jump to navigation

US Court: Military’s Prisoners in Afghanistan Have No Rights December 26, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Criminal Justice, Human Rights, Iraq and Afghanistan, Torture, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: this article, of course, contradicts the myth that under Obama torture and illegal detention has stopped.


In Christmas Eve ruling, judges say U.S. Constitution does not apply to notorious Bagram prison

– Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Afghanistan’s Bagram prison. (Photo: File)

In a Christmas Eve ruling that passed with little fanfare, three U.S. Appeals Court Judges gave their legal stamp of approval to indefinite detentions without trial for prisoners of the U.S. military in occupied Afghanistan.

In a 44-page decision, penned by George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Karen Henderson, the habeas corpus petitions filed by five captives at Afghanistan’s infamous Bagram military prison—known to some as the “Other Guantanamo“—were rejected.

The petitions were invoking the men’s rights to challenge unlawful detention—rights recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for Guantanamo Bay inmates (though not fully implemented in practice).

The ruling claimed there are “significant differences between Bagram and Guantanamo” because “our forces at Bagram… are actively engaged in a war with a determined enemy.”

Yet, as Michael Doyle writing for McClatchy notes, “[O]ne might wonder whether a ‘war’ has changed into an ‘occupation,’ and whether that affects the legal analysis.”

The court statement expressed concern that “orders issued by judges thousands of miles away would undercut the commanders’ authority” and “granting the habeas corpus petitions would distract “from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.”

The report claimed there are many “practical obstacles” to honoring these inmates’ constitutional rights.

The decision followed in the path of a 2010 similar ruling, which involved three of the five appellants who report having been captured outside of Afghanistan—in Thailand, Iraq and Pakistan.

The U.S. maintains control over the prison’s non-Afghan inmates, many of whom were captured in other countries then transported to this prison, giving the U.S. military broad latitude to violate their rights and hold them indefinitely.

Bagram, which is under an even more stringent media blackout than Guantanamo Bay, is notorious for torture and abuse, including sleep deprivation, beatings, sexual assault, rape and dehumanization.



Afghanistan’s Karzai Says U.S. Special Forces Must Leave Wardak Province Over Torture Allegations February 25, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Roger’s note: Imagine Afghan soldiers in New York City accused of “harassing, annoying, torturing and even murdering innocent”  American civilians.  Imagine an Afghan drone missile landing in a suspected terrorist’s home in suburban Los Angeles killing a dozen women and children.”  Do you think President Obama would simply give the Afghan soldiers two weeks to leave?  Or would there be massive retaliation?  Obama shed tears over the children massacred in Newtown.  How, I ask, are the American atrocities any less infamous?  Or are Christian American lives of more value than Asian Muslims?  Let’s ask Billy Graham.


KABUL, Feb 24 (Reuters) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai has given U.S. special forces two weeks to leave a key battleground province after some U.S. soldiers there were found to have tortured or even killed innocent people, the president’s spokesman said on Sunday.

The decision by Karzai could further complicate negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan over the presence of Americans troops in the country once most NATO forces leave by the end of 2014.

Speaking at a news conference in Kabul, Karzai’s spokesman Aimal Faizi said villagers in Wardak province had lodged a series of complaints about operations conducted by U.S. special forces and a group of Afghans working with them.

The decision was reached at a Sunday meeting of the Afghan National Security Council, chaired by Karzai, Faizi said.

“The Ministry of Defense was assigned to make sure all U.S. special forces are out of the province within two weeks,” he said.

“After a thorough discussion, it became clear that armed individuals named as U.S. special forces stationed in Wardak province were engaging in harassing, annoying, torturing and even murdering innocent people,” Faizi added.

Sunday’s announcement came days after Karzai issued a decree banning all Afghan security forces from using NATO air strikes in residential areas, in a bid to curb civilian casualties.

That was in response to an operation in Kunar targeting four Taliban members which resulted in the deaths of ten civilians, including five children, during an air strike.

Karzai has long warned his Western backers that the killing of civilians could sap support for the foreign troops in the country and fuel the insurgency.

(Reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Writing by Dylan Welch; Editing by Stephen Powell)

The ‘War on Terror’ – by Design – Can Never End January 5, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan, War, War on Terror.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment


Published on Friday, January 4, 2013 by The Guardian


As the Pentagon’s former top lawyer urges that the war be viewed as finite, the US moves in the opposite direction

by Glenn Greenwald


A U.S. Army soldier takes cover as a Black Hawk chopper takes off from a U.S. military base in Arghandab valley near Kandahar. (Photo: Reuters)

Last month, outgoing pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson gave a speech at the Oxford Union and said that the War on Terror must, at some point, come to an end:

“Now that efforts by the US military against al-Qaida are in their 12th year, we must also ask ourselves: How will this conflict end? . . . . ‘War’ must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal.’ Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives. . . .

“There will come a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, that al-Qaida will be effectively destroyed.”

On Thursday night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed Johnson, and before doing so, she opined as follows:

“When does this thing we are in now end? And if it does not have an end — and I’m not speaking as a lawyer here, I am just speaking as a citizen who feels morally accountable for my country’s actions — if it does not have an end, then morally speaking it does not seem like it is a war. And then, our country is killing people and locking them up outside the traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe cannot be forgiven for.”

It is precisely the intrinsic endlessness of this so-called “war” that is its most corrupting and menacing attribute, for the reasons Maddow explained. But despite the happy talk from Johnson, it is not ending soon. By its very terms, it cannot. And all one has to do is look at the words and actions of the Obama administration to know this.

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire.

In October, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the administration was instituting a “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of, all based on this fact: “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

The polices adopted by the Obama administration just over the last couple of years leave no doubt that they are accelerating, not winding down, the war apparatus that has been relentlessly strengthened over the last decade. In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.

Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent? About all of this, the ACLU’s Executive Director, Anthony Romero, provided the answer on Thursday: “President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day. His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended.”

There’s a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs. The New York Times’ Matthew Rosenberg this morning examines what the US government seems to regard as the strange phenomenon of Afghan soldiers attacking US troops with increasing frequency, and in doing so, discovers a shocking reality: people end up disliking those who occupy and bomb their country:

“Such insider attacks, by Afghan security forces on their Western allies, became ‘the signature violence of 2012’, in the words of one former American official. The surge in attacks has provided the clearest sign yet that Afghan resentment of foreigners is becoming unmanageable, and American officials have expressed worries about its disruptive effects on the training mission that is the core of the American withdrawal plan for 2014. . . .

“But behind it all, many senior coalition and Afghan officials are now concluding that after nearly 12 years of war, the view of foreigners held by many Afghans has come to mirror that of the Taliban. Hope has turned into hatred, and some will find a reason to act on those feelings.

“‘A great percentage of the insider attacks have the enemy narrative — the narrative that the infidels have to be driven out — somewhere inside of them, but they aren’t directed by the enemy,’ said a senior coalition officer, who asked not to be identified because of Afghan and American sensitivities about the attacks.”

In other words, more than a decade of occupying and brutalizing that country has turned large swaths of the population into the “Taliban”, to the extent that the “Taliban” means: Afghans willing to use violence to force the US and its allies out of their country. As always, the US – through the very policies of aggression and militarism justified in the name of terrorism – is creating the very “terrorists” those polices are supposedly designed to combat. It’s a pure and perfect system of self-perpetuation.

There is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue.

Exactly the same thing is happening in Yemen, where nothing is more effective at driving Yemenis into the arms of al-Qaida than the rapidly escalated drone attacks under Obama. This morning, the Times reported that US air strikes in Yemen are carried out in close cooperation with the air force of Saudi Arabia, which will only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, virtually every person accused of plotting to target the US with terrorist attacks in last several years has expressly cited increasing US violence, aggression and militarism in the Muslim world as the cause.

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question – and it’s becoming less of a question for me all the time – is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this – or, more accurately, because of it – they continue with these policies.

One of the most difficult endeavors is to divine the motives of other people (divining our own motives is difficult enough). That becomes even more difficult when attempting to discern the motives not of a single actor but a collection of individuals with different motives and interests (“the US government”).

But what one can say for certain is that there is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war. Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges). John Jay, in Federalist No. 4, warned that as a result of that truth, “nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it . . . for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.”

Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.

Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was – “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22” – the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically unforgivable.

But the notion that the US government is even entertaining putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited

Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon. His most recent book is, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. His other books include: Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, and How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism.

In Midnight Signing Ceremony, Obama Promises at Least Ten More Years of War in Afghanistan May 2, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Published on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 by Common Dreams


One thing crystal clear in secretive US-Afghan ‘strategic partnership agreement’: War not even close to ending

– Common Dreams staff

President Obama’s secret trip to Afghanistan, shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, culminated in a midnight meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the signing of a ‘strategic partnership agreement’, the full details of which have not been made available to either the American or Afghan public.

 US President Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan late Tuesday on a surprise visit and signed a ‘strategic partnership agreement’ with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a midnight ceremony. (AFP)

 “If ever there was an image to convey the limits of the UK-US success in Afghanistan, it was the way that Barack Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the liberating, Taliban-scattering forces was forced to skulk into Kabul last night under the cover of darkness,” writes the Telegraph‘s Peter Foster. “After landing at Bagram Airbase just after 10pm local time, there was a low-level, cover-of-darkness of helicopter insertion to the Presidential Palace where the ten-page deal (which contains no specifics on funding or troop levels) was signed around midnight.”

The agreement, broadly understood, codifies the ongoing conditions under which the US government agrees to operate in Afghanistan and will guide policies on the management of military bases, authority over detainees, the execution of night raids and other security operations, and will set conditions for troop levels and residual US forces that will remain in Afghanistan even after a ‘withdrawal’ commences in 2014. The agreement also deals with ongoing financial support for the Afghan government and military into the future.

Though Obama spoke optimistically of ‘light of a new day’ in Afghanistan and many media reports heralded the agreement as a ‘signal to the end of war’, more sober analysts arrived at more troubling conclusions.

“Interestingly,” writes Jason Ditz at Anti-war.com, “with the ink now drying on the document and the US officially committed to the occupation of Afghanistan for another decade, officials are continuing to tout 2014 as the “end” of the war. This speaks to how the 2024 date, though openly discussed by the Karzai government in Afghanistan and privately acknowledged as part of the secret pact, has not been publicly presented to the American public. When they will officially spring it on us remains unclear.”

“While the world may accept that the US and Afghan governments have some ‘state’ or ‘noble’ considerations for not revealing the contents of the US/Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement, how about the democratic consideration of involving Afghans in their own future?” asked Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, who is currently on a peace walk from Madison, Wisc. to Chicago, where she will arrive in time for the upcoming NATO Summit.

“The SPA is likely to prolong fighting in the region,” Kelly added, “because the Taliban and neighboring countries have clearly stated that they won’t accept US foreign troop presence. Also, many Afghans wonder if the US and NATO want to protect construction of the TAPI [Trans-Afghanistan] pipeline, which the 2010 NATO summit approved of and the New Silk Road which Hilary Clinton has promised the US will construct.”President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sign a strategic partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

US veteran Sgt. Jacob George, who served in Afghanistan but now speaks out against the war, argued the agreement speaks to the futility of US military efforts in Afghanistan that began with the US invasion in 2001. “The agreement actually allows for sustaining a ‘post-conflict’ force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops for a continued training of indigenous forces. They are pretending this is something new, but it’s not. That’s what I was doing in 2001 — and 2002, 2003 and 2004. This is just disastrous, for ten years, with the greatest military the world has ever seen, we’ve been unable to defeat people with RPGs. And a year after Bin Laden was killed, we’re still planning to keep tens of thousands of troops there.”

Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul, speaking to the Telegraph newspaper ahead of the agreement, revealed concern for the long-term impacts of a sustained US military presence. “Afghanistan needs many other things apart from the permanent military presence of some countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are not a tool for peace.”

“Does anyone think our staying until 2024 is going to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan?” ask Kevin Martin and Michael Eisenscher in an op-ed today on Common Dreams. “We’ve already been there for eleven years – the longest war in our country’s history. What do we really have to show for it? We’ve spent almost $523 billion. Almost 2000 Americans have been killed and another 15,300 wounded. 1000 NATO troops have lost their lives.” Eisenscher is National Coordinator of U.S. Labor Against the War and Martin is the executive director of Peace Action.Dec. 19, 2001 — Marine Lt. Ronald Reed of Virginia waits inside his fighting position on the perimeter of the bombed-out airport in Kandahar. More than eleven years later, an end to the disaster that is the US war in Afghanistan is nowhere in sight. (Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times)

They continue: “Staying through 2024 will be a hard sell to the majority of Americans. According to last week’s Pew Research public opinion poll, only about a third of those polled think U.S. troops should stay in Afghanistan ‘until the situation there is stabilized’ (whatever that means). About two-thirds of Obama supporters, and almost as many swing voters (who make up nearly a quarter of the electorate), want a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops, while Mitt Romney supporters are split just about evenly.”

Today also marks the one year anniversary of the US killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Martin and Eisensche conclude: “It’s not clear what the year since the killing of Bin Laden has done to improve U.S. or Afghan security. It’s even less clear what staying for another dozen years will do for either country. The time to bring U.S. forces home is now, not 2014, and certainly not 2024.”

And Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, asks in his analysis at Common Dreams, ‘What Did We Get for 381 US Dead Since the Death of bin Laden?‘ and writes:

In his speech, President Obama said, “As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline.” I’m delighted that President Obama supports the principle of a firm timeline. But it’s far from obvious that we actually have a “firm timeline,” and if we do, exactly what it is. Certainly there is no timeline for when all U.S. troops will be withdrawn. President Obama did seem to imply that we can be sure that there will be no U.S. troops involved in “combat” in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014. But they may be involved in “counterterrorism,” which presumably is combat, and “training,” and if you ask the military what “training” is, they will say it includes embedding with Afghanistan troops who are engaged in combat. So “training” is also combat. And therefore it is far from obvious that we actually have a “firm timeline” for anything. […]

In his speech, President Obama said: “we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. ”

Isn’t this essentially the same policy that Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was proposing in October 2006 when he said that the Afghan Taliban couldn’t be defeated militarily and that the U.S. should bring “people who call themselves Taliban” into the Afghan government? Why have we waited almost six years to adopt this policy? Are we really going to get a much better deal now than we could have had six years ago? If so, will the difference be sufficient to justify the additional sacrifice of the last six years?

If we stopped the killing now, how sure are we that the political deal that would result would be much worse for us than the deal that will result if we keep killing? Shouldn’t someone have to answer that? What if we tried having an offensive cease-fire for 30 days, just as an experiment, to see if it facilitated peace talks? What exactly would be the downside of giving that experiment a try?

# # #




  • Post as …
  • Image
Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)

Showing 10 comments

0 new comment was just posted. Show
  • Shantiananda 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    I am sure that the war profiteers and defense contractors are just delighted that they have another ten years of war profits to look forward to.


  • galen066 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    In ten years, the US troops will have been abandoned to the Afghans tender mercies, and the US economy will look like Russia’s on a bad day.


  • raydelcamino 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Eternal occupations and wars equal an eternal revenue stream for the military industrial complex (MIC).

    Ever larger domestic program cuts branded as austerity will be required to fund the MIC’s ever larger corporate welfare programs.


  • elmysterio, I know nothing and everything simultaneously 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Ok. a Couple things here…

    Everytime we read about the “cost” of the war, it’s always in Amerocentric terms: We’ve spent almost $523 billion. Almost 2000 Americans have been killed and another 15,300 wounded. 1000 NATO troops have lost their lives. NO mention of how much the war has cost the Afghans. Shows that even so-called “progressives” hold this racist view.

    Martin and Eisensche conclude: “It’s not clear what the year since the killing of Bin Laden has done to improve U.S. or Afghan security.

    It’s very clear actually… it’s done NOTHING to “improve” Afghan security for sure. This is because the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan had very little to do with Osama BIn Laden and far more to do with geo-political strategies.

    As far as “improving” American security? Americans are pretty much secure from “foreign terrorists”… The idea that there’s a Jihadi hiding behind every rock waiting to murder helpless Americans is retarded. The ONLY threat to American Security is American in origin.

    Regarding US Military “security” in Afghanistan. The ONLY security they will ever have is when they LEAVE the country. Afghans will not accept a foreign occupation, no matter how it’s packaged. Period. End of story. An Occupation army does NOT deserve security.


  • PlantTrees 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    ‘President McCain’s secret trip to Afghanistan, shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, culminated in a midnight meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the signing of a ‘strategic partnership agreement’, the full details of which have not been made available to either the American or Afghan public.’

    …’Though McCain spoke optimistically of ‘light of a new day’ in Afghanistan and many media reports heralded the agreement as a ‘signal to the end of war’, more sober analysts arrived at more troubling conclusions.’

    Asked again: How would you react if McCain did and said the things Obama has?

    Asked again: Is there anything Obama could do that would finally make you say, “Enough … I can support you no more.”?


  • Texxtyn 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    Why would you PREplan the length or a war. That’s sick and Obama is a threat to humanity. The two parties of the genocidal elite must be gotten rid of for the sake of humanity. This is beyond horrible. Obama sells his soul again Not that he had one


  • Hue_sir_name 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    Obviously the pipeline is behind schedule.


  • wankler 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

    Not only the pipeline, but also the largest deposit of Lithium outside of China.

    And guess where it is located exactly….the Swat Valley.


  • galen066 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    The ‘mother lode’ of Afghan lithium is so thinly dispersed it will take moving hundreds of tons of rock to obtain a pound of lithium, and cost more money than it will be worth.

    This idea of Afghan lithium was shot down by the market more than a year ago.

  • galen066 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

    “Obama Promises Ten More Years of War in Afghanistan.”


    A political campaign promise everybody knows Obama will keep.



After Afghan Massacre, War Gets Victim Status March 12, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Iraq and Afghanistan, Media, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s note: it is tragic, it is surreal; it is Kafkesque; it is an Alice

in Wonderland world; it is the mentality of mass media reporters

and politicians in an imperial nation completely divorced from

reality and from the death and terror it creates. 

All in the name of freedom and democracy.  Orwellian, yes. 

There is one thing, however, that the the media and political

pundits are getting right: their anticipation that the chickens

will come home to roost.





Media Advisory

After Afghan Massacre, War Gets Victim Status Media treat killings as PR problem for occupation 3/12/12
The news that a U.S. Army sergeant killed 16 civilians, most of them children, in southern Afghanistan early Sunday morning was treated by many media outlets primarily as a PR challenge for continued war and occupation of that country.

“Afghanistan, once the must-fight war for America, is becoming a public relations headache for the nation’s leaders, especially for President Barack Obama,” explained an Associated Press analysis piece (3/12/12). Reuters (3/12/12) called it “the latest American public relations disaster in Afghanistan.”

On the NBC Today show (3/11/12) the question was posed this way: “Could this reignite a new anti-American backlash in the unstable region?” The answer: “This is not going to bode well for the U.S. and NATO here in Afghanistan,” explained reporter Atia Abawi. “Obviously people here very fearful as to what’s going to happen next, what protests will come about throughout different parts of Afghanistan, and how the Taliban are going to use this to their advantage.” “People,” as used here, would not seem to include Afghans, who are presumably less frightened by protests against a massacre of children than they are by the massacre itself.

The front-page headline at USA Today (3/12/12) read, “Killings Threaten Afghan Mission.” The story warned that the allegations “threaten to test U.S. strategy to end the conflict.” In the New York Times (3/12/12), the massacre was seen as “igniting fears of a new wave of anti-American hostility.” The paper went on to portray occupation forces as victims:

The possibility of a violent reaction to the killings added to a feeling of siege here among Western personnel. Officials described growing concern over a cascade of missteps and offenses that has cast doubt on the ability of NATO personnel to carry out their mission and has left troops and trainers increasingly vulnerable to violence by Afghans seeking revenge.

The fact that the massacres occurred two days after a NATO helicopter strike killed four civilians was “adding to the sense of concern.”

Another Times piece (3/12/12) began with this:

The outrage from the back-to-back episodes of the Koran burning and the killing on Sunday of at least 16 Afghan civilians imperils what the Obama administration once saw as an orderly plan for 2012.

That sounds as if “outrage” is the most serious problem–the reaction to the actions, not the actions themselves.
Treating the killing of civilians as chiefly a PR problem is not a new phenomenon. As FAIR noted (“The Bad PR of Dead Civilians,” 5/11/09), the news that dozens were killed in NATO airstrikes brought headlines like “Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War” (New York Times, 5/7/09), “Claim of Afghan Civilian Deaths Clouds U.S. Talks” (Wall Street Journal, 5/7/09) and “Afghan Civilian Deaths Present U.S. With Strategic Problem” (Washington Post, 5/8/09).

Covering the latest atrocity, the Washington Post (3/12/12) reported that “the killings Sunday threatened to spark a new crisis in the strained relationship between the United States and Afghanistan.” A separate piece quoted an anonymous U.S. official complaining that massacres “plays to the absolute worst fears and stereotypes” of the U.S. military, and that “it’s the type of boogeyman [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai has always raised, but we’ve never had an incident like this.”

But there have been similar single incidents, most notably a 2007 attack by Marines that killed 19 civilians. And night raids by NATO forces have killed Afghans throughout the war.

On the Sunday talkshows, Republicans and Democrats spoke about the massacre–often with little to distinguish their points of view. On ABC‘s This Week (3/11/12), Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told viewers that “unfortunately, these things happen in war…. You just have to push through these things.” He added that “the surge of forces has really put the Taliban on the defensive…. We can win this thing. We can get it right.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) remarked:

I think the president has a good plan. Obviously, it’s a very difficult situation because we have real terrorism that emanated from Afghanistan. The president doesn’t get enough credit. He’s done an amazing job with the drones and Al-Qaeda.

On NBC‘s Meet the Press (3/11/12), Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, a Republican, said the news was “tragic because we have so many brave men and women, David, for now 10-plus years in the global war on terror, have done marvelous work for the cause freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places…. It’s too bad and we’ll have to see the details. But I’m really proud of what our kids are doing there.”

Is it too much to expect that the dominant reaction after a grisly atrocity should involve sympathy for its victims rather than pride in the forces whom the perpetrator belonged to?


War crimes in a criminal war: Vets & GIs speak out on Marines urinating video January 20, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Politicians sanctimoniously condemn war crime while prolonging the war

January 17, 2012
Barely scratching the surface of war crimes in Afghanistan.
The people of Afghanistan have endured over ten years of death and destruction at the hands of the U.S. military.

The graphic video going viral of U.S. Marines urinating on corpses in Afghanistan—a war crime under international law—is forcing people in the United States to face the reality of the war.

The video is emblematic of what the U.S. military has been doing to the people of Afghanistan for over ten years.

As combat veterans and active-duty members of the U.S. military, we feel we should weigh in…

1.Urinating is wrong, but bullets are okay? Yes, the video is “shocking” to most. But the politicians, talking heads and media outlets who call it “shocking” and “deplorable” will not use those same words to describe the war itself.

It would be laughable, if not so tragic, that the Pentagon strongly denounced the video, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says he “condemns it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta and the Pentagon officials then left the press conference to continue overseeing the destruction of Afghanistan. Any lip service from Washington or its apologists, from where the mass murder in Afghanistan is being orchestrated, is a complete joke.

There is so much apparent concern over the sanctity of life after these Afghan men were killed. But they should never have been killed in first place. They were only lying dead on the ground because the U.S. government used the 9/11 attacks—in which the people of Afghanistan played no role—as a pretext to launch a full scale invasion to conquer a resource-rich, independent country that they had been trying to dominate for years. This is a war that all polls show is opposed by the U.S. public, U.S. troops and the people of Afghanistan.

2. There is no such thing as “good conduct” in an immoral war. The dehumanization in the video isn’t shocking to those of us who have seen the reality of the wars wages by the U.S. government. But the reactions to the video from most beg the question: what did people think was going on over there? Passing out candy and building schools?

The video is a dose of reality. Its content reveals less than a minute of the war—just one minute in what has been going on for over ten years. Imagine how many such incidents will never be known. And not just acts of desecration, but the acts that are accepted as necessary by the generals and politicians: dropping missiles on houses from robots in the sky, artillery barrages on villages, torture at Bagram Airbase, shooting “suspected insurgents” for carrying a shovel or pushing a wheelbarrow.

This is a colonial-type war, a war for empire, a war for resources and profits. The war itself is a crime. With that foundation, it is only inevitable that even more war crimes will grow out of a criminal war.

3. The inhumanity goes back decades. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan—the second poorest country on the planet— goes back far beyond the bombing and invasion in 2001. And it has never been for humanitarian reasons. Throughout the 70’s, during Afghanistan’s brief progressive period, the CIA pumped billions of dollars to sponsor right-wing militias. These elements attacked women’s schools, slaughtered hundreds of teachers initiating major literacy programs, and carried out a reign of terror on those in Afghanistan deemed “enemies” of the so-called “national interests” of the U.S. government. As Afghanistan was trying to lift itself from feudalism, the will of the people was crushed by the CIA and its Mujahadeen partners.

Those reactionary political groups funded and armed by the CIA continued to receive that support as they committed further atrocities, and as they became the Taliban, who we are now told we must fight and die endlessly to defeat. The Taliban leadership received funding from the CIA up until September 11, 2001. During this phase, the political character of Afghanistan’s government meant nothing to the U.S. government—what mattered to them was the possibility of a business deal that would allow massive oil pipelines through the country. But negotiations were not going as planned for Wall Street, so the 9/11 attacks provided a pretext for the classic tactic used to straighten out nations who will not open up their markets for plunder: all-out military force.

For over ten years, the people of Afghanistan have lived under a brutal occupation. In just the first month of the war, more civilians were killed by U.S. bombs than died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. But the blood had just started flowing. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians are dead at the hands of the U.S. military. Tens of thousands are orphaned, widowed, maimed and homeless. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are now the highest they have been compared to every other year of the war.

The people of Afghanistan have endured more than a decade of bombings, night raids, torture, a corrupt puppet government and a foreign occupation of more than 100,000 troops and mercenaries from the world’s biggest and most destructive military machine. The U.S. occupation has been a complete catastrophe for the people of Afghanistan, which is why they overwhelmingly want us out. Even Afghans who strongly oppose the Taliban site the U.S. occupation as the main cause of the country’s problems and violence.

4. Afghanistan has the right to resist occupation. The people of Afghanistan who are now suffering under the weight of the U.S. military machine played no role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, when young Afghan men were polled in Kandahar and Helmand province—the location where the video of the Marines was film—it was found that over 90 percent of them had never even heard of the World Trade Center or the 9/11 attacks. The majority of those polled believe the U.S. military is in Afghanistan simply for “violence and destruction.”

The media unquestioningly report that the Marines urinated on dead “Taliban insurgents.” Yet, there are no weapons laid-out next to the bodies, which have been searched, as is standard practice—only a wheelbarrow, in a country almost entirely dependent on an agricultural economy. The claim that these men died after attacking U.S. forces is accepted as fact. This is a bizarre assertion, considering all the other ongoing scandals in Afghanistan involving U.S. forces killing innocent civilians—from the “Kill Team,” to the notorious night raids that every Afghan fears, to Apache helicopters cutting down children one-by-one. Such racist atrocities flow from the Pentagon’s racist, Islamophobic propaganda that dehumanizes the people targeted by the U.S. war machine—the lie that if Afghans are killed, they must have deserved it—which has become the dominant narrative.

But, if these men were in fact killed during a firefight with the Marines, does that justify their deaths? Whose home is Afghanistan, that of the dead men or the Marines? Whose country has been bombed, invaded, and occupied for over ten years? Do the victims of illegal foreign aggression not have the right to resist?

As troops who have been to war and seen the reality, we understand why people living under occupation take up arms to kick us out. We know that we would be doing the same thing if we were in their position. In fact, our experiences have shown us that that we actually have more in common with them than with the millionaire politicians and Pentagon generals telling us to fight. Whoever the dead men are, they are not the “bad guys.” They are the victims of a criminal war of aggression.

5. End the war now! There is no kinder, gentler war in Afghanistan. This video is just a small glimpse of its ugly face. The video has revealed to millions of people in the United States what their tax dollars are paying for. At a time when 40 million people in the United States are out of work, when millions are being cut from heating assistance, social programs, food assistance—when tuition is skyrocketing, layoffs increasing, budgets being gutted—the U.S. government is pouring our tax dollars into a war that 2/3 of the population is against.

This is an endless war, a war the politicians and generals acknowledge they cannot win.  They agree that the U.S. presence there will last “the rest of our lives, and the rest of our children’s lives.” This is a war for profits, for a tiny clique of Wall Street CEOs, defense contractors and shareholders. The type of conduct in this video will be repeated over and over; our friends and loved ones will die and be maimed endlessly; our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan will suffer endlessly.

The Pentagon brass have vowed to find the culprits shown in the video and punish them severely. And they should be. But they do not condemn the culture of racist propaganda that promotes and fosters such war crimes, nor will they end the war which allows the killing to continue, with or without the desecration of corpses. The leaders at the top, from whom this behavior consciously flows, should be punished as well.

The video should be a clarion call to all people to demand an immediate, complete withdrawal of all US/NATO forces from Afghanistan. And this little glimpse into the inhumanity unleashed on the people of Afghanistan shows that we not only need to end the war immediately, but pay heavy reparations to the victims of this criminal war.
6. Troops have the right to refuse their orders. The war in Afghanistan is a war for the 1%. In Wall Street’s relentless pursuit of new raw materials and new sources of profits, they have literally thrown away the lives of us and our friends, and unleashed untold suffering on an entire population. The people of Afghanistan are not our enemies; but those millionaires and billionaires, who keep the war raging endlessly, are.
We have a right to not be used as cannon fodder in Wall Street’s attempt to conquer new markets. We have a right to not be party to an occupation that constitutes a great crime against humanity.

Everyday, more and more active-duty troops are excercising their right to refuse to take part in the unpopular, immoral war in Afghanistan. If you’re interested in doing the same, click here for information and support.

Afghanistan “sovereignty” May 31, 2011

Posted by rogerhollander in Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Tuesday, May 31, 2011 07:32 ET

By Glenn Greenwald
AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq
Afghan President Hamid Karzai gestures during a press conference at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan on Tuesday, May 31, 2011.

A spate of horrific civilian killings by NATO in Afghanistan has led Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand that NATO cease all air attacks on homes.  That is likely to be exactly as significant you think it would be, as The Los Angeles Times makes clear:

“This should be the last attack on people’s houses,” the president told a news conference in Kabul. “Such attacks will no longer be allowed.”

Karzai’s call was viewed as mainly symbolic. Western military officials cited existing cooperation with Afghan authorities and pledged to continue consultations, but said privately that presidential authority does not include veto power over specific targeting decisions made in the heat of battle.


So we’re in Afghanistan to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Afghan People, but the President of the country has no power whatsoever to tell us to stop bombing Afghan homes.  His decrees are simply requests, “merely symbolic.” Karzai, of course, is speaking not only for himself, but even more so for (and under pressure from) the Afghan People: the ones we’re there to liberate, but who — due to their strange, primitive, inscrutable culture and religion — are bizarrely angry about being continuously liberated from their lives: “Karzai’s statements . . . underscored widespread anger among Afghans over the deaths of noncombatants at the hands of foreign forces.”

Indeed, the Afghan People — on whose behalf we are fighting so valiantly — are total ingrates and simply do not appreciate all that we’re doing for them.  A poll of Afghan men released earlier this month by the International Council on Security and Development found overwhelming opposition to NATO operations in their country.  First there was this in Southern Afghanistan, where most of the fighting has taken place and where we are liberating residents from Taliban tyranny:


There there’s this from Northern Afghanistan, long said to be the region most sympathetic to NATO’s fighting:


The Taliban is widely unpopular among Afghans (though in the South, a majority oppose military operations against them); but whatever else is true, 8 out of 10 men, spread throughout all regions of that country, believe that NATO operations are bad for the Afghan people.

So the decisions of the Afghan President are totally irrelevant (when it conflicts with what we want).  The views of the Afghan People are equally irrelevant.  But we’re there to bring them Freedom and Democracy (while we decree their elected leaders’ decisions “merely symbolic”) and are fighting for their own good (even though virtually none of them recognize that).  What a great war, now America’s longest and close to a decade old.


Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 by CTV News (Canada)

NATO Says Attacks on Afghan Houses ‘Necessary,’ Will Continue

A NATO spokesperson says attacks on houses in Afghanistan are necessary and will continue, despite Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s assertion that he will no longer permit them to take place.

A NATO spokesperson says attacks on houses in Afghanistan are necessary and will continue, despite Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s assertion that he will no longer permit them to take place. (AFPTV) Karzai took a hardline stance Tuesday against NATO airstrikes on houses, following an attack over the weekend that claimed the lives of women and children.

NATO officials said the Saturday airstrike in Helmand province left at least nine people dead. Afghan officials, however, said the strike killed 14 people, including at least 10 children and two women.

Karzai said such strikes are not acceptable, and Afghanistan is willing to take “unilateral” action against NATO if they continue.

“From this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed,” Karzai told reporters in Kabul.

He said he has repeatedly stressed to Afghanistan’s international allies that deadly airstrikes that claim civilian lives are not acceptable and said if they don’t stop, “the Afghan government will be forced to take unilateral action.”

It wasn’t clear what actions, if any, Karzai, could take against NATO.

“If this is repeated, Afghanistan has a lot of ways of stopping it, but we don’t want to go there. We want NATO to stop the raids on its own, without a declaration … by the Afghan government, because we want to continue to co-operate,” Karzai said.

Hours later, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said such airstrikes “continue to be necessary,” though she said NATO takes the Afghan president’s concerns seriously and the alliance always takes measures to limit civilian casualties.

NATO initially said it would review its procedures but emphasized that all such air strikes are done with the co-ordination and approval of the Afghan government.

The organization worded its response carefully, saying “in the days and weeks ahead we will co-ordinate very closely with President Karzai to ensure that his intent is met,” said Maj. Sunset Belinsky, NATO spokesperson.

In the past, Karzai has made strong statements against some NATO tactics, such as night raids, but later backed away from his demands.

Belinsky went on to say that insurgents often use civilians as human shields, and position their bases in neighbourhoods where NATO strikes are all but certain to claim civilian lives.

However, she said NATO will continue to use air strikes against its enemies when that is the only option available.

Karzai’s ultimatum could put his government on a collision course with NATO and specifically, U.S. forces.

On Tuesday he said NATO forces could be seen as an “occupying force” if they don’t respect Afghanistan as a sovereign nation.

The Taliban often refers to the coalition by the same term.

NATO has apologized for the deadly attack on Saturday, saying troops believed the compound they were firing on housed only insurgents.

The attack took place in Nawzad district.

The U.S. Marine commander of the region, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, said NATO ordered the airstrike after a Marine was killed in a nearby insurgent attack.

Five insurgents occupied a compound and continued to attack coalition troops, who called in an airstrike “to neutralize the threat,” Toolan said.

The civilian casualties were later discovered in the house.

In 2010, at least 2,777 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, according to a United Nations report. That number marks an increase of 15 per cent over the previous year.

With files from The Associated Press

© 2011 CTV News

ANSWER Coalition responds to President Obama’s speech on Iraq September 1, 2010

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

It is necessary to separate fact from fiction regarding the announcement by the Obama administration that it is removing “combat brigades” from Iraq.

This is not the time for progressive people to pat themselves on the back, claim “victory” and pretend that the U.S. government is pursuing a different policy than that which was carried out by the previous administration.

Today’s announcement that renames the 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is nothing more than the rebranding of the illegal U.S. occupation of Iraq that began with the criminal invasion of the country by hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces on March 20, 2003. Let’s remember, the goal of the Bush administration, too, was not to keep a certain number of U.S. troops in Iraq forever, but instead to exercise U.S. domination over the country and the region.

The Obama administration has maintained the principal military and civilian leaders from the Bush administration. The withdrawal of some combat brigades from Iraq is essentially a redeployment exercise so that tens of thousands more U.S. troops can be sent to Afghanistan.

Since Bush left office, and contrary to the deep desire of the masses of people who constituted the electoral base for President Obama’s November 2008 victory, the U.S. military machine has grown, not diminished. The U.S. military budget has actually increased, not decreased.

The ongoing occupation of Iraq, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the increasing threats against Iran, and the enduring U.S.-Israeli war directed against the Palestinian people are all clear indicators that U.S. foreign policy and its military strategy are premised on the pursuit and maintenance of Empire regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans occupy the White House.

When he delivered his major address in Cairo on June 4, 2009, President Obama described the war in Iraq as a “war of choice.” That is simply popular vernacular for a war of aggression. The reality of his position, however, was revealed today when President Obama actually called George W. Bush to confer with him in advance of tonight’s address on Iraq. Tonight, President Obama took the occasion to salute Bush as a “patriot” with “love of country and commitment to our security.” George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other high officials in the Bush administration should be indicted and prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq has shredded Iraqi sovereignty and “succeeded” in killing as many as 1 million Iraqis. The invasion and ongoing occupation has succeeded in ripping apart a once-united country. It is the U.S. invasion that stoked a sectarian civil war. It was a deliberate and conscious policy by the U.S. occupation forces to organize, finance and arm Iraqis along ethno-sectarian lines in order to weaken the nationwide resistance of the people against foreign occupation.

The thousands of organizers and volunteers who have worked with the ANSWER Coalition in organizing mass protests and nearly daily activities in cities throughout the country for the past nine years believe that the U.S. should end all of its foreign occupations, and that the people in Iraq and Afghanistan must have the right of self determination.

The struggle for jobs, social justice, equality and freedom at home cannot be separated from the international struggle against empire, colonialism and war. Last Saturday, Glenn Beck and the forces of right-wing racism tried to hijack the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the millions of people who fought, organized—including for some going to jail and giving their life—in the struggle against racism at home and war abroad. We must take note of the fact that the forces of right-wing racism and militarism are mobilizing throughout the country. Their demagogic attacks against the Obama administration are nothing more than a cover for their real agenda.

We in the ANSWER Coalition believe that it is imperative that all those in the anti-war movement, labor and civil rights movements and others come together in a massive mobilization on Oct. 2 in Washington, D.C., for jobs, peace and justice. Only the mobilization of the people, and not the politicians, can radically change the political climate. When we march together on Oct. 2, we must raise high the banners of “U.S. out of Iraq now,” “End the occupation of Afghanistan Now” and “Money for jobs, schools, health care and housing, not war and occupation.”

The Perplexed Puppet Jerks on His Strings: Karzai Calls US Troops Invaders April 9, 2010

Posted by rogerhollander in Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Published on Friday, April 9, 2010 by CommonDreams.orgby Tom Turnipseed

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former consultant for UNOCAL oil company was installed by the US as the President of Afghanistan after our invasion and occupation of that country. Now he complains that US and NATO troops are invaders of Afghanistan and this is drawing a furious reaction from the Obama administration and the mainstream media. His outburst deserves a closer look at what led up to this furor in Afghanistan as Karzai turns on his US puppeteer.

Karzai denounced those in the Washington and the media who have criticized the corruption and incompetence of his regime with what could be a very true complaint, “They wanted to have a puppet government. They wanted a servant government.”

The Afghan parliament voted to strip Karzai of his power he had asserted to appoint the members of the country’s election commission, which will be in charge of parliamentary elections in the fall. The parliament’s action was pressured by the US ambassador.

Karzai said, “In this situation there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation‑assistance.” He predicted that if the people of Afghanistan thought that the Afghan government were mercenaries for the Western powers, the Taliban‑led insurgency “could become a national resistance.” Karzai was quoted as saying “I might join the Taliban”.

What Karzai warns of as a possible outcome for the US‑led war in Afghanistan has already largely come to pass, as a report in Sunday’s New York Times makes clear. NY Times correspondent Richard A. Oppel, Jr., in a front‑page article from Marja, Afghanistan, wrote that after their much publicized offensive that had been described as successful, the US marines have no control in the region outside their own bases. Oppel also said the Taliban is resurgent, the collaborators with the US occupation are isolated and targeted for retaliation, and that much of the US‑funded reconstruction work has been shut down.

Oppel concluded: “In Marja, the Taliban are hardly a distinct militant group, and the Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more akin to the only political organization… with an influence that touches everyone. Even the Marines admit to being somewhat flummoxed.”

“We’ve got to re‑evaluate our definition of the word ‘enemy,'” Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province, told the Times. “Most people here identify themselves as Taliban.”

Is Karzai revealing the underlying reason for the nine year old US war in Afghanistan, that we were told was in a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Are we fighting to prop up a puppet regime that will serve US corporate interests in Central Asia-one of the largest suppliers of oil and gas to the world market.

Karzai, the amiable former business consultant and CIA “asset”, was installed by Washington as Afghanistan’s president. Remember when he was the honored guest at President Bush’s State of the Union message to Congress, smiling and waving from the balcony in his regal Afghani robe? As the U.S. gets bogged down in a quagmire in Afghanistan, are we scape-goating the puppet for our problems?

Is the underlying reason for all the railing and blaming of Karzai in actuality a refrain of “Bad puppet! Bad puppet!”

The U.S. Congressional Research service just revealed it costs a staggering $1.3 million per annum to keep an American soldier in Afghanistan. This huge expense can’t go on forever.

When the head of a government kept in place by US arms and dollars issues a public rebuke to his master it requires a closer look at why. Could it be the increasing animosity of the Afghan people to the occupation, with thousands of innocent people being killed by American bombs, rockets, commando raids and massacres, along with despair of Karzai, who feels increasingly marginalized as the nominal head of Afghanistan. Also Karzai has an agenda different from the US. Just like the policy of the U.S., Pakistan, the Taliban, as well as Karzai and every other interest involved, all realize that sometime, perhaps sooner than later, the US will have to leave– due to the costs in lives and money and its effect on US public opinion.

Karzai’s speech to election officials was just four days after the visit by Obama who had a confrontational meeting with Karzai. Published reports said that Obama berated Karzai over the corruption in his regime and the vote‑rigging in last year’s presidential election. Perhaps Karzai’s overtures to Iran and China were also raised.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Karzai’s comments “troubling” and “cause for real and genuine concern.” Karzai’s remarks were also called “preposterous” by a State Department official.

The rebuke from our puppet has the US media in a dither. A New York Daily News editorial was headlined “Cuckoo Karzai.” Have 1,000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghans died to keep a madman in power?

The New York Times, termed Karzai’s criticism “delusional” and warned that his statement could have political repercussions in the United States, because “it undermines the fragile public support for President Obama’s strategy” of pouring 30,000 more US troops into the Afghanistan war.

“Mr. Karzai is encouraging those who want the United States out of Afghanistan,” the editorial concluded. “He risks boiling down a more complicated policy debate to the notion that American lives are being sacrificed simply to keep him in power. It’s hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan’s future, as well as his own.” This has a sinister sound because almost 50 years ago another US puppet had a fatal problem with the US in 1963 when President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was overthrown and murdered in a US‑backed military coup that set the stage for even deeper US military intervention in Southeast Asia. Diem faced similar criticism for corruption, incompetence and vote‑rigging.

Should Karzai as a successor US puppet to Diem, be concerned about Diem’s fate since he also jerked on the strings of his US puppeteer?

Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and political activist in Columbia, South Carolina, www.turnipseed.net

‘Just War’ Is Just Words December 12, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Published on Saturday, December 12, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

by Ralph Nader

President Obama, the Afghan war escalator, received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, and proceeded to deliver his acceptance speech outlining the three criteria for a “just war” which he himself is violating.The criteria are in this words: “If it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”

After 9/11, warmonger George W. Bush could have used the international law doctrine of hot pursuit with a multilateral force of commandoes, linguists and bribers to pursue the backers of the attackers. Instead, he blew the country of Afghanistan apart and started occupying it, joined forces with a rump regime and launched a divide-and-rule tribal strategy that set the stage for a low-tiered civil war.

Eight years later, Obama is expanding the war within a graft-ridden government in Kabul, fraudulent elections, an Afghan army of northern tribesmen loathed by the southern and south-eastern tribes of 40 million Pashtuns, an impoverished economy whose largest crop by far is a narcotic, and a devastated population embittered by foreign occupiers and non-existent government services.

President Obama’s national security adviser, former Marine General James Jones, said two months ago: “The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Since Mr. Obama repeats George W. Bush’s reason for going into Afghanistan-to destroy al-Qaeda-why is he sending 30,000 soldiers plus an even greater number of corporate contractors there in the near future at a cost stated by the White House of one million dollars per solider per year? Is this “proportional force”?

Always small in number, al-Qaeda has moved over the border into Pakistan and anywhere its supporters can in the world-east Africa, north Africa, Indonesia. The gang is a migrant traveler.

Is Obama pouring soldiers into Afghanistan so that they and our inaccurate, civilian-destroying drones can start fighting across the border in Pakistan, as indicated by The New York Times? Beyond the violations of international law and absence of constitutional authorization involved, this could so roil Pakistanis as to make the U.S. experience next door look like a modest struggle.

Obama has emphasized weakening the Taliban as the other objective of our military buildup with its horrible consequence in casualties and other costs. Who are the Taliban? They include people with different causes, such as protecting their valleys, drug trafficking to live on, fighters against foreign occupiers or, being mostly Pashtuns, protecting their tribal turf against the northern Tajiks and Uzbecks.

How many Taliban fighters are there? The Pentagon estimates around 25,000. Their methods make them unpopular with the villagers. They have no air force, navy, artillery, tanks, missiles, no bases, no central command. They have rifles, grenade launchers, bombs and suiciders. Unlike al-Qaeda, they have only domestic ambitions counteracted by their adversarial tribesmen who make up most of the Afghan army.

Robert Baer, former CIA officer with experience in that part of Asia, asserted: “The people that want their country liberated from the West have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They simply want us gone because we’re foreigners, and they’re rallying behind the Taliban because the Taliban are experienced, effective fighters.”

To say as Obama inferred in his Oslo speech that the greater plunge into Afghanistan is self-defense, with proportional force and sparing civilians from violence is a scale of self-delusion or political cowardliness that is dejecting his liberal base.

For as President Eisenhower stated so eloquently in his 1953 “cross of iron” speech, every dollar spent on munitions and saber-rattling takes away from building schools, clinics, roads and other necessities of the American people.

The Afghan War and the Iraq war-occupation-already directly costing a trillion dollars-are costing the American people every time Washington says there is not enough money for neonatal care, occupational disease prevention, cleaner drinking water systems, safer hospitals, prosecution of corporate criminals, cleaner air or upgrading and repairing key public facilities.

Even the hardiest and earliest supporters of his presidential campaign in 2008 are speaking out. Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as John Conyers (D-MI) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) have recently criticized the President for not doing enough to help African-Americans weather the hard times.

In a stinging ironic rebuke to the first African-American President, Rep. Waters declared “We can no longer afford for our public policy to be defined by the worldview of Wall Street.”

According to Congressman Conyers, an upset Barack Obama called to ask why the Michigan lawmaker was “demeaning” him. Conyers has been increasingly turned off by the President’s policies-among them health care reform, the war in Afghanistan, slippage on Guantanamo and the extension of the Patriot Act’s invasive provisions.

The 80-year old Congressman spent most weekends in 2007 and 2008 tirelessly on the campaign trail trying to get Obama elected.

White House aides are not troubled by the rumblings from the moderate Left. They said they have all of 2010 to bring them back into the fold by the November Congressional elections. Besides, where else are they going to go?

Well, they could stay home. Remember 1994 and the Gingrich takeover.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book – and first novel –  is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.