"[The Pashtuns] call themselves warriors fighting occupation by the western powers and their local Communist, Tajik and Uzbek allies."

It is worrying when the US allies its-self with the murderous Tajikis and Uzbekis - they tend to make the Taliban appear saintly. The US pols/military have never had any qualms about following the maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", regardless of the obvious hypocrisy.

Yet another indicator of the spiritual and ethical death of the US.

Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.

Mr. Obama will stay in Afghanistan because he is a shill of the right wing ruling elite.

The elite want the control of oil, so Mr. Obama will stay. Mr. Obama is only the political head of the international right wing oligarchy.

NATO's "strategic interest" is to serve the imperialist interests of the US-based transnational boss class.

If they really wanted to fix the Afghanistan/Pakistan mess they would be talking about redrawing the boundaries that the Brits arbitrarily drew in the 1940's. Give the Pashtuns a homeland and move the tribal areas of Pakistan into it. Make a deal re: Al Qaeda, terrorists, etc. I bet they'd bite. And would Pakistan really care about losing territory that is nothing but grief for them?

Sioux Rose

When we survey the wasted effort in blood and treasure that constituted Vietnam, only to see a similar replay in Iraq, that this nation still owns the hubris to continue onward is beyond tragic. Just consider if one tenth of the money hemorrhaged on this latest unnecessary (but for the oil barons and MIC) war was instead directed at ENERGETIC investment in alternative fuel technologies... 4 million would not be homeless, one million would not be dead, and there'd be far fewer half-cocked Blackwater "answer to no one" lawless Wild wild Westers on our streets, or soldiers left with distorted minds from DU and/or mild head injuries.

The misuse of resources is so utterly repugnant, as to constitute a legacy best suited to a mythology citing all things best NOT to do. I grieve for so many lost souls who know not what they do, or otherwise don't care. The US has no business in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and stirring up this next hornet's nest, with loose leadership close to weapons of mass destruction for the most part fits only one script I can think of: that of COURTING Armageddon. M.A.D is now reborn refitted with a religious cover as fig leaf. And the military supposedly polls a high percentage of citizens' respect? The Jim Jones School of mass suicide apparently has enrolled entire populations!

From The Vassals Handbook - Lesson eleven – we mean well:

The great thing about being a vassal in the Incorporated Estates of Earth is that you always know you mean well. We mean well, we do. Isn’t it obvious? We mean well, always. No matter what others might say about us. No matter what silly arguments they might raise.

Take for example ... international affairs. The IEE owns the world, as it should, because it means well, always and everywhere. Thus we intervene constantly against people of color the world over. We garrison the earth, and every year we spend over half our money on all matters militant.

It’s easy to find people of color to smash. There are so many of them, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Africa, South America, even in the heart and soul of the IEE, the USA, where the prison population - chock full of people of color, not to mention people of no money - leads all Earth. More prisoners per capita, more prisoners period. Hey, we’re number one! Those whom we don’t smash into shape, we threaten. Because we mean well.
http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/lesson-eleven-we-mean-well/

President Barack Obama, who is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, ought to be asking himself the same questions

Either Obama is being swiftly corrupted by power, or he's a boy scout who stands in front of all the generals and admirals with their gold braid and fruit salad and thinks to himself, "wow, gee whiz" as they tell him one whopper after another about Afghanistan and how we can fashion a five course banquet from that garbage can of a nation.

There are an estimated 40 million Pashtuns in various tribes in Afghanistan and near the Afghanistan border, while they fight among themselves, if they ever formed a coalition against the U.S, we would be in deep doo doo and that could very well happen, as they refuse to be like Karzi and Obama and be a U.S. puppet.

"Do we really want a test of wills against men who have the courage to endure cluster bombs with thousands of sharp fragments, white phosphorus that burns through flesh to the bone, fuel/air explosives that burst the lungs and tear apart bodies? Will Canada's use of Soviet helicopters and Israeli drones win Afghan hearts and minds?"

President Obama's order rescinding Bush's decree against showing the coffins of our dead soldiers could be followed by one un-embedding war correspondents and letting them show us pictures of the dead and wounded soldiers, women and children. Nothing like a dose of reality to get people moving against war.

That could be followed by a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to bring the right wing media back to the center and show all sides of the story wherever it goes, not just the MIC's and their conservative owners slant on things as it is now. Free the Media!

IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO EXPRESS YOUR ANGER ABOUT OBAMA'S SENDING ANOTHER 17,000 TROOPS INTO THE HOPELESS SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN, YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION AT THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

THEY ALSO HAVE LOTS OF GREAT INFO ON THE SITUATION AND A SHORT VIDEO EXPLAINING WHY OUR FURTHER INVOLVEMENT CAN ONLY BE A DISASTER. WHAT THE HELL IS OBAMA THINKING?? HE'S CLEARLY A VERY INTELLIGENT FELLOW, UNLIKE HIS PREDECESSOR. WHO IS REALLY PUSHING HIM INTO THIS FOOLISH POLICY THAT HE MUST KNOW WILL FAIL? AND WHY IS HE LISTENING TO SUCH ARGUMENTS? MY FEAR IS THAT ALL OF HIS OTHER PROJECTS, SOME OF WHICH ARE PROGRESSIVE AND WOULD IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THE MOST UNFORTUNATE IN THIS COUNTRY, WILL NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE ALL OF HIS TIME AND ENERGY WILL BE SQUANDERED TRYING TO RE-EXTRICATE OUR TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO L.B.J.. THE UNFAIRLY MALIGNED "GREAT SOCIETY," GOT PUSHED OFF THE AGENDA SINCE EVERY MEETING HAD TO BE DEVOTED TO THE HUGE MESS IN VIETNAM. HOW SMART DOES OBAMA, OR ANYONE WHO'S READ SOME HISTORY, HAVE TO BE TO KNOW THAT AFGHANISTAN = VIETNAM?

"Cheney says Obama's policies 'raise the risk' of U.S. terror attack"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/15/cheney.interview/index.html

Looks like the right wing has plans for an attack in the USA. Chenney would never say this above without the OK from the ruling elite bosses.

Watch out. Something is going to happen.

It is surprising that Harper changed his stance, why would his zionist controllers allow him to do that? Could it have anything to do with their campaign against Iran? As far as Israeli drones are concerned the less Canada has to do with anything from that country, the better I feel. Boycott, embargo and blockade it.

Remember Canada should not be considering leaving because it is un-winnable, but because it was a wrong engagement, an immoral engagement and probably illegal as well. Once again, its a shame Canada is over there in the first place. The sooner Canadian troops are away from there the better. Prosecute George W Bush.

Sophie Scholl-The Final Days

The surprise in the Afgan turmoil is the absence of any mention of the "pipelines". Now and again, it is reported that the greatest majority of US troops are protecting the "pipeline", but those words are very seldomly quoted, including in this article. What never gets mentioned is the fact that the PRC has invested in a huge LNG facility that produces natural gas from southern Afghanistan, cleans and collects that, and ships the gas to a liquefaction facility, and then pumps the gas into tankers headed for China. From all reports the LNG business in Afghanistan (build on the Gulf, close to the northern border of Iran) seems to be running without a hitch, and that part of the country is calm and prosperous. We tend to get the stories about the terrible Taliban, closed schools, and victimized women. We don't get to think about why the Chinese part of the country is calm and working, while the US part is total chaos. (Could it be that the Chinese, as part of the gas deal, have been investing, as indeed they are, in "social benefits" like water systems, schools, roads, and hospitals?) We never get the spin about "our oil and gas" (which includes the concept that China has already gotten "their oil and gas"), which, of course was also the unreported part of the recent "war" in Georgia. It seems to this citizen that unless we actually think about the causes of the severe grief known as Afghanistan, we will never be able to think rationally about the remedy of that severe grief. One obvious approach is to ask China to take over the rest of the country! Economic imperialism is nothing to be proud of' however, it seems to be pointless to not mention the elephant in the room.

"n.vanderborgh@c... March 15th, 2009 7:04 pm

The surprise in the Afgan turmoil is the absence of any mention of the "pipelines". Now and again, it is reported that the greatest majority of US troops are protecting the "pipeline", but those words are very seldomly quoted, including in this article. What never gets mentioned is the fact that the PRC has invested in a huge LNG facility that produces natural gas from southern Afghanistan, ..., and ships the gas to a liquefaction facility, and then pumps the gas into tankers headed for China. From all reports the LNG business in Afghanistan (...) seems to be running without a hitch, and ..."

THAT KIND of post should be complemented with links to supporting articles.

I've read a little, very little, about the LNG, etc., and many times, over enough years now, about the pipline.

BUT, I believe it is a video with Michael Ruppert, who has the website FromTheWilderness.com, who I listened to just yesterday, but a video some years old today; well, he or the person said that it was learned in 2002 that the Caspian Sea and Kyrghistan (spelling?) had far fewer oil and natural gas reserves than had been previously estimated; that the prior estimation had been based on only a few pockets, which of themselves didn't contain enough to keep the U.S., with its major consumption, going long than a few months, if that long. I had read about this a couple or few years ago and from an article that was not by him and which reported that BP, British Petroleum, had discovered that there was much less for energy reserves in this region than previously believed.

Is that true? I don't know and most people who write on the topic, most people whose articles I've read anyway, speak of the region being very rich in these energy resources. Which of the two claims is accurate? I don't know. If I went on majority rules sort of thinking, then I'd say the region has to be rich in these resources, but is the majority right?

Mike Ruppert, assuming I'm correctly recalling it was him, was only repeating what some sources have reported, instead of this having been his claim, as if he had performed the verification. And he said that this discovery is what caused the Bush Jr-[Cheney] administration to strongly switch the war focus from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002, shortly after the new discovery about the lack of Caspian, ... reserves.

I know they did that, but was it for this reason? I don't know, but have also read that the U.S. government really does officially have a project on its agenda, the project for achieving [full spectrum dominance], which is a global-reaching plan. Also, and as far as I know, the U.S. had NATO in Afghanistan, while not in Iraq; I think (if recalling correctly).

Mike Ruppert also said that China's the or an ultimate target and very much because its energy consumption is expected to skyrocket, by something like 500%, so five-fold, by ... I believe he said 2030. And the GWoT wars have always been about acquiring control of the Earth's energy resources, the rich reserves anyway; and while this also includes the U.S. in western Africa.

Energy is one, if not the, reason why China's been energetically trying to establish business deals in some African countries and is definitely present in some western African countries. The oil in Sudan, the Darfur region of Sudan anyway, is one reserve or set of reserves over which China's established a business relationship with the Sudanese government. China's also very or strongly competitive with or against the U.S., if not all western countries, in terms of countries with African leaders who have some real sense about business and want to sell natural resources of their countries. Unlike or contrary to the U.S., China uses fair (and better) business dealings.

The war on the Taliban and really Afghanistan, while it being on the country may be difficult for some people to perceive or understand, has really always been for the energy resources of the neighbouring countries, and Afghanistan for the pipeline, which was, or rather both of which (combined) were a topic between Big Oil and the U.S. government, certainly Congress anyway, since the mid-1990's, if not earlier.

If the Caspian Sea and neighbouring countries, to Afghanistan, really are poor in energy reserves, then it seems all the more pointless for the U.S. and NATO to continue fighting there. Otoh, the western, U.S. anyway, oil industry tycoons would still have a strategic problem with respect to China's consumption being expected to skyrocket and China strongly working to secure related business deals. Because of that, the western (U.S. anyway) elites may still want to strategically have U.S. tazpayers foot the bill for military bases in Afghanistan, which we know borders China; with a plan of trying to eventually put the government of the PRC into a checkmate sort of situation. And Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Obama administration did entitle his or one of his related books, "The Grand Chessboard: ...".

What do people try to do when playing chess? Checkmate their opponent, we know.

I'd still like to know whether the Caspian Sea and Kyrgh (spelling?) energy reserves are poor, or rich, though.

"White Rose March 15th, 2009 4:44 pm"

Very good post. I wholly agree.

Otoh, I wouldn't stop at prosecuting Bush. Cheney was more boss than Bush was, and there's also the Bill Clinton administration that remains war criminal and which therefore ethically should be prosecuted.

Check out Scott Taylor's website, www.espritdecorps.ca . He's a former Canadian soldier who became, in the 1980's, a war correspondant. Based on having viewed a couple of videos with him as speaker, he's a very good war correspondant and credibly is a "thorn" for the "brass".

A good video, which mostly consists of Jeremy Wright, who passed away on March 8th and who was of the Council of Canadians, is the following one.

"SPP Protest in Ottawa: Feb 16 2008" (8:42)
posted by anwa613, Feb 16 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyye2_mEiNs

I got that from a Web search performed after reading the following obituary about him and the words in it are true, nothing made up, fanciful, etcetera. That's something I'm certain of after listening to his excellent speech in the above video. It's a speech against Ca accepting to be part of the SPP and NAU, but also applies with respect to Ca accepting to be part of U.S. wars, those based on lies, etcetera, anyway; but then that's about all U.S. wars are based on.

"Obituary: Jeremy Wright, distinguished author, film producer, antiwar activist and lifelong friend has passed away",
Mar 15 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12673

It's a real loss for Canada to lose citizens like him! It's a real loss for any country to lose citizens like him, rather.

To find videos with Scott Taylor, and there are some at his website, people can search Youtube using keywords like, "Scott Taylor war", without the quotes. I found that not including 'war' provides too many hits, but, otoh, if searching only using his name, then sorting based on relevance should also suffice. There's also a channel at Youtube for his website, the EDCorps channel, www.youtube.com/user/EDcorps and I think checking his selected 'Favourites' or 'Favorites' will provide visitors with some excellent reporting on the U.S. and NATO war on Kosovo and thereby Serbia; very important reporting, I'll emphasise.

You're very right about the war in Afghanistan having always been immoral. It was unjustified, criminal; but then that's like pretty much all U.S. wars, too. It certainly was with the war on Kosovo and thereby Serbia, the first Gulf War, plenty of others before, the ones, even if mostly covert, in African countries, the one against the government and people of Haiti on Feb. 29, 2004, and since and which people don't call a war because it's too one-sided, the aggressed having no real ability at all to defend. Etcetera. Plenty more. Full spectrumly more.

People wishing for some qualitative anlyses on whether or not withdrawing from Afghanistan is the right choice, and while I mean besides for moral and legal (law) reasons, for the war was never justifiable, was always immoral like White Rose said in her post, etcetera; well, the following are some articles worthy of being read. These are educational and provide very important information.

"Taliban set to burn the Reichstag?",
by Pepe Escobar, Mar 13 2009

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC13Df01.html

"Taliban Truce and the Coming Storm in South Asia",
by Tom Burghardt, AntiFascist Calling blog, Mar 7 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12594

"America's New Asian Quagmire: Graveyard of Empires",
by Tom Burghardt, antifascist-calling.blogspot.com, Feb 7 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12194

"Afghanistan: Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time",
by Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to (I believe) Uzbekistan, Daily Mail, UK, Jul 24 2007

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6405

We don't need to know the information provided in articles like these above ones if we're against the war and the foreign forces remaining there because we believe the war has always been immoral to begin with, as White Rose correctly said in her post. BUT, it also can't hurt for such people, [us], to learn about the kind of information in these articles. Knowing such information can be helpful to activists (for or in their activism) against the war and who are also for withdrawing.

That is one of the biggest problems. The West decides what nations should be where. We divided Korea. "We" got the South, "They," Russia and China got the North. Nobody asked the Koreans.

The Vietnamese have been fighting foreign aggression for centuries. France colonized the area. The Vietnamese fought for their freedom, then when WW-II came along, they fought the Japanese. When the war was over, "We" gave Vietnam back to the French, because it was "theirs." The Vietnamese fought and finally won at Dien Bien Phu. So "We" divided Vietnam in half. "We got the South, "They," Russia or China got the North. Nobody asked the Vietnamese, who had to fight yet another long and bloody war to get their country back.

The West has long divided up the developing world into convenient packages to govern and exploit. The Pashtun area of Pakistan and Afghanistan is divided by a similar imaginary line, with tribal groups and clans that inhabit both countries and do not recognize the imaginary lines. They simply learn to be more stealthy when crossing certain areas.

"We" have no business dividing up the world to our specifications. The "natives" are getting more sophisticated and perhaps harder to kill. They no longer consider themselves to be the "white man's burden." If the West wants to assist, that is fine, but not to use this as an excuse to rule and exploit. Those days are gone, along with the Raj.

Jeevee

Does anyone know why this country is raising a nation of killers?

Please take note: There is no such thing as a "mild" brain injury.

I was told that if I wrote a letter to the Obama-Biden website I would hear back. HAH!!!!! Well, here's the letter, John Escher's Blog, O-B website:

Title: An Open Letter to Vice-President Joe Biden

Sir, I heard you speak in Winston-Salem and thought you were great. On escalation of our troops in Afghanistan, however, I believe you need to hear another view.

While it is so, as you recently said, that people such as myself are "sick of so much war," that phrase fails to explain our whole position.

First, if there is some sort of enclave or center of evil or platform in the Pakistan border area for launching of both the 9/11 and Mumbai attacks, how will flooding the area with American troops root it out?

Is this "rooting" metaphor apt? And is the U.S. Military well suited for stump removal? Or should we call the stump a cancer, metastasized by the previous administration? Should we pick on the thing some more? Or should we call it something other than a cancer, a man with a long beard, perhaps, or the spirit of hatred for America? How will we know we got it even after we explode the next wedding party? Finally, are we really trying to destroy the launching platform or merely continuing George W. Bush's symbolic (and bloody) show, and are we sure the platform exists or did we make it up-- a fantastic holdover fom our collective 9/11 nightmare?

If, as you say, the 9/11 attack came from this border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, how can we be sure that the next attack on the United States will come from the exact same place?According to this logic, shouldn't we immediately attack Great Britain for burning down the White House?

The greatest American patriots right now are the Winter Soldiers, who first supported George W. Bush's wars but then turned around and severely criticized them as the result of their first-hand experience. Anyone can hear their testimony by putting the words "Winter Soldiers" in a search engine. Have you done this, Mr. Biden? Has President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Assistant Holbrooke, Secretary of Defense Gates?

We all know that the New York Times subordinated, i.e., squelched the Winter Soldier testimony, not in the Vietnam War, but in the present Iraqi and Afghan wars, not wanting another Pulitzer Prize for somebody like their old reporter, Seymour Hersh, who exposed the My Lai massacre.

That's known. But now we have to wonder, with new American administration in power, if you and Barack and Hillary and Richard and Bob are also subordinating, i.e., squelching the Winter Soldiers story like the New York Times.

The Winter Soldiers testimony portrays an U.S. Military out of control, gone amok, spraying bullets indiscriminately into rows of houses, blasting eight-year-olds off of their bicycles, killing small animals, firing a rocket to annihilate a group of twenty local citizens crossing a street (see the movie filmed from the helicopter that did it).

The Rules of Engagement change every day. One morning you're supposed to shoot people whose scarves are knotted on one side, the next day the people with their knot on the other side.

The only function of the U.S. Military in a confusing place like Afghanistan is to destroy the local people when it isn't just annoying them.

Am I wrong? I'll listen Joe, but you'll have to argue better than you have so far.