What's new

US-Afghanistan - An Opinion

somebozo

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
18,872
Reaction score
-4
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
Arab news
Bowing to the inevitable

By LINDA HEARD | ARAB NEWS

Published: Jun 20, 2011 21:38 Updated: Jun 20, 2011 21:38

It has taken US ten years to opt for a political solution in Afghanistan

United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates had confirmed that the US is engaged in preliminary talks with Taleban fighters in an attempt to find a political solution to the conflict prior to a planned American troop drawdown. This is good news but as Washington's objective was to hunt down Bin Laden and eradicate his Taleban hosts, it is also an admission of failure. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan and the Taleban's hold on the country is stronger than ever.

By some estimates, tens of thousands have been killed as a result of the 10-year-long foreign occupation. They include Afghan civilians, Afghan, US and NATO troops, foreign contractors and journalists. Unfortunately, the numbers cannot be precise because the Pentagon doesn't bother calculating Afghan casualties.

US taxpayers alone have had to fork out up to $500 billion since the war's inception in 2001 — money that many believe could have been better spent at home at a time of economic woe. It seems to me that George W. Bush and his slick-talking successor might as well have sent those billions to the shredder when every single aim hasn't been achieved.

Getting Osama Bin Laden believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks was, of course, the invasion's prime casus belli. At the time I wrote numerous opinion columns suggesting human intelligence and Special Forces were far more suited to the task than guns and bombs — a thesis which didn't go down very well with gung-ho American readers. As it turned out, Bin Laden escaped Tora Bora on horseback only to be tracked down ten years later in Pakistan by US intelligence services.

Dismantling the Taleban was a ridiculous ambition as they are sons of the soil, not a group of foreign terrorists and, in any case, not only did they have nothing to do with 9/11 not a single Afghan was among the 19 hijackers. Their only “crime” was giving hospitality to Bin Laden which was quite natural when he and his “Afghan Arabs” had fought to liberate the country from the Soviets. Yes, their ideology was antiquated, authoritarian and repressive but the opposition's was little better — and it must be said that under the Taleban crime was low and Afghan heroin wasn't flooding Western capitals in the way it is today.

EMANCIPATING Afghan women was an objective espoused by President Bush, his wife Laura and Cherie Blair who launched a campaign without understanding the country's conservative nature. They promised Afghan women that they could throw off the burqa and start wearing nail polish again. That didn't happen. Outside the capital Kabul, suicide rates among women and girls are rising, self-immolation is common, females are denied education, forced into marriage or bartered and they worry about leaving their homes for fear of being abducted or raped. A new global survey shows that Afghanistan is the most dangerous place in the world to be born female. Some 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, one in three suffer violence and their average life expectancy is 44 years. It appears that Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Blair were only concerned about their plight when the Taleban was in power. There hasn't been a peep out of those “caring” ladies since.

There have been many other broken promises on the part of Bush and Co. For instance, according to an auditor for Afghan reconstruction, billions of dollars have gone missing due to fraud and waste and there are now fears that the well might dry up because foreign investors, donor countries and the IMF are scandalized over the plundering of Kabul Bank by managers and shareholders when that bank is being propped-up by foreign aid. With many projects on hold and warnings that the government could become insolvent, there is little chance of Afghanistan resembling Swaziland, let alone Switzerland anytime soon, if ever. Only 10 percent of Afghans have electricity and power outrages leave even residents of Kabul dependent on kerosene lamps.

What about bringing democracy to the Afghan people? That has become little more than a hackneyed phrase with the discovery of widespread fraud during the last election and allegations of corruption within government. Moreover, from the perspective of the White House, President Hamid Karzai isn't quite the “puppet” leader Western powers no doubt wanted.

Karzai has been biting his lip for years but in recent times he has loudly objected to US and NATO's bombing of civilians. In 2010, he railed saying if it didn't end “I swear that I am going to join the Taleban.” Last week, he blasted the West for polluting his country with toxic weapons and said foreign soldiers who cause civilian casualties risk being perceived as occupiers. The US ambassador to Kabul called his comments hurtful and inappropriate, described them as offensive to the war dead and couched his message with a threat to pull the plug on aid.



SOMEONE should tell the ambassador that the true insult to the war dead is the useless war itself that achieved nothing but death, destruction and yet more anti-Western hatred both within Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan where people are fed up with indiscriminate US attacks and infringements on Pakistan's sovereignty. So much misery just to assassinate one man who wasn't even there! If anything, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stood as a far greater recruiting advert for terrorists than anything a confined white-haired man without Internet connection could have devised.

It has taken the White House ten years to opt for a political solution; the irony is that Karzai had planned to include the Taleban in the new Afghanistan from day one. He wanted to institute talks but did a swift U-turn when he was slapped on the wrist by Donald Rumsfeld. He knew that the Taleban weren't the kind of people just to fade away; he knew that bloodshed could be saved if they were included in the rebuilding process but the West's head honchos weren't listening.

The greatest pity is that those Western powers involved in Afghanistan will try to bill the war as a win when their leaders should be heading to The Hague to answer questions if our world was just. Instead, you'll find them on the lecture and cocktail circuit with the cries of widows, orphans and the maimed a world away — a dark and frightening world they helped create and will never have to answer for.

(Sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk)

© 2010 Arab News
 
.
Hey! Your thread title is JUST GREAT!! Fits right in with the piece. Not!!
 
.
I agree with this topic, they have always poked their nose into every country where ever they find an opportunity to gain some resource or money. but as a supper power have never intervened in to war crimes against humanity any where in the world as a supper power they should be playing the role of a leader to stop violence but not to consume the worlds resources for its own prosperity.
 
.
I agree with this topic, they have always poked their nose into every country where ever they find an opportunity to gain some resource or money. but as a supper power have never intervened in to war crimes against humanity any where in the world as a supper power they should be playing the role of a leader to stop violence but not to consume the worlds resources for its own prosperity.

Your post is total bullcrap. US interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Kuwait and so on and on were never about money or resources but exactly about crimes against humanity. Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are about our own self-defense and not about money or resources. Open your eyes! The ones who are profiting are the nations who stand on the sidelines and watch as the USA gives the world its sons and daughters and goes into debt in the name of human rights.
 
. .
Your post is total bullcrap. US interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Kuwait and so on and on were never about money or resources but exactly about crimes against humanity. Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are about our own self-defense and not about money or resources. Open your eyes! The ones who are profiting are the nations who stand on the sidelines and watch as the USA gives the world its sons and daughters and goes into debt in the name of human rights.

Yeah you're right, the US intervened in Vietnam to prevent crimes against humanity by using the chemical weapons against the Vietnamese. After that the US has set an example of upholding human rights at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay torture cell. I don't understand why the world fails to recognise the great contributions of the US.
 
.
Your post is total bullcrap. US interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Kuwait and so on and on were never about money or resources but exactly about crimes against humanity. Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are about our own self-defense and not about money or resources. Open your eyes! The ones who are profiting are the nations who stand on the sidelines and watch as the USA gives the world its sons and daughters and goes into debt in the name of human rights.
The question is, who asked them to? And where were these sons and daughters when it came to fight an equal matched enemy aka soviet union.
 
.
See, I do not have a personal grudge on the Americans, but you have to realize that the way that your government has intervened is always saying that its for your defense. this is the reason you gave when you invaded Iraq. may be Sadam killed 140 civilianz, but what have you done. you have ruined the entire country by using uranium depleted shells and look at the number of dead because of your invasion. and what did you do when the ruwandan genocide happened. what did you do to stop the war in sri-lanka, what did you do to stop the genocide in kosova. always comming late after a lot dead in the genocide like the police in bollywood movie who come at the last to arrest the jokers.(not the real cirminals)
 
.
Actually its been a U.S policy for many decades that "pre-emptive action" is a necessity wherever they see an ideological or an economic/military/strategic threat come up in any form.

The U.S desperately needs to change its policy in keeping with modern day geo-politics and of course with due consideration to its own, dwindling resources . They cannot afford to remain this overstretched if they wish to retain their solo superpower status .
 
.
USA gives the world its sons and daughters and goes into debt in the name of human rights.

it also takes the sons and daughters of other nations in the name of human rights.

when you are faced with hard facts and figures, dead bodies and coffins you should recoil in shame, not talk with bombast..
 
.
See, I do not have a personal grudge on the Americans, but you have to realize that the way that your government has intervened is always saying that its for your defense. this is the reason you gave when you invaded Iraq. may be Sadam killed 140 civilianz, but what have you done. you have ruined the entire country by using uranium depleted shells and look at the number of dead because of your invasion.

True in so many ways than one , this is exactly the issue . To Americans in general --Saddam was a human rights violater , a ruthless dictator , oppressing his people, threatening middle-eastern peace , threatening energy security etc etc . ---Which is all very true .

However a military invasion whilst removing Saddam from power , made a once relatively stable country descend into chaos , enormous loss of civilian lives --- which ultimately makes the very populace whom American troops ostensibly professed to save -- Hate the very "liberators" to the core .


Either way with its dwindling resources this method of warfare to bring human rights --no matter how justified it may seem from a certain perspective , wont continue for very long.
 
. . . .
I agree with this topic, they have always poked their nose into every country where ever they find an opportunity to gain some resource or money. but as a supper power have never intervened in to war crimes against humanity any where in the world as a supper power they should be playing the role of a leader to stop violence but not to consume the worlds resources for its own prosperity.

  • Hitler must thought India was days away from capturing him...
  • Sudan 's bashir must have thought it was India who relentlessly worked on UN sanctions
  • Kosovo must have been an Indian operation
  • Libya must have been Su30Mk1 operation from India
  • south Africa had anti apartheid sanctions because India worked its charm on the international players

I know you are quite anti American, perhaps a follower of CPI in India ( just a presumption) - but some historical perspective before making such statements as highlighted , please!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom