers Shin, and surf rockers Animals, Collected.  Known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, Modesto Mouse broke into the indie scene with their debut album, Lonesome Western Crowd.  Unfortunately, their second album, Antarctic Moon, was a total sellout.  Modesto Mouse currently live and make music in Gary, Indiana.

Coolness status: Your mom might like them!

Decemberist -- One can't talk about indie rock legends The Pavement or Modesto Mouse without talking about the band they inspired: Decemberist.  Starting out as the solo project of the famous Gary, Indiana, resident Sufi Stevens, Decemberist combined hair metal, surf rock, and mind-numbingly boring Rush-style prog rock into something entirely their own.  Decemberist are known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, along with their lyrics, which are all inspired by ancient Chinese history.  Their latest album, Love Hazard, is a series of ballads set during the Han Dynasty.  It also marks the moment at which the band sold out.

Coolness status: Popular amongst drama students!

The Pixys: At some point during the mid-90s, Indiana learned about the popular grunge movement.  Hoping to cash in, a Gary, Indiana-based bubblegum pop group then calling themselves Tinkerbell changed their name to The Pixys, cut their hair, and began playing hard-hitting grunge hits, anchored in girl group pop aesthetic.  The Pixys are known for their quirky lyrics and angular guitar.  The Pixys are one of the few indie bands never to sell out: they all died in a plane crash in 1997.  The plane, however, belonged to music giant Virgin.

Coolness status: You might as well listen to Madonna!

The Arcade Fires -- The Arcade Fires brought multiculturalism to Gary, Indiana, drawing performers from as far away as Canada!  Their world music sound is primarily drawn from the African-inspired electronic music of Brian Eno.  In fact, some people believe their backup vocalist is actually just Eno in a wig!  Known for combining complex world rhythms with quirky lyrics and angular guitar, their most famous album is Funereal.  Their second album, The Bible, remains controversial in the indie world, recorded during the band's brief flirtation with Creed-style Christian rock.

Coolness status: Currently opening for Creed!

Those are all of the important indie bands.  Just mention these indie facts at a party sometime and you are guaranteed to be instantly popular.

I Am a Website!

You may have noticed the new URL.  I am now MaxBartlett.com.  Pretty nice, don't you think? 

Conclusion: The Coming War With Iran (And Who Stands to Benefit)

Alright, so America's terrified.  As we discussed in the last post, we are, apparently, building to a war with Islam.  Now obviously we aren't going to invade the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia.  But why not go after our longtime enemies, the Islamic theocracy Iran?

Remember the buildup to Iraq?  The weapons of mass destruction?  Saddam Hussein was a madman on a hair trigger, building up stockpiles of weapons to destroy us at any moment.  Remember the rhetoric?  We had to invade. Now, before the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.

Well, it's happening again.  America has reached a level of paranoia, desperation, and anger we haven't seen since shortly after 9/11.  And we've been told for the past several years that Iran has been trying to create nuclear weapons (a claim which is dubious at best).

Take a look at the major papers. Editorials on Iran come in three flavors: 1. We need to invade Iran, because they have nuclear weapons. 2. We need to invade Iran because they're a dangerous theocracy oppressing its people. 3. We probably shouldn't invade Iran, but the war is inevitable.  That's the best we get: it's bad, but going to happen.


Fine.  Inevitably, war with Iran will happen.  So let's do some Poli. Sci. 101 here: who stands to benefit from a war with Iran?  The same people who benefited from Iraq and Afghanistan: the military-industrial complex.


Wait, don't go!  This isn't some conspiracy theory!  In fact, there's no conspiracy at all.  It's just an economic fact: weapons manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, independent contractors like Halliburton and KBR benefit economically from war.  In fact, wars are generally good for the economy: look at World War II and the Depression.


President Eisenhower's farewell speech was unusual, as presidential farewells go.  Rather than the modern self-congratulatory "History will vindicate me" speech we've seen in the past few decades, Eisenhower left us with a warning.


"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Remember that Eisenhower was a Republican (by modern terms he's to the left of many Democrats, of course, but America's steady move to the right is a topic for another post).  Not exactly an arch-liberal.  And a former general.  An incredibly pro-military person, his administration was responsible for the Korean War as well as a great deal of secret anti-communist action in South America and elsewhere.  And yet even he feared the military-industrial complex.

And the complex has more power than ever before.  The war in Iraq during the Bush administration is a perfect example.  Dick Cheney was a former Halliburton president.  Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) were responsible for the infrastructure supporting American troops in Iraq.  They overcharged for their services, completely failed our troops on every level (and were even responsible for some non-combat deaths), and were never held responsible.  Billions of government dollars went to them.  The same goes for private military contractors like Blackwater (now Xi), and domestic manufacturers such as Boeing and G.E.

(An aside on private military contractors: they are a terrible idea.  First, mercenary armies are, historically, unstable.  Second, providing a profit motive for war tends to create more wars.  We see something similar in states with large numbers of private prisons: prison industry lobbyists tend to lead to much tougher sentencing laws, Three Strikes, etc.  There's a third, and vitally important reason as well.  The definition of a government is, basically, the monopoly holders on force in a region.  By privatizing military force we are making out government, well, not our government.  Instead, we begin to create what is, effectively, a corporate government.  See also: Coca-Cola's private army protecting their interests in South America).


In short, we have made war profitable.  War's worth money now.  So is it any surprise that we're involved in two wars, about to start a third?

And so American citizens continue to pay for corporate power, our blood and money going to those who truly control our country.

Xenophobia, Islam, and the New Red Scare

In my last post, I said that the War on Terror can be best compared to the Cold War.  America is looking for a unified enemy to fight, somebody we can point to and say "Yes, these are the bad guys."  Of course, there is no Soviet Union, no great Evil Empire to battle in the War on Terror.  Yet many of our methodologies are the same. 

In Afghanistan in the late 70s we helped remove the occupying Soviet force, replacing it with the Taliban, a conservative fundamentalist theocratic group who would later back Al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  In short, the attacks can be traced back, not even far back, to American actions in the Cold War.  We did not learn our lesson, apparently, because now we're repeating the same mistakes.  We've invaded Afghanistan, completely destabilizing the country, and providing a new basis for anti-American terrorism.  We are, after all, an occupying force that the average Afghani has no particular reason to love.  Don't think that all Afghani terrorism is Taliban insurgents.

The biggest thing the modern War on Terror has in common with the Cold War is fear.  It is, after all, the basis for the entire war.  The message of the War on Terror is this: terrorists can strike you and your family any time, anywhere, and the only way to prevent this is constant fear.  We must preemptively strike all "terrorist" nations, hand over our civil rights, and support the military-industrial complex (we'll get into the military-industrial complex and their motivations for an ongoing war on terror in a later post) or else we will be destroyed.  In fact, the attempts to "democratize" Iraq and Afghanistan are a kind of reverse domino effect, invading them to cause what we invaded Vietnam to prevent.

But who should we be afraid of?  Who are these terrorists that are waiting to attack us?  Remember that, unlike in the Cold War, we're not simply fighting a political ideology.  Instead, we're fighting Islamofacism.  Islamism.  But regardless of the euphemism, the message is becoming increasingly clear: we're fighting Islam. 

As I discussed in my post on the 14th Amendment, America is perhaps more xenophobic than it has ever been.  We are terrified of the other.  And the biggest Other in America right now, besides Hispanics, is the Muslim population.  Never mind that Islam consists of 1.57 billion people.  Never mind that the largest Islamic population is in Indonesia.  Never mind that the U.S. has 2.5 million Muslims of all different ethnic groups.  To America, Muslims are terrifying Middle Eastern men in beards and turbans.  They are all terrorists.

That sounds like an exaggeration, but there is a significant number of Americans who genuinely believe, either consciously or otherwise, that all Muslims are terrorists.  For some evidence, just look at the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque."

The "Ground Zero Mosque" is a large Islamic community center which also contains a prayer space.  Yes, it does indeed contain a mosque.  It is being built several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, on the site what was once a Burlington Coat Factory.  However, the Coat Factory was hit by rubble from the WTC, so obviously it must be a sacred site.

The argument against the mosque is that it is "insensitive."  It is insensitive because it is Islamic, and the majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian (which is why we invaded Iraq.  American schools don't teach much geography).  Therefore, to build a mosque is to build a shrine to terrorism.  A common piece of rhetoric is this: "Islam builds mosques on the sites of great victories against their enemies."  Aside from the questionable history behind this, it tells us all we need to know about American attitudes (a majority of Americans oppose the mosque).  Islam is our enemy.  We are at war with Islam.  (For more evidence, and a fun time, look at the comments on Fox News stories about the mosque.  Bring alcohol, you'll need it).

Reminder: there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world.

This has also led to some fun bits of political posturing.  Naturally, Republicans have come out against the mosque.  They live on xenophobia, so of course it is in their interest to foster it.  But the Democrats have also come out against the mosque.  Harry Reid and Howard Dean have both spoken out against it.  And a rather entertaining story from New York's 24th district: Republican Richard Hanna came out in support of the mosque, citing the First Amendment.  So his Democratic opponent, Mike Arcuri, does the only thing he can: oppose the mosque, not because he does, but because his opponent supports it.  And so... Richard Hanna switches his position.

American politics, everybody!  This is why we have a low voter turnout.  Politics makes us, as a nation, nauseous.  

So aside from the fact that a fair portion of America opposes free speech, and believes we're at war with Islam.  What does this have to do with the Cold War and the Red Scare?

Because America has its communists now.  All Muslims are terrorists, so the worry is no longer "Is this Muslim a terrorist," but now "Is this person a Muslim?"

But instead of ordinary McCarthyism we have something even stranger.  19 percent of Americans believe Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim.  31 percent of Republicans believe this.  43 percent of Americans say they do not know what religion Obama is, in spite of his public support for Christianity, and public statements that he is Christian.  

Okay, so America is so terrified we believe even the President may be "the enemy." 

But this is more serious than just America being stupid and terrified.  This may lead to something much more dangerous: another war.
  

Why the War on Terror Isn't World War II (And Why This Mistake Lead to the Iraq Quagmire)

Even as we draw down the final combat troops from Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan seems more hopeless than ever.  The obvious cause of the problems was that we more-or-less forgot Afghanistan for half a decade, continuing to occupy it while pursuing and aggressive (and pointless) occupation in Iraq.  But there was another, more subtle, issue with our war on terror strategy.  Let us look back to why Iraq failed so badly for so long, and why Afghanistan looks to be even worse.

Throughout the Bush years, there was a trend to our rhetoric, and our strategy, in the "War on Terror."  We weren't fighting a methodology (terrorism), or even an ideology (radical anti-Americanism, separatism, fundamentalist religion, whichever motive for terrorism we happened to be battling at the moment).  No, we were fighting a unified group of enemies with definite leaders and territory.

In fact, we were fighting World War II.

To the Bush Administration, the war on terror was simple.  Invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spread democracy to them, overthrow the dictators.  We could go in just like D-Day, win and leave.  We would, after all, be "greeted as liberators."  The speeches have echoes of the liberation of France.  And one reason for the long occupation of Iraq was that our strategy was tailored to World War II.  We were overthrowing dictators and making the world safe for democracy.

The problems with this are obvious.  First, we aren't fighting organized governments and unified groups of people.  Let's start with Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was not Hitler, for all that he was, without question, an evil man.  And Iraq was not a unified people.  "Shock and Awe" achieved what it was meant to: the remains of Hussein's government were easily removed from power.

That was our first mistake.  Because we weren't simply dealing with an oppressed populace under the heel of an evil dictator.  They were three distinct religious and ethnic groups, with a long history, forced into artificial borders created by the British and French after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.  It's worth noting that a large number of the Middle East's current political problems can be traced back to the intervention of European powers, particularly the British and French.

Iraq consists of Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, as well as Kurds, a nomadic Arab ethnic group.  In Iraq, Hussein's government supported the minority Sunnis over the majority Shiites.  He also committed genocide against the Kurds, but that's sort of par for the course.  Everyone in the region has committed genocide against the Kurds.  (I'll go over the Kurds briefly later on, they're an interesting side note but not relevant to the central issue).

So, look at the Shi'ia and Sunnis.  Removing Hussein and instituting Democracy meant a major change in the balance of power, giving power back to the majority Shi'ia.  And the Shi'ia did what an oppressed minority group would do when suddenly given majority power: they began removing rights from the now minority Sunnis.

This made Iraq's attempts to draft a constitution slightly awkward.

Because now, suddenly, we weren't dealing with a secular totalitarian government.  The constitution Iraq was drafting for itself was a theocratic one, created by a majority Shi'ia government.  This had a couple immediate effects: first, some Sunni Muslims in the majority Sunni territories began to fight a guerrilla insurgent war against the occupying American forces, who they saw as propping up an oppressive theocratic government.

Next, women's rights in Iraq were rolled back a millennium or so.  One of the disadvantages to putting in a hard-line fundamentalist theocratic government is that they tend to make all those laws we disapprove of governments like, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran making.  So women suddenly found themselves unable to go to school, losing their jobs, unable to own property or drive vehicles or go out in public.

Oops.  Sorry, ladies.  Good thing we spread that democracy to Iraq, to preserve human rights.

Finally, the Kurds also began fighting an insurgent war against us in northern Iraq, including the much-contested city of Fallujah in Al-Anbar province.  A little aside on the Kurds: the Kurds are, as mentioned above, a nomadic Arab tribe who have lived in lands in present-day Iraq, Turkey, and Iran for thousands of years.  They are not, originally, Muslim.  After World War I, their lands wound up divided between those three countries, when the British and French started dividing up the former Ottoman Empire amongst themselves.  They have not done well since.  Hussein committed genocide against them, Turkey considers them terrorists, and Iran's not especially fond of them, since they're not Muslims.  They also control the territories with the majority of Iraq's oil.  In short, they are constant targets.

[A further aside: Britain and France are basically responsible for every issue in the Middle East today.  They drew the border lines between India and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, created the Israeli territory, defined the borders of Iraq.  The world is still, to this day, trying to recover from the effects of 19th and 20th-century colonialism.]

If the situation we've created in Iraq, overthrowing a secular dictatorship and putting into place a theocratic government, sounds familiar, that's because it is.  It is, more or less, what we did in Afghanistan back in the late 70s and early 80s, in order to fight the Soviets.  The Taliban was supported and put into place by... the United States.

And, of course, Afghanistan has many of the same problems with occupation that Iraq did, but even further compounded.  We have completely destabilized the nation's government, and rather than being three distinct groups forced into artificial borders, Afghanistan consists of hundreds of diverse local tribal powers, not accustomed to centralized government, nor having much of a use for it.  We can battle the Taliban all we want, but they're really not the issue.  The issue is that we are trying to create a country out of nothing, and doing so not by providing an economic incentive to support a central government (i.e. infrastructure, education, protecting, etc.) but by trying to impose a government through military power, which doesn't really "capture the hearts and minds" of the Afghanis.

And in a roundabout way, this brings us back to our original point: why, despite its incredible inaccuracy and blind stupidity, was the World War II metaphor and strategy so popular?  Because America needs a unified enemy to fight.  In order to sustain popular support for a war, America needs to be able to say "These are the Bad Guys."  But the metaphor we were really hungry for wasn't World War II.

It was the Cold War.  And with the New Cold War comes the New Red Scare.