|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
07 July 2010 By Stephen Lendman
A May 30 Delaware County Times
editorial headlined, "Is US fighting unwinnable war in
Afghanistan" asking:
"Why should America (believe) it
can (accomplish what the) Soviet Union (and) Britain
couldn't....? Public sentiment against it is growing,
and "Many pundits say the war....can never be won
militarily...." How many more "US service member"
deaths are tolerable?
On January 21, 2010, Britain's
New Stateman sounded the same theme calling the Afghan
war "unwinnable," recent events showing intensified
fighting, rising casualties, and a popular resistance
determined to prevail. "Britain should be making plans
to withdraw," the publication concluded. So should
America with no right to be there ethically, morally
or legally, the war clearly in violation of US and
international law like all others US forces waged
since WW II.
On June 26, the UK Spectator,
published since July 1828, was just as unequivocal,
calling US and Kabul leadership "fractious, confused
and contradictory, a sure sign that the war is being
lost....Yes, the war in unwinnable. History and time
are on the Afghans side."
Other publications voice the same
sentiment, but not American ones, misreporting and
backing lawless, losing bet despite souring public
sentiment. A new Rasmussen poll shows nearly 60% of US
voters believe American forces can't win or they're
not sure, and 53% said the war isn't worth the cost.
In Britain, nearly two-thirds of the public call the
war unwinnable, saying UK forces shouldn't be there.
A recent Canadian poll showed
about two-thirds of the population feel the war can't
be won, 59% of them opposing their country's
involvement. Nearly two-thirds of Australians want
their nation's forces out, and a June 2009 Pew Global
Attitudes survey showed public sentiment in
three-fourths of the 25 countries surveyed against the
war, wanting US and NATO troops withdrawn.
Only in America do major media
pundits and editorial writers still back an illegal,
unwinnable war, (and the Iraq one), The New York
Times, in the lead, calling it "central to American
security," hoping a Petraeus strategy will "genuinely
blood(y)" the Taliban, after nearly nine futile years
of trying under a dozen Iraq and Afghanistan
commanders.
On June 27, Washington Post
writer Greg Jaffe headlined the frustration saying,
"Military disturbed by rapid turnover at top in
Afghan, Iraq wars," commanders falling like tenpins,
including Tommy Franks, William Fallon, Ricardo
Sanchez, George Casey, David McKiernan, and Stanley
McChrystal, sacked not for deriding his superiors, but
for losing an unwinnable war, and, in fact, suggesting
it like other generals and lower-ranking officers. So
do professionals outside the military not reported in
the mainstream. More on them below.
UK's Liberation
Party - LP (Hizb ut-Tahir) Report
Founded in 1953, the Liberation
Party "works to project a positive image of Islam to
Western societies and engages in dialogue with Western
thinkers, policymakers and academics."
Its January 2010 report titled,
"Afghanistan & Pakistan: The Unwinnable War" reviewed
the war's futility, recommending "an alternative path
for the region," what's very much needed but not
considered.
Instead, Afghans have suffered
brutally under war and occupation - empty promises
delivering death, destruction, impoverishment and
depravation to a country John Pilger called more of a
moonscape than a functioning nation, the result of
sustained conflicts, violence and instability.
Today "the West has lost any form
of moral authority," the puppet Karzai regime a
farcical caricature of a government - corrupted,
inept, and disdainful of its people in collusion with
Washington, NATO, war profiteers, drug barons, and
brutal warlords, a combination destroying the fabric
of life in the country.
Clearly, "The neo-colonial
mission has failed," yet Washington, Britain, and NATO
"decided to double down" their bet and devote more
resources under a new commander to "finish the job,"
an impossible mission short of mass extermination and
laying waste to the entire country, turning it all and
surrounding areas into moonscapes, perhaps the
strategy under the next commander after this one fails
and the war drags on, spreads, and inflames the entire
Muslim world to a greater degree than already.
No wonder a popular resistance
flourishes, supported by growing numbers seeing it as
their best chance for liberation no matter what's
next. Priority one is route the occupier and restore
national sovereignty, perhaps inspiring Iraqis,
Pakistanis, and other Muslim nations to achieve theirs
by expunging America's presence and influence in the
region, a malignancy destroying it.
The LP concludes the following:
-- like in Vietnam, the war is
unwinnable, occupation producing a never-ending cycle
of violence, resentment, hatred and retaliation having
a devastating effect on the people;
-- under Washington and NATO,
puppet governance is atrocious, corrupt, inept and
unacceptable;
-- troop strength at any level
can't prevail; waging war on the Taliban means
fighting 50 million Pashtuns supporting them and
growing numbers of others;
-- an exit strategy based on
Afghan security forces doing NATO's bidding won't
work; evidence shows no trust and increasing instances
of belligerence against occupying troops;
-- calling Al-Qaeda and the
Taliban America's threat is bogus to distract from its
real aim - permanent occupation, exploiting
Afghanistan's resources, and using the country as a
land-based aircraft carrier against its major rivals,
Russia militarily and China economically;
-- "growing and influential
voices are now questioning the cost to Pakistan of
supporting America's war;" it's counterproductive,
destabilizing, and destructive to an already troubled
nation, weakened further by allying with Washington's
regional wars;
-- America and NATO have no
legitimacy in Afghanistan or Iraq; both wars are
illegal; the occupations breed resentment, hatred, and
a never-ending cycle of violence; both countries
deserve their sovereignty, stable economies, "a system
consistent with peoples' values," freedom from foreign
dominance, and new priorities must place popular
"needs over the gains of a few or of private
enterprise," exploiters for their own interests.
The LP concludes saying millions
share its discontent, suggesting a "politics of hope"
over Western war, occupation, corruption and despair.
It recommends "a genuine end to the occupation" so
Afghans can restore what worked well for 1,300 years
before Western invaders showed up. "Unless the scourge
of foreign occupation ends, the region will continue"
to suffer and be dysfunctional. Once expunged, it can
"independently tackle (its) innumerable....challenges
(including) unbridled poverty....education (and)
rampant corruption, most of all in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Israeli-controlled Palestine."
Healthcare NOT
Warfare Campaign Report
Titled "War in Afghanistan:
Untenable and Unwinnable," journalist Norman Solomon
prepared it in autumn 2009 after visiting the country
with others on a fact-finding trip, his itinerary
including:
"discussions with top officials
to encounters with malnourished refugees, and from
briefings at multibillion dollar agencies to small
grassroots NGO offices."
Eight key findings followed:
(1) American priorities won't
"win the hearts and minds" of Afghans with war,
occupation, and corruption in one of the world's most
impoverished nations, the amount of aid offered thin
to nil, little of it meant for what's most needed;
(2) USAID helps business, not
people, and "has earned a wide-ranging reputation for
waste and fraud in Afghanistan" and other US dominated
countries globally;
(3) imperial war and occupation
priorities take precedence over development and
humanitarian aid;
(4) the little aid forthcoming is
ill-directed and won't "alleviate Afghanistan's
crushing poverty;" credible institutions and
communities with urgent needs aren't getting it;
(5) the appalling neglect of
internally displaced refugees "should be the subject
of vigorous investigation" and correction; living in
squalid conditions, many say they've gotten no help
from America, the puppet government or UN; nor from
most NGOs there to exploit for their own bottom-line
interests, much how they operate globally;
(6) US free trade hypocrisy harms
"Afghanistan's agriculture sector," except for its
thriving heroin trade, mainly profiting drug lords,
the CIA, and major Western financial interests, not
Afghan farmers;
(7) contrary to Western
propaganda, "the Taliban are far from being the main
culprits in the Afghan drug trade," controlling "no
more than 3% of the value of heroin exported....;"
and
(8) Kabul's deteriorated security
is the result of a failed war, occupation, and
America's entire strategy and presence, no change of
command can fix.
The report concludes saying
Washington is "pursuing an increasingly untenable war
effort," showing up in growing Taliban strength and
support, as well as the "plung(ing) Karzai
government('s) credibility. As a result, the Obama
administration "will accomplish little by redoubling
military efforts to (counter) deteriorating political
and social conditions" on the ground. In fact, greater
military aggression will "magnify the most negative
dynamics now underway," including eroding support in
the Democrat party base.
At its Executive Board meeting
last November, California Democrats approved a
resolution calling for an "End to US Occupation and
Air War in Afghanistan," following an appeal by marine
veteran Rick Reyes, who served there and in Iraq,
saying:
"There is no military solution in
Afghanistan. (Their) problems are social," not ones
militarism can fix. "We dishonor the patriotism and
the sense of justice of our brave men and women by
sending them to fight, proclaiming that they sacrifice
for democracy and national security when really they
struggle and die in support of nothing more than a
proven criminal regime" in league with imperial
homeland and war profiteering interests - at the
expense of Americans, Afghans, and the region.
The Afghan and Iraq wars and
occupations are immoral, illegal, untenable,
unwinnable, and unsustainable, their continuation
decaying America morally, and heading the country for
isolation, despotism and insolvency, a path perhaps
too far along to reverse given decades of militarism,
corporate control, and pervasive high-level public and
private corruption, a frightening bottom line
conclusion.
A Final
Comment
As in earlier conflicts,
America's Iraq and Afghanistan rules of engagement (ROEs)
include targeted assassinations and death squad
terror, mostly against civilians, counterinsurgency
lawlessness to cow people into submission - suppressed
or misreported by the media, including predator drone
attacks in recent years launching missiles or bombs in
air attacks killing up to 50 civilians for each
militant in violation of established principles of
distinction, necessity, proportionality, and
humanity.
Under McChrystal, they escalated
dramatically, reigning indiscriminate death and
destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan, cold-blooded
murder - in vain, based on the results, but they'll
continue, maybe increase under Petraeus, showing
America is both lawless and merciless, even knowing it
can't prevail.
The likelihood is suggested by
Stephen Biddle, Fotini Christia, and J Alexander Thier
in their Foreign Affairs article headlined, "Defining
Success in Afghanistan," saying:
"The original plan for a
post-Taliban Afghanistan....no longer appears
feasible, if it ever was," in a nation governed the
way America wishes. As a result, Washington and NATO
countries are more willing to reach accommodation with
middle and lower level Taliban members. In other
words, if defeating them fails, buy them off not to
fight, what worked in Iraq short term, growing
violence, however, showing expediency failed, its same
fate in Afghanistan if tried.
Biddle, Christia and Thier
believe "tolerable stability" is now acceptable, a
major climb down from earlier more ambitious,
unrealistic aims - America's, not Afghan's wanting
their country back, and an end to Washington's
presence, an 82nd Airborne Division soldier speaking
for many others saying: "We get a lot of dirty looks.
I get the feeling they don't like us very much around
here," why they'll keep fighting until you're gone,
knowing they'll win. You'll lose, a lesson front line
troops know, not their commanders or officials back
home.
A final note. On June 30, the
Senate unanimously confirmed David Petraeus as US
Afghanistan commander, showing the entire body
supports the illegal, unwinnable war, not a profile in
courage in sight.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the
Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story