EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Red Cross Confirms Dozens Dead in Afghan Air Strikes
HERAT, Afghanistan - Afghan villagers mourned relatives buried in mass graves after U.S.-led air strikes that the Red Cross said killed dozens and local officials said may have killed more than 100 civilians.
An Afghan boy looks on as French soldiers search a house in Kapisa province, Afghanistan in February 2009. Dozens of people including women and children were killed in US-led coalition air strikes in western Afghanistan, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Wednesday. (AFP/File/Joel Saget) U.S. and Afghan officials rushed on Wednesday to investigate the incident, which may overshadow President Hamid Karzai's first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama since Obama's election.
Villagers who survived the bombing of houses packed with terrified civilians told Reuters by telephone dozens of members of one extended family alone had died. They wept as they spoke of orphaned children and burying loved ones' fragmented remains.
"My son and my daughter in-law have been killed and left me with a 13-month-old baby," said Gul Bibi from Geraani village.
"Their remains were buried in a mass grave with others, and I didn't even have a chance to see his face for the last time because his body was blown apart," she sobbed.
The bombings, that lasted around an hour, killed 50 members of neighbor Sayed Azam's extended family, Azam told Reuters.
"There were Taliban in the area, and fierce fighting during the day but it ended when it was dark. People thought the fighting was over when suddenly bombings began," he said.
Rohul Amin, governor of Farah province, where the bombing took place late on Monday and fighting raged into Tuesday, said he feared 100 civilians had been killed. Provincial police chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar said the death toll could be even higher.
If confirmed, those even higher figures could make the incident the single deadliest for Afghan civilians since the campaign to topple the Taliban in 2001.
Karzai called the civilian deaths "unjustifiable and unacceptable," and would raise them with Obama at their meeting in Washington later on Wednesday, his office said. He dispatched a joint Afghan-U.S. delegation to investigate.
Civilian casualties are a source of great strain between Washington and Kabul at a time of rising violence by Islamist Taliban insurgents and with U.S. troop numbers due to be more than doubled by the end of the year.
DOZENS OF BODIES, HOUSES DESTROYED
Jessica Barry, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said the Geneva-based group had sent a team which reached the scene of the air strikes on Tuesday afternoon.
"There were women and there were children who were killed. It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit," she said. The team saw houses destroyed and dozens of bodies, providing the first international confirmation of the incident.
Among the dead was a first-aid volunteer for Afghanistan's Red Crescent, killed along with 13 members of his family, she said. The Red Cross could not determine whether fighters were among the dead, she added.
Survivors said they were frustrated that Afghan and foreign teams that visited the village had not offered any help.
"They just photographed us and that was it," said 60-year-old Haji Mohammad Shah, who lost nine family members including his wife, daughter and grandchildren.
"We don't want anything from the government or those who killed them, nothing can replace my family," he added, bursting into tears.
U.S. forces in Afghanistan acknowledge they were involved in fighting and air strikes in the province's Bala Boluk district, which began on Monday and continued into Tuesday after Taliban militants seized a village and clashed with Afghan troops.
Watandar, the provincial police chief, said Taliban guerrillas had used the civilians as shields, herding them into houses in the villages of Geraani and Ganj Abad, that were then struck by U.S.-led coalition warplanes.
"The fighting was going on in another village, but the Taliban escaped to these two villages, where they used people as human shields. The air strikes killed about 120 civilians and destroyed 17 houses," he said, adding the toll was imprecise.
Villagers trucked about 30 dead bodies to the provincial capital Farah City on Tuesday to prove that dozens had been killed in the strikes, said governor Amin.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi confirmed there had been fighting and said all casualties from air strikes were civilians.
"The government and foreign troops must compensate the affected people, we don't want apologies any more," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan have established new drills they say are intended to reduce the number of civilian casualties, following outrage over an incident last year in which Afghan and U.N. investigators said U.S. strikes killed 90 people.
(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Writing by Peter Graff and Emma Graham-Harrison; Editing by Sugita Katyal)
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
51 Comments so far
Show AllBoy if we don't think this will not come with a cost, then were all in deep do do folks. This is pure Indian killing.
Not only mass murder but I see that citizens protesting this atrocity were gunned down as well.
"The fighting was going on in another village, but the Taliban escaped to these two villages, where they used people as human shields. The air strikes killed about 120 civilians and destroyed 17 houses," he said, adding the toll was imprecise.
So this guy wants us to believe that the Taliban thought hiding a bunch of women and children in houses would somehow shield themselves from 2000 lb bombs being dropped from F-16s?
I suppose we are all supposed to nod in agreement, and say to ourselves -- see, it isn't OUR fault all those women and kids were killed.
I doubt that the thought was "The US won't bomb civilians." See World War II. I'm sure the thought was "They may kill us with their bombs but we will control the overall media narrative. The deaths of these civilians will be a PR blow for the US and this will eventually force them (the US), via the outrage of the American people, to cease operations in these lands thereby allowing us to go back to the good old days of Taliban control of the region."
Afghan women loved those days.
Ask yourself this question: Why were these woman and children forced into these houses? Civilian deaths make for good propaganda.
The Taliban are as responsible if not more so for their deaths.
Do the ends justify the means? No. Is it where we are? Yes. Welcome to irregular warfare.
Alfarinn
Now you sound like a bloody troll....
I disagree with some points and suddenly I am a troll? Is there no room for discourse on Common Dreams?
I assure you, I'm not bloody or trolly. I just have some differing opinions. I like and agree with quite a bit on CD, just not everything.
Best regards mate,
Alfarinn
Reading your other responses, you are either a troll or you enjoy the deaths of civilians as long as it supports YOUR so-called idea of freedom. Either way, walk like a duck, quack like a duck......
Where did you get that idea? What is my idea of freedom?
Best regards,
Alfarinn
I suggest you reread some of your posts. As they sure seem to convey thatthe end justify the means concept. And also your reference of freedom under democracy or theocracy.
You confuse my ideal view with the reality of policy. I am discussing the reality of the situation not what I would like to see. My world is a Utopia of peace and equality and where compassion, honesty, hard work and generosity are the highest virtues and that is no joke. I live the change I want to see.
That's just not how the world seems to work and given a choice between living in a theocracy I will take a highly flawed republic any day.
We made the mess in Afghanistan and we have a responsibility to fix it or we risk having religious zealots having nukes in Pakistan and THAT is no joke. That is the severity of the situation.
I just throw out points and ask questions. Feel free to tear them down. Just be civil about it and don't assume you know what people think. It's hard to ask questions to find out the truth but you might find that the person you are talking to does not fit into a neat little niche or label and that they have more in common with you than you think. We are all way more complicated than that.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
>>U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan have established new drills they say are intended to reduce the number of civilian casualties, following outrage over an incident last year in which Afghan and U.N. investigators said U.S. strikes killed 90 people.
Alfarinn you just do not GET It.
What prevented Nato and US forces from implementing this strategy 5 years ago? This killing of Civilians has been going on ever since the invasion occurred.
The policies to limit such casualties could have been in place all along. I hardly believe they suddenly discovered a new procdure that no one could conceive of before.
It patently obvious they did not really care. They felt they could kill children with abandon and only when it became apparent there would be a backlash and that there is a backlash and outrage, did they become concerned about those Children.
Wrong is wrong and dropping bombs on another peoples children is NOT IN THEIR best interests no matter how the Alfarrins try to "spin it".
GwNorth
Very well said. Also one of the news reports stated that Hillary Clinton expressed her "deep regrets" that civilians had died. One strongly suspects that neither H. Clinton nor the great Barack Obama can raise these people from the dead and have them rejoin their families. As the writer Albert Camus once accurately observed:
"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."
What prevented NATO and US forces from implementing this policy was multifaceted. Part of it is that the previous US administration was nearly the most, or maybe the most, incompetent group of crooks the US has seen in generations. They did not listen at all. Part of it was the US DOD clinging to outdated perceptions on warfare. The US military was designed to operate against other mid to high tech armies. It is accustomed to 3rd generational warfare, not asymmetrical/irregular warfare. Warfare is the least exact science with the most unaccountable variables. Half the time it's about not getting it totally wrong. While I'm sure you'll disagree, we are not doing it totally wrong just mostly wrong. I hope that we learn something from the Iraq mess and adopt effective policies in our continued dealings with Afghanistan because like it or not, the US is going to be there for quite a stay.
The killing of civilians is part of both the Talibans and Al Qaeda's plans for controlling the narrative of this situation. As stated previously, civilian deaths are great propaganda tools for these groups. They intentionally place civilians in harms way.
I disagree that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to military doctrine. Each decision made, each tactic employed, is now being weighed on how it affects the enemy, the American population, the Arab community and the Afghan people. That is a new form of operational procedure. In addition, part of the new drills includes training and retraining the troops involved. That is not a quick process. US and NATO military are attempting to adjust to a very bad situation. I'm sure the preferred method would eliminate only hostile targets and never ever touch a civilian. Unfortunately, the US relies on more technology to fight this sort of war and less on foot troops. They do this because the cost is too high since the majority of the fighting has been in urban areas thereby negating the advantage the US enjoys. Their small arms are just as effective as our small arms in close combat and the American population will not tolerate high casualty rates. High American casualty rate that is. So the result is dropping ordinance from fixed wing aircraft at targets that are hiding behind civilians. Or sometimes they just hit the wrong target. Regardless, in killing civilians the US and NATO are doing much more harm than good. It's trying to change but change is slow in the military.
I doubt very highly that they do not care but they have weighed the cost to gain and decided that it was worth it. I don't know that I could come to that conclusion but they have. Then again, I only know, like you, what I'm allowed to know about the overall situation.
The world is not black and white. The former US president and his advisors thought that it was but we all know that they were more than a little off base. I'm not spinning anything. It's the reality of the situation and it needs to be resolved quickly. Democracies have little stomach for war and time is the greatest ally the Taliban and Al Qaeda have. If they can control the narrative, like they have been when they intentionally place civilians in harms way, they will outlast the US and NATO. They will be back in charge of Afghanistan and now possibly parts of Pakistan (which seems fairly fitting since it is the tribal range the majority come from) and the will have better access to higher end ordinance. I don't see how that's in anyone's best interest.
By the by, I've never stated that I think any of this is right or moral. I'm just throwing ideas around. I've received some great insight so far.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
"The killing of civilians is part of both the Talibans and Al Qaeda's plans for controlling the narrative of this situation. As stated previously, civilian deaths are great propaganda tools for these groups. They intentionally place civilians in harms way."
And you know this how???? You have a spy network there??? This is a very classic zionist line. You are a troll.
Alfarinn: The points you make, not our interpretation of them, proves you are both "bloody and trolly." Why don't you make like a trolley and ride the heck out of here?
I do not nod along so I am a troll. I just want to discuss things. Feel free to change my mind.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
"Afghan women loved those days."
I know it's hard for you to believe, but most of them actually did prefer the rule of the Taliban to the mess we created by running them out. The vast majority of women in Afghanistan, like the vast majority of Afghan men, live in rural areas, mostly in mountains, with nothing of what we would consider "civilization." Both sexes are illiterate (although many men would be able to recite and perhaps almost read from the Qur'an), uneducated (as we understand education), devoted to their families, clans and tribes, and extremely old-fashioned in their manners and habits.
The Taliban let them go on the way they had been accustomed to for centuries and protected them from the ravages of rapine, murder, theft of livestock and all-around brigandage they had been prey to when the warlords ruled and fought over the land as they did when we had helped the Afghans run out the Russians and then lost interest and handed the country over to the warlords.
Their lives weren't perfect. Medicine on tap would have been appreciated, no doubt, and perhaps schools for the young people. But with the Russians defeated our interest in the people died. Still, then they were alive and now they're not.
Rainborowe
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Afghan women prefered being under Afghan rule under the Afghan King Zahir Shah who liberated women, gave them equality in the constitution, encouraged women to de-veil, attend school, and work. That's what Afghan women prefer not the Pakistani and Saudi backed Taliban, not the War Lords or the current corruption and not war of any sort. How do I know this I'm married to an Afghan and get an earfull from my Afghan female relatives.
http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/news/gallery/2007/jul/23/internationalnews.afghanistan/PD2420344@-FILE--This-undated-f-7062.jpg
I'm afraid that never took hold outside of Kabul. Probably not outside the court of Zahir Shah.
Rainborowe
But yet, it IS ALL our fault because we allow our elected "representatives" to get away with it. More military funding. More war funding. Be sure to vote because obviously it works so well. If, the next time an atrocity like this happens, probably some time this afternoon, a U.S. representative or senator who voted for more war funding was assassinated it might be considered a coincidence. But if this were to occur every time such an atrocity occurs, the reps may begin to sit up and take notice. Of course I am against violence of any kind and will never participate in violence of any kind. But there are lots of unhinged people in this country. If this sort of idea ever occurs to them then unfortunate violence could occur. I hope nothing like this ever happens. I would discourage anyone and everyone from taking this kind of action. We are, after all, not a nation of men, but a nation of laws, and the law must be revered and adhered to.
>>U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan have established new drills they say are intended to reduce the number of civilian casualties, following outrage over an incident last year in which Afghan and U.N. investigators said U.S. strikes killed 90 people.
In other words, the issue to NATO is not that women and children are being killed, it that the peoples of Afghanistan are outraged that women and children are being killed.
The lives of the Children being bombed in NATOS eyes amount to NOTHING but another persons outrage.
NATO should base its actions on whether an act is RIGHT or wrong and not whether people will be outraged at such.
Dropping bombs on Children is always WRONG.
"NATO should base its actions on whether an act is RIGHT or wrong and not whether people will be outraged at such."
What if besting the ideology of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and orgaizations like Al Qaeda is the right thing to do for the majority?
Alfarinn
Are you sure they are there to best Taliban, AQ or whatever the new enemy is? Is that why the US coddles up with the warlords in the four corners? Or why the US is very cozy with all the central asia despots? You got it wrong. The only reason the US is there is to protect their precious gas pipeline that they signed immediately afterthe bombing of Afghanistan began. And also to have access (to steal) to all the natural resources in the region. Did you really think that Iraq was about WMD and Saddam (the CIA blue-eyd boy)? If you thought that, you are a true buffoon.
"Did you really think that Iraq was about WMD and Saddam (the CIA blue-eyd boy)? If you thought that, you are a true buffoon."
What does this have to do with any of my posts? When have I mentioned Iraq, WMD or Saddam at all? Your desire to detract with attempted personal attacks, like the troll comment, saddens me. You're better than that.
Warmest regards,
Alfarinn
You did not answer my question...You seem to believe that the US is in there to spread freedom and democracy. I asked you a question whether you believe the reason for the Iraq war. Both invasions were unnecessary. Both invasions were based on false intelligence.
You really can't be that naive to believe that the US is in there for the spread of democracy. But it sounds like you are.
I was more than aware that the majority of bio and chemical weapons in Iraq stockpile prior to the first gulf war had been accounted for either physically or through theoretical destruction during the bombing campaign at a rate of 96%. I was also aware that any missing bio or chemical weapon systems from that time had a finite shelf life of 7 years so by the time of the second gulf war they would have been inert. Due to sanction imposed upon Iraq, and the fact radiation is vented in the creation of nuclear material (or so I understand), there was little reason to believe (read that as a doctored intel) that Iraq had active bio, chemical or nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq was avoidable and unnecessary and has had a monstrous toll on the people of Iraq. The PNAC wrote a letter to then President Clinton in '98 pushing him to go to war with Iraq. It was signed by the vast majority of what would later become Bush's advisory positions.
You assume too much about other people.
When you can discuss points in a civil manner without resorting to ad hominem in an attempt to discredit my character then I will speak with you.
I'm horrified,
Alfarinn
>>What if besting the ideology of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and orgaizations like Al Qaeda is the right thing to do for the majority?
What if? . How is the Ideology of the Taliban bested by dropping bombs on Children?
What RIGHT does the United States and NATO have to determine what is good for the people of Afghanistan? Is this more of the white mans burden crap?
By what RIGHT does the united States and persons such as yourself proclaim killing Afghani children with bombs in their best interests?
How is an ideology that supports bombing Villages with Airstrikes wherein 90 percent killed are civilians supperior to an ideology that uses suicide bombers to do the same?
The ideology of the Taliban and of Al Qaeda will not be bested by dropping bombs on children. That plays right into their hands.
Afghanistan (read that as the Taliban) refused to hand over top Al Qaeda officials after World Trade Center attacks. I'm sure that the request was not nuanced at all but they did have an opportunity. By capitulating with murderers, and lets not even pretend that they are not, the west was left with no option and had the support of the majority of the world at that time.
I've never claimed that killing children, or other civilians, with bombs is in their best interest. I believe I said that they must have felt they had little option.
Now THAT is the best question so far. Let me think on that. I would argue that the west social ideology is superior but that has little relevance to the question at hand since we are not talking about how the west and Taliban act during peace but during war. I could argue that this is the nature of warfare but that would be of little solace to the families of the dead nor would it illustrate my previous point.
I concede that in war there is no superior ideology.
NATO. Hmmmm. Just how far from the North Atlantic IS Afghanistan anyway?
Like the previous English-speaking imperialists who tried to conquer the region, we rationalize this barbarity with hollow hypocrisy: Although unfortunate collateral damage occurs, it is for their own good. We have to teach these savages the merits of Western Civilization. We have to have war to bring peace. They will thank us one day. Now time to re-visit Kipling's "White Man's Burden"
What about the non English-speaking communists who tried to conquer the region? No point, just asking.
Do you prefer the peace and stability that democracy/representative government affords or do you prefer the peace and stability that a theocracy provides.
I'll take the one with the most freedom, thank you very much. At least my daughter can go to school.
Alfarinn
The Russians did not succeed either, no one has, that is the point. Imperialism is a failure. Since when did British or American Imperialism bring democracy? Your ideals are well placed, however your policy prescriptions are naive I am afraid. I hate to break the news to you but the USA is not interested in democracy in the region, only strategic self-interest and the beloved pipeline.
A more philosophical question: how many more innocent people have to die so that "your daughter may go to school"? Is violence and imperialism the answer?
Oh sure, all nations operate under self-interest as do all people. True altruism is a myth. I've no illusions about that. That's why Pakistan supported the Taliban until 2001. It was in their best interest. It’s why they capitulate with the west right now so no need to worry crumbling my world view. The US is interested in a system of governance that affords a stable, peaceful region that has enough economic oppertunity to endure. I'm just not cynical enough to believe that everything the west does is designed to be at the expense of "them." I think we are moving past that East Indian Trading Company mentality. Sure, you still have a sector moved by greed and avarice but not every decision is done to the detriment of others.
Ideally no one should have to die, toil in near slavery or true slavery for my daughter to go to school. I am aware, as I hope all westerners that us CD, that it takes a large amount of world poverty for us to live the opulent lives that we all live with our running water and electricty and our cars and two TVs per house and VCR and DVD players and perfectly manicured lawns. Trust me, Diogenes had it right and I am certainly not naive to those facts. My point to that was at least she has the freedom to go to school. The wests social ideology is a superior world view to extremest Islam, or extremest Judaism or extremest Christianity.
Yes, sometimes violence is the answer when it comes to acquiring freedom or in defense. An aggressor is never placated or deterred by words when they feel there is something to be gained but by strong hands willing to do bloody business. Ugly but true part of the human condition. Of course, the inevitablity of warfare is another topic for discussion.
So, what is the policy prescription that you provide as a counter point?
Alfarinn
>>
Do you prefer the peace and stability that democracy/representative government affords or do you prefer the peace and stability that a theocracy provides.
<<
I prefer the peace and stability that democracy/representative government affords. We should try it some time here in the United States. So far we are spending accelerating amounts of money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and who knows where else not even being reported? None of this provides peace and stability. Oh, wait. You mean peace and stability for US. Ahhhh. Big difference. I guess if somehow bombing brown people provides peace and stability for US we should keep doing it. But I have a sneaking suspicion that our actions around the world are going to provide something less than peace and stability before too long.
No, I mean peace and stability for all people. You are opperating under the assumption that because I disagree with some aspects of the progressive view (sorry, I don't do group think) that I completely support our current way of doing things.
I think that the west is lascivious and narcissistic in the extreme. I also think that a representative government is the most plausible form of government to ensure the equality of all people. America, and the west in general, has much work ahead of them if we are to realize our ability to help others economically and socially.
I agree that our actions will continue to reduce peace and stability unless we can change the way we do things at the operational level. We are trying to do surgery with a chain saw. We need to control the narrative in this war. Oh, and I do support the NATO presence in Afghanistan. I disagree as to the policies that got NATO to that point but they need to do something about the mess they and the US created.
What other viable options are there?
Well, if you are advocating Imperialism and violence over negotiation and compromise, you can always get on a plane to Pakistan, and join the violence yourself. Or, would you rather sit back and play armchair general while others die instead? The latter choice is pure hypocrisy and cowardice.
I generally advocate negotiations and compromise. Regardless, we are both sitting back and playing armchair policy makers.
What about the people of Afghanistan? What can we do to best benifit them?
Best regards,
Alfarinn
I humbly disagree: I am not the one advocating imperialism and violence, you are. Big difference there. International conflict can only be ameliorated by honest diplomacy, if that is not an oxymoron. I humbly recommend reading your history and think it through. Again: how many innocent people (and the young men and women NATO, mostly US young men) must die so that you may benefit from it?
Hello Socialist,
Just for clarification so that I can better understand the question; in what way do I benefit from this international conflict? I mean, aside from it not being a base of operation for religious zealots. Of course, you would have to agree that they were religious zealots for that statement to be true, which you may not.
I'm a pretty big student of history and I am pretty confident that honest diplomacy can solve the vast majority of conflicts but not all of them. Maybe we see this through different cultural lenses.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
>>What about the people of Afghanistan? What can we do to best benifit them?
I suggest we let the people of Afghanistan determine that.
This is like Chinese discussing what would be best for the people of America, determining it Communism and then trying to impose there Ideology on the USA.
You would not like that much would you? Why do you presume the peoples of Afghanistan wnat AMERICANS deciding what best for them?
As I know it, the Afghan people welcomed the Taliban after U.S. organized/trained forces fighting the Soviets killed 50,000 Afghans following the departure of the Russians and Americans. They were ransacking the country, the Taliban provided relief, and Afghans welcomed them as the lesser of two evils. Our country did nothing to help the Afghan people then.
Even if our country had the interest of the Afghan people at heart, why would we think that we can be successful where 500,000 Soviet troops were not? Negotiation and settlement with the Taliban will most likely be necessary to achieve peace and stability. When U.S. troops depart and the bombs stop dropping in Afghanistan, what will be the reason for these deaths and this suffering? It seems unlikely that Afghans will benefit much, if at all.
Unfortunatly you are probably right. Maybe the lessons learned in the Iraq theater, if any were learned at all, will shape a policy that will help to empower the Afghan people and provide a stable government that can provide for the safety, education and generate economic oppertunity for the area.
My reason for supporting our operations in Afghanistan is the hopes that we can fix the situation that we helped to create. The west has a responsibility to do so.
Just trying to be an optimist while eating a rotten sandwich.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
"The west has a responsibility to do so." I recommend reading Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden". The late Edward Said's classic: "Orientalism" is also a must read.
Again: advocating that others die so that you may benefit is not only hypocrisy, but history has proven this type of policy to be a failure, time and again.
Thank you for the recommended reading. I appreciate your candor.
Best regards,
Alfarinn
As bad as the Taliban in Afghanistan can be, there are worse things for the Afghan people. The long, protracted war that the Pentagon and Obama have in mind is one of them.
The Iraqi people were neither helped by the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions following it, nor the destabilization of the country following regime change and occupation. That country has been destroyed by our invasion and occupation, which created and continue to fuel a devastating reaction and instability.
The following videos are from the english version of Al Jazerra and might provide some interesting information re: the usefulness of U.S. military solutions in Afghanistan. What I've concluded personally is that our help for the Afghan people must come from diplomatic negotiations and the funding of projects that directly benefit people in need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZhAdPokUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xod6P_Pso
Afganistan's society was much more democratic in nature through local consensus and leadership before the US and Pakistan encouraged and financed Saudi Wahhabis such as Bin Laden to take over the local Mujedahin movements and kill all who opposed their brutal and non-Islamic methods.
There is a lot of pro and con goes on sites such as these, but the thing that makes me sick is to see these same bomb dropping crew members coming home and grabbing up their wife's and children and hugging and kissing them and playing the hero.
If when they came home they found their family destroyed by bombs, I bet they would never drop another bomb.
I wrote this to Mr. Obama after reading this article on Common Dreams. I guess we've got to keep trying.
Red Cross Confirms Dozens Dead in Afghan Air Strikes
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/06-3
Mr. Obama,
I do not understand what is going on. When you inherited the White House, did you also inherit the bubble that your predecessor lived in?
You campaigned for change. We the People, after eight years of Cheney/Bush flouting the Constitution, causing a million or more deaths in their endless search for oil, thought we might have a new broom in Washington that would sweep these people into the dustbin of history and reverse the draconian laws that were put in effect.
Instead, what do we see? On the home front, the billionaires get richer and the poor, the retired, the workers whose jobs have been outsourced are winding up living in the streets. There is more surveillance, more restrictions on our individual lives. Habeas corpus is still a corpse, NorthCom’s combat brigades are still getting intensive training on suppressing civilian unrest. Now you want to keep the Military Commissions for Gitmo because, apparently, the fear is that the civil courts might not allow hearsay evidence, and evidence obtained by torture into their courts, and that the attorneys might have the right to cross examine witnesses, or actually see the evidence!
Our endless wars, which we thought would finally end, are expanding. Iraq gets a change of occupiers from combat troops to "advisors." Same troops, different name.
We are upping the killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every time we bomb a village full of civilians on the off chance of killing what we term insurgents, we create still more Afghan and Pakistani patriots yearning for the end to occupation, as I hope we would if we were occupied. What we consider insurgents, they consider freedom fighters trying to rid their country of yet another foreign invader,
Look at the number of bases we have worldwide. We cannot spread ourselves over the earth like peanut butter on a slice of bread. Especially if the jar is getting moldy.
We have horrible problems here in the US to deal with, yet you sidestep any suggestion that those who committed unconstitutional actions such as violating the treaties which we have signed and which are therefore the Law of the Land (read the Constitution) against torture, indefinite imprisonment, and treatment of prisoners, should be tried and punished. These people were not ignorant, they knew what they were doing and that, if the United States ever became a Constitutional Republic again, tthey would face trial and punishment. According to you, they will not, but their victims, here and abroad, will continue to suffer.
We are still dealing ineffectively from the effects of Katrina, yet we can continue to allow misappropriation of funds and no-bid or fixed contracts with the big money contributors. Veterans, destroyed mentally or physically, and their families, are living in the streets. Runaway inflation and the depression are destroying the lives of retirees.
The Military Industrial Complex has billions and billions in war profits. Can’t you stop feeding them and start caring for We the People who elected you? So far, all that those of us below the rank of Congressman or CEO have seen is Bush Lite and Bush style lies.
Please! Show enough gumption to get rid of these old parasites and turn the country around. We the People will be glad to help. That's what we elected you for!
Sincerely,
barackstar did apologize to president karzai today.
i'm sure it was heartfelt.
obviously, americans will not rise up and take matters into their own hands. perhaps the people of the world will.
alfarrin, the mic's decisions and tactics take into account the affect on the american population? drag my ass off the slow boat i'm on and fill me in.