Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: Not a Good War
Every war has a story line. World War I was "the war to end all wars." World War II was "the war to defeat fascism."
Iraq was sold as a war to halt weapons of mass destruction; then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy. In the end it was a fabrication built on a falsehood and anchored in a fraud.
But Afghanistan is the "good war," aimed at "those who attacked us," in the words of columnist Frank Rich. It is "the war of necessity," asserts the New York Times, to roll back the "power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban."
Barack Obama is making the distinction between the "bad war" in Iraq and the "good war" in Afghanistan a centerpiece of his run for the presidency. He proposes ending the war in Iraq and redeploying U.S. military forces in order "to finish the job in Afghanistan."
Virtually no one in the United States or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) calls for negotiating with the Taliban. Even the New York Times editorializes that those who want to talk "have deluded themselves."
But the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Our old ally, Osama bin Laden, did. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same organization (if one can really call al-Qaeda an "organization"), and no one seems to be listening to the Afghans.
We should be.
What Afghans Say
A recent poll of Afghan sentiment found that, while the majority dislikes the Taliban, 74% want negotiations and 54% would support a coalition government that included the Taliban.
This poll reflects a deeply divided country where most people are sitting on the fence and waiting for the final outcome of the war. Forty percent think the current government of Hamid Karzai, allied with the United States and NATO, will prevail, 19% say the Taliban, and 40% say it is "too early to say."
There is also strong ambivalence about the presence of foreign troops. Only 14% want them out now, but 52% want them out within three to five years. In short, the Afghans don't want a war to the finish.
They also have a far more nuanced view of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. While the majority oppose both groups -13% support the Taliban and 19% al-Qaeda - only 29% see the former organization as "a united political force."
But that view doesn't fit the West's story line of the enemy as a tightly disciplined band of fanatics.
Whither the Taliban
In fact, the Taliban appears to be evolving from a creation of the U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani intelligence agencies during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union, to a polyglot collection of dedicated Islamists to nationalists. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar told the Agence France Presse early this year, "We're fighting to free our country. We are not a threat to the world."
Those are words that should give Obama, The New York Times, and NATO pause.
The initial invasion in 2001 was easy because the Taliban had alienated itself from the vast majority of Afghans. But the weight of occupation, and the rising number of civilian deaths, is shifting the resistance toward a war of national liberation.
No foreign power has ever won that battle in Afghanistan.
War Gone Bad
There is no mystery as to why things have gone increasingly badly for the United States and its allies.
As the United States steps up its air war, civilian casualties have climbed steadily over the past two years. Nearly 700 were killed in the first three months of 2008, a major increase over last year. In a recent incident, 47 members of a wedding party were killed in Helmand Province. In a society where clan, tribe, and blood feuds are a part of daily life, that single act sowed a generation of enmity.
Anatol Lieven, a professor of war at King's College London, says that a major impetus behind the growing resistance is anger over the death of family members and neighbors.
Lieven says it is as if Afghanistan is "becoming a sort of surreal hunting estate, in which the U.S. and NATO breed the very terrorists they then track down."
Once a population turns against an occupation (or just decides to stay neutral), there are few places in the world where an occupier can win. Afghanistan, with its enormous size and daunting geography, is certainly not one of them.
Writing in Der Spiegel, Ullrich Fichter says that glancing at a map in the International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF) headquarters outside Kandahar could give one the impression that Afghanistan is under control. "Colorful little flags identify the NATO troops presence throughout the country," Germans in the northeast, Americans in the east, Italians in the West, British and Canadians in the south, with flags from Turkey, the Netherlands, Spain, Lithuania, Australia and Sweden scattered between.
"But the flags are an illusion," he says.
The UN considers one third of the country "inaccessible," and almost half, "high risk." The number of roadside bombs has increased fivefold over 2004, and the number of armed attacks has jumped by a factor of 10. In the first three months of 2008, attacks around Kabul have surged by 70%. The current national government has little presence outside its capital. President Karzai is routinely referred to as "the mayor of Kabul."
According to Der Spiegel, the Taliban are moving north toward Kunduz, just as they did in 1994 when they broke out of their base in Kandahar and started their drive to take over the country. The Asia Times says the insurgents' strategy is to cut NATO's supply lines from Pakistan and establish a "strategic corridor" from the border to Kabul.
The United States and NATO currently have about 60,000 troops in Afghanistan. But many NATO troops are primarily concerned with rebuilding and development - the story that was sold to the European public to get them to support the war - and only secondarily with war fighting.
The Afghan army adds about 70,000 to that number, but only two brigades and one headquarters unit are considered capable of operating on their own.
According to U.S. counter insurgency doctrine, however, Afghanistan would require at least 400,000 troops to even have a chance of "winning" the war. Adding another 10,000 U.S. troops will have virtually no effect. Afghanistan and the Elections
As the situation continues to deteriorate, some voices, including those of the Karzai government and both U.S. presidential candidates, advocate expanding the war into Pakistan in a repeat of the invasions of Laos and Cambodia, when the Vietnam War began spinning out of control. Both those invasions were not only a disaster for the invaders. They also led directly to the genocide in Cambodia.
By any measure, a military "victory" in Afghanistan is simply not possible. The only viable alternative is to begin direct negotiations with the Taliban, and to draw in regional powers with a stake in the outcome: Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China, and India.
But to do so will require abandoning our "story" about the Afghan conflict as a "good war." In this new millennium, there are no good wars.
117 Comments so far
Show All"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this conflict..." said Gates. But then nobody has ever 'won' in Afghanistan.
What does MIC apologist , Wall Street favored candidate Barack have to say about this war? More money to the DOD that's what: more guns, more bombs, more death, more US control of this central asian jewel. Who knows, maybe the cut throats of the Northern Alliance will finally get a single payer public health insurance system delivered by the Pentagon.
Since war is the total negation of rational behavior, how can anyone contend there's such a thing as a "good war"?
The Afghan army adds about 70,000 to that number, but only two brigades and one headquarters unit are considered capable of operating on their own.
Eric Margolis pointed out the reality of the 'Afghan army' more than two years ago:
Afghanistan's so-called 'national army' is made up of US-paid mercenaries. The 'army' does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government--which does not exist.
Half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun tribes (the source of the Taliban religious movement), has been largely excluded from political power. Until included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy. But Washington and Ottawa, have painted themselves into a corner by so demonizing Taliban and making enemies of the Pashtun (half of Afghanistan's population), that overt negotiations with the movement or its growing number of allies is impossible.
"The only viable alternative is to begin direct negotiations with the Taliban, and to draw in regional powers with a stake in the outcome: Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China, and India."
This is absolutely correct and has been dissected extensively in various articles in Asia Times.
Of course, we need to pressure Pakistan directly in giving up its long-standing policy of supporting terrorist organizations of all stripes including LET, HUM etc which were originally formed to foment rebellion in India (Kashmir). We also have to insist on dismantling the ISI which is a State within a State in Pakistan and pretty much controls everything.
Ben Franklin said it best -- "There never was a good war or a bad peace."
1- Direct negotiations with the Taliban have already taken place (Cheney's secret energy meetings) and failed, that's why the US invaded two countries.
2- Afghanistan: it isn't a war, it's an illegal invasion. Afghanistan never attacked the US, 9/11 was a criminal act done by 19 hijackers.
3- The invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 but with those bad negotiations between Cheney and the Taliban on the oil pipe line.
4- Cheney's secret energy meetings set the stage for another illegal invasion: Iraq.
While the only viable alternative may be to negotiate with the Taliban and other regional powers, the truth is that the military occupation is in the best interests of the multi-nationals. From building pipelines from central Asia to the sea and from establishing 'forward operating bases' in which to police multi-national interests, it would take a much stronger leader than either McCain or Obama (corporate America's chosen candidates) to steer American foreign policy in the right direction.
Meanwhile the ethnic cleansing, tribal warfare, collateral damage (i.e. blown up wedding parties), heroin production, human rights abuses, etc. are of marginal interest to Wall Street investors. 60,000 troops after all is the amount required to secure multi-national interests rather than protecting the general population. 'Winning' is an ambiguous term that is entirely dependant on whom you are speaking with. As far as UNOCAL & Halliburton is concerned, Afghanistan is a 'splendid little war'.
Gyptian: "We also have to insist on dismantling the ISI which is a State within a State in Pakistan and pretty much controls everything."
…And when you are finished with Pakistan you can move on to the next country you want to rearrange. Shall we go through them alphabetically?
Afghanistan was the "War to open the spigots for war profiteers"
jlocke123-- "…And when you are finished with Pakistan you can move on to the next country you want to rearrange. Shall we go through them alphabetically?"
Sure I do. How about we start with the United States. We created the Taliban and their predecessors and its OUR responsibility to fix this problem. We cannot walk away from it like a deadbeat dad. Weve spent $10 Billion in the past 4-5 years in beefing up Pakistani security forces (read: Military and ISI) and we need to friggin STOP doing that. What we need to do in Afghanistan is pull our troops out and facilitate a peace process by including all the neighbours AND stop funding the Pakistani Military and ISI which is notorious in its support for the Taliban. Its not meddling ... its called taking responsibility for our actions.
So whats your solution ... pack up and leave and send a postcard ?
jlocke123 Pakistan is the country aiding and abetting and funding the Taliban. The Afghans despertly want the Pakistanis to stay the hell out of thier affairs.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
By the way my Afghan husband was very happy to return to his country after 15 years of exile to see his elderly widowed mother so who is Mr. Hallinan to say what is good for the Afghans and the region??? The Afghan expat community is no longer exiled from their homeland should the Taliban regain power they will be again.
Gyptian: "So whats your solution"
I think there are clues in your use of "deadbeat dad". This is known as paternalism, thinking people with different colour skin are children in comparison to you.
Get the US mercenaries and soldiers out of those countries by all means, that's a good idea, I think anyway.
I don't see on the other hand how the US can "facilitate a peace process". The US has demonstrated already in Palestine and elsewhere what it means by that euphemism.
All the surrounding powers meddle in Afghanistan. It is a regional power struggle. Don't confuse the parachuted entry of the US into this game with some form of noble taking of responsibility. Few adults in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran see this as anything but a cynical power grab.
As I say this I assume by "solution" you mean "promoting democracy", "spreading liberty" of some other Americanism that serves as a placeholder for controlling Afghan energy pipelines. Yes by all means, get them the hell out of there, no postcard required.
Regarding the claim that the Taliban are merely a foreign implant that couldn't survive without foreign support, following are some excerpts from a recent book entitled Organizations at war in Afghanistan and beyond by Abdulkader H. Sinno:
There is little doubt that the Taliban benefited from the substantial Pakistani support and Arab Gulf largesse. Yet it is too expedient to explain away their expansion so conveniently, if only because the ISI and Arab donors fully backed another Pushtun organization, the Hizb, for the three years that preceded the rise of the Taliban, with paltry results. Pakistani support for the Taliban might have been substantial, but it couldn't possibly compare in scale with Soviet support for the PDPA/Watan or even the resources later poured by Western and other donors in support of the Karzai regime. And, while Pakistan supported the Taliban, its rivals were actively backed by Iran, Russia, and India--the situation was hardly lopsided. Gulf Arabs also simultaneously backed a number of highly conservative Salafi figures with non-negligible support among the Pushtun, including Abd Rab al-Rasul Sayyaf, head of the Ittihad and later a member of the Northern Alliance, and the Kunari Jamil al-Rahman, who headed his own Salafi "emirate" until he was defeated by Hekmatyar. None of them enjoyed the Taliban's success.
Saudi financial support fro the Taliban became substantial only after July 1996, after they had swept through most Pashtun areas....The scale of donations given to the Taliban was also far from enough to dwarf aid given to their combined rivals. The well-connected Ahmad Rashid (2000, chaps. 3 and 14) estimates Pakistani support to the Taliban in 1997-98 at a fairly modest $30 million. It is hard to argue that the Taliban bought their way to power on $30 million a year when the Najib regime only managed to defend itself with ten times this amount every month. All else being equal, both sides would have been able to buy the loyalty of regional leaders, but such leaders do not solely make decisions based on money. At least early on in the conflict, "Saudi money" seems more likely to have been a rhetorical tool used by the Taliban's rivals to discredit them (accusations of association with "Wahabis" has long been a tactic used to discredit rivals in Afghanistan) and to explain away their own failures...
...Pakistani and Arab support at a crucial juncture of Taliban organizational development probably assisted their rise. Yet, it is impossible to prove that the Taliban would not have achieved similar results absent outside intervention in Afghan affairs at this juncture. After all, Pushtun and other Afghan areas have experienced a large number of tribal upheavals and movements that were not encouraged or financed by outsiders, such as the different anti-British uprisings and the early mujahideen uprising against the PDPA and Soviets. It is too facile to explain the rise of the Taliban by ascribing it to outside assistance--at least part of the explanation of Taliban success must be found in what the Taliban did.
...The Taliban was able to co-opt or sideline many entrenched and hardened Pushtun local leaders by (1) undermining the leaders' support through a vision that appealed to their followers, (2) making effective use of their specialized knowledge of the Pushtun power tapestry and sophisticated strategies to sideline opposition at little cost, and (3) benefiting from their own momentum to increase their appeal to local leaders and their followers.
Dcbeltway
Yes, American supported factions of the Pakistani secret service and Army are supporting Taliban who live across the Pakistani/Afghan border. I'm hoping that this will end as well. In general, I hope that the trend towards the rule of law and democracy continues in Pakistan.
I understand that expats would be happy to return to Afghanistan. It is also natural that expats are not a fan of the Taliban that drove them out. The Taliban are clearly brutish, uneducated thugs.
Things are not going well in Afghanistan however. The American disposition to bomb anything that moves has fatally, I think, wounded the NATO mission there. Afghan tribes people are not sophisticated. Many live all their lives without watching BBC or reading the western press, that is a tongue in cheek way of saying that they know nothing of the official aims of the western soldiers there. All they know is that the invading non-Muslim soldiers have not made them safe from Taliban reprisals. Quite to the contrary, they fear being caught in the next American bombing "mistake".
I hope all goes well for you and your husband.
jlocke123--"This is known as paternalism, thinking people with different colour skin are children in comparison to you."
How do you know what color my skin is ? If you have something to contribute do so without getting personal coz believe me you dont wanna go down that path !
----"I don't see on the other hand how the US can "facilitate a peace process"."
Sure they can ... like I said by stopping the endless flow of $$$$ into Pakistani hands to begin with.
---- "Don't confuse the parachuted entry of the US into this game with some form of noble taking of responsibility. "
Stop patronizing. I have absolutely no illusions about 'noble' U.S. deeds (are there any ??). However I do believe that since we contributed to the entire situation by sticking our dicks in where it didnt belong (Afghanistan, Pakistan,etc) we are responsible for making sure we don't leave the Afghan people in the hands of despots.
---- "I'm hoping that this will end as well. "
'Hoping' doesnt cut it. We need to take action to end this and i dont mean military action.
---- "Things are not going well in Afghanistan however. "
Wow ! This is news to me. Here I am thinking we are killing 'them theere terrists' and everything is just fine ... silly me.
Gyptian, Is your huffing and puffing supposed to impress me? I'm having a reasonable discussion here on a subject that I find interesting and important. Are you looking for a fight? …with someone you don't even know? Try to not always assume the worst about people. Maybe that is something we CAN do to make the world a better place.
Afghanistan is not about the Taliban or Al Quaeda. Afghanistan is about having a staging area to go into Pakistan as a way to check the growing influence of China in the region.
It's the same with the crises in Somalia and Zimbabwe--both of which could be fixed for a lot less money than all the cost of military meddling that the Pentagon planners are getting ready to unleash.
The trilateralists and Bilderberger group have their claws into Obama and he will probably become the next LBJ--remember how "Lyin Lyndon" campaigned as the candidate who would not lead the US into some foolhardy war like Goldwater? President Obama's new "Cheney" will be Zbignew Breshinski--watch and see!
Obama fans, kindly explain why your man wants to pour more gasoline on this raging fire?
The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 with the ostensible excuse of the Afghan Government's protection of the once-US ally Al Qaeda (The US supported and funded Al Qaeda and the Taliban from the late 1970s to the early 1990s associated with its anti-Soviet policies (see William Blum's "Rogue State")culprits of the 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people. As a retaliation to that the US and its allies carried out as many as 6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan as of February 2008.
As of February 2008, analysis of UNICEF data (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_statistics.html ) allows the following estimate of 3.3-6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan:
1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million.
4. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths 3.2 million (2.3 million /0.7 = 3.3 million; for impoverished, worst case Third world countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of total non-violent excess deaths)
5. post-invasion violent deaths about 3.3 million (assuming roughly 1 violent death for every non-violent avoidable death i.e. roughly as in US-occupied Occupied Iraq where the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent excess deaths is 0.8-1.2 million to 0.7-0.8 million; see Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq: http://ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com/2008/01/rudd-australia-report-card-1-continued.html ).
The US has a long history of "questionable" excuses for war e.g. the explosion of the Maine (the Spanish-American War), the sinking of the US arms-carrying Lusitania (entry into World War 1), the Pearl Harbor attack with now recognized US foreknowledge (entry into World War 2), North Koreans provoked into invading their own country (the Korean War), the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident (the Vietnam War; recently similarly but unsuccessfully attempted in the Persian Gulf as an "excuse" to attack Iran) and the extraordinary 1,000 post-9/11 lies told by Bush Administration figures, most notoriously about non-existent Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Iraq War; post-invasion excess deaths now about 1.5-2 million).
The US military machine and the massive budget which funds it has to have a way of testing its weapons, fighting personnel and administration in real situations. That cannot be done as a defensive force since the USA is not going to be invaded.
So, offensive actions are necessary and the people who fund this madness (taxpayers) have to be brainwashed to believe that there are enemies of the USA throughout the world.
Of course there are; and the vicious circle of state and pressure-group terrorism ensures that the military machine will have all the political support it needs for the future.
Until - taxpayers/voters decide to stand up to the brainwashers, or the country faces bankruptcy.
jlocke -- "As I say this I assume by "solution" you mean "promoting democracy", "spreading liberty" of some other Americanism that serves as a placeholder for controlling Afghan energy pipelines."
It seems im not the only one 'assuming' around here. You need to chill. Having a reasonable discussion doesnt necessitate assuming this nonsense.
The news today asserted that foreigners are
crossing the borders into Afghanistan in anticipation of the American build-up. A friend has urged me to be more loving in posts at Common Dreams. How, though, can one feel positive when one has every reason to believe that this war will escalate in a second and we will be in a new quagmire?
Just a little common sense-- somebody-- please!!!!
JL: Yes, American supported factions of the Pakistani secret service and Army are supporting Taliban who live across the Pakistani/Afghan border. I'm hoping that this will end as well. In general, I hope that the trend towards the rule of law and democracy continues in Pakistan.
DC: UM what trend are you talking about? Pakistan is not headed towards rule of law and democracy its a failed state with nuclear weapons aimed at both Delhi and Kabul.
JL: I understand that expats would be happy to return to Afghanistan. It is also natural that expats are not a fan of the Taliban that drove them out. The Taliban are clearly brutish, uneducated thugs.
DC: No kidding. You try not seeing your family for 15 years. You cannot imagine the pain.
JL: Things are not going well in Afghanistan however. The American disposition to bomb anything that moves has fatally, I think, wounded the NATO mission there. Afghan tribes people are not sophisticated. Many live all their lives without watching BBC or reading the western press, that is a tongue in cheek way of saying that they know nothing of the official aims of the western soldiers there. All they know is that the invading non-Muslim soldiers have not made them safe from Taliban reprisals. Quite to the contrary, they fear being caught in the next American bombing "mistake".
I hope all goes well for you and your husband.
DC: Yes, Afghanistan is number 5 from bottom on the UNDP index thanks to the Soviet invasion and 30 years of war and suffering. Having access to Western Press does not make one educated or civilized. This is a very ethnocentric point of view especially when you are talking about a nation where illiteracy in Dari and Pushtu is exceptionally high. One thing America is doing in Afghanistan that must be praised is increasing access to education and literacy rates especially for girls who were banned from school under the Taliban. We can still do better with development there and less money should be going to the NGO's and more to the people. The solution to Afghanistan and Pakistan is not a military one its a development one. Some of the PRT's are actually doing a good job of building schools and winnning hearts and minds. Painting the entire military operation there with a broad brush is foolish because you cannot have development without security first. A way to eliminate the need for the military is too cut all aid to Pakistan until funding of the Taliban is stopped. I guarentee that tomorrow that would put an end to the insurgency. I'd also like to add In the south the NGO's cannot operate due to security so its been the PRT's and some of them are doing good work.
Oh and as far as Afghans not being sophisticated...my Afghan husband would beg to differ.
The fact is we fought on the wrong side in the 80s, We armed fundamentalists (bin Laden, Mullah Omar, etc.) and drug pushers against secular forces that rallied around the Soviets. The drug pushers we supported took over after we left and their barbarity caused the other groups we armed, predecessors of the Taliban, to be able to throw out the drug pusher liberation army we backed and bring backwards, stone women and forbid them from working fundamentalists, to take over Afghanistan. We killed the secularists.
How long do you think it will be before the Russian military starts providing SAMS to the Obama-sent army in Afghanistan. From their perspective they were fighting the good fight against the feudalists and were defeated because we armed the fundamentalists and the drug pushers. Now they'll be able to have their surrogates get even. I'm sure they're just delighted about the US desire to put ABMs on their borders.
No, Afghanistan is not a good war. We need to get bin Laden and his little cohort of feudalist thugs -- take away the arms we gave them -- and bring them to justice. If our mission is limited to that, and not to slaughtering local leadership who disagree with us in Afghanistan, we'd get the support of the populace and destroy al Qaeda in the process.
"The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because the attacks on September 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after September 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Ft. Benning, Georgia under that specious rationale."
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/29/10670/
wins in my book as gold star commentary of the week.
"DC: UM what trend are you talking about? Pakistan is not headed towards rule of law and democracy its a failed state with nuclear weapons aimed at both Delhi and Kabul."
I was referring to the past elections and the efforts of the legal community in Pakistan to support the supreme court. They are taking to the streets and taking personal risks that I don't see American lawyers taking in the struggle to reverse the trampling of US laws.
"You cannot imagine the pain"
Actually DC, I can.
"This is a very ethnocentric point of view"
Did you read my post? Do you know what "tongue in cheek" means?
"Painting the entire military operation there with a broad brush is foolish because you cannot have development without security"
You can't have development without security. Equally you can't have security when invaders are dropping bombs and kicking in doors indiscriminately. What I find is that indeed all development in the south has been poisoned by a combination of insufficient troops and indiscriminate killing from the air that shows the locals that their security is the last thing on the minds of the Americans, and we are talking mostly about the Americans. They make up more than half the troops and their misconduct has repercussions for the other participating armies. The Taliban blow up development projects as fast as NGOs that are "imbedded" with the military put them up. Also we have neglected to mention the poppy situation.
The areas in the north where the Germans and most European soldiers are stationed is completely different and are failing for a different mix of reasons among them the reliance on what sometimes are referred to as warlords instead of a, at present, and into the foreseeable future, nonexistent nationwide government. The leader the Afghans have now is sometimes called the mayor of Kabul, something akin to the king of the green zone in Iraq.
So I agree that cutting aid to dictatorial Pakistan would be a good step and there needs to be support to development projects but I'm not convinced that the US military operations, including mercenaries and spies, should continue. I'd like to see peace and tranquility there but I don't see current or proposed US actions moving things in a way that will give lasting benefits to the people. What I see now is 20 000 more US troops perhaps managing a stalemate with the Taliban, and as resentment against foreigners expands, the US will need 20 000 more etc. There needs to be a negotiation between Afghans, Taliban included, and their neighbours towards a new arrangement.
Columnist Conn says, "Anatol Lieven, a professor of war at King's College London, says that a major impetus behind the growing resistance is anger over the death of family members and neighbors."
Wrap your minds around that? A professor OF WAR!!!! as if it takes more than a 5th grade sense of logic to come to this most ostensibly clear conclusion!
Good points: MOURNE, ALEX NOSAL, & DEEPA. Thanks for the "home" analysis DC BELTWAY, too.
DC "Oh and as far as Afghans not being sophisticated…my Afghan husband would beg to differ."
Your expat husband has seen much of the world in the fifteen years outside Afghanistan no doubt. Obviously I was talking about the majority of Afghans that are in contact with western soldiers. They can't tell the difference between England and US troops. If the US drops a bomb on a wedding party, the Afghans can be forgiven for mistaking a British development team for Americans when they exact revenge.
Thank you Conn Hallinan.
-Whatever happens in Afghanistan is none of the imperialist US's business. The US is always playing global policeman. We have have almost 200 bases around the world, no small wonder Americans are so despised. Imperialist pigs!
It so OBVIOUSLY ABOUT CONTROL OF AN OIL RICH region that it's laughable. The US should get the hell out both Iraq and Afghanistan but don't count on that happening anytime soon.
Count on that cowardly chickenhawk Obama to continue the criminal wars:
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?" Never been in a uniform or fought in a war but Obama is more than happy to send your boy off to find a bullet to end his life for the profits of the few. I spit on both Obama and McCain!
No matter which pro-war pro-Big Business party wins the wars will go on as will the stupid justifications only fools would buy.
The attack on the WTC was a criminal act and a police action was called for not a war. Both invasions, Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal war crimes- period.
As long as the Democrats and Republicans run our government the endless string of one war after another will continue as will the idiot apologists ever eager to invent new rationales. Fuck them both! Go Greens!
What would happen if there was a national referendum on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the possible war in Iran and the possible war in Pakistan?
Beyond that, what would happen if there was a national referendum on war itself -- in other words, war in general?
Maybe we should ask the question a different way? ...
How would the average American spend the $15 billion per month being spent on Iraq? -- on war? -- or on health, education and welfare?
(For a running total of how much is being spent on the war in Iraq, and *how else* that $15 billion per month could be spent, see the following -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home )
Those in power know damn well that if a national referendum were held on the question of "WAR OR PEACE, WHICH DO YOU PREFER?" that the overwhelming majority of people would vote for peace. Not just in America but throughout the world.
So, just for the fun of it, let's count how many times -- in this decade alone! -- the Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar sentiment in the United States.
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public, and in no uncertain terms, that the Congressional elections that year would not be about whether the US should or shouldn't invade Iraq -- invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision -- instead, we were told that the 2002 elections would be about "other issues." ... In other words, peace was "off the table."
That's 1.
2.) In 2004, what could have been a referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a peace candidate, Howard Dean
-- instead became a choice between two war candidates, John Kerry and George Bush.
That's 2. That's the *second* betrayal in this decade, by the Democratic Party, of the antiwar sentiment in the United States.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of Americans voted Democratic to end the War. ... However, in the days that followed their Party's stunning success, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear to the American public that ending the War in Iraq wasn't in the cards, it just wasn't going to happen.
Ending the War ... off the table!
Impeachment ... off the table!
But just so the table isn't completely bare, guess what? ... The possibility of war with Iran: *ON* the table! ... The possibility of war with Pakistan: *ON* the table!
That's 3. That's the *third* betrayal in this decade, by the Democratic Party, of the ever-growing antiwar sentiment in the United States.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 ...
Enter Barack Obama, the king of the con men.
Wonder of wonders, Barack Obama the peace candidate, has now become Barack Obama the warmonger! ... And oh, thank-you-thank-you-thank-you, Barack Obama, for finally "clarifying" your position on Iraq -- Obama's position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.
The fact that Obama's now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media, specifically, left-liberal media.
Moreover, Obama has the hopeful audacity to claim that -- Hey, you misunderstood. That's what I meant all along! No, really! Would I lie?
(In other words, it was *our* fault for not listening carefully.)
Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan); and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).
He's four-for-four! ... Evidently, Obama wants to be a war president just like George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents.
All of which guarantees that the 2008 election will, once again, *not* be a referendum on war and peace.
And so that's four Democratic betrayals of the antiwar sentiment in the past six years. ... With polls now showing that two-thirds of the American public want out of Iraq.
The Democratic Party to the oligarchic elite:
"Don't worry, we, your loyal functionaries, have once again done what we've been doing for decades. We've defused yet another grassroots progressive movement. ...
"When it looked like the Populists back in the 1890s were getting out of hand, we neutralized them. ...
"When it looked like the labor movement in the 1930s was getting out of hand, challenging the status quo, we defused, diluted and eventually neutralized them. ...
"When it looked like the civil rights movement and the environmental movement were getting out of hand, threatening the status quo, we diffuse, diluted and neutralized those broad-based, mass movements. ...
"And now, the growing antiwar movement -- not to worry -- we've neutered those trouble-makers as well. ... Mission accomplished!"
By shifting the focus to Afghanistan, Obama made a clever campaign move. But it just proves how cynical he really is. Afghanistan is not the "good" war or the "right" war. It was, for Bush and the neocons, just the entryway to Iraq. Obama should know better. He's playing politics with war, just as Bush did. He's a fool, just as Bush and the Congress are.
Anyone that would call any war good is either an idot or a mental deficient.
"Paul_GA July 31st, 2008 1:40 pm
Ben Franklin said it best — "There never was a good war or a bad peace."
The truth.
No further comment from me, dcbeltway's knowledge on this subject suspends the need for guessing or many questions. They are covering it nicely and thank you all for it.
Hey guess what dogs? I am getting ready to go with my girlfriend to meet.................................yea, you guessed it buddy- Vincent Bugliosi! THE MAN himself is signing books in Pasadena CA. Guess what hosers? Yea buddy I will have my very own copy of Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder ISBN 978-159315-481-3(2008)" signed by none other than Vincent Bugliosi!
I know you dogs are jealous. Aren't you? Kiss my butt!
Frank Rich thinks the people of Afghanistan are "those who attacked us"? and so the nightly massacres of women and children from 50,000 feet up are "a war of necessity"? I do believe all wars are stupid, but no unprovoked attack I ever heard of was more brutal or more unjustified than this.
I hated this felonious assault from the moment it was first suggested, and no matter how many bombs get "accidently" dropped on mud huts, tiny villages and wedding parties, it will never become necessary. Nor will the innocent people of Afghanistan ever become "those who attacked us".
Rich does not know any more than anyone else who attacked us- I mean besides the mostly Saudi Arabs with box cutters who died with their hijacked planes.
But he and Obama can be certain it was NOT the
Afghan villagers and shepherds they insist on killing.
There's a very good movie I was watching the other day -- I got it from my local public library -- it's called "Hearts and Minds" -- a 1974 film that, I believe, won the Academy Award that year for Best Documentary.
It's about the war in Vietnam.
And in the DVD voiceover-commentary, the director, Peter Davis, who went to Vietnam back then to film the documentary, said -- At a certain point you say to yourself: This war needs to end, now! By noon today. Just end. Because it doesn't matter who wins. If the North Vietnamese win, fine. If the Americans win, fine. But the war needs to end: NOW.
That was the Vietnam War. And if you go to the "Encyclopedia Britannica," you'll see that they estimate that 2,250,000 Vietnamese were killed as a result of that War -- at least 1,000,000 of whom were civilians.
The *Iraq* War has, to date, resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis. See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
So one has to ask NOT:
... "What is your plan for Iraq, Barack Obama, John McCain?
... What is your plan for Afghanistan, for Iran and for Pakistan, Barack Obama, John McCain?"
But, rather, how many more people have to die before you stop. Before you JUST STOP!
The headline today in mainstream media was: "Violence has subsided in Iraq." ...
NOT: "Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the War."
NOT: "The United States is involved in two wars in the Middle East and both major-party presidential candidates are threatening a war in *two more* Middle Eastern countries."
NOT an estimation by the two major-party candidates of how many more people have to die before all this "embracing of war" stops.
After it all JUST STOPS.
RICHARD PAINE: Good diagnosis on disease politicus Americanus, but let's not confuse who this WE (thing) is... the usual stops when the carvan is careening into the abyss seem to be disabled, and many are spellbound, incredulous, truly ill, gone with the wind, working their butts off to try to elicit change among what's left of viable leadership... in other words the WE is a rather large pronoun that lends false legitimacy to the deft enablers of a coup that has gone further than anyone can believe possible. In a sense, we're all victims of post traumatic stress disorder, or is it Stockholme Syndrome for those who identify with their abuser... the supposed 37%. Likely the same ones who question global warming, evolution, women's rights, and believe the Iraqi war was a logical response to 911. ETC. There is a reality deficit operating, since THE reality has been shaped by a very efficient omnipresent mass media that knows who (hint: MIC) butters its bread.
How is it that a country in such disarray within its own borders has the knowledge to fix the rest of the world? How is it that a country which since the Infamous 9-11 has usurped its own Constitution and the freedoms of its citizens and foreigners as well, claims to know what is right and how to fix the rest of the world? A country who since the days of the great Ronald Reagan has continually deregulated Corporations, Oligarchies,Banking, Markets of Commerce to the point of near Depression (forget about recession). A country who has exported jobs and companies and now wars, how is it that they can do such things to the world? How is it that an illegal government within said country, with an approval rating in the Teens per centage wise among its own populace, having Broken with the Constitution which supposedly extends the right to govern to them, is allowed to do this and get away with it? Good war, Bad war.......war is hell folks and will you please tell me why we are putting up with it? Pretty please with sugar on top, I really would like to know and even understand why and what is going on.
Richard Paine: "How is it that a country which since the Infamous 9-11 has usurped its own Constitution and the freedoms of its citizens and foreigners as well, claims to know what is right and how to fix the rest of the world?"
When I ask my American friends this question, it really always comes down to the shock of 9/11. Americans decided that they would put their trust in one man, Bush, to keep them safe, and he took this trust and abused it.
Afg. Not a good war - ya think!!
It may be difficult to believe, but before WWII, the US possessed a small military.
For one thing, our constitutional forefathers famously distrusted the growth of the executive and military.
Second, our rulers had very little need for a medium or large military.
At present, the military arm of the US government is the largest command economy of the world.
The ideology of militarism, conquest and violence permeates the US culture (along with Mar's blood relative: commercialism (Mammon).
Of course, the US plutocrats are going to bankrupt the US. Earlier, they bankrupted the republic by transforming it into a militaristic empire. Now, they are finishing the job by bankrupting the government coffers.
.
.....9-11, the NeoCons Secret Agenda, the Jewish Lobby, and President Bush, the Mad CowBoy were lured into the Middle East. For over 3500 years no Foreign Invaders have ever conquered these peoples.
These mountains, wadi, deserts, passes, and jungles have been death traps and graveyards since military history has been recorded.
Neither Bush, nor his 2nd rate Generals have a clue to turning this military disaster around.....In fact they have abandoned over a quarter of a million (250,000++) U.S. Troops, in place, in the Middle East to be defeated and killed.
IMPEACH both Bush and Cheney...........NOW !!!!!!!!!!!
.
Why bring up poll figures when the aggressors themselves have done every little thing in disregard to any and every poll. And who exactly is polling the Afghans and who's paying the bill for these polls?
listen to balakirev - ge has got the right dope. Founders did not intend us to protect the world and fight their wars.
Balakirev - would you say that our goreign policy changed during the first world war when democrat wilson declared that the world must be made "safe for democracy"?
let us know?
The Afghan invasion & occupation is not a good war. Barbara Lee was the only profile in Courage in Congress.
Yes, Hearts and Minds IS a GREAT movie! General Westmoreland is shown stating that "the oriental" just doesn't value human life. This juxtaposed with Vietnamese sobbing, as they lie draped over coffins filled by loved ones. The dvd is available on Amazon. Buy and share it.
If there has to be a single digested answer to Richard's questions is has sto be Follow the Money. While the rest of us were doing nine to five or looking for a nine to five job the rest were manufacturing schemes of every sort (all connected together) to defraud all of us...So when you say that this administration has failed miserably I suggest that everything is going according to plan and will continue to do so. We don't know what the Big Plan really is, how it came into being and until we understand the motivations we won't reach any conclusions on how to deal with it. Yet....no man is an island unto himself..it will take all of the combined effort and collective energy of those who sincerely want to do something positive before it is too late. It has to be another political party, one that owes no allegance to anyone now aiding and abetting the cabal that continues to go about the business of defrauding everything and anything within their sites.
It is sad that this kind of European Durrand Line holier-than-thou Stalinist Pacifism passes as journalism.
(1) "Virtually no one in the United States or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) calls for negotiating with the Taliban. Even the New York Times editorializes that those who want to talk "have deluded themselves.""
Does virtually anyone in the Taliban or the Al Qaeda Treaty Organization call for negotiating with democratically elected officials in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Even the writer of these lines editorializes that those Taliban who want to talk have deluded themselves.
NATO did not attack Afghanistan first. The Taliban, not Afghanistan, lends support to individuals who attacked the United States, Spain, and the UK- all NATO members. NATO is not an obstacle to the Taliban competing democratically for power in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
And just because British imperialism failed to conquer a free and independent people doesn't mean that the Taliban will. In fact, judging from history, the Taliban will have a hard time colonizing a free and independent thinking Pashtun people. The Russians failed, the British failed, the Soviets failed, and I am sure the Saudi Arabians will fail.
This is the story that is never told. And the world is poorer for it.
The United States and NATO are not engaged in Afghanistan to influence the price of natural gas and oil or to 'conquer' anybody. 9/11 mobilized world opinion against the Taliban and the world came together to oppose them. If any natural resource is implicated, (and a good reason for NATO to be engaged in building a tolerant and peaceful Afghanistan) is the presence of a large quantity of uranium. Afghanistan lies between Pakistan (a nuclear power) and Iran (a future nuclear power). Afghanistan should not be a battleground.
"UN Security Council Resolutions 2001"
http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm
"Mineral deposits could contribute to Afghanistan's economic recovery"
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntr33452.htm
Defeating or democratically engaging an anti-communist non-ethnic religious movement that has failed to assert itself democratically in Pashtun Pakistan or Pashtun Afghanistan is self-defeating for social democracy everywhere. Progressives, above all others, should not fall for the logic of those who have redressed Stalinist Pacifism that embraced nuts like Hitler, by seeking to find a Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Taliban.
Engaging and defeating the anticommunist antidemocratic Taliban militarily and democratically has enabled Afghans to begin to rebuild a tolerant society and reconnect Afghanistan to the world community. Not as much has been accomplished because of Bush's invasion of Iraq, but more can and should be done to prevent the Taliban from continuing to plan and commit genocide and terrorism against the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan over whom they seek to create a dictatorship led by Mullah Omar and his aristocratic financiers and trainers in Al Qaeda. Defeating them or bringing them into the democratic process is critical to regional stability and global security policies of all nations, particularly those that have been attacked by Al Qaeda whom the Taliban has harbored since the 1990s.
-----------------------
"The leader of the Awami National Party, Afrasiab Khattack, which now governs the North West Frontier Province of which Peshawar is the capital, has said he believed Mangal Bagh and his men were a creation of Pakistan's powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency."
"In the past, these operations have been inconclusive," Mr. Khattack said. "We will have to wait and see if this one is conclusive."
"Pakistan Forces Shell Bases of Militant Leader"
June 29, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/asia/29pstancnd.html
-------------------------------------------------------
"The Taliban, which have solidified control across Pakistan's tribal zone and are seeking new staging grounds to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, have sided with fellow Sunni Muslims against an enclave of Shiites settled in Parachinar for centuries. The population of about 55,000 is short of food. The fruit crop is rotting, residents say, and the cost of a 66-pound bag of flour has skyrocketed to $100."
"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html
Buy the entire poppy crop each year (6 billion) to make pain killers. The Taliban will be deprived of revenues and the Afghans will be happy. The world has a great need for pain killers. Provide heroin to addicts and you deprive the pushers and their criminal friends of their market and reduce thefts done to support an expensive habit (90 % of break-ins).
doug -- "Engaging and defeating the anticommunist antidemocratic Taliban militarily and democratically has enabled Afghans to begin to rebuild a tolerant society and reconnect Afghanistan to the world community."
I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the Taliban are not defeated. I fervently wish they were but they are not. They have enough and more support from Pakistan (ISI) to continue their drive towards Kabul. While they have suffered recent setbacks, its temporary and they will regain their positions and strength in no time.
Its clearly in Pakistans interest to have the Taliban in control of Kabul (Afghanistan) as they would love to counter India and Iran strategically. Hence they will offer a lot of lip service to the Americans but will effectively do nothing. Gilani was in the U.S. this week promising the world to Bush and went down on his knees and he received a bunch of F16's in return !! Trust me .. you dont need F16's to counter the Taliban !!
_______________
this just in from the NY Times !!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/asia/01pstan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin