Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Starting Another Year of War in Afghanistan
October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that "the president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan."
As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, "windowless" seems to be an apt metaphor. The structure of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington's high places are notably insular. The "new course" will be a permutation of the present course.
While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty question is: Exactly who and how?
News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix "counterinsurgency" with "counterterrorism." The thicker the jargon in Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far away.
In the White House, there's no indication of a pane that's facing the pain in Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, where the U.S. government continues to bring gifts: a dollar's worth of warfare for a dime's worth of everything else.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
The letter was neatly printed with a blue pen. "I've been fed up and damaged," it said. "My hope is that from you and all entrepreneurs and all who have compassion, I respectfully ask you to help me for God's sake. I'm downtrodden. I hope you understand my situation."
The situation, living in a squalid camp for refugees in Kabul, was desperate. "I am Sayed Ali -- from Geresh district of Helmand province."
Moments after handing me the letter, he grabbed it out of my hands. A controlled rage flooded his voice. Pashto words cascaded, and a translator tried to keep up.
Sayed Ali said that he'd given other letters to officials and nothing changed. Month after month in this forsaken camp, little more than ditches and improvised tents.
Two weeks later, in mid-September, I met with a few staffers and members of Congress; some of the most progressive on Capitol Hill. But when I talked about the refugees I saw in Kabul -- many of them homeless because of U.S. bombing in southern Afghanistan -- the discussion couldn't seem to get anywhere.
In the air was an unspoken message: Desperate refugees are routine in war. That's the way it is.
Washington doesn't recognize Sayed Ali, with his suffering and his smoldering rage, or other Afghans in similar predicaments. An unspoken calculus in Washington figures that we owe them next to nothing. It's a matter of priorities, you know.
Yes, there are plenty of photo ops and news reports on U.S. aid projects, happening in tandem with Army and Marines military maneuvers. But what's budgeted to help rebuild Afghanistan is paltry compared to what's spent on making war there.
"We proclaim moral principles when justifying our actions, but we wreak havoc and destruction on a backward, ancient world we do not understand," retired U.S. Army colonel and author Douglas Macgregor wrote in Defense News on September 28. He added: "Our troops are not anthropologists or sociologists, they are soldiers and Marines who have been sent to impose America's will on backward societies. The result is mutual hatred -- not everywhere, but in enough places to feed what American military leaders like to call an ‘insurgency' . . ."
U.S. media and politics are now awash in talk about getting smarter and shrewder in Afghanistan. The idea of setting a country right while waging war is a popular Washington fantasy. What it has to do with reality is another matter.
"I don't want any foreigners building roads or big buildings for me when I am cleaning blood from my home," a shopkeeper in Helmand province, Haji Dawood Khan, told a Financial Times reporter in late September. The newspaper quoted a businessman from Kandahar province, Mohammad Karigar, who said: "The more foreign troops there are, the more people will hate them."
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
In Washington, few politicians or journalists mention that 90 percent of the U.S. government's current spending in Afghanistan is for military operations.
There was plenty of money to pay for bombing Sayed Ali's neighborhood in Helmand province, but there's no money to ease his current desperation.
Sayed Ali is speaking for countless other people: "I respectfully ask you to help me for God's sake."
More than eight months have passed since the inaugural speech when Barack Obama told foreign leaders: "Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." And so President Obama will be judged.
- Posted in
44 Comments so far
Show AllAnd so, let US STOP the Bush Wars THIS YEAR.
Norman Solomon .... another Zionist for peace.
Solomon, a Zionist? Well, I checked, and googled up Solomon's article .. 'Opening the Debate on Israel' which includes this howler...
"In 1969, the independent American journalist I. F. Stone expressed hope for "a reconstructed Palestine of Jewish and Arab states in peaceful coexistence." He contended that "to bring it about, Israel and the Jewish communities of the world must be willing to look some unpleasant truths squarely in the face. ... One is to recognize that the Arab guerrillas are doing to us what our terrorists and saboteurs of the Irgun, Stern and Haganah did to the British. Another is to be willing to admit that their motives are as honorable as were ours."
I think we can assume that I.F. Stone is speaking for Solomon here. And we can only applaud the magnanimity of his spirit, as he is willing to admit that the motives of the Arabs defending their homeland are as honorable as those of the Jews who are invading.
Well, you say, so what if he's another Zionist for peace.
As for myself, I'm sick of Zionists for peace. Zionism is at least 50% responsible for the wars in the middle east, ergo, Zinoists are at least 50% responsible for the wars in the middle east. Solomon's writings are an effort to co-opt the practically non-existent peace movement that exists, to divert it from taking meaningful action against Israel.
*rolls eyes*
Here's a hint for you: if you actually care about the Palestinians, idiocy such as your post isn't helping.
One would think that posts such as yours are a deliberate attempt to sabotage the Palestinian cause.
Sabotage the Palestinian cause ... ? By pointing out that the 'peace movement' in the US is dominated by Zionists, like Solomon, Chomsky, Zinn, A. Goodman, and so on?
I am waiting for one 'progressive' columnist to say that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish state on Palestinian land, that the Jewish occupation of Israel is equivalent to the Afrikaner occupation of South Africa, and that the only just and stable solution is pluralistic democracy. Is there one such columnist? Not that I know of.
Yes, sabotage the Palestinian cause. You did more than just point out that "the 'peace movement' in the US is dominated by Zionists, like Solomon, Chomsky, Zinn, A. Goodman, and so on"
Solomon writes an article about Afghanistan. You claim that:
"Solomon's writings are an effort to co-opt the practically non-existent peace movement that exists, to divert it from taking meaningful action against Israel."
Yes, pointing out American atrocities in Afghanistan is an attempt at diverting meaningful action from being taken against Israel.
Why don't you print out Solomon's article. Show it to people. Then make your claim that it is an attempt to divert meaningful action against Israel. See how helpful to the Palestinians that would be.
Oh yeah, while you are at it, make the claim that the US invaded Iraq because the primary interest is Israel, not oil, and that primary interest was dictated by explicit Zionist control. See how helpful that is to the Palestinians.
", and that the only just and stable solution is pluralistic democracy. Is there one such columnist? Not that I know of."
What if the Palestinians themselves do not want what you think is the only just and stable solution? But of course, everything is a conspiracy by the Zionists.
I'm convinced that labeling Norman Solomon as a Zionist isn't at all helpful to progressives. I don't agree with some of his views on the Kennedys for example, especially on John F Kennedy, but that view is one he shares with such "Zionists" as Alexander Cockburn and quite a few others. But his view on the US Government's foreign policy of endless war, he is very much against that policy.
This Zionist labeling of Solomon brings to mind a book I got over 40 years ago by Mark Hatfield entitled "Not Quite So Simple."
All progressives, whether they like or don't like the Kennedys or some others which I and others view as progressives in the broad scope of history need to put aside those differences and concentrate on defeating the real bad guys, the super wealthy, self indulgent, right wing power elites with their false sense of entitlement.
AD
"Zionism is at least 50% responsible for the wars in the middle east"
The Zionists are just tools of the western governments, particularly the U.S. Israel is nothing more than a military base to keep the Arabs in line. Our insatiable demand for oil is at least 90% responsible for the wars in the middle east. If the main export of these nations was "pickles instead of petroleum", as Noam Chomsky put it, the west wouldn't give a rat's azz about Israel
The 'war for oil' argument is another charade the Zionists drug out of the closet after the WMD ruse wore thin. In fact we were sucking up all the mideast oil in Iran (prior to Khoumenini), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and every other country, without invading anyone. So, the 'war for oil' argument doesn't have an iota of real credibility.
Undoubtedly, the oil factor does loom large in the middle east, but, we have seen explicit control of US foreign policy by Zionists like Wolfowitz, Libby, et. al., and their primary interest is Israel, not oil.
The Palestinian motives are more honorable, they are trying to retain a small portion of their homeland.
Whereas the european zionists were and are conducting a criminal land grab and ethnic cleansing.
The zionists even offered to murder more british soldiers, than the were murdering already,in conjunction with nazi operations ( see letter in wikipedia).
As I have repeatedly reiterated, the problem is larger than just Afghanistan. There will be no end to this madness until Public Law 107-40 (the 2001 AUMF) is dealt with and the DAFT war ended.
The US military is at war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and no amount of wishing will get Santa Obama to order troops to withdraw.
There is no victory in Afghanistan, defeat cannot be mentioned, so the only strategy allowed into conversation is 'more, more, more'.
And again I ask, where is the responsibility of Congress, who set us on this road to ruin?
Where is the responsibility of the American people, the ultimate power in this Republic for which we stand?
To answer your questions Locust: 1.In case you do not realize yet Congress; especially in terms of foreign policy, and with very few exceptions is nothing more than a crime family that makes the mafia look like the boy scouts. Most of the members of Congress, are just corporate attorneys that represent the MIC and are traitors to the American people to whom they pretend to represent when they really represent the politically,powerful, 1% elite who own most of America's wealth. 2. The majority of the American people are: apathetic,dumbed down by religious insanity; false patriotism; and brainwashed by the whore MSM. The American people have abdictated their responsibilties.
It is time to stop this nonsense. If Obama has an ounce of courage he will not send more troops, he will tell them to get us out. No timeline, no announcements, just get us out.
There is no comparison to Viet Nam.....the terrain is 100 times worse, the whole population is almost illeterate, there is a tiny middle class, its very tribal and there is no history of a central government, only chiefs and warloards. Feudal in most respects, but without a king.
"The newspaper quoted a businessman from Kandahar province, Mohammad Karigar, who said: "The more foreign troops there are, the more people will hate them."
This is more correct than Washington knows. Even if they like our kids they will hate them at the same time. Its an emotional state and a mindset you can't learn at Harvard or Yale.
Why ask everything of Santa Obama and nothing of anyone else?
Mr. Obama is stuck. He cannot declare a retreat from a battlefield, not without Congressional support.
And what kind of Congressional support does he have? Congressional leaders want to surge again and again, because that absolves them of any responsibility for this mess that they created when they enacted the DAFT law (Authorization for Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]).
(I mean, really, look at all the names the law has. So what's one more? Let's call it the DAFT law.)
Watch how the Dems will throw Mr. Obama to the wolves, rather than take an ounce of personal responsibility. Where's the legislation to end this? Anyone putting their names on papers? Or is everyone just sending wish lists to Santa?
So, Obama fans - it's time to choose - Mr. Obama or the Democratic Party?
And you can use Ms. Pelosi's words 'War on Terror' or Bush's 'Global War on Terror' or the Pentagon's briefly used 'The Long War' or even Obama's 'Our war'...
or
we can call it the DAFT war (Defense against Future Terrorism).
Remember, every country deals with future terrorism but only America declared war against it.
And that's daft.
DAFT, that's one I won't forget!
If Obama has an ounce of courage . . .
Obama does not have an ounce of courage. Obama does not have a gram of courage. Obama is, top to bottom, a coward who blindly sees himself as a cross between The Terminator and Ronald Reagan.
Boy----- do you have that right!
All I can do is hope you guys are wrong (though I've seen nothing but talk from this guy) because the only thing we get is more body bags, more escorts home for kids that should still be here.
And the Afgans can't go home, they are home....they are losing more than we are, their families are at risk.
Bush and Cheney have blood to answer for, Obama will join them if he commits more kids.
Henry8, I would LOVE to be wrong, believe me!
I certainly believe you, but I'm terribly afraid you aren't. I fervently hope you are though.
i don't know if you realized Henry8:
you - an american - of the country that has invaded , occupied, and previous to that meddled in the affairs of other countries, such as the present "quagmire" Afghanistan and is living today the CONTINUING consequences of American MEddling --
you said something STILL RARE among americans, EVEN those that that show great concern against war BY america:
what you showed is concern for the afghans..and NOT seeing them as "the enemy" or some negligible people as often is what they are from the viewpoint of americans , EVEN from concern about the "wisdom, whether worth the price" of these wars BY the USA.
you said:
"...And the Afgans can't go home, they are home....they are losing more than we are, their families are at risk."
you fully recognized - from even the "safety" of your USA that is dropping bombs on them -
that those "foreigners out there" ARE just as much human beings as you and americans are....and they TOO have "families at risk"...
even as you say and acknowledge instantly "they can't GO HOME....they ARE HOME"...
you have said something of DEEPLY HUMANE importance.
it is what we know as EMPATHY...the ability to FEEL what another experiences. and through that you just showed something many of us can easily forget in our concerns for "ourselves"....a sense of ONE-NESS WITH those "others"...so distant ...a sense of knowing that you and they "afghanis" share a common humanity..
you showed that you are trying to see things FROM the Viewpoint of those that the USA has caused to lose their lives, their families, disrupt their culture, turn them refugees and homeless and in chaos out of their centuries upon centuries of existence - NEVER having threatened the USA or anyone that just left them alone .
may such wisdom and openmindedness and awareness continue to be your daily companion!!
we all must learn..none of us can see everything in their full truth or rightness...but it is our human obligation, imo, to continue to try to open our eyes...especially towards the suffering of others far less privileged than we are.
The thicker the jargon in Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far away.
Afghanistan is one graveyard that neither Obama nor any of his legends-in-their-own minds can whistle past. Afghanistan echoes the words of Nikita Khruschev: "We will bury you!"
I think he said we will bury you from within. The Neocons and their Bankster friends have done just that. Well not quite the USA now is actually an unburied rotting corpse.
Gee, how nice this is, I just got a "lovely preview" message.
Normal Solomon hits the old nail right on the proverbial head. But what's new about that? But the real point is it's a tough damn job, but somebody's damn gotta do it, and he does time and again, and my man i'm right in there with you. Keep up the good fight, as it ain't over until that fat lady sings.
AD
As Norman Solomon points out so aptly in an article in Common Dreams, today "other options" lead straight to some type of military misadventure and huge loss of lives, blood, and property for people in Afghanistan and nothing for the people of the USA, but when we're got the kind war mongering, arm chair warriors giving said top level advice to the US president, that's the all too predictable and lousy outcome.
In light of said fact, a short poem comes to mind.
Afghanistan-- No farewell to War Without End
The die is cast
The USA is at the pass
We'll cut 'em off
There
Yeah
Nothing to it
Just bomb to the "Stone Age"
Or get that counter insurgency
or "counter terrorism" plan
going
Just look how well
it's turned out
in Iraq
Can't look back
History
Who
Needs
With
Such
Ex perts as we got
Fight on for "Holy Cause"
Banish the "evil anti Americans"
'We" bring "democracy and
Civilization
And "we' lie like hell
"We" being the power elites
In the USA
Have "We" ever got it wrong?
Don't answer that
What's done
And soon so may we be
Completely
A war but no
money in the till
Biut some can
Make a killing off
The Killing
Even if only from
Printed money
The empire must go on
Or the barbarians shall
Crash our "wonderful gates"
Say our super rich overpampered
Power elites
AD
Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe. - Milton
double post
As Norman Solomon points out so aptly in an article in Common Dreams, today "other options" lead straight to some type of military misadventure and huge loss of lives, blood, and property for people in Afghanistan and nothing for the people of the USA, but when we're got the kind war mongering, arm chair warriors giving said top level advice to the US president, that's the all too predictable and lousy outcome.
In light of said fact, a short poem comes to mind.
Afghanistan-- No farewell to War Without End
The die is cast
The USA is at the pass
We'll cut 'em off
There
Yeah
Nothing to it
Just bomb 'em back to the "Stone Age"
Or get that counter insurgency
Or "counter terrorism" plan
Going
Just look how well
It's turned out
In Iraq
Can't look back
History
Who
Needs it
With
Such
Ex perts as we got
Fight on for the "Holy Cause"
Banish the "evil anti Americans"
'We" bring "democracy and
Civilization
And "we' lie like hell
"We" being the power elites
In the USA
Have "We" ever got it wrong?
Don't answer that
What's done's done
And soon so may we be
Completely
A war but no
Money in the till
Biut some can
Make a killing off
The Killing
Even if only from
Printed money
The empire must go on
Or the barbarians shall
Crash our "wonderful gates"
Say our super rich overpampered
Power elites
AD
Notice the use of the term "Backward" in characterizing the people of Afghanistan--even when casting a critical eye, the arrogance just seeps out. Hence the characterization:
the ugly American.
Exactly who is backward, the collasping empire invading countries willy nilly or the ancient culture of farmers and herders with strong ethics of honor and charity?
Touche.
Wait!
Is this the same Norman Solomon, a registered delegate to the DNC and a self-described Democrat, who chastised those that refused to vote for Obummer because they knew he was a fraud, who chastised those who wrote extensively about his voting record, predicting the behavior we see today? Is this the same Norman Solomon who is acting surprised by the behavior surrounding this war, yet quoted Obummer saying he might very well stop the war, AND *believing* it?
Is this the same Norman Solomon who actually believed that you can apply pressure, post election, against a military empire whose economy is a war economy run by an violent psychopathic oligarchy dedicated to global domination and control of the world's resources?
It 'tis indeedy.
I can't believe that you believe that you have a place to come out and act like a critic of these wars, when in fact you are an enabler of them, as a media pundit that urged people to participate electorally for Obama which was an obviously losing strategy to end the slaughter.
Did you learn nothing from the Vietnam war? It was direct action, struggle and mass movement pressure in the U.S, combined with U.S. soldier's sabotage and the Vietnamese army itself that defeated the U.S. Voting and legislation in Congress had NOTHING to do with it.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm afraid we can't... how to stop that? Cell Phone Number Reverse Lookup
Afghanistan, revenge for the Saudi attacks on our unconditional support of Israeli atrocities? We could stop the Israeli atrocities or at least stop our unconditional support for them. That would have prevented 9/11 and our ensueing bankruptcy. But then, reading my Bible, I see that the Jews are a very stiff necked people. America is doomed, alas.
one thing I really find funny about US policies and behavior is:
where RUSSIA as a giant country is to her south and east and west landlocked and by nature going to HAVE her "sphere of influence"...as history shows ...
where CHINA also as a giant in her own region is surrounded or next door to HER own natural "region of influence"
where South America comprises of distinct national entities that are EACH their own collective "region of influence" upon each other
where africa is the same
where europe is the same
ONLY THE USA, with NO landlocked east and west coasts facing the greatest oceans , and submissive or docile northern and southern neighbors.. goes OUT - FAR BEYOND its "near abroad" to create its "region of influence"
except that it does so by MEDDLING in the affairs of other regions and those ALREADY HISTORICAL REGIONS of influence.
and YET is the first to CRY FOUL at any phantom notion, usually self-generated , of foreign countries "coming to destroy our way of life".......
even IF , shoudl other nations or people "come" to the USA - in one form or another , they are the CONSEQUENCES of the USA's
OWN meddling in those regions!!
as Patrick Buchanan said:
"THEY" -- "are here....because were are over THERE".
A giant country meddling in the affairs of its neighbours with the excuse of "spheres of influence" is still imperialism. If Russia meddles with its neighbours when those neighbours do not want Russian meddling, much less invasion, it is imperialism. If China meddles with its neighbours when those neighbours do not want Chinese meddling, much less invasion, it is imperialism.
Furthermore, the US is hardly unique when it comes to traveling thousands of miles for empire. The assumption that the US is somehow unique in its imperial ambitions is just US exceptionalism. Portugal traveled thousands of miles, setting up a far flung empire that stretched from Brazil to Macau. In their wake, the Spanish followed. So did the Dutch. The English and the French then joined in. Even TODAY, for the all high flown rhetoric that France occasionally likes to use against US imperialism, France still meddles HEAVILY in many of its former African colonies. The elite ruling class in those colonies are propped up by France, and take their orders from France.
Also, using the your "sphere of influence" theory, the US would be justified to meddle in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean. Do you think that the people in those countries would appreciate that?
Visit this site
http://www.todaysacnesolution.com
locust:
Kudos to you for coming up with an acronym that captures the lunacy of our approach to terrorism: the DAFT (Defense Against Future Terrorism) War. Let's keep that terminology in circulation!
locust:
Kudos to you for coming up with an acronym that captures the lunacy of our approach to terrorism: the DAFT (Defense Against Future Terrorism) War. Let's keep that terminology in circulation!
Norm Soloman
Whom you refer to as "members of Congress, some of the most progressive on Capital Hill" are actually just a bunch of jelly-hearted sycophants, more concerned about their jobs and rubbing shoulders with Obama than they are about the miserable lives of hapless people around the world, people systematically brutalized by your party's whoop-tee-do! triple majority.
Sure, as you sit down to a nice meal with these "most progressive" ones, a brunch at the hotel for example, they appear to be caring, hard working progressives. But when they do their jobs, they're run of the mill sycophants. Their political party - your party - went to considerable and illegal means in order to discredit and sabotage Ralph Nader's campaign. I have never heard you or any in your party apologize for it.
When he was editor of Harpers Magazine, Lewis Lapham wrote about his first personal encounter with Bill Clinton, a man whose politics he railed against for years. He wrote the article to illustrate just how seductive these people can be. They can sweep you right off your feet. Lapham found Clinton to be quite charming and engaging. Yeah, as was Ted Bundy.
You are a far different man than you were when I first met you back in 1977. I wish you had never gone over to the other side but stayed put, with your feet planted firmly on the ground. As my friend David Brower once said, "Whenever we compromised, we lost."
So go ahead, make my day. In 2012, come on to my town - again - as a Democratic Party representative and don't forget to bring along your cohort Dan Elsburg. Make your silly speech about why I should continue to support a Democrat because a Republican would be oh so much worse.
If McCain had won, at least there would be mass demonstrations in the streets, a backlash, maybe a strike! The Obama presidency was designed to make a fool of you and other progressives.
Again, "Whenever we compromised, we lost."
rvrwalker
Thank You, Thank You.
It's time we put an end to the endless compromise of defeat. Working with the self-described Democrats is a faustian bargain - which we will always lose.
How long will we continue to watch this violent empire murder millions of lives around the world as the likes of Solomon come along and self-righteously point fingers at us for choosing different paths of resistance, and refusing to be co-opted?
October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that "the president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan."
-----------------
If instead of gathering them in a windowless basement room of the White House, we could gather these array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers, whilen wearing leopard-print lycra outfits (just for added visual effects), in the middle of the tribal areas in Afghanistan and left them there alone to hash it out with the Taliban, I'm sure that a peace agreement would be reached in a matter of minutes - if not seconds - along with a whole lot of soiled Fruit of The Loom boxers and briefs.
It’s so nice Article. I appreciate it. I will keep visiting this blog very often. I am very pleased to find this site.
cell phone number reverse lookup