open Democracy News Analysis - global security - Comments

NYCartist on "AfPak-Iraq: wrong war, right path"

NYCartist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:20 +0000

The real debate is why is the US military and NATO in Afghanistan? Why is the US in Iraq, occupying it? How many dead civilians does it take to say, "Oops. Let's leave."?

How many ways do the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq have to show that they'd prefer to not be occupied by foreign troops? To quote the singing group SpearHead, "you can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace".

As a US citizen, older, who protested the Vietnam War, I protest spending lives and money on wars/invasions. It is costing me and the other US taxpayers $1TRILLION dollars a year to be funding the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Source:

www.democracynow.org today's show, available online in video and transcript, free, independent media.) Have you noticed we don't have anything vaguely resembling your NHS?

Not logged in on "America and Iran: big bombs and base politics"

Not logged in — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:09:44 +0000

Is Obama any different - hard to see how.

Not logged in on "America and Iran: big bombs and base politics"

Not logged in — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:06:59 +0000

The MOAB as well as giant weapon is horrible to mankind, the world got enough tragedies in 20th century, and I believe so.

On the other hand, the weapon and weapon production are used to demonstrate the military strength of a country or its allies. Before the collapse of Soviet Union, either Kremlin or Pentagon annually organized military exercise with each own allies and this opportunity is taken to demonstrate each challenging power.

Since the collapse of Soviet Unions, The Pentagon finds itself as a single fighter on the world battle field, the position that it were expecting in almost ten decades. However, The Pentagon number one position also isolates itself from the world politician elite, whereby then the voice of The Pentagon sounds as acquaintance as TV good-morning program. Belonging to a challenge nature, The Pentagon seems trying to escape from current boring political environment.

The recent trip of Mrs. H. Clinton to the world, especially Moscow, attracts the special attention of everyone in the world political elite. The notice of this bomb devastating strength is released in this time; does Pentagon want to mind The Kremlin of its underdog position?

To sell peace shield by means of recruiting new member, NATO, under the big umbrella Pentagon, makes The Kremlin to shrink more and more. I worry with a question that whether Moscow survives with this position forever?

Not logged in on "Afghanistan: from insurgency to insurrection"

Not logged in — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:20:46 +0000

The wars in The Middle East, like any other war in the world, are ringing the calls for ceasefire, for human passion and above all the peace. After almost a decade hearing of bloodshed, destruction and paramilitary pursuit, the mankind is still waiting until middle of 2010 for hearing a decisive statement, the peace for the Middle East seems still in the offing.

So far I admire the Military Planners in The Pentagon as the most perfect machines in the world, the myth of a mechanism of the intelligent reports from overseas agents of C.I.A those furnish accurate information from enemy, with the analysis to the attack plans carried out by supper computers likely.
Those seem produce no more dramatic performance like before.

This article appends 7 important points in me, like any other readers to Open Democracy and Paul Roger's Column, those may make a big change to my view to The Pentagon. Let's see what the following 3 points telling:

1-At very the beginning of the war: ''The Taliban paramilitaries were choosing to disappear from sight rather than being vanquished in a conventional military campaign. There were suggestions that this applied to the al-Qaida network as well. ''
2-And after more than 5 years of occupation and pursuit: ''Yet even greatly reinforced numbers of foreign troops were unable to prevent more and more areas coming under Taliban influence. 2006''
3-Important mission of this war is to be revealed: ''Drones to target Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida figures may weaken these adversaries (and possibly even lead to the death or capture of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri themselves)''.

As matter of fact, either Taliban or al-Quaida dispersing into their communities does not make sense as they are born in their people, but this is telling us that their people do not recognize that this war is for democracy and peace or even a little peace colour. The achievement, then, after 5 years in fire is to release somewhere back to Taliban.
The Pentagon after all cannot avoid revealing its purpose of the war is to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I trust that there is nobody, even Osama Bin Laden, born to be famous or horrible. Any honour or tittle is built by both himself and public media. My knowledge about Osama Bin Laden is completely NIL, but the record designated to him is more and more compiled up, from the event on 11 September 2001 to the bombings in London 2005.

More than a ghost re-born, a short appearance of Bin Laden on television can alarm thousands of troops and some anti-terrorism machines in The West, and so far in brief himself may cost a huge bloodshed and amount of money. Who can kill or capture Osama, he must be a heroism??

In the middle of 20th Century, a man with his daughter escape from the hunt of anti-communist people then living fleeing in Americas, he left behind an image of heroism flag while millions of communists are still alive, he is Che Ghevara. Who those built that image, nowadays want to repeat, don't they?

I am afraid that an image of a middle east man with an AK47 is to become famous one day, historic verdict seems prejudice in favour of social or politic movement.

Moreover, while thinking of the role of C.I.A in these wars, its reputation seems falling down. In order to save the lives of thousands people, to save billions USD, C.I.A just trace and kill or capture those two V.I.P, then the wars will be over. Now such simple tasks are too much to C.I.A.

Nevertheless, we cannot go far enough if we don't consider the following points:

4-More warlords join in the war: ''This characterisation, if true, implies that the resistance to the US presence is not confined to the Taliban and certain warlords but rather is far more general. ''
5-The intensity and number of attacks in Afghanistan in September-October 2009 make it apparent that the American and British counterinsurgency forces now face an evolving insurgency rooted much more in local communities than in itinerant Taliban paramilitaries. The context of this situation is that many Taliban elements may be far more embedded in local communities than had been assumed - or that they are being joined or supported by local militias motivated to act primarily against foreign occupiers, rather than impelled by any fierce religious orthodoxy.
6-But by May-June 2010, a clearer understanding of just how entrenched is the opposition in Afghanistan to foreign troops could be possible.
7-If the insurgency does indeed become an insurrection, then whatever happens in Pakistan could be much less relevant than Washington's military planners currently think.

As much as my understanding to the purpose of these wars, The Pentagon wants to sweep Taliban away, now it faces the evolving insurgency as mentioned in (5), Taliban is as defiant as any other human organization.

Thus, the troops of democracy and freedom are now facing opposition and considered ''foreign occupiers'', the troops those felt victorious now see the enemy standing in front. The man who opened fire now hiden himself in David Camp, the man who succeeds the flame now sees the fire facing back.

precycled on "America and Iran: big bombs and base politics"

precycled — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:08:48 +0000

This weapon and all others carry their own logic just by being available, "use me, use me, use me, use me..."

If people can't get the point about being all in this together and find something productive to invest in then the logic of the weapon will overcome any other logic within civilisation. It wouldn't be a pretty sight.

The paradox is that a new global security paradigm (security for all, even the 'baddies') would be rather simple and fast to establish. It just requires a wider canvas than can be found in negotiations about individual conflicts.

http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/2f007297ce994215d709c47f4c9230a1

Cochin Blogger on "America and Iran: big bombs and base politics"

Cochin Blogger — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:27:18 +0000

Military action against Iran, when Iraq is only half-digested and Afghanistan is giving indigestion? And Pakistan ...

Give me another!

NYCartist on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

NYCartist — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:14:36 +0000

Is debate really "feverish" in the Administration - or meant to look that way? Why do so many people make comments with "we" when discussing go vernment policy?

Howard Zinn points out that the interest of governments are not the same as interests of people. People do not want war. That's not news. Zinn also says if you don't know history, it's like you were born yesterday and the government can tell you anything.

Zinn made the speech from which I paraphrase above, right after Obama won the election of Nov.2008 - which seems so long ago, when there was hope for change....

The speech was played on DemocracyNow on Jan.3, 2009, but easy to find in the search box on

www.democracynow.org

Chalmers Johnson writes about :"Blowback", "The Sorrows of Empire" and "Nemesis", his triology, and makes a strong case that a government can't keep a republic while making/maintaining "Empire". His work can be found on the website www.tomdispatch.com as well.

For those who like fiction, Orwell's "1984" does it rather well.

People do not want war. People in the US do not want war.

Chomsky calls it "the democracy gap" as governments ignore people.

Peter123456789 on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

Peter123456789 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:37:18 +0000

Post-Algeria, Post-Northern Ireland, Post-Vietnam, Post-Afganistan-in-Soviet-times, Post-Iraq-II, Not-quite--post-Colombia etcetera - who would, except under the influence of heavy drugs, suggest a military strategy against an insurgency?

The math is just overwhelming: In Northern Ireland alone, less than 500 armed and active insurgents kept 32 000 soldiers and police tied up for some 30 years. Do your numbers on Afghanistan and Pakistan! Don't forget the outcome of Iraq!

It's time for Change! That starts with with some solid thinking on how you might contribute to an improved situation. No bright ideas? The refrain from any action at all! We are all human beings who are commonly capable of solving our own problems, around the World.

Hamid Raza Wattoo on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

Hamid Raza Wattoo — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:13:11 +0000

I don't think battles of mind and heart are possible in this age of high-tech propaganda gadgets available to both parties. This Afghan war, even if won, will be nothing short of a pyrrhic victory and for that to happen, every Talib(an) has to be eliminated ... a possiblilty as remote as it goes

tosh007 on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

tosh007 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:49:22 +0000

This war is most always discussed in the context of defeating the Taliban but in my opinion this is only a secondary purpose. The primary purpose being to secure Afghanistan and Pakistan for US strategic advantage, putting them on the door step of Iran and a another step in drawing the noose around China. Afpak is just another Iraq, another stepping stone in dominance of that region. The US is more than willing to see Pakistan severely weakened or even destroyed by what is turning into a civil war as they have coerced the government into sending the army out to fight Pakistanis-what better way to destroy a country. There is no need to fear Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands as you can be sure the US will secure it first and foremost.

Obama has said this is a "war of necessity" and the veiled necessity is that this war is another chapter in the US drive for global domination and ultimately a showdown with China. If he does not send additional troops he is not following the script written by his minders.Yes, he will most certainly be a one term president, but that matters not as the office of the president is now hostage to a malicious warmongering status quo that is beyond scrutiny and accountable to no one.

foster-wad on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

foster-wad — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:48:55 +0000

It does indeed appear to be a toxic legacy from the Bush administration, with no easy answers, Perhaps the argument below has considerable virtues.

richard on "AfPak: the unwinnable war"

richard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:27:43 +0000

Agreed, our troops are on a hiding to nothing. Those of us who did not want to go in in the first place, and want to disengage asap, have the unusual pleasure of being joined by mainstream opinion.

However, we have to meet the objection that withdrawal grants victory to the Taliban, and, given the weakness and corruption of the Karzai Government, could lead to the Somalisation of AfPak. Not good.

The alternative is to legitimise the opium crop and use it to produce medical morphine for developing countries, where 6 million of our fellow humans die of cancer and HIV in unrelieved agony.

In doing this,

we win the hearts and minds of the farmers,
we grow the legitimate Afghan economy by 100%,
we pull the financial rug out from under the Taliban,
we reduce corruption in Afghanistan by a large margin,
we reduce drug crime on our streets, and
we bring our boys home with honour.

What's not to like?

http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/search?q=opium

alfredo.bremont on "Afghanistan: from insurgency to insurrection"

alfredo.bremont — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:10:11 +0000

this is just a rerun of the soviet invasion and it will end the same way. however the problem is a-lot bigger than what most folks think, Iraq is the next place were the insurgency will spark on a large scale. and them not only will the west will feel a defeat but it will finally understand its own nightmare. they will be defeated a lot worse than the soviets, no-one knows why they are there. and the boys that die will never understand what they are dieing for. whatever there were the illuminates or any other world dominate organization, they have made a huge mistake and now they are realizing that the cost will be a-lot bigger than Viet-Nam. not on the question of casualties but on the fact that Iraq will become another hotbed worse than the past decade. not mentioning Iran who eventually will be driven to join the taliban and the lot to finally oust the Saudi king and the other corrupt leaders of the middle east.

1929 was the beginning of the 2 world war, today we are on the same predicament. however bombing the desert will not fix anything therefore a war will only make sense in Europe or china. history repeats itself on strange ways but it carries with it the same signs, the same mistakes and often the same characters play the same roles, with a different name and a different face but the event is often quite similar. who will be the coming Hitler of the 21 century, as we might know by now who is the current Churchill of the future disaster. all this can be avoided. the action to take is force Israel back to the 1967 borders and strip that nation of all his nuclear devices. this scheme will allow the UN to keep the trend and do the same to IRAN, Pakistan,India, china, France, the UK and ultimately the remaining two superpowers will follow reason.

tosh007 on "Afghanistan: from insurgency to insurrection"

tosh007 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:30:57 +0000

"...or that they are being joined or supported by local militias motivated to act primarily against foreign occupiers, rather than impelled by any fierce religious orthodoxy. "

Rogers hits it on the head here. The witless warmongers from the west are fighting an ever expanding war and their actions fuel the fire of a growing opposition.

cherif.rifaat on "Afghanistan: from insurgency to insurrection"

cherif.rifaat — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:10:44 +0000

If an additional 40 000 U.S. troops are sent to Afghanistan in a kind of super surge, and change their strategy, but are still unsuccessful because the Taliban also change their strategy and continue to grow, what would the U.S. do next?