Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Battle for Marjah: The US Has Already Lost
The fighting is still underway in the town of Marjah, in what is being described as the first battle in Obama's War in Afghanistan, or alternatively as the biggest battle of the US War in Afghanistan. But already, the US has lost that battle.
It lost it from day one, when troops fired missiles in to a Marjah house, killing 12 civilian occupants--half of them children. And it lost it further when another three more civilians were blown away by US-led forces. Finally, it lost the battle as much of the town has been simply destroyed by the fighting.
The supposed goal of the assault on Marjah was to demonstrate that the US would bring the wonders of good government and peace to the Pashtun tribal people who have endured a generation or more of war, and who have been living under the "cruel tyranny" of the Taliban in recent years. The new strategy of President Barack Obama and his hand-picked military leader in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was to show that the US military could fight the Taliban without causing civilian deaths and casualties. Protecting civilian lives would be a priority, they claimed.
The problem with such a strategy is that the whole reason American forces have been able to crush resistance, as they did in the lighting invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the overthrow of the Taliban government of Afghanistan in late 2001, has been their callous disregard for civilian lives, which have been coldly labelled "collateral damage."
In the war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan until recently at least, the American war-fighting style has been for troops to go into an area, seeking to draw enemy fire, and then to call in long-range artillery or air support, and simply blow up the area with heavy explosives, devastating anti-personnel bombs that shower an area in flesh-shredding flechettes, burning white phosphorus projectiles, and a brutal rain of machine-gun fire from fixed-wing and helicopter gunships. Inevitably with such tactics, countless innocent men, women and children get killed and maimed.
In Iraq, US forces ended up killing far, far more civilians than actual enemy fighters thanks to this approach. While information about deaths in the Afghan War is harder to come by, it is likely that the same holds true there also. In addition to the well-known incidents, where air strikes have been called in which ended up butchering entire wedding parties in both Iraq and Afghanistan, or where farm families engaged in routine activties have been blown away thinking they were terrorists, US forces have for years thought nothing about assaulting compounds and killing the inhabitants, innocent civilians or not, children or adults, if it was thought that even one "terrorist" was in the building at the time.
Such tactics, reminiscent of what years ago used to be attributed to vicious military regimes like the German Nazis or the Imperial Japanese, have become the norm for US forces, as has the tactic of "spray and pray," under which US forces, if they take fire or feel threatened, simply unload all their weapons in every direction, killing every living thing within range, including people who might be seeking shelter behind mud walls of their homes.
These tactics, while criminal in the extreme under the Geneva Conventions, which require that civilians in any conflict be protected, do work in the short term, which is why American forces have prevailed in their initial assaults. But long-term, they inevitably become self-defeating, since they only turn a population into bitter enemies, many with an understandable desire for vengeance.
Thus, the "new" strategy of trying to minimize civilian casualties.
But once US troops are denied their air support, and are barred by commanders from simply blowing away buildings from which they are taking enemy fire, because of fears that there may be civilians in those buildings, US forces lose any advantage they may have had over local enemy fighters. It becomes a battle of guns vs. guns and person vs. person, and becomes more of a case of who is more willing to die.
Clearly the Taliban then gains an edge. Its fighters, or at least many of them, believe they are fighting for Allah, or for their country's survival and independence, or for both, and they are willing to die for those causes. What are American forces fighting for in Afghanistan? Hard to say. I suspect many, if asked, would say they have no idea. Some, I'm sure, would say they are "defending America" if asked thanks to their indoctrination, but I also suspect that as they survey the primitive society in which they are fighting, and see the poverty of the people, they will have a hard time perceiving Afghanistan as any kind of threat to their own country or families. Some may say they're avenging the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon "by Al Qaeda" in 2001, but then, even the US government admits that the foreign fighters of Al Qaeda have long ago left Afghanistan, and no Taliban were involved in the 9-11 attacks. So it's hard to see American troops being willing to die for these trumped up "causes." I suspect, again, that most US troops are understandably trying really hard mainly to make sure they don't get hurt or killed.
And that's why, in the end, the US is losing this war. It's why those deadly Himars rockets were fired and why air assaults are being called in after all in Marjah, and why civilians are again being slaughtered by American forces in this battle.
It's why, despite promises to the contrary from Gen. McChrystal and Commander in Chief Obama, the town is being wrecked.
And in the end, it will be all for naught, since the US is supporting a wholly corrupt and criminal regime in Kabul which will not follow up the ultimate "victory" in Marjah with some kind of honest and well-functioning government in the destroyed city.
We will no doubt see some photogenic reconstruction in Marjah when the fighting subsides. We'll see some demonstration projects which will be dutifully praised by the journalistic shills flown in by Pentagon flaks. But the people of Marjah will remember the destruction of their town, and will remember their neighbors and relatives who were killed. And when the Taliban return to the town, as they inevitably will after the Americans withdraw or draw down, they will probably be welcomed, or at least tolerated.
The reality is that America cannot prevail in Afghanistan except by applying the massive, oppressive power of its military killing machine, with its robotic rocket-firing drone aircraft, its bombers and attack aircraft, its fixed-wing and helicopter gunships, its indiscriminate anti-personnel weapons, and its massive bombs. It cannot prevail, in other words, without terrorizing the population.
And even then, in the end, it cannot succeed.
- Posted in
57 Comments so far
Show AllThese things are war crimes. What does that mean? They are crimes, and they are crimes because they are an afront to the natural human dignity and morality we all have, and which are so abhorrent they have been codified into international law. That means that such actions evoke an outraged reaction and resistance from people, and a determination to stop those who commit those offenses -- the now-hated and war criminals and moral enemy. Committing a war crime is equivalent to deciding to do something which guarantees that the victims, and other civilized people besides, will hate you for it, and become your enemies.
When one cuts through all the pretty words and spin and propaganda that's what it comes down to, and that's why it's a losing course of action right from the beginning: it flies in the face of human nature.
The war profiteers love it when the press reports the US is losing...that way they can justify an eternal occupation that gives them an eternal revenue stream.
If the press starts reporting that the US is winning, the US electorate might actually pressure the Obama Regime to end the occupation...very bad for the war profiteers' revenue stream.
Shut up and give the president credit for trying to keep the civilian casualties down. If we just cut and run from Afghanistan, the Taliban and the insurgents will kill more of them. The US forces tried to keep it separated but those fascist militants and insurgents just wouldn't back down so more force was necessary. There will be civilian losses but that's business and we have to win the war on terrorism.
Why should we shup up? I don't disagree with you that the new attempt to avoid civilian casualties is welcome. I disagree with your calling the Taliban and insurgents (whatever "insurgent" means in this context) Fascists. Their religious and cultural beliefs are - to me - repulsive, but that doesn't justify our invading their country, and doesn't make them in any way comparable to the movements led by Mussolini, Hitler and Franco (of whose regime I have personal experience) that caused such mayhem in the last century. I'm also uncomfortable with your phrase "that's business". Killing people is not a "business" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Good points.
"Shut up..." Did you receive your talking points from that chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly? If you do not like the opinions that you see written on this blog, then by all means go to a conservative web site where you can certainly find much patriotic drivel to satisfy your flag waving. The fact of the matter is that Obama, like Bush and Cheney, is a warmonger who should be standing in the dock to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity such as the murder of so many innocent Afghan children. "If we just cut and run..." From whom, all of those 100 terrorists who are supposed to be located in Afghanistan?
EncinoM then gives us more of his gems of wisdom when he intones, "There will be civilian losses but that's business and we have to win the war on terrorism." One has to wonder which Fox "News" program he managed to lift this bit of nonsense from. Here is a news flash for Mr. EncinoM. The United States will win the hearts and minds of the Afghans with the same probability that it won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people and that is zero. The Afghans, like the Vietnamese, will never rest until the hated United States military is driven from their soil.
One has to wonder why the super patriotic EncionM is not fighting for his righteous cause in Afghanistan as there is undoubtedly a roadside bomb with his name on it in one of the hills and valleys of that war torn country, a country torn to pieces by the United States war machine.
I taught a lot of people to fight like me. When I fought, sometimes I had to blow down a couple of houses with my bazooka to kill those pesky varmits. We fight the terrorists there so you don't have to here. Nothing wrong with being cut throat and a sharp shooting hard hitter. That's how you learn to manage a war. I wasn't in Vietnam but it couldn't be managed so we had to get out. Hey, I'm retired but I get to train a lot of people on self defense.
How come you trolling tards don't know how to spell the easy words?
Seems to me if you are here, we have to fight them here.
"We fight the terrorists there so you don't have to here."
Does it occur to you that by simply repeating talking points you heard somewhere that you have given up thinking for yourself? At least express yourself in your own words rather than borrowing those of your conservative talking heads. Better yet, why not be more bold--question the assumptions upon which you base your statements. Those 'terrorists' over there--exactly who are you talking about? Taliban militants trying to scrabble out a living in that harsh land? They are terrorists? Are they doing any worse things than the US government is doing to them? And your insistence that the terrorists are over there and are due to arrive here anytime now. Let's get it straight: those illiterate peasants are going to board airliners and come over here to blow up people? How exactly is that going to work? Come on...you know these people are not a threat to our country. Neither were the Vietnamese in the sixties. The proof of that is easy: they won the war and nothing happened here. Doesn't that tell you something?
The illiterate peasants depend on the US military to keep the militants and insurgents away and I'm not calling them the terrorists. What do you want? Cut and run from Afghanistan so that the Taliban can take over Afghanistan? We're going to crush the Taliban and stabilize Afghanistan even if we have to sit there for another 100 years. America is home of the free, land of the brave and we're going to keep it terrorist free even if we have to put more troops to thump those varmits in those terror prone nations.
If you are serious then you are a murderer. You are a war criminal. You don't mind showing yourself like this? I think you are just a silly person trying to rile other people for fun. You get your kicks out of pretending you are an idiot. Get a life guy. Self defense? That is all you are able to do? Don't you have any other skills? Is it too late to learn stuff? You sound really pathetic. Surely you are joking.
Nope. You'll know what it's like when you are a cop or a soldier. Your job is to protect and defend so you got to be prepared for criminals and terrorists ready to strike at any moment. I may have killed a few people while I served but I couldn't risk getting killed by an insurgent or assaulted by a criminal. Cops and soldiers must be respected and anyone who wants to defy them deserves to be apprehended even if that means shoot to kill. I don't want innocent people at home or abroad being controlled by criminal gangsters and militants. I've had years of experience being a tough cop and a soldier/mercenary. They don't call me death incarnate for nothing.
It should be finally obvious to everyone [including myself] that with his last puerile sentence EncinoM's comments are a parody and not to be taken seriously. It would seem that too much viewing of Glenn Beck [or could it be O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Hannity, et al?] have taken its toll upon this hapless individual.
.
EncinoM
"Cops and soldiers must be respected and anyone who wants to defy them deserves to be apprehended even if that means shoot to kill."
Our forefathers did a lot of defying as I remember, so it really depends on who the soldier is and where he is doesn't it?
"I may have killed a few people while I served"
If you killed anyone, you would KNOW it. Its not something you forget or cherish.
"I've had years of experience being a tough cop and a soldier/mercenary. They don't call me death incarnate for nothing."
If you have to say it, you aren't. Perhaps you could consider what you are actually saying?
Yup, as you say, that's business. It's really annoying how those nasty "insurgents" seem to keep popping up in countries where the U.S. is just trying to carry out its business plan -- with the notable exception of the more docile populace of 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' of course.
EncinoM
"There will be civilian losses but that's business and we have to win the war on terrorism"
Of course there are always civilian losses amidst fighting but the problem I see in the above statement is:
A. As near as we can tell there really aren't any terroist's per se in Afghanistan. The official estimate is about 100 Al-Qaeda there. That usually means about 30 in reality.
B. The Taliban are no threat to us, they are really bad folks by modern standards, but they are really no more than the standard nasty from the middle ages.
C. So Afghanistan has nothing to do with the "War on Terror" if there are no terroists there.
D. Shouldn't our troops, if committed, be somewhere fighting terroists rather than illeterate tribesmen who did nothing to deserve our invasion?
And if we weren't there, no civilian casualties caused by us.
If it weren't for the Taliban, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. They're in Afghanistan and it's our job to terminate it.
Did you check under your bed? The tewwowists hide there when you turn off the light.
They couldn't come that close. I can tell if someone is trying to press a detanator from their pockets from a poor person. I'm death incarnate !
Yes, by now we all know you are Death whatever and full of it.
Maybe you can impress some poor kid who likes monsters but if you are serious you are too sick to be around living people and belong with the dead.
EncinoM
The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 as far as anyone knows. They don't have the money for that kind of operation in any case and the Saudi's are not funding them.
Al-Queda trained there but they are definitely a separate entity from the Terrorists.
There weren't any Afghani on those planes either, consider that.
No, I won't shut up -- and I think free speech is an important American value. It's also very rude to tell someone to shutup, and I think being polite is also important.
The militants are not fascist -- they are not connected with or run by corporations, which is what 'fascist' means. It is the US which is fascist. Look it up.
"Cut and run" is just an emotionally laden right wing talking point with no logic behind it. The us is not there legally -- Afghanistan never attacked the US, nor supported Osama Bin Laden. The only reason the US is there is to secure oil pipelines and otherwise exploit the region in aggressive war.
The death toll and destruction in Afghanistan has soared since the US attacked -- far beyond what it was previously. The Afghans want the US out. The 'militants' -- the resistance -- won't back down because it's their country and they are fighting a foreign invader.
But yes -- it IS business. That's just the point; we are there for business interests, as should be expected from a fascist invader. This has nothing to do with terrorosm -- in fact the actions of the US are creating more 'terrorists' -- those who resist the US empire violently (which is the reason for the attack on 9/11 to begin with).
Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but those are the facts.
You don't want to know the threat posed by the militants and insurgents if we cut and run and it ain't pretty.
Oh, we do want to know. We really do. Will it resemble the Normandy invasion, or do they have a platoon of "underwear bombers" lined up in caves somewhere?
EncinoM
You had better cut and run yourself, back to AlterNuts before all the big bad anti-semites come for you
is it "just" business?
Oh Lord - there are so many errors of logic, history, fact and context in this post, who knows where to begin. Just take this sentence "we have to win the war on terrorism". Every word is questionable.
1. Who is "we"? Does that include me? Does that include all people of good will who prefer not to injure civilians with fleches and white phosphorous?
2. Why do we "have to"? How does that imperative stack up against other imperatives like guaranteeing clean water or ending poverty?
3. What does "win" mean? What would a win look like? Would the alleged terrorists gather together and wave a white flag? Would there be a peace treaty with each band of disgruntled guerillas? Would they forgive us for killing their children?
4. What is a "war" - can it be won by slicing and dicing humans, or is it won by winning hearts and minds? Is it a war when only one side has an organized army and air force, and only the other side is experiencing major violence near their homes and farms? Or is it an invasion and occupation by a vastly superior technical force with a vastly inferior moral core?
5. And what is "terrorism"? It seems to be violence by people other than ourselves, violence which stands in the way of our business plans. Would the French Resistance have been considered terrorists?
Joe
"[The U.S.] cannot prevail ... without terrorizing the population."
So?! Oderint, dum metuant.
In case you haven't noticed, that also accounts for the strategy at home.
We are in need of a new way to categorize the bad people that are being killed by our policies. It is not just the Taliban or insurgents, but also the evil "Collaterals" who are causing difficulties by getting in the way of our bullets and bombs. That way we will be getting more efficient use of our bullets, since any death then can be counted as a good death.
The end will come when all the people that need to be saved are dead.
If the U.S. can redefine words like 'democracy' and 'freedom' and 'sovereignty' to suit its own purposes, surely it can handle new connotations for such minor concepts as 'patriotism' and 'resistance' and 'self-defence'. It seemed to work pretty well when a 14-year-old kid under attack allegedly responded by tossing back a grenade and got labelled as a murderer.
With inspiration from Mark Twain, let us pray,
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle- be Thou near them! With them-in spirit-we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with the hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for he refuge of the grave and denied it-
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to post the Islamic version. Oh wait. I think I just heard someone mention that it's identical.
It must be very confusing for the deity, especially when he's otherwise occupied in his never-ending role as real estate agent for his chosen people.
A People to People Proposal For Attaining Peace On Earth And Goodwill To All Living Beings
Whereas, President Obama and Congress have proven themselves incapable of giving peace a chance,
and Whereas, given the Internet, there's never been a more opportune time for people to people interaction,
it is hereby proposed that there be an online people to people gathering of peacemakers here in America and Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in Cenral Asia, the terms of which could be (1) that in exchange for an immediate truce and end to the bloodshed, the U.S. and its NATO allies withdraw all their troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and (2) that instead of the U.S. government's unconditional support for the settler-state Israel, that it demand justice for the Palestiian people. It is anticipated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership will agree to such a proposal, whereupon, the pressure will be on the Obama administration to at least consider it. By that time the peace movement will have reconstituted itself enough so as to force the President's hand, thereby giving peace a real chance.
To increase the probability that this proposal reaches its intended audience, readers are urged to circulate the proposal online as far and wide as possible.
Brilliant!!
Commander in Schmief Obama must continue the military attacks, so that he can avoid assassination. The Military/Media/Energy Industrial complex will not tolerate any turning away from coercive policies. Remember JFK.
Go outside and look in the street. What do you see? Cars! In the supposedly "progressive" region where I live, the roads are roped with cars, cars, cars. It's fashionable here to abhor war, but we live for going to the ocean!
Who's ready to boycott gasoline?
Lidice. Skorzheny. Same pattern, same goals.
I can understand (at least minimally) a reference to the Lidice massacre, but the connection with any of Otto Skorzheny's roles escapes me. Could you elaborate please. Are you referring to his involvement in the rescue of Il Duce or in German troops wearing allied uniforms?
It is totally unclear what the point of MonkeyMuffins' comment is supposed to be as he believes that Dave Lindorff's piece is supposed to somehow be "another nine-eleven-conspiradroid troofer-moonbat" article. As opposed to an article that is in favor of the Official Fairy Tale put forth by the Bush/Cheney administration concerning the events of 9/11/01? It seemed apparent to me [and I suspect others as well] that Dave Lindorff was noting that the continued killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan by the U.S. military was and will continue to be counterproductive because the people of Afghanistan, like the Vietnamese people, will never rest until their oppressors are finally driven from their soil.
"Dave Lindorff was noting that the continued killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan by the U.S. military was and will continue to be counterproductive because the people of Afghanistan, like the Vietnamese people, will never rest until their oppressors are finally driven from their soil."
I thought he was quite clear on this myself. Quite clear.
Yes, he was extremely clear about that.
"MonkeyMuffins" tends to get too hard on CD and some known authors. Some of posts show that he doesn't read the article. He resembles Perry Logan or Shawn Berry.
We seem to be among the least evolved primates, dressed up in circus-monkey clothes...
The UNITED $TATES OF PERPETUAL WAR PROFITEERING, and the faster poo food consumer-citizens therein, tempt a terrible fate! They invite a collective karma that suggests... evaporation.
I predict... not too far down the road... the whole world will rise up to $mite the violent and vicious beast that capitalist/fascist Amerika has become. The criminal Amerikan empire must be stopped... as the entire world had united to stop Nazi Germany.
Did ewe folks out there "vote" for Mr. Obama? Eh? Well... Old Coyote Knose... that Mr. Obama is nothing but a "house nigger" for criminal bankster gamblers in the Wall $treet casino... not to mention being a whore for ethno/racist Zionist wackos in the theocrazy of Israel. Yesss... they practice apartheid for the $ake of genocide... and a black man is cheering them on!
It'll be amazing if the editors on Common Dreams keep this truth-full commentary posted. But if they do, make sure and spell my name (RICHARD RALPH ROEHL) correct-lie for the Homeland $ecurity files. Comrade!
Rome is burning... and there a millions of Joe Stacks out here, some of them breeding Timothy McVeigh franchises.
The new strategy of President Barack Obama and his hand-picked military leader in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was to show that the US military could fight the Taliban without causing civilian deaths and casualties. Protecting civilian lives would be a priority, they claimed.
---------------
That's called propaganda, Dave.
Intended for a U.S. audience of unknowing dupes.
... with a slight nod in the direction of the NATO allies, at least some of whom are increasingly uncomfortable with their participation in the apparently unending mission creep of their "Emergency International Assistance for the Reconstruction of War-Stricken Afghanistan."
There is no greater absurdity on the face of this earth than the US military and its murderous adventures into other peoples' land, destroying other peoples' villages, and murdering other peoples' families. What sane person would sign up for this mission? What kind of brain-dead morons would put their lives into the hands of US politicians and generals? Do American youth not know by now how war decisions are made? Do they not know how corrupt and corporate the process is? Do they not know that, while they are slogging through mud and bullets, fat politicians and generals are getting rich off of these wars? How mindless and ignorant do you have to be--in the age of 24-hour internet news and instant messaging--not to know why the US military is in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and preparing to bomb Iran as soon as Israel gives us the signal? During the Iraq war the left had a huge debate over "support for the troops," and we essentially let it go with: hate the war, not the troops. Well, we're 8 years older now, but no wiser, and US troops didn't learn anything from the last 8 years. AfPak is just as abhorrent as the Iraq war--and the US military is still a gang of war criminals.
questions to all, and to all a restless night: where is the american press in this fray? still embedded? where is the hemmingway in that bunch, somebody to report fearlessly from the front? do other countries have news media that aren't embedded? where can we find their reports on the internet, if they exist at all? are we now the fourth reich? heil obama!
Thank you, Dave Lindorff, for another well-taken article.
O'Nam.