If Obama escalates war "he will betray his own message of hope and deepen my people's pain"

[Better Believe It]

A troop surge can only magnify the crime against Afghanistan
If Barack Obama heralds an escalation of the war, he will betray his own message of hope and deepen my people's pain
By Malalai Joya
November 30, 2009

Malalai Joya is an Afghan politician and a former elected member of the Parliament from Farah province. Her last book is Raising My Voice.



After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don't believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.

But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/30/obama-afghanistan-troops

[tekisui]

1. She obviously wasn't paying attention during the campaign.

[polichick]

2. Barack Obama seemed a lot smarter than he turned out to be...

How many people like Joya did the president listen to??

[Better Believe It]

3. President Obama is playing chess. Sending more troops is a clever move to hide the withdrawl!

[polichick]

4. Oh yeah, I forgot...

Wonder why we're seeing less about his chess-playing prowess latetly - could it be they're getting it?

[emilyg]

11. BS

[Aramchek]

5. He' s definitely smarter than you, by a long shot

[polichick]

10. You WISH! nt

[Aramchek]

29. I've never seen you demonstrate even a modicum of the intelligence Obama shows

[polichick]

35. LOL - I sure wouldn't have been stupid enough to take single payer off the table...

...and that's just one example.

You can keep pretending that Obama is a whizz-kid, but many of his decisions prove otherwise.

[polichick]

36. btw, your attacks are against the rules. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Here's a novel idea...

Learn how to run your own fucking country and then we won't have to.

This shit-for-brains talks as through the last twenty years in Afghanistan never happened. Because she and her fellow Afghans did such a fucking bang-up job in governance, we've now got 70,000 troops (and counting) to try to bring some semblance of order to this insane-asylum-you-call-a-country.

[Oregone]

8. Afghanistan was doing fine before Carter signed off on a proxy war

Take the finger you are pointing and shove it up your own ass

[LooseWilly]

12. Funny, I thought you were addressing Obama, until I got to that last paragraph.

As a matter of fact, speaking to that here's a quote from the article:

While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war. Many also want Obama to hold Bush and his administration to account for war crimes. Everywhere I spoke, people responded strongly when I said that if Obama really wanted peace he would first of all try to prosecute Bush and have him tried before the international criminal court. Replacing Bush's man in the Pentagon, Robert Gates, would have been a good start – but Obama chose not to.

Maybe you're right... maybe we should all learn to run our own fucking countries... and maybe Obama should pull out troops so that the Afghans will "learn their lesson"??, and instead task those troops to hustling Cheney, Rumsfeld, and whatever others can be charged with war crimes, to the World Court?


(And by the by... the shitstorm that Carter and Brzezinski initiated to fuck with the Communist government at the time in Afghanistan was begun in 1979. And, just a technicality... but 2009-1979=30.... so 30 years of shitstorms in Afghanistan... or were you planning on conveniently ignoring the fact that the US, and Pakistan's ISI, were responsible for turning the Mujaheddin/Taliban into the force that it has become?)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Blah-de-fucking-blah...

The Afghan people (and their so-called leaders) let their country become a terrorist Club Med. If this Dumbshit doesn't want American troops in her country, then she needs to come up with a plausible alternative -- which she doesn't have. Other than some vague belief that trying George W. Bush for war crimes would somehow reduce terrorism.

[LooseWilly]

16. de-fucking-blah-de blah-de-blehhh...

Actually, her alternative is for foreign troops to leave. She admits there may be civil war. She admits the Taliban may win. Nevertheless, she doesn't think that foreign troops change any of that... they just protect Karzai's "ex"-drug lord and "ex"-warlord associates' interests- which leaves the people that US policy is supposedly trying to empower with two sets of foes to fight, rather than just one.

But I guess you don't view leaving as an option. I presume then that you subscribe to the 'Magic Terrorist Dirt' theory... i.e. 'We can't let them have bases in Afghanistan!!'... because those bases are far more of a threat than the ones in Pakistan, or Somalia, or Sudan, or Qatar... or anywhere else Because Afghanistan is Made of Magic Terrorist Dirt !!'

blah blah blah... (I'll stop here... since you obviously never bothered to read the original link, I'll refrain from testing the limits of your attention span.)


** heh, edited for formatting... **

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. So her solution to the problem...

Is to have a civil war which may or may not result in the Taliban re-asserting control over the country. And so we'd again have a terrorist state right next door to Pakistan, which has its own signficant radical influences AND nuclear weapons.

Here's a geography question for you. WHICH ONE of the countries neighboring Solalia, Sudan, or Qatar have nukes? That would be none -- I'll save you the time it would take to look it up.

Hence "magic dirt" in Afghanistan. I personally couldn't give two shits for the entire fucking country, but the idea that a terrorist coup could get the launch codes in Islamabad scares the living shit out of me. How long do you suppose India would wait before launching a pre-emptive strike? And what do you suppose China's reaction would be to that? Korea's?

[Oregone]

33. "scares the living shit out of me"

And fear is not always a rational basis for sound foreign policy

[LooseWilly]

34. I don't see how propping up the Karzai gov't in Afghanistan weakens the radicals in Pakistan.

If anything, our presence is a wonderful recruiting tool for the Taliban, al Qa'eda, and radical groups within Pakistan (whatever names they go by). Furthermore, things like drone bombings of weddings creates a huge outcry of rage that deft radicals, whether they be Taliban, al Qa'eda, or what have you... can then turn on Pakistan's government, because they are allied with the US against the radicals.

If, on the other hand, the US were to withdraw... it seems likely, to me, that the "enemy of my enemy" bond amongst these radical elements would dissipate... and the Taliban would move to try to re-assert control over Afghanistan... though some, like the author quoted in the OP, would struggle with a renewed vehemence against those Taliban efforts.

The Taliban would be too occupied with trying to re-take their traditional territories in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan to contribute much toward the al Qa'eda goals of toppling Pakistan's secular(ish) government and getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Likewise... recruitment would drop as Afghans turned their attention to trying to rebuild areas where the political dust settles. Without the foreign troops (US) and drone bombings, Pakistan's security forces and political establishments should have an easier time getting the radical elements of their country back under control/pacified. As far as I can tell, it took several years of regular incursions into Pakistani territory by US/NATO troops, looking for al Qa'eda, before the fans of radical fury were fanned sufficiently in Pakistan to enable al Qa'eda groups to organize attacks there.

Ohh, and the idea of "launch codes" suggests far too Cold War of a set of thinking here. I would be surprised if Pakistan had "launch codes" for any nucs that could hit the West Coast (where I live)... hell, they may not even have anything that can even reach Israel. Their arsenal is most likely aimed at India (and maybe some at China and Russia). Meanwhile, I'm not sure I'm any more concerned about al Qa'eda getting their hands on Paki nucs than I am worried about Chechen radicals getting their hands on Uzbeki nucs... or Byelorussian nucs...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. What's the alternative?

Karzai stole the election, so we leave in a huff? Or perhaps we should appoint someone who we "think" should have been the winner? Both are pretty bad options.

And if the Taliban retakes Afghanistan, what do you suppose is going to happen to Karzai and everybody else in the country who cooperated with the United States? Not only would the Taliban reclaim the country, it would be a country where all moderate voices were either dead or living abroad. We would effectively lose any ability to influence events there -- short of another invasion.

And I'm sorry if "launch codes" seems too "Missiles of October" for you. Suffice to say that "Al Queda with Nukes" is not a foreign policy option. What you present in your post is a best-case scenario where recruitment to Al-Queda just "drops" for no particular reason other than people are busy rebuilding Afghanistan. That didn't occur after the Soviet Union left the region and it's doubtful that it would happen now.

Obama is clearly not going to pursue a path that includes merely hoping for the best.

[Flaneur]

18. Do you actually know any Afghan history? n/t

Because you give no evidence that you do.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. I wish I could be as smart as you...

because pontificating becomes me.

[Flaneur]

37. Just try reading a book or two.

[Oregone]

31. "let their country become a terrorist Club Med"

Yeah, sure, I wonder what your state would *let* happen after two super powers came unto your land, played some war games that devastated the infrastructure, forced all the great minds into exile, and left a load of un-educated fatherless children to find their own way (some of which will be trained to do nothing but kill). Those conditions just might lead to perpetual civil war after the superpowers abruptly leave and ignore the situation. The people may just *let* the first group that could bring lasting peace and an end to the carnage take over.

You don't get it eh? Thats the problem. People are wanting to use guns to fix a problem they don't even fucking understand.

[Flaneur]

17. The Ugly American rears his ugly head.

Ever heard of the Great Game? Afghanistan has been a victim of it for the last couple of centuries. A pawn of big powers competing for geostrategic position. It was actually a secular state until the US-sponsored mujahadeen war against the Russians. You remember the mujahadeen, right? It's the same guys, and their kids, who are fighting us now. Funny how that works.

Before you call someone like her "shit for brains," you might want to read some history.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. Speaking of Excrement...

It was a "secular state" before the US showed up? Let's be a little more precise here. It was a dictatorship and under occupation by the Soviet Army. Before that it had been a non-communist dictatorship and before that it was a monarchy. I'll grant you that as monarchs and dictators go, Afghanistan has probably had the best of the lot, but there is still no democratic tradition in this country.

Not that I mind. If they want to bash each other's brains out, that's pretty much jake with me and I don't care if they're under a president or a shah or whatever the hell they want. It's when they decide to carry their tradition of blood-sport politics (Afghan politicians RARELY die of natural causes) to the international arena that I have a teensy little objection.

[Better Believe It]

32. Jeff ... before you try and "fix" Afghanistan how about fixing your own "fucking" country first?

Jeff, fix your own fucking country first before you nose around in other nations and try to order them around.

For your information, and I'm sure this is news to you, the woman who wrote that article has more "balls" and courage than all of the Generals and politicians who are "leading" the war against Afghanistan.

-------------------------------------------------
'Bravest woman in Afghanistan' tours Canada
By Bruce Ward , Ottawa Citizen
November 20, 2009


She has survived four assassination attempts and lives like a fugitive in Afghanistan, protected by bodyguards and moving to safe houses almost nightly to stay ahead of her enemies. Even the flowers at her wedding were checked for bombs. "To hide my identity, I must travel under the cover of the heavy cloth burka, which, to me, is the symbol of women's oppression," she says, "like a shroud for the living."

At 27, Joya became the youngest person to be elected to Afghanistan's new parliament. Two years ago, she was banished from her seat for speaking out about government corruption. She said President Hamid Karzai was a puppet and that warlords and drug barons ran the country.

"We have a saying in Afghanistan: 'Same donkey, different saddle,' " Joya says. "Karzai operates a Mafia system and he is a shameless puppet man, backed by the U.S., trying to deceive people around the world. My people will never trust him. Karzai does dirty deals with the warlords. He has betrayed us, which is why millions of people did not vote in the election."

She says Afghans see Canadian troops as no different from U.S. troops — "an occupying force, not as liberators or peacemakers of any kind."

Joya is 31. Her country has been at war her entire life. If the Taliban gets its way, Joya won't see her next birthday. "Most Afghans my age or younger have known only bloodshed, displacement and occupation."

Almost eight years after the invasion, the situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, she writes.

"We are caught between two enemies — the Taliban on one side and the U.S./NATO forces and their warlord friends on the other. And the dark-minded forces in our country are gaining power with every allied airstrike that kills civilians, with every corrupt government official who grows fat on bribes and thievery, and with every criminal who escapes justice."

An outspoken Afghan MP, activist Malalai Joya is on a speaking tour of Canada to launch her memoir, A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice.

http://www.canada.com/news/Bravest+woman+Afghanistan+tours+Canada/2247393/story.html

[Oregone]

7. 'Liberation was just a big lie'

Outspoken Afghan MP says Canadian mission is a big waste of time
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/727873---liberation-was-just-a-big-lie

[LooseWilly]

15. She's obviously a Republican...

:crazy:

[QC]

24. A leftbagger trot, too. n/t

[freddie mertz]

28. And a PUMA. LOL.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. LoL!

:popcorn:

[freddie mertz]

13. It is a good, informative piece. Thanks.

I wish some of my colleagues in here would have read it.

[impik]

20. Actually, he'll save many of her people from the

hands of the Taliban.

[freddie mertz]

26. Freedom is on the march!

[Vidar]

22. K&R.

[vaberella]

23. Give me a fuckin' break. He's been talking about doing a surge in Afghanistan along side hope.

He still got elected.

[Jennicut]

27. Actually, if he went against the escalation he would be flip flopping from the outlook he had during

the campaign. I want him to flip flop on it but this author of this article was not paying attention to Obama's statements in 2008.

[dionysus]

30. yay, another day another bullshit hit piece! ur teh awesome!