Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfter 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)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/afghanistan_child_soldier.jpg "afghanistan_child_soldier.jpg")
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.”
118 Comments so far
Show AllI see the items by some using the scare tactic that some terrible muslim from god knows where is going to destroy the USA, great if possible! However his motive might be retaliation for a few deaths in his family, like his kids, his parents or his wife or neighbours etc and of course about 50 or more years of abuse originating in Washinton DC or some oil company board room. He is the hero! Like it or lump it he is the one with honour integrity and justice on his side if any exists. The "WAR CRIMINALS ARE THE USA AND IT"S ALLIES!!!!
Rights of conquest and the historical sequences are supposed to have been set aside by Various treaties such as Geneva etc. War for conquest is deemed to be a war crime. Every so called right of conquest and defeating an enemy and occupying his land is a war crime etc. Israel is one of the worst war criminals since 1945 followed by the USA (think Viet Nam etc). These countries all scream to high heaven if they think that they are being treated badly, hypocrites and cowards all. "OBAMA" is an example of the worst kind. He answers a need on one hand(ethnic) yet follows the game plan like he invented it. Just a bit to denigrate his enemies (read partners) it looks good most Americans have no concept of war crimes, most don't read, and no other education except the higher university etc. That being barely what would be considered elementary any where else in the world. So a well spoken con artist like "OBAMA" gets away with being a war criminal, he probably finds comfort in it. He like those before him are "WAR CRIMINALS" and last but not least craven heathens and COWARDS!
One hundred thirty people, eh? Some of them women and children? Let's not call it an accident. Let's not call it a plot by the Taliban. Let's not call it a sad bi-product of war. Let's call it what it really is: another instance of murder of women and children by a group of narcissistic macho shit bags locked in contest with their middle eastern counterparts.
Every day there are reports of men murdering their wives, girlfriends and children. Today it was a guy who murdered a two year old child and raped a three year old girl. Yesterday it was a man who shot his wife and three children to death.
So why are even bothering to report an incident like the one in Afghanistan? Why are the people there upset about this? Their own government, their own religious leaders have been slaughtering women and children for centuries, just like men every where else. I thought this was a news website,so what's new?
Yes, and we probably get exposed to as much violence on our computers as anywhere else.
The World is pretty numbed up to it by now.
the military coup in amerika began with the hit on JFK
The US is the biggest arsehole country on the globe - bar none!
The Bilderbergers will meet next week in Greece and give instructions to escalate the conflict and go deep into Pakistan to root out the Taliban. We should see something significant this summer of fall. Hopefully they won't need to manufacture an excuse, if you know what I mean.
Yes, this was the same Taliban the US armed and trained years before. Why did the Government of the United States of America help such thugs get into power?
Conservative/realist foreign policy, that's why.
I say let the Afghans have the Taliban back in power if they want, only the most stupid and ignorant refuse to admit the Taliban use civilians as human shields. BUT it is terrible that 130 civilians have been killed supposedly by the US. That though is a just a pittance compared to the Taliban massacres of innocent civilians. But who says only the demorats can have selective amnesia.
"Ethnic massacres and persecution
"The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks "up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys."[66] More than 8,000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[67] Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs.[68] In addition to this indiscriminate slaughter, the Taliban sought out and massacred members of the Hazara, a mostly Shia ethnic group, while in control of Mazar-i-Sharif.
While the slaughter can be attributed to several factors — ethnic difference, suspicion of Hazara loyalty to their co-religionists in Iran, fury at the loss of life suffered in an earlier unsuccessful Taliban takeover of Mazar — the belief by some Sunni Taliban that the Shia Hazaras were guilty of takfir (apostasy) may have been the principal motivation. It was expressed by Mullah Niazi, the commander of the attack and governor of Mazar after the attack, in his declaration from Mazar's central mosque:
"Last year you rebelled against us and killed us. From all your homes you shot at us. Now we are here to deal with you. The Hazaras are not Muslims and now we have to kill Hazaras. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan. Wherever you go we will catch you. If you go up we will pull you down by your feet; if you hide below, we will pull you up by your hair."[34]
Hazara also suffered a siege by the Taliban of their Hazarajat homeland in central Afghanistan and the refusal by the Taliban to allow the UN to supply food to Hazara in the provinces of Bamiyan, Ghor, Wardak and Ghazni.[69] A month after the Mazar slaughter, Taliban broke through Hazar lines and took over Hazarajat. The number of civilians killed was not as great as in Mazar, but occurred nevertheless.[70]
During the years that followed, rapes and massacres of Hazara by Taliban forces were documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch.[71"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
On September 27, 1996, the Taliban, an extremist militia, seized control of the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul, and violently plunged the occupied territories of Afghanistan into a brutal state of gender apartheid in which women and girls have been stripped of their basic human rights.
"If this was happening to any other class of people around the world, there would be a tremendous outcry. We must make sure these same standards are applied when it is women and girls who are brutally treated."
-Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation"
Upon seizing power, the Taliban instituted a system of gender apartheid effectively thrusting the women of Afghanistan into a state of virtual house arrest. Under Taliban rule women have been stripped of their visibility, voice, and mobility. When they took control in 1996, the Taliban initially imposed strict edicts that:
* Banished women from the work force
* Closed schools to girls in cities and expelled women from universities
* Prohibited women from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative
* Ordered the publicly visible windows of women's houses painted black and forced women to wear the burqa (or chadari) - which completely shrouds the body, leaving only a small mesh-covered opening through which to see
* Prohibited women and girls from being examined by male physicians while at the same time, prohibited most female doctors and nurses from working. (Currently there are a few, selected female doctors allowed to operate in segregated wards.)
Women were brutally beaten, publicly flogged, and killed for violating Taliban decrees."
http://feminist.org/afghan/facts.html
And the Afghans want these thugs to rule them again, they must after all they are not doing much to help destroy them, so I say again let the Afghans have the Taliban and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!
All of Afghanistan never was and never will be worth the life of a single American soldier, it's past time we leave and let them kill each other until no one is left alive and the sands of time cover and obliterate the entire country for all time.
Wolf alot of what you described is the civil war in which various warlord led groups were all committing atrocities.
The victory of the Taliban put an end to the civil war.
Yes they repress women as do USA allies. USA gave women the right to vote only in the twentieth century and Switzerland in 1970's.
There have been some comparisons between Obama and Gorbachev of late, but this does a disservice to Gorbachev. At least he realized that intervention in Afghanistan was futile early on, although it took 4 years for the Soviets to withdraw.
But the comparison is apt in terms of the American Empire reaching its apogee.
Good work, Obama and Gates. Olmert and Barak couldn't have done better! For that matter, neither could Milosovic. Is Michelle Obama still proud of her country? What would Reverend Wright say?
The Pentagon must be under contract with Taliban recruiters.
Goddamn our evil government - Obama Bush the 3rd is plain EVIL! Trying to blame the Taliban for an American Air Strike Killing over a hundred and thirty INNOCENT Civilians, children included.
When are WE going to Get angry and Overthrow this despicable government of ours? (and thats "both" parties, the Demoncraps and the Republicons)
This is disgusting and it is only going to create MORE hatred towards America!
Impeach Obama!
Ron Paul 2012!
End These WARS!
Let's Take Back OUR Country and Lets LEGALIZE The Constitution once Again!
Demonstorm, Fascism alreaddy is in the US.
We should have treated the 9-11 hijackings and consequent deaths as crimes. You do not send the military in to investigate crimes. You need really smart people who know how to investigate, not the flag draped cross bearing fascists who were in the previous administration. The current administration is showing that it is the same with a few modifications. I guess when the corporations rule a country, not much will ever change.
"We should have treated the 9-11 hijackings and consequent deaths as crimes. You do not send the military in to investigate crimes. You need really smart people who know how to investigate, not the flag draped cross bearing fascists who were in the previous administration."
Totally agreed. Terrorism is a matter for intelligence, diplomacy, and law enforcement agencies to handle.
"The current administration is showing that it is the same with a few modifications."
I don't really think that's the case. This administration has at least considered trying any Gitmo detainees that may be genuine terrorists in US criminal courts, like they should have been years ago. And it also seems committed to *gasp* release those detainees that seem to be proven innocent. But it also seems to be considering conjuring those military tribunals up again for those that don't meet evidential standards for criminal trials (info from torture) but are still considered a real threat. Rule of law demands that they be let go if they can't be charged, simple as that. Cuba has reportedly offered to take any and all detainees there, and I think we should take them up on that offer.
As for pulling out...how long do you think it'll take to remove hundreds of thousands of personnel, tens of thousands of armored and other vehicles, hundreds of aircraft, plus all the munitions, fuel, spare parts, and other associated material? Our military shipping capability is so feeble it's not even a bad joke. It took months and years to get all that crap in there....it'll take years to get it back out again.
we should have stayed in the streets in February 2002.
I know that none of us have any faith in contacting our representatives, and rightly so, but Tuesday May 12 is a National Call In Day to our House Members to say NO to this escalation. I also copied the picture of that wounded child on the CD homepage into an email and sent it to my rep and senators...for all the good it will do. These so-called representatives have no guts, no heart, no brains, no balls and no spine, and their head and ass are interchangeable, but sometimes you just have to do something. We should be in the streets.
P.S. I got that punch line from an email that was forwarded to me. This seemed like an opportune time to use it.
hey, Hey, Mr. Obama
How many kids will you kill tomorra?
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq!
Just how many, Mr. Barack?
The first verse is music that I can hear a thousand voices singing.
The second doesn't scan so well, but who cares? The first makes it unnecessary.
Hey hey indeed.
When and Where? When and Where?
Karzai said,"We must rule by a Higher Platform of Morality".
Karzai spent a week at the Daddy-Bush compound in Kennbunk-port, Maine, a few
years ago, getting brain-washed by Daddy-Bush. Karzai was made a member of the
Bush Family Corporation called, "The Carlyle Group".
The Carlyles are heavily invested in the Arms mechant trades.
Obama has let us down, big time...New Boss same as old Boss.
Don't forget he was the Unocal Afghanistan rep who brought the Taliban leadership to Houston in August 2001 in an attempt to convince them to let the US build a pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan to Pakistan and the sea.
They refused.
2 weeks later, 9/11 happened.
See, even supermen have vulnerabilities: the Republicans exposed him to red Obamanite,a rare radioactive mineral from Kenya, something like the secret Cryptonite, which has unpredictable effects on him, and now he has no memory of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
In the meantime the Taliban is recruiting and consolidating the resistance even more, and the Pakistanis are getting really annoyed, and the US is bankrupt and going deeper into debt (and into Hell), and the Chinese are smiling inscrutably, and the Russians are laughing in their vodka. So the question is, when the empire disintegrates, will anyone be ready to sweep up the pieces?
US OUT OF PAKISTAN, IRAQ, AND AFGHANISTAN! Barack Obama is a SOB.
Way to go, winning the hearts and minds of the people. Now send in more troops. Yeah! Just like Vietnam.
Afghanistan...where empires go to die.
I can't help but picturing my own 5 year old granddaughter burned or blown up under concrete by an alien intruder in my own house and land. The hatred for them would be unspeakable. Yet the Taliban are scum, no different from Nazi's, empiral Japanese or any of the other extremists in human history. We either need to fully commit or get out; I vote get and out and secure our borders. Afghanistan is where empires go to die.
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans think they have the God-given right to send the US military into any country they want to, for any reason they see fit. Just reading the comments from "progressives" on this thread alone, they are so conditioned to believe that the US can interfere anywhere it wants (as it always has done) that the concept of the US NOT GOING INTO ANY COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is absolutely foreign to them.
Face it. You can't even fathom the idea of the US military NOT being in Afghanistan. Listen to the comments: "But again, do we think we can make things better, or think that we're only making things worse? Again, we've been there for almost 8 years already, and the lack of attention for most of them is probably what's mostly responsible for its current rather messed-up state."
IT DOESN'T MATTER what Americans want or think or believe about Afghanistan!! Whether you think the US withdrawing will cause the Taliban to take over, or will make things better - IT DOESN'T MATTER. Americans DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to just waltz into another country with their bombs and soldiers and planes, no matter how much you justify the reasoning for it.
How would Americans feel if they woke up tomorrow to find that, say, China had sent 100,000 troops over here for (insert reason here) and were bombing the piss out of your neighborhood. Would you say "well, they have a right to send their troops here to America, I'm sure they really, truly believe in the (insert reason here) for coming here and bombing the shit out of my country." Well, would you?
Of course not. But let me guess..."that's different."
Like hell it is. America, your overwhelming arrogance will be your downfall. And thank goodness when that day finally comes.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Well said, Demonstorm.
Demonstorm, we're not discussing invasion, we're discussing exit. Maybe first vent your aggression on Poor William Kristol over at Weekly Standard, then come back here for a rational discussion.
Good comment from Demonstorm above... The US has NO right to have military in any foreign country. ALL 700+ bases on foreign soil should be immediately evacuated of all US personnel and turned over to the sovereign country.
Occupation is a war crime.
Rev Jeremiah Wright was right when he said God damn ANY country that slaughters innocent children.
Every voter who voted for a dem/repub is complicit in the war crimes. Another choice was possible in the voting booth. Just think about it. In Vermont there were 8 candidates for president. FIVE of them were anti-war. One was undecided. Two - the dem/repubs were clearly pro war. Anyone who is surpised that the slaughter of innocents by the US continues is not paying attention.
And what right does the Taliban have to execute people for converting away from Islam? They take control through force of arms and impose dictatorship, so might makes right in their case? Should each country mind its own business, no matter what happens in other countries? If that's the case, why should America ever care what Israel is doing to the Palestinians? They're not doing it to us, so let's not bother getting angry about it? Do you think the world should have intervened in Rwanda? Do you think we shouldn't have bothered to liberate Europe during WW2?
And just so you know, I wrote extensively during my last year of college about justifying rebellion against tyrannical governments, and providing justification for foreign nations to intervene on behalf of the rebellion. And that theory would have easily applied to countries helping us here in America overthrow a dictator, if Bush had gone that far. Don't think I only reserve the right of America to intervene in other countries. And I absolutely oppose it when I think it's unjustified, and don't think it should be tried if there isn't a good likelihood of quick success. And the total fuck-up Iraq and Afghanistan have been truly horrifies and disgusts me. But we unleashed this genie of extremism and hatred through Bush's incompetence, and now we need to try to clean it up. If it become clear that we can't, then yes, let's get out. But not until there's no chance of whatever we do working.
NPR states Marine & Special Forces on scene called in the Air Strikes. Executed by multiple jets. A drone can only carry 2 Hellfires. Not enough.
If they were on scene, those bombs went exactly where the lasers/US soldiers directed them. Into the structures where families had sought refuge.
Bala Baluk is on the Iranian border. The Foreign Policy Initiative, AIPAC et al, are lobbying for More War on Islam. Bala Baluk.
If these mass murders are feeding the flames that could grow into a call for US "assistance" with nuclear security, they make perfect bloody sense if US goals are domination of Islam and a military presence. Khiani will have to 'invite' us once we stir up the hornet's nest sufficiently. Zardari will be living in Bermuda by then (days).
And NY Times front page sitting on the rack a couple yards from me still claims that the Taliban may be responsible.
There must be honest reporters somewhere at the Times. I wonder where they're thinking of going?
Journalist ethics = any controversy = present both sides of argument as fairly as possible. It does suck at times, especially with anything related to science.
Zmann ------- stop being such an apologist. If something seems to be an obvious lie,there is nothing unethical in expressing ones journalistic doubts.
I'm not being an apologist, I'm bemoaning the state of mainstream journalism and explaining why they do it so other people know. That's why I've been on here for over a year.
Silly me! I actually had a glimmer that President Obama was a smart man. How wrong could I get? I thought he knew that when you are in a hole and do not like it, you stop digging.
I am so disappointed in Obama. First no prosecutions for torturers, now more on going war forever for poor Afghanistan. I must say that I am surprised that we only bombed people in their homes. I thought it was weddings that we werre against - oops - that was Bush.
They (Democrats) will wait for the next election cycle when they will once again back the Democratic candidate telling the non-two-party monopoly folk that there is no choice but to follow them. When will they ever learn that we've been there, done that. S.O.S.
Mr. Obama,
You very richly deserve a pat on the head and a resounding 'atta boy' from the Corporatists of America. I don't even feel sorry for the morons who voted for you or McLame. (I voted for Cynthia). Change! Hell yes there's been change. After all, going from bad to worse IS change.
Don't worry, Mr. Obama, you did not disappoint me. I fully expected your predictable performance. And for those who are worried about the next election, please insert your head back into your asses. There will not be another President of what used to be the United States.
So what are all you fine democrats going to do now? Vote republican?
It time to revolt against the war mongers. Obama=GWB (only the skin color has benn changed)
Clinton=Rice (only the skin color has changed) Change you can believe in!
It is absolutely essential that Congress determines who in the chain of command ordered this airstrike.
If the airstrike was ordered with full knowledge of the large number of civilians sheltering there, this would most probably be a war crime.
America's affirmative-action president scores another one!
Obama says we got sidetracked by Iraq and now we're doing the real show--killings the locals (Pashtuns AKA Taliban) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There's got to be a reason we're there-- I say energy routes. This is Dick Cheney's wet dream--control energy supplies and energy routes...
President Obama’s stated rationale for sending more troops and providing additional aide to Afghanistan/Pakistan is that we're there to prevent Al Qaeda/Taliban from attacking the US. This rationale begins to wear thin after hearing it so many times over the years in regard to: Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, San Salvador etc.
Moreover, if we’re afraid of a terrorist attack on US soil from Afghanistan, we need to also consider possible attacks from any number of teetering-on–the-brink countries: Haiti, Somalia, Moldavia, Mexico, etc. In this globalized age a Bin Laden’s can operate from anywhere and short of going to war with the entire world, we need a smarter strategy than invading and occupying.
Strangely, there’s never a mention of energy (oil, gas) and Afghanistan in the same sentence. The country is strategically located atop major energy routes. In the past the Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban on delivery routes for these vital resources. Is this a current possibility?
I'm no expert but I can tell you the Obama plan of re- invading Afghanistan/Pakistan is DOA. Just ask the master of foreign armies dying in that country, Rudyard Kipling. The place is still part of the "Great Game"--countries near and far want a piece of the action--energy routes, geopolitical control. So India fights Pakistan (solve this one and the whole region will quiet down!), the Taliban/Pushtuns fight Russia, USA, Iran. The place needs a grand bargain--make it neutral like Switzerland, offer a little something to everyone.
"There's got to be a reason we're there-- I say energy routes."
Yes, but that's only part of it.
The USA is actively planning to dominate the Earth militarily from space, to be able to "project power" EVERYWHERE on Earth, and prevent ANY rival - Russia, China, India, Europe, Brazil, anyone at any time via any path of development - from ever resisting or usurping our hegemony.
Some documents outlining this strategy are public, Google "Full Spectrum Dominance" or "Space 2020" or "United States Space Command".
This is truly what we are up against, and no President DARE resist long-term US military strategy. Clearly Obama understood this while he was running for President and understands it now.
Everyone should visit the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space: www.space4peace.org.
Yes, "the rationale begins to wear thin after hearing it so many times." One can look back at the must-do list of military conquests, the dominoes and lines in the sand. And one can look forward at the absurdly long list of countries that can replace Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan as the nations we must take over and run lest communists and terrorist destroy America. Course, we don't need the help of communists and terrorists to destroy America.
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.
Why does the United States always play world cop? Did the planet hold a plebiscite and determine that every and all issues in the world requires it's "wisdom" to fix? And just who "fixed" Afghanistan the last time with funding FOR the Taleban against the Soviet Union? Founding "father" James Madison had it right:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Zmann -------- Whenever one assumes moral superiority one is part of the problem.
The genocidal colonialist use moral superiority as their excuse and it has bleed down into your conciousness when you believe that Afghanistan is a "place where no one can be trusted"
The US/THEM paradigm is what supports wars.
A person with an understanding of the unity of people would never make such a statement.
The answer is a peace conference. The USA does not want a negotiated peace because it wants domination.
I do want a peace conference as well. Everyone negotiates eventually, and it is the only lasting way to end conflict.
As for moral superiority being a problem...is that an absolute value, or relative? I think a democratic form of government is morally superior to a government run by dictatorship. Is thinking like that, in that area, part of the problem?
Let's hope the kicks are metaphorical, Zmann,
Here's one clue what to do about Afghanistan: if you do NOT know what to do, do not go in shooting and bombing people on general principles.
The clue suggests we PULL OUT.
That would be enough, but the situation is worse than this suggests. If we intended to build the country, we would send reparations, not arms, soldiers, and drones.
Remember, we went in pretending to take revenge on these people for something someone else did, whether or not that someone else was Al Qaeda or not.
Why pretend that the US wants to rebuild?
"...Know how to end an insurgency and rebuild a country in a place where nobody can be trusted?..."
- 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.
The way to "end an insurgency" is to remove all foreign troops & stop trying to control the region by force. // Are you really suggesting that more ground troops would be a "more humane" method of trying to dominate the region?!?!
"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.
zmann, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say, "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."
Your attitude, which is shared by Obama and the Congress, is that the U.S. can force its own vision onto the people of Afghanistan. We "prefer" a solution that does not involve the Taliban reconquering all of Afghanistan? Who cares what we "prefer?"
Why should the people in Afghanistan be slaughtered so that we can direct their political future? This is so arrogant, yet so natural to Americans.
When you say that we can let the Taliban participate in government through "negotiation and later elections," that may sound reasonable to people in the U.S. But to people in the rest of the world, already aware of how we encouraged Hamas to participate in elections, and then when they won, helped Israel to put most of the elected Hamas leaders into Israeli prisons (famous for torture, just like ours) and supported the ongoing Israeli starvation and massacre of Gaza, this sounds like the garbage it is.
We can't "stabilize" Afghanistan because the people there already know us for the killers and liars that we are. We need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now, and allow the countries in the region (unfortunately, mostly run by corrupt governments that we have kept in power) to funnel large amounts of our tax dollars to non-western NGOs in Afganistan and Iraq to try to repair some of the damage we have caused.
"Why should the people in Afghanistan be slaughtered so that we can direct their political future? This is so arrogant, yet so natural to Americans."
Well stated Petrkrop. The vast majority of dumbed down Americans, all nice and comfy inside their corporate media driven reality could give a rat's arse about the slaughter of these innocent Afghan or Iraqi people. They're too preoccupied with the inane drivel such as Dancing with the Stars, American Idol etc. while their country sinks further into this hegemonic Middle East morass. They don't care. That's the problem.
So much for "C H A N G E"
It's kind of hard to explain my thinking on this. I am not opposed to military action for humanitarian reasons, or to aid in a rebellion against a tyranny. If, after all, we as Americans feel justified for rebellion just for some tax policies we didn't consent to via representation, others peoples are justified in rebelling for far more oppressive reasons. This is one reason why I support the right of Palestinians to resist the Israeli occupation with violence, even though I am Jewish and of course support Israel's right to exist...that anyone even has to say that is so absurd.
People in Afghanistan were being slaughtered because of insane religious beliefs, and people did try to resist and overthrow the Taliban, though most of that was likely because they just didn't want the Taliban to be in power instead of themselves. Unfortunately though the Bush administration couldn't to jack correctly...and if you can't liberate an oppressed populace quickly and with as few innocent deaths as possible, don't even bother trying. But this was done nearly eight years ago, before I even finished high school...I couldn't even vote to try and change this.
But what do we do now? Try a different approach to make things better and end the war with some sort of peace between the different factions in Afghanistan, or just leave and let possibly more horrible things happen? And I don't really see the Taliban allowing even local NGOs to do much. Would they even support an electric infrastructure for modern hospitals? They sure as hell don't want modern schools to be built.
That's right, we don't know. We don't know if our leaving will "let more horrible things happen." We don't know what the Taliban will allow reparations to be used for.
And we also don't know that we can "try a different approach to make things better and end the war with some sort of peace between the different factions." (Though how what we're doing is a "different approach," I don't know. It's our same old approach, that always ends in disaster.)
What we DO know is that Afghanistan does not belong to us, we have no right to be there killing people, and our long history of both overt and covert interference in other countries around the world has resulted in corruption and incredible suffering and death. We DO know that we always pretend we are trying to help the defenseless people wherever we go, while really what we do is install and support brutal regimes.
So there is no reason to imagine that our war in Afghanistan will be any less disastrous for the people we're supposedly trying to help than were our wars in Iraq, Vietnam, or Central America.
"We DO know that we always pretend we are trying to help the defenseless people wherever we go, while really what we do is install and support brutal regimes."
This wasn't the case in WW1 or 2. And I wouldn't call Karzai's regime brutal, just incompetent and corrupt as hell. The brutal regime there was the Taliban.
But again, do we think we can make things better, or think that we're only making things worse? Again, we've been there for almost 8 years already, and the lack of attention for most of them is probably what's mostly responsible for its current rather messed-up state.
There are plenty of harsh regimes, and in WWII the US happened to fight against several. It would be reasonable to suppose that the US fought against them because they were harsh if the US did not often fight against regimes that were not harsh.
The Taliban were a long, long way from perfect, but they were less violent with Afghanis than the Americans are with Afghanis, less oppressive of Afghanis than the Americans are with Afghanis.
The one thing that has done worse for Afghanis than American lack of attention is American attention.
Look, the US government is not there for humanitarian reasons any more than the Soviet government was.
If you look at the LONG History of invasions of Afghanistan the same pattern is followed.
The country achieves SOME form of stability. IT may not be a modern and advanced country as WE think it should be, but it does have a semblance of law and order.
Over time the more radical elements and extremists in the region begin to lose influence and it SLOWLY moderates.
THEN a third party looking to build an Empire, be it the British, the Russians or the Americans intervenes and supports one group over another. That intervention destabilizes the region leading to a collapse of law and order and the RISE of extremism.
It is not extremism that leads to the interventions, it is the interventions that give rise to the extremists.
That sounds reasonable and fairly sound...thanks for making those points.
"...That's the official position of the government right now..."
- 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!)
- You may not realize it, but what you're really saying is that you support US imperialism. You think the US govt has the right to put troops into a poor defenseless country, to shape the policies of that country, & make it behave the way our ruling establishment wants it to behave.
The stuff about your distaste for the Taliban ("religous extremists") amounts to an excuse for US meddling & militarism. 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.
And FYI - Afghanistan lies right on the way from Caspian countries like Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi. Good pipeline route!
"- 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.
1) Your own #'s indicate that the "official US policy," now as before, is a lie. The bulk of resources go to exerting control, not "rebuilding."
2) Many Americans don't realize that the Taliban conquered Afghanistan only with major help from Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, and implicitly the US. When that stopped after 911, they collapsed and very quickly lost control. At present, they represent the only resistance to an occupation - in the "Graveyard of Empires." Their popular support is small, especially without an occupation. It is possible or likely that the country would fracture, but very unlikely that the Taliban would reassert control outside the south without outside help. In any case, the Northern Alliance warlords now running the country are little better, and often much more corrupt.
Again, I think a Green Party government (and I AM a state-level party officer) would offer rebuilding help ("civilian assistance") while withdrawing troops.
3) Your suggestion of buying up the poppy crop for humanitarian use is an excellent one. Send it to Obama; can't hurt to try. Also send it to some of the medical/humanitarian orgs that work in Africa, like Doctors without Borders. They can get more attention, if they also like the idea. Outbidding the druglords would be expensive, but cheaper than keeping troops there.
4) The pipeline route was actually proposed and is still being worked on. The western one you describe goes mainly to Europe; a route to the big users in Asia is still needed. (Eventually, there will be one through China; but that's exactly what the US is trying to forestall. And Chinese Central Asia isn't real stable, either.) The best route is actually through Iran, but you can see the (political) problems with that one. You're absolutely right: it isn't working out so far, but not for lack of trying.
In the end, in this world, everything comes down to oil.
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.
zmann says: But again, I am opposed to starting a war if it will not be well-executed, finish quickly, and cause minimal harm to innocents.
I know you are very young, but please, think about what you are saying!
Starting a war is the ultimate crime against humanity, because it contains all the other crimes within it. There is no "well-executed" war, just death and misery for real, live people.
"Minimal harm to innocents." What does this mean? Ten dead children are okay, if there are only 14 others with their legs blown off or their eyes destroyed? What are your parameters for minimal harm?
Perhaps it is your support for Israel that allows you to be so lacking in compassion and so so cavelier about international human rights that you can talk so easily about the ultimate crime against humanity.
Give me a framework of reality to talk about at least. So you're saying the 13 colonies should have never rebelled against the British, because people died? That France should have never unified and driven out the British from their home? That the Greek city-states should not have resisted the Persians?
The reality is, every state in the world (except Costa Rica, I think) has a military, has national security concerns, and has an obligation to defend its citizens as it sees fit. And yes, wars of aggression, such as Iraq, are crimes against humanity, and I believe also classified as crimes against peace. I consider humanitarian interventions to be different. Not that I consider our invasion of Afghanistan to be a humanitarian intervention.
You have no idea how much and how often I consider and think about international human rights. That is precisely why, as I've stated elsewhere, I support the Palestinians' right to resist the Israeli occupation, with violence, despite my being Jewish and supporting Israel. Don't accuse me of being cavalier about human suffering because I don't oppose all wars in all forms for all reasons.
I'm sure that you do see the difference between a foreign invading force, and trying to eject a foreign invading force? If you do, as seems to be the case from most posts I have read from you, surely you see that your analogies really are not relevant in this case?
The problem with your analogies, is that the US is in this case, the force being resisted.
Also, just nitpicking, the "British" weren't driven out of France by the French. The concept of "Britain" did not exist at the time. The English who were driven out of France were, at least in part, descended from the French. The English kings were also French nobility / lords, and were also descended from various branches of the French royal family, through their mothers. That was the basis to their claim on France.
Yes, you're right, there was no UK back then. And feel free to nitpick, I think details matter.
The case with the Taliban resisting the U.S. invasion and occupation just seems different to me than the similar U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, of which I think the resistance to was legitimate and justified. The Taliban are not merely resisting the U.S. occupation, they are trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of the country and reimpose their theocratic dictatorship again. That makes it different, to me at least. Since the administration is saying that it is willing to negotiate with the (relatively) moderate Taliban forces, but not the more extremist ones, there is recognition that there is more than just resistance, to which the U.S. has announced willingness to deal with, and the attempt to reinstate their oppressive theocracy, to which the U.S. has announced no frickin' way. The same way the U.S. made a deal with the nationalist Sunni resistance groups in Iraq but continued to attack Al Qaeda In Iraq. Does this make sense at all?
I do agree that the Taliban resisting and trying to eject the US, is not similar to a democratically elected government resisting and trying to eject the US. I'm certainly no defender of the Taliban, nor do I attempt to make apologias for them.
I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning; my problem is that I don't see the US really doing much at all to support a sustainable democratically elected regime in Afghanistan. What I see is lots of neo-realist reasoning and justifications. The kind of neo-realist reasoning that as you have pointed out elsewhere, was the driving force behind US foreign policy for a long time.
Also, since you don't mind my nitpicking, just to clarify further on the English and French: the mothers of the English kings who made claims on France were in many many cases French princesses, and in some cases also married to French princesses, princesses who proudly styled themselves "de France", "of France", meaning their fathers were kings of France. Which means the English kings were very often grandsons of French kings; and were brought up by their mothers to be well aware of this.
Furthermore, while I am (over)simplifying here, England was basically conquered by a bunch of French immigrants. That was why in many cases the English nobility were also French nobility, and had claims on land in France, ontop of the intermarriage.
"I don't see the US really doing much at all to support a sustainable democratically elected regime in Afghanistan. "
Me either, unfortunately. Gotta love the Bush and co. focus on Iraq.
And thanks for the lesson on French/English nobility, you kicked my butt on that.
Good comment Dave.
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
YesSSSSSSSS Great letter!
Nice letter. If you had included a fat wad of cash, you might have gotten a response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.