Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan, the Next US Quagmire?
UNITED NATIONS - The United States is planning to send an additional 17,000 troops to one of the world's most battle-scarred nations - Afghanistan - long described as "a graveyard of empires".
First, it was the British Empire, and then the Soviet Union. So, will the United States be far behind?
"With his new order on Afghanistan, President (Barack) Obama has given substantial ground to what Martin Luther King Jr., in 1967 called 'the madness of militarism'", Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS.
"That madness should be opposed in 2009," said Solomon, author of 'War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.'
The proposed surge in U.S. troops will bring the total to 60,000, while the combined forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), including troops from Germany, Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, amount to over 32,000.
When in full strength, U.S.-NATO forces in Afghanistan could reach close to 100,000 by the end of this year.
Still, in a TV interview Tuesday, Obama said he was "absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban (insurgency), the spread extremism in that region solely through military means."
"If there is no military solution, why is the administration's first set of decisions to continue drone attacks and increase ground troops?" Marilyn B. Young, a professor of history at New York University, told IPS.
She said the uncertainty around Afghan policy seems to be spreading even while the Obama administration announces an increase in troops.
"This is one of the ways events seem to echo U.S. escalation in the Vietnam War," said Young, author of several publications, including 'Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam: Or, How Not to Learn From the Past'.
On Tuesday, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released a report revealing that in 2008, there were 2,118 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an increase of almost 40 percent over 2007.
Of these casualties, 55 percent of the overall death toll was attributed to anti-government forces, including the Taliban, and 39 percent to Afghan security and international military forces.
"This is of great concern to the United Nations," the report said, pointing out that "this disquieting pattern demands that the parties to the conflict take all necessary measures to avoid the killing of innocent civilians."
During his presidential campaign last year, Obama said the war in Iraq was a misguided war.
The United States, he said, needs to pull out of Iraq, and at the same time, bolster its troops in Afghanistan, primarily to prevent the militant Islamic fundamentalist Taliban from regaining power and also to eliminate safe havens for terrorists.
But most political analysts point out that Afghanistan may turn out to be a bigger military quagmire for U.S. forces than Iraq.
Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy said Obama's moves on Afghanistan have "the quality of a moth toward a flame."
In the short run, Obama is likely to be unharmed in domestic political terms. But the policy trajectory appears to be unsustainable in the medium-run, he added.
"Before the end of his first term, Obama is very likely to find himself in a vise, caught between a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and a political quandary at home that significantly erodes the enthusiasm of his electoral base while fueling Republican momentum," Solomon argued.
Dr. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation and a former political officer with UNAMA in Kabul, told IPS she is doubtful that more troops will secure Afghanistan.
"Perhaps several years ago more troops would have been welcomed. My fear is that more troops means more civilian losses and further erosion of good will and support for the international presence," Fair said.
"I would personally prefer a move from kinetics and towards using this increased capacity to help build Afghan capacity," she noted.
"I also think greater support from the international community for reconciliation is needed. Afghans need to own this process," said Fair, a former senior research associate with the Centre for Conflict Analysis and Prevention at the U.N. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington.
However, she said, the international community has legitimate interests in remaining in some capacity to ensure that Afghanistan does not again emerge as a safe haven for al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.
Fair also co-authored (along with Seth Jones) a USIP report released early this week, titled 'Securing Afghanistan', which spelled out the reasons why international stabilisation efforts have not been successful in Afghanistan over the last seven years.
"Security issues in Afghanistan are extraordinarily complex, with multiple actors influencing the threat environment - among them, insurgent groups, criminal groups, local tribes, warlords, government officials and security forces," the report said.
Afghanistan also presents a multi-front conflict that includes distinct security challenges in the northern, central and southern parts of the country, the study declared.
In Afghanistan, Solomon argued, the U.S. president is proceeding down a path that can only be too steep and not steep enough.
The basic contradiction of his current position - asserting that the situation cannot be solved by military means yet taking action to try to solve the problem by military means - signifies that Obama is bargaining for short-term wiggle room at the expense of longer-term rationality, he added.
"In a very real sense, Obama is kicking a bloody can down the road, unable to think of any other way to confront circumstances that will grow worse with time in large measure because of his actions now," he said.
Even while disputing some thematic aspects of the "war on terrorism" at times, Obama is reinvesting his political capital - and re-dedicating the Pentagon's mission - on behalf of a U.S. war effort that is probably doomed to fail on its own terms, Solomon said.
"Reliance on violence is a chronic temptation for a commander-in-chief with the mighty U.S. military under its command. We've seen the results in Iraq - or, more precisely, the people of Iraq and many American soldiers have seen and suffered the results," he added.
- Posted in
89 Comments so far
Show AllAfghanistan the next US quagmire? Absolutely! We have become quagmire specialists since 1950; we're good at it! Combine imperial ambitions, coveting another nation's resources, and complete ignorance of cultures other than our own, and you have a guaranteed quagmire. The Afghan people have routed every foreign invader since the time of Alexander the Great; we will be only the latest to have our lunch eaten by them. Let the failures begin!
Quagmire specialists! I like that!
Wrong. Due to Bush's policies, Afghanistan is a quagmire. But that's why we have to fix it. We have no right to abandon the Afghan people.
joe; lets ask the afghans. we abandoned them before we will do it again. this is not about the afghan people. this is about the powers that be wanting to balkanize the region.
Hey Hopeless,
When are you signing to go 'fix' Afghanistan? As the previous poster said, the US will abandon it again. It is just a matter of time. They have no interest in placing a democracy there. All they want for the Mayor of Kabul to do is to make sure that they protect the gas pipeline they are building . And to do that, they are also bribing the 4 warlords outside of Kabul. The 'bringing democracy to the Afghans" BS is just that...BS...So is the so-called WOT.
horrified; start listening for the name[khalilzad] a signer of pnac, uber neocon, x envoy to every where. he was born in afghanistan, worked for american oil corps. he might be the new viceroy of kabul.
Quagmires are good business, win or lose - doncha know?
lord b; you are correct, the international banksters, and the mic profit from both sides. time is on their side.
...Still, in a TV interview Tuesday, Obama said he was "absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban (insurgency), the spread extremism in that region solely through military means."
==================
Yes! There is no contradiction or paradox in Obama's increase in military war and his statement military isn't the only way. Obama intends to use all the tools in the woodshed -including you!
Indeed, Obama pledged at the Wilson Center in 2007 to build America Houses © all over the “Islamic World” and to install a Voice Corps © that will teach (American History and Democracy?) Muslims about America’s selfless, benevolent world view. Insert image of “the light of hope in the sky”.
The reintroduction of the Peace Corps into a political arm of the White House isn’t too far off (Holbrooke understands firsthand the potential political power of the Peace Corps).
Be certain, “The War we Must Win” speech was written by none other than Lee Hamilton’s people. Obama just happened to be the front company who delivered the message.
The saddest part is all of the progressives who will sign up and die as they participate in laying the mortar and stone for the Empire’s new road
.
© are the property of Lee Hamilton's think tank... (sarcasm)
typo:
"The saddest part is all of the progressives who will sign up and die as they participate in laying the mortar and stone for the Empire’s new road ...."
"...rather than revolt and challenge the current president's plans."
I am told that the poor and uneducated populace run to the taliban or other organizations for fear of the invaders. They fear foreign invaders and cling to their guns and religion as it were....
Beautiful. Obama is going to find out in Afghanistan that it is not only the poor and uneducated in the US who cling to guns and religion. You would think he would have figured that out already, but I guess not.
On October 7, 2001 (when I was demonstrating in Union Square Park carrying a sign "Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War" on one side and "New York NOT in Our Name" on the other), we started throwing everything we had at Afghanistan. All our most up-to-date and biggest non-nuclear bombs, 2-thousand pounders, 5-thousand pounders. We blew the tops off mountains (but not for mining), used bombs that sucked all the air out of caves where people (not necessarily "terrorists") were living, dropped yellow bomblets, not too different from the yellow pop tarts we also dropped, and woe to the child who thought they were candy, blew up fields of date and lemon trees, did extraordinary amounts of damage, continued to do it over the years since, and where are we? We're in the quagmire now, as we have been since then. Meeting violence with violence produces only more violence. Enough.
Lets END all These False WARS! Lets Stop the "Collateral Damage".
and for those who do not know what collateral damage is - it is basically the dead civilian count - casualties of war who had nothing to do with said war. An american term, of course.
Some change obama is giving us. within his first two weeks he ordered the death of 19 Pakistani "Collateral Damage" and now 17,000 Additional troops into Afghanistan. The New Quagmire.
It is so easy for these presidents to send war and death and mayhem to other countries, I wonder if they would be as eager if the fighting and killing and destruction was happening here on this very dirt you and I stand on.
The only change I am seeing is a new person in the white house. Where is the change we can believe in?
please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Paul Siemering
Ok But do you really need to use the empire's language like that?
let's not. "Bloody dead women and children" is what you are talking about. so say so already. call things by their real names.
enemy; the change was chump change. they select so we may elect.
But, the war IS here. It is parked right outside on the street or in a warm garage.
http://freepublictransit.org
And I'd like to thank Mr. Soloman for tirelessly supporting Obama.
I didn't know that in supporting Obama, Mr. Solomon took the tires off his car?
Just like Nixon escalating into Cambodia chasing a lost cause, now we are going to surge in Afghanistan. Nobody seems to learn. Only the words have changed.
Unless you are going to occupy and settle an area like the US did in the Indian west an insurgent culture war cannot be won. Who is going to volunteer for a wagon train to Kabul? Maybe they can put up a sign up page on change.gov asking for volunteers to emigrate.
Ofcourse the MSM could promote a gold rush. "GO to Afganistan and stake your claim!"
The difference is the USA was never attacked by Cambodia.
Does anyone remember 911?
I'll bet the Native Americans have a similar claim. Does anyone remember native American genocide?
joe; this is much bigger than 9/11. ever hear about PNAC, of course you have. youmust be one of their fellow travelers.
Since when did you have to work for the PNAC to support the war in Afghanistan?
I believe you are thinking of Iraq...
joe; NO, i am not thinking about iraq, your unabashed support of the attack in afghanistan is a neocon, ziocon, dream come true. you have been duped my friend.
911 involved how many Afghans??
"The difference is the USA was never attacked by Cambodia."
Are you suggesting the U.S. was attacked by Afghanistan ? Crawl back right now.
There's Gold in them there Poppies!!!!!!!!!
I think Joe ment to say: "Cambodia never cut off the US's horse."
Afghanistan is a made up country. It has so many different tribes, bringing democracy to that place is a fairy tale.
If Obama thinks there is another solution rather than a military one, let him bring it on. Why put soldiers in a losing position, knowing you are doing it, just because you "know we can win." How can he be so sure? The Russians were sure, too.
We need new military leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan. The generals running the wars now aren't making any headway, no matter what the propaganda is.
Ddg --6:03 ------- Looked at objectively, I would say the USA is more of a "made up" country than is Afgahnistan. Also I suggest you ask an Afghan if his country is "made up".Not to be disrespectful but when one says an ancient entity is "made up" one is bordering on racism. I believe Afghanistan though a monarchy did have democratic elections under the Shahs(could be wrong on this fact). -------Thanks -------- Peace
Our empire building volunteer force is only in Afghanistan for one single purpose; to protect all the oil pipelines running through Afghanistan that include plumbing links to oil rich "hot zones" of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline that are proposed would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Democracy is a moot point. Nice to know that these 17,000 "volunteers" are nothing but pipline cops.
dead gi; well said.
Yes, chiefly pipeline cops. Also, an excuse for private military contracts.
Oil is behind all of our recent invasions and occupations. Oil will not last long in the region. Some say as little as 10 years. We face a prospect of our grandchildren without basics like heat, without food transport that our cities depend on.
Imagine if, instead, we were to let go of the pipeline and divert the military spending to build solar power and wind power. Our soldiers could assist on construction of clean energy and clean transportation systems, which is the key to national security at this time. We would have clean power forever, cleaner environment and nobody dead.
Joe
First, it was the British Empire, and then the Soviet Union. So, will the United States be far behind?
Does the question even need to be asked? Looks like George Wanker Bush left the stink of Glory Seeking behind in the Oval Office. Someone light a match before it's too late.
A few years ago, a reporter at the Hartford Advocate wrote an educational story
on Afganistan, and showed the pipe lines. He was sent packing. Why is this
story on Pipe lines being kept out of the public square? Maybe Pat Lamarche
will tell us nore when she is done, promoting a Casino in Bethel, Maine.
Freedom of the press? Ask the advocate to run the story again, maybe the Hartford
Courant will allow it.
Lee Hamilton is the DLC hack who participated in the 9/11 coverup.
Forty years ago i never dreamed that in 2009 I'd still be chanting, "Stop the War, stop the bombs, bring our boys home!"
rumiluv
Actually Hamilton co-chaired the 911 Commission which was one of the most thorough investigations in US history. They interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely-guarded classified national security documents.
Oh, but they did leave out all that stuff about aliens being behind the attacks. Is that why you don't like Hamilton?
Oh give it and us a break. The man "makes a fool of himself" because YOU say so. No wonder we are a lost cause. We're still preferring to believe in tooth fairies, and, God.
Surely you have a bit of compassion for those unable to stomach the naive and unsophisticated politics represented by the posts of Joe Hope?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
joe; you are in for a big surprise when the 9/11 truth comes out.
There is much more to the 9/11 story, but the "truth out" movement has taken on being a cult. And you know what happens when a cult is criticized or threatened. Seems to me one delusion replaces another and then another. As for me, I'm going home to Gannymede where I belong.
Cult?? In this context, it would be just as easy to say that those who ridicule the 911 truth proponents are a widespread cult of MSM- brain-washed deniers. It's just your opinion, Binban. "911 truth-out" is not a cult just because you want to say it is.
joe; here it is; when ever they want to white wash anything they do not call ghost busters. they call lee hamilton.
The 911 Commission was so "thorough" that many witnesses were not even called to testify. Witnesses who did testify in contradiction to the desired outcome were omitted from the Commission Report. Mr. Zelikow (stand in for the original--and promptly discredited--commission head Henry Kissinger)made sure that certain information (security reasons, of course) was not allowed to be considered by Commission members, prompting at least one Commission member (I believe it was Max Cleland)to resign. The 911 Commission was thorough--thorough in covering up.
Paul Siemering
But if he embraces it so eagerly- not even a month since he took office! than isn't it Obama's madness as well? yes it is. plus he proclaimed this policy already during the campaign.
Remember when he started assembling his advisors? and then his cabinet, his staff, and we are rolling our eyes like What? Who? Why? all those battered old clinton era retreads?
so this is what happens.
It's your war now Obama.
Obama is not a friend of the people; plain and simple. He wants his buddies to keep making the money that's generated and anyone who voted for him is as guilty as he is. Stop the madness and let our people go!
Quoting from the article:
"On Tuesday, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released a report revealing that in 2008, there were 2,118 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an increase of almost 40 percent over 2007.
Of these casualties, 55 percent of the overall death toll was attributed to anti-government forces, including the Taliban, and 39 percent to Afghan security and international military forces."
Those are words, now where's the proof? For now I will doubt that the Taliban are responsible for more Afghan civilian deaths due to the fighting between the Taliban resistance and the U.S. and NATO aggression forces.
Quote: "During his presidential campaign last year, Obama said the war in Iraq was a misguided war."
It most definitely is misguided; it's for the Caspian region's very rich energy reserves and really no other reason, the Al Qaeda and 9-11 attacks aspects being mostly about political "game-playing" to get the support of the population of the USA for war in and on the Taliban, they were told, but really on Afghanistan. Some reference resource articles are the following, and there are many others.
"The Deadly Pipeline War: US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests", by Marjorie Cohn, Dec 8 2001
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm
"A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House:
From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan",
by Tom Turnipseed, Jan 11 2002
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0111-05.htm
"IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL!", Dec 27 2002 or since
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html
I once read the latter Web page, and possibly did read either or both of the articles by Marjorie Cohn and Tom Turnipseed, but don't recall having read them; however, all three do provide a relevant quote and of the words of Richard (Dick) Cheney in 1998 when he spoke to Big Oil industrialists, a quote I'll now reproduce to place it right up front in this post.
"In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. [Guardian]"
That quote is from the whatreallyhappened.com page and the Guardian article the quote was copied from is the following. The url differs from the one that '[Guardian]' shows, but that url automatically remaps to the following one.
"America's pipe dream
A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the US an Afghan route for Caspian oil",
by George Monbiot, Oct 23 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11
I also didn't read that article, but have read plenty on the subject of the war in and on Afghanistan being for the U.S. control of the Caspian's very rich oil and natural gas reserves for plenty of years now, so I'm definitely familiar with the topic.
The whatreallyhappened.com page provides much more than the above quote, which is only a short piece at the start of the page, the rest of which mostly consists of a copy of or extraction from the "1998 Congressional Report" and with respect to John J. Maresca, who was then VP of International Relations for Unocal and who specifically addressed the House of Rep's about the Caspian's very rich energy reserves and that he, representing Unocal, knew of only two alternative ways of shipping those reserves, but while one of the options really wasn't an option, unless the U.S. govt stopped claiming that Iran was a terrorist state or govt. That, he said, left only one real option and it is the pipeline through Afghanistan, a matter of business that the U.S. govt had taken up with the Taliban, but which they ended up rejecting and most surely because they perceived that they were being seriously swindled by the power elites of the U.S.
We also know that Cheney headed the Energy Task Force and that they had met in January 2001, a meeting during which Iraq was a top priority topic because of its rich oil reserves.
This continues with an additional post that will be made shortly enough.
My mission in life is to acquire a new SUV every year and remodel/expand my mcmansion every two years. The media keeps me updated with my latest options. And I suppose the Pentagon is keeping me safe. The Pentagon is "fighting them over there" so they will not threaten my property.
Reading Joe's posts is like reading a dittohead troll's recap of Limbaugh talking points on democratic underground. Only they're Obama talking points.
"We have to fix [Afghanistan]. We have no right to abandon the Afghan people."
Most of them desperately WANT us to "abandon" them and take our Predator drones with us. We can't "fix" a country and really have no right to try. We do owe them all the resources THEY need to fix the damage we've caused.
"The 911 Commission was one of the most thorough investigations in US history."
Most thorough cover-ups, you mean. For just one minor example out of hundreds of vital omissions, the 600 page report does not mention the collapse of WTC 7 even once. Read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions by David Ray Griffin for starters.
"The difference is the USA was never attacked by Cambodia. Does anyone remember 911?"
Even if you believe the government's conspiracy theory, "Afghanistan" didn't attack us on 9/11. A small group of terrorists did. Invading, bombing, and occupying a whole country because a gang of criminals were hanging out there is a crime against humanity even worse than 9/11 itself. And just as unproductive.
This war has nothing to do with "terror." It's all about oil and the encirclement of China and Russia. Nothing else (except a bit of support for Israel perhaps.) Obama knows this, but he apparently can't break free of the MIC.