Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghans Unimpressed by Obama's Troops Surge
KABUL - Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.
Afghan poor men wait in a queue to receive food stuff donation provided by U.S. solders in Kabul, Afghanistan on Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009. Many Afghans were still sleeping when President Barack Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to the war. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq) "Even if they bring the whole of America, they won't be able to
stabilise Afghanistan," said the young construction worker out on a
Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. "Only Afghans understand our
traditions, geography and way of life."
U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital, where few watched the speech on TV before dawn and fewer seemed to think new troops would help.
Obama said his goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda in Afghanistan and "reverse the Taliban's momentum".
The extra U.S. forces, and at least 5,000 expected from other NATO allies, would join 110,000 Western troops already in the country in an effort to reverse gains made by the Islamist militants, at their strongest since being ousted in 2001.
Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.
"The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops," he said. "Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy."
For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.
"More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties," Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.
"The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the U.S. image and cause more indignation among Afghans."
"NOTHING REALLY NEW"
By late morning, the Afghan government had yet to issue an official response to Obama's statement. President Hamid Karzai has in the past said he favours additional Western troops, although he wants Afghan forces to take over security for the country within five years.
Although Obama pointedly addressed Afghans, telling them the United States was not interested in occupying their country, parliamentarian Shukriya Barakzai said she was disappointed because the speech contained little talk of civilian aid.
"It was a very wonderful speech for America ... but when it comes to strategy in Afghanistan there was nothing really new which was disappointing," she told Reuters from her home.
"It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in Afghanistan. His strategy was to pay lip-service, and did not focus on civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights."
Other Afghans, hardened by decades of war and wary of foreign forces whom have for years fought proxy battles in Afghanistan, were sceptical of the United States' intentions.
Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.
"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops."
(Additional reporting by Abdul Saboor and Yara Bayoumy; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Peter Graff and Alex Richardson) ((yara.bayoumy@reuters.com; Kabul newsroom; Reuters Messaging: yara.bayoumy.reuters.com@reuters.net)) (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here)
- Posted in
23 Comments so far
Show AllRueters did a good job and Ehsanullah and the rest are extremely perceptive, I wish more USAans were as intelligent.
Butt, Uncle 'Bomb IS OCCUPYING "South Asian" Muslim homelands, WITH INTEREST (in Oildinero)!
Oh yes! and let's not forget to celebrate Obama's reception of the Nobel Peace Prize for his escalation of war, murder, rape and theft. A tragic irony if I ever saw one!
Yeah, in many ways, this beats even Kissinger's prize for vileness.
"Babykiller" Obama lost the Olympics for Chicago so his handlers decided to buy him a Nobel Peace/War prize, fortunately a clean conscience cant be bought altough at this point im sure they dont give a damn.
Babykiller is over the top.
Salahuddin sez: "... Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital ..."
***
Where in the world did it "impress" anybody? Besides the Nobel committee, that is?
Now that's fast polling returns. I never knew it was so easy to find the pulse of a region.
They used the Karzai/Bush method of public polling
No wonder the Afgans are so hard to impress...it apperantly takes 1000 high-tech equiped US soldiers to fight each one of their AK 47 equiped fighters.
They must be supermen.
Here is my suggestion..instead of spending $100 Billion a year to "stabilize" the heart of Opiumland....why doesn't the USA just BUY the annual opium crop and use it for health care?
Then the local Afgans would fight Al Qaeda in order to stabalize themselves and keep business going, while depriving them of any funds?
your comment reminds me of a remark by an AMERICAN SOLDIER that had been in Afghanistan.
after explaining the experience, the realities..etc...he basically summed up the USA war and fighting against afghanis - whatever their different stripes are :
"IF ALL THINGS WERE TRULY LEVEL ...WITHOUT OUR SUPER-MODERN ITEMS..WITHOUT OUR BIG JETPLANES, HELICOPTERS, ARMAMENTS...THE WAR WOULD BE OVER IN A MATTER OF HOURS -- WITH OUR DEFEAT. THE IRAQIS ARE CHILDREN COMPARED TO THESE WARRIORS".
i am further reminded by an article by a journalist reporting from afghanistan and central asia for over a decade now and knows the place very place who described an incident that, to him, explained why the afghanis or those people are such TOUGH people, even for the greatest empires:
i paraphrase his description:
============
"we were on a long trek in a hard day's journey through very dangerous areas...i was with refugees..and we were going to cross a strong stream to get across to the other side of the hills..the water was extremely cold and rough and could easily sweep anyone away...most were barefoot , as they usually are, a boy of less than ten , after our dozens of miles of nonstop walk, had his feet so swollen and bloody from the walk..the only way to cross safely was over a single log from a fallen tree..which was slippery from the water...i decided to help the boy along as we crossed....
as soon as we crossed - i was shocked at the response of his father: rather than thank me....he screamed at me in his language ...and SLAPPED his son in the face.
it was explained to me that the father was insulted and angered by what I did , for it meant that - "NOW the boy will never learn to fend for himself when times are rough and always expect help..." and that he slapped the boy to remind him .
it made me understand that these people are shaped by their environment , its cruel realities and challenges and partly explains why they are the people who have defied all empires and great powers, they are about as tough as can be imagined".
Those extra troops will come in handy on Iran's eastern border. They've already accused us of fomenting terror from Pakistan. Are they right? Is that what is going on here? Preparing another front for when Israel attacks Iran? If that is the case, why not cut to the chase? Institute a military draft and have the GOP craft a Cheney win in 2012. How much does it matter anymore to the peasant-cannon fodder class whether we get pretty speeches with it? If the successive administrations in Washington are so concerned with protecting the homeland, shouldn't they first make sure there is something left of it worth protecting. Seems to me that should be job number one right now. The Titanic has hit the berg and is sinking. Lifeboats first; Empire Ballroom dance later.
Perhaps the Afghans are thinking, at least intrinsically, of this quote and the veracity that this statement puts forth in regard to the American mind set:
"Do not men die fast enough without being destroyed by each other?"-Francois Fenelon [1651-1715], French Roman-Catholic theologian
And this one:
"The dead know only one thing: It is better to be alive."-Elroy James Flecker [1884-1915]. English poet and novelist
And this:
"The use of force alone is but temporary. It does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered."-Edmund Burke [1729-1797], Irish statesman and political theorist
well.....a few months ago -- another article included remarks by ordinary afghanis..months ago :
there was an afghani - that simply said:
"the americans think that we are stupid..we know that they are here not because they want to help us or because they care about us...they are here only because they want to use us and our land for their own interests...they are like all the others before them".
But Obomber replied to him and denied it on his surge speech. He he...the dude actually sounded like he was trying to convince himself. How very pitiful!
One poster thought the USA was serving China in Afghanistan.
Definitely not, the Pipeline TAPI is Turkmenestan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India
India being the recipient of the resources is China's arch rival.
More of a containment of China and enrichment of Multinational Corporations in India.
The afghans will win this war and the americans will come home brooding and ready to invade somewhere else after inventing an imaginary threat like they did about Iraq and the war machine will keep on humming as the country falls apart back here.
those afghanis speak from the wisdom and knowledge of centuries of experience that americans can not really even imagine or have any real understanding of.
against all the rhetorical flourishes of obama , the sophistries of the "leaders" of the advanced world - the afghanis, even the most ordinary of them can speak in a few words
deeper and more profound and unadulterated TRUTH.
they have eyes that see not through the prism of POWER and WeALTH and EMPIRE and all its accoutrements and bombs and war machinery and exploits and stratagems of dominance and conquest - their eyes see truth taught by REALITY - HARSH REALITIES of life imposed by the environment - despite WHICH they have created and maintained through the centuries an independence that can not be swayed or conquered by the greatest powers.
they are an amazing people. imo.
strange to many of us, from our own standpoints, even with some traditions that can be cruel ......but , imo, more TRULY NOBLE than the people of nations that call themselves "POWERS"...because these afghanis live by the rules of strength through having so little...and understand THEMSELVES in ways that foreigners will never see, nor foreigners that try to invade can match in their own understanding of THEMSELVES compared to these afghanis.
SOVIET COMMANDER: U.S. FACES SIMILAR AFGHAN FATE
By Paul Armstrong
CNN
December 2, 2009 -- Updated 1609 GMT (0009 HKT)
Click to play
Message from Moscow for Obama
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Gen. Victor Yermakov commanded the Soviet Union's 40th army in Afghanistan
* Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and occupied country for nine years
* Retired general says Afghanistan will not be conquered despite the latest U.S.-led troop surge
* President Obama announced Tuesday he is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan
(CNN) -- A former commander of Soviet forces in Afghanistan has warned history is being repeated in the war-ravaged country as the United States and its allies become increasingly mired in an "unwinnable war."
Gen. Victor Yermakov commanded the Soviet Union's 40th army in Afghanistan from May 1982 to November 1983, one of six commanders to preside over the Soviet task force after its 1979 invasion.
The Kremlin's bloody nine-year campaign to support the Marxist government in Kabul cost the lives of more than 15,000 troops and brought the Soviet economy to its knees before its 100,000-strong army was forced into a humiliating withdrawal.
The strategy of imposing its will on Afghanistan militarily had failed in the face of an unyielding guerilla insurgency, backed ironically by U.S. money and weapons. Afghanistan had become Moscow's "Vietnam War."
Fast forward 20 years and President Obama has authorized a troop surge that will take the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan to around 100,000, bolstered by around 45,000 NATO service personnel.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
=======================
"We too entered Afghanistan with a large force," says Yermakov. "We came there not to conquer Afghanistan but to render international assistance to stabilize the situation there.
"But you cannot impose democracy by using force. An Afghan has agreed with you today, at gunpoint, that American democracy is the best thing in the world, just as he was once saying that the Soviet system was the best.
"But as soon as you turn around, he'll shoot you in the back and immediately forget what he was just saying.
"I would like to remind you what the first man to unite the Afghan tribes, Czar Babur, said: 'Afghanistan has not been and never will be conquered, and will never surrender to anyone.' Afghans are a very freedom-loving and proud people."
Babur was a descendent of Genghis Khan who founded the Mughal dynasty which conquered much of central Asia in the 1500s.
Asked what difference the latest troop surge will make, the 74-year-old former deputy defense minister says, "I can see only one: Obama will be more often going to the airport to pay his last respects to the [airlifted U.S.] soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
"That's the only difference that I can see, whatever the size of the task force."
The U.S.-led coalition first invaded Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon by al Qaeda. The invasion overthrew the ruling Taliban, which had allowed al Qaeda to operate from its territory -- but most of the top al Qaeda and Taliban leadership escaped the onslaught.
As it had been with the Soviets, the mission is now to stabilize the country with a government it favors. But Taliban fighters have since regrouped in the mountainous region along Afghanistan's border, taking advantage of ethnic ties with sympathetic local tribes to fight against another foreign invader.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
=====================
More than 900 Americans and nearly 600 allied troops have died in the ensuing conflict, with many of these casualties coming from roadside bombs, known as IEDs (improvised explosive devices), planted by Taliban fighters employing the same guerilla tactics as Mujahideen fighters used against the Soviets.
Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?
But even when the U.S.-led forces achieve their objective of re-taking a village or town from the Taliban, Yermakov claims they repeat Soviet mistakes.
"Whether it's Tora Bora or Kandahar we would deploy troops, establish order, place a popular government there and render our assistance to it. But when we leave that government or leadership runs away.
"After all who is the leader of a province? If he's not part of the local tribe then nobody's going to pay attention to him."
Afghans regard war only as an attempt to enslave them
--General Yermatov
He then pointed out how much of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation was under government control during the day but at night the power shifted to the Mujahideen. "A similar thing is happening presently with the Taliban," he says.
Asked what lessons the coalition can learn from the bitter Soviet experience, the retired general advised western governments to transfer the money being spent on financing troops to the restoration of Afghanistan itself.
"Restoring Afghanistan's economy, its industrial enterprises, its education system, schools and mosques will increase your authority. War can only evoke resistance. Afghans regard war only as an attempt to enslave them."
According to White House estimates, it costs about $1 million per year to send just one soldier to Afghanistan. That figure includes the cost of the equipment the soldier would need, the fuel to transport the soldier to the theater and move him/her around during their deployment, and food, housing, combat pay, ammunition and other miscellaneous costs.
With a hint of defiance, Yermakov claimed the Soviet Army did enjoy some success.
"We didn't leave [Afghanistan] as a defeated force, he says. "We didn't leave with disgrace. It was our government who decided that we should withdraw, and we accepted that decision -- that the Afghan people should develop independently.
"If we are to speak about what we needed badly, it was fence-mending with the local population. We were expanding those ties, we had met with their religious leaders, mullahs and so on.
"We tried to assist, to persuade -- and it yielded results. And I should tell you that we understood this after about four years of our presence there."
The US' arrogance is appaling, to say the least. The French warned about Vietnam; now the Russians are warning about Afghanistan. But no...father knows best. Like hell he does. Soldiers giving their lives for what? The West has no business in Afghanistan - it is their country.
This should be the last nail on the imperial coffin.