Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Troop Surge Can Only Magnify the Crime Against Afghanistan
If Barack Obama heralds an escalation of the war, he will betray his own message of hope and deepen my people's pain
After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.
I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.
Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.
While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don't believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.
It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies - Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.
After eight years of war, the situation is as bad as ever for ordinary Afghans, and women in particular. The reality is that only the drug traffickers and warlords have been helped under this corrupt and illegitimate Karzai government. Karzai's promises of reform are laughable. His own vice-president is the notorious warlord Fahim, whom Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch describes as "one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands".
Transparency International reports that this regime is the second most corrupt in the world. The UN Development Programme reports Afghanistan is second last - 181st out of 182 countries - in terms of human development. That is why we no longer want this kind of "help" from the west.
Like many around the world, I am wondering what kind of "peace" prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?
Throughout my recent tour of the US, I had the chance to meet many military families and veterans who are working to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand that it is not a case of a "bad war" and a "good war" - there is no difference, war is war.
Members of Iraq Veterans Against War even accompanied me to meet members of Congress in Washington DC. Together we tried to explain the terrible human cost of this war, in terms of Afghan, US and Nato lives. Unfortunately, only a few representatives really offered their support to our struggle for peace.
While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war. Many also want Obama to hold Bush and his administration to account for war crimes. Everywhere I spoke, people responded strongly when I said that if Obama really wanted peace he would first of all try to prosecute Bush and have him tried before the international criminal court. Replacing Bush's man in the Pentagon, Robert Gates, would have been a good start - but Obama chose not to.
Unfortunately, the UK government shamefully follows the path of the US in Afghanistan. Even though opinion polls show that more than 70% of the population is against the war, Gordon Brown has announced the deployment of more UK troops. It is sad that more taxpayers' money will be wasted on this war, while Britain's poor continue to suffer from a lack of basic services.
The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan. I had a chance to meet Glenton when I was in London last summer, and together we spoke out against the war. My message to him is that, in times of great injustice, it is sometimes better to go to jail than be part of committing war crimes.
Facing a difficult choice, Glenton made a courageous decision, while Obama and Brown have chosen to follow the Bush administration. Instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation.
- Posted in
72 Comments so far
Show AllMalalai Joya should have 'won' Obama's Peace Prize.
I agree with you.
Yes, Joya is one ahead of the new Murderer-in-Chief; in fact the list starts here and goes on forever of the people more worthy than the "winner."
I also agree: the "peace prize" lost all credibility when Henry Kissinger got one decades ago. In my book, Obama will be lumped with all the other imperialist war criminals: Johnson/McNamara, Nixon/Kissinger, Bush Sr., Bush Jr./Cheney, the Clintons etc.
What a shameful distortion. Claims that "politicians are all equally bad" and the like are more than just inaccurate, they are harmful. They help create the apathy on the left that empowers the right. And, they help create the inertia that threatens our democracy.
I never said that! that sounds like a disingenous smear and over-simplification of a complex issue, much more complex than left/right, black/white. Re-read my posts carefully and then get back to me.
I only read this one post. You did say "lumped with all the others" (in the same category), didn't you? You didn't make any distinction at all between those on your list, did you? How is what you said any different than the "they're all the same" meaning I took from it? It sure seemed like that was your intended meaning.
Yes, why do you not agree that Obama is now a war criminal? How exactly are the ones on my list not imperialists? How exactly are they better?
Bill Clinton ordered bombings of civilians in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Johnson ordered escalation in Veitnam. Hillary Clinton supports military coups in Honduras, voted for Iraq wars, voted for funding wars etc. etc. ect.
This stuff is common knowledge, public record, not controversial conspiracy theory. please explain how I am mistaken
I consider Obama to be a war criminal just like Bush Jr.
Please explain why this is in-accurate
Then there was no misunderstanding. You DO lump them all together. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are equal. Bill and Hillary are paternalistically "the Clinton's," as if wives are nothing but mirror images of their husbands. No difference between McNamara and Kissinger. Didn't you leave JFK out of your pantheon of evil? He sent the first troops to Vietnam.
I stand by may original statements. Tarring all with the same brush is inaccurate, outrageous and reprehensible.
There's a difference between "lumping them all together" and recognizing the pattern they all generally adhere to. Speaking of "the Clintons" is not paternalistic unless you're obsessed with some cardboard version of feminism. They're married, after all, at least technically, and Hillary's political views and agenda are pretty much a "mirror image" of Bill's. The point is not to contribute to their complete biographies but to recognize patterns in their political lives.
And do you really require long discourses on the subtle differences between McNamara's and Kissinger's foreign policy? socialist's point is that they are both war criminals, and he's right. Since the former served under JFK and LBJ and the latter under Nixon, naturally the particulars of their policies differed, but they were both firmly serving the larger cause of US imperialism. And to do that effectively they had to stick to the general plan, which included in both cases war crimes against the Vietnamese. The same goes for Clinton and Bush, only different theaters of illegal wars. Maybe you'd like them each tarred with their own personal, distinctive brush, but probably not. It sounds as if you're outraged that anyone would dare call any of them war criminals, or maybe you take issue with the charge that the US is a rogue imperialist nation that has essentially been instructing the entire world to get the hell out of its way or deal with the consequences for 50 years now.
I have little time for nonsense. I'll just say that your claim the Hillary and Bill Clinton have mirror-image political views is absurd on it's face. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And, reducing a woman to nothing but her husband's last name is the very definition of paternalism. It's offensive. Your morals may be relative, mine are not.
There are books and bios of McNamara and Kissinger. I decline to waste my time explaining history to you.
"Lumping together" Bill Clinton and George W. Bush? That's straight from Karl Rove's propaganda manual. Clinton defied the MIC. He closed military bases, reduced the military budget, diverted funds from military to domestic uses, and transformed the Reagan budget deficits into surpluses. Nearly a miracle in the post-Reagan era. Yet, you would rewrite history and erase all of that. Bush, the messianic militarist, the worst president in U.S. history, is "generally" the same as Bill Clinton, you would have us believe. It's a lie of distortion. It's a partial-truth-that's-totally-misleading. In short, it's a lie.
I've been writing in these forums since February 2008 that Obama is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. I've called his presidency a travesty. I've called him the second-worst president in my lifetime. And, I've provided specific facts to back up my claims.
Typically, someone will respond in backhanded agreement, saying in one form or another "Yes, you are right. All politicians suck." Yet, that is the polar opposite of my point. Obama is terrible COMPARED TO others, not THE SAME AS others.
Others take it a step further, saying "Yes, all is lost. We should stop all political activities because they are a waste of time. There is no hope." Yet, abdication of the left to those who do remain politically active -- the wing-nuts on the right -- is also the polar opposite of my point.
Those who "lump together" and refuse to differentiate between political actors are part of the problem, not the solution.
Those who call others "part of the problem" are themselves part of the problem from others' perspective. You take much pride in your superior understanding of history, but your pomposity is countered by other interpretations. You do not have the patent on historical truth, contrary to your obvious self-satisfaction. There are many things written about Kissinger and McNamara that support what I said before, and I also decline to give you a history lesson you clearly would reject, given your obvious biases, especially in the case of the Bill Clinton. Revere him all you like, it's something very dear to you obviously, but I can detect at least as many "lies and distortions" in your list of his virtues as you claim to find in my comparisons with him and Bush. As for your slur that I'm some venal sort of immoral degenerate sexist because I dare to refer to Hillary in any marital context, you can shove that up your prissy little backside. Of course they aren't exactly the same, any more than Afghanistan is Vietnam, but if you can't see the similarity of patterns in how the imperialist agenda is passed from one administration to the next, I can't instruct you.
Also, to you, Obama is the "second-worst president in your lifetime." Does that automatically mean that he's the 2nd worst president for everyone else as well, except of course morons and fools? It's still too early to put him on a Worst Presidents Ever list, but maybe your crystal ball is as superior to mine as your historical judgments are. I've been writing in this forum also since 2008 just as critically of Obama as you have, but no doubt I haven't been framing my objections exactly the way you do, so of course I'm an ignorant buffoon. What's it like being the smartest person here? Lonely, I'd expect.
Thanks for showing us who you really are.
Whatever that means. What you've shown is that you are a devoted worshiper of those two people who have the last name "Clinton," even though in saying this I realize what an immoral sexist that makes me. Her Royal Majesty Hillary you will continue venerating no matter what the actual facts of her record, which you have embellished the way Bush admirers did for that fraud, for 8 years. No, she isn't the worst person in the world, but she's hardly the progressive savior you make her out to be. Both she and her husband are conservative to the core, just like Obama, who by the way admires them both at least as much as you do. Obama has said repeatedly that he considers BILL Clinton to be his closest political model, the president he most hopes to emulate. So far he's doing a great job with that. Ever hear of NAFTA? The list is long, and you'd have an answer for every item on it. Uncritical devotion to political figures will do that.
So what? I have little time for your naive partisan nonsense. Obama is a war criminal face up to it like a rational adult. You can reify all the details you want. The bottom line is the bottom line no matter how inconvenient or painful to admit. The Clintons are also imperialist war criminals. I guess Chomsky, Hedges, Fisk, Ali, Zinn etc. etc. don't know their history? With all due respect, I suggest you start cracking open some books and learn some history. Howard Zinn is a good place to start.
You never disputed my basic claims anywhay, you just danced around them
I've said Obama is a war criminal, many times, even going back to his candidacy when he promised to become a war criminal by unilaterally attacking Pakistan. You are making a straw man argument, pretending that I disagree. (Why? To intentionally confuse people?)
I'm defending that charge against people like you who would cheapen it and re-define it to include a dozen other American politicians. As I said before, by your definition JFK would have to be on your list of war criminals, since he sent troops to Vietnam. Why don't you call him a war criminal?
I did dispute your claims with specifics. I provided specific information about Bill Clinton's record and explained how your distortion of that record is a lie. You have not responded to those specifics. You choose to continue making the same lie of distortion.
I think I made my objections to your one-size-fits-all, counter-productive interpretations crystal clear.
Howard Zinn, by the way, promoted Obama, voted for Obama, and publicly advised others to do the same.
I recommend you read what Zinn had to say about our electoral system and why he voted for Obama. You are not only calling me a liar but also Chomsky, Zinn and Hedges as well, as they make the same claims. Crack open some books and look it up for yourself.
You fail to see the context of history and deny the facts. Instead of dismissing them as lies, read up on it. The truth hurts. Your beloved Clintons are among the most corrupt politicians around.
Your claim that I am telling a lie is an arrogant and ignorant denial, you puport to know more than people who have written. Instead of dismissing the research and historiography, why don't you read it?
Still no response to specifics? Only dodges and personal attacks?
I find the most prolific Bill Clinton haters are the princes of the military-industrial-complex who got their egos and pocketbooks singed when President Clinton stopped the gravy train during his eight years in office. Clinton, as I said, cut military budgets, closed military bases and diverted funds from military to domestic uses.
These same macho-men extend their hatred to Hillary, calling her "the Clintons," certain that a President Hillary Clinton---despite her tough, anti-terrorism public stance---would do the same thing to the military that her husband had done. And, they are probably correct.
Didn't Senator Clinton, after all, co-sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders' bill to prohibit the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? She did. Didn't Senator Clinton lead the Congress in demanding the resignation of Iraq War architect Donald Rumsfeld? She did. Didn't Senator Clinton vote to require withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by June 2008? She did. (Did Mr. Zinn's choice, Obama, do any of these things? He did not.)
Didn't Senator Clinton, during her campaign, unequivocally oppose the use of torture under any circumstances? She did. (Dartmouth College, September 6, 2007)
Didn't Senator Clinton introduce the highly-regarded Count Every Vote Act (to combat vote-count fraud) and re-introduce it every year, in spite of the fact that leadership never allowed it to come to a vote? She did.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton is a threat to MIC domination. The princes of the MIC come in all guises.
Please, how naive. The specifics you cite are window dressing and were not effective. Hillary voted for war, war appropriations etc. You can't see through the smokescreen? Now she supports escalating conflict in Afghanistan. You are either incredibly naive about politics or you are a shill for the Duopoly.
Your pathetic excuses are thin at best. I have no time for naive interpretations and out-of-context details. Again, don't believe me, I am a whacko socialist lefty. Crack open some Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Crhis Hedges, Chalmers Johnson, Tariq Ali. You can write a book to tell us all how they are all liars.
"Out of context details?" What a laugh. She took down the big dog, Don Rumsfeld. The biggest of the war criminals that didn't require impeachment proceedings to remove.
She voted to require (not set a goal) that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq by June 2008 ... 18 months ago. Your man's man, Obama, refused to do that. You don't like my "interpretation" of that vote? How do you interpret it? Maybe I should read Zinn so he can explain why Obama's refusal to vote to end the war is somehow superior to Hillary's vote to end it.
She co-sponsored Bernie Sanders' bill to ban mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you even know who Bernie Sanders is? Do you know he's a socialist and the furthest-left member of the Senate? Isn't your handle "socialist?" His bill had just two sponsors: Sanders and Clinton. Their introduction of that bill was clearly an act of conscience, and clearly not an act of political expediency. In what possible, mixed up way can anyone see it as a "smokescreen?" Here's a high-profile, popular woman with a real shot at being president, and she co-sponsors a bill the MIC hates with the Senate's lone socialist? It was an act of conscience that carried with it real political consequences for her ... quite the opposite of a "smokescreen" or "window dressing."
You're long on generalized opinions, hyperbole and presumptions, and real short on facts. In fact, you have yet to address any specific fact I've brought forward. You have yet to answer one question I've asked you. You're full of contradictions. No, I don't see you as a "lefty" at all, whacko or otherwise. I see you as a MIC asset.
Naturally, beyond appearances and eloquence, let's be honest, it's now almost impossible to differentiate the policies of Bush and Obama. And it's not at all harmful to be clear-eyed about that; on the contrary, illusions are dangerous. We were never as taken-in by Bush's lies, so they did not hurt as much. Obama has brilliantly done permanent damage to the Democratic Party. So be it.
Rather, what is most harmful, what most creates apathy and resentment on the left are the relentless broken promises and betrayals by deceptive corporate politicians. And what empowers the right are the predictable concessions, cave-ins, and timidity by progressive pretenders without conviction. To natural predators, that is blood in the water---an irresitable invitation to kill. It's nothing but theater staged by a duopoly of kleptocrats to create pointless conflict disguised as a democratic process.
I agree, and I've said as much in many posts here. You may have misunderstood what I was objecting to. See my recent post immediately above.
I couldn't get this on Politics Daily, so print it here:
"I will use this prize and the money that goes with it to set up a commission to figure out how to share the oil and gas resources in the Middle East in an equitable fashion; so I no longer need to arm the youth of my nation in order to murder for the appeasement of Global Corps'. profit desires, and the procurement of votes I need to gain elected offices as a politician. I thank the Nobel Committee for this opportunity, for I do not really care much whether the youth of my nation are armed or not, and learn how to disregard their humanity and murder or not, but there are a lot of people clamoring in my nation about our violent behavior, both at home and abroad, so by helping to learn how to share the abundance of natural resources the Earth has to offer I can probable get a lot of votes, and if that makes some other people happy at the same time, well why not? So I thank the Nobel Committee once again, and raise this prize and say, "HERE'S TO SHARING THE OIL AND GAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN AN EQUITABLE FASHION".
A more-than-worthy recipient and a very brave woman.
Thank you Malalai for a poignant and heart felt message to the people of the US and the UK. Your country is not the only one that has a problem with warlords. The US and the UK are both run by them as well. They may wear $10,000 suits, smoke Cuban Cigars, and fly in private jets, but they are, nonetheless, warlords. My deepest hope is that we may all rid ourselves of these loathsome parasites forever, and quickly.
The only way politicians in Washington will listen to wise people such as Malalai Joya is when they get thrown into the battlefields and find their own lives at stake. I apologize for my stupid country electing draft dodgers to office.
Please do not malign those who refused to go to Viet Nam. Dodging the draft was the only way not to go. We knew it was an immoral, cruel war. We were not about to be a part of it!
I'm not referring to the anti-war people who didn't want to go to war because they were against the war from the bottom of their heart and had feelings for unarmed and friendly civilians. I'm talking about the rascals who drummed up support for the war but hypocritically refused to serve. Bush and Cheney supported the Vietnam War but they refused to serve as they were supposed to. I hope this helps but thanks for the tip on distinguishing those who opposed the war and rightfully refused to serve. I wished I had some of that wisdom before I served and lost my limbs.
We should petition the nobel peace prize committee to take back the award from Obama and give it to her or Scott Ritter.
Obama's mendacity of hype.
How soon do ya think the us will get to the bottom of the list of corrupt nations?
But we don't have corruption in the USA, it is institutionalized and perfectly legal.
At least the Afghan warlords have the courage to face their enemies face to face instead of using proxy poor folks and drone missile-shooters.
But I could be wrong !
I'll say it one more time...could it be there's something else going on that none of us is privvy to, that has basically forced Obama into his actions in Afganistan? Bush was plain evil, stupid and evil. I understand his motivations (though he too could have been forced).
Obama, no matter what you think, and how he's let us down, is definitely NOT stupid. You KNOW he knows the right thing to do. Again, it'd be like seeing the star quarterback in high school, who has everything going for him, start to throw games in college. He'd have no reason to buckle under so easily to all the pressure. We could either call him a sellout OR suspect something else is going on, like blackmail. I would not put it past various forces in the world, corporate or otherwise, to literally say to a US president "you WILL do this, and if you don't, you or your family WILL be killed".
Why are you surprised? Obama made it very clear during his campaign that he would draw down troops from Iraq and escalate troop levels in Aghanistan. He is doing what he promised for once.
The only practical choice you have in a presidential election is to vote for Neo-Fascism or Neo-Fascism Lite(TM). The Lite means it has a nice sugar coating and does not taste as bad as traditional Neo-Fascistm
"you WILL do this, and if you don't, you or your family WILL be killed"
appropriate response: "Do that and I will tell the American people everything I know. Who will they believe you ask? Well, I'm popular. You're not."
-Again, it'd be like seeing the star quarterback in high school, who has everything going for him, start to throw games in college.
Your analogy is flawed. Obama was never your equivalent of a star quarter back. Was he a star quarter back when he was voting in the senate? Perhaps he was, ...when he was a toddler?
Stupid? No he knows exanctly what he is doing, so did Bush, so do tobacco executives, so do drug pushers. I know it is hard to hear but you don't need a conspiracy to explain simple self interest. Obama doesn't care about YOUR America. His America doesn't extend outside his gated community. His America is doing mighty fine, thank you very much.
I'm sorry but I don't see it. Before he ever got into politics, was he a kid born with a silver spoon? Was he part of the privileged class? I don't think so. THAT'S why I give him the benefit of the doubt (or rather Gave, past tense). He has NO REASON to NOT care about our America, especially in the way neocons don't.
Yes, you love to beat the gong of the Inescapable Conclusion that They Got to Obama.
So, I'LL say it again: it makes a nice abstraction, and it's a compelling notion. I've heard the late Bill Hicks' version, and read probably hundreds of echoes in comments threads.
It's a "meme".
But it also begs the question, and explains nothing. By itself, it just hangs up there like a nihilistic balloon or umbrella.
You seem to invest great significance in the possibility that he's not a "sellout"-- instead, he's somehow a coward, victim, hostage, or a bit of each. The meme is invoked as if it somehow gets Obama off the hook, and it reinforces the fantasy that Obama is essentially a good guy who's being overwhelmed by forces beyond his control.
I don't see much of a distinction here. Whether he's become a rogue or captive president because of personal selfish greed (sellout) OR pure coercion (hostage), he's still throwing the games.
This meme offends me because it contains an almost smug superiority; it loftily offers a "real" explanation that raises more questions than it purports to settle.
· Yr Obd't Servant
It offends me as well, as it is an intellectually disingenous argument and insults those who are making a genuine effort to analyze. In more crude terms: it is a piss-poor excuse.
Your post hit on the key word; "victim". Obama supporters are portraying him as a victim, hoping to garner sympathy and understanding.
I'm in agreement with the others responding to your post. Your speculation is useless because Obama was never a "star quarterback in high school." He was throwing games in high school (the U.S. Senate) and in grade school (the Illinois Senate) before that. Too bad you didn't examine his voting record before voting for him.
Anyone else see the similarities between Obamabots and Palin wingnuts? They both "just like" their heroes, but they don't know why.
Sorry, most of the posters to my post are the ones that sound like head-in-the-sand "right-wing" liberals. Just because someone doesn't instantly condemn Obama doesn't mean they think he's a hero. That kind of black and white thinking is so right-wing. Way to be.
looks like the Duopoly apologists are in the minority on this one, sorry
It's not that you don't "instantly condemn him," it's that (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) you foolishly believe he has a conscience ... apparently because he is educated?
Hello? Anybody home in there? Bernie Madoff? Newt Gingrich? Alan Greenspan? Tim Geithner? Larry Summers?
Kane ------ For the last 3,000 years EVERY LEADER of a powerful nation has had to deal with assassination and coups.
And you know what a hell of alot of them have been assassinated and boy some were killed in ways Cheney could only dream of, including killing every known relative.
Therefore your musings are irrelevant, assassintion is part of the JOB DESCRIPTION.
Get with the program either YOUR PART of the SOLUTION or YOUR PART of the PROBLEM (E. CLEAVER)
Okay Kane, I do not believe what you say about Obama being put under duress for a nano second.To me he is nothing but a good con man; but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say what you say is true.If he had any integrity, he would abdictate or resign the Presidency like Nixon. Sounds like you are still being conned and deceived because you are an apologist for Obama and continue to make alibi's and excuses for his nefarious behavior. What more do you need than this Obama quote before you wake up: " THE FIRST THING I WILL DO AS PRESIDENT, IS GET OUR TROOPS HOME. TAKE THAT TO THE BANK"!
Who needs enemies when you have "friends" like the US?
Can the Nobel Committee withdraw their Peace Prize?
They never withdrew Kissinger's "peace prize". It don't get more Orwellian than that
Bravo Malalai Joya. I'm printing your letter and sending it to my Senators and Congresswoman.