Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghan Taliban Say They Pose No Threat to the West
KABUL - The Afghan Taliban pose no threat to the West but will continue their fight against occupying foreign forces, they said on Wednesday, the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that removed them from power.
Taliban fighters pose with weapons while detaining two unseen men for campaigning for presidential candidate Mullah Abdul Salam Rocketi in an undisclosed location in Afghanistan on August 19, 2009. A statement released by Taliban officials explained Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia.(REUTERS/Stringer) U.S.-led forces with the help of Afghan groups overthrew the Taliban
government during a five week battle which started on October 7, 2001,
after the militants refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders wanted by
Washington for the September 11 attacks on America.
"We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe ... our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state," the Taliban said in a statement on the group's website www.shahamat.org.
"Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war."
U.S. President Barack Obama has said defeating the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a top foreign policy priority and is evaluating whether to send thousands of extra troops to the country as requested by the commander of NATO and U.S. forces.
In a review of the war in Afghanistan submitted to the Pentagon last month, U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of all foreign forces, said defeating the insurgents would likely result in failure unless more troops were sent.
There are currently more than 100,000 foreign troops in the country, roughly two-thirds of who are Americans.
SAFE HAVEN
The Taliban statement comes at a time when Western officials warn that deserting Afghanistan could mean a return to power for the Taliban and the country could once again become a safe haven for al Qaeda militants, who could use it as a base to plan future attacks on Western countries.
The Taliban have made a comeback in recent years, spreading their attacks to previously secure areas. The growing insecurity has further added to the frustration of ordinary Afghans with the West and President Hamid Karzai's government, in power since the Taliban's ouster.
Since 2001, each year, several thousand Afghans, many of them civilians, have been killed in Afghanistan, with Taliban and al Qaeda leaders still at large despite the rising number of foreign troops.
In the statement, the Taliban said the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan for its refusal to hand over al Qaeda leaders, was hasty and unjustified. Washington had not given leaders of the movement any proof to show the involvement of al Qaeda in the September 11 attacks, it said.
Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, it said.
It recalled the defeat of British forces in the 19th century and the fate of the former Soviet Union in the 1980s in Afghanistan as a lesson to those nations who have troops in the country.
Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a spokesman for the Taliban, said the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only solution to a conflict that has grown in intensity and has pushed some European nations to refuse to send their soldiers into battle zones or to speak about a timetable to withdraw from the country.
Some 1,500 foreign troops have also died in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster causing many nations to question the presence of its soldiers in the country and whether stability can ever be achieved eight years after the overthrow of the militants.
(Editing by Sugita Katyal)
- Posted in
24 Comments so far
Show AllWhile the Taliban are certainly execrable, they did not "refuse" to turn over Bin Laden and his gang -- they just asked for evidence from the US that Al Qaeda had done the 9/11 attacks before they decided. Do you think the US would have demanded any less if a foreign country "demanded" that the US turn over a legal resident of this country on its say-so alone? It irritates me that the Bushist myth of the Taliban "refusal" is still recited as though it's incontrovertibly true.
"US-led forces with the help of Afghan groups overthrew the Taliban during a five-week battle which started on October 7, 2001 after the militants refused to hand over Al Qaeda leaders wanted by Washington for the September 11 attacks on America."
"In the statement, the Taliban said the US invasion of Afghanistan for its refusal to hand over Al Qaeda leaders, was hasty and unjustified."
Not once but twice in this single Reuters' news article we have revisionist history casually asserting as established fact something that simply is not true. This is similar to the often repeated false claim of Bush, Cheney, and other Bush White House propagandists that the 2002 US invasion of Iraq was precipitated by Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
In early October, 2001, using Pakistan as diplomatic intermediary, the Bush administration demanded that Osama bin Laden, Zwahiri, and some other Al Qaeda leaders be turned over by the Taliban. To the great surprize of many, Mullah Omar (1) confirmed that Osama and friends were on Afghan soil, (2) that the Taliban were willing to withdraw traditional Muslim hospitality from their guests and (3) deliver up these foreign Al Qaeda figures into the safe custody of a "neutral Muslim nation" for eventual trial under international law for their purported role in the 9/11 attacks.
The Bush White House instantly rejected this olive branch offer to avoid war, stating the United States was not going to get bogged down in negotiations with a radical Islamist regime that had a history of harboring terrorists. The B-52's were revved up on Diego Garcia. A million dollar bounty, matching that offered for Osama and Zwahiri, was placed on Mullah Omar's head. So much for exhausting all diplomatic options before letting slip the dogs of war.
These pesky details went largely unreported in the US media at the time, so rampant was the popular post-9/11 fervor for retaliation, vengeance, and using regime change to combat jihadist terrorism all over the globe. The testosterone drenched political climate inside the United States and within the Bush/Cheney White House in October of 2001 strongly favored use of military tribunals, or perhaps even a lynching in Times Square, over resort to the use of international law.
I don't doubt that a translation of the Taliban's most recent statement does characterize the 2001 US invasion as hasty and unjustified. I seriously doubt however that many Afghans believe the American invasion was caused by the Taliban's stubborn refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.
Americans should not uncritically accept this less than half true, self-serving version of history either - any more than we should believe Saddam threw out the UN weapons inspectors to protect his cache of weapons of mass destruction, thus leaving Uncle Sam "no choice" but to unleash the shock and awe of 2002 upon Iraq.
Bill from Saginaw
Well written, Bill from Saginaw.
The fact that so many moderate/centrist/latte liberals afterwards jumped on the Afghanistan "War" wagon was salt in the wound.
Even before Obama perfidiously adopted the Afghanistan "mission" as a "Good War", there was a camp of would-be progressives eager to prove their bona fides as patriotic warmonger-enablers, albeit conditional warmonger-enablers.
My, how they waved their little War Boners at the rest of us, like Cub Scouts waving miniature Amerikan Flags at an Independence Day parade!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Right Bill.
I've always been amazed how Bush declared war on 9/13 or so and presto, just three weeks later we were all moved in, dropping bombs.
Stranger is how nobody has ever questioned this amazing military feat.
Maybe because Bush and Cheney came into office with plans to control energy in the region and immediately began moving our military over to Asia from day one? Could they have actually been involved in the attacks on 9/11? Is this why they simply ignored all the warnings? Along with their flat out refusal to accept the Taliban's offer it's all pretty chilling.
How did our military move all their shit into Afghanistan in three weeks?
Impossible,. A lot of it had to be in the region already, waiting to go.
Something really stinks. Nobody will ever investigate or expose Bush or Cheney, especially if they were involved with 9/11. At times I've thought that's why Congress and Obama refuse to investigate them. They fear where an investigation might lead, and there's no way in hell Congress wants us to know that our own government did such a heinous crime against their own people.
Contrast that with how long it took them to "respond" to Hurricane katrina.
Bill from Saginaw:
Like Obedient Servant said, it is a well-written post.
This whole war scenario is part of the Project For A New American Century and the world's "only super-bully" (power?) wanting to control the planet and scoop up it's resources. The sociopaths in our government, most of whom never served in the military, and the planners for American imperialist conquest, never dreamed of people resisting foreign invaders and occupiers of their country, especially in Afghanistan. Just like in Vietnam, the "resistance" fighters fought for their country until the U.S. finally pulled out, after murdering and maiming millions of men, women, and children, and the devastation inflicted on future generations of Vietnamese people and their environment by our biological and chemical warfare. (agent orange the most popular, and the lesser known agent blue to destroy the rice crop).
It seems like the only money generously appropriated by a morally deficient and ethically corrupt Congress anymore are four things:
Money for the Dept of War Making, aka The Dept of Defense, Wall Street swindlers and shysters, and goon squads in police departments, with their sophisticated robo cop gear to be used on their fellow citizens who peacefully protest in the streets against all that is wrong in our country and for "contractors", formally known as mercenaries, which used to be illegal in the United States.
As a nation, we have become what we fought against in World War Two. The future doesn't look promising.
Bill, could you provide a few links to supporting articles and reports about your points 1,2, & 3? Very credible, especially in view of Saddam's "refusals". Scott Ritter's writings opened my eyes on that one...
Thanks...
Ray Kondrasuk
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
The Afghanistan War might been averted had the Bush Administration handed over the incriminating evidence on al Qaeda's involvement in 9/11. Why didn't it? Not wanting to deal with the Taliban? Ridiculous, since it had only recently awarded Afghanistan's Taliban government 35 million dollars for reducing the cultivation of poppy and manufacturing of heroin. Because of the Taliban's persecution of women? Equally unlikely since at the time, despite the Taliban's misogenous practices, the U.S. company, Unocal was negotiating with Afghanistan's Taliban governement about a trans-Afghanistan Gas Pipeline. Which gives credence to the Taliban claim that what's really behind the so-called war on terror is America's expansionist aims in the Mideast, central and southeast Asia. What's more isn't it reasonable to believe that the Taliban, in exchange for troops out now, might still be willing to offer up Taliban leaders, provided they received the evidence that incriminated said leaders in acts of terrorism? And knowing this, doesn't our government's refusal to deal with the Taliban, suggest that its interest in that part of the world, indeed, has more to do with geopolitics than the well being and security of either the American or the Afghanistan people?
Incredibly, it appears that the US is even more refractory to learning than the Soviet Union. After all, the USSR, just pulled up and left after about 10 pointless years and multiple "surges". Then the whole society imploded, more or less non-violently in a desperate bid for sanity. They didn't get there but they tried, unlike us. We, of course, could just pack everything up and go, like the USSR. Obama could blame the whole bloody mess on Cheney/Bush and he'd be 100% correct.
But we are at the mercy of bureaucracies and institutions that value short-term self preservation above everything, except their prime directive, which is the long term continuity of elite rule. Nothing else really matters. So for now and the foreseeable future we must offer up our sons to the meat grinder, our rights to the inquisitionists (the enhanced interrogators) and our dwindling wealth to the lords of high finance.
i also look at it in another way that we can all surely see if we chose :
the longer , broader historical view:
what I mean specifically is:
where the USSR was really at core a "russian" empire..where china TODAY is largely about the same geographical dimension, give or take some changes in along the borders , SINCE it was first arranged as a "kingdom" some 3,000 years ago, where IRAN today is also largely the central area of what was once a larger Persian empire, also about 2,500 yrs ago -
the difference between THESE countries and their modern "empires" that collapsed (particularly russia)
and the USA is that - THESE have been around AS
RUSSIA, AS china, AS persia for thousands of years , if not formally known as such as with russia, but in cultural and ethnic terms, while the USA is only 300 years old - all told since the europeans "discovered" it to turn it into a "USA".
but also , a big difference between these is:
where RUSSIA NEVER declared itself in any formal manner while having become a "country" and then an Empire as "democratic" - and neither did china (which the Asiatimeswriter Henry CK Liu analysed historically as "the chinese trait, behind the kingdomhood, is really essentially a SOCIALIST culture, since thousands of years ago, explaining the constant tension between "individual freedom and social purpose") --
the USA from the outset DECLARED itself as some kind of paragon of "freedom" and "liberty" and democracy supposedly as the "advanced" evolution that the other cultures historically were NOT....
but here is the irony -- for such a self-declared "democracy" or repository of the world's wisdoms of "freedom and liberty and democracy" - behind which was really a nation build according to the tastes of LANDED , ARISTOCRATIC, "higher learning" elites - who held slaves and talked of human liberty while ironically denying it to millions around them to build the "land of the free" --
THIS USA TODAY - after a mere few centuries - or even after the INITIAL decades of "liberation from england and tyranny"....
QUICKLY began to MOVE TOWARDS a GLOBAL IMPERIAL PROJECT that has been characterised by TYRANNICAL , AUTOCRATIC (such as in corporatism) , UNDEMOCRATIC (such as the "work place of corporatism") , MILITARISTIC behavior --
while simultaneously continuing to declare its "advanced" democracy.
as George Washington himself very early recognized and admitted - just after they had won "liberty" and "democracy" and "freedom" and be the "light for humankind" --
that what "we have is our INFANT EMPIRE"....
and that even THOMAS JEFFERSON also quickly recognized the seeds of what we are seeing today as the "enlarged" empire that is so "freedom-loving" it would resort to promoting it with the tip of a gun ....saying, also after having achieved the firming up of the government structure and political and economic basics of the USA :
"when I contemplate what we are ABOUT TO DO....when i consider if there is TRULY a God of Justice....I TREMBLE for our nation".
as Benjamin Franklin, who was seemingly considered the "elder" and "wisest" among those colleagues that "birthed the nation" (with more "unfinished business of building" to do such as of course , "clearing the land of Indians", building the economy with SLAVES, etc..., creating the Monetary system that TODAY is represented by Corporatism, capitalism and Profit above all -- all of it supposedly "quintessentially american" and supposedly the paragon of "freedom")
warned :
"...what kind of government madame?..... a republic , if you can keep it....for Democracy eventually arrives at TYRANNY".
and THAT is what the USA -- the self-declared paragon of "freedom, democracy, justice, liberty" EVENTUALLY has arrived AT....
on a GLOBAL scale - with what it calls and promotes as what General Smedley Butler , US MArines called
"OUR BIG BOSS...our superNATIONALISTIC capitalism"
and what John Perkins, former CIA "economic hitman" defines as:
"our foreign policies have always been designed to RENDER other nations, especially weaker ones PERMANENTLY subjugated to our nation and the will of our chamber of commerce....and what americans do NOT really understand or admit is that we are living our lifestyle, our way of life, ONLY because it is part of a VERY, VERY vicious system of Exploitation that Dehumanizes and Enslaves People EVERYWHERE"....
ALL while masquerading as "democracy" and "the land of the free".
What should we expect from our elective invasion and destruction of Afghanistan? Did we welcome the British, Tojo or Santa Ana?
Perhaps you could look at this Afghan site, for an Afghan
perspective.
http://www.alemarah.info/english/
A key question? Do ordinary Afghans see us as liberators or occupiers?
Still Meddling After All These Years
by Sheldon Richman, Posted October 7, 2009
American presidents have long regarded Latin America as their “backyard.” The Monroe Doctrine warned the European powers to stay out — by what right? — and since then American chief executives have deemed it entirely proper to intervene when things did not go as they liked.
Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Panama, Cuba — all were scenes of U.S. covert and sometimes overt intervention. Some of this activity predated the Cold War, so the Soviet Union did not always provide the excuse for U.S. involvement in the region.
Things have changed little today. The methods may differ, but the thrust of the policy endures. The newspapers furnish the evidence daily.
Cuba, for instance, has been much in the news. For nearly 50 years the U.S. government has maintained an embargo on commercial relations with the communist island-nation. During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s tone suggested a change in policy, but once he was elected, the change was negligible. In a gesture toward liberalization, Obama has lifted travel and financial restrictions on Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba (but not on Americans without family there). Still in place, though, is the embargo. That won’t change, the administration says, until Cuba’s communist regime shows a willingness to change. “Over the past two years,” Obama said, “I have indicated — and I repeat today — that I am prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues — from human rights, free speech, and democratic reform to drugs, migration, and economic issues.”
His chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, says free trade between Americans and Cubans is “way down the road.... [It’s] going to depend on what Cuba ... does going forward.”
In other words, the Obama regime is continuing the long-standing American policy of meddling in the affairs of other countries, not to mention in the business of Americans. Where does Obama get the moral right to say when Cubans and Americans may trade and on what terms?
American hegemony lives. This is change we can believe in?
It is a sign of how warped U.S. foreign policy is that Obama’s approach is seen as superior to George W. Bush’s. Bush had no interest in talking to the Cuban leader. The embargo would stay in place until Cuba no longer had a communist government. Obama is willing to “engage” the Castro regime. This apparently means that if the regime makes concessions in human rights and democratic reform, Obama will reciprocate with changes in the U.S. economic policy toward Cuba.
The differences between Bush and Obama are more apparent than real, I submit. Both see what goes on inside Cuba as the U.S. government’s concern and believe that commercial relations between Americans and Cubans are properly the subject of U.S. policy. They just have different criteria for modifying that policy. Neither recognizes that Americans have a natural right to deal with any Cubans who wish to deal with them, and neither recognizes that the relationship between the Cuban people and the government there is their concern alone. From the objective moral judgment that the Cuban state is bad it does not follow that the U.S. government should do something about it.
article continues:
===============
Why the embargo?
An economic embargo is an act of war and has long been recognized as such. For 47 years American presidents have been making war on the Cuban people — and also limiting the economic freedom of Americans — by prohibiting economic relations between the two populations.
What has it brought? Certainly not a change in regime. While Fidel Castro, founder of Cuba’s communist government, held power from 1959 until poor health took its toll last year, 10 U.S. presidents were in office. Nor did the oppressive nature of the regime change noticeably. We have no reason to think that Castro has personally suffered any deprivation from the sanctions. However, the Cuban people, denied direct access to American products and markets, have suffered terribly. That is how embargoes usually work.
In fact, the Cuban embargo only strengthened Castro’s hold. He could easily blame his regime’s failure at central economic planning on the American boycott. This point is underappreciated. Other nations trade with Cuba, so that country is not isolated from the world market. Nevertheless, the inevitable economic disaster of Cuban central planning can be propagandistically attributed to the hegemon to the north that seeks to crush the island. At least that is what Castro has been telling his people for nearly half a century. How many people know enough economics to see the fallacy in Castro’s propaganda?
Without the embargo (and other menacing policies), Americans would have been traveling to Cuba regularly, bringing with them attractive products, hard currency, and liberal culture. The people there would have seen up close what they were missing and would have learned much from their contact with Americans. A booming tourist industry would have exposed ordinary Cubans to the benefits of a freer economy. The government there might have tried to limit contact, but that would have been difficult, especially with an active Cuban-American community. Blaming the United States for the Cuban people’s plight would have been a hard sell. We’ll never know, but the communist government might have been long gone by now.
So why does Obama continue this cruel policy toward the Cubans? Because it’s so cruel, it is ludicrous to say he does it for their benefit. Thanks, but no thanks, they might reply.
Politics is one reason. National politicians can’t afford to alienate the older and still-powerful Cuban-Americans in Florida, a key electoral state, who want Fidel Castro’s brother and successor, Raul, out. Another political reason is that no president wants to look soft on communism even in the post–Cold War era.
But a major reason is this: Obama heads the American State, which has traditionally claimed the authority to dictate or at least to veto what goes on in “its backyard.” For all his talk about “partnership,” Obama apparently has no intention of breaking with that policy. The day may be past when a U.S. president could send troops to, say, Venezuela to overthrow Hugo Chavez, but Obama still regards it as his responsibility to find ways to moderate regimes that don’t meet American expectations. Whether by carrots or sticks, it’s still intervention.
The arrogance of the American position can be seen in the demand that Raul Castro satisfy the U.S. president before lifting the embargo can even be considered. If Castro makes the right gestures, perhaps the president would deign to sit down with him to talk. But Castro has to earn the photo op with Obama or else — heaven forbid — he might gain a prestige he does not deserve.
What nonsense. These are two politicians who are more alike than different. Both live off wealth extracted by force from their respective populations while they devise ways to impose their wills on their societies. Cubans surely have less freedom than Americans do, but it’s a matter of degree. Some may find that statement outrageous, but consider this: While Americans’ right to speak out against the welfare state is respected by the U.S. government, their right to opt out of it is no more respected than the Cubans’ right is. The taxman is just as insistent here as there. True, each American gets one more vote than each Cuban gets. The difference is as small as the arithmetic indicates.
Must the Cuban people continue to suffer while Obama and Castro play their diplomatic games? In the name of humanity, the embargo must end at once. After that, they can talk all they want.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” or send him email.
This article originally appeared in the July 2009 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.
Any Afghan who does not try to destroy NATO forces is unpatriotic. We praise patriotism (the philosophy of the stupid), so...
I was told in Feb. 2001 in Peshawar that the US would soon be invading Afghanistan. It was no secret. As pointed out above, the Taliban demands (for evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11) were actually quite reasonable. Bush's government was made frantic but this moderation. That's because 9/11 was a fraud. The evidence for this is now overwhelming.
See Bill's 6:54 to dispells Reuter's miss information.
Even Amy's Goodmans independent reporter stated that the USA invaded during a civil war.
No the Taliban had control, they eliminated 90% of the poppies, stopped wholesale murder and rape and had a functioning government receiving economic aid from the USA and UN.
At most there was an inactive vestige of the N. Alliance in the North.
What I find to be extremely perverted is that a large part of the USA's forces are proselytezing "christians".
The Christ I learned was a god/man who taught and lived love and peace.
For 2,000 years, until it was recently change for State purposes, the Commandment was "Thou shalt not kill".
How can one claim to be a "christian" and be part of effort to destroy a people who want to be left in peace?
Part of effort which recently accepted 100 civilian deaths as the acceptable number for collateral damage ?
I believe the number now is 30 dead innocent civilians as being acceptable during one attack.
What kind of sick perverted "christianity" do these soldiers have running around in their brains and hearts?
I guess the retort would be "we are helping and freeing the Afghans".
But the Afghans do not want occupiers, who does?
Basically the USA has been hijacked by violent, greedy "christians" and zionists ( and secularists) , who divert attention to muslims.
That's because Americans are not "christian". The only Christians in the US are the Quakers; all 140,000 of them. Americans follow a narcissistic cult based on the teaching of Adam Smith and Joseph Smith, with the underlying mandate of "The Lord helps those that help themselves".
Don't ever call Americans christian. Primitive savage pagans may be a better description.
I have a t-shirt emblazoned "Lord, Protect me from your followers".
Please do not slander pagans most of whom are nature loving and peaceful ( although there is a satanic minority or are a "christian offshoot?). Primitive should be nuetral term.
And we know who are the most savage by the number of deaths they cause. the modern savages cannot say technology made me do it because they deemed to put the energy into developing killing technology.
Would that we DID follow the teachings of Adam Smith!
Or do you mean some 'Adam Smith' other than the one who wrote '"All for ourselves and nothing for other people" seems, in every age of the world, to be the vile maxim of the masters of mankind'?
We are talking about the same Adam Smith, the one who naively thought that markets would be run by an "invisible hand". Sorry, faith-based economic methodologies don't work. Period.
The thing that fashes me is how many on the lib-left want out of Afghanistan *even though* there's a great ethical justification for staying there (though probably with very different motives).
The Taliban are anti-democratic, deeply-sexist totalitarians disguised as theocrats (or perhaps they really are theocrats as well; it's hard to tell since their (per)version of Islam could hardly be more different to the real one. But I suppose some of the buggers might actually believe in it.)
If we believe in the rightness of democracy for ourselves, then we have to believe in its rightness for everyone, because the theoretical underpinnings of democracy are not a menu.
If we do believe that the Afghanis are like us in deserving to have the right to political and social self-determination, then we have the ethical obligation to mix in on their side if someone's trying to keep them from enjoying that self-determination.
The same imperative is at work as would oblige us to go to the rescue of someone being assaulted in the street -- particularly if we're bigger and more powerful than the assailant, and heavily armed to boot (which certainly describes the US vis-á-vis the Tali-loonies).
Of course, democracy is not really any part of ruling-class motives for the US presence there. But they're not paying any part of the price, either.