Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Surge That Failed
Afghanistan Under the Bombs
A bit past midnight on a balmy night in late August, Hedayatullah awoke to a deafening blast. He stumbled out of bed and heard angry voices drawing closer. Suddenly, his bedroom doors banged open and dozens of silhouetted figures burst in, some shouting in a strange language.
The intruders blindfolded Hedayatullah and, screaming with fury, forced him to the ground. An Afghan voice told him not to move or speak, or he would be killed. He listened for sounds from the next room, where his brother Noorullah slept with his family. He could hear his nephew, eight months old, crying hysterically. Then came the sound of an automatic rifle, after which his nephew fell silent.
The rest of the family -- 18 people in all, including aunts, uncles, and cousins -- was herded outside into the darkness. The Afghan voice explained to Hedayatullah's terrified mother, "We are the Afghan National Army, here to accompany the American military. The Americans have killed one of your sons and his two children. They also shot his wife and they're taking her to the hospital."
"Why?" Hedayatullah's mother stammered.
"There is no why," the soldier replied. When she heard this, she started screaming, slamming her fists into her chest in anguish. The Afghan soldiers left her and loaded Hedayatullah and his cousin into the back of a military van, after which they drove off with an American convoy into the black of night.
The next day, the Afghan forces released Hedayatullah and his cousin, calling the whole raid a mistake. However, Noorullah's wife, months pregnant, never came home: She died on the way to the hospital.
Surging in Afghanistan
When, decades from now, historians compile the record of this Afghan war, they will date the Afghan version of the surge -- the now trendy injection of large numbers of troops to resuscitate a flagging war effort -- to sometime in early 2007. Then, a growing insurgency was causing visible problems for U.S. and NATO forces in certain pockets in the southern parts of the country, long a Taliban stronghold. In response, military planners dramatically beefed up the international presence, raising the number of troops over the following 18 months by 20,000, a 45% jump.
During this period, however, the violence also jumped -- by 50%. This shouldn't be surprising. More troops meant more targets for Taliban fighters and suicide bombers. In response, the international forces retaliated with massive aerial bombing campaigns and large-scale house raids. The number of civilians killed in the process skyrocketed. In the fifteen months of this surge, more civilians have been killed than in the previous four years combined.
During the same period, the country descended into a state of utter dereliction -- no jobs, very little reconstruction, and ever less security. In turn, the rising civilian death toll and the decaying economy proved a profitable recipe for the Taliban, who recruited significant numbers of new fighters. They also won the sympathy of Afghans who saw them as the lesser of two evils. Once confined to the deep Afghan south, today the insurgents operate openly right at the doorstep of Kabul, the capital.
This last surge, little noted by the media, failed miserably, but Washington is now planning another one, even as Afghanistan slips away. More boots on the ground, though, will do little to address the real causes of this country's unfolding tragedy.
Revenge and the Taliban
One day, as Zubair was walking home, he noticed that the carpet factory near his house in the southern province of Ghazni was silent. That's strange, he thought, because he could usually hear the din of spinning looms as he approached. As he rounded the corner, he saw a crowd of people, villagers and factory workers, gathered around his destroyed house. An American bomb had flattened it into a pancake of cement blocks and pulverized bricks. He ran toward the scene. It was only when he shoved his way through the crowd and up to the wreckage that he actually saw it -- his mother's severed head lying amid mangled furniture.
He didn't scream. Instead, the sight induced a sort of catatonia; he picked up the head, cradled it in his arms, and started walking aimlessly. He carried on like this for days, until tribal elders pried the head from his hands and convinced him to deal with his loss more constructively. He decided he would get revenge by becoming a suicide bomber and inflicting a loss on some American family as painful as the one he had just suffered.
When one decides to become a suicide bomber, it is pretty easy to find the Taliban. In Zubair's case he just asked a relative to direct him to the nearest Talib; every village in the country's south and east has at least a few. He found them and he trained -- yes, suicide bombing requires training -- for some time and then he was fitted with the latest model suicide vest. One morning, he made his way, as directed, towards an office building where Americans advisors were training their Afghan counterparts, but before he could detonate his vest, a pair of sharp-eyed intelligence officers spotted him and wrestled him to the ground. Zubair now spends his days in an Afghan prison.
A poll of 42 Taliban fighters by the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper earlier this year revealed that 12 had seen family members killed in air strikes, and six joined the insurgency after such attacks. Far more who don't join offer their support.
Under the Bombs
In the muddied outskirts of Kabul, an impromptu neighborhood has been sprouting, full of civilians fleeing the regular Allied aerial bombardments in the Afghan countryside. Sherafadeen Sadozay, a poor farmer from the south, spoke for many there when he told me that he had once had no opinion of the United States. Then, one day, a payload from an American sortie split his house in two, eviscerating his wife and three children. Now, he says, he'd rather have the Taliban back in power than nervously eye the skies every day.
Even when the bombs don't fall, it's quite dangerous to be an Afghan. Journalist Jawed Ahmad was on assignment for Canadian Television in the southern city of Kandahar when American troops stopped him. In his possession, they found contact numbers to the cell phones of various Taliban fighters -- something every good journalist in the country has -- and threw him into prison, not to be heard from for almost a year. During interrogation, Ahmad says that American jailors kicked him, smashed his head into a table, and at one point prevented him from sleeping for nine days. They kept him standing on a snowy runway for six hours without shoes. Twice he fainted and twice the soldiers forced him to stand up again. After 11 months of detention, military authorities gave him a letter stating that he was not a threat to the U.S. and released him.
Starving in Kabul
If you're walking his street, there isn't a single day when you won't see Zayainullah. For as long as he can remember, the 11 year-old has perched on the sidewalk at one of Kabul's busiest intersections. Zayainullah has only one arm; the Taliban blew the other one away when he was a child. He uses this arm to beg for handouts, quietly in the mornings, more desperately as the day goes on. Both his parents are dead so he lives with his aunt, a widow. Given the mores of modern-day Afghanistan, she can't work because a woman needs a man's sanction to leave the house. So she puts young Zayainullah on the street as her sole breadwinner. If he comes home empty-handed she beats him, sometimes until he can no longer move.
He sits there, shirtless, with a heaving, rounded belly -- distended from severe malnutrition -- as scores of other beggars and pedestrians stream by him. No one really notices him though, because poverty has become endemic in this country.
Afghanistan is now one of the poorest countries on the planet. It takes its place among desperate, destitute nations like Burkina Faso and Somalia whenever any international organization bothers to measure. The official unemployment rate, last calculated in 2005, was 40% percent. According to recent estimates, it may today reach as high as 80% in some parts of the country.
Approximately 45% of the population is now unable to purchase enough food to guarantee bare minimum health levels, according to the Brookings Institution. This winter, Afghan officials claim that hunger may kill up to 80% of the population in some northern provinces caught in a vicious drought. Reports are emerging of parents selling their children simply to make ends meet. In one district of the southern province of Ghazni last spring things got so bad that villagers started eating grass. Locals say that after a harsh winter and almost no food, they had no choice.
Kabul itself lies in tatters. Roads have gone unpaved since 2001. Massive craters from decades of war blot the capital city. Poor Afghans live in crumbling warrens with no electricity and often without safe drinking water. Kabul, a city designed for about 800,000 people, now holds more than four million, mostly squeezed into informal settlements and squatters' shacks.
Washington spends about $100 million a day on this war -- close to $36 billion a year -- but only five cents of every dollar actually goes towards aid. From this paltry sum, the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief found that "a staggering 40 percent has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and salaries." The economy is so underdeveloped that opium production accounts for more than half of the country's gross domestic product.
What little money does go for reconstruction is handed over to U.S. multinationals who then subcontract out to Afghan partners and cut corners every step of the way. As a result, the U.N. ranks the country as the fifth least-developed in the world -- a one-position drop from 2004.
The government and coalition forces may not bring jobs to Afghanistan, but the Taliban does. The insurgents pay for fighters -- in some cases, up to $200 a month, a windfall in a country where 42% of the population earns less than $14 a month. When a textile factory in Kandahar laid off 2,000 workers in September, most of them joined the Taliban. And that district in Ghazni where locals were reduced to eating grass? It is now a Taliban stronghold.
Biking in Kabul
A spate of suicide bombings and high-profile attacks in recent years have turned Kabul into a sort of garrison state, with roadblocks and checkpoints clogging many of the city's main arteries. The traffic is, at times, unbearable, so I bought a new motorbike, an Iranian import that can adroitly weave through traffic. I was puttering along one day recently when a police commander stopped me.
"That's a nice bike," he said.
"Thank you," I replied.
"Is it new?"
"Yes."
"I'd like to have it. Get off."
I stared at him in disbelief, not quite grasping at first that he was deadly serious. Then I began threatening him, saying I'd call a certain influential friend if he laid a finger on the bike. That finally hit home and he stepped back, waving me on.
Journalists may have influential friends, but ordinary Afghans are usually not so lucky. Locals tend to fear the neighborhood police as much as the many criminals who prowl Kabul's streets. The notoriously corrupt police force is just one face of a government that much of the population has come to loathe.
Police are known to rob passengers at checkpoints. Many of the country's leading members of parliament and cabinet officials sport long, bloody records of human rights abuses. Rapists and serious criminals regularly bribe their way out of prison. Warlords and militia commanders run wild in the north, regularly raping young girls and snatching the land of villagers with impunity. Earlier this year newspapers revealed that President Hamid Karzai pardoned a pair of such militiamen accused of bayonet-raping a young woman.
What Karzai does hardly matters, though. After all, his government barely functions. Most of the country is carved up into fiefdoms run by small-time commanders. A U.S. intelligence report in the spring of 2008 estimated that the central government then controlled just 30% of the country, and many say even that is now an optimistic assessment.
Drive a few miles outside Kabul and the roads are controlled by bandits, off-duty cops, or anyone else with a gun and an eye for a quick buck. The Karzai government's popularity has plummeted to such levels that, believe it or not, many Afghans in Kabul wax nostalgic for the days of Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, the country's last Communist dictator. "That government was cruel and indifferent, but at least they gave us something," an Afghan friend typically told me. The Karzai government provides almost no social services, expending all its efforts just trying to keep itself together.
Shadow Government
Power abhors a vacuum, and so, in those areas where central government rule has crumbled, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan -- the Taliban government -- is rising in its place. In Wardak, a province bordering Kabul Province, the Taliban has a stable foothold, complete with a shadow government of mayors and police chiefs. In Logar, another of Kabul's neighboring provinces, some "government-controlled" areas consist of the home of the district head, the NATO installation down the road -- and nothing else.
With the rise of the Taliban in these areas comes their notorious brand of justice. Shadow courts now dispense Taliban-style draconian judgments and punishments in many districts and ever more locals are turning to them to settle disputes, either out of fear or because they are far more efficient than the corrupt government courts. The Taliban recently chopped off the ears of a schoolteacher in Zabul province for working for the government. They gunned down a popular drummer in Ghazni simply for playing music in public. Even the infamous public executions are back. The Taliban recently invited journalists to watch the execution of a pair of women on prostitution charges.
The Taliban are as uninterested in social services and human rights as the Karzai government or the international forces, but they know how to turn a world of poverty, insecurity, and death from laser-guided missiles to their advantage. This is how the Islamic Emirate spreads, like so many weeds at first, poking out of areas where the government has failed. As the central government spins towards irrelevancy, the whole south and east of Afghanistan is becoming a thicket of Taliban before our very eyes.
A War to be Lost
One night the Taliban raided a police check post near my Kabul home, killing three policemen. The following morning, when a police contingent arrived on the scene to investigate, a bomb that the rebels had cleverly hidden at the site exploded and killed two more of them. I arrived shortly afterwards to find pieces of charred flesh littering the ground and a mangled, burnt out police van sitting overturned on a pile of rubble.
The raid didn't make much news at the time, but it was actually the deepest the insurgents had penetrated the capital since they were overthrown seven years ago. They have dispatched many individual suicide bombers into the capital and rocketed it as well from time to time, but never had they marched in as an attacking force on foot. When I told an Afghan colleague that I couldn't believe the Taliban were coming into Kabul this way, he responded: "Coming? They've been here. They were just waiting for the government and the U.S. to fail."
Failure is a notion now preoccupying the Western leadership of this war, which is why they are scrambling for yet another "surge" solution.
Of course, the Taliban won't be capturing Kabul anytime soon; the international forces are much too powerful to topple militarily. But the Americans can't defeat the Taliban either; the guerrillas are too deeply rooted in a country scarred by no jobs, no security, and no hope. The result is a war of attrition, with the Americans planning to pour yet more fuel on the flames by throwing in more soldiers next year.
This is a war to be won by constructing roads, creating jobs, cleaning up the government, and giving Afghans something they've had preciously little of in the last 30 years: hope. However, hope is fading fast here, and that's a fact Washington can ill afford to ignore; for once the Afghans lose all hope, the Americans will have lost this war.
- Posted in



77 Comments so far
Show AllWhen you think about it...it seems like this is exactly the look the US was going for, in all honesty. When has the US ever really FIXED another country--using fix in the version that means "to rebuild, restore, renew"...
The US will certainly never restore either Iraq or Afghanistan--heck--any of the countries we've screwed over because the poorer they are, the more we can exploit them. Can you REALLY imagine a restored Iraq or Afghanistan? With leaders installed that have been elected by the actual people of the country? Do you realize what a gigantic threat they would be to American democracy?
Assuming the US ever gets--or is forcibly kicked--out, those countries will either be on their own or have to collect some influential allies who will be able to assist them in getting their countries back together. I sincerely hope they can do that one day.
They have already asked us to leave, many times. Even Kharzai.
I fear that a little "clatch" of troops will be left to guard some embassy or military installation.
A surge that could actually be successful in America would be getting rid of sellouts in both parties and giving us Progressive/Liberal INDEPENDENTS for a change !
The result is a war of attrition . . .
Americans do not like attrition. The invention of nuclear weapons wrote The End to large scale conflicts like World War II which is what we really like because such wars are dramatic, with clear cut "fronts and theatres of war". They're Hollywood, with stirring martial music and parades of "our boys" going down Main Street carrying hundreds of flags flying in the wind. Wow! But attrition? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. It's like being in a marriage slowly going down the tubes. Americans want drama, not the dull thud. And that is mostly why, in the end, our heads will be handed to us by wogs and ragheads and fuzzy wuzzies who don't got no H-Bombs or B-2 bombers or carrier battle groups. It's no longer The Ugly American but The Ignorant American, The Bored American, The Frightened American and very soon The Broke American who'll get his/her ass kicked in these little countries that we have no more regard for than the area behind your stove.
The elites of this world, who think of themselves as “masters of the universe,” are destroying Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure their petty hegemony over energy resources. Yet what they don’t seem to understand is that they are destabilizing the entire world, and in the process destroying their own future income prospects. The vast sums of money the U.S. is expending in Iraq and Afghanistan are finally taking their toll on our economy and financial system, which is becoming manifest.
Now that the U.S. Congress has basically said to the American people, “Fuck you!”, and approved this bailout for the elites, the American people are finally coming to the realization that their government is no better than the despotic one in Afghanistan. Just as the standard of living of Afghanis is being destroyed, so is that of Americans. How long before Americans themselves start acting like Afghanis and reject the “official” government in favor of an alternative? How long before Americans become “insurgents” against their own government, owned as it is by the power elite?
The “masters of the universe” are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, starting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but perhaps coming to America in the not too distant future.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Canada MUST divorce its Policies from the US war machine, or we will be dragged down into the gutter with them. We MUST imho withdraw from NATO and repeal the recent agreements that allow US forces into Canada.
We must set an independent foreign policy divorced from Western Europe and America and forgo these imperialistic missions into foreign countries to prop up despots.
The only time Canadian forces should be deployed outside our borders is on peacekeeping missions, fully authorized by the UN to places such as the Congo where the only purpose is to defend lives.
Acting as a force to defend pipelines or gain access to resources for multi-nationals is not why I support the need for a Military.
I am not opposed to a strong Military. I am simply opposed to it being used as a proxy force for US foreign policy, or to advance an agenda of Corporatism.
Please don't close things up too tightly; many of us Americanos may need to escape to Canada if this National Madness keeps up . . . and I expect it will.
I would love to get out of here--cant afford it, I suspect.
Doesnt it concern you that , these other countries that we want to escape ot, might just saY, "Hey, you guys kept voting for people who wanted to continue the warfare. So stay home and fix your own country".
How is that people who rebel against invaders and occupiers of their own homes and country are called insurgents and terrorists?
The Americans are the insurgents and terrorists. They are the ones who surge in and terrorize.
USA,USA,USA, whatever that stands for.
Hey, I’ve heard that they are conducting secret negotiations with Taliban’s Mullah Omar. They’re thinking along the line, “If you can’t beat them join them.”
But if our state terrorist gets into bed with Taliban, It would mean that all that treasure and lives were wasted for nothing. That all that bullshit about getting rid of Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to Afghan women were just that—bullshit.
The state terrorist must be impeached before he can walk away next January.
We need a surge to get ALL conservative bastards out of government, everywhere.
How about a draft for the kids of all people who continue to vote to fund the wars?
It's not the surge, it's the death squads. They work. Ask any drug kingpin!
The death squads worked in Iraq. 4 million Iraqis fled their lives and homes for various slums in other Arab countries, or in Europe or the U.S. These people now have no country, just a memory, perhaps a picture or an old heirloom. Seven figures of Iraqi people have now died for our oil.
The death squads will equally work in Afghanistan. All of the country's poor and illiterate farmers will do anything to live. They will flee if necessary. They will grow opium poppies for the European/American street corner market if necessary.
The question is, do we as democracy-loving, God-fearing people want our leaders to be the earth's scum? Is that going to get us into heaven, if someone else is appointed to do the killing, the stealing and the false witness bit?
Both the Iraq and Afgan wars are HUGE sucesses, and should continue to show a profit for years to come...just ask Haliburton, GE, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed-Martin. etc, etc, etc.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
True, but it's interesting that the stock prices of many of these "defense" contractors have since declined precipitously, particularly during the Wall Street crash.
Boeing (merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997) went from $25 at the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 to $105 about a year ago. Since then, it has declined to about $44.
Halliburton went from $10 at the start of the war to $53 in June 2008, and has since plummeted to $19.
General Electric went from $25 at the start of the war to $41 about a year ago, and has since declined to $19.
Lockheed Martin went from $45 at the start of the war to $120 in August 2008, then down to a present price of $92.
What do the rightwinger Republicans have to say about this
We are the biggest terrorist. Weather we like it or not.
"The question is, do we as democracy-loving, God-fearing people want our leaders to be the earth's scum?"
With all due respect, 'God-Fearing'? Are You kidding me? What kind of fascist god would that be, not intervening to remove the legislative and executive scum of the world? What kind of fascist god supports the troops of the greatest rapist nation on earth? Religion is opium for the people and Afghanistan can deliver both. The answer can only be total global disarmament. Nothing less, because every military force is traditionally used to rape the 'enemy'. And enemies You can create in a whiff. When freedom fighters become insurgents and revolutionaries terrorists You have an all out 'You go boys!' with known consequences.
The only time the US was defending itself was in Pearl Harbor and that was not and still is not part of the USA, it is The Hawaiian Kingdom. The department of war has already implemented a policy of counter insurgency on its own territory. They can't wait to hunt down, rape and kill fellow citizens turned revolutionaries or insurgents. Then they don't have to travel to the other side of the world. They can do their state sponsored terrorism right here, at 'home'. The lie that You have to fight them over there will soon turn into US fighting ourselves here.
Forget about elections - the only vote You have is at the register
.The stories are heartrending, the posts express outrage and the voters continue to vote for those who will perpetuate the slaughter...ahhh America.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
My god, people! WHAT are we doing??
How can we just "take troops from Iraq " and shove them directly into Afghanistan? Our miitary is goin gto break.
The article about theUS/UK derision on Afghanistan was good. There was no comment on it--I guess it is a pc mistake.
If the UK is against staying in Afghanistan, how can we possibly do this??? This is just the least helpful thing we couldve done.Alot of these people have seen their country so war-torn (Reagan decided to right the Cold War there--)for so many generations, that they live without the basic requirements for life
Remember what Putin told Bush, right before the invasion.---
"When youre lying and bleeding on Afghanistan"s plains
And the women come out to pick at your remains
Just turn to your gun and blow out your brains
And go to your god like a soldier"
Rudyard Kipling
We are a occupying force , people. We will soon be totally alone.
If we are going to "increase troop strength", then lets see a draft!! You guys want Obama's plan--YOU go fight it!
KDelphi,
Without rancor I ask you: What do you think we should do?
The solution is staring at you right in the face. RETREAT!. It's time to go. Every day we remain in both Iraq and Afganistan we create more problems. The entire problem was of our own creation anyway. You have been tricked by your own government, who by orchestrating the 9/11 disaster, led you to believe that there was a War on Terror that we all needed to fight. There is no such war. It's all a lie. Go home and let people of other countries decide their own destiny. And, if you want their oil, stop murdering them for it. Just buy it, like other decent countries do. And, if for whatever reason they don't want to sell it to you, just shut up. It's their oil, not yours. Do what other decent countries do and buy oil from someone else.
I remember a joke in a military magazine. There were two American soldiers in any foreign land that they just invaded. Upon seeing some of that countries citizens walking as a group the soldiers say to each other, "Hey, why don't we shoot at them to see if they are friendly."
Disgusting, but true.
Just go home.
.It may be a bit more complex than that of course, but you are correct in the main. The way to defeat terrorism in any form is to win hearts and minds, not slaughter them.
Extremist groups, whether AlQaeda, Taliban, the Republican Party
( ok a smallish joke), whoever, cannot exist without a certain empathy from the masses. When folks own homes, have decent jobs and children in college they are much more prone to resist the call to violence of a small minority. Our grossly inflated lifestyle has made us selfish and uncaring of the fact that it comes at great cost to many, many others world wide. It is long past time to share.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
americans don't like to be reminded how much damage their bombs do
that would make them think and the powers that be don't want that
the dreamlike state............
in the same way you can see someone get their brains blown out on tv but you can't hear them say fuck as they lay dying
very strange
cheers, b
"the dreamlike state ..."
U.S.A.: United Somnambulists of America
"It's not the surge, it's the death squads. They work. Ask any drug kingpin!"
Paul, you said it all.
snydly
THEY CAN ONLY CONTROL THE OIL IF THERE IS CHAOS AND DISORDER OR COMPLETE OBEDIENCE/COMPLICITY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND ITS "GOV'T". ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT IS NEUTRALIZED.
I'm sure this won't go over well with the neocons and Fox News, but maybe Obama (once elected) should start a back door relationship with the Taliban. Enemies have made progress in worse situations.
The US could help external security and keep the people fed in exchange for the Taliban not allowing al qaeda or similar organizations to establish sanctuaries in Afgahnistan. The country would be a hard core conservative theocracy for some time (eat your heart out Pat Roberston), but would eventually liberalize. The US (or some neutral nation) could help broker treaties between the Taliban and local warlords that might avoid a lot more bloodshed.
"A poll of 42 Taliban fighters by the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper earlier this year revealed that 12 had seen family members killed in air strikes, and six joined the insurgency after such attacks. Far more who don't join offer their support."
This says alot. It not about being jealous of our rights and freedoms it is largely about our killing their families. Directly or indirectly. By proxy or in person.
How is that a pilot who gets shot down after killing someone's family gets to be an untouchable hero in our western societies? I forgot. It is because they are so honorable.
A very sad article by Anand Gopal but an unfortunately true one.
Given that we need to find every buck possible to pay for the bailout of Republican trashed financial institutions, isn't it about time that those who wanted the War pay for it? How about a surtax on everyone who voted for the war, profited from it or did not earn a combat infantry badge in it?
Maybe give them a break and don't force them to pay off the entire War debt all at once. We could take the total cost of the other national fiasco, divide it by the number of those in favor of the War and treat each of their shares like a mortgage for them amortized over the next eight years with a lien on their mansions (except it doesn't get written off like the bad debts of the Republican owned banks dumped on the rest of us).
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Afghanistan is just one of numerous examples that destroy the Big Myth that the Republican Party is strong on national defense.
In just a few short months — specifically, on February 23, 2009 — the war in Afghanistan will have lasted twice as long as World War II, which lasted 3 years, 8 months and 8 days.
It is difficult to identify even one significant policy or initiative in Afghanistan that the Bush regime competently defined and executed.
One of the early overlooked historic blunders in Afghanistan concerns Iran, and the discussion below is excerpted from my new book, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages). www.bushleagueofnations.com
Following 9/11, Bush fumbled a long-awaited historic opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Iran and thus possibly even restore diplomatic relations with the strategically most important nation in the greater Middle East. Notwithstanding three decades of broken diplomatic relations due to the Iranian takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, Iran was a good candidate to be a friend and strategic ally of the United States.
The Iranian people had great affection for Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians have immigrated to America.
With the exception of Israel, Iran could be America’s number one partner and ally in the greater Middle East.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to fight side by side with American forces in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Iran despised the Taliban for many reasons, including the Taliban’s slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1999, and almost went to war against the Taliban in the 1990s.
Negotiations regarding military cooperation in Afghanistan and a possible rapprochement between Iran and the United States were making progress until Bush included Iran in his bizarre Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in January 2002. "Tough cowboy" Bush preferred militant confrontation with Iran over rapprochement and a possible historic alliance.
The rest is history. Bush’s saber rattling empowered Islamic hardliners, weakened the growing pro-modernity democratic movement in Iran, and caused Iran to look to China as a better strategic partner than the United States. Iran later emerged as the biggest winner in Bush’s disastrous war on Iraq, and the vast majority of Iranians reasonably concluded that with Bush on the loose Iran needed nuclear weapons to ensure respect and security.
Thanks to Bush’s illegal and poorly managed war on Iraq, Iran’s influence in the region is ascendant, and America’s is declining.
In half-hearted, helter-skelter response, the Bush regime tried to counter the growing power of Shiite Persian Iran by cobbling together an alliance of regional Sunni Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. However, these nations preferred to work independently of the Bush regime and its taint. Bush characterized the nations in this new “Sunni Axis” as moderate, but all three are dictatorships, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ranking near the bottom of all nations in respecting human rights. Thanks to Bush’s bungling of “democracy” in Iraq, democratic reform in these nations is now off the table.
Here's a gift -- a compelling free resource -- that I offer to you progressive patriots everywhere: You can now download for FREE a copy of my ENTIRE new progressive book at www.bushleagueofnations.com
I ask for nothing in return for my book, except that you consider using it as a resource to help kick out America's worst president and worst political party ever.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
But Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan! Some change: escalating an already failed policy.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
But Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan! Some change: escalating an already failed policy.
And your vote for Nader will change all that? If enough of you vote Nader the only change you will have is from bad to worse. From Bush to McCain. Four years of McCain. And if he can't re-offer for the second term you will most likely be content with Sara Palin for an additional four years.( she would have the experience by then lol) Anybody but a Democrat. But let us just imagine if lightning were to strike and Mr.Nader were elected the 44th President of the United States; would he not be a lame duck from day one? Enough of my foolishness. Nader is not going to be president. (The only elected office he seems to desire)Senator McCain or Senator Obama will be the next president.
.Firstly, I doubt McCain is worse than Bush.I doubt anyone is actually. Secondly as a Nader voter ( absentee ballot in the mail already) should he not be available I would vote McKinney, should she not be available I would leave the line blank.
If you wish to discuss politics you should do so in good faith and with a straight face. The myth of Nader as a spoiler is simply naieve and unsophisticated nonsense. My vote is exactly that,mine. It is not subject to your own personal opinion ( which by the by I believe to be useful to the continuance of our horrible governance).
Name me one thing that the Democrats have done to block Bush these last eight years.......Name me one thing Barack Obama has not altered his position on since gaining the nomination.......Name me one thing about Ralph Nader's platform that you personally object too....you have read his platform havent you?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole sez:
"If you wish to discuss politics you should do so in good faith and with a straight face."
She also wrote:
"I.too. have notified my Senators and Congressperson that I will no longer be voting for them because of their cowardly acquiescence on this bailout."
and
"Every vote cast for a democrat reinforces the control of the conservative DLC over the policies and directions of that party, every single well meaning voter who continues to remain a democrat helps further the corporate control of this nation."
and
"Voting for democrats, despite the clear evidence of complicity, of the corporate enslavement of that party, of its abysmal incompetence in the face of clear violations of the Constitution by the Executive branch and expecting things to change is simply insane."
So ardee, who wasn't going to vote for Democrats, called them and said she wasn't going to vote for them because of the bailout - when she wasn't going to vote for them anyway.
Doesn't exactly sound like "good faith and with a straight face", does it?
Sounds like pretty good faith to me to keep reminding politicians of the many reasons we should not be voting for them. And, every day I am reminded of new reasons for not voting for them.
So it's okay to lie to advance your agenda?
Let's see, who else believes that?
Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Colin Powell...
You're in good company.
Perhaps I’m guilty of jumping into a conversation before properly understanding it. If so, I apologize. But I thought you said that it was dishonest for someone to say they would not vote Democrat for one reason when they had already decided they would not do so for another reason. Unless there is more behind your statement than that, perhaps something that due to my own negligence I did not understand, I don’t see anything dishonest with that. I might have ten reasons for not voting for McCain, as I’m sure you might also. What’s dishonest about calling his campaign staff separately on each reason to mouth off about it? But I admit I wrote my reply too quickly. So perhaps I should refrain from jumping into the middle of conversations before I fully understand what they are about. Anyway, I feel that the issues you raised later in this thread were more important and I decided to put more effort in responding to them. I’ll concede this one to you and admit my response was foolish if indeed you feel that it is.
OREZ_ENO
You're a sitting member of Congress. I'm not going to vote for you because I'm disgusted with your party. You then vote for something I don't like. I call you up and tell you I'm not going to vote for you because of your vote.
To me, that's a lie. I'm misleading you. I'm telling you I would have voted for you except for your vote. In fact, it had nothing to do with your vote. I wasn't planning on voting for you no matter how you voted.
Now if I just told you I was disappointed in your vote, that's being honest. But telling you you've lost my vote (the one you never had) because of how you voted, that's a lie.
This is the hell the US helped create and the "antiwar" Sen. Barak Obama calls the central front on the GWOT. This is where this soulless bastard plans to send the troops he wants to pull out of Iraq when he "ends" the war there.
The chicken hawk Obama talks about the Bush administration's "dropping the ball" as if the terrible horrors of war were a football game. He can propose more escalation of suffering because he knows the closest he will come to harm is a staged photo-op in the Green Zone surrounded by the troops he "supports" by keeping them there.
That in turn can be turned into a 30 sec. campaign commercial for his next election where he says in a deep and cadenced voice, "Yes we can". Yes we can sacrifice your son or daughter so Big Oil and the MIC can continue making record-breaking profits.
Well Hic,
What is your solution? Are we just supposed to abandon them?
You turn a heart-rending article into an attack on Obama.
What is your solution?
And if it's Nader, just hang your head in shame.
Cause Nader can't fix this.
The solution is staring at you right in the face. RETREAT! Do what in the end you will be forced to do. RETREAT! Do what you were forced to to in Vietnam. RETREAT! Many young people I talk to actually believe we won that war. This is so painful. Do what in the end all fascist empires are forced to do. RETREAT! Go home and pay attention to your own population, which is in drastic need of your help. Just RETREAT and stop murdering people around the world for your own selfish interests.
The solution is the one 95% of the people will not choose. Too brainwashed? Who knows. The solution would have been to put Dennis Kucinich into the White House or someone who as enlightened as he is.
That will not happen because the most Democrats are too far to the right. Honestly your average Democrat is not that far to the left of a Republican. That's why they chose Obama and almost chose Clinton. Most people are just too dumb to vote for what's best for them. That's why we'll get either Obama or McCain.
My solution? Pull ALL the troops out and send them home immediately and then pay reparations to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Perhaps the biggest fear that most Americans have is that the emotional pain of retreat will do great harm to the country, perhaps politically, perhaps to our national pride, perhaps economically. I recommend to young people to review the history of Vietnam. I remember the day of the final pullout from Saigon as if it were yesterday. I remember seeing on TV the scramble to get into the helicopters at the embassy. I remember seeing the attack helicopters being pushed into the ocean from the deck of aircraft carriers to make more room for people. I remember seeing armaments being disabled and left as junk. That day I was on an army base in Newport News, Virginia. I’ll never forget it. The base was surreal. Except for the usual pack of idiots calling to nuke the commies, most people I saw that day were speechless. Everyone feared what was going to happen. What would be our orders? How would all this affect our current postings and missions? Would we be called upon to protect the country from some kind of uprising or conflict between various groups or even ordinary citizens within the country whose opinions were so diametrically opposite on this whole issue? Would there be economic collapse? But as the day, and then the week, and then the month progressed nothing really happened, at least not in our country. We seemed to all be in a state of self-reflection and possibly even shame, as we well deserved to be. Naturally in Vietnam thousands of people suffered persecution from the advancing communist forces. But most people like me began to think that most of those atrocities were a result of our own actions in the country, actions that upset the natural balance of forces in a world that we did not understand. Such is the price that humans must pay when foreign armies invade for no good reason. But at home and in my life there was great calm. It was finally over. The retreat was a good thing. For a short while, my pride of America began to grow. I started to believe that down deep we really were the nation that we claimed to be, a nation that respected human life and decency.
I am amazed that a person like McCain can get political mileage out of claiming hero status in a military defeat? Here’s a man who crashed three planes and who is personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilian lives. I’m not suggesting that he might be ostracized for his part in the war. After all, many will think he was just following orders. But I am surprised that he is raised to the status of a hero. I guess it shows that in the end as a population we did not learn the lesson of our defeat. We do not admit the unjustified murder and damage that we caused in Vietnam. I still hear some people say, “If only we had committed more troops.” I guess the madness did not die, as is certainly evident today.
I have heard it said that even death row inmates don’t actually regret the murders that they commit. Sure, they fear execution. But I’m told that in their heart of hearts they still feel justified in committing the murders that they committed. Perhaps their best friend slept with their wife, and if so, then both deserved to die. For that noble cause they would willing do the crime again regardless of the punishment. Ask OJ. The will to kill is strong in so many of us.
A retreat from both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a very noble action that we could all be proud of. It might be the first step on the road to recovery from the ancient, barbaric attitude that it is our God given right to murder for our own best interests. Those colonial times are over. We need a president who sees that, who is brave enough to encourage it, and who has the will to enforce it. I don’t know if such a person exists, but he is needed desperately. Perhaps by voting outside the two party system you can play a small part in encouraging that person to rise up to the challenge of leading us out of our barbarism. Obama is not that person. Perhaps Kucinich, perhaps Nader, perhaps McKinney, perhaps someone else, but not Obama, and certainly not McCain.
Ric Abreu and Orez_Eno
You may well be right on this.
It seems to me the factors are the welfare of the population, the likelyhood the Taliban will again rule and the possibility al Qaeda will return.
I don't think there are any easy answers.
One thing is certain: You cannot 'win' an occupation.
I'm not sure that our continued presence will benefit anyone. I'm not sure that just leaving the country in shambles is right either.
That being said, I am sure that voting for candidates who cannot win the election will not resolve anything.
I think Obama is far more likely to find a good resolution than McBomb.
Obama '08
Voting for candidates who you think cannot win the election is EXACTLY how this problem will be eventually resolved. 10% this time. 15% next time. 20% the next. Do you realize that if Nader had won only 5% of the vote in the last election he could NOT have been excluded from the debates in this election? Wow! Just think about that. If just a few people like you would vote bravely there would be three people standing at the debates this year. By voting outside the two party system you allow the opening up of your government to qualified candidates.
Just think what people of the 1700s, who fought and lost their lives for your freedom from British colonialism, would think of your cowardice to put a tick mark next to a different box on election day. They’d be disgusted. They’d say you don’t deserve the freedom that they lost their lives for.
Voting 3rd party is just leaving the choice of a President to others.
Nader and McKinney are not going to occupy the Oval office.
Someone wrote that Obama supporters should prepare to be disappointed if he wins.
I'd rather be disappointed by Obama instead of horrified by McBomb.
Obama '08
ctrl-z October 11th, 2008 1:42 am wrote:
“I think Obama is far more likely to find a good resolution than McBomb.”
Obama’s play to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan will be a military disaster. It was only a few years ago that Russia suffered military defeat in Afghanistan and was forced to retreat. An escalation of the war in Afghanistan will cause America to suffer the same. After all, what do we have that the Russians don’t have?
Perhaps there is one good thing I could say about Obama’s Afghanistan plan. By causing a military defeat and forced retreat from Afghanistan, as America did in Vietnam, he will end at least one war. The down side is that it will be at the cost of thousands of American lives. Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just leave now? You can help that happen by voting outside the two party system.
OREZ_ENO
As you can see from my response above I think there is a big downside to just leaving Afghanistan. I don't know if it is bigger than the one that will result if we remain. I agree our presence there is helping the Taliban gain support. Perhaps if we quit killing civilians we'd do better with the Afghanis.
As I said before, I'm not sure what should be done there. You & Ric may be right in thinking that leaving ASAP is the best policy.
I do know that whoever is President will make a difference.
I think Obama will do better than 'Short fuse' McBomb.
Obama '08
ctrl-z October 11th, 2008 1:42 am wrote:
“It seems to me the factors are the welfare of the population, the likelihood the Taliban will again rule and the possibility al Qaeda will return.”
Do you realize that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the American invasion? It was our invasion that put Al Qaeda there. And it is our presence in Afghanistan that is encouraging the rise in power of the Taliban, as this article very well points out. Just like it was the British presence in the Thirteen Colonies that encouraged the rise of the Continental Army here in America and the American Revolutionary War, we are causing the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Just as the British lost here in America in 1776, America today will lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides, who are you to dictate what political group will rise to power in any other country besides your own? And why are you doing it if not to steal their oil. Why do you continue on this course of genocide for your own self-interests? Of course I know that is not your personal intention. In your heart and in the heart of any average American for that matter, you are not a murderer. But murder is the result of your voting record. The only way to stop America’s worldwide genocide is to stop voting for the government that is doing it in your name. Vote outside the two party system.
And, if you are truly concerned about the population of Afghanistan, you should advocate leaving immediately. In all of America's preemptive wars, it is America who causes the suffering of their populations.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Vote outside the two party system."
You can vote to select a President or you can vote 3rd party and let others decide.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Do you realize that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the American invasion?"
I thought we were discussing Afghanistan where there were al Qaeda before we went there.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Besides, who are you to dictate what political group will rise to power in any other country besides your own?"
You are making talking points of a very serious issue. Are you seriously proposing that we should let al Qaeda rule Afghanistan?
And the Taliban made religious prisoners of a whole society. Are we supposed to let them in to subjugate women, non-Talibn muslims and non-muslims?
Is this what we have no business preventing?:
Wikipedia/Taliban
"Life under the Taliban regime
Sharia law was interpreted to ban a wide variety of activities hitherto lawful in Afghanistan: employment and education for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events. One Taliban list of prohibitions included:
pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.[51]
Possession was forbidden of depictions of living things, including photographs of them, stuffed animals, and dolls.[52]
...
Theft was punished by the amputation of a hand, rape and murder by public execution. Married adulterers were stoned to death. In Kabul, punishments were carried out in front of crowds in the city's former soccer stadium.
Treatment of women
Main article: Taliban treatment of women
A member of the Taliban's religious police beating a woman in Kabul on September 13, 2001. The footage, which was filmed by RAWA, can be seen here.
Women in particular were targets of the Taliban's restrictions. They were prohibited from working; from wearing clothing regarded as "stimulating and attractive," including the "Iranian chador," (viewed as insufficiently complete in its covering); from taking a taxi without a "close male relative"; washing clothes in streams; or having their measurements taken by tailors.[54]
Employment for women was restricted to the medical sector, since male medical personnel were not allowed to examine women. One result of the banning of employment of women by the Taliban was the closing down in places like Kabul of primary schools not only for girls but for boys, because almost all the teachers there were women.[55]
Women were also not permitted to attend co-educational schools; in practice, this prevented the vast majority of young women and girls in Afghanistan from receiving even a primary education.
Women were made to wear the burqa, a traditional dress covering the entire body except for a small screen to see out of. Taliban restrictions became more severe after they took control of the capital. In February 1998, religious police forced all women off the streets of Kabul and issued new regulations ordering "householders to blacken their windows, so women would not be visible from the outside."[56] Home schools for girls, which had been allowed to continue, were forbidden.[57] In June 1998, the Taliban stopped all women from attending general hospitals,[58] leaving the use of one all-women hospital in Kabul. There were many reports of Muslim women being beaten by the Taliban for violating the Sharia.
Prohibitions on culture
Movie theaters were closed and music banned. Hundreds of cultural artifacts that were deemed polytheistic were also destroyed including major museum and countless private art collections. At the Kabul zoo most animals were killed or left to starve.[59]
...
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."[62] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[63] 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.[64] 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.
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 principle 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 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."[33]
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.[65] 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.[66]
During the years that followed, rapes and massacres of Hazara by Taliban forces were documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch.[67]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban