What lies beneath the war in Afghanistan

punditman says...Just to show that punditman doesn't get too hung up on the "ideological purity" of every source he or Peacenik uses on this blog, punditman is posting another Eric Margolis article. Yes, Eric Margolis. Here's how his politics are described by wikipedia:

Margolis identifies his politics as "Eisenhower Republican". Though his domestic political persuasion is moderately conservative (he is a staunch anti-communist and a supporter of capitalism), Margolis' views on the Middle East are sharply at odds with the neoconservatives.

He also happens to have written some of the most insightful pieces on Middle East politics and the so-called "War on Terror" in recent years.

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Truth is war's first casualty. The Afghan war's biggest untruth is, "we've got to fight terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home."

Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.

False. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by U.S.-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.

Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Taliban received U.S. aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies.

Keep Reading...

Scott Horton Interviews Juan Cole

punditman says...
There is an unspoken rule that permeates all mainstream broadcasts and most intellectual discourse: namely, we in the West always fight the "bad guys." In fact, we often hear military officials and clownish politicians talk about going after "bad people," and celebrating when we kill them.
How stupid is this paradigm? Are we living in a giant batman movie or what? Never mind that we may be killing innocent Pashtun tribesmen and their families in far away regions that few people can pronounce. Or we may be killing people that we used to support. But never mind these inconvenient truths; we call anyone who opposes us "Taliban," or "militants" or "extremists" or "insurgents" or, wait for it..."al Queda."
The script goes something like this: We "good guys" may be occasionally misguided though our intentions are pure, and though we may be experiencing total confusion and "mission creep" in the Af-Pak War, we are on the "good side" of history. Yet history suggests that we are no better or no worse than any previous colonial force. And we are having a really tough time pretending otherwise as we try to figure out what to do about being knee deep in the big muddy. Juan Cole understands this. Listen to him, for he is wise.

Juan Cole, author of Engaging the Muslim World, discusses the origin and meaning of the Taliban, the conflicting messages Obama and the U.S. military give on why staying in Afghanistan is a good idea, the benefits of an “Egypt solution” billion dollar yearly payoff to stabilize and allow withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s low popular support and territorial control.

MP3 here. (30:17)

(courtesy antiwar.com)

Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter

www.antiwar.com

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for Inter Press Service News Agency, discusses the Obama administration’s attempted duplication of Gen. Petraeus’s Iraq “success” in Afghanistan, the difficulty foreign occupiers have in overcoming the Pashtunwali code, the possible changes in U.S. military planning when the Quadrennial Defense Review is completed and Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic attempt to separate the Taliban and al Qaeda.

MP3 here. (27:43)

Gareth Porter’s articles appear on the Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and on Antiwar.com.

punditman says...Vice President Joe Biden thinks that 70% of the insurgents are just doing it for the money, and therefore all the West has to do is buy them off and we're home free.

Malarky, says Porter--and anyone else who knows anything about the region. They will fight because they will not accept foreign occupation--ever. They will fight because the Pashtun code of conduct dictates that they must avenge the deaths of their relatives. And since NATO is doing a great job at killing lots of innocents, then the war will go on as long as foreign troops occupy, end of story. Listen to this interview and then compare it to what we are told about Afghanistan in the mainstream media.

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.