| Written by Chris Floyd | |
| Monday, 14 July 2008 | |
| At first, the Pentagon denied that American planes had slaughtered dozens of Afghan civilians on their way to a wedding in the Nangarhar mountains. "Pure propaganda," said the usual media and blogosphere sycophants. "It's always 'a wedding' being hit, the same old story." The military brass promised the usual investigation, no doubt hoping it would all go away. But then Afghan government officials confirmed the truth, and the BBC's Alastair Leithead was the first outsider to visit the actual site of the massacre: What began as celebration ended with maybe 52 people dead, most of them women and children, and others badly injured. The US forces said they targeted insurgents in a strike. But from what I saw with my own eyes and heard from the many mourners, no militants were among the dead.... It appears the wedding group was crossing a narrow pass in the mountains which divides the valleys where the two families live. From nowhere a fast jet flew low and dropped a bomb right on top of the pass near a group of children who had impatiently rushed ahead and were resting, waiting for the women to catch up... But then [came] the second blast - the bomb had been dropped on top of the women and almost all of them had been killed. Three girls escaped, among them the bride, but as they ran down the hillside a third bomb landed on top of them.... The BBC team I was with were the first outsiders to see where the bombs hit - even the Afghan investigators did not climb up the steep mountainside - and there was much evidence to support the story. The fact we could travel to the area in local cars was proof that Taliban insurgents, al-Qaeda operatives or foreign fighters were not present in the valley..... Civilian casualties are not new to Nangarhar province - last year a convoy of US Marines was hit by a bomb attack and in the chaos they opened fire in a bazaar killing 19 people. They were sent home and their officers charged, but a subsequent ruling cleared them of any responsibility for the deaths.... Mirwais Yasini, a local MP and the deputy speaker of Afghanistan's lower house, made the point that civilian casualties widen the gap between the people and the government, and the international forces.... These mistakes are incredibly costly in a counter-insurgency campaign which relies on winning people over, not forcing them against the authorities. I wonder how many enemies have been created in Nangarhar as a result of the latest bloodshed? Enemies like these, for example (from the NY Times' Carlotta Gall): Taliban insurgents carried out a bold assault on a remote base near the border with Pakistan on Sunday, NATO reported, and a senior American military official said nine American soldiers were killed. The attack, the worst against Americans in Afghanistan in three years, illustrated the growing threat of Taliban militants and their associates, who in recent months have made Afghanistan a far deadlier war zone for American-led forces than Iraq... The militants have since regained strength in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which they have often used as a base for raids into Afghanistan, an increasingly sore point for the American and Afghan governments. The militants have regained strength precisely because of incidents like the Nangarhar Massacre -- incidents which are inevitable when you are occupying a country by force. People flock back to the Taliban banner because they are seeing their families slaughtered without mercy, and without justice. II. But of course "Taliban" has become a catch-all term for all armed resistance to the American-European occupation: both because it is a handy scare-word that sets off connotations with al Qaeda and 9/11, and because it obscures the true, more complex nature of the insurgency. As US News reports, much of the violent resistance in the eastern border area near Pakistan is led not by adherents of the ousted Taliban regime but by extremist warlords once in the pay of the United States: U.S. forces are keenly aware that they are facing an increasingly complex enemy here—what U.S. military officials now call a syndicate—composed not only of Taliban fighters but also powerful warlords who were once on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency. "You could almost describe the insurgency as having two branches," says a senior U.S. military official here. "It's the Taliban in the south and a 'rainbow coalition' in the east." Indeed, along with a smattering of Afghan tribal groups, Pakistani extremists, and drug kingpins, two of the most dangerous players are violent Afghan Islamists named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, according to U.S. officials. In recent weeks, Hekmatyar has called upon Pakistani militants to attack U.S. targets, while the Haqqani network is blamed for three large vehicle bombings, along with the attempted assassination of Karzai in April. Ironically, these two warlords—currently at the top of America's list of most wanted men in Afghanistan—were once among America's most valued allies. In the 1980s, the CIA funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and ammunition to help them battle the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan. Hekmatyar, then widely considered by Washington to be a reliable anti-Soviet rebel, was even flown to the United States by the CIA in 1985. Yes, Hekmatyar was one of the "freedom fighters" so beloved by Ronald Reagan and the Bushes -- even though the American leaders were well aware of the true nature of the sadistic, woman-hating, obscurantist thugs they had hired to irritate the Soviets in Afghanistan: In his early years, the warlord distinguished himself by throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women. Today, a senior defense official says Hekmatyar is "as vicious as they come." But of course he is no more vicious now than in those "early years" when, while he was throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women [and having recalcitrant minions torn apart by tying them to tanks going in different directions], he was being financed and feted by Reagan and Bush. Just as Saddam Hussein was no more vicious in 1991 -- or 2003 -- than he was when Reagan and Bush were plying him with money, guns, WMD technology and military intelligence to guide his chemical weapon attacks on Iran. U.S. officials had an even higher opinion of Haqqani, who was considered the most effective rebel warlord....Haqqani was also one of the leading advocates of the so-called Arab Afghans, deftly organizing Arab volunteer fighters who came to wage jihad against the Soviet Union and helping to protect future al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.... Today, the Haqqani network [now led by his son] is driving the recent rise in violence in eastern Afghanistan, according to U.S. military officials. Haqqani "is definitely the strongest" enemy in the border provinces of Paktia, Paktika, and Khost, known among military officials as p2k. III. Of course, some caution is always in order when dealing with the statements of "U.S. military officials." No doubt there is a great deal of savage mischief being wrought by the ex-CIA warlords. [Or are they really "ex"? Are they still being run, by one bloc or another in the vast labyrinth of America's security apparat? Probably not -- but there is absolutely no way to be sure, not in a "National Security State," where a myriad of unaccountable agencies and secret armies ply their black ops with off-the-books billions.] And it's always good to see any mainstream media report that provides more nuance to the fairy tale of the "Good War" in Afghanistan. But the emphasis on the warlord's Pakistan connection plays into the PR push now under way to prepare the ground for an extension of the war into Pakistan's western frontier. --MORE--" |
And right on cue:
"Obama wants boost in troops; Says threat grows in Afghanistan" by Associated Press | July 15, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said yesterday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan.
The proposed increase of about 7,000 troops is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
So Obama would just be doing what George W. Bush would be doing, shell-gaming troops and not ending the occupations?
I knew it was too good to be true!!! Change you can believe in my ass!
Obama wrote in an op-ed published yesterday in The
"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq."
Obama's campaign said his speech today will focus on his plans for the new brigades in Afghanistan, call for Pakistan to step up efforts dealing with terrorists, discuss the need for diplomacy to address Iran's nuclear program, and address other global challenges such as climate change and energy security.
US commanders have said they need up to three more brigades in Afghanistan - or as many as 10,000 additional troops - to both train Afghan forces and battle the insurgency. President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have promised to beef up the US force in Afghanistan.
Obama wrote that he would leave in place a residual force [in Iraq] of undetermined size.
--MORE--"
