That’s about 16% - a failure by any standards. It represents the number of benchmarks the Iraqi government has met since the so-called surge was initiated. Needless to say, the goal was that all eighteen benchmarks would be met by September 15, which is when the report is due. That report however, has now been preemptively leaked to The Washington Post by a government official who was concerned that the conclusions found in the report were so negative that the White House would tamper with the final version. That is what allegedly happened with security assessments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Karen DeYoung and Thomas Ricks of the Post quote the report as saying that "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."
The Report contrasts strongly with almost every positive statement made by the White House with regards to progress in Iraq and contradicts upbeat statements made by the White House and Military spokespersons about the readiness of the newly trained Iraqi troops. In short, The Surge, is a flop.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Ramping up the Rhetoric
President Bush spoke to veterans of the armed forces yesterday in Reno and in doing so, considerably ramped up the war rhetoric against Iran. Jennifer Loven of Breitbart.Com reported on the speech and quoted Bush as saying:
"Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan to be used to attack American and NATO troops," Bush said. "Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and impose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere."
This mirrors almost exactly the kind of language that the Bush Administration used when they were readying the country and the world for a war against Iraq. The only interpretation of this is that Iran has to be stopped militarily through war because Iran will not succumb to sanctions and nor will it toe the line. Saying "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," when you are THE nation threatening the security of nations everywhere is mildly ironic. Not that I would expect Bush to be able to wrap his head around that one.
Of course there is concern when any country attempts to acquire nuclear weapons but we don't know that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear arsenal and why should Israel, Pakistan and India be "allowed" to do so and not Iran and why should Iran not be allowed to pursue nuclear power to prepare for an age when oil runs out?
Between India, Israel, Pakistan, the United States and Iran, Iran is the only country out of those five that has not invaded another country in the past ten years and is the only country out of those five that has not committed overt acts of political aggression towards another country in the past ten years. They may have sponsored acts of terror although I have yet to see hard evidence of this in the recent past and they may be running covert operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but why shouldn’t they when we are doing the same? In fact in a recent article I read that the CIA were stepping up their covert operations against Iran. Are they expected not to react?
To believe that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons and then start threatening other countries with them is naive. No one wants to be obliterated and they are well aware that that would be their fate. So why believe Iran's acquisition would "threaten the security of nations everywhere," but the acquisition of the same weapons by other countries has not?
Bush is acting as a mouthpiece for Cheney and the oil conglomerates who maybe believe that if they can knock out Iran, they could win in Iraq. Knocking out Iran whilst keeping the country viable for humans to live in, is impossible. So is winning a conventional war against Iran so what are they thinking? The frightening thought is that they may not care if they win or not but they may consider starting a war just to give the Republicans a boost before the 2008 elections. Once Iran’s infrastructure is down, they will declare “mission accomplished” for a second time and yank the troops out of Iraq. Americans are prone to gullibility and they may just believe the rhetoric. They just might.
This Republican Administration is the biggest threat to peace in the world that I've ever experienced and is the most dangerous menace to mankind since the Cuban missile crisis.
"Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan to be used to attack American and NATO troops," Bush said. "Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and impose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere."
This mirrors almost exactly the kind of language that the Bush Administration used when they were readying the country and the world for a war against Iraq. The only interpretation of this is that Iran has to be stopped militarily through war because Iran will not succumb to sanctions and nor will it toe the line. Saying "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," when you are THE nation threatening the security of nations everywhere is mildly ironic. Not that I would expect Bush to be able to wrap his head around that one.
Of course there is concern when any country attempts to acquire nuclear weapons but we don't know that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear arsenal and why should Israel, Pakistan and India be "allowed" to do so and not Iran and why should Iran not be allowed to pursue nuclear power to prepare for an age when oil runs out?
Between India, Israel, Pakistan, the United States and Iran, Iran is the only country out of those five that has not invaded another country in the past ten years and is the only country out of those five that has not committed overt acts of political aggression towards another country in the past ten years. They may have sponsored acts of terror although I have yet to see hard evidence of this in the recent past and they may be running covert operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but why shouldn’t they when we are doing the same? In fact in a recent article I read that the CIA were stepping up their covert operations against Iran. Are they expected not to react?
To believe that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons and then start threatening other countries with them is naive. No one wants to be obliterated and they are well aware that that would be their fate. So why believe Iran's acquisition would "threaten the security of nations everywhere," but the acquisition of the same weapons by other countries has not?
Bush is acting as a mouthpiece for Cheney and the oil conglomerates who maybe believe that if they can knock out Iran, they could win in Iraq. Knocking out Iran whilst keeping the country viable for humans to live in, is impossible. So is winning a conventional war against Iran so what are they thinking? The frightening thought is that they may not care if they win or not but they may consider starting a war just to give the Republicans a boost before the 2008 elections. Once Iran’s infrastructure is down, they will declare “mission accomplished” for a second time and yank the troops out of Iraq. Americans are prone to gullibility and they may just believe the rhetoric. They just might.
This Republican Administration is the biggest threat to peace in the world that I've ever experienced and is the most dangerous menace to mankind since the Cuban missile crisis.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Your Tax Dollars at Work in Iraq
In almost any third world country conflict, militias have been known to set up roadblocks and illicit checkpoints which are about controlling the population through fear and extorting cash and goods as a sort of illegitimate transport tax, from trucks carrying merchandise. This system operated in Lebanon, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, both during the Soviet occupation and more recently after the American invasion and, of course, in Iraq. It is frightfully efficient and provides a steady and healthy income to any group controlling a specific district.
In Iraq, it is the insurgency that profits from this practice and does so in numbers befitting the phenomenal financial black hole that Iraq has become. US contractors, including the military, use Iraqi contractors to transport their goods. The idea is that Iraqi contractors are not only less likely to be attacked but, from the US Military’s point of view, are also more dispensable, or at least their workers are, if they are killed. Iraqi contractors also know, that to get their goods say, from Baghdad to a job site in Al Anbar province, they will have to pay a substantial amount to the insurgency to let them pass. One contractor quotes a job, which he would normally bid at $16,000 for filling bags of gravel and transporting them to Ramadi would be invoiced at $120,000 of which as much as $100,000 was paid out to the insurgency.
The Seattle Times quotes one contractor as saying: "Insurgents control the roads - Americans don't control the roads — and everything from Syria and Jordan goes through there."
In light of the fact that current US or Iraqi government run projects total over $353 million, it’s easy to imagine about $10 million of that landing in the hands of the insurgency over the next year or so. Some of that money will be used by the insurgency to purchase weapons, some of it to bribe Syrian border guards to look the other way. But the following also has to be considered: in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, Pentagon officials claim that the USA spends one million dollars for every dollar spent by the insurgency, which boggles the mind somewhat.
Here’s the scenario in a nutshell. In order for Iraq to succeed, the United States is attempting to defeat an insurgency whilst it rebuilds the country’s infrastructure. In rebuilding the infrastructure, American contractors are forced to shell out millions of dollars to the insurgency that the US military is trying to fight. The insurgency repeatedly destroys the infrastructure, a soft target, thus guaranteeing themselves a steady revenue flow. That’s a business plan if ever I saw one.
In Iraq, it is the insurgency that profits from this practice and does so in numbers befitting the phenomenal financial black hole that Iraq has become. US contractors, including the military, use Iraqi contractors to transport their goods. The idea is that Iraqi contractors are not only less likely to be attacked but, from the US Military’s point of view, are also more dispensable, or at least their workers are, if they are killed. Iraqi contractors also know, that to get their goods say, from Baghdad to a job site in Al Anbar province, they will have to pay a substantial amount to the insurgency to let them pass. One contractor quotes a job, which he would normally bid at $16,000 for filling bags of gravel and transporting them to Ramadi would be invoiced at $120,000 of which as much as $100,000 was paid out to the insurgency.
The Seattle Times quotes one contractor as saying: "Insurgents control the roads - Americans don't control the roads — and everything from Syria and Jordan goes through there."
In light of the fact that current US or Iraqi government run projects total over $353 million, it’s easy to imagine about $10 million of that landing in the hands of the insurgency over the next year or so. Some of that money will be used by the insurgency to purchase weapons, some of it to bribe Syrian border guards to look the other way. But the following also has to be considered: in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, Pentagon officials claim that the USA spends one million dollars for every dollar spent by the insurgency, which boggles the mind somewhat.
Here’s the scenario in a nutshell. In order for Iraq to succeed, the United States is attempting to defeat an insurgency whilst it rebuilds the country’s infrastructure. In rebuilding the infrastructure, American contractors are forced to shell out millions of dollars to the insurgency that the US military is trying to fight. The insurgency repeatedly destroys the infrastructure, a soft target, thus guaranteeing themselves a steady revenue flow. That’s a business plan if ever I saw one.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Coca Cola for Heroin
When the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996, they still did not have control of all of Afghanistan. In particular, Mazar El Sharif, the Shiite holy city to the North was still firmly in the hands of Dostum and his followers despite Pakistani Madrassa sending thousands of willing fighters to the Taliban to take it over. Mazar Il Sharif fell in October of 1999 and it was widely accepted that the Taliban now basically controlled the entire country. However well before this point in time, the Taliban had established a ban on the growth of poppies, required to make opium and heroin. They never managed to eradicate the crop entirely, but they certainly reduced the exports to a trickle by 2001. One of the ways they did this was by applying draconian punishment to those who dared to grow poppies proclaiming it to be against the will of Allah and secondly, by effectively subsidizing the farmers to grow other crops.
In the wake of the US invasion in 2001, President Bush exhorted the world to provide aid for this new fledgling democracy, a favorite Neoconservative expression. The world responded and led by Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom as well as the United States, over five billion dollars were pledged to rebuild the country. Barely 5% of that money ever reached Afghanistan and when it did, it mainly went to foreign contractors, such as a well known Virginian law firm that pocketed $14 million to rewrite Afghan trade laws, an exercise so pointless, so futile, it boggles the mind. One of the main effects of the invasion however, was the sudden stop in subsidies the Taliban gave the private farmers especially in the more rural areas and the other, was the almost total cessation of governance of all the provinces apart from Kabul and Herat.
During my trips in 2003 and 2003, the outlying Afghan provinces were operating almost entirely without any form of administration. There was a severe drought which had been going on for almost six years by then and the Afghans outside Kabul were in dire straits whereas those within the Kabul city limits were not much better off than before despite the fact that the Taliban’s reign of terror had now ceased. The Afghan soil does not support many crops, but one of the crops that does grow exceedingly well are opium poppies. Farmers, desperate to earn something began growing poppies again in 2003. By 2005, Afghanistan was supplying 75% of the world’s opium and heroin. More recently articles appeared in both The New York Times as well as The International Herald Tribune stating that Afghan poppy growth had skyrocketed since then to new record levels.
One of the reasons for this is that the Taliban, erstwhile the ones who prohibited poppy growing are now encouraging it and reaping the profits. In fact, they have now set up labs all over southern Afghanistan to process the crop which now no longer needs to leave the country as the raw product, but can be manufactured into heroin which is then exported thus raising the reaped profits by several hundred percent. The other factor is that despite the intentions of the occupying forces to do something about the poppy growers, there is strong resistance from the Afghan central government in Kabul, whose true reach does not extend much further than Bamiyan, some 140 miles from the Kabul City walls. Hamid Karzai’s government is well aware that it is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Taliban now profit from the growth of the poppies, but eradicating them would further alienate the farmers who would then turn to the Taliban.
The sheer numbers are staggering. Afghanistan now produces 92% of the world’s heroin and Helmland Province, which covers an area about the size of West Virginia, produces more narcotics than any other place in the world including Columbia and Morocco. Last year’s bumper poppy crop amounting to a mind blowing 6,100 metric tons represents a 50% increase over the previous year.
To understand this one has to understand the nature of the country. It is true that the Taliban represented a fiendish government which cracked down on freedom in ways that are unthinkable in the West. But a farmer somewhere in Helmland province was little affected by this. To him, the ensuing ‘freedom’ offered by the West has only meant an increase in poverty and a decrease in his living conditions. Attempts by the West to introduce new crops into Afganistan such as growing chillis, which are quite profitable fail because the initial expenditure and outlay for the farmer is too high. In addition, his crops are endangered from marauding thieves and the Taliban militias that roam the countryside who do not wish to have their business undermined.
The current state of affairs points at a further misstep by the West and a continuing failure to grasp that nature of the country that is Afghanistan. There was a chance, back in 2001, to really turn the tide. Five billion dollars could truly have sufficed to put the country on its feet, to educate the farmers in new farming techniques, to supply them with the initial seeds to begin growing crops which they can sell. But in 2003 most of the ministries were still non-functional, the country, including Kabul still lacked drinking water and power and the population of Afghanistan still lacked a perspective. The governments of Germany and the United Kingdom pompously declared that they would not abandon Afghanistan, but they did. The United States declared solidarity with the Afghan people, but they never followed through. Continuing reports of massive civilian casualties caused by predominantly United States led Special Forces and aerial bombardments have further strengthened the wedge between the government of Hamid Karzai and the indigenous population. Who can blame them for resorting to growing mildly profitable drug crops which then find their markets here, in our countries, in the West, where they destroy the fabric of our society? We have so thoroughly shot ourselves in the foot by creating a monster through sheer ignorance, greed and incapability.
The Afghan people, who have lived through 25 years of war are experiencing the continued slow death of their country, now at the hands of the West. Symbolically, one of the projects that succeeded is the construction of a giant soft drink bottling plant in the new industrial park outside Kabul. We could not give them freedom, we could not give them peace, we could not give them electricity or clean water, but we managed to give them Coca-Cola.
In the wake of the US invasion in 2001, President Bush exhorted the world to provide aid for this new fledgling democracy, a favorite Neoconservative expression. The world responded and led by Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom as well as the United States, over five billion dollars were pledged to rebuild the country. Barely 5% of that money ever reached Afghanistan and when it did, it mainly went to foreign contractors, such as a well known Virginian law firm that pocketed $14 million to rewrite Afghan trade laws, an exercise so pointless, so futile, it boggles the mind. One of the main effects of the invasion however, was the sudden stop in subsidies the Taliban gave the private farmers especially in the more rural areas and the other, was the almost total cessation of governance of all the provinces apart from Kabul and Herat.
During my trips in 2003 and 2003, the outlying Afghan provinces were operating almost entirely without any form of administration. There was a severe drought which had been going on for almost six years by then and the Afghans outside Kabul were in dire straits whereas those within the Kabul city limits were not much better off than before despite the fact that the Taliban’s reign of terror had now ceased. The Afghan soil does not support many crops, but one of the crops that does grow exceedingly well are opium poppies. Farmers, desperate to earn something began growing poppies again in 2003. By 2005, Afghanistan was supplying 75% of the world’s opium and heroin. More recently articles appeared in both The New York Times as well as The International Herald Tribune stating that Afghan poppy growth had skyrocketed since then to new record levels.
One of the reasons for this is that the Taliban, erstwhile the ones who prohibited poppy growing are now encouraging it and reaping the profits. In fact, they have now set up labs all over southern Afghanistan to process the crop which now no longer needs to leave the country as the raw product, but can be manufactured into heroin which is then exported thus raising the reaped profits by several hundred percent. The other factor is that despite the intentions of the occupying forces to do something about the poppy growers, there is strong resistance from the Afghan central government in Kabul, whose true reach does not extend much further than Bamiyan, some 140 miles from the Kabul City walls. Hamid Karzai’s government is well aware that it is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Taliban now profit from the growth of the poppies, but eradicating them would further alienate the farmers who would then turn to the Taliban.
The sheer numbers are staggering. Afghanistan now produces 92% of the world’s heroin and Helmland Province, which covers an area about the size of West Virginia, produces more narcotics than any other place in the world including Columbia and Morocco. Last year’s bumper poppy crop amounting to a mind blowing 6,100 metric tons represents a 50% increase over the previous year.
To understand this one has to understand the nature of the country. It is true that the Taliban represented a fiendish government which cracked down on freedom in ways that are unthinkable in the West. But a farmer somewhere in Helmland province was little affected by this. To him, the ensuing ‘freedom’ offered by the West has only meant an increase in poverty and a decrease in his living conditions. Attempts by the West to introduce new crops into Afganistan such as growing chillis, which are quite profitable fail because the initial expenditure and outlay for the farmer is too high. In addition, his crops are endangered from marauding thieves and the Taliban militias that roam the countryside who do not wish to have their business undermined.
The current state of affairs points at a further misstep by the West and a continuing failure to grasp that nature of the country that is Afghanistan. There was a chance, back in 2001, to really turn the tide. Five billion dollars could truly have sufficed to put the country on its feet, to educate the farmers in new farming techniques, to supply them with the initial seeds to begin growing crops which they can sell. But in 2003 most of the ministries were still non-functional, the country, including Kabul still lacked drinking water and power and the population of Afghanistan still lacked a perspective. The governments of Germany and the United Kingdom pompously declared that they would not abandon Afghanistan, but they did. The United States declared solidarity with the Afghan people, but they never followed through. Continuing reports of massive civilian casualties caused by predominantly United States led Special Forces and aerial bombardments have further strengthened the wedge between the government of Hamid Karzai and the indigenous population. Who can blame them for resorting to growing mildly profitable drug crops which then find their markets here, in our countries, in the West, where they destroy the fabric of our society? We have so thoroughly shot ourselves in the foot by creating a monster through sheer ignorance, greed and incapability.
The Afghan people, who have lived through 25 years of war are experiencing the continued slow death of their country, now at the hands of the West. Symbolically, one of the projects that succeeded is the construction of a giant soft drink bottling plant in the new industrial park outside Kabul. We could not give them freedom, we could not give them peace, we could not give them electricity or clean water, but we managed to give them Coca-Cola.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Case for Withdrawal
Proponents of what has become known as ‘The Surge’ are generally supporters of the invasion of Iraq. Their bottom line is and has been that we cannot ‘cut and run’. They will never tell you what they exactly mean by ‘cutting and running’ – or rather, they will not tell you what they are trying to avoid by not withdrawing the troops. That is because they cannot. Victory in Iraq is not anything that can be quantified. There is no measurable success, no goal, no aim. It is a fluffy white foggy blob of invectives and half-hearted explanations. This is one of the main reasons for the moral drain amongst the troops stationed there. Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Connecticut, summed it up when he described his role in the Iraq War: “We drive around and wait to get shot at.”
The fact is that like it or not, the US troops’ presence does probably limit the amount of violence each ethnic fraction is able to commit on the other, but only by a small margin. Meanwhile, the very presence of those troops also aggravates certain other aspects of the situation. There is pent up anger at the Americans and, by proxy, anger at those who are either affiliated with them, support them or are perceived to gain from their continued involvement. The United States and the ever dwindling “Coalition of the Willing” is actually fulfilling the role that was vacated when Saddam was ousted. Crack downs, curfews, lock ups and random arrests of anyone seen to be in opposition. The US occupation is the stabilizing force and it isn’t even doing a very good job at that either.
It has become clear to anyone, that the Ethnic divisions that run within Iraq’s society are so deep that they have caused fissures and when allowed to, they will cause permanent cracks. No amount of babysitting is going to help. Babysitting is namely what the Pentagon is attempting to do; support the crippled Maliki administration until the country stabilizes and the relatively recently elected Iraqi government can stand up on its own two feet. But that isn’t going to happen.
When the US led coalition pulls out, whether it be this year, next year or in ten years, Iraq will devolve into separate entities - it will “fly apart” as Cheney predicted back in 1994. So that being a given, what is the continued presence of US forces in Iraq actually achieving? One can compare it to trying to plug a dam with one’s thumb as the waters rise. At some point, one is going to have to pull one’s thumb out and the later one does so, the higher the water will have risen and the greater the catastrophe. The fact that the US Military’s strategy has morphed into an occupation is only making things worse.
This is not about cutting and running but about taking some of the sting out of the present situation. It will result in a spike in bloodshed to be sure, but that is something that cannot be avoided – it has been on the cards ever since the British divided up the Middle East. Like water, ethnic divisions have to find their own level in every region and no amount of foreign presence will put that off for ever. It’s in our nature. The only thing left to do is to remove the catalyst that sparks the violence in Iraq – the US and coalition forces.
The concern that Al Qaeda will win if we pull out is not only erroneous but misleading. Al Qaeda, or rather its surrogate entity in Iraq, will be dealt with in the same way as the other factions. It is unlikely that a group that targets Iraqi civilians will last long there. Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Iraqis are a tough bunch and will sort out their own problems. Many will perish but that is the legacy and the cross that we have to bear for having meddled in something we did not fully understand. We will not change that by staying there a minute longer. But by leaving, we will remove the raison d’être of those that plant bombs amongst civilians in order to punish them for not protesting America’s involvement.
So in order to save lives and shorten the process I’d call on the American government to withdraw the troops and with them, please, those brave young Iraqis who helped them as translators, guides and suppliers and who will meet a terrible fate if they are left there to face the wrath of the opponents of the continuing American occupation. Iraq needs continuing help in the form of money and infrastructure, not weapons.
The fact is that like it or not, the US troops’ presence does probably limit the amount of violence each ethnic fraction is able to commit on the other, but only by a small margin. Meanwhile, the very presence of those troops also aggravates certain other aspects of the situation. There is pent up anger at the Americans and, by proxy, anger at those who are either affiliated with them, support them or are perceived to gain from their continued involvement. The United States and the ever dwindling “Coalition of the Willing” is actually fulfilling the role that was vacated when Saddam was ousted. Crack downs, curfews, lock ups and random arrests of anyone seen to be in opposition. The US occupation is the stabilizing force and it isn’t even doing a very good job at that either.
It has become clear to anyone, that the Ethnic divisions that run within Iraq’s society are so deep that they have caused fissures and when allowed to, they will cause permanent cracks. No amount of babysitting is going to help. Babysitting is namely what the Pentagon is attempting to do; support the crippled Maliki administration until the country stabilizes and the relatively recently elected Iraqi government can stand up on its own two feet. But that isn’t going to happen.
When the US led coalition pulls out, whether it be this year, next year or in ten years, Iraq will devolve into separate entities - it will “fly apart” as Cheney predicted back in 1994. So that being a given, what is the continued presence of US forces in Iraq actually achieving? One can compare it to trying to plug a dam with one’s thumb as the waters rise. At some point, one is going to have to pull one’s thumb out and the later one does so, the higher the water will have risen and the greater the catastrophe. The fact that the US Military’s strategy has morphed into an occupation is only making things worse.
This is not about cutting and running but about taking some of the sting out of the present situation. It will result in a spike in bloodshed to be sure, but that is something that cannot be avoided – it has been on the cards ever since the British divided up the Middle East. Like water, ethnic divisions have to find their own level in every region and no amount of foreign presence will put that off for ever. It’s in our nature. The only thing left to do is to remove the catalyst that sparks the violence in Iraq – the US and coalition forces.
The concern that Al Qaeda will win if we pull out is not only erroneous but misleading. Al Qaeda, or rather its surrogate entity in Iraq, will be dealt with in the same way as the other factions. It is unlikely that a group that targets Iraqi civilians will last long there. Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Iraqis are a tough bunch and will sort out their own problems. Many will perish but that is the legacy and the cross that we have to bear for having meddled in something we did not fully understand. We will not change that by staying there a minute longer. But by leaving, we will remove the raison d’être of those that plant bombs amongst civilians in order to punish them for not protesting America’s involvement.
So in order to save lives and shorten the process I’d call on the American government to withdraw the troops and with them, please, those brave young Iraqis who helped them as translators, guides and suppliers and who will meet a terrible fate if they are left there to face the wrath of the opponents of the continuing American occupation. Iraq needs continuing help in the form of money and infrastructure, not weapons.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
When Another America Went to War
There was a time when the United States perceived its position in the world not as the be all and end all of civilization and the entity that determines how other countries should live out their cultures. There was a humbleness and a degree of tolerance borne out of the knowledge of being a ‘new’ country, which made Americans treat people abroad with a certain level of respect and which resulted in the world accepting, liking and even loving America and what it stood for.
Increasingly, the attitude of the US military and its soldiers is that they do not owe anyone anything, let alone respect. This started in Vietnam and has increased precipitously with every year that the United States has become stronger militarily. More recently, through the collapse of the Soviet Union maybe and the ensuing perception at being the only super-power left, we witness a growing degradation of the local population by members of the United States forces. It is part of the machinery which is causing a growing distaste for America and its ways especially in those countries but also elsewhere.
This is compounded by the fact that also since the Vietnam war, the disrespect by American forces for the lives of others, whilst being so sentimentally attached to the lives of their own troops gives the distinct impression that Americans believe themselves to be intrinsically more valuable as human beings. Of note recently were comments made by a senior British Commander in Afghanistan’s Helmland, in which he requested that America withdraw its Special Forces due to the unarguably high number of civilian casualties they were causing which in turn was making it impossible to win over the civilian population to the ISAF cause of fighting the Taliban.
One father, who reported losing six members of his family killed in a bombing raid by US Forces, in which another five members of his family were wounded including his wife who lost an arm, confirmed this point as reported by Carlotta Gall of the New York Times:
He said that he opposed the Taliban, but that after the bombing raid the villagers were so angered that most of the men who survived went off to join the insurgents. Whether people would support the foreign troops “depends on the behavior of ISAF,” Mohammadullah said, referring to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. “If they treat the civilians well, they will win.”
The most important line is the last one: “If they treat civilians well, they will win.” But this runs counter to the ways that soldiers, specifically American soldiers have been treating civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent article quoted Marines as saying that they would generally not report the mistreatment of civilians by their fellow marines. Moreover, references to headdress attire and derogatory names like “haji” are counterproductive.
There was a time when things were different. US troops were in Iraq during the Second World War and at that time, there was a booklet entitled “A Short Guide to Iraq” which outlined how to behave towards Iraqis, included pointers as to how to respect the Islamic traditions and also a small guide on how to speak Arabic. A new version of this book has finally been published, perhaps four years too late with an introduction by Lt. Col. John Nagl, in which he wishes he had had such a booklet when he was first stationed in Iraq in 2003:
“As the month of fasting called Ramadan approached in November 2003, I would have appreciated knowing that ‘Moslem tempers are very short during this month as yours would be under similar circumstances’—and perhaps I would have been better prepared for the surge of violence that marked this celebration in our sector.”
The Newsweek article by Malcolm Jones ends with this remarkable insight:
The chief value of “Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq During World War II” is that it reminds us that there was a time, not so long ago, when America expected its troops abroad to be not only brave and resourceful fighters but also upstanding citizens who were expected to be generous, kind and respectful of other people and other cultures—model Americans, in other words. No wonder they called it “the good war.”
Increasingly, the attitude of the US military and its soldiers is that they do not owe anyone anything, let alone respect. This started in Vietnam and has increased precipitously with every year that the United States has become stronger militarily. More recently, through the collapse of the Soviet Union maybe and the ensuing perception at being the only super-power left, we witness a growing degradation of the local population by members of the United States forces. It is part of the machinery which is causing a growing distaste for America and its ways especially in those countries but also elsewhere.
This is compounded by the fact that also since the Vietnam war, the disrespect by American forces for the lives of others, whilst being so sentimentally attached to the lives of their own troops gives the distinct impression that Americans believe themselves to be intrinsically more valuable as human beings. Of note recently were comments made by a senior British Commander in Afghanistan’s Helmland, in which he requested that America withdraw its Special Forces due to the unarguably high number of civilian casualties they were causing which in turn was making it impossible to win over the civilian population to the ISAF cause of fighting the Taliban.
One father, who reported losing six members of his family killed in a bombing raid by US Forces, in which another five members of his family were wounded including his wife who lost an arm, confirmed this point as reported by Carlotta Gall of the New York Times:
He said that he opposed the Taliban, but that after the bombing raid the villagers were so angered that most of the men who survived went off to join the insurgents. Whether people would support the foreign troops “depends on the behavior of ISAF,” Mohammadullah said, referring to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. “If they treat the civilians well, they will win.”
The most important line is the last one: “If they treat civilians well, they will win.” But this runs counter to the ways that soldiers, specifically American soldiers have been treating civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent article quoted Marines as saying that they would generally not report the mistreatment of civilians by their fellow marines. Moreover, references to headdress attire and derogatory names like “haji” are counterproductive.
There was a time when things were different. US troops were in Iraq during the Second World War and at that time, there was a booklet entitled “A Short Guide to Iraq” which outlined how to behave towards Iraqis, included pointers as to how to respect the Islamic traditions and also a small guide on how to speak Arabic. A new version of this book has finally been published, perhaps four years too late with an introduction by Lt. Col. John Nagl, in which he wishes he had had such a booklet when he was first stationed in Iraq in 2003:
“As the month of fasting called Ramadan approached in November 2003, I would have appreciated knowing that ‘Moslem tempers are very short during this month as yours would be under similar circumstances’—and perhaps I would have been better prepared for the surge of violence that marked this celebration in our sector.”
The Newsweek article by Malcolm Jones ends with this remarkable insight:
The chief value of “Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq During World War II” is that it reminds us that there was a time, not so long ago, when America expected its troops abroad to be not only brave and resourceful fighters but also upstanding citizens who were expected to be generous, kind and respectful of other people and other cultures—model Americans, in other words. No wonder they called it “the good war.”
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Another Neocon Yearns for an Attack...
Stu Bykofsky is an author of several Opinion Editorials in the Philadelphia Daily News and Stu Bykofsky is a true Neoconservative. His past writings have included such wondrous titles as "Philly is too gay for some" and "Carter' book approaches Anti-semitism."
Stu Bykofsky engenders the Neoconservative who's belly aches every morning when he wakes up and watches as America moves further and further away from his beloved Neocon dreams. An America that is less and less interested in attacking Iran, an America that wants increasingly to pull out of Iraq and an America that wants to be at peace with the world. It infuriates him.
So he's hatched a master plan which has been echoed by other Neocons: "please god let us have another 9/11."
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.
Come on guys! What are another few thousand American lives if after it, we are all joined in attacking another Islamic nation somewhere? One has to break eggs to make an omelete and heck! Imagine how unified the United States would be if they, say, killed 5,000 Americans! Boy! We'd have enough public empathy to maybe nuke someone!
That, my friends, is the dark shadow that the hard core Republicans have mutated into. They are in a bind mind you. If there is a successful attack, it will mean all of Bush's anti-terror tactics failed. But then, it would give them good reason to crack down even further on everyone's privacy and freedom, there would be no objection to wiretapping everyone, opening everyone's mail. It would be the Neoconservative wet dream. Sadly, the spineless Democratic party would probably go with it, flinching every time someone throws out the word "unpatriotic."
So, Stu Bykofsky, if there is another 9/11, I hope that you are in the middle of that conflagration, tears of happiness in your eyes as you watch your nation be sewn back together again by death. Me? I'd rather have political discord for the next 1,000 years than see another 3,000 people sacrificed for unity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
