Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOn Anniversary of Bombing Afghanistan, We Need a Surge in Diplomacy
Seven years ago today we held a memorial service for my brother-in-law in his hometown of Anamosa, Iowa, four weeks after he was killed at the Pentagon on 9/11. As I walked out the door from the service, I glanced at the television and saw ominous green flashes on the dark screen. My heart sank. That day, I realized, the day we started bombing Afghanistan, was another family's 9/11, a day when something fell out of the sky and crushed their innocent loved ones whose only crime was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Only this time, it was my own government, not al-Qaeda, that had decided that the loss of these lives in Afghanistan was justified, in the name of a greater good.
Tonight, as our presidential candidates debate, it is time we start demanding bold new leadership on the disaster that is the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. It seems too simple a sound bite for the candidates to offer more troops as a solution. Tragically, increasing troops will not solve the problems of Afghanistan or the U.S., but will only compound them.
In January 2002, I traveled to Afghanistan to witness the direct effects of the U.S. bombing campaign. In and around Kabul I met with families whose homes were destroyed, and whose children were killed due to the US bombing. These were not Taliban or al-Qaeda supporters, they were ordinary people, just like 9/11 victims, that are the ones who always suffer when political leaders choose war and violence as the answer. In January 2002, there was much hope among people in Afghanistan. The people I met expressed a deep desire for an end to the violence. Most saw the U.S. bombing as a mixed blessing. They were angry about civilian casualties, but relieved that the Taliban were out of power and hopeful that twenty-three years of war were coming to a close. This sense that maybe, just maybe things were going to get better, has unfortunately evaporated over the years.
Seven years later, the violence has only increased. Every year the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan, more civilians and military are killed. 2008 has been the most violent year since 2001. Civilian casualties by US and NATO forces have sparked little-reported protests led by students, tribal leaders and ordinary people across the country. Polling data now indicates a majority of Afghans want U.S. troops to leave their country. It is time that we start listening to the will of the Afghan people, and formulate our policy accordingly.
Instead of a surge in the war, something Afghans have experienced repeatedly over the past three decades, how about a surge in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and support for grassroots democratic forces in Afghanistan. As the RAND corporation points out in a recent study, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. If we want to help build a stable and democratic Afghanistan, we should drastically revamp our humanitarian aid to assure that it goes to projects identified by Afghans as crucial and supports the local economy by employing local workers, not high-priced foreign contractors.
It is time to reconsider exactly what the mission is in Afghanistan and develop strategies that help us meet that goal. Are we there to capture bin Laden? Seven years of military action doesn't seem to have made much progress. Are we there to liberate the people? Then let's listen to the words of Malalia Joya, a young woman who was kicked out of the Afghan Parliament for standing up to the warlords and drug lords in the chamber. Speaking in Canada, she said "no nation can donate liberation to another nation." A quick examination of our own history -the revolutionary war, the women's movement, the civil rights movement, tells us she is right.
What we as the U.S. can do in Afghanistan is learn to be friends with the Afghan people as they liberate themselves. We need new leadership in Washington that understands military escalation will lead only to more memorial services for both Afghans and U.S. troops. It's time to break with the Bush war tradition and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.
9 Comments so far
Show AllPaul Siemering
great article and posts.
In John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, there is a chapter about Afghanistan. He had been visiting a couple villages that had been bombed by the u.s. In Kabul he visited a bombed high school, where the students were trying to carry on in makeshift classrooms of cardboard and plastic sheeting. The headmaster explained to him that the kids could no longer remember their lessons, that everything had to be repeated over and over.
"...because the young have been emotionally invaded and left with only anguish. They constantly worry about shells or bomb attacks, or stepping on a mine; they are terrified of aircraft. These wars have taken away our minds, and the spirit of our lives, and left us with only the shells of our bodies."
That is the most eloquent statement I know of what may be the most horrifying part of what we are doing. What do you imagine it might be like? Say you were six years old back in 2001. Now you are fourteen and all your life you only knew bombs and missiles and mines. How could your head be ok after all that? This is about the people who did not get killed yet. About the entire surviving population of Afghanistan."Emotionally invaded and left with only anguish...."
The cruel and cowardly bombing and occupation of Afghanistan is all about 21st century profits for Big Oil, that is, if they ever succeed in building pipelines through some of the most dangerous geography on earth. There are about 25 million Pashtun/Afghans who do not want us there. In the tribal regious of Pakistan alone there are about one million armed Pashtun warriors.
Cost to date for American taxpayers is over one $Trillion (plus interest). Afghanistan has become an economic graveyard for the American empire in combination with three $Trillion (plus interest) wasted in Iraq !
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm
The Deadly Pipeline War
US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests
by Marjorie Cohn
“George W. Bush justifies his bombing of Afghanistan as a war against terror. A twin motive, however, is to make Afghanistan safe for United States oil interests.”
Thus, we invaded in 2001 taking more lives.
A brief little history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
"Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:
“We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”
And:
The actual death toll in Afghanistan resulting from American foreign policy is now well OVER ONE MILLION AFGHAN LIVES !
We played a roll in bringing about the Russian invasion. And after the Muhajadeen had defeated the Russians for America as part of our cold war objectives, we abandon Afghanistan. The violence that followed took thousands more lives.
But when the Taliban rejected initial offers for A trans-Afghan pipeline by Unocal the stage was set for our 2001 invasion followed by a deadly occupation with no end in sight.
And because we cannot control the ground with foot soldiers we are attempting to bomb the Afghans/Pashtuns into submission. This tactic was used by British imperialists long ago and failed.
A collection of articles:
http://modkraft.dk/spip.php?page=tc-artikel&id_article=5517
The CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan (15 October 2001)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
"According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan’s destruction as a nation."
Civilian deaths since 2001:
As many as 6,000 civilian may have died as a result of our bombing campaign in 2001 alone. And it is even more difficult to count resulting famine deaths.
http://www.counterpunch.org/szabo07202007.html
And:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
The civilan deaths are a deliberate part of American military policy:
"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties - 3,000 - 3,400 (October 7, 2001 thru March 2002) civilian deaths - in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
“When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."
"It's nightmarish to see that the U.S. is slowly desensitizing the public to the level of destruction taking place in Afghanistan. They have progressed from medium-sized missiles to Tomahawk and cruise missiles, to bunker-busting 2,000 lb bombs, then to [B-52] carpet-bombing using cluster bombs, and now the devastating daisy cutter bombs that annihilate everything in a 600-meter radius."75
However, the long term effects resulting from the use of hundreds of tons of depleted uranium used in bombing Afghanistan are very difficult to measure.
For one explanation and terribly graphic images of birth defects, the following is worth a look:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAU20060...
“ Due to the use of massive amount of uranium munitions used by the US forces in the initial bombing and subsequently, massive amount of congenital deformities occur all over Afghanistan. The rate of various cancers has gone up significantly. Leukemia and esophageal cancers are very high among children. According to doctors at maternity and children hospitals in Kabul, the rate of various congenital deformities have increased by many folds since the US invasion. In fact, the magnitude of man made isotopes was established by the Uranium Medical Research Center after their investigators made to trips to Afghanistan and collected urine and soil samples. They established that the rate of man made isotopes was gone up 2000 times in some subjects located near the bombed areas.”
In fact, George W. Bush has been found guilty of war crimes for the use of depleted uranium in the bombing of Afghanistan. Dropping radioactive weapons on one of the poorest nations on earth is typical American morality.
From:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GWBguiltyAWC.html
DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS DECRIED
Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes
by Nao Shimoyachi
14 March 2004
A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001.
The tribunal also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium shells and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people, compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations in light of its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.
Actual tribunal findings:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/ICTforAatT.html
Good article on recent Afghan-peace talks:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ08Df03.html
I highly recommend the Asia Times online.
Be sure to also read the financial advice of the Mogambo Guru.
For George Wanker Bush, diplomacy is shooting you in the face with a .44 Magnum while wearing a pair of English leather gloves.
Darn, thats good!
Changes are obviously needed in how the US conducts operations overseas.
Food for thought in the article:
Transcendent warfare: New Army manual, research report are valuable
Joint Recon Study Group
http://jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com
Oct. 6, 2008
Two new documents by and about the U.S. Army are sparking discussion and debate about various elements of the Army’s missions and future directions.
Both documents, a field manual and a research study report, expand perspectives about achieving short-term and long-term success in various kinds of missions.
Taken together, along with other comprehensive considerations, these views might be considered part of an “outside-the-box” and valuable concept sometimes referred to as “transcendent warfare.”
The new Stability Operations Field Manual, to be released today according to an Oct. 5 Washington Post article, emphasizes the role of “stability operations” in countries and regions that include fragile states and failed states.
Another new document is a report by the Rand Corporation based on a study they conducted for the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). The report is titled “Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning Through Post-Conflict.”
Article continues at: http://jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com
Thanks for the links.
This issue upsets me more than almost any other. 3,200 CIVILIAN deaths since 2005. So many widows, orphans, families destroyed. This is one of the many big reasons I will not and cannot support Barack Obama & the Democratic party. I urge you all to check out a terrific documentary called "Beyond The 11th" to SEE the lives of Afghanistan's women & children. NO to further troops (soldiers) in Afghanistan. NO to U.S. terrorism.
"...what the mission is in Afghanistan"
There are two US missions there.
The UN sanctioned support for the Afghan government, such as it is.
The USA's GWOT (part of WOE, the War on Everybody), based on Public Law 107-40 (AUMF to fight the supporters of the 9/11 attackers).
It is in the warmongers' interests to have this dichotomy unclear, blending the two missions into a confused mix of missions and responsibilities.
Thus it becomes easier to promulgate success and hide failure.
How is the war against those responsible for 9/11 going? Heard anyone besides me asking that question? It's been 7 years, now. Seems about time the US knew who the enemy was.
Since the GWOT is unconstitutional and thus has no clear and stated goals, how can the US tell if it is winning or losing?