The American-Made Insurgency in Afghanistan
-
The American-Made Insurgency in AfghanistanA Million McVeighs Nowby Chris Floyd
The "Good War" in Afghanistan – the Bush-launched war that Barack Obama tells us we must fight and win – continues to deteriorate before our eyes. Just like every other operation in the so-called "War on Terror" (another Bush-launched campaign that Obama has fully embraced as his own), the Afghan war, now in its seventh year, has proven entirely counter-productive to its stated aims. Instead of stabilizing a volatile region and denying it as a base for violent extremism, it has of course done the opposite. The shock waves of the heavy-handed American-led invasion of Afghanistan – a country that no foreign power has ever conquered and held – have spread across Central Asia, most dangerously into Pakistan.
Afghanistan itself is in a desperate condition, laden with a weak, foreign-installed government dominated by warlords and riddled with corruption. The illegal opium trade, quashed by the Taliban, has now surged to historic levels, and is flooding the streets of Europe and the West with cut-rate heroin – not to mention fuelling an astonishing rise in drug addiction among Afghans, Pakistanis and Iranians. At every turn, the iron hand of American militarism is producing more suffering, more chaos, more corruption, more extremism, more slaughter, both directly and as blowback from people maddened into wanton violence by the relentless stream of atrocities.
And no, to comprehend an origin of violence is not to condone it; but reality compels acknowledgement of the fact that state-terror atrocity breeds "asymmetrical" atrocity in turn. It also teaches by example. The state militarists of empire say: Violence works. Violence is honorable. Violence is the most effective way to accomplish your goals. And you must not blench at killing innocent people in your violent operations. Is it any wonder that others adopt these methods, which are championed and celebrated by our most respected and legitimatized elites? Recall the words of one of America's own home-grown "asymmetricals," Timothy McVeigh, who at his sentencing for the Oklahoma City bombing quoted Justice Louis Brandeis: "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
McVeigh of course was schooled in death and violence as a soldier in the first Iraq War, where he had been appalled to find himself killing people who wished America no harm, and to see the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in a conflict that need never have been fought. A peaceful settlement of the complex financial and territorial dispute between Iraq and Kuwait had been brokered by the Arab League; but although Iraq accepted the deal, at the last minute, the Kuwaiti royals – long-time business partners of then-President George H.W. Bush – reneged and declared, "We will call in the Americans." Then the regional squabble between Iran and Kuwait was deceitfully turned into a "global threat" by the false claim that Iraq's invading forces were massing on the borders of Saudi Arabia. Pentagon chief Dick Cheney claimed secret satellite imagery showed vast Iraqi armies preparing to swoop down on the Saudi oilfields, the lifeline of the American economy. Bush Family capo James Baker, then Secretary of State, went before Congress and declared that the imminent war was all about saving American jobs. But commercial imagery obtained by a US newspaper at the time showed there were no Iraqi forces on the Saudi border. It was all a knowing lie – as were the claims paraded before Congress that Iraqi soldiers were flinging infants from their incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals. This bearing of false witness had been arranged by a prominent Bush-connected PR firm. The first Iraq War was just as falsely based and pointless as the second.
Unfortunately for the innocents in Oklahoma City, McVeigh too fully absorbed the lessons of the omnipresent teacher, even as he came to reject the teacher's authority. But his greatest crime in the imperial system was not that he killed innocent people in furtherance of political aims, but that he did it free-lance, without the "legitimacy" of a militarist government which slaughters innocent people by the hundreds of thousands in furtherance of its political aims.
Now in Afghanistan, the atrocities of the "legitimate" forces are fueling a prodigious growth in the "illegitimate" insurgency, transforming thousands of people who once opposed the Taliban into fighters under its banner. (Of course, "Taliban" has become a generic term for an array of opponents to the Western presence in Afghanistan). But these atrocities are an inevitable by-product of the very presence of foreign armies, which require "force protection" and close air cover and missile strikes to maintain and protect their operations. This inevitably produces large amounts of "collateral damage" (i.e., dead, maimed, ruined and dispossessed civilians.) The larger the foreign force, the more "force protection" it needs, which produces more atrocities, which fuels more resistance and more extremism. This is virtually a mathematical law. But of course, the very essence of a militarist state is that is feels unbounded by any law – not even the laws of human nature. Thus Washington is now increasing its military presence in Afghanistan, with Obama promising even more.
What will be the results of this policy? Do the math.
II. The Guardian provides an illuminating look at the fruits of American policy in Afghanistan today. This is what Barack Obama wants to see more of:
It was 7.30 on a hot July morning when the plane came swooping low over the remote ravine. Below, a bridal party was making its way to the groom's village in an area called Kamala, in the eastern province of Nangarhar, to prepare for the celebrations later that day.
The first bomb hit a large group of children who had run on ahead of the main procession. It killed most of them instantly.
A few minutes later, the plane returned and dropped another bomb, right in the centre of the group. This time the victims were almost all women. Somehow the bride and two girls survived but as they scrambled down the hillside, desperately trying to get away from the plane, a third bomb caught them. Hajj Khan was one of four elderly men escorting the bride's party that day.
"We were walking, I was holding my grandson's hand, then there was a loud noise and everything went white. When I opened my eyes, everybody was screaming. I was lying metres from where I had been, I was still holding my grandson's hand but the rest of him was gone. I looked around and saw pieces of bodies everywhere. I couldn't make out which part was which."
Relatives from the groom's village said it was impossible to identify the remains. They buried the 47 victims in 28 graves.
Stories like this are relatively common in today's Afghanistan. More than 600 civilians have died in Nato and US air strikes this year. The number of innocents killed this way has almost doubled from last year, and tripled from the year before that. These attacks are weakening support for the Afghan government and turning more and more people against the foreign occupation of the country...
The latest figures from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, taken a month ago, suggest about 750 civilians have been killed by foreign forces this year. Most were killed in air strikes. The remainder were shot by jumpy soldiers, who often open fire in crowded public places after an attack on one of their convoys.
Humanitarian aid agencies say privately that they believe the figure is significantly higher, as many victims classed as "insurgents" are actually non-combatants...
Nato and US spokesmen say their forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. But all too often after an air strike, they deny civilians are among the dead or claim far fewer were killed.
A recent Human Rights Watch report said US investigations, when launched, have been "unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government".
The routine denials and hands-off attitude are contributing to a growing sense among Afghans that their lives are cheap in the eyes of the foreigners.
"We know they don't intend to kill the civilians but we don't believe they care enough not to," said Ahmad Zia, a jeweller in Kabul's busy bazaar. "If it continues we will see a lot more people joining the fight against the foreigners. It's inevitable."...
Sharif Hassanyar, a former interpreter with US Special Forces who is now working as a journalist, described how decisions were taken to bomb areas based on flimsy intelligence.
"I remember when I was working with a group of Rangers and a spy in the area told them the Taliban were training in a garden of a house so they bombed the house, without checking the information. Afterwards they found out that there had not been any Taliban there, only civilians were killed by the bombs," he said.
Informants for the foreign forces often give bad information either accidentally or because they are pursuing tribal or personal vendettas against individuals in neighbouring villages, he added...
It is not just the deaths from air strikes that are poisoning the hearts of Afghans. In the capital, Kabul, each day, terrified drivers swerve out of the way as foreign troops hurtle through the streets in their armoured convoys training their rifles on the drivers and pedestrians and shouting obscenities: "Stay the fuck back!"
The Afghans know to keep out of the way. Last year a US military convoy ploughed into several vehicles, killing seven people including a family. The incident sparked a riot involving thousands of angry Kabul residents. It was suppressed only after the security forces started shooting protesters on the streets. At least 15 people were killed.
"The anti-American feelings in Afghanistan are not just coming from conservative or religious elements," said Shukria Barakzai, a female MP.
"These feelings stem from the actions and military operations of the foreign troops. The anti-western sentiment is directly because of the military actions, the civilian casualties, and the lack of respect by foreign troops for Afghan culture."
-
All roads lead out of Afghanistan
By M K Bhadrakumar
The measure of success of president-elect Barack Obama's new "Afghan strategy" will be directly proportional to his ability to delink the war from its geopolitical agenda inherited from the George W Bush administration.
It is obvious that Russia and Iran's cooperation is no less critical for the success of the war than what the US is painstakingly extracting from the Pakistani generals. Arguably, Obama will even be in a stronger negotiating position vis-a-vis the tough generals in Rawalpindi if only he has Moscow and Tehran on board his Afghan strategy.
But then, Moscow and Iran will expect that Obama reciprocates with a willingness to jettison the US's containment strategy towards them. The signs do not look good. This is not only from the look of Obama's national security team and the continuance of Robert Gates as defense secretary.
On the contrary, in the dying weeks of the Bush administration, the US is robustly pushing for an increased military presence in the Russian (and Chinese) backyard in Central Asia on the ground that the exigencies of a stepped-up war effort in Afghanistan necessitate precisely such an expanded US military presence... -
So what's your point?
-
so what is your point?
-
I posted that article to share the information. if Ah Pak has any issues with it, then its expected that he should just put it forward.
By quoting another article, without even commenting, I have no idea what point he is trying to make. Of course one could conjecture... But then, it'll be meaningless conjectures.
-
I don't have any point to make.
Just adding articles on Afghanistan here.
-
Fine, then I'll state my points in posting this article:
1. The resistance in Afghanistan is not fueled by so-called Islamic terrorists, but by resistance to an occupying force.
2. US forces are increasing resistance by continuing high-casualty tactics.
3. The Afghanistan invasion was based on a lie, rather it furthered US geopolitical aims.
4. Obama, being just another puppet president, will continue this fascist and imperialistic agenda.
-
William Engdahl's views on Afghanistan war:
...The US has been building its bases in Afghanistan. It built three major US bases in the wake of its occupation of Afghanistan in winter of 2001, at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US’ main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was built some 100 kilometers from the border with Iran.
Afghanistan had historically been the heart of the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British strategy was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby gaining a warm water port for its navy and threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.
Afghanistan is also seen by Pentagon planners as highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military might could directly threaten Russia and China as well as Iran and other oil-rich Middle East lands. Little had changed in that respect over more than a century of wars.
Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location, straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, had been in negotiations, together with Cheney’s Halliburton and with Enron, for exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron’s huge natural gas power plant at Dabhol near Mumbai.
At that same time, the Pentagon came to an agreement with the government of Kyrgystan in Central Asia, to build a strategically important base there, Manas Air Base at Bishkek’s international airport. Manas is not only near to Afghanistan; it is also in easy striking distance to Caspian Sea oil and gas, as well as to the borders of both China and Russia.
As part of the price of accepting him as a US ally in the War on Terror rather than a foe, Washington extracted an agreement from Pakistan’s military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, to allow the airport at Jacobabad, about 400km north of Karachi, to be used by the US Air Force and NATO ‘to support their campaign in Afghanistan.’ Two other US bases were built at Dalbandin and Pasni.
This all is merely a small part of the vast web of US-controlled military bases Washington has been building globally since the so-called end of the Cold War...
-
USA scheming for "Great Central Asia" Strategy
"Students and professors from Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and Almaty, Kazakhstan can cooperate with their counterparts in Karachi and Kabul and can learn from them. Benefiting from the modern border controls mechanism, commodities can circulate legally and freely in the areas between Astana and Islamabad. The regional power grid which is supported by oil and gas resources in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and the water resources in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan can transmit electricity from Almaty to New Delhi ... " - blueprint for the "Great Central Asia" by US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher.
For historical reasons, Central Asia and South Asia have been isolated from each other and have belonged to different geopolitical plates for a long time. Now, the two regions both appear on the chessboard of the United States for its Central Asian strategy, referred to as the "Great Central Asia" strategy.
Piecing up new geopolitical plates
It has always been a consistent goal of the United States to penetrate Central Asia and then control this region. The "9/11" Incident actually gave the United States a godsend chance. The anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan has achieved for the US a significant leap in its relationship with Central Asian countries. As a result, the United States rapidly gained a foothold in Central Asia. However, the US has been so impatient that it made a policy mistake by promoting democratization in the region in such a rush. It even tried to use the "color revolution" to change the political system in Central Asian countries. Facts have proved that the "color revolution" model is not suitable for this area. The US interference in Central Asia has caused resentment by Central Asian countries, and therefore cooled down the relations between the United States and Central Asian countries. In 2005, Uzbek President Karimov "requested" that the US withdraw all its armed forces stationed in Uzbekistan.
Meanwhile, Central Asian countries have reported a steady development in their cooperation with Russia and China. The operation of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has been very impressive and successful. This has made the Americans felt like sitting on thorns. Thus, the United States attempts to "enter the SCO" as an observer and attempts to use the "GUUAM (the acronym for Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova)" to smash up the SCO, both failed.
Seeing their policy being thwarted repeatedly in Central Asia, U.S. scholars and policy makers have begun to examine themselves. In the summer of 2005, Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies published an article in the US Magazine "Foreign Affairs", in which he clearly put forward the vision of the "Great Central Asia" strategy.
Starr proposed in a "Great Central Asia cooperative partnership for development" which will have the US taking the lead, the five Central Asian states and Afghanistan entering as the main members, and India and Pakistan participating in. The main idea of the proposal is to take the US control of the situation in Afghanistan as an opportunity, promote optional and flexible cooperation in security, democracy, economy, transport and energy, and, make up a new region by combining Central Asia with South Asia. The United States is to shoulder the role of a midwife to promote the rebirth of the entire region."
The US government quickly accepted this concept. In October, the US State Department reorganized its South Asia Division and included the issues of the five Central Asian states into the jurisdiction of South Asia Division. Between 25th and 26th of April, the US held a congressional hearing, focusing on the "Great Central Asia" strategy. In June, just a few days before the SCO Summit opened, the United States called together Central Asian countries for an international conference entitled "Electricity Beyond Borders" to discuss the energy cooperation between Central Asia and South Asia in Istanbul, Turkey. Having come this far, the United States has got a clear strategy to take energy as a breakthrough to set its "Great Central Asia" vision into action.
Open the door of Central Asia
The five Central Asian countries have long been a part of the territory of the Soviet Union. Facing the long-time war in Afghanistan, Central Asia and South Asia have been isolated from each other for a long time in the history. The two regions have apparent differences in history, religious belief and culture. The reason why the United States is pursuing the "mandatory matching" policy is that it believes it has got two keys to open the south door of the Central Asia area. First, it has succeeded in putting the situation of Afghanistan in control. Second, it has been able to continuously expand its influence in South Asia.
Afghanistan is an important channel connecting Central Asia with South Asia. The Anti-terrorism war has won the United States full right to speak on the situation in Afghanistan. In their vision of the "Great Central Asia" strategy, Afghanistan is an important hub. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a speech delivered in January 2006, "In short, free trade will help Afghanistan and its neighboring countries break away from economic marginalization and turn into a new economic zone��center of the Great Central Asia region."
In recent years, the United States has attached great importance to its South Asian operation and has been vigorously supporting India as its strategic ally in South Asia. South Asia countries such as India and Pakistan have also been paying close attention to Central Asia. They have had steady bilateral security and economic cooperation with Central Asian countries yet still lack a comprehensive mechanism for further cooperation. For this reason, the two countries followed the SCO with interests and hoped that they could join the organization as full members as soon as possible.
The "Greater Central Asia" strategy put forward by the United States has provided both India and Pakistan with an opportunity to participate in the affairs of Central Asia. During the SCO Summit this year, India only sent its Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas to the Summit, which indicated that it is seriously considering other options provided by the United States. Earlier, India had announced that it would join the construction of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline project which is supported by the United States.
Break Russia's dominance in Central Asia
Russia and China are graphically adjacent to each other in Central Asia area. Both countries have their own state interests in the region. The five Central Asian states have common needs for economic development, anti-terrorism and regional security with China and Russia. Under the framework of the SCO, the mutual cooperation between these countries has been enhanced. Correspondingly, the influence of China and Russia in Central Asia is rising.
Obviously, the US is not happy with this situation. The reason why it has brought up the so-called "choosing from the South" policy in Central Asia is that it is determined to use energy, transportation and infrastructure construction as bait to separate Central Asia from the post-Soviet Union dominance. By this means, it can change the external strategic focus of Central Asia from the current Russia-and-China-oriented partnership to cooperative relations with South Asian countries. It can break the long-term Russian dominance in the Central Asian area, it can split and disintegrate the cohesion of the SCO and gradually establish US dominance in the new plate of Central and South Asia.
However, in the long term, the United States may create a strategic misjudgment of other large countries by "setting up another cooking stove". It may also disrupt the existing cooperative mechanisms and put Central Asian countries into a choice dilemma. Even Richard Boucher himself also acknowledged that the implementation of the "Great Central Asia" strategy will have a negative impact on regional security, because it is likely to destroy the integrity of the entire Central Asian region and break the balance of the roles of big powers on Central Asian countries, hence leading to the emergence of polarization and confrontation within the Central Asian region.
"Greater Central Asia" strategy fragile
Magnificent as it appears, the "Greater Central Asia" strategy will still have to face some practical problems in implementation. For historical and cultural reasons, Central Asia and South Asia countries lack basic sense of identification and in-depth cooperation experience. The mutual trust between India and Pakistan is not strong enough for implementing large-scale cross-border infrastructure projects. The Energy reserve issues of Afghanistan and Central Asia are the two blind sides of the "Great Central Asia" strategy.
Afghanistan is the most critical pawn in the "Great Central Asia" strategy. Currently, the US and Afghan central government has very limited control over the situation in Afghanistan. Taliban remnants are still remaining. The warlord regimes and drug trade are still major regional security problems. According to the "Great Central Asia" strategy, most major transport infrastructure and pipelines will pass through Afghanistan. The risks are too high.
An important part of the "Great Central Asia" strategy is to export the energy from Central Asia to South Asia. However, the total energy reserves and current exploiting capacity in the Central Asian region is quite limited. A large part of it is under control of Russia. To export energy to South Asia countries will inevitably cause conflict with Russia. The reason why Kazakhstan, a large energy supplier, is not enthusiastic about this idea is that it does not want to damage its close strategic ally relations with Russia. Tajikistan's future water resources basically have been under control of the Russian Aluminum Company and UES of Russia. Regarding Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan Natural Gas Pipeline Project, the biggest problem lies in the gas reserves of Turkmenistan. According to the agreement, Turkmenistan should sell 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Russia every year. Starting from 2009, it will also provide 30 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines to China. Considering Turkmenistan's current gas productivity, it already has difficulties in fulfilling its contracts with these two countries. It could probably hardly produce any more to the South.
By People's Daily Online
-
Ok, so you agree with me?
-
I agree that USA is trying to penetrate into central asia to destroy Russian and Chinese influence there; using pipelines, client regimes and military bases, economic aid as tools.
-
Well, then you could have just said so.
But then again, its always better to have more information.