Afghanistan: "an unjust, imperialist war of conquest and empire"

[JohnyCanuck]

Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad

By LARRY EVEREST

SNIP

Journalists who traveled to the village reported: "At the battle scene, shell craters dotted the courtyards and shrapnel had gouged holes in the walls. Rooms had collapsed and mud bricks and torn clothing lay in uneven mounds where people had been digging. In two places blood was splattered on a ceiling and a wall....The smell of bodies lingered in one compound, causing villagers to start digging with spades. They found the body of a baby, caked in dust, in the corner of a bombed-out room." Survivors "described repeated strikes on houses where dozens of children were sleeping, grandparents and uncles and aunts huddled inside with them." (New York Times, September 8, 2008)

"Does this look like it fits a Taliban fighter?" one resident told NPR (August 27, 2008), holding up a tiny shoe and a woman’s torn veil. This was the third major massacre of Afghan civilians by U.S.-NATO forces this summer alone. Since 2005, between 2,700 and 3,200 civilians are estimated to have been killed by U.S and NATO forces, whose attacks and bombing raids are escalating. And all this is just the latest example of the enormous suffering the U.S.-NATO war on Afghanistan has inflicted since it was launched seven years ago on October 7, 2001.

The U.S. military has since been forced to back off of its initial claims about Azizabad, and is supposedly conducting an "investigation." But one thing the U.S. rulers—and Bush, McCain and Obama—have not backed off of is the biggest lie of all: That the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan is a legitimate war of self-defense launched in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and that the central goal is preventing future attacks on the U.S. And now there are calls, including from Barack Obama, to send thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

Not a "Good War" Gone Bad

One thing that’s not been up for debate in the Presidential campaign is Afghanistan: both candidates (not to mention George W. Bush) agree on the urgent need to escalate – and win – that war. This stance has overwhelmingly gone unchallenged – even by most who opposed the invasion of Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan is not the proverbial "good war," now gone bad. It was an unjust, imperialist war of conquest and empire from the start. And it continues to be an unjust, imperialist war of empire today.

http://www.counterpunch.org/everest10172008.html

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. I never supported that "war" either.

:mad:

[bread_and_roses]

3. Nor did I. And it sickens me

to hear the continued war-drums for bombing more children.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Thank you!

[arcadian]

8. I never supported Afghanistan War either

[shadowknows69]

2. .

[Carolina]

5. never supported it either

and it is noteworthy that every nation that has ever gone into Afghanistan, has emerged a loser and not coincidentally, much poorer for the effort!

K&R

[theoldman]

6. Again I recommend that you read "Imperial Hubris" by

Michael Scheuer. No one has explained the problem in the Middle East better than Scheuer. Very seldom have I agreed with a Republican but Scheuer understands the situation better than any politician. I hope that Obama listens to him.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. "countries are pieces on a chessboard"

"To me, I confess, countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world."
Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898

Quoted by John Pilger in The "good war" is a bad war.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. War on terror spins out of control

Civilian dead are a trade-off in Nato's war of barbarity
The killing of innocent Afghans by US bombs is the result of a calculation, not just a mistake. And it is fuelling resistance

by Seumas Milne

SNIP

By far the most comprehensive research into Afghan casualties over the past seven years has been carried out by Marc Herold, a US professor at the University of New Hampshire. In his latest findings, Herold estimates that the number of civilians directly killed by the US and other Nato forces since 2006, up to 3,273, is already higher than the toll exacted by the devastating three-month bombardment that ousted the Taliban regime in 2001. And over the past year civilian deaths at the hands of Nato forces have tripled, despite changes in rules of engagement.

But most telling is the political and military calculation that underlies the Afghan civilian bloodletting. "Close air support" bomb attacks called in by ground forces - which rose from 176 in 2005 to 2,926 in 2007 and are now the US tactic of choice - are between four and 10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as ground attacks, the figures show, and air strikes now account for 80% of those killed by the occupation forces.

But while 242 US and Nato ground troops have died in the war with the Taliban this year, not a single pilot has been killed in action. The trade-off could not be clearer. With troops thin on the ground and the US military up to their necks in Iraq and elsewhere, US and Nato reliance on air attacks minimises their own casualties while guaranteeing that Afghan civilians will die in far larger numbers.

It is that equation that makes a nonsense of US and British claims that their civilian victims are accidental "collateral damage", while the Taliban's use of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and classic guerrilla operations from civilian areas are a sign of their moral depravity. In real life, the escalating civilian death toll is not a mistake, but the result of a clear decision to put the lives of occupation troops before civilians; westerners before Afghans.

SNIP

.........Gordon Brown recently told British troops in Helmand: "What you are doing here prevents terrorism coming to the streets of Britain." The opposite is the case. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq - and the atrocities carried out against their people - are a crucial motivation for those planning terror attacks in Britain, as case after case has shown. Now the US is launching attacks inside Pakistan, the risks of further terror and destabilisation can only grow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/afghanistan-nato

[madokie]

10. I support no wars

being an old Vet I have to say I see no good come from killing my fellow man, none whatsoever. War is an admission of failure.

[lelgt60]

11. So we should have just talked to Hitler?

I agree that war is an admission of failure, but I believe it is justified to fight a murderous bully.

It's just that while that is always the reason given, it's rarely the actual reason. It's tough.

One small thing that would help in this country is to require all those that vote for going to war to have some close relatives that will be in harm's way, or recuse themselves from the vote.