Afghanistan: The new Hundred Years War?

punditman says...

What the heck, this is starting to turn into another Hundred Years' War. The Afghan War going beyond 2015? Why, of course it will! How about another 40 years? No problem!

You have to admire the candid honesty of the UK's General Sir David Richards.

But Punditman has heard all this before: politicians and generals going on about how you can't defeat an idea militarily, that you also need to "nation-build." Even Stevie Harper intuited such brilliance awhile back.

But punditman detects a vast disconnect between word and action amongst those who on the one hand recognize the futility of an occupying force trying to achieve military victory against an insurgency but nevertheless keep trying to do just that. Or something like it. It's the old winning people's hearts and minds argument while you cut off their limbs.

We keep hearing how we are just about to "turn the corner," maybe this year, or next year, or 2014. But these clowns need to stop channeling the ghost of LBJ because there really is no light at the end of this tunnel any more than there was in the Mekong Delta, circa 1968. At least not as long as long as they keep creating new enemies with each air strike, while simultaneously mumbling about including moderate Taliban and Pashtuns in some sort of Afghan power sharing arrangement. Imagine how perplexing this must seem to many an Afghan villager:

"Yeah, these NATO guys are smart. They blew away those drug lords and bandits who kept harrasing my niece and stealing from my uncle's orchard. But then their air strike killed my entire clan including my wife! Fuck 'em, I am starting my own militia. Local Taliban said they'd train me up and promised me a new wife too."

Not to sound glib, but this can't be far from the reality. Ninety percent of the people NATO is fighting are part of a tribal, localized insurgency. Only 10% are hardcore fundamentalist jihadis who profess loyalty to the Taliban. In fact those Taliban who harboured al Qaeda before 9-11 are involved in a very small share of attacks against Western forces, mostly in southern Afghanistan.

The point is that the only hope for a lessening of violence amongst the many social and tribal groupings that comprise the Afghan enigma is through negotiation, integration and accomodation. Obama and NATO have clearly chosen a military "surge" instead. And now Western forces are planning on sticking around indefinitely in a "non-combat" role to train people how to use guns in a country that has been awash in guns for generations. Brilliant.

Punditman says the only way out of this morass for the West is troop withdrawal. And the only way out of it for Afghanis is through negotiation because the only people that can solve Afghanistan are Afghanis. We may not like what they come up with. But we don't have much choice and the truth is, many realists inside government agree; they readily admit there is no exit strategy in place and probably no plausible one that can be invented.

Punditman is suspicious of even the realists in government. The fact is, a permanent "low-level conflict" fought with modern technology fits in nicely with a permanent war economy which benefits the high tech defense sector. It is very profitable to fight jihadism with drones and highly equipped, occupying armies. And as long as the West retains volunteer armies and Western casualties don't get too out of hand, elites have much to gain. Of course it is not so low level for those on the receiving end of the bombs and bullets—but that never stopped them.

Do the idealists and ideologues who continue to prosecute this depressing war understand Afghan history? Or history in general?  It is naive to think they do not. Maybe that is precisely the point. Punditman says that is a scary thought.

Canadian pullout could threaten Afghan mission, senior NATO officer says

Shouldn't all these military types just shut their collective pie holes. Peacenik thought civilians ran the military. Peacenik has lost track of how long NATO has been in Afghanistan. One day was one day too many. Canada's departure could threaten the Afghan mission. What mission was that? There is no mission. There never was a mission. Just one big boondoggle. Bring the troops home now.

Canada's plan to bring its troops home from Afghanistan next year has the potential to hurt NATO's chances of success in Kandahar, a senior officer with the coalition said Wednesday.

Col. Dave Bellon, who is the chief of operations for NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan, indicated that the United States would be left picking up the slack after the Canadian withdrawal.

Canadian soldiers are scheduled to begin returning home in July 2011, which Col. Bellon said would be at a critical juncture in the mission.

Read on...

"Americans Don’t Flinch" – They Duck!

punditman says...Canada and NATO are engaged in a war that reinforces a sense of "US exceptionalism," which doesn't go over so well in the rest of the world, particularly for the victims. This article demonstrates that U.S./NATO attacks that kill civilians are routinely excused away, and the authors over at Voices for Creative Nonviolence provide a list of several recent documented cases and their outcomes since April 2009.

 

By Kathy Kelly and Dan Pearson

In accepting General McChrystal’s resignation, President Obama said that McChrystal’s departure represented a change in personnel, not a change in policy. “Americans don’t flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks.” he stated, “We persist and we persevere.” Yet, President Obama and the U.S. people don’t face up to the ugly truth that, in Afghanistan, the U.S. has routinely committed atrocities against innocent civilians. By ducking that truth, the U.S. reinforces a sense of exceptionalism, which, in other parts of the world, causes resentment and antagonism. 

While on the campaign trail and since taking office, President Obama has persistently emphasized his view that attacks against civilians are always criminal, unless the U.S. is the attacker, in which case they are justified. We heard this again, on June 23rd, as the President assured the U.S. people that we will persevere in Afghanistan. “We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world.” 

When considering the security of Afghan civilians, it’s crucial to ask why, on May 12, 2009, General McChrystal was selected to replace General McKiernan as the top general in Afghanistan. News reports said it was because he had experience in coordinating special operations in Iraq. That experience involved developing death squads, planning night raids, and coordinating undercover assassinations. McChrystal proved, since his appointment, that he could organize atrocities against Afghan civilians and simultaneously present himself as a protector of Afghan civilians. In doing so, he relied on collaboration and cooperation from Defense Secretary Gates, General Petraeus and President Obama. They are united in their culpability.

Read on...

Protests as US Air Strike Kills Four Civilians in Afghanistan’s Kandahar

punditman says... A glimpse of reality: the sheeple's governments continue to kill and maim innocent people halfway across the world in an ill-fated war and for no damn good reason. But don't worry, sheeple. NATO has once again promised to investigate. You can get back to your fake reality (show) now.

By Jason Ditz

www.antiwar.com

Residents of Kohat Village in Afghanistan’s Kandahar Province marched into Kandahar City with the bodies of four civilians, including three children, to protest their killings in an overnight US Air Strike. The four were relatives, three brothers and an adult cousin.

Witnesses say that a helicopter attacked the four in their sleep. Another brother and the father of the cousin were also wounded in the strike on the family’s compound. The US denied any knowledge of the incident but claimed that four “insurgents” had been killed in the area.

The father of the slain children, who was among the protesters, said two missiles were fired at his home, and asked “what was the fault of my innocent children? They were not Taliban.”

Such incidents have become all too common as the international military effort in Afghanistan has escalated, but this one is particularly embarrassing as it came during the visit of new NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, an advocate of continung the war. NATO has promised to investigate the incident.

Time to Quit Afghanistan

by Eric Margolis

It's taken far too long for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to finally admit the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Better late than never. Kudos to Harper for facing facts and telling Canadians the truth.

If the war can't be won, why risk lives of Canadian troops for nothing? Why stay in harm's way a day longer when the writing is on the wall in Afghanistan? President Barack Obama, who is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, ought to be asking himself the same questions.

We must think hard about waging an increasingly bloody war against lightly-armed mountain tribesmen who face the 24/7 lethal fury of the U.S. air force's heavy bombers, strike aircraft, helicopter and AC-130 Spectre gunships, killer drones and heavy artillery. Do we really want a test of wills against men who have the courage to endure cluster bombs with thousands of sharp fragments, white phosphorus that burns through flesh to the bone, fuel/air explosives that burst the lungs and tear apart bodies? Will Canada's use of Soviet helicopters and Israeli drones win Afghan hearts and minds?

Read on...

Has anyone articulated a coherent reason why Canada is still in Afghanistan? Is Don Cherry running Canada's foreign policy? Is Canada in Afghanistan because of Hockey Propaganda Night in Canada? Margolis makes a pretty clear case for why it is time to leave Afghanistan. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.

NATO Backs Missile Shield Over Russian Protest

www.antiwar.com

NATO foreign ministers today praised America’s planned missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic as making a “substantial contribution” to protecting Europe from long-range ballistic missiles.

The United States insists that the shield is primarily directed at the threat of long-range Iranian missiles, though both the missile base and the radar station are well outside the range of Iran’s most advanced missile. Rather, Russia sees the bases and the 10 interceptor missiles to be placed there sometime in the next few years as an effort to slightly degrade their retaliatory capability.

President-elect Barack Obama has not yet committed to completing the base, saying he would do so only if the technology is proven workable. Russia has responded to the plan by threatening to place Iskander missiles and jamming equipment in the exclave of Kaliningrad to counter the shield. President Medvedev says his government is willing to reverse the decision to place the missiles in Kaliningrad if Obama cancels construction of the missile defense.

punditman says...

As senior citizens' savings evaporate into a firepit of financial ruin, as the credit crisis deepens and unemployment creeps upwards, why this is just what we need: another arms race based on a massively expensive technology that doesn't work and serves only to increase tensions with the Kremlin. How does the US/NATO expect the Russians to react? Just sit there and take it on the chin?

It kind of reminds me of the Canadian Parliament. What did Harper expect the opposition to do after he tried to cut them off at the knees? The art of compromise seems to have been expunged from political discourse.

Seven Years in Afghanistan: From "War on Terror" to "War of Terror"

By GARY LEUPP

October 7, 2008. Seven years ago today the U.S. began the assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime and produced the present mess. Abetted by U.S. bombing and commando operations, the Northern Alliance took Kabul on November 13, 2001. This was the initial U.S. response to 9-11, an assault on the U.S. by Saudi Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda attacks killed 3000 people. By March 2002 the U.S. bombing had produced that many Afghan civilian fatalities. This was just the beginning.

The invasion produced little change in the daily life of the average Afghan. Fanatical Sunni leaders who’d had a genuine social base and had been able to control 95 per cent of the country with minimal outside help were driven back to their villages. They were replaced by other fanatical Sunni leaders---those who had toppled the “leftist”
government in 1993, then been overthrown themselves by the Taliban in 1996. These Northern Alliance forces had been nurtured in the duration by India, Russia and Iran as their idea of the better bet among competing Islamist fundamentalists.

But in the seven years since, this collection of tribal-based warlords has been unable to stabilize Afghanistan---even though they’re propped up by tens of thousands of foreign troops who’re told that they’re there to fight terrorism and help create “democracy.” Indeed, its hold on power becomes more tenuous every year, while a resurgent Taliban with no foreign government’s support exacts an ever heavier price
from the foreigners and their local allies.

According to the United Nations, 1,445 civilians were killed in the war from January through August this year---a rise of 39 per cent over 2007. At least 577 of these deaths were due to the actions of pro-government forces. Deaths from air strikes have tripled since 2006. “Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans,” declares Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat with eight years’ experience in Afghanistan, recently noted that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have created “a great deal of antipathy” and the situation in the country is the worst it’s been since 2001. Members of the Afghan Parliament have staged a one-day walkout to protest the civilian casualties.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...
This is a great summary -- both from an historic and present-day perspective. It puts the lie to all the nonsense and mythology about the war in Afghanistan, how we got there and where it is all going. And for Canadians, there's this to consider:

Washington’s reported bid to take over sole command of the Afghan war, cutting NATO out of the command structure, will likely fuel European and Canadian opposition.

Disaster in Afghanistan

by John W. Warnock

It is difficult to find out what is really going on in Afghanistan. The focus of the mass media is almost entirely on the military activities of the Canadian and NATO forces. There is absolutely no coverage of political developments. The news on the economy is limited to the state of the poppy industry. This is no accident. The North American media, including the CBC, has strongly supported the U.S./NATO strategy and the administration of President Hamid Karzai. Contrary to the mainstream message, things are not going well.

Rise in civilian casualties

Over the past few weeks NATO forces have killed civilians in a number of incidents, and popular opposition to the western military effort is increasing. On August 22 the United States bombed the village of Azizabad in Herat province; the result was the death of 91 civilians, including over 60 children. Rockets and missiles were also used. Many homes were destroyed. Local citizens stoned the Afghan army when they tried to distribute supplies. NATO forces in Paktika province launched an artillery attack on a village on September 1 as part of a general sweep-and-destroy mission against Taliban forces. Three children were killed and seven injured. That same day U.S. and Afghan forces carried out an overnight raid in Hud Kheil, east of Kabul. A family of four, including two children, were killed when hand grenades were thrown into their house. In Kabul hundreds blocked the main road out of town protesting the military practices of the international forces.

Afghan government and NATO attacks

In response to the steady increase of civilian deaths this year, the Afghan parliament passed a resolution in August calling on the Karzai administration to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement with NATO and United States, making it consistent with Afghan and international law. President Karzai’s cabinet demanded “an end to air attacks in civilian areas, illegal detentions and unilateral house searches.” There is growing opposition to the presence of the occupying forces. The Senlis Council reported in June 2008 that in their most recent recent public opinion survey “more than six out of ten of those interviewed ... said that foreign troops should leave.” This is the position taken by many of the democratic parties in Afghanistan. Malalai Joya, the outspoken critic of the Karzai government, has called for all foreign troops to leave the country. She argues that Afghans can settle this dispute better on their own.

The approaching famine

However, the most important current issue in Afghanistan is the drought, the crop failure, and the prospect of famine. This story has received no coverage in the North American media.

Full article...

punditman says...

I am having a Vietnam flashback (which doesn't make much sense because I was just a kid playing softball and humming Three Dog Night songs in my head in the summer of '69).

Anyway, the flashback has to do with Western powers fighting stupid counter insurgency campaigns, with the predictable media compliance on the home front. A lot of folks fall for it. I suspect that those who dutifully queue up each morning in Tim Hortons drive-throughs with "Support the Troops" ribbons on their cars are part of the 41 per cent who approve of Canada's military action in Afghanistan -- but that they have not done a lot of independent research on the subject. And most probably never will.

It is amazing that in this age of easily accessbile information, so many people have bought into the notion that we are helping Afghans build their democracy. It is true there have been some success stories in the area of development aid, but these are hard to achieve and maintain in the context of the US-led search and destroy campaign. And aid alone does not equal democracy.

As the article points out, not only is NATO killing Afghan civilians at an alarming rate, losing the so-called "hearts and minds" campaign and even pissing off the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, the US is actually blocking Afghan democratic aspirations. That's right. Blocking it. Read the whole freakin' article from the smart professor if you don't believe me. After all, I'm having a flashback.

What Baloney...A Cold War Redux?

punditman says...

If we are going to have another Cold War, can we at least have a good reason to once again spend billions on theormonuclear weaponry? Like, I dunno, say Russian missiles in Cuba or something?

Regarding the ongoing tensions resulting from the recent flare-up between Russia and Georgia, dare I say, that the Russians may actually have a point?

By saying such a thing, I almost feel like I've been cast back in time to some late night drunken debate in my undergraduate residence. In those days, merely pointing out that Russia had a legitimate sphere of interest meant that you risked being labeled a "Commie sympathizer" or a "useful idiot" and therefore part of their plan for global domination. Such talk could cause great personal distress and was therefore generally reserved to like-minded audiences, such as fellow anti-nuke marchers.

A loose analogy would be to try to look at things from the perspective of the average Pashtun tribesman today, or to take an honest look at the recent history of warfare in Afghanistan. You may as well shut up, lest your voice fall upon deaf ears, with many a glazed eye looking at you like you have 5 left feet; whilst the fat-assed cracker at the end of the bar spontaneously combusts all over your nitrate-laden sausage.* It's usually not worth the risk.

Seriously, has history taught us nothing? The Commie empire may be long gone, but irrational fear of the Russian bear is alive and well.

The Russians point to a growing NATO naval presence in the Black Sea and accuse the West of using aid shipments as cover to rearm Georgia after Russia's bloody foray into Georgia earlier this month left Georgia's military decimated.

According to Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, "It's not a common practice to deliver humanitarian aide using battleships."

Ah, yeah -- he does have a point. And saying so doesn't mean I support Russia's recent incursion into Georgia. It merely means I understand something about geopolitics, distasteful as it often is.

Should anyone be surprised, if in fact, these Russian accusations are true? After all, the West has been arming Georgia with military advisors, weapons sales and the promise of NATO membership -- NATO being that "Western" organization, of course, created as an anti-Soviet military alliance. The alliance apparently sees fit to go stomping around Afghanistan to do the bidding of its hegemonic power, the United States (Note: They should at least re-brand themselves because the "North Atlantic" Treaty Organization is so 20th century!)

I digress. In this case at least, NATO is doing its usual job of surrounding Russia and we are to assume that this is an inalienable right handed down from the heavens, and so shall it always be. But imagine the reaction in Washington, Ottawa and London if an "Eastern" alliance was expanding into Mexico. Such thoughts are reserved for people who live on other planets, I suppose.

Meanwhile, much to the chagrin of the old Russian security establishment, a thousand Israeli military advisers from Israeli security firms have been training Georgia's armed forces and were deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia. What the hell? As usual, Israel gets a pass. And why not? They too have the God-given right to covertly mess around in other countries without a peep out of CNN.

Did the Bush administration actually prod the Georgians into their ill-fated, amazingly stupid attack on the breakaway South Ossetians? Was it part of an election ploy by the McCain team, as some have suggested? Or did the US and the Europeans just completely botch up the diplomacy aspect, big time?

Either way, it is a dangerous game that NATO is playing in the Russian backyard, and we have no business playing Nicky Nicky Nine Door on their back porch.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband may not be personally interested in starting up a new Cold War, (as he stated on a recent visit to the Ukraine), but there is clear evidence that many neo cons in the US government want precisely that.

The inconsistency of, on the one hand -- recognizing the independence of Kosovo earlier this year, but on the other hand -- not recognizing the disputed province of South Ossetia, is clear for all to see. But in order to see, one needs open eyes and a little effort with a keyboard because such glaring hypocrisy on the part of the West barely merits mention in the mainstream press.

What you won't read or hear about offline is the following perspective, put so succinctly by Nebojsa Malic over at antiwar.com:

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to communicate with someone so obsessed with managing the perceptions of reality that they've become incapable of recognizing reality altogether. In the Bizarro World of the Atlantic Empire, the bombing of Serbia was humanitarian, the invasion of Iraq was defensive, the occupation of Afghanistan was democratic, and the separation of Kosovo was legal – while the Russian intervention to neutralize the Georgian army and save the Ossetians from ethnic cleansing was "aggression" befitting Hitler or Stalin.

In fact, even punditman is somewhat amazed to witness the near complete re-demonization of the Russians within a few short weeks. As expected, the Big Media commentators have fallen into line, dutifully parroting the predictable horse manure spewing from the White House. But, at least according to a few informal discussions I've had with otherwise intelligent folks, many a common citizen has likewise fallen back under the radioactive spell of their Cold War programming from that bygone era. Duck and cover everybody, the Russian boogeyman is gonna get you!

People seem to forget that Russia does in fact have nukes, and that for very good historic reasons they are just a tad sensitive about their borders. Playing chicken with them is phenomenally reckless as is setting the time machine back several decades. I would hope that any drunken undergraduate student of history could tell you that.

*in truth, punditman typically does not eat sausage, bacon or baloney.

Scott Horton Interviews Eric Margolis

www.antiwar.com

Eric Margolis discusses the widening of the hopeless U.S. occupation of Afghanistan into Pakistan, America’s siding with the formerly pro-Soviet Tajik and Uzbek forces against the Pashtuns, the hatred of U.S. actions by most of the people of Pakistan, the relative lack of danger that Pakistan’s nukes could get loose or be used, how Americans don’t recognize they are living in an empire, U.S. plans to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, why the U.S. let Bin Laden escape and the AQ Kahn nuclear black market network.

MP3 here. (26:27)

Award winning author, columnist, and broadcaster Eric S. Margolis has covered 14 wars and is a leading authority on military affairs, the Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic movements. He is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.

punditman says...
I urge everyone who regularly reads this blog, as well as those who stumble in here, to take the time to listen to the above Eric Margolis interview, especially those of you who support the current NATO mission in Afghanistan and who think that the Afghan War is a "good war" compared to Iraq.

Canadians Still Oppose Afghan Mission Extension

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Canada believe the House of Commons should not have extended the country’s military mandate in Afghanistan until the end of 2011, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 54 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision.

When asked if the Canadian government should actively negotiate with the Taliban if this helps the peace efforts led by the elected Afghan government, 48 per cent of respondents reject the idea, while 37 per cent are open to it.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

At least 800 soldiers—including 82 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Keep Reading...

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.

AP

Mikhail Gorbachev: conspiracy

With Dmitry Medvedev due to be inaugurated today as Russian president, the Soviet Union's last leader said that the White House's claims of peaceful intentions towards its former superpower rival could no longer be trusted.

Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.

From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...Gorby makes some good points. And if the Bush administration can't even see eye-to-eye with a guy that even Reagan liked, what does that tell us about their mindsets? And how would the US react if, in this post-cold war era, Russia decided to encircle the US with military bases and a missile shield by cajoling friendly allies?

Hmmm...look what happened last time Russia responded to American encirclement à la Cuba missile crisis (we're lucky we aren't a radically-reduced population of radioactive mutants, foraging to survive on a glowing landscape.)

It’s Time to Promote Peace in Afghanistan

By John W. Warnock

Global Research, March 30, 2008
actupinsask.org

In Canada the debate on Afghanistan has had a very narrow focus. The primary concern has been the role of the Canadian Forces in the counter-insurgency war. How many more Canadians will be killed? How long will our forces be in Kandahar province? What will the U.S. government think if Canada withdraws from the southern zone of conflict? If Canada pulls its forces out of Afghanistan, will there be chaos?

It is time for Canadians to consider what the Afghan people want. At the top of the list would certainly be an end to the death, destruction and despair, the other 3-D policy. A variety of surveys show at least 70% of Afghans do not want to see a return of the dreaded Taliban. Yet an even larger percentage supports a negotiated settlement with the Taliban to end the war. The U.S.-NATO policy, supported by recent Canadian governments, perpetuates the war.

Outside of Canada there is widespread understanding that the counter insurgency war is not working. This past year was the most destructive since the U.S. invasion, with at least 6200 Afghans killed, a 24% increase in roadside bombs, and a dramatic increase in suicide bombs. The United Nations, as well as U.S. and U.K. military leaders, report that the zone of operation of the insurgents is spreading. Attacks are now up to 550 per month.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...Unfortunately, Ottawa's prime concern in Afghanistan appears to be the butt-kissing idea of following the failed US strategy of counter-insurgent warfare.

Canadian "Peacekeeping" Troops in Afghanistan: Keep Pearson out of it

By Linda McQuaig

Global Research, February 5, 2008

The Toronto Star

The Harper government's flagging campaign to sell Canadians on extending our combat mission in Afghanistan has clearly found new legs since the release last month of the pro-war Manley report.

The turnaround moment probably came at a press briefing when John Manley, head of the government's advisory panel on Afghanistan, defended the mission by invoking the name of Canadian peacekeeping hero Lester Pearson.

Since Canadians have tended to associate Afghanistan with torture and a cowboy-style "war on terror," the invocation of Pearson's name – from fellow Liberal Manley – was highly potent.

It was also absurd, even preposterous – like invoking Abe Lincoln as a nation-building forerunner of George W. Bush.

Keep Reading...

© Copyright Linda McQuaig, The Toronto Star , 2008

Amnesty International condemns Canadian probe into alleged Afghan abuses

A new Amnesty International report questions whether Canada really wants to get to the bottom of torture allegations involving Afghan detainees.

The human rights organization said Monday it has concerns that the investigation by Canadian authorities into abuse claims last spring may not have been "competent" or "impartial."

The scathing assessment, part of 51-page report on NATO's overall handling of prisoners in Afghanistan, also accused Canada of blurring the number of insurgents captured and handed over to local Afghan authorities.

Amnesty International "remains gravely concerned that detainees handed over by [NATO] to the Afghan authorities are currently at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment," said the report, released Monday in Europe and North America.

"Of the five countries with agreements regarding detainee transfer, only the second Canadian agreement specifies provisions for investigation into allegations of torture or other ill-treatment.

"However, [Amnesty International] fears that investigations by the Canadian government into allegations may not have been 'competent' and 'impartial.' "

Amnesty's Canadian-based expert on Afghanistan said the group's harsh judgment is based on the Conservative government's protracted legal battle to keep government documents on detainee transfers secret.

Keep Reading...

Polling Afghanistan: Questions and Contradictions

From: Canadian Peace Alliance

The Environics poll, conducted by D3 Systems in Afghanistan is being touted as "groundbreaking" research into the views of the Afghan people about the NATO occupation. The reality is that there are as many questions as answers arising from the poll results.

This new poll is not the first of its kind to be done in Afghanistan, but the results are striking because they contradict dozens of comprehensive studies conducted by other agencies. For example a remarkable 73 per cent of respondents in the D3 Systems study said that women's rights were improving in Afghanistan. This contradicts the NGO Womenkind Worldwide which found that attacks against women have actually been on the rise since 2001 and that there had been no improvement in the lives of Afghan women as a whole.

Likewise, a whopping 76 per cent of people said that they have "a lot" or "some" confidence in the Afghan National Army and 60 per cent have faith in the Afghan National Police (ANP). This contradicts countless documents from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who have consistently found that a majority of Afghans cite the Army and ANP as a chief source of violence. In fact, poll results from December 2006 found 78 per cent of Afghan people believed that the ANP was corrupt and one in four Afghans had to pay bribes to local police for protection. So therefore, the numbers from D3 Systems either represent an astounding turnaround in public opinion or there was some type of flaw in the research.

These strange results aren't surprising given the history of the D3 Systems polling firm. The group, whose former clients include NATO and the RAND Corporation (a virtual who's who of the military industrial complex) is notorious for providing the results that are needed to advance a political agenda.

Tellingly, D3 Systems is the only polling form in the world that was able to consistently show that a majority of Iraqis felt their lives had improved since the invasion of 2003. In 2004 and 2005, D3 conducted polls for media outlets based in the US and found more than 50 per cent of Iraqis were exited about their future. As late as 2006 D3 found a miraculous 64 per cent of Iraqis who felt that their lives were improving.

There are still many other unanswered questions about this survey. For example, did security or military contingents escort the survey teams around the country? If so the results will be terribly skewed, as these types of escorts would have destroyed the impartiality of the surveyors. Also, if 75 per cent of respondents called for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban (a number that has been omitted from most media reports on the survey) how do we reconcile that with the 64 per cent who want us to continue to fight the Taliban. Furthermore, if only 2 per cent of respondents knew that Canada was fighting the Taliban, how did that 64 per cent think that we were doing a good job.

This survey has come out at a particularly fortuitous time for the Conservative government, days after a throne speech advocating and extension of Canada's war in Afghanistan and a week before a pan-Canadian day of action against the war. But as with most of what we hear from the Conservatives, the numbers just don't add up.

punditman says: As the old saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."

Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan: No Coincidence

by Prof. Ira Chernus

Global Research, September 23, 2007

NATO bombs killed at least 45 civilians in Afghanistan the other day. If you get your news from the front pages of the U.S. mainstream media, you wouldn't know it. The New York Times did run news from Afghanistan on its front page the next day — a rather ghoulish piece about Muslims refusing to give Taliban suicide bombers a religious burial, because suicide bombing is morally reprehensible. And so it is.

But what about pushing a button in an airplane to drop bombs that fall on people's homes? Not so reprehensible, apparently. The Times buried its report on the slaughter in Helmand province back on an inside page, as did the Washington Post. The LA Times relegated to a "World in Brief" notice.

If you take the time to read those back-page articles, they all tell you that NATO faces a dilemma: not a moral dilemma — when Westerners kill Afghans, the moral issue does not seem to arise — but a strategic dilemma. On the one hand, "our boys" have to kill Taliban. That's a given. On the other hand, if we kill too many civilians in the process, we'll alienate the locals and send them over to the Taliban side. All the mainstream reports agree that the string of recent bombings, killing sizeable numbers of civilians, is already creating a growing problem for NATO's effort to win hearts and minds.

So what's a poor NATO commander to do? American General Dan McNeill, who took control of all NATO forces in Afghanistan this spring, seems to have an answer: Bombs away, and let hearts and minds fall where they may. The spike in civilian deaths from NATO bombs is no coincidence. It reflects a major change in strategy, which has gone totally unreported in the American media.

Full article...

punditman says: Question: Your country (ie: Canada, US, Britain), is engaged in a major counter-insurgency war in one of the poorest countries on earth. Civilians are dying regularly as a result of the stepped-up air war. As a citizen, do you think that your mainstream media outlets should put this on the front pages and lead items on broadcasts? If they did (rather than bury these reports or ignore them altogether), what do you think the public response to the 'noble' mission would be?

Bombing and Spraying Afghanistan

The New Air War in the Hindu Kush

By CONN HALLINAN

The rising tide of Afghan civilian deaths has opened a rift between the U.S. and NATO's 37,000-member International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). According to NATO officials, the U.S.'s increasing use of air power has badly damaged support for the war in both Afghanistan and Europe.

Daan Everts, the senior NATO civilian in Afghanistan, says the U.S. has created "a fallout that is negative because the collateral damage and particularly the civilian casualties are seen as unduly high, certainly by the Afghan people. This is of concern to us."

More...

punditman says: This helps explain why support for the war is falling amongst Canadians as well. In addition to the US air war, there is the disastrous opium-spraying program thanks to DynCorp, a private US mercenary company that has done extensive spraying of coca plants in Columbia. Perhaps citizens in NATO countries are waking up to the reality of who is in charge of this war, who is making a mess of it and who the cannon fodder are?

Tribal Chief Says NATO Airstrike Killed 108 Afghan Civilians

punditman says:

Here we go again. The mainstream media is mostly focused on whether or not the Afghan War is worth the cost--in Western lives. But the reality is that foreign forces have been killing thousands of innocent Afghanis--men, women and children--for almost six years.
It is worth noting that as citizens, we have no say whatsoever over the military strategy that is being pursued in our names. This means that if you support the war, then you support the way it is being waged because you can't have your war and eat it too. There is to be no tinkering around the edges by Joe Sixpack, no tweaking of tactics. You don't get to say, "I support the mission, I just wish we didn't kill civilians."
Supporters of this campaign need to ask themselves why they think aerial bombardment and counter-insurgency win hearts and minds when the history of warfare teaches us that these techniques merely turn civilians against the occupier, adds to the number of foe and heightens their resolve to strike back in any way they can.

Afghanistan: The U.S. Is Losing The Wider War

While the Harper government prefers that Canadians not think about Iraq and Afghanistan in the same breath, the reality is that even though the Afghan mission operates under NATO command and UN auspices, the American invasion was its starting point. Should the Americans decide to leave, the rest of the West will not stay long.

punditman says:
Could it be that we are wasting our lives and treasure on a fool's errand?