As of Thursday Feb 18, the number of US soldiers who have died for Operation Enduring Freedom, according to icasualties.org, was 999.
From Feb 13 to 18, 13 names were added to this list, including one man whose death was listed as non-hostile and in Kuwait, where he was "supporting" Op E F.
Laurence Vance has written recently about the 1000th soldier: Who will it be?
The thousandth death has already occurred according to NoDiff's link to wireupdate.com, above.
perhaps by Granny Badu Amah's AK..
Marjah And The Bigger Picture in Afghanistan
http://arobsview.blogspot.com/2010/02/marjah-and-bigger-picture-in.html
"Convincing the home audience that our forces are gaining the upper hand is intended to gain the political bargaining room necessary to negotiate with the Taliban, probably after a couple Marjahs more than a year down the road...It's a grim world in which the most powerful countries kill people to look tough...
The long war ends not in victory but in exhaustion and insolvency, when the US runs out of troops and out of money..
Food, medicine lacking in Afghan Assault Zone
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hdRFXBWr1xsBSPbInhjwL...
"People living on the front line of a major US-led offensive against Taliban militants in southern AFghanistan are trapped in their homes with little access to food and health care, rights groups say. 'We are seriously worried about the safety of civilians, especially in the Marjah area', said Ajmal Samadi, head of the independent group Afghan Rights Monitor.
'Conditions for the displaced are deteriorating and sufficient assistance is not getting through'. Nato commaders say it could be another 3 weeks before the area is under control as fighting between militants and the 15,000 strong force of US Marines, [Canada] NATO and Afghan troops is proving 'difficult'.
'People who are ill cannot get to hospitals, and others cannot bring them medicines. They cannot get food or even go outside. The forward planning we heard so much about did not include ensuring that the local population would be able to leave and live elsewhwere in decent conditions with access to food and medical care.'
Warlords' Tune: Sexual Slavery - Afghanistan's war on Children
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826024.htm?section=justin
Why we fight - our glorious Northern Alliance Warlord Allies' thing for little boys
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/22/afghanistan-ccivilians-killed.h... air strike kills 33 civilians[/size][/url]
- too bad that other Afghan thread was ruined by offensive posts. too bad someone talked about the 'capitalist counter-revolution in the Soviet Union' as a 'set-back for workers everywhere' without saying the assaults on tens of millions of farmers in the Soviet Union were a setback for workers everywhere. Why? Because sweeping generalizations and polarizations don't help anyone.
so i've got over it. sort of.
now. Afghanistan.
The recent 'rally in support of the military' in Trenton apparently garnered a thousand participants. This is understandable given the angst of the region. On the one hand we have tens of thousands of civilians in the region who didn't show up, because they're horrified about what is going on. On the other hand we soldiers and their families at the base and in nearby towns who are in need of some kind of healing.
These soldiers and their families are put into extreme physical and emotional trauma through the military, specifically through politicians' policy of occupation and domination of other states. It's not like their defending us in any way (isn't that theoretically their job???)
The bottom line is that NATO allies have a history of occupation and domination of states in the East, and in the South. It is that history which fed 911 and other retaliation.
NATO needs to back off, troops need to return home. don't feed the fire.
Thanks, in the future when talking about Afghanistan here are some key words you might want to include!
Illegal, illigitimate, phoney war, phoney baloney war, war crimes, war criminal, breaking something with the UN and like I see you have used, occupation.
(=
was thinking of Haiti too in the last post, but i suppose the occupation there is illegal too, having ousted the elected president, and considering historic war crimes.
i'm struggling here in a region where there are many employed in the military, who get sent off to various 'peacekeeping' occupations, which, like Haiti aren't a war in the same way Afghanistan is,though our troops have engaged and do engage in violence against the starving population trying to get food from destroyed buildings. trying to summarize to common elements, given diminishing time for me this season. may not be possible.
trying to summarize to common elements,...
Militarization of humanitarian aid.
I was reading a book last night that was set in post WW2 England, including flashbacks to WW1 and WW2.
While reading, a military transport flew overhead. For a moment I felt the fear of Afghan civilians.
This morning is a NATO 'apology' for the airstrike massacre at CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/100223/w022331A.html
notes:
- Apparently a goal of the NATO offensive southern operation is "to set up a local government" in the assaulted region.
NATO has no business setting up local or any other government in other's countries.
- Holbrooke whines, 'but they use human shields'.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
- Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the efforts against the Taliban were "messy" and "incredibly wasteful," as was war in general. "But that doesn't mean it's not worth the cost."
What is "it"? I feel like throwing up.
"These are split-second decisions that commanders in combat on the ground have to make," he added.
Then get troops out of combat and off the ground.
- NATO is saying its attacking the "insurgent stronghold of Marjah".
"Bashary said the airstrike hit three minibuses of civilians"
"27 civilians were killed, including four women and a child, and 12 other people were injured"
"On Feb. 14, two U.S. rockets slammed into a home outside Marjah, killing 12 people, including six children"
in September "near the northern town of Kunduz. Up to 142 people are believed to have died or been injured, German officials said. Afghan leaders estimated that 30 to 40 civilians were killed"
We've been hearing repeated strikes and apologies for years ! It's b___sh__.
War crimes.
- the story around 'failed to catch Osama bin Laden' sounds surreal.
Bombings and airstrikes kill women and children as men chase eachother around in retribution for a prize.
If NATO hadn't been conducting illegal occupations and war crimes throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, in support of its profiteers, we'd not get attacked in retribution.
911 was retribution.
Taking responsibility for our own crimes means withdrawing our own illegal occupations and paying reparations to civilians.
I was reading a book last night that was set in post WW2 England, including flashbacks to WW1 and WW2.
While reading, a military transport flew overhead. For a moment I felt the fear of Afghan civilians.
After reading a book you are comfortable saying you've felt the same fear Afghans [and as an extention, ww1 and 2 survirors] felt? Assuming in the context of bombing raids, missle strikes and the like?
You mentioned being from Trenton. Are you new to the area Thanks? Military flights are pretty common place from what I recall there, you must have been really taken by that book. I'm not being sarcastic as I have read some books that managed to paint a very vidid picture with words alone, I just wonder how close the fear you felt was to what Afghans and others have felt.
If NATO hadn't been conducting illegal occupations and war crimes throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, in support of its profiteers, we'd not get attacked in retribution.911 was retribution.
Taking responsibility for our own crimes means withdrawing our own illegal occupations and paying reparations to civilians.
a small correction : 911 was blowback - a term made more public by former CIA staffer Chalmers Johnson. Have a look:
Chalmers Johnson on 27 September, 2001 had "Blowback" published in The Nation.
Edited to add: a correction. Johnson wrote the piece on the 27th of September and had it published on October 15, 2001.
Chalmers Johnson:The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable...."Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy....
There are today, ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union, some 800 Defense Department installations located in other countries. The people of the United States make up perhaps 4 percent of the world's population but consume 40 percent of its resources. They exercise hegemony over the world directly through overwhelming military might and indirectly through secretive organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Though largely dominated by the US government, these are formally international organizations and therefore beyond Congressional oversight....
Johnson, who is intimately familiar with the workings of the monstrous US government, notes that due to the horrific influence of institutions like the CIA and Defence Department on public policy in that country ...
Two of the most influential federal institutions are not in Washington but on the south side of the Potomac River--the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must conclude that the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no longer bears much relationship to the government that actually rules from Washington. Until that is corrected, we should probably stop talking about "democracy" and "human rights."
But I just love the way he finishes:
Ten years ago, the other so-called superpower, the former Soviet Union, disappeared almost overnight because of internal contradictions, imperial overstretch and an inability to reform. We have always been richer, so it might well take longer for similar contradictions to afflict our society. But it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever.
oh yea.
knew i was going to get that q, on cf'ing to Afghans. obviously the feeling wasn't equivalent, how could it be. a fleeting sense, very distant from their reality. and no, not from Trenton. under a flight path though and some transports make such a racket flying low the windows shake. guess that's just pressure.
Taliban Commander: Afghan War Cannot Be Won (vid)
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/ta...
"Exclusive: a senior Taliban Commander claims NATO's strategy in Afghanistan is in tatters and tells families of British forces that this war cannot be won.."
US Military Decides that Afghan Lives are Worth $2500
http://america20xy.com/blog6/2010/02/20/us-military-decides-that-afghan-...
"According to the Washington Post, US Army units now fighting in the Helmand province have instituted a "compensation" system...
The death of a child or adult is worth $1,500 - $2,500, loss of limb or other injuries $600-$1,500, a damaged or destroyed vehicle $500-$2500 and damage to a farmer's field $50-$250.."
I was reading a book last night that was set in post WW2 England, including flashbacks to WW1 and WW2.
While reading, a military transport flew overhead. For a moment I felt the fear of Afghan civilians.
After reading a book you are comfortable saying you've felt the same fear Afghans [and as an extention, ww1 and 2 survirors] felt? Assuming in the context of bombing raids, missle strikes and the like?
I'm not being sarcastic as I have read some books that managed to paint a very vidid picture with words alone, I just wonder how close the fear you felt was to what Afghans and others have felt.
No, it's not sarcasm. It's cynicism.
What the hell does it matter? The ability to put oneself in other peoples' shoes and to imagine what their experiences might be like is called empathy.
Empathy is something the military tries to 'drum' out of its soldiers through indoc and training. If soldiers were to see things from their opponent's point of view, then (heaven forbid) soldiers might question the morality and legality of war.
Our military's and government's real bosses - the Pentagon and the arms industries - wouldn't be very happy (and in any case) are working very hard to prevent this from happening.
thanks
No, it's not sarcasm. It's cynicism.
What the hell does it matter? The ability to put oneself in other peoples' shoes and to imagine what their experiences might be like is called empathy.
Empathy is something the military tries to 'drum' out of its soldiers through indoc and training. If soldiers were to see things from their opponent's point of view, then (heaven forbid) soldiers might question the morality and legality of war.
Our military's and government's real bosses - the Pentagon and the arms industries - wouldn't be very happy (and in any case) are working very hard to prevent this from happening.
Don't worry it looks like Thanks knew what I was getting at.
I can finish reading black like me and get called a white boy by someone on the street. I wouldn't turn around and suggest I know what it's like to be a POC and deal with racisim. Thanks clairified his statement anyways.
Empathy is something the military tries to 'drum' out of its soldiers through indoc and training.
is it? Not in the last 10 years. Empathy empath empathy, it's force fed. Someone somewhere realised that the whole hearts and minds brainwashing hinges on empathy.
We're still working on hypno-sleep indoctination [Flash learning] but in the time being soldiers are sat down and taught about empathy. Especially so when deploying on a mission. Two weeks spend learning culture, laws, history, racial tensions, problems facing the populace, manners [Don't show them the bottom of your feet, don't speak to or look at their women] how to connect with people during conversations, how to conenct with them].
I'm sorry it may have been a while since you were in the service but empathy is pushed on soldiers today. You can give examples to the contrary, like Mr Williams murdering those women [Where is the empathy there!] but regardless, empathy [i]is[/i] a big part of training [At least for operations].
War sucks. Today my daughter found her toes, it's the highpoint of my week. I have nothing but sympathy for the men and women who will never get the chance to feel that because they died in the battle this post is talking about. On all three sides. I wish I had an answer on how to make people stop killing each other for land money and religion. What do you suggest to stop war?
Actually what you describe is NOT empathy training p4, it is sensitivity lessons, which can be just as surface of a knowlege, as any other book learned thing.....
And BTW, sympathy is NOT empathy either.
And you know, before last evening I would not have gotten what thanks meant, when she said that.
....however, last evening, I was coming up from downstairs, we have an outside entrance, and I heard the noise of a strange vehicle coming down the road, and then another turning onto the road and I looked up to see 2 military quad type vehicles coming down the road. I literally got a queasy sensation in my stomach watching them come towards me and go by. And had some thoughts flash through my mind, that I never ever would have thought I would think about living on Canadian soil.
You might be right, sensitivity sounds like it would fit too. We're versed on how important empathy is but maybe their using the word in the wrong context?
What kind of feeling did you get when the vehicles were driving by? Did you think the military was coming to get you?
You may have been hit with one of the lasers that disorientate you or make you sick/queezy too.
I wish I had an answer on how to make people stop killing each other for land money and religion. What do you suggest to stop war?
By fully understanding that you are the Universal Soldier and putting down your fucking guns.
It is about taking individual responsibility and refusing to be cannon fodder to kill and be killed. Listen to what Buffy has to say at the start of this clip she says it better than I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24LNQfIxbXI
[Edited to add: This video is not going to be removed at this point. Violence does happen, but should not be used by right wing mouthpieces to justify Canada's presence in Afghanistan. By posting just this link, without any other commentary, gloomhound has put himself on the radar as a very likely troll whose days on babble are likely numbered.- Maysie]
That is disgusting, please remove it from this board.
I wish I had an answer on how to make people stop killing each other for land money and religion. What do you suggest to stop war?
By fully understanding that you are the Universal Soldier and putting down your fucking guns.
It is about taking individual responsibility and refusing to be cannon fodder to kill and be killed. Listen to what Buffy has to say at the start of this clip she says it better than I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw00
Does your plan call for everyone in the world to put down their guns or just Canada? I'll bite, Canada withdraws from Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers refuse to be cannon fodder and quit all together. Does that include the navy too? Does the navy stop patroling the borders? Screw policing the 200 mile fishing bountry. Other countries can have at as much fish as they want [Who would stop them?]. Somalie pirates? None of our concern it's the price of business. Do we bother patroling the arctic?
As the armies the world over start disarming do we concern ourselves with the groups that say fuck you I'm keeping my guns?
I would love to see the world disarmed [Except for a small force to deal with aliens but that is another thread..] What is the first step? If someone doesn't want to drop their guns what do we do?
That is disgusting, please remove it from this board.
You're going to see more of it when NATO withdraws from Afghanistan.
You want to talk about NATO fucking up and killing innocent people with bombs and shit you need to accept that this stuff goes on too. NATO withdrawing isn't going to make it go away, I bet it makes it worse.
PraetorianFour, babble is not a place to go on and on about how war is justified. If you continue to present this view, which we are all vastly familiar with, you may be required to leave. There are many sites and comments sections online that would welcome your views and opinions.
Thank you, Frmrsldr.
You're going to see more of it when NATO withdraws from Afghanistan.
They keep saying that as if it justifies the occupation. It doesn't. It's none of our business how Afghanistan deals with collaborators and traitors.
I seem to remember that before October 2001, Afghanistan was quite stable. Sure, it had fundamentalist government, but the massive bloodshed started with the B-52s and the Northern Alliance (also fundamentalist mafia fuckwits, but the price was right).
Somalia stablized after the enlightened white folks left. It soon had a Islamic government, which meant that the west couldn't leave it alone. NATO and the US would rather see civil war, genocide, refugees, starvation, and mass rape than allow a stable Islamic government take hold. Especially if there's oil in them thar hills. So, it was destroyed...again.
What have we learned? We know that when the occupier leaves, a short period of rekoning will occur when the people deal with the quislings. Then, things settle down. Then, if the new government doesn't play ball with the corporate west, they will be destroyed again, in order to "restore order". Lest you think that it has anything to do with religion, remember what happened to Serbia.
Top UN Official Calls For Talks with Mullah Omar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7293709/Top-U...
"...Kai Eide said plans to use financial incentives to persuade militants to abandon their war would not succeed without negotiations with their leaders to find a settlement to the 8 year war.."
Karzai Removes Foreign Observers From Voting Fraud Watchdog
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0224/1224265091621.html
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai has signed into law changes that remove foreign observers from the electoral watchdog charged with reviewing voting fraud, his office said yesterday.."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24LNQfIxbXI
[Edited to add: This video is not going to be removed at this point. Violence does happen, but should not be used by right wing mouthpieces to justify Canada's presence in Afghanistan. By posting just this link, without any other commentary, gloomhound has put himself on the radar as a very likely troll whose days on babble are likely numbered.- Maysie]
That's a RAWA video, kidnapped by some right-wing appropriator.
There isn't a date on it, but it must be one of the videos RAWA women very bravely made during the years of Taliban rule in the 1990s, which were unquestionably brutal for many Afghans. For a time, almost no one but RAWA was able to get information out of the country -- it was just too dangerous, even for experienced reporters. It was "too dangerous" for RAWA too, except they were there and they committed themselves to testify to their own reality, whatever it cost them.
You would have thought, after the invasion and occupation began, so often dressed up by Western politicians as a campaign to liberate Afghan women and girls, that the West would have turned to RAWA as experts on what would actually help Afghans in general and women in particular. I have never heard a single Western politician mention turning to them, learning from them, following them, which is absolutely the only way that Westerners can ever "help" a people trying to liberate themselves. All we've seen is Laura Bush and Cherie Blair maundering on about how much they care for Afghan women -- feh.
RAWA, btw, are opposed to the occupation. The dork who put that video up probably doesn't know that. We need the video, but we don't need his ignorant crocodile tears.
No, it's not sarcasm. It's cynicism.
What the hell does it matter? The ability to put oneself in other peoples' shoes and to imagine what their experiences might be like is called empathy.
Empathy is something the military tries to 'drum' out of its soldiers through indoc and training. If soldiers were to see things from their opponent's point of view, then (heaven forbid) soldiers might question the morality and legality of war.
Our military's and government's real bosses - the Pentagon and the arms industries - wouldn't be very happy (and in any case) are working very hard to prevent this from happening.
Don't worry it looks like Thanks knew what I was getting at.
I can finish reading black like me and get called a white boy by someone on the street. I wouldn't turn around and suggest I know what it's like to be a POC and deal with racisim. Thanks clairified his statement anyways.
Empathy is something the military tries to 'drum' out of its soldiers through indoc and training.
is it? Not in the last 10 years. Empathy empath empathy, it's force fed. Someone somewhere realised that the whole hearts and minds brainwashing hinges on empathy.
We're still working on hypno-sleep indoctination [Flash learning] but in the time being soldiers are sat down and taught about empathy. Especially so when deploying on a mission. Two weeks spend learning culture, laws, history, racial tensions, problems facing the populace, manners [Don't show them the bottom of your feet, don't speak to or look at their women] how to connect with people during conversations, how to conenct with them].
I'm sorry it may have been a while since you were in the service but empathy is pushed on soldiers today. You can give examples to the contrary, like Mr Williams murdering those women [Where is the empathy there!] but regardless, empathy [i]is[/i] a big part of training [At least for operations].
War sucks. Today my daughter found her toes, it's the highpoint of my week. I have nothing but sympathy for the men and women who will never get the chance to feel that because they died in the battle this post is talking about. On all three sides. I wish I had an answer on how to make people stop killing each other for land money and religion. What do you suggest to stop war?
"The Taliban are murderous, detestable scumbags" - Former Gen. Rick Hillier.
"Often we caught the terrorists in the act of killing our sons and daughters." - Former Gen. Rick Hillier statement on Wednesday November 25 2009.
The above indoc you talk about is not empathy. We are uninvited and unwanted guests in Afghanistan. "Winning the hearts and minds" is our attempt to continue murdering and maiming innocent Afghan men, women and children and destroying their homes and country and to have them love us for doing this. It's a dysmal (and unsuccessful) attempt to reduce our inevitable "elephant in the china shop' impact.
You want to end the war?
Then as soldiers, if enough of us say, "Fuck you!" to the government, the military, to the war and to possible Court Martials, I think that would disturb some serious "shit".
What's the military going to do if at least a few hundred soldiers said, "Hell no, we won't go", and became publicly critical of the war? Faced with such a rebellion, the military won't be able to Court Martial all these soldiers and the media won't be able to ignore such a major event, damn straight.
If soldiers are silent or vocally gung ho, "rah rah" about the war, then the public will not be awakened from their mesmerized slumber in believing that soldiers enjoy war, murdering, maiming and destroying.
If enough soldiers speak out against the war, then the public will realize that there must be something wrong. Since most people subscribe to "We support the troops", they will rally to our cause.
This will reverse that war criminal Rick Hillier's obscene pro war pornography PR campaign from which we are still suffering the ill effects.
There isn't a date on it, but it must be one of the videos RAWA women very bravely made during the years of Taliban rule in the 1990s, which were unquestionably brutal for many Afghans. For a time, almost no one but RAWA was able to get information out of the country -- it was just too dangerous, even for experienced reporters. It was "too dangerous" for RAWA too, except they were there and they committed themselves to testify to their own reality, whatever it cost them.
You would have thought, after the invasion and occupation began, so often dressed up by Western politicians as a campaign to liberate Afghan women and girls, that the West would have turned to RAWA as experts on what would actually help Afghans in general and women in particular. I have never heard a single Western politician mention turning to them, learning from them, following them, which is absolutely the only way that Westerners can ever "help" a people trying to liberate themselves. All we've seen is Laura Bush and Cherie Blair maundering on about how much they care for Afghan women -- feh.
RAWA, btw, are opposed to the occupation.
The Northern Alliance warlords are just as bad as the Taliban. In October 2001, we supported the Northern Alliance by using them as our proxy soldiers. Since then we have rewarded them by making sure that they became MPs in the Karzai government, our "friendly" puppet government we are propping up.
It's no accident that Karzai signed off on the mysoginist Sharia Family (often called "Rape") Law. He needs the support of the Northern Alliance warlords to remain in power.
As mentioned above, now the U.S., U.K. and Karzai governments are reaching out for Taliban commanders to join the Karzai government.
What are our troops dying in Afghanistan for again? Who are our "enemy"?
Perhaps we should ask our real bosses, the Pentagon and the arms industries.
Today my daughter found her toes, it's the highpoint of my week. I have nothing but sympathy for the men and women who will never get the chance to feel that because they died in the battle this post is talking about.
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/02/17/bodies-of-12-civilians-killed...
Take that sentiment the next logical step forward: What about the Afghan parents who will never experience the joys and bliss of seeing their children grow up because we have murdered them in our illegal aggressive war of choice? War sucks for EVERYONE.
If you are still wondering, such thinking/reasoning, my friend, is what empathy's all about.
PraetorianFour, babble is not a place to go on and on about how war is justified. If you continue to present this view, which we are all vastly familiar with, you may be required to leave. There are many sites and comments sections online that would welcome your views and opinions.
Thank you, Frmrsldr.
In the famous words of Admiral ackbar, it's a trap!
I didn't think I was going on and on about how war is justified. Having seen war first hand I can atest to how horrible it is. I'm all for world peace. War isn't justified. Disban militias and armies and live in a violence free world. How to get there is the question.
It's two boxers fighting in a ring. One says hey this is stupid I'm not fighting anymore and drops his or her gloves and extends a hand. The other boxer will either shake hands or level the first boxer with a right hook.
I stand by my question, how do we reach that stage? How do we protect ourselves from someone taking advantage of us? I've had my warning so I'll respond to Jingles post to be polite and then withdraw from the thread to avoid bannage. [I'm not pushing my views on anyone, I just disagree but if that is considered contrary to the rules and guidelines here I respect that].
I'm going to send you a Pm Maysie.
They keep saying that as if it justifies the occupation. It doesn't. It's none of our business how Afghanistan deals with collaborators and traitors.
I don't think that justifies the continued occupation at all. We didn't go there to "save the women", that is just a convienient circumstance that some try and use. My stance is to simply acknoledge that there is a very good chance abuses such as what we seen in the video posted above will continue. Not much we can do about it unless we get voted into the job of world police.
What you said next bothers me. How Afghanistan deals with Traitors and Collaborators? I'm sorry that sounds totally heartless. I don't want to evoke Godwins law here but were Jews who were cohearsed to work with the nazi's traitors and collaborators? How about German citizens who were forced to or chose to work with the allies as they stormed across germany? traitors and collaborators?
Afghan citizens who choose to work with either NATO OR the Taliban are not traitors or collaborators. That's a brutal thing to say. They are human beings who are trying to meek out an existance and try to make the best out of a very shitty situation. I want to see us out of Afghanistan for a varity of reasons. At the same time I'm not comfortable turning to all the Afghans who worked with NATO trying to put food on their frigging table and saying "good luck it's none of my busniess what happens to you now CIAO."
What you are suggesting is what the US did in the first Gulf war. Get the Kurds to help them then pull out and say you're on your own good luck. Not cool.
If you or Frmslder have any further points you would like to debate with me I would be happy to do so but first you need to get me permission from the moderators to share my own personal views without the threat of being banned. Otherwise it's not fair to try and engage me in a debate about this with an axe hanging over my head.
I would like to put in a few empathetic words of agreement with PraetorianFour's post @ 82.
It's definitely a mistake to romanticize what will happen -- and I mean will -- in Afghanistan when the West inevitably flees. During the 1990s, the left were ahead of almost everybody else in awareness of how bad things were under the original Taliban regime, and it's wrong to lie about that now. It's another betrayal of organizations like RAWA, who opposed the Taliban then and oppose the occupation now. People have to be able to face these complexities.
It will be worse, much worse, than, eg, Viet Nam, where many people who had worked with the U.S. in good faith were abandoned to face labelling as collaborators, and yet ended up being treated relatively well. P4's metaphor of what happened in formerly occupied Europe and in Germany at the end of WWII is much more apt. You didn't have to be a "collaborator" to suffer horribly, maybe die, during that collapse. If you were a youngish woman in Berlin, you were almost automatically a sex slave for a time, and that's just the way it was.
I don't have much faith that the West is yet capable of developing foreign policy whereby we actually could "help" countries whose cultures have been twisted and distorted by decades and more of imperial meddling. Someone above wrote about Somalia and what the CIA have done there -- bang on. American meddling destroyed a viable government and just invited al-Qaeda in -- the International Crisis Group said so even before it happened.
But I agree with P4 that there is something in isolationism that bothers the conscience. To me, the solution is for progressives here to be in touch with progressives there and to ask them how we can help, if at all.
Concerning Afghanistan:
"All is fair in ... and war". When insurgents capture provincial governors or ANP who have been stealing from merchants and poor people, they often put them on trial and if, according to their law, they are guilty of a crime punishable by death, they are executed. [In order to understand the video, we need to understand the full context of what is being depicted.]
When the ANA or we capture insurgents and hand them over to the Afghan authorities and they are tortured, abused, murdered and/or die (at their or our hands) as a result of mistreatment, then there isn't any difference, is there?
Trying to make the case that Holland's and Canada's military disengagement from Afghanistan is the first domino to fall that will end in (some, all?) countries complete disarmament is a strawman argument.
My personal stance is that upheld by international law: The only legal/"just" war is one of self defense. Wars of aggression where we militarily attack/invade/occupy/wage war in (Afghanistan and Iraq) are illegal.
We have no right to invade and wage war in Afghanistan. The Afghans have every right to defend themselves against our illegal, unjust and immoral war of aggression.
Do we have a right to defend our territorial waters? Do we have a right to self defense if Canada is militarily invaded and occupied?
Absolutely.
If we accept former Gen. Rick Hillier's argument that the Afghan insurgents are terrorists, then we are logically forced to conclude that our forefathers who defended Canada in the War of 1812, were terrorists.
I would like to put in a few empathetic words of agreement with PraetorianFour's post @ 82.
It's definitely a mistake to romanticize what will happen -- and I mean will -- in Afghanistan when the West inevitably flees. During the 1990s, the left were ahead of almost everybody else in awareness of how bad things were under the original Taliban regime, and it's wrong to lie about that now. It's another betrayal of organizations like RAWA, who opposed the Taliban then and oppose the occupation now. People have to be able to face these complexities.
It will be worse, much worse, than, eg, Viet Nam, where many people who had worked with the U.S. in good faith were abandoned to face labelling as collaborators, and yet ended up being treated relatively well. P4's metaphor of what happened in formerly occupied Europe and in Germany at the end of WWII is much more apt. You didn't have to be a "collaborator" to suffer horribly, maybe die, during that collapse. If you were a youngish woman in Berlin, you were almost automatically a sex slave for a time, and that's just the way it was.
I don't have much faith that the West is yet capable of developing foreign policy whereby we actually could "help" countries whose cultures have been twisted and distorted by decades and more of imperial meddling. Someone above wrote about Somalia and what the CIA have done there -- bang on. American meddling destroyed a viable government and just invited al-Qaeda in -- the International Crisis Group said so even before it happened.
But I agree with P4 that there is something in isolationism that bothers the conscience. To me, the solution is for progressives here to be in touch with progressives there and to ask them how we can help, if at all.
According to international law, wars of aggression are illegal. Regime change is illegal. According to international law, one cannot engage in regime change even if you do not like them or what they do. The militarization of human rights is not legally or morally kosher. Human rights do not come out of the barrel of a gun.
These current and potential wars exist because the U.S.A. has acted unilaterally and then (tried to) drag(ged) other countries into its crimes.
Regime change? If we accecpt that it's legal, then what about Colombia, Zimbabwe, Burma (Myanmar), North Korea?
Who are we to pick and choose who our next regime change victims are? What moral considerations do we use to decide?
[In order to understand the video, we need to understand the full context of what is being depicted.]
Frmrsldr, I will respond separately to your other points. But this simply has to be refuted, right away.
You could not be more wrong. I repeat: that is a RAWA video. That woman was executed some time in the 1990s by the Taliban, as many were, in that stadium, for ... what? They didn't need much reason. Maybe she was running secret classes somewhere. Maybe she was prostituting herself because she was destitute and had children to feed. Maybe she lipped off one of the morality police. Who knows, from that vid?
But you're putting that execution in the context of effective political actors, and that is absolutely wrong.
I agree with you: we don't know how to address what we're seeing there, but if you think that anything explains that woman's execution apart from universal misogyny given a further twist in a culture undeniably distorted by imperial exploitation, then you just don't know enough of the history.
[In order to understand the video, we need to understand the full context of what is being depicted.]
Frmrsldr, I will respond separately to your other points. But this simply has to be refuted, right away.
You could not be more wrong. I repeat: that is a RAWA video. That woman was executed some time in the 1990s by the Taliban, as many were, in that stadium, for ... what? They didn't need much reason. Maybe she was running secret classes somewhere. Maybe she was prostituting herself because she was destitute and had children to feed. Maybe she lipped off one of the morality police. Who knows, from that vid?
Oh, it's that video. I didn't see it. I was going by the discussion which was about the current treatment of prisoners by the insurgents.
These last posts are making logical connections to events that have no logical connections.
Something we must not lose sight of is that the Pentagon and the CIA, Pakistan's ISI, Saudi Arabia and Iran were behind the creation of the mujahideen who fought Russian troops in the 1980s. These same mujahideen and their offspring are fighting our troops today.
The Pentagon and the U.S. State Department did not stop with the military disengagement of Russia from Afghanistan. From 1990 to 1996, there was a civil war where Tajik, Uzbek and Pashtun warlords in their efforts to capture cities like Kabul and Kandahar City had an utter disregard for the lives of civilians and thus are responible for human rights atrocities and war crimes.
In fact, things were so bad that this brought the Taliban into being to end the war crimes, bring law and order and bring peace, first to Kandahar (provinvce) and then Afghanistan(!) During the civil war, the Pentagon and State Department continued to arm and support the anti government warlords described above.
During the time of Taliban rule (1996-2001) while some Western citizens (yourself included, possibly) and groups may have been denouncing the conduct of the Taliban government, the Clinton and W. Bush administrations were supporting the Taliban. Until late August, 2001 when it became apparent to the Bush administration that the Taliban government was holding out on the proposed Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan (TAP) oil pipeline project.
Fast forward to now, as I said in an earlier post, the U.S., U.K. and Karzai governments are now reaching out and offering insurgent commanders posts in the Karzai government.
What is war?
War is killing, injuring and destroying.
How does murdering and maiming people help them? This is the contradiction and lie that we need to become aware of.
War is a crime that contains all other crimes within it.
We need to make it clear to our stoogeocratic government and their bosses - the Pentagon and the arms industries, that we understand this.
Frmrsldr, I assure you, I know the history of Afghanistan in some detail, and have been paying close attention to every development there since 1979. I know, for instance, that your history of the so-called Northern Alliance is an oversimplification, although it's a useful generalization since 2001.
The irony is that I am usually on the other side of this argument (when people insist on oversimplifying the "argument" to two sides). You are never going to stop feminists from caring a lot about what is happening to women in countries like Afghanistan, nor should you or I. You're never going to stop LGBT people from caring a lot about what happens in countries where either superstition or imperial distortions lead to persecution, nor should you or I.
We can help people to care intelligently, though. I'm with you when you say that we don't liberate people by bombing them. Couldn't agree more. "We" never actually liberate anyone. People liberate themselves, in their own ways, although they can always use support.
Try saying that, though, out of the blue to, eg, the regulars on an American feminist blog. On the one hand, the fury you'll meet right away is partly uninformed, partly cultural thoughtlessness from people who can't see their own role in imperialism. On the other, it's something to be taken seriously, and that's what you've just run into from me. As a feminist, I don't think it's good enough to say "Oh, well, they'll sort it out themselves in their own way, and it's just better we stop bombing them." Really? After Afghanistan has been raped by the West for two centuries, we just leave a distorted culture to its own devices and feel no responsibility to think of better ways?
As I said above, I don't think our governments, creatures of the MIC, are capable of thinking of the better ways, but I sure don't clean my conscience easily after I've seen what enlightened Afghan women are willing to risk.
Skdadl, I absolutely agree with you that it is wrong - maybe even immoral and all that - to predict that Afghans will live a blessed life once left alone. However, our principal and urgent task is to leave them alone. To criticize them while invading, occupying, and killing, is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
As for RAWA, I admire their heroic efforts, but I've often wondered what their attitude is toward the insurgency.
I am of two minds about this "leave them alone" idea.
On the one hand the rich imperialist countries ought to leave them alone. We do not represent the will of this planet and are hardly peace-keepers.
That said, local interference when something is very, very wrong is not a bad idea in principle either. The problem is there is no authority credible enough to decide. If in fact we had a world authority truly representative of the people of the planet then I think interference in some places might not be so bad. Coming from rich countries who have an interest and history of exploitation that is another matter.
Since we have never seen such an authority, I cannot say for sure if ever the world could see something with the ability to intervene and without the purpose of exploitation, respectful of local culture, and truly representing human values rather than those of a dominant society. I cannot describe what an organization like that might look like, even as I wish for it. I would imagine it would be based on something like a general assembly of nations of equal status who are neither imperial or exploited. Such an organization may someday in the future be capable of policing the world. In the meantime we can only trust the local people because, like it or not, they are the only ones with the credibility there. And we can only hope they get it right. We can also wish upon ourselves the ability to recognize when they have it right even as we cannot give ourselves the right to make such a judgment.
For those who don't know them, [URL=http://www.rawa.org/index.php]RAWA.[/URL]
As they say right up there on the front page:
Neither the U.S. nor Jehadies and Taliban / Long live the struggle of independent and democratic forces of Afghanistan!
I think that North Americans, however left and enlightened, have a hard time accepting that in every other culture in the world, however oppressed the people have been from many sides, there are people who are at least as enlightened as we are and without question smarter than we are about their own cultures.
Of course I agree that military operations should have ended yesterday, should never have happened in the first place, and I'm in the archives here arguing that.
"Very, very wrong." Whose judgment is that, Sean? Which is "more very wrong" - Taliban rule, or Canadian "help"? Let me know what part Canadians have in making that decision.
In the 1970s, Afghanistan was largely a democratic and egalitarian society. There were far more women MPs in government than there are now. Women were attending university in Kabul wearing mini skirts and taking courses in engineering. In the cities, Afghanistan was a secular society. In the country, the people practised moderate Islamic beliefs.
By the 1980s, all that had changed. Afghanistan looked then the way it does today. WE (the Pentagon, U.S. State Departments and administrations, etc.) are responsible for this change for the worse.
It would be better if we had not meddled with Afghan internal affairs to begin with. There are no legal or moral grounds, then as well as now, for our (military) presence in Afghanistan.
If you are well versed in the history of Afghanistan, then you know that this current war is not about equality for Afghan women, education for Afghan children and human rights and democracy for all Afghans, it never was.
The militarization of human rights is the bs our sock puppet governments use to sell the war. A war that they have ulterior motives for prosecuting.
Foreigners cannot liberate Afghans. If Afghans wish to be free, then they will liberate themselves. They have liberated themselves from the Russians, the British and they will liberate themselves from the current U.S./NATO/International Security Armed Forces as well.
As you well know, this is the position of Malalai Joya and many women of RAWA. I wholeheartily support this position.
Ask yourself this question: Is not any argument that makes a case for the continued presence of Westerners in Afghanistan not perhaps a bit imperialistic, chauvenistic, paternalistic and condescending?
I mean, "mighty whitey" Westerners know what's best for Afghans, even better than the Afghans themselves?
Yeah right.
We're guilty of having screwed up in Afghanistan big time alright. The solution is not to do more of what we've already done. The answer is to stop screwing things up by getting the hell outta there NOW!
Actually, if you were a woman in Kabul in the 1980s, under the Soviet occupation, you had a fairly good life, and if the Soviets decided you had promise, you also got a free education in disciplines like medicine and science back in Russia.
Mind you, if you lived almost anywhere else in the country, you were dodging missiles much of the time, and you were coming under the sway of local warlords who won people's allegiance just because they needed protection.
Anyway, I've gotta quit now before I lose my temper. There are better ways, and while ending the U.S. assault is undoubtedly necessary, that's not half good enough, given what we have done already.
If in fact we had a world authority truly representative of the people of the planet then I think interference in some places might not be so bad. Coming from rich countries who have an interest and history of exploitation that is another matter.
Since we have never seen such an authority, I cannot say for sure if ever the world could see something with the ability to intervene and without the purpose of exploitation, respectful of local culture, and truly representing human values rather than those of a dominant society. I cannot describe what an organization like that might look like, even as I wish for it. I would imagine it would be based on something like a general assembly of nations of equal status who are neither imperial or exploited. Such an organization may someday in the future be capable of policing the world.
We have a choice: Either the U.N. or NATO.
NATO is a tool of the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department and White House. NATO has the ability to go wherever a conflict catches its attention, choose sides and then wage a war of aggression against those it deems the "bad guys". This is called "peacemaking", a euphamism for war.
The U.N. sends peacekeeping soldiers to a country, only if asked first by that country. The U.N. keeps warring factions apart and encourages and assists them in negotiating peaceful settlements. The U.N. (unlike the U.S.A. and NATO) abides by international laws, treaties, protocols, etc., like the Nuremberg Trials, Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter that stipulate wars of aggression (and regime change) are illegal.
Skdadl, I haven't seen RAWA solicit our help in ridding Afghanistan of the Jehadi and the Taliban. Nor would I trust such an appeal if it came. It's their job, and they know it. Our job is to get the hell out - and we know it.
There are better ways, and while ending the U.S. assault is undoubtedly necessary, that's not half good enough, given what we have done already.
Whatever "good" "WE" may do in future in Afghanistan (in my opinion we had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan starting in 1978 and we still don't have that right today), ending the war NOW is categorically a necessary precondition.
You cannot "build" anything while waging war (ie., destroying).
"Very, very wrong." Whose judgment is that, Sean? Which is "more very wrong" - Taliban rule, or Canadian "help"? Let me know what part Canadians have in making that decision.
If you read the rest of my post you will see I answered that.
I said at present there is no international authority that can make that judgement--
I think I made it clear who could have a role and that as a nation Canada can't
NATO or UN -- that's the choice?
NATO has no business there.
The UN security council has no business there.
The UN General Assembly does have some authority but let's not pretend that this organization is representative of the people of the world- it is representative of a power structure that is imperialist.
I find the situation sad because I do think that at times intervention may be needed for reasons others have explained the problem is there is no credible authority at present. That said given a UN or NATO choice obviously the UN would be the only one I could even start to justify as problematic as that is.
