Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
After US Strikes, Afghans Describe 'Tractor Trailers Full of Pieces of Human Bodies;' Obama Readies 21,000 More Troops
As rage spreads in Afghanistan after US bombing that killed up to 130 people, unnamed Pentagon officials are spinning another cover-up. Defiant Obama moves ahead with troop increase.
As President Barack Obama prepares to send some 21,000 more US troops into Afghanistan, anger is rising in the western province of Farah, the scene of a US bombing massacre that may have killed as many as 130 Afghans, including 13 members of one family. At least six houses were bombed and among the dead and wounded are women and children. As of this writing reports indicate some people remain buried in rubble. The US airstrikes happened on Monday and Tuesday. Just hours after Obama met with US-backed president Hamid Karzai Wednesday, hundreds of Afghans—perhaps as many as 2,000— poured into the streets of the provincial capital, chanting “Death to America.” The protesters demanded a US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
An Afghan child looks at the rifle of a US soldier on patrol in Naray, eastern Kunar province on April 13, 2009. Afghans chanted "Death to America" and demanded US troops leave Afghanistan as mobs threw stones at government offices Thursday in a violent protest against civilian deaths, witnesses said. (AFP/File/Liu Jin) In Washington, Karzai said he and the US occupation forces should operate from a “higher platform of morality,” saying, “We must be conducting this war as better human beings,” and recognize that “force won’t buy you obedience.” And yet, his security forces opened fire on the demonstrators, reportedly wounding five people.
According to The New York Times:
In a phone call played on a loudspeaker on Wednesday to outraged members of the Afghan Parliament, the governor of Farah Province, Rohul Amin, said that as many as 130 civilians had been killed, according to a legislator, Mohammad Naim Farahi. Afghan lawmakers immediately called for an agreement regulating foreign military operations in the country.“The governor said that the villagers have brought two tractor trailers full of pieces of human bodies to his office to prove the casualties that had occurred,” Mr. Farahi said. “Everyone at the governor’s office was crying, watching that shocking scene.”
Mr. Farahi said he had talked to someone he knew personally who had counted 113 bodies being buried, including those of many women and children. Later, more bodies were pulled from the rubble and some victims who had been taken to the hospital died, he said.
The US airstrikes hit villages in two areas of Farah province on Monday night and Tuesday. The extent of the deaths only came to public light because local people brought 20-30 corpses to the provincial capital. If the estimates of 130 dead are confirmed, it would reportedly be the single largest number of deaths caused by a US bombing since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially “apologized” Wednesday for the civilian deaths and Obama reportedly conveyed similar sentiments to Karzai when they met in person, later in the day Clinton’s spokesperson, Robert Wood, framed her apology as being based on preliminary information and, according to AP, said they “were offered as a gesture, before all the facts of the incident are known.” By day’s end, the Pentagon was seeking to blame the Taliban for “staging” the massacre to blame it on the US. Last night, NBC News’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said military sources told him Taliban fighters used grenades to kill three families to “stage” a massacre and then blame it on the US.
The senior US military and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, spoke in general terms: “We have some other information that leads us to distinctly different conclusions about the cause of the civilian casualties,” he said. McKiernan left the specific details of the spin to unnamed officials.
According to The Washington Post, “A U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that ‘the Taliban went to a concerted effort to make it look like the U.S. airstrikes caused this. The official did not offer evidence to support the claim, and could not say what had caused the deaths.” Meanwhile, according to the Associated Press, a senior Defense official who did not want to be identified “said late Wednesday that Marine special operations forces believe the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taliban militants, who then loaded some of the bodies into a vehicle and drove them around the village, claiming the dead were victims of an American airstrike. A second U.S. official said a senior Taliban commander is believed to have ordered the grenade attack.”
As the AP reported, “it would be the first time the Taliban has used grenades in this way.”
While the Pentagon spins its story, the International Committee of the Red Cross has stated bluntly that US airstrikes hit civilian houses and revealed that an ICRC counterpart in the Red Crescent was among the dead. “We know that those killed included an Afghan Red Crescent volunteer and 13 members of his family who had been sheltering from fighting in a house that was bombed in an air strike,” said the ICRC’s head of delegation in Kabul, Reto Stocker. “We are deeply concerned by these events. Tribal elders in the villages called the ICRC during the fighting to report civilian casualties and ask for help. As soon as we heard of the attacks we contacted all sides to warn them that there were civilians and injured people in the area.”
Read the entire ICRC statement here.
The Times, meanwhile, interviewed local people who contradict the unnamed US Defense officials’ version of events:
Villagers reached by telephone said many were killed by aerial bombing. Muhammad Jan, a farmer, said fighting had broken out in his village, Shiwan, and another, Granai, in the Bala Baluk district. An hour after it stopped, the planes came, he said.
In Granai, he said, women and children had sought shelter in orchards and houses. “Six houses were bombed and destroyed completely, and people in the houses still remain under the rubble,” he said, “and now I am working with other villagers trying to excavate the dead bodies.”
He said that villagers, crazed with grief, were collecting mangled bodies in blankets and shawls and piling them on three tractors. People were still missing, he said.
Mr. Agha, who lives in Granai, said the bombing started at 5 p.m. on Monday and lasted until late into the night. “People were rushing to go to their relatives’ houses, where they believed they would be safe, but they were hit on the way,” he said.
In her earlier statement regarding the bombing, Clinton told Hamid Karzai “there will be a joint investigation by your government and ours.”
But before that investigation began, the Pentagon was already using its unnamed officials to blame the Taliban. It also bears remembering that the US track record of thoroughly “investigating” US massacres is pathetic. The UN said there was convincing evidence that last year’s US attack on the village of Azizabad in western Afghanistan killed 90 civilians, but the military only acknowledged 30 civilian deaths.
Standing between Hamid Karzai and Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday, Obama said the US would “make every effort” to avoid civilian deaths in both countries (which are regularly bombed by the US). But as he was making those remarks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was arriving in Kabul on Wednesday “to make sure that preparations were moving forward for the troop increase and that soldiers and Marines were getting the equipment they needed.”
Jessica Barry, a spokesperson for the ICRC said, “With more troops coming in, there is a risk that civilians will be more and more vulnerable.”
- Posted in
118 Comments so far
Show AllI watch the video about translated Bibles!
Military spokespersons are the least credible source of truth! Their job is "CYA".
AMEN!!!
>>But before that investigation began, the Pentagon was already using its unnamed officials to blame the Taliban. It also bears remembering that the US track record of thoroughly “investigating” US massacres is pathetic. The UN said there was convincing evidence that last year’s US attack on the village of Azizabad in western Afghanistan killed 90 civilians, but the military only acknowledged 30 civilian deaths.
The Pentagon is chock full of liars from the bottom to the top. Of course the investigation will prove to be pathetic and the reality of this can be seen in the Villagers having to bring bodies in trucks to the authorities.
The US has claimed it was making every effort to limit civilian casualties since day one . Apparently in NEW speak "every" means "none".
Blaming the Taliban is another pathetic worn thin excuse. It is the UNITED states dropping the bombs, not the Taliban.
"Blaming the Taliban is another pathetic worn thin excuse." EXACTLY!!!!
In the "The Hounds of Heaven," which is also on commondreams.org today, Robert C. Koehler reports about what our soldiers had to say at the Winter Soldier testimony last year:
"This testimony, sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War, and vastly underreported in the media, featured vet after vet giving agonized, conscience-wracked testimony on his or her training and service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. If one word could describe the overarching theme of the four-day event (I attended two of those days), it might be "dehumanization."
What our soldiers describe is learning to despise and be brutal toward Muslims: "The testimony went on and on, describing detainee abuse, humiliation and starvation; the terrorizing of families during house raids; the casual brutalities and killings at checkpoints; vandalism and joy-riding around the ruins of Babylon; the shooting of pets to relieve boredom."
Yet our government uses the specter of the Taliban to justify our illegal war against the people of Afganistan, and tries to blame our own atrocities on them!
On Free Republic and the rest of the right wing blogs I've seen, the Taliban caused all the deaths - either by killing people directly or by firing on coalition forces from the midst of civilians or from their homes. Robert Gates is quoted as saying "The bottom line is that “exploiting civilian casualties and causing civilian casualties is a fundamental part of the Taliban strategy."
General McKiernan's story is that the Afghan called in the airstrikes because they were losing a fight againt some Taliban on the ground. So it's everybody's fault but our military's. But it's hard to see anyone in Afghanistan, or anywhere in the Muslim world, or really anywhere but the U.S., taking these claims seriously, when on-the-scene reporters like the ICRC say it was U.S. bombing that killed nearly all these people. But in right-wing world, the truth is very different.
It is Obomba's war now and he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, so the buck stops with him as he is the only one that can stop bombing and killing these innocent civilians,but he cannot do it if he wants to stay alive as he takes his marching orders from the MIC, crime family.
NMBill,"The first casualty of war is the truth" even in a war based on lies and "truthiness". peace
Obama Readies More Troops in Wake of Civilian Massacre So More Civilians Can Be Massacred. "We will defeat you" with hope and change. More likely, we will defeat ourselves with all these lies and total bullshit.
Another President, another war. After awhile, they all start to look alike. As the Pentagon puts out its spin of the death and destruction, it doesn't matter. Even if you accepted their word that the Taliban did this to make them look bad, does it occur to them that the problem is that the "deception" is made so easy because of what we have become? All lies, all war, all the time. Meanwhile, as the new president with his old handlers lectures the world on Afghan and Pakistan affairs, he hasn't done anything for his own country. Our country sinks morally and financially. We are less secure, less stable, less respected, but ever so much better at intrigue and profiteering.
No wonder President Obama doesn't want a special prosecutor to investigate high-level officials for war crimes . . . he'd be on the list of suspects.
You have lost all credibility with me Earthian...
You advocated for the Cat prior to the election, and now got what you sowed, with his escalation of war, occupation of Iraq, et al. Read Hedges latest prophetic article demonstrating Obama's record, and agenda are nothing more than Bush Light.
How many more must be killed before we start calling the troops "baby killers" ...also the Congress and Administration....and let's not forget the voters/taxpayers who have the ultimate responsibility here.
Obama: Assassino.
Y tambien: pendejo, embustero, ladron, y El Gran Caudillo de La Casa de Naipes. Que Dios Bendiga Los Estados Unidos! Dispenseme, por favor. La mordida acabo de llegar.
Obama--a tragic example of a mediocre politician being used and manipulated by the entrenched powers in the Middle East and Washington. He is pathetic.
It doesn't seem to matter who enters the White House, whoever it is becomes the leader of the world's most vicious terrorist organization.
Now you're starting to get it. The US is the biggest terrorist on the planet. We've been doing it for a century now. It doesn't matter who is in the White House because the only way to GET to the White House is to be part of the machine. For all his blah-blahing, O-blah-blah knows how the game is played and is doing his part rather well.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townsend
I call it political insanity: voting for the same duopoly over and over again and expecting a different result, but the sheeple are so insane that they keep expecting a different result!
I disagree - he has shown himself to be an excellent and intelligent politician. But he could be Ghandi, FDR, and Einstein wrapped up into one person...if someone has him by the ya-yas, it wouldn't matter.
A retired military guy was on maddow the other day. She kept asking about him about "the Afghan war", "working with Pakistan", etc. His response was very telling. He said our being there has nothing to do with the Taliban, nothing to do with helping Afghanistan, etc. It has everything to do with keeping Pakistans nuclear weapons under control so that a war with India doesn't ensue. He made the further point that Pakistan could really care less about US being in the region. They're solely concerned with India invading.
"But he could be Ghandi, FDR, and Einstein wrapped up into one..." giant delusion.
Amen. And one of the more dangerous delusions.
I agree with George McGovern, this is beginning to look a lot like the early days of Vietnam. LBJ and Obomba, looks like the same facile and sophomoric scenario to me. They both are obedient to the MIC and Obomba's obesiance is puerile to say the least.
This excuse is the same thing Franco's Fascist party tried to pull in the 1930s when they destroyed the town of Guernica. Maybe the teabaggers are right about Obama being a Fascist-- too bad he isn't as much of a Socialist too.
Yours is a more accurate description, one that I doubt donna would disagree with. Obama is able and willing. He has long wanted to be a player, and by learning the role well and cultivating the right contacts, he got the part. I believe he is arrogant, greedy and power hungry - in other words, perfect. He is arrogant enough to think he can play the players. He is greedy enough to think that by putting a darker face on greed it will be better. His sole improvement is to bring the Daley machine to Washington and enhance patronage as a federal force. He is power hungry enough to be willing, just like George W., to let the bodies pile up while he pursues his glory. A perfect participant, and chosen as a wonderful variation on the theme that will leave millions confused as to why their change hasn't come.
Who has been manipulated - the voters !
There is a name for "voter manipulation". It's called ELECTIONS.
Thank you Jill for nailing it all. Obama was already mentored in 2005 and after by none other than Joe LIEberNAZI. Like most pols in Washington, he's ready to cave in to bad status quo regardless of what the voters really wanted out of him. Obama in fact made it crystal clear what he would do all throughout his campaign and yet the electorate still chose to pick mainly between Obama and Mccain, two birds of the same feather than flock together. Also, I don't think that the civilians in Afghanistan who are about to find their lives ruined or destroyed are even going to believe that Obama is being used and manipulated. If anything, they are going to further HATE America to death for the destruction and total misery the US and NATO troops will inflict on those civilian sweethearts.
Still a Democrat, anyone? Or have they all hidden their faces with shame?
So this is what becomes of "Hope" and "Change" when you vote for the same old thing.
There IS an alternative: www.gp.org.
Tell me what the Green Party would do in this scenario, which I believe is what Obama is facing: (and bear in mind perception is reality for the mass of US citizens)
- Middle Eastern terrorists are trying to do damage to the US, India, Britian, etc. i.e. the Western world or its partners (that's the general perception, and a fact in some cases)
- Pakistan has nuclear weapons (that's a fact)
- If the terrorists/Taliban get hold of the weapons they will use them against the US directly (again, don't forget the panic a mere perception can induce - e.g. swine flu) or against India, which will have a direct impact on US as well
Would the Green Party just up and leave, and leave controlling the Taliban to the dysfunctional Afghan/Pakistan governments? Or would they stay and try to beat the Taliban back? Or some other course of action.
I want to know: What would the Green Party do, specifically, other than gripe about Obama, like the Republicans do.
"If the terrorists/Taliban get hold of the weapons"
I think India would nuke Pakistan faster than we could blink if that happened. *shudder*
Ok, so what would YOU do given that scenario? Would you trust Af/Pak to keep Taliban away from the nukes?
I don't know what I would do, but no I don't think Pakistan could protect them if its government fell to the Taliban.
Of course I can't say exactly what the Green Party or any other party or individual would do in Afghanistan but "specifically" I believe it would withdraw our troops as soon as they could safely get out, "leaving it" if you will for Pakistan and Afghanistan to work out their "Taliban problem" as the major provocative of their "insurgency", the U.S. presence in those countries, were removed. If you want to see an abbreviated statement on this, try viewing Cynthia McKinney's "response" to Obama in their simulated debate---simulated because the gatekeepers of public opinion never allowed her to debate him "live." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuACTylIJQ
Thanks, JerryR. Excellent response.
He's partly right, of course: past US actions, which were opposed by the Greens but fully supported by the Democrats, have created a very real dilemma. I think we would also try to substitute aid targeted to civil society in place of the military.
There is no reason to think that slaughtering civilians by the truckload helps with the dilemma that Reeves raises. Quite the contrary, just as the drone raids in NW Pakistan further destabilize that fragile country.
Kane take a deep breath and think. Do not want Nukes in Talib hands? Then guard the Nukes do not kill children 1,000 miles away from the Nukes.
Apologists for Obama are looking more foolish every day.
I can't speak for the Greens. I'm registered Green, but i'm not a leader. (Do they even have any leaders?) But if we were in power, I would be pushing as hard as I could to bring all the troops home ASAP, and not just from "Af-Pak."
Where have you been the last eight years? Have you noticed how the Mid East and Central Asia have become more and more dangerous, more and more desperate, BECAUSE of U.S. invasions and occupations? It's absolute insanity to think that U.S. military presence will in some way prevent an even worse outcome. We are worsening the situation every day we stay.
Karzai want to negotiate with the Taliban. Do you think U.S. massacres help his position? GTFO NOW!
I don't speak for the Green Party, but let's hope they would pull out of Afghanistan and leave Pakistan in peace. Here's why:
Granted, fear over the nukes in Pakistan is well placed, hatred against the US is authentic enough, and hatred of the US by itself does not guarantee that the hater is reasonable. However, let's observe a couple things:
Hatred of the US is motivated. People in Afghanistan, like a lot of people in a lot of places, have plenty of reason to hate the US. It has nothing to do with loose women or rock music. They don't like getting bombed, shot, and robbed.
The US spends plenty on deterrence - Other nations are not led by angels either, and big countries invade small countries. However, countries do not fight the US because it is weak; they fight the US because it attacks them.
Afghanistan has never attacked the US
Pakistani instability has increased progressively with US occupation of Afghanistan and with US attacks on Pakistanis on Pakistani soil
Pakistan has never attacked the US
Those fighters who did likely attack US forces from within Pakistan attacked occupying forces
The policies you appear to advocate have considerably worsened the very dangers you mention. Hopefully, the Greens would NOT continue to put the world at increased risk from Pakistani nukes, but withdraw and allow Pakistan to right itself by stopping attacks within its borders. Hopefully it would further help Pakistani stability by leaving Afghanistan.
After all, when the Afghanis finally drove the Soviets out, no one expected that they would chase the Soviet Army back onto Soviet soil. No one imagined that they would bomb Moscow. And of course they did not. It would have been a more than normally stupid thing to have done, wouldn't it?
These people do not attack us because they enjoy seeing their children torn to shreds, but because they do not.
The US has meddled in Pakistan for DECADES. The current mess in the region was caused by that meddling at least in some part. Furthermore, the US has shown no sign of changing it's method of meddling.
If you are concerned about the Taliban in Pakistan, look at the level of economic inequality there. Look at the health system. The schools. Literacy rate. The endemic corruption. The neo feudal system.
Bombing and shooting civilians, continuing to prop up the Pakistani military, continuing to prop up the neo feudal system, isn't going to make Pakistan's nuclear weapons less likely to end up in the hands of some deranged extremist group. It makes it more likely.
The Green party will first dismiss the paranoia over Paki-nukes, then ask a range of military and civilian experts and non-experts how to exit the region most peacefully. Everyone knows they can't bullshit the Green party, so they will speak the truth. Whatever they come up with, to best prevent civil war, and best prevent opportunism by rival regionals, and best wedge in Al Qaeda until it cools down, is the Green party's approach. The other element is shifting much of current lines into reconstruction, humanitarian aid, economic aid to Afghanistan. This element alone will do wonders. When foreign imperialism lifts, Taliban exits Pakistan, Pakistan quickly recovers, Taliban loses support, though Afghanistan is fractured, so too weak to defend against radical resurgence. Given this, the Green party will accept US military advice to defend Kabul from Taliban which will work well as this force earns the trust of the people. Afghani nationalism builds and soon the Afghani army defends Kabul from Taliban. NATO is yanked out of Afghanistan. Aid to Afghanistan is effective as the Green party purges corrupt elements from the aid chain. US elites howl, and try coup attempts against the Green party, and fail miserably, like in Venezuela. The Bolivarian Revolution expands across the Americas. Mexico wins big.
I think that the revolution is gonna be helped Big by the Greens and when the big Inflation hits everything will get hairy... China is gettin ready for the big I too.
Withdraw your public support for Obama and send him an email letting him know of your displeasure.
I wrote this to Mr. Obama after reading the following article on Common Dreams. I guess we’ve got to keep trying. The situation worsens even as we write and protest.
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,
Steve and Adrienne Osborn
Nice letter. If you had included a fat wad of cash, you might have gotten a response.
YesSSSSSSSS Great letter!
I'm probably going to get my ass kicked for saying this, but do any of you have any clue about what to do for Afghanistan? Know how to end an insurgency and rebuild a country in a place where nobody can be trusted? Think that just maybe, more ground troops means less reliance on these horrible airstrikes? I haven't heard anything about more aircraft being sent over there.
Good comment Dave.
"Why do you assume that "rebuilding the country" has the slightest thing to do with it? That's not what the US is there for. The US is there to control the region, mostly because of Caspian oil & the need for pipeline routes."
That's the official position of the government right now, that most resources be devoted towards civilian purposes, even though it's been pointed out that for this year, 80% of the money is going towards military uses. The rest is pretty much your opinion. And last time I checked, Afghanistan does not even border the Caspian Sea, and I believe there are already pipelines running through Azerbaijan and Armenia from it.
"The way to "end an insurgency" is to remove all foreign troops & stop trying to control the region by force."
Sure, that is one way, but I would prefer a solution that does not involve the Taliban reconquering all of Afghanistan to rule under their religious extremist thumb. If they want to participate in a government through negotiation and later elections, fine by me...that would be far more likely to moderate them than allowing them to take over the country virtually unopposed by force.
"Are you really suggesting that more ground troops would be a "more humane" method of trying to dominate the region?!?!"
I'm suggesting it's a more effective way to stabilize the area. All airstrikes can do is blow crap up. Troops can hold areas.
"- Oh, exc-u-u-se me. The US govt says it's interested in "rebuilding" Afghanistan, so it must be so! Sure, let's believe everything our govt says. (They never lie!)"
So then, you would prefer to let Afghanistan crumble against it did under the Taliban? One huge thing we can do to help would be to purchase all the poppy crops and turn it into pain medicine for those in Africa suffering from chronic and terminal illnesses, such as HIV...there was a NYT piece on this about a year ago, and it would boost its economy without making the farmers renegades who would be forced to cooperate with the Taliban for protection. And I'm sorry you seem to think government is always the same, no matter who is in charge, that everything stays exactly the same. I'm not yet that cynical, but I am lacking details about Obama's plan to fix Afghanistan, if he even has one yet.
"You may not realize it, but what you're really saying is that you support US imperialism."
We can either try to improve the situation in Afghanistan, or just withdraw and let it collapse to the Taliban. Do you see any other options, even if it is by definition imperialism?
"You think the US govt has the right to put troops into a poor defenseless country"
Considering that the Taliban has been kicking our butts lately, I wouldn't call it defenseless. But the government is incapable of defending its people, even with our resources...but that's pretty much the nature of guerrilla warfare, it's nearly impossible to defend adequately.
"to shape the policies of that country, & make it behave the way our ruling establishment wants it to behave."
I think we should have focused almost completely on civilian assistance once its elected government formed, but instead we focused on Iraq and let Afghanistan wither...again, what would be accomplished by just doing nothing, except for letting the Taliban take over?
"The stuff about your distaste for the Taliban ("religous extremists") amounts to an excuse for US meddling & militarism."
I am opposed to religious extremism in any government, period. Especially in our own government. I am far more worried about Christian extremists than Islamic extremists...and I feel for any populace that has to live under rigid theocratic rule.
"Exactly the same kind of thing was said to justify the Iraq invasion. "I prefer that Iraq not be ruled by a tyrant like Saddam," etc."
There was no justification for the Iraq invasion, period. The time to boot Saddam out was in 1991 when Bush Sr. encouraged an uprising, but instead he let Saddam crush it, and that was pretty much that.
"And FYI - Afghanistan lies right on the way from Caspian countries like Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi. Good pipeline route!"
Yeah, because Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan are far more stable and reliable than Azerbaijan and Armenia, then Turkey or Eastern Europe. Sure.
Afghanistan was unstable before our occupation because of the earlier Soviet occupation. And it was more stable than it has become since we have occupied.
Also, I do not see any reason here or elsewhere to believe that "US official policy" closely resembles US policy, let alone US motives.
The lies did not start with George Bush -- with either of them.
By the "official US policy" comment, I meant that from what I remember, the budget plan for the war calls for most resources to be spent on civilian projects in Afghanistan, but for 2009 we're going from FY2008 budgets, drawn up under Bush. Fiscal years start around Fall if I'm not mistaken.
And stability shouldn't really be the goal of our foreign policy overall. It was the realist desire for stability that led the US to support all the right-wing dictators in Central America, and nearly all of the current Middle Eastern governments. But again, I am opposed to starting a war if it will not be well-executed, finish quickly, and cause minimal harm to innocents.