Afghanistan: Civilians Caught in the Middle of US & Taliban
Afghanistan has become the Forgotten War on the screens of corporate media. Yet the US has 33,000 troops fighting there and NATO forces amount to 60,000 there altogether. {Sorry for the wrong numbers in the first draft.)
Barnett Rubin is live-blogging the renewed violence in Afghanistan from the ground in that country. Also don't miss his other recent postings at our joint Global Affairs blog.
Here is some more recent news:
AP reports that "As of Friday, May 30, 2008, at least 436 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department." This total includes those killed by non-hostile causes.
This spring has been the deadliest in Afghanistan since the insurgency began, according to NATO and the Pentagon. The surge in violence is threatening the government of President Hamid Karzai.
America's NATO allies in Afghanistan are war-weary, and even Hamid Karzai is thinking about making a deal with the Taliban in a bid for social peace, according to Eureasianet.org.
British soldiers are leaving the service at an alarming rate, many citing the interminable struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are unpopular with the British public and apparently also with the officer corps (especially Iraq).
Bush still thinks he is refighting World War II.
AP says, "Afghanistan will ask
international donors next month for $4 billion to revive its agricultural sector, but it could be a hard sell with another massive crop of opium expected this year. Despite the sharply rising price of grain, foreign-funded efforts to promote legal alternatives to the narcotic have largely failed. Farmers still make much more from growing poppy, the raw material for heroin, which flourishes amid Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency and rampant lawlessness. Half of the country's production comes from Helmand province, a stronghold of insurgents. Roughly one out of every seven farmers in this predominantly rural nation of 32 million people grow opium. Giving them alternatives is part of Afghanistan's plan to invest $4 billion over the next five years in its outdated agricultural sector."
Der Spiegel on why NATO troops cannot bring peace to Afghanistan.
Aljazeera International reports on Afghan civilians caught in the middle between US troops and the neo-Taliban in southern Afghanistan:
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/01/2008 12:10:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Bush still thinks he is refighting World War II.
Yes, of course, it's clear since 2001 and even more evident since 2003. But in order to avoid a complete rehearsal of WWII, this time Bush chose the part of the "ReichsFuehrer", that of Hitler.
I have a master in history and my main professor was a specialist of nazism. It's maddening to see how much the evil trio formed by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have borrowed from him in the way they are managing these imperial wars.
The most striking part is the propaganda part : the shamefull way they are presenting things, telling to the American people exactly the contrary of what things are : they pretended to liberate Iraqis from Saddam, while they were just trying to dominate Iraq and grab its oil. They must have studdied Goebbels methods intensively : they just repeat a lie often enough to make it look like truth. Instead of using the right words, they always find something more presentable : In Abu Graib they weren't torturing, they were only using rough interrogatory techniques. Concerning the number of Iraqi victimes which now superate the number of Saddam's ones, they « don't do body counts », etc. Etc.
Now, they are trying to bring the Iraqi puppet government to sign the SOFA which would submit Iraqi to US dominance for ... at least decades, but they present it as if this was an occasion to regain their sovereignity from the UNSC !!! It's the US who want to escape to the control of the UNSC, stupids!!, the UNSC, on the contrary, protects the Iraqi from the US (or at least it should).
I've just finished reading the controversial novel of Johnattan Littell "Les Bienveillantes", which is a remarkable historical novel describing the Jewish extermination and the WWII campaigns from the point of view of a SS officer. Along all these 1400 pages (yes, it's that long), I was constantly reminded to what the US is actually doing in the ME; everything is there :
1)The lies, the false reasons invoqued to start theses wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
2)The first BlitzKrieg, aka the victorious march of the US amry untill Baghdad.
3)Then the lies concerning the real situation on the ground.
4)The killing of innocent civilians in order to give the insurgent a lesson (like in Falludja first and now in Sadr City),
5)The treatment of Iraqi as "Untermenschen", their continual humiliation, the arrogant remarks criticizing the Iraqi powerless puppet government (which we can even read here at Informed Commet from time to time) and its corruption.
6)The numerous crimes against humanity comitted : torture in AbuGraib, the Prisonners of Guantanamo, kept in captivity without jugement for years etc.. etc..
7)The war profiting companies in the US and their corruption (think Halliburton, blackwaters and co), which are the real war benefiters.
8)Last, but not least, the continual fights and power intrigues between different factions of the administration (for instance between the Pentagon and the State Department),
9)The characterization of a false enemy (aka the terrorists) in order to keep the US citizen brazen in fears.
10)The continual minimization of US crimes by inventing new words in order to mask the harsh reality of what the US armies are doing.
11)I've even heard some hawkish warmonger of the right answering thusly to the accusation that the US invaded Iraq for its oil : « Even if we are there for the oil, what the f.., we need it more than the rest of the world, so we have a right to it ».
12)The so-called « appeasement attitude » toward Iran and Islamic terrorists, which the Rep denounce aiming it at all the war opponents (be they the Dems at home or the EU opinion abroad) goes the other way around. In fact the Arab leaders and the EU leaders have this appeasing attitude, toward the US imperial wars. Once more, the Bush government is turning things upside down.
As I understand it, we have been militarily engaged in Afghanistan-- either supporting or fighting the Mujadeen/Taliban-- for close to 20 years now, with no end in sight. Apparently, we have no plan but to continue the current stalemate as long as possible. The US and allies combined have 30k troops there, whereas ten times that number would probably be inadequate. Adding to troubles, Pakistan is moiling, Musharraf is teetering and the rising tide there does not favor the US or it's "war on terror." This is much like Viet Nam: no plan to win, just keep it going until we can retire. Then when the inevitable finally happens, we blame the Democrats for surrendering and claim the national security high ground. And the beat goes on.
One might think things were going swimmingly in Afghanistan after reading Gen. Michael Hayden's update and The Guardian piece, "British troops put Taliban on the run."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/01/military.afghanistan1
But it helps to be winning the current war before starting the next. Over 7,000 cheerleaders for attacking Iran descend on Washington, D.C. this week. All the Presidential hopefuls will be there. With two resounding victories in our pocket, the U.S. can start its next conflict. "Bomb, bomb, bomb..."
Speaking of which, news finally dribbled out of yet another U.S. Predator missile strike in Pakistan. Summary execution anyone? Be sure to ignore the collateral damage, i.e. innocents killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/alqaida.pakistan
Some good news for you Juan,
Australian combat troops have handed over to US soldiers and quietly begun withdrawing from Iraq:
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008.
Rudd has said the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.
Of course it's not all good news as it is not a complete withdrawal:
Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia will also leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.
Rudd remains committed to keeping Australia's 1,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Along with Blair, Australia's former PM John Howard was a key part of the tawdry attempt at international legitimisation of this illegal war. Rudd still cannot explain what legal basis exists for keeping Aussie troops in Iraq at all, and some of us are calling for a Royal Commission into Iraq.
Professor Cole, Any comment about the Washington Post editorial titled "The Iraqi Upturn-- Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war"?
Post a Comment
<< Home