I support escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Bread and Circus]

However the goals have to be modest. We cannot be there to "control" or pacify the region but rather to destabilize our adversaries there. Additionally, if we are going to have some troops there, it is not ethical or moral to have them in country without enough support to ensure their relative safety or enough means to let them complete the mission they are sent there to do. I don't hold the view that if we just left Afghanistan and Pakistan to their own devices that it would defuse enough anti-American sentiment that their cause would go away. On the other hand, I think having a standing force there is legitimate. We never really finished what we started after 9/11 because we literally dropped the ball when we went to Iraq. Just because we made that blunder doesn't mean the original problem went away.

Honestly, I hate Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I hate everything they stand for. Just because they are Bush's enemy does not make them the friend of liberals, anywhere. If you think George Bush violated your human rights, living under the Taliban would be like that to an other wordly extreme. I couldn't imagine for a second being a father in that country of my two beautiful daughters knowing they would be deprived of dignity, self-worth, and an education. If anything, Al Qaeda is organized crime fueled by a sick interpretation of religion. It is not in anyone's interest, anywhere, to allow them to foment their oppression through brutality and fear. They have been allowed to re-organize and re-empower themself in Pakistan because of Bush's policies. This is not acceptable.

But further drawing down in Afghanistan will further allow the Taliban to consolidate their position in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do we really want a Taliban run nuclear Pakistan? We don't have to kill all the Taliban, nor do we have to "rebuild" Afghanistan or democratize it. We just need to keep constant pressure on them so that they can't have open and free reign of the villages and cities there in order to subjugate and rule by terror meanwhile gathering resources to strike again.

I'm not a MIHOP but I'd buy LIHOP if truth be told. I'm that distrusting and suspicious of the Bush/Cheney regime. However, I do think Al Qaeda had a hand to play and I think its leaders are just as blood thirsty and destructive as groups like the Khmer Rouge. Their intentions aren't just for self-rule and peace but rather a large scale showdown between their extreme version of Islam vs. moderate forces in the middle east. If anything the US is just a tool and a foil to this end.

We will have to engage Al Qaeda somewhere in the world. To me, Afghanistan is the only logical choice right now. We can't just ignore the issue away.

I know this doesn't sound very liberal or progressive. However, I just don't have a lot of compassion for Al Qaeda, their vision for the world, or their means of political and social expression. I do however have a lot of compassion for the innocents caught in the crossfire. Whatever methods we employ, the least amount of collateral damage is imperitave even though it is unavoidable.

Nonetheless, if we suffer another major attack under Obama, liberalism will be the biggest casualty of all. We are at the precipice of climate change cataclysm as well as a peak oil calamity of epic proportions. With a successful Obama Presidency, there's a possibility we might head into the next 30 years with policies in place that will be better off for the world when we face those two monumental transformations. On the other hand, an unsuccessful Obama Presidency means we will likely embrace much of the failed policies of the oil-backed right wing and head us back to pseudo-fascism. That's the last place in the world we want to head when they finally admit, "hey folks, we are half through our oil and we can no longer support the world's population, we've kind of been lying all along...get ready for mass starvation and large scale open war". Let there be no doubt, a large scale terrorist attack on our country, if following a large reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, will raise the odds of one term for Obama and then you will be hailing to President Palin or some other representative of the American-Taliban. In other words, if you are gay, a minority, or female, pray that we kill Osama Bin Laden and skullfuck the Taliban.

Obama is not dumb. In fact, he's really kind of smart. And strategic. And steady. And shrewd. And insightful. He wasn't supposed to be President, and yet there he is. To a certain extent, you have to lend him some trust. I said lend, not give. He deserves the loan. But if over time, he does not live up to the bargain, I think everyone is well within their rights to withdraw that trust. But until then, a good leader needs good followers. There's no reason to go this far only to turn our backs on him.

People have every right to be skeptical. We've been lead down the primrose path ever since Carter was shot down while warning us that the end of the age-of-oil was within our grandchildren's lifetimes. You see, the US had it's experience of domestic peak oil in the 1970's. It was at that time we doubled-down on the doctrine which meant more war for more oil. This has obviously been our modus operandi ever since, peaking with the pure fantasy also known as Bush foreign policy. But I believe Obama is a real change. Even though he means to extend some of the mechanics of what was in place from Bush, doesn't mean his intentions, goals, or endpoints are the same.

As for Afghanistan itself, the place where "empires go to die". I'm sorry but the Taliban and Al Qaeda there are just people. They don't have adamantium skeletons or keep kryptonite in their pockets. The mountains may be steep and the cultural traditions may be prohibitive to any sort of colonial conquest but as long as conquest is not our aim, our hurdles for success won't be nearly as high as they were in Iraq.

The fantasy of Iraq, as it evolved, was to create a permanent safe military and oil producing haven for the United States in order to stave off the effects of peak oil as well as conquer the middle east. The scope of what the neoconservatives originally wanted to do was on an imperial scale hearkening back to Stalin and Hitler. That's not what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. This will make the job immensely easier. It's one thing to try to break and rebuild a whole country, it's another to hunt down and kill a bunch of criminals. As long as we give more money and security to the people of the region than the Taliban does, the Taliban will have a much harder time than we will. Clean water, electricity, food, and safety will be our keys to success. Although the Taliban and Al Qaeda have redundant resources throughout the Arab world, we can dry some of that up with good will made elsewhere (hopefully in places like Palestine). Also, we will always have deeper pockets, better weapons, and better trained armed forces.

So, I have to conclude this with saying I'm glad we are drawing down in Iraq and satisfied with an end goal of honoring the SOFA by 2011. I'm also satisfied that we are going to apply more pressure directly to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan for the reasons I listed above. Expect us to be there throughout Obama's first term, and possibly his second. This has been a generational struggle and will continue to be so until they smolder out. The latter will only happen when we are a fair broker of peace between Palestine and Israel, have more honest intentions in Iraq (which we are now seeing), and when the whole region is less vital to the world's energy supply (hence, another reason to go Green).

[closeupready]

1. And if Pakistan and Afghanistan decide they want us out?

And they turn to Iran for support? Do you really want to go down this road?

May sound good in theory, but you are opening up the biggest fucking can of worms.

[leftstreet]

2. This is why the allies should have kept bombing Germany after WWII

Root out those Nazis leaders.

Oh:
:sarcasm:

[Bread and Circus]

3. If you think think that a failed and defeated post-Hitler Germany is what we are facing now...

[leftstreet]

4. No offense, but you do understand the US contributes to ME instability?

The Taliban, Al CIAda, religious fundamentalism, etc

And yes, thanks to imperialist power interventions, Pakistan and Afghanistan are essentially 'failed' regions.

:shrug:

[Bread and Circus]

6. Yes, what we do and don't do has a huge role in what happens over there. Just withdrawing

will not stabilize it.

[closeupready]

5. And further, are you going to sign up to serve?

Would like to know your answer to that one.

[closeupready]

24. If your lack of response means, 'no, I am not signing up, that's what our mercenaries are for,'

then, lol, what was it people said about Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and George Bush? Easy to drop bombs on civilians and say, 'oops, so sorry' when you have no skin in the game.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Are you going to write a check for $30,000 to the government to pay for your share of the stimulus?

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

7. I hope you have a very think flame resistant suit to put on.

I agree with you. It's not a popular position here. I would like to see our troops come home now. I have marched against the war in Iraq, but on Afghanistan, AQ and the Taliban, we are in agreement.

[Bread and Circus]

8. I'm kind of surprised the lack of response. I thought I'd get a lot more negative feedback.

I put the original post out there as a way to organize my thoughts on the matter. I have a lot of reservations about what I put up but I believe the essence of what I'm saying is correct. I think we should have an open discussion about it.

I'm very passivist by nature, but I don't think passivity is always the best course.

[Cha]

13. Well, to me..

Obama explained the reason for doing it pretty well and they're going to try and engage them and use all the diplomacy they can.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

9. I agree as well...

Afghanistan in particular has all of the signs of becoming a quagmire. I acknowledge as well that we had better be extremely careful with what we're doing in Pakistan. I'm nervous that it'll blow up in our face. I also think that we can't let AQ, or the taliban off the hook. If nothing else, we need to be applying pressure on them where it hurts. Obama has got his work cut out for him, but by and large I'm in agreement with his focus here.

[eridani]

10. What you are doing is advocating on behalf of bin Laden and Al Qaeda

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,"

That's their goal. Why do you want to help them achieve it?

9/11 was preventable. Therefore any attack on a similar scale is also preventable. You think Obama would have tolerates FBI higher-ups refusing to pass on Colleen Rowley's FISA request? You think he would have ignored a memo headed "Bin Laden determined to attack within the US"? You think he would have ignored reports of foreign students at US air schools who wanted to learn to fly but not land? Would he have tolerated the expedited visa process for Saudis that got the hijackers into the country? I don't.

Given that 9/11 was not planned in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but in Hamburg, London and the US, military attacks on the former are utterly useless. We got warnings from intelligence agencies all over the world. If something is being planned in a similarly visible manner, we should be able to deal with it.

[Bread and Circus]

12. So, are you advocating a "detection and prevention only" policy?

[eridani]

40. Yes. And using regular police operations to go after any successful perps

US policy has been to fuck with Afghanistan since 1979, continuing the policy that began with using religious whackjobs to help overthrow the nationalizt Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Pro-jihadi textbooks designed at American universities were written and printed in the US with your tax dollars. The problem with attempting to dominate and fuck with people using local cat's paws usually doesn't work over the long term, because they always have their own agendas. Our current warlord Northern Alliance allies were the very people we were fighting against in the 80s. Just remember--Oceania was never at war with Eurasia; we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Just stop fucking with people and you dramatically reduce terrorism, which after all is a weapon of the weak who aren't strong enough to prevent themselves from being conquered, only strong enough to prevent the conquerer from getting full enjoyment of the conquests. Leave reversing the fundie religious trend to homegrown NGOs who have a clue about the culture.

[mmonk]

11. In my opinion, we need to be careful and not continue something

just because the American people want revenge, but to look at the history of the region and look at what reasonably can be done.

[iamthebandfanman]

41. i dont think obama wants to continue it for 'revenge'

id imagine its more in the thought realm of 'we created the mess, lets fix it' than seeking revenge for 9-11....

[IsItJustMe]

14. Your daughters would have a difficult time in at least 30 other countries across the world. Do you

think it is our duty as Americans to impress our cultural values on the people of this entire world. I don't think that is either moral or realistic.

Sorry, but the world is, as it is. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

On edit. And another damn thing, women in this country don't even have full rights as human beings. They don't even have full reproductive rights and are treated like second class citizens by many religions in this country, and that is somehow accepticble. So, before we start holy crusades for womans rights around the world, maybe we should start right here in the good old US of A.

Just like your arguement was used for a reason to go into Iraq and Afganstan to begin with by the Republicans, to free the women, we now know, without a doubt, that the women in those countries are now a hundred times worse off, because our invasions released the fundamentalist religious zealots upon them. If you want to help the people of the world, leave them the fuck alone.

[Bread and Circus]

15. OMG, I find your statement abhorrent and irresponsible.

[IsItJustMe]

16. Why? And what makes you think that you are god and know what is best for these people.

The Christians came to America and thought they knew what was best for the Natice Indians and wiped them out. Argue with that.

[Bread and Circus]

17. All you are presenting are straw man arguments. Irrelevent. Thank god

Obama was elected President and not you.

[IsItJustMe]

18. You say you care for your daughters and that is a good reason to be in Afganistan. Appearently you

don't like the way women are treated there. I don't either. But may I suggest that you tell your daughters not to go there, rather than trying to change thousands of years of cultural history by invading a country that does not agree with the way you think things should be.

By using the logic that you have set forth, we are going to have to invade lots of other countries to set things straight. And the supreme irony of it all is that we can not even set the matter straight in this country, let alone Afganistan.

And after Afganistan, maybe we can go into China. I hear women don't fair there to well either. And after that, who knows?

On edit. I just really don't like this part of your arguement.

[Bread and Circus]

20. I think what you are doing is taking one discussion and turning it into another. And frankly...

it's pretty useless. You are ignoring 95% of what I wrote to focus on 5% and then you still miss its meaning in the greater context of the piece. All you've done is concoct a strawman argument at best, and no, I'm not going to follow you down that primrose path although I don't mind call you on it.

If you want to let AQ and the Taliban have free reign in that region of the world, just say so. Don't feed me all the "cultural sensitivity" standard issue fare, it has no purchase in the context of the original post.

I agree with Obama and his approach. You would rather withdraw. Ok fine. We disagree. But for you to somehow make this an argument that AQ and the Taliban represents the culture of the Afghanis and the Pakistanis is laughable. That's like saying the KKK represents to culture of the South and therefore should be respected. So, if I were to carry your own technique a bit further I'd have to ask you "why do you support the KKK".

Oh, I can hear heads on DU exploding now, comparing AQ and the Taliban to the KKK but guess what - they are all very similar in their goals and methods.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bread and Circus]

47. Are you trying to be serious?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamthebandfanman]

42. obama wants to force our culture on people?

i highly doubt that.

that may have been the intention of our previous ruler, but something tells me this is more about fixing a problem we helped create... i highly doubt this is being done with the ideal of long term cultural warfare...
if anything, we just want it to be stable enough to put a pipeline through ... i just dont think we are that concerned with winning the culture war anymore.

[damonm]

54. Could you clarify something for me?

When you say women in the US "don't even have full reproductive rights", what are you referring to, exactly?

There are a few other things you say I could take issue with, but let's start here.

[blindpig]

19. So, you're worried about women's rights in Afghanistan

In 1978 the Afghan government of Mohammed Daoud Khan moved against the leading Afghan opposition political party, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). A leader of the party, Mir Akbar Khyber, was murdered and most of the leadership of the party were arrested during his funeral (reportedly at the instigation of the CIA). In response, the remainder of the PDPA staged an uprising which won power in April of 1978. The party immediately published a series of reforms which echoed the failed attempts at reform in Afghanistan going all the way back to the overthrow of the "reformist King", Amanullah Khan, in 1929.

Within days, the CIA began to organize and fund the reactionary and Islamist "opposition forces" in the countryside of Afghanistan, who had already been the fundamental barriers to reform for over a century. This was 2 years BEFORE the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski has openly bragged that the purpose of the U.S. operations was to FORCE Soviet intervention.

The issues on which the CIA organized were the PDPA's Land Reform and the elimination of debts in the countryside (both of which attacked the power of the rural "warlords"), religious freedom (or the elimination of Sharia Law), and, most important of all, the granting of equal rights for women (which had also been central to the overthrow of Amanullah in 1929).

For the first time in Afghan history, a woman - Dr. Anahita Ratebzad, had become a member of the ruling Revolutionary Council. Less than one month after the uprising, Ratebzad wrote a famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country … Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."

In response, the CIA distributed leaflets throughout Afghanistan with Dr. Ratebzhad's face displayed prominently on them.





You must not have any sense of irony and your "moral high ground" sits lower than the Marianas Trench. The Taliban was created out of whole cloth by the U.S., hatred of women's rights and religious freedom were the pillars of that creation, and the hand wringing now, concerning those "poor Afghan women", is light years beyond hypocrisy.

(Repost courtesy Anaxarchos)

This works just as good as the first time.

[Bread and Circus]

21. Honestly, I'm concerned about women's rights here and if you think letting the Taliban

run amuck over there is good for liberalism in America, you will be sadly awakened.

Whatever the CIA did in the past has no bearing on what I said in the OP. The CIA has done some evil stuff but it has also protected you from some evil stuff. If you have a beef with them, take it up with them. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Yes, you are correct. We helped create and sustain the Taliban. It was in order to cripple the Soviets. It's not a secret. It doesn't change what we are dealing with now.

[blindpig]

23. I don't really give a fuck

about what's good for liberalism in America. Is that your primary concern?

So, we shall escalate in Afghanistan, undoubtedly murdering and maiming many more women and children, in order to save them from the Taliban? What genius.

What say we invade some West African nations in order to save them from genital mutilation? You on board with that?

Mebbe we can invade Japan too, to save the goddamn whales.

Just like Nam, burning a village in order to save it.

[closeupready]

26. Yes, you are exactly correct. He supports dropping more bombs in order

to 'save' people. :crazy: Sheer lunacy. Notice he says nothing about invading Saudi Arabia or Iran where the status of women is almost as bad or perhaps even worse.

[Every Man A King]

31. What evil stuff has the CIA protected me against?

This is neocon garbage you are spewing.

[IsItJustMe]

22. Thank you for your post. I have damn near been in fist fights with right wing Christians in this

country trying to tell me that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a worthy cause because now women will have equal rights in these countries. The truth of the matter is that women are now much worse off in these countries than they were before we invaded them.

I find this argument utterly and completely false, and no more than great propaganda for the sheep to pin on themselves and go out and spread this bull shit talking point. It just isn't so and anybody who believes that we went into Iraq or Afghanistan to free the women, well, I got some ocean front property in Arizona for sell.

[LWolf]

25. I wish you luck when you get there.

You ARE going, are you not?

You wouldn't suggest that others do the dirty work for you, I'm sure.

[closeupready]

27. No, apparently, he has no intention of going or signing up. That's what other people are for.

I asked this question earlier, and received no response. So, that is my best guess, which is all I can do, in the absence of a response from him. Maybe I'm on his ignore list, I don't know, but I would like to see an answer to that.

[LWolf]

28. Don't you just love it?

Those who are willing to spend our money, bankrupt our nation, and spend the lives of others, but not their own, to be the bully on the block?

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

29. Oh, sure. Such big bad men, huh?

'Yeah, some innocent people will be killed, but it was for a good cause. I say so.' :mad: Does that sound like Dick Cheney or what? Jesus. This forum gets worse every day, it seems. Peace to you.

[Bread and Circus]

33. LOL. You are a real internet tough guy... you have emotes and everything

[Bread and Circus]

34. Here's your answer:

1.) First, I think you are being an idiot throughout this whole thread. If you have an actual counter-strategy to dealing w/ AQ and the Taliban, then just say it. However, if you want to act like they aren't a threat both here and throughout the world, then you are just blind and part of the "blame America first, last, and always crowd". Also, your whole line of attack amounts to nothing more than ad hominem.

2.)The main reason I'm not in the military is because I wouldn't make a good soldier. I don't take orders well, at all.

3.)I'm one of the few physicians in my city that accepts Tri-care, the military insurance for families. I take care of soldiers and their families. Perhaps that's not enough to satisfy you, but that's what I do. They appreciate the help, whereas you might not.

4.) My brother just finished his third tour in Iraq. We have lots of discussions about the war. He's always been for it, I've always been against. He's been there. Never does he say my opinion on strategy is meaningless just because he went and I didn't. Perhaps you should learn from him.

5.) I pay taxes. A LOT of taxes. A third of them go to national defense. I think I've earned to right to have an opinion on foreign policy. Furthermore, political speech is protected no matter what. Read the First Amendment.

6.) People don't need to join the military just to have an opinion on military matters. That goes for a lot of things, to wit:

I think we should put out fires, does that mean I must become a fireman?
I think we should provide a social safety net for the elderly and the poor, does that mean I must become a social worker?
I think we should keep snow off the roads, does that mean I must become an employee of the road commission?
ad infinitum

Ahem...

What you have created is a "straw man" argument that if carried to its logical conclusions is groundless and impractical. Nor does it address or provide counterpoint to my original post.

But go ahead, keep on with your song and dance if it pleases you.

I would love to hear of any workable strategy when it comes to AQ that you might have. Stress on the "workable" and the "strategy".

But if your response is to just ignore the problem in hopes it will "go away" that's just like ignoring cancer in hopes it will cure itself.

[closeupready]

36. Thank you for your response.

I won't have time at the moment to respond to you in full, but I will say that any strategy to attack AQ must take into account the extremist interpretation of Islam of the Wahhabists, since so much Saudi money has found its way to Pakistan and, as we know, Afghanistan, and as far as I know, it continues without interruption. Ergo, that means upsetting the Saudis, and I'm sorry, but you don't cure diseases by attacking the symptoms, you have to track down the money (and the ideological sources of support for AQ's mission) and put a STOP to its flow. All you do by bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan is harden opposition to America and our presence in that region where none existed before (I don't mean no opposition to our presence exists, but rather, believe it or not, some Pakistanis actually like America, but they won't if we kill their families, duh), and also strengthen fundamentalists who claim that the Western-oriented governments are helping America to hurt Pakistanis and Afghanis, making a bad situation even worse. More later.

Editing to add that, we are not talking either about an unimportant area of the world nor one that is small - what is the population of Pakistan, 170 million? Iran and Afghanistan are another 100 million?

[Bread and Circus]

56. Thank you for your response. I hope Obama changes the mission over there.

Troop counts aside, what we've done for the past 7 years has not worked.

[TahitiNut]

30. That's just one of the lesser reasons I support a universal draft or, better, universal service.

OPM and OPL (other people's money and other people's lives) are so easy for too many to squander.

[backscatter712]

32. I'm also for some action in Afghanistan, and maybe Pakistan.

Pakistan, I think, should be worked on through diplomatic, rather than military means, at least so we can go in jointly with the Pakistani forces and deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yes, I know that Pakistan's been fueling the Taliban - part of the point of going diplomatic is to starve the Taliban of support - make it so they can't get supplies, make it harder for them to hide in Pakistani territory.

As far as Afghanistan goes, yes, by all means, we should be delivering the smackdown on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We shouldn't worry too much about Afghanistan's government - our mission should be to hit Al Qaeda and their Taliban buddies, deprive them of the ability to mount effective attacks, and make it so they can't do another 9/11.

Obama needs to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan is finite - no perpetual games of guerilla whack-a-mole. We go in, we do our job, and we go home. Exit strategy is key. Probably, what we should be focusing on is things like special-forces operations rather than traditional conquer-and-occupy tactics.

Also key is international support. We had most of the world standing with us to whoop Al Qaeda right after 9/11. We should be working on getting other countries fighting with us so we don't have to do as much on our own - our military is in strung out shape right now.

[mix]

35. i might

if escalation were a prelude to a negotiated settlement and complete withdrawal in both cases

otherwise, i am skeptical: we will have to learn to live with iranian (and iraqi) shias and groups like the taliban, that is how terrorism is stopped and social and political relations changed and improved...having a good faith engagement in israeli-palestinian issues wouldn't hurt either

[LynnTheDem]

37. I don't.

Nothing further to add.

[me b zola]

38. I support hemp farms for Afghanistan

Farmers will prosper, textile mills will employ people, green energy will liberate them...

[applegrove]

39. Very insightful. I agree Afghanistan is where the ball was dropped. And

that we cannot ignore the parts of Pakistan that are involved.

[Hissyspit]

43. "Afghan Civilians Bear the Brunt of Taliban Violence and U.S., NATO Bombings"

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/22/afghan_civilians_bear_the_brunt_of

Afghan Civilians Bear the Brunt of Taliban Violence and US, NATO Bombings

As violence escalates in Afghanistan, both Barack Obama and John McCain support sending more troops. “Both of them are wrong,” says Sonali Kolhatkar, host of Uprising on Pacifica radio station KPFK and co-author of the book Bleeding Afghanistan. “You really cannot solve the situation in Afghanistan by throwing more troops at it, because over the last several years tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan have not managed to do anything other than worsen the war.”

Sonali Kolhatkar, host of Uprising on Pacifica radio station KPFK. She is co-author of the book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence and co-director of the Afghan Women’s Mission, a group that works in solidarity with Afghans to help improve health and educational facilities for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

JUAN GONZALEZ: NATO has denied a report in the French newspaper Le Monde that ten French soldiers killed in Afghanistan earlier this week died as a result of friendly fire from allied planes. A NATO spokeswoman said Thursday that Le Monde’s claims were “completely unfounded.”

The Le Monde report had quoted French soldiers who had survived the Taliban ambush. The soldiers told the newspaper that NATO planes arrived four hours after the ambush and accidentally hit French troops.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited survivors in Kabul earlier this week and vowed to continue the fight against terrorism. He said no regrets about the sending of 700 additional troops to Afghanistan, despite the soldiers’ deaths.

At a memorial service in France Thursday, Sarkozy justified maintaining the French presence in Afghanistan.
PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY: We do not have the right to give up on our values. We do not have the right to let the barbarians triumph, because a defeat at the other end of the world will be paid by defeat here on the territory of the French Republic.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now from Burbank, California by Sonali Kolhatkar. She’s the host of Uprising on Pacifica radio station KPFK and co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence. She is also co-director of the Afghan Women’s Mission, a group that works in solidarity with Afghans to help improve health and educational facilities for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Sonali Kolhatkar, welcome to Democracy Now!

SONALI KOLHATKAR: Thank you, Amy and Juan.

AMY GOODMAN: The situation right now in Afghanistan?

SONALI KOLHATKAR: Well, it’s getting worse, in a nutshell. Basically, if you want to look at how things have changed over the past few years, you can simply look at how the Afghan people themselves have changed their minds about the US occupation. Just in 2005, there was almost a 70 percent approval rating of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, because Afghans thought maybe things would get better if the foreign troops were present and they could be a buffer to the fundamentalist forces. In 2007, just a year ago, that approval rating was down to 40 percent, and I believe it’s probably a lot lower right now.
I mean, basically, what’s happening is, Afghan people are caught between a variety of forces, ordinary Afghans. They’re caught, on the one hand, between the forces of the Taliban, who are increasing in number and strength—if you just look at the way in which they launched these recent attacks against the French, at the same time, they had a series of suicide bombers going to attack a US base in a geographically separate location. This means they can launch, you know, simultaneous attacks at the same time in different areas. This means they’re very strong. And, of course, US and NATO forces are attacking, and they’re killing civilians. So far, 2,500 people have been killed in Afghanistan since January, about half of them civilians. So, Afghan people are feeling the brunt of that very seriously, because attacks against forces are up, and attacks from forces are up, so the violence is really escalating.

Then, on the other hand, you have this other aspect that’s rarely covered by the US media, certainly never mentioned by government officials here, which is that the Afghan central government, created and installed essentially by the United States, is really devastating the people of Afghanistan. There’s rampant corruption. They’re sucking away the aid. They’re completely oppressing people. They’re attacking journalists. Women are being imprisoned in greater numbers than ever before, for the crime of escaping from home or having, quote-unquote, “sexual relations”—“illegal sexual relations.” Most of these women are simply victims of rape. And so, you have all of these forces that are converging upon the Afghan people from different directions, and life for the ordinary—average ordinary Afghan has gone from bad to so much worse in a very short period of time.

JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the things that the Bush administration repeatedly pointed to was the supposed liberation of the women of Afghanistan as a result of the US invasion and the replacement of the Taliban. What is your sense of what is actually going on at the grassroots level with women in Afghanistan?

SONALI KOLHATKAR: Well, there’s several aspects. You know, on one hand, you have to look at how Afghan women are affected on a day-to-day level. Day-to-day level, of course, they’re suffering the terrible effects of grinding poverty. There’s hardly, you know, food and water and employment. Only ten percent of Afghans have electricity. So Afghan women are suffering the same thing that all Afghans are suffering in terms of poverty and all of the things that go along with that.

On top of that, of course, they face increasing fundamentalist forces from the government and from the “insurgency,” quote-unquote, the Taliban, to—you know, in terms of repressive Islamist-type decrees. You know, they have to increasingly worry about Sharia law, or strict interpretations, rather, of Sharia law. And then they face a very fundamentalist judiciary that was installed by our puppet president, Hamid Karzai.
And then, politically, you know, Afghan women enjoy political equality with men in their constitution. It’s enshrined in their new constitution, which is, of course, a wonderful thing, but the constitution is just a piece of paper. If you look at what happens on the ground, politically speaking, women who are in parliament, if they speak up, are completely attacked. And the best example of that is a woman I know that has been interviewed on Democracy Now! before, Malalai Joya, the young social worker from Farah province who has very bravely spoken out against warlordism in the parliament and, you know, has really been the voice of the people. For speaking out, she has been banned from parliament and has yet to be reinstated. She faces an Islamic court. And that’s the price that women pay politically for speaking out. It’s OK for women to be in government, as long as they shut up and stay quiet. But if they exercise their rights, they get attacked.

I mean, that’s basically what women are facing in Afghanistan, not that much better than what they were facing under the Taliban. Certainly they can legally wear whatever they want to wear, but oppression and freedom is a lot more about wearing or not being able to wear a burqa.

MORE

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/12/1830

Published on Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Civilians Bear Brunt of Conflict in Afghanistan: ICRC

by Reuters staff
GENEVA - The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has worsened in the last year and civilians are bearing the brunt of suicide attacks and aerial bombing raids, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Tuesday.

"Civilians suffer horribly from mounting threats to their security, such as increasing numbers of roadside bombs and suicide attacks, and regular aerial bombing raids," said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of ICRC operations.

On Tuesday, U.S-led forces mistakenly killed seven policemen in an air strike in the east of the country after Afghan forces came under attack from the Taliban and asked for help, a provincial official said.

About 50,000 foreign troops led by the U.S. military and NATO are in Afghanistan, battling a resurgent Taliban and their al Qaeda allies.

There has been a steady deterioration of medical services in Afghanistan's remote areas, where important needs are unmet, Kraehenbuehl said: "The civilians most in need are also the most difficult to reach," he said in a statement.

The neutral agency said that since 2006 the violence had significantly intensified in the south and east and was spreading to the north and west, bringing a "growing number of civilian casualties."

MORE

The agency said that it was stepping up its efforts to protect and assist the most vulnerable, in particular by helping medical facilities to "cope with the increasing number of war-wounded in the south and east."

[Solon]

45. The problem is this, you cannot pressure a criminal organization like Al Queda with the military...

you say that we need to "keep up the pressure" I'm sure the Taliban and Al Queda welcome it because it only strengthens their position. For every village bombed to get at one or two terrorists, we end up creating a dozen more new recruits. The only people who can truly destabilize the Taliban and Al Queda are the people who live there themselves, and frankly, they hate us more than they hate either of these two groups.

Frankly it doesn't matter what we say our goals are, because we aren't going to accomplish them regardless of whether its conquest or simply disrupting terrorist groups. Look to Iraq as a classic example of this, before we invaded it was NOT a haven for terrorist groups, Saddam simply didn't tolerate it, yet after we invaded it is now a haven for terrorist groups, and new ones keep on popping up every day. When you are a foreign invader, regardless of intentions, you are the enemy, period, and nothing will change that when you have people in your uniforms patrolling the streets. It could keep a lid on things, until we get tired of occupying the country, then afterward, these groups and people who are, frankly, in most cases, our victims, will rise up and demand vengeance and we are right back where we started.

[Bread and Circus]

46. I agree with your premises. Our methods have to change. You are correct

that casualties just fuel the fire. Normally, I am not an interventionist. However, prior to 9/11 the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan and allowed open harbor and support of Al Qaeda, which gave some ground and foundation to terrorist attacks throughout the world. It's true, what we've done for the past 8 years has been deleterious. However, what was done prior was not successful either.

Flipping the tables and "thinking like Al Qaeda" is useful. That's kind of what you have done. So, if I were Al Qaeda, I'd agree with you, the Bush approach was great for our cause. However, if I were Al Qaeda, I'd also welcome a total withdrawal. I'd love to come out of the caves or hiding in the villages. I'd love to be able to openly train, recruit, move, and communicate. What I wouldn't want is the US giving water, food, money, and security to the villages around me. What I wouldn't want is the US providing enough military pressure that cuts off my lanes of communication, movement, and supply.

A think an approach can neither be diplomatic or militaristic alone. I think both have to apply.

But with that said, I agree 100% that every time we kill a civilian over there it is entirely counter-productive for us.

I don't think there are any easy solutions.

But, my view is this "war on terror" is really part of the "Oil Wars" we have been fighting for 30+ years, even though we don't call it that.

Our own PEAK OIL in the US experience has given rise to our "more war for more oil" problem since the 70's when our oil peaked. This will be a global phenonemon within the next 30years if not a lot sooner.

The best solution, and one Obama embraces within the limits of our oil culture, is to go lean and green - meaning electric cars. This will change everything.

But until then, we are faced with some serious international geopolitical problems, made purposefully worse by AQ and the like. There's a smart way to deal with it, and a lot of not so smart ways. Obama has chosen more intervention in Afghanistan and for now, I support that.

Obama's approach and my OP could turn out to be very wrong. However, I just don't agree with the reactionary approach of withdrawing all foreign intervention.

But who knows, maybe we'd all be better off.

But then again, if we did who's to say Russia or some other world power wouldn't just step in and take our place. Poor villagers would still be dying and resources would still be exploited. Then, where would we all be? Do folks here think that governments places like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, India, and the EU are somehow more benevolent than our own?

[Truth2Tell]

49. Thoughtful post, I'll try a thoughtful response.

However the goals have to be modest. We cannot be there to "control" or pacify the region but rather to destabilize our adversaries there...

Problem is, we ARE presently trying to "control" the region. Just destabilizing our adversaries would require fewer not more troops. What requires the large number of troops is maintaining the political status quo. Our leaders have made the determination that we need to RULE Afghanistan to achieve the objective of rooting out terrorism in BOTH Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm not buying that. I believe aggressive special ops and targeted strikes from elsewhere could achieve that same objective.

I couldn't imagine for a second being a father in that country of my two beautiful daughters knowing they would be deprived of dignity, self-worth, and an education.

This is not really the point. Many dozens of regimes around the world operate in an equally oppressive and brutal way. We support and enable many of them. Is it really the responsibility of our bankrupt nation to take on the challenge of correcting those inequities at the point of a gun? Sure, we should oppose such regimes whenever we can, but to invade and occupy foreign nations goes above and beyond our ability and our responsibility. It creates more enemies for our children to fight, and it violates all the rules of behavior designed by international institutions to prevent escalation of war and conflict. And if we DO want to take such an interventionist-humanitarian stance, shouldn't we at least begin with the long list of similar dictatorships that we strongly support?

Do we really want a Taliban run nuclear Pakistan?

There is no threat of this. The Taliban does not enjoy any real political following in Pakistan beyond the border regions. They are an Afghan-focused organization. There certainly are threats from radical Islamist elements in Pakistan, many deeply embedded in the current government, but Taliban rule in Pakistan is not a realistic scenario.

I just don't have a lot of compassion for Al Queda, their vision for the world, or their means of political and social expression. I do however have a lot of compassion for the innocents caught in the crossfire. Whatever methods we employ, the least amount of collateral damage is imperative even though it is unavoidable.

Not occupying all of Afghanistan and attempting to control the political makeup of the government there would lead to the fewest civilian casualties. Much of the support for the Taliban comes from Afghanis simply sick of occupation and rule by foreign powers, not from people with any sympathy for radical Islam or Al Queda. There are other ways to strike at Al Queda, whom we all want to destroy. It's important not to do things, like invade and occupy Muslim nations, that play right into their hands and unite the Islamic world behind them.

Let there be no doubt, a large scale terrorist attack on our country, if following a large reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, will raise the odds of one term for Obama and then you will be hailing to President Palin or some other representative of the American-Taliban.

I fail to see how Occupying Afghanistan or even killing Osama (if he's not already dead) will reduce the chance of an attack on America. Al Queda has morphed into a worldwide, loosely organized network of like minded people. It's not a top down organization. Even the 9-11 hijackers, who were from Saudi Arabia, didn't plan their attack in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They did it in Germany and the USA. Why breed more terrorists by sending more troops to fight people who aren't Al Queda?

Unless your point is purely political. Fear of this scenario: Reducing troops ---> another attack ---> losing election, even if they are not related events. Well, it would frankly be immoral to continue a war based on that political calculus. And it would be immoral to keep breeding new terrorists based on that political analysis. So I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of discussion, and assume he's not actually thinking that way.

To a certain extent, you have to lend him some trust. I said lend, not give. He deserves the loan. But if over time, he does not live up to the bargain, I think everyone is well within their rights to withdraw that trust. But until then, a good leader needs good followers.

Good followers speak out when they think their leader is making fatal errors. We need to push Obama as hard as we can to do the things we believe it, regarding war and peace and everything else. The other side certainly does so.

...as long as conquest is not our aim, our hurdles for success won't be nearly as high as they were in Iraq...

It's worth saying again that if conquest wasn't our aim, we wouldn't need these additional forces. We need them to keep "our" team in charge of the country. Absent that goal, we could strike the opposition other ways to our hearts content. We wouldn't need anywhere approaching tens of thousands of troops.

The fantasy of Iraq, as it evolved, was to create a permanent safe military and oil producing haven for the United States in order to stave off the effects of peak oil as well as conquer the middle east.

True. However, the invasion of Afghanistan was part and parcel of this same exact plan. The neocons who hatched it in the first place wanted access to pipeline routes from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, for the exact reasons you describe. They wanted to flank Iran. They had all sorts of ulterior motives beyond Al Queda. In fact they cared so little about Al Queda that they let them escape. And they emboldened and strengthened them with their invasion and occupation. Why continue down this counterproductive neocon path?

Also, we will always have deeper pockets, better weapons, and better trained armed forces.

The age of deeper pockets is coming to an end. And in the modern era of asymmetrical warfare, more troops, bigger weapons and better training means nothing. Smart over-arching strategic foreign policy aimed at making friends not enemies is all that can save us. Invading and occupying foreign nations is the opposite of that.

Expect us to be there throughout Obama's first term, and possibly his second.

Sadly I do. I expect us to be there, and the other outposts of the Empire, until the whole thing collapses of it's own weight. Americans are far too willing to swallow the rationales for this stuff. Our militarism is suicidal and bi-partisan, and it will be our undoing. Heck, it already is.

[mix]

50. thoughtful response, you succeeded

The game is over in Afghanistan, the Taliban control most of the country. Their power is growing in Pakistan as well, mainly because most Taliban are ethnically Pashtun, a group that lives on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US has also lost its key re-supply base in Kyrgyzstan. The Karzai government is hated and corrupt. Obama's troop build-up is probably (and hopefully) posturing before some kind of negotiated settlement. I would like to believe that our president is wise enough to see that military force alone will not win this or even ensure a dignified retreat.

The US must be careful about trying to imposing its particular cultural values on other peoples. This is the story of empire and it has always failed in Afghanistan.

[Bread and Circus]

55. Thanks for the effort you put in to your post. I appreciate it.

I found this today. It's not a justification for anything. Just something to keep in mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/world/asia/03shelter.html?ref=world

[olegramps]

51. The situation is far more complex than what you preceive.

I would suggest that you acquaint yourself with the people who comprise the Taliban. Basically they are Pashtuns. President Harnid Karzai belongs to this group with comprise the largest tribal group in Afghanistan consisting of approximately 40% of the population. They dominated the eastern section of the country and large sections of western Pakistan. They are the second largest group in Pakistan and hold many of the military positions dating from the British domination of the region. These people who speak a common language, Pashto, at one time sought to establish their own nation. Their tribal loyalty of which there are some 50 to 60 tribes and 100's of sub-clans transcends any national identity of being Afghan or Pakistani. They adhere to an ancient code of honor and conduct called Pashtunwali that regulates every aspect of their lives. It is an unwritten code that is far too extensive to go into here.

So when you talk of crushing the Taliban then you are talking about waging war against a segment of the population that has the strong tribal ties of about 15 million Afghan and 40 million Pakistani people. While many Pastuns do not share the extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam as practiced by the Taliban, they share a much more stronger bond of being firstly Pastuns. They are extremely protective of their territory as the Soviets found out and which we exploited.

To make it simple, if you kill a Pastun member of the Taliban you alienate all the Pastuns.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Oh goodness, someone who actually knows something about the region

instead of believing the official line from the corporate media and propagandized soldiers.

[Bread and Circus]

57. I believe saying the Taliban are Pashtuns is like saying the KKK are generally White Southerners

While both might be generally true historically and the Taliban is a lot like the KKK in many, many ways that doesn't mean that the parent cultures necessarily share their values or methods.

But it sounds like you've read up on the area and I applaud you for that. I also agree that we have to change our approach.

I guess where I disagree with most of the folks here who think I am out of line is that I don't think by just having a hands off approach that things will work out in an acceptable manner.

I get that we have had a fairly corrupt government. But the USA does not have the market cornered on bad guys, corrupt politicians, and war mongerers. Just because the US is stronger militarily doesn't mean the weaker side is less aggresive or less malevolent. I don't sense that many people don't quite get that. I just see a lot of nefarious people on all sides of the coin. The sad part is the innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

At any rate, hats off to you for your post. I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from the knowlege you display but I can't argue that you seem to know a thing or two.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Yes, I remember Vietnam started this way. Hello? It's not our culture nor our neighborhood.

We have ZERO right to go into a sovierign nation and resturcture the culture.

P.S. The WOMEN of Afghanistan and Pakistan HATE US invaders. It was our smart bombs that have killed their children. The WOMEN are NATIONALISTS too ... would rather be beaten by THEIR OWN than live under "the boot of invaders."

It's time we made like a sheep herder and get "the flock" out of the Middle East. :thumbsup:

[Bread and Circus]

59. Goddam... there's a lot of experts on Afghan culture around this place.

[IndianaGreen]

60. You don't even know what you are asking for.

Afghanistan is lost. Pakistan cannot even control the Swap valley, not far from Islamabad.

[Bread and Circus]

61. It's Swat Valley. And that's kind of the point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. there simply is no military solution to the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

However awful the Taliban might be. There are lots of problems in the world that cannot be resolved by military means. This is just one of many. The U.S. cannot force China out of Tibet or change the cultural customs of East Africa by military force - and it cannot impose a new social order on Afghanistan or Pakistan by military force. That would simply be impossible and would bring nothing but grief on the people we were supposedly trying to help as well as on ourselves.

What is most probably an achievable goal is to establish a diplomatic solution that assures that Afghanistan will not be a place where Al Qaida can plan attacks against the United States. This is most probably an achievable goal.

"Keeping pressure on the Taliban" by military attacks means killing Pastuns, a military escalation means increased killing of Pastuns, killing members of the largest and most dominant ethnic group within Afghanistan and one of the large ethnic groups within Pakistan. The death of every Pashtun means new sworn enemies of tribes and vast webs of tribal alliances for generations to come.

To a large degree the Taliban reflects Pashtun nationalism and Pashtun resistance. In exchange for noninterference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, it is quite plausible that an agreement can be reached. It is entirely possible by opening up trade and communication with whoever emerges as the dominant power in Afghanistan, the U.S. can influences positive changes over time.

The alternative is permanent war. The alternative is draining U.S. soldiers and resources into an endless quagmire of endless tribal resistance that will never stop, ever! The alternative is increased resentment which will only strengthen the reactionary fundamentalist Islamist forces and the weakening of liberal influences throughout the region and certainly destabilizing Pakistan and threatening the viability of the nuclear-armed Pakistani state.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. Canadian Prime Minister Harper: Foreign troops can't defeat Afghanistan's insurgency

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/01/cnn-harper.html

snip:

"The insurgency in Afghanistan will never be defeated only by maintaining an international troop presence in the country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a U.S. television interview Sunday.

"We're not going to ever defeat the insurgency. My reading of Afghanistan in history is that it's probably had an insurgency forever of some kind," Harper told Fareed Zakaria of CNN."

snip:

"Harper said he welcomes plans to boost the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but was cautious about entertaining any request for Canada to alter its commitments. On Feb. 17, U.S. President Barack Obama said he'll send an additional 17,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan this spring and summer, a 50 per cent increase to the 36,000 soldiers who are there already.

Harper said if Obama were to ask Canada for a larger contingent or a continuation of the existing contingent of about 2,500 Canadian soldiers, he would ask the president what his plans are for leaving Afghanistan and allowing Afghans full control over security.

"If we think that we are going to govern Afghanistan for Afghans, or over the long-term be responsible for day-to-day security in Afghanistan and see that country improve, we are mistaken," Harper said. "

link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/01/cnn-harper.html

[olegramps]

64. We actually welcomed them during the early stages of the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

After the defeat for the Soviets, Afghanistan was little more than a wild frontier ruled by bandits. The Taliban was welcomed, especially by the Pushtans as a counterforce to restore law and order. The problems began when the movement was taken over by radical Deobani Islamists who had a close association with Wahhabism and they began a systematic purging of all non-Pustans. They began a program of purging of all Tajik, Uzbeb and especially Hazara from positions of authority creating a vacuum of any responsible leadership and appointed the ignoramus graduates of the madrassas as managers. These injustices have not been addressed by the Karzai government.

They conducted wholesale massacres solely based on religious affiliation. It had political incentive as well by a theocratic political philosopy. The Taliban were viewed as representing the hope for the realization of the Pushtans long desired quest for sovereignty. I would not be in the least surprised if they would not attempt for a degree of sovereignty that would include both western Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan Pushtan controlled areas.

When you rile against the Tali ban's treatment of women, you are riling against what the vast majority of Pushtan men absolutely believe is how women should be treated. It is no different than how they are regarded in Saudi Arabia where Washhabism is the dominate religious philosophy. You may think that it is barbaric, but they firmly believe that they are guided by holy principles that are not too far removed from misogynistic beliefs of many Christian fundamentalists. These include the belief that a women's place is in the home raising chidren. Children, especially girls, should not be exposed to the debachery of public schools and should behome schooled. The man is the master of the house; all other are subserviate. Seems too me that a home grown crusade is in order before bringing enlightenment to the foreign savages.