Suicide Bomber Kills 25 Policemen in Afghanistan;
American UN Official Kidnapped in Quetta;
Pakistani Taliban take over Swat
In Afghanistan on Monday, a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman infiltrated a police compound and detonated his payload, killing at least 25 officers of the law (according to late wire service reports). The bomber attacked in Tirin Kot, the capital of Oruzgan Province, from which Taliban leader Mulla Muhammad Omar hails.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned Monday against comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam. He said that the US and NATO are not occupying Afghanistan. What puzzles me is that surely US officers would have denied that they were occupying South Vietnam, as opposed to helping a friendly government fight off a Communist take-over. Mullen seems to be admitting that the New Left narrative about Vietnam as an American occupation was correct, but denying that that is what is going on in Afghanistan. (Or saying he won't allow the US presence there to degenerate into an occupation).
I fear that along with Norman Solomon, I may be a culprit in raising alarms about Afghanistan as Obama's Vietnam, in my recent Salon article.
And, I guess this is Chalmers Johnson's implicit reply to Adm. Mullen, at Tomdispatch.com.
Cont'd (click below or on "comments")
On Saturday, a Canadian soldier was killed by a roadside bomb just west of Qandahar in Afghanistan's southwest. He is the 11th Canadian to have been killed by such bombs since the beginning of December, and the 108th Canadian death in Afghanistan since 2002.
These casualty figures are the reason for which Obama will probably not get that much support from Canada and Europe in his quest to raise the ante in Afghanistan.
[PDF] The Pentagon presented a new report on Afghanistan on Monday that admits that guerrilla attacks were up 37 percent in 2008 over the previous year, and that, as AFP puts it, "Insurgent surface-to-air fire rose 67 percent."
Aljazeera English follows up on what happened to Azizabad village in Herat province of Afghanistan where a US air strike killed dozens of civilians last August. The report finds that people are still mourning their lost loved ones, and are resentful that their homes have not been rebuilt. Those men who once cooperated with the Americans and NATO have ceased doing so.
The head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in the Baluchistan province of Pakistan,, US national John Solecki, was kidnapped Monday in Quetta; his driver was killed. Since UNHCR has for decades helped Afghanistan refugees in Pakistan, it is unusual for it to be attacked, even by Taliban types. But as Pakistan's northwestern areas descend into violence, apparently no one is safe. Quetta is said to be the base of the "old Taliban" led by Mulla Muhammad Omar, a resident of the city. These are the Afghan young men expelled by the Soviets and educated at fundamentalist seminaries or madrasahs.
Pakistani President Asaf Ali Zardari called Monday during a meeting with a US congressional delegation for an end to US drone attacks on Pakistani soil. He said Pakistan could win the struggle against extremists by avoiding civilian casualties or "collateral damage" but would need more aid from the US. He warned that the Pakistani Taliban were on the cusp of taking over Swat, one of the tribal agencies in the northwest.
Aljazeera English reports on the advances of the Pakistani Taliban Movement in the Swat Valley in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). It concurs that the Taliban have essentially taken over Swat.

|
Facebook





8 Comments:
Occupation seems to be a euphemism for a needless war of aggression.
American exceptionalism writ large.
my 12-year-old son has asked me several times why we study history and my response is: so that we don't make the same mistakes. we need historians like yourself to keep us honest... most certainly your vietnam comparisons raise valid points.
The study of history is supposed to inform us of where we've been so we can determine where we are now going. Thus, distorting the past leads to a distorted future direction. Many lies about the past are portrayed as "true" history in order to manipulate our direction. One of these Metalies is American Exceptionalism. A student may be fortunate and have his teacher mention and, usually briefly, investigate this US cultural myth. And this is just one example of all too many aspects of the USA and its Empire that are usually not even questioned. Another example is that the whole Vietnam Era is usually chopped off highschool and collegiate US history courses because there isn't enough time within the usual 2 semester approach to teaching US history, let alone any time to examine even more recent events. To properly, which is to say honestly, teach US history, I need 4 semesters--and that's for the 101 level. But that would produce informed citizens, which is not what US elites want, and informs us why education in the US remains woeful.
Is the current war against the Afghans and Pakistanis similar to that waged against the Southeast Asians? Yes, emphatically. But the result could be very different; Pakistan has nukes.
The U.S. intervenes in a civil war in a culture it does not understand. Americans find local allies and support them, despite their bad governance. The American presence radicalizes the local opposition; Americans increasingly rely on locals who cooperate a lot and criticize a little. American policy-makers at home have the same bias. More radicalization occurs. The democratic middle gets marginalized. A conflict that should be about social policy and quality of governance turns into a contest to see who has the most guns. In the midst of the carnage, the people's lifes are ruined. All social reformers are lumped together with everyone else opposing the U.S. as "the enemy." Military solutions are applied to socio-economic problems. The tunnel gets longer and longer; the light at the end gets dimmer and dimmer.
Afghanistan/Pakistan very definitely risks being turned into a new Vietnam. The choice is ours.
What surprises me, is the fact that more people are not examining the Afghan situation when the Russians (Soviets) attempted their disastrous decade long foray into the region. At the time, Russia was a superpower, on par with the United States. Yet, years of warfare by a nuclear power against what were essentially tribes run by self-styled warlords, resulted in a humiliating withdrawal. The Asian subcontinent cannot be understood through the prism of good vs. bad, or through the monolithic lumping of the diverse groupings that exist there. More troops, more deals with the poppy latifundia, will not get us anywhere. Neither will an alliance with a government propped up by the US. We have to hit the ground, and begin to negotiate from the bottom up, and not from the top down. Honour and pride are significant issues for these people. Rather than send more munitions, we should send more personnel into the field, and begin anew to gain their trust.
Dhows on the Potomac! The legions of Waziristan marching toward Europe! Taliban takes aim at the American heartland, preparing to distribute massive quantities of burkas! Pentagon proposes to add two more sides to its five sided building!
I think the big difference between the Vietnam war and whats going on in Afghanistan/tribal areas is that in Vietnam we had strong, organized, and resourceful enemies with the clear objective of uniting the North with the South. In Afghanistan the enemy is a notion about the social and religious strictures that should govern the populace.
For eight years we have been killing the holders of this unpleasant (to us) notion - the Taliban. We are no doubt killing "enemy" combatants that were only eight or ten years old when we decided in 2001 to have our way with that poor country.
In Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan we are trying to assassinate these social and religious notions with smart drones, smart bombs, smart helicopter gunships etc. Meanwhile off stage are the warlords with their notions, the drug lords with theirs, and of course the central government with a implied mandate to support ours.
Maybe we are morphing into the worlds most heavily armed tribe. And we are driven, not by goals, but by our tribal customs and beliefs, and the certainty in our military prowess. When the tribe gets itchy it scratches - Grenada, Vietnam, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, why not, Iran.
An overlooked parallel between the Vietnam Era and now.
LBJ needed to pump the economy to appease the public into accepting his escalation of the war. Economic historians agree that it was this increase in combined social and war spending and overall finacial policy that led to the Stagflation of the 1970s, which was heightened by the peaking of US oil production in 1970. This in turn created a monetary crisis in the early 1970s that destroyed the Bretton Woods System and set us on the road to today's crisis. A simlar phenomena is happening today in response to a similar series of inputs. Putin said as much in his speeech at Davos. In both cases, bubble economies were established that failed causing crises; and in both cases the bubble was establihed for the purpose of distracting the citizenry from the true costs of the war being waged. Indeed, one could argue that a bubble economy was established to distract the populace from Reagan's, GHW Bush's and Clinton's wars too.
It's odd that many forget that Nixon helped start the US segment of the Vietnamese War of Liberation and ended it. Obama should tell Carter to go and fix the mess he started in 1979.
at the crossroads: 1965 vs 2009:
The lesson from the 1965 crossroads is the risk of Rahmbo politicking for midterm and second term votes with a militaristic approach abroad that doesn't deliver real security at home.
The parallels between LBJ in 1965 and Team Obama in 2009 are not based on a similarity between the wars, or the vastly different domestic challenges. It's the structure of the situation. The parallel is a popular and progressive administration that inherits a divisive mess at home, and a metastisizing war aboad.
Johnson was a domestic politican, determined not to be painted in the next election as weak on comunism. Obama's diplomatic team is deeply invested in an Israel-lobby narrrative on the need to push our missiles in the face of populations containing islamist militants.
A president advised by true believers in the worlds largest military is told that if the mission starts to go south, he can up the ante, and ever greater force can turn it around,
Post a Comment
<< Home