Civilian Casualties « Peace Pundit

Archive for the ‘Civilian Casualties’ Category

Outstanding Book: War is a Lie

January 29, 2011

David Swanson, former Press Secretary for US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich and author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union, has just published an amazing new book: War is a Lie. The book is so up-to-date that it discusses events that took place in September 2010.

It’s a point-by-point, historically rich, well-researched and well-documented expose’ of the lies that have been used to start and sustain humanity’s wars, including some that are usually considered “good wars” (a term that Swanson considers an oxymoron). The books provides the historical context and stated vs. actual motivation for most of our wars, as well as evaluating the results of wars against the goals.

Introduction
Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil
Wars Are Not Launched in Defense
Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity
Wars Are Not Unavoidable
Warriors Are Not Heroes
War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives
Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers
Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields
Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them
War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers
War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable
Wars Are Not Legal
Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided
War Is Over If You Want It

Some interesting excerpts from the book:

“If WWII was a good war, why did 80 percent of the Americans who … made it into combat choose not to fire their weapons at the enemies? … There is good evidence that this was the norm in the ranks of the Germans, British, French, and so forth, and had been the norm in previous wars as well. The problem … was that about 98 percent of people are very resistant to killing other human beings. You can show them how to use a gun and tell them to go shoot it, but in the moment of combat many of them will aim for the sky, drop in the dirt, assist a buty with his weapon, or suddenly discover that an important message needs to be conveyed along the line. … They’re horrified of committing murder.” — Chapter 4

“One need not think about … wars solely in terms of winning or losing. If the US were to elect officials and compel them to heed the public’s wishes and retire from foreign military adventures, we would all be better off. Why … must that desired outcome be called ‘losing’?” — Chapter 9

Bottom Line: War is a Lie should be read by everyone in the peace movement, every political analyst, every student of political science, ever Congressional Representative and Senator, everyone in the Obama administration, every non-US leader… oh, the heck with it! This book should be read by everyone who can read. Seriously.

The author’s website for the book, including opportunities for readers to help get it distributed to elected representatives, peace groups, and anti-military-recruitment youth organizations, is: http://warisalie.org.

Pakistan Nixes US Widening Drone Strike Zone

January 21, 2011

For years, the US has flown aerial drones over the mountainous regions of western Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Operated by the CIA, the drones are launched by ground crews in Afghanistn but flown remotely — via satellite link — by pilots based near Las Vegas, Nevada. Drones were originally designed mainly for aerial reconnaissance, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan they are used chiefly to locate Taliban, Al Qaida, and other insurgent forces, and fire deadly missiles at them. In fact, the Obama administration has greatly increased the use of the drones and the number of drone-launched missile strikes in Pakistan.

Predator drone firing missile

Of course, launching missiles from high-flying drones against targets far below seen through video cameras relaying images via satellite to bases half a world away is highly error-prone. The images are poor and delayed by a second or so, and operator commands to the drones are similarly delayed. Thus, drone pilots base fire/no-fire decisions on information that is already outdated by the time they see it and even more outdated by the time their commands get back to the drones.

Therefore, the missiles often miss their targets, hitting other people and vehicles instead. Estimates of the ratio of civilian deaths to total deaths from drone-launched missile strikes range from about one third of those killed to over 90%.

Contributing to those statistics, unwillingly, was farmer Daraz Khan, who was blown to bits by a missile fired from a drone while he and two colleagues searched for scrap metal in the mountains. The drone operator targeted Khan because he was tall and had a beard.

Furthermore, the missiles contain high-power explosives that pulverize entire buildings, so even when they hit their intended targets, people who have the misfortune to be nearby are often killed or injured, and neighboring structures are damaged. “Collateral damage” they call it.

Even when they don’t launch missiles, drones buzzing high over towns and farms are a huge source of stress and psychological trauma for civilians, especially parents and children. Imagine what it would do to your psyche if you constantly had to be keeping an eye on a drone circling high over your neighborhood — you know it can fire missiles at you, but you can’t predict when or why.

For obvious reasons, the drones are highly unpopular in Pakistan. They are a significant source of anti-US sentiment.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Pakistani government recently denied a US request to expand the areas in that country over which the US can fly aerial drones and launch missile-strikes. The US wants to use the drones in areas other than the tribal mountain regions bordering Afghanistan, but the Pakistani government has said “no”. [Read Full Story]

They should say “Hell no!” and they should revoke permission to use them anywhere over their country.

Karzai: Military Strategy in Afghanistan is Counterproductive

November 14, 2010

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that the US-led coalition’s “hunt, capture, and kill” military strategy in Afghanistan — where the targets include Taliban as well as Al Qaeda militants — not only is not working, it is actually counterproductive in that it produces more insurgents than it eliminates.

This is significant because until now the US has argued that the Afghan government needs and wants NATO’s military presence in order to not be immediately overthrown by the Taliban. Now it appears that even the Afghan government wants us out.

Afghan leader says U.S. must reduce troop presence

By Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, November 14, 2010

President Hamid Karzai said Saturday that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the … night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency.

In an interview, Karzai said he wanted American troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers would only worsen the war. His comments placed him at odds with U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who has made capture-and-kill missions a central component of his counterinsurgency strategy, and who claims the 30,000 new troops have made substantial progress in beating back the insurgency.

…

In an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors in his office in Kabul, Karzai said he was speaking out not to criticize the United States but in the belief that candor could improve what he called a “grudging” relationship between the countries. … And he said Afghans have lost patience with the presence of American soldiers in their homes and armored vehicles on their roads.

Karzai has long been publicly critical of civilian casualties at the hands of U.S. and NATO troops and has repeatedly called for curtailing night raids into Afghan homes. Under Petraeus and his predecessor, such raids by U.S. Special Operations troops have increased sharply, to about 200 a month, or six times the number being carried out 18 months ago, said a senior NATO military official, … These operations capture or kill their target 50 to 60 percent of the time, …

To American commanders, the nighttime strike missions are a crucial weapon to capture Taliban commanders, disrupt bomb-making networks and weaken the 30,000-man insurgency in Afghanistan. In the past three months, U.S. Special Operations troops have killed or captured 368 insurgent leaders. …

But Karzai was emphatic that U.S. troops must cease such operations, which he said violate the sanctity of Afghan homes and incite more people to join the insurgency.

[Read entire story]

[Associated Press version of same story]

Afghanistan War: Nine Years and Counting

September 19, 2010

On October 7th 2001 US military aircraft began bombing Kabul. Nine years later, US military operations continue in Afghanistan with no end in sight. Within the next year, the US-led war on Afghanistan will exceed the length of the 1980s Soviet occupation of that unfortunate country.

The war has already claimed the lives of over 1100 American service men and women; while more than 7500 have been wounded. Much larger numbers of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have lost their lives due to US and NATO bombing, including by pilotless drones.

A recent opinion poll shows that 58% of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, yet both Democratic and Republican leaders still support it.

Anti-War Perspectives from the Left and Right

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 6 pm (which is Oct 7 in Afghanistan) a panel of speakers from a variety of political positions, all of whom oppose the war in Afghanistan, will meet at First Unitarian Universalist Church in San Francisco to discuss how to build a consensus to end the war in Afghanistan.

Panelists:

John Dennis, Republican Candidate, 8th Congressional District
Daniel Ellsberg, Author and Activist
Michael Eisenscher, US Labor Against the War Nat’l Coordinator
Karel, Green 960 AM Radio Talk Show Host
Angela Keaton, Antiwar.com Developmental Director

Moderator: Jeff Johnson, PeacePundit.com

Time and Place:

Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 6 pm
First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco
1187 Franklin Street, at Geary Blvd

Admission: FREE

Petraeus versus the American Public

September 5, 2010

Two recent news reports show the widening rift between US military leaders in Afghanistan — specifically General David Petraeus — and the American public.

First, the Associate Press conducted a poll that showed that 58% of Americans oppose the Afghan war. Second, the New York Times reported that General Petraeus may push back against President Obama’s stated goal of beginning to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, because Petraeus believes the Afghan war is winnable. President Obama may have to remind General Petraeus that hey both work for the American people.

Excerpts of both stories below.

Nearly 6 In 10 Americans Oppose The War In Afghanistan (POLL)

By Glen Johnson, Associated Press, Aug 21, 2010

LAWRENCE, Mass. — A majority of Americans see no end in sight in Afghanistan, and nearly six in 10 oppose the nine-year-old war as President Barack Obama sends tens of thousands more troops to the fight, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

With just over 10 weeks before nationwide elections that could define the remainder of Obama’s first term, only 38 percent say they support his expanded war effort in Afghanistan — a drop from 46 percent in March. Just 19 percent expect the situation to improve during the next year, while 29 percent think it will get worse. Some 49 percent think it will remain the same.

…

The growing frustration with the Afghanistan war was evident in Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District, not far from Concord where Minutemen fought for a new nation in 1775. In Lawrence, whose textile mills once relied on the roaring Merrimack River, exasperation with the war in Afghanistan is evident.

“If they could resolve the issue, stabilize the government, that would be good. But we can’t do this forever and lose more lives,” said Terry Landers, 53, an electrician from North Andover.

U.S. troops have suffered more than 1,100 deaths in Afghanistan since fighting began in October 2001, including a monthly record of 66 in July. Last fall, Obama authorized an increase in the force in Afghanistan by 30,000 to 100,000 troops – triple the level from 2008. Many in Congress are increasingly doubtful that the military effort can succeed without a tough campaign against bribery and graft that have eroded the Afghan people’s trust in their government.

…

The war views expressed in a Lawrence diner, in a park across from City Hall and at an Essex Street hot dog cart, were echoed by poll participants across the country.

Bea Boynton, 57, of Marysville, Pa., said she is less supportive of the wars than when Obama took office.

“I just think it’s not going well. Too many of our men and women are being killed,” she said of Afghanistan in particular.

Boynton, a registered Democrat who voted for Republican John McCain in 2008, added: “I don’t think what we initially set out to do has been done. I mean, we still don’t have (Osama) bin Laden.”

…

[Read entire story]

Petraeus Opposes a Rapid Pullout in Afghanistan

By Dexter Filkins, New York Times, Aug 15, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of American and NATO forces, began a campaign on Sunday to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the American-led coalition can still succeed here despite months of setbacks, saying he had not come to Afghanistan to preside over a “graceful exit.”

In an hourlong interview with The New York Times, the general argued against any precipitous withdrawal of forces in July 2011, the date set by President Obama to begin at least a gradual reduction of the 100,000 troops on the ground. General Petraeus said that it was only in the last few weeks that the war plan had been fine-tuned and given the resources that it required. “For the first time,” he said, “we will have what we have been working to put in place for the last year and a half.”

In another of a series of interviews, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” General Petraeus even appeared to leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any withdrawal of American forces next summer.

…

The statement offered a preview of what promised to be an intense political battle over the future of the American-led war in Afghanistan, which has deteriorated on the ground and turned unpopular at home. Already, some Democrats in Congress are pushing for steep withdrawals early on, while supporters of the war say that a rapid draw-down could endanger the Afghan mission altogether.

…

“The president didn’t send me over here to seek a graceful exit,” General Petraeus said at his office at NATO headquarters in downtown Kabul. “My marching orders are to do all that is humanly possible to help us achieve our objectives.”

…

[Read entire story]

Last US Combat Brigade Departs Iraq

August 19, 2010

August 31, 2010 is President Obama’s stated deadline for completing the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq. Some press reports issued today suggest that the withdrawal was completed yesterday, August 18, almost two weeks ahead of schedule.

A concerned US citizen might well ask: So are we out or not?

It depends on what you mean by “out”. Regular Marine troops left Iraq in January. Yesterday, the last US Army brigade — the 4th Stryker Brigade — pulled out. Rather than flying out like most departing US troops, the Stryker Brigade drove 500 miles across Iraq, crossing the border into Kuwait, reversing the path they took when they invaded Iraq in 2003.

The 4th Stryker Brigade was the last full US Army combat brigade in Iraq. So now the US has zero regular Army brigades there. If that’s what “out” means, we are out.

However, many smaller Army combat units — about 6000 troops total — remain in Iraq, and according to the Pentagon, will stay there until the Aug 31 deadline.

Concerned US citizen: So on September 1, when those remaining combat troops leave, will we then be really and truly out of Iraq?

Not exactly. About 50,000 US Army troops will stay there for at least a year, supposedly in non-combat peacekeeping, advisory, and training roles. They will have weapons and will use them to defend themselves. If invited by Iraqi forces, they will even participate in missions. Is that non-combatant? Your call.

Concerned US citizen: But aside from these peacekeepers, the US will have no combat forces in Iraq after August 31, correct?

Incorrect. The deadline is for withdrawal of regular combat troops. According to press reports, Special Forces troops will remain in Iraq to “help the Iraqis hunt terrorists”. Drones, helicopters, and planes supporting the Special Forces will probably continue to patrol — and attack — from the sky. So even after the deadline, some US combat troops will still be in Iraq.

Concerned US citizen: So how can anyone say the deadline is being met?

Dunno. You tell me.

By the way, even if we could really declare the Iraq War “over” now (which we can’t), let’s consider how long it has lasted: seven years. Longer than WWII lasted. Recall also that three months into the Iraq war, then-President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared that “major combat operations had ended“. Before that, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld — one of the main proponents of invading Iraq — estimated that the war would last “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months“. Seven years and over 4400 US troop deaths and at least 100000 Iraqi deaths later, here we are.

News Reports of Troop Withdrawal

Associated Press (short): Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq
Associated Press (long): Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home
CBS News (long): Leaving Iraq: Last U.S. Combat Brigade Departs
Newsweek: Not the End: The departure of the last “combat troops” from Iraq is hardly the end of American combat there

More Bad News About Afghanistan War

July 27, 2010

Just as the Obama administration is trying to argue that the Afghan war is being “won” — we will ignore for now that no one knows what that means — and just as they are asking Congress for more funding for the war, two stories surface that throw doubt on the administration’s optimism.

First, there is the story of the 90,000 leaked military field reports that show, among other things, that Afghan civilians were often casualties in raids by Special Operations forces on supposed Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents during the Bush administration. Furthermore, the leaked reports suggest that NATO forces attempted to cover up some civilian casualties.

Second, a recent new incident has been reported in which a large number of Afghan civilians were allegedly killed in a NATO rocket attack on an insurgent base. The US military disputes the claim, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai, among others, believes it and argues that such attacks undermine the goal of winning the “hearts and minds” of Afghan civilians.

Both stories are covered in a recent Los Angeles Times article (excerpted below);

Karzai says 52 Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike

By Laura King, Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2010

Kabul, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai asserted Monday that up to 52 civilians had been killed by NATO rocket fire in southern Afghanistan, a controversy that erupted just as thousands of leaked military documents depicted a pervasive pattern of underreported civilian deaths and injuries in the course of the long conflict.

Karzai’s claim of civilian casualties last week in Helmand province was sharply disputed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force. …

…

Most of the documents, from 2004 through 2009, are reports from field-level commanders. Many offer detailed descriptions of lethal encounters between Western forces and Afghan civilians.

…

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, told reporters in London that he believed some of the documents, particularly those involving civilian deaths, could be used as evidence in war crimes cases.

…

One report describes the shooting in March 2007 of a villager who ran away from a Western military convoy. It turned out he was deaf and did not hear the soldiers’ orders to stop.

…

The Afghan government said the documents underscored what it described as longtime Western inattentiveness.

“Over the years, we have raised the issue of civilian casualties and how harmful these can be to achieving our joint objective of defeating terrorism,” presidential spokesman Waheed Omar told reporters in Kabul, the capital, on Monday.

…

The leaked military documents suggest that some civilian fatalities were deliberately covered up …

The latest dispute is a case in point. An undetermined number of villagers were reported killed Friday in a remote part of Sangin district in Helmand province, which has been the scene of near-constant battles between Western troops and insurgents.

…

Karzai’s office … issued a statement saying that reports by the National Directorate of Security intelligence agency indicated that a house had been hit by a rocket fired by Western troops, killing up to 52 civilians, including women and children. He and the Cabinet condemned the strike “in the strongest possible terms.”

…

The NATO force said a joint investigation by Afghan officials and the Western military had thus far revealed no evidence of civilians injured or killed in last week’s incident. … The statement said six insurgents were killed, including a Taliban commander.

[Read entire story]

Xe/Blackwater Gets CIA and State Dept Contracts in Afghanistan

June 28, 2010

With all the controversy surrounding the contract security firm Blackwater Worldwide (now renamed Xe Services) — including accusations that Blackwater guards killed non-threatening civilians in Iraq and engaged in illegal weapons smuggling during the Bush Administration — one might expect the US government under President Obama to avoid them. Nope. The Iraqi government banned the firm from operating there, but the Obama Administration more-or-less ignored that ban and has been using Xe anyway.

Now, two agencies of the US government — the State Dept. and the CIA — have awarded contracts to Xe to guard their facilities in Afghanistan.

Let us therefore not be surprised at future reports from Afghanistan of abuses by Xe guards. Below are exerpts from the story:

CIA Hires Private Security Firm Xe, Formerly Blackwater, In Afghanistan

by Christopher Weber, Politics Daily, June 24, 2010

The CIA has hired the private security firm Xe Services to guard its facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it was reported Thursday.

An industry source tells The Washington Post the contract, worth about $100 million, is for “protective services… guard services, in multiple regions.”

Xe, formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, won the deal over two other security contractors, Triple Canopy and DynCorp International, …

News of the contract comes after a federal commission investigating war-zone contractors criticized the State Department this week for granting Xe a $120 million deal to guard U.S. consulates under construction in Afghanistan. The North Carolina-based firm has been under scrutiny since its paramilitary employees, acting as security personnel, were involved in a shooting incident in Iraq that left 17 people dead in 2007.

…

[Read Entire Story]

Afghan Civilian Deaths Rise 33% in April 2010

May 3, 2010

Recent reports from Afghanistan indicate that civilian casualties there — including deaths — have risen sharply in recent months.

One cause of this increase is the Obama Administration’s troop “surge” in Afghanistan and its recent stepped-up military campaigns to clear the Taliban from certain areas, resulting in more battles between insurgents and US/NATO/Afghan troops, which in turn results in more civilians being caught in the crossfire. As in previous time periods, most of the civilian casualties are caused by suicide attacks and roadside bombs set by the Taliban, but the number caused by US/NATO/Afhghan forces has also risen.

This suggests that the Obama administration’s hope that civilian casualties can be minimized during the military actions is overly optimistic.

Excerpts from relevant news reports follow.

Civilian Deaths Spike in Afghanistan

by Laura King, LA Times, Monday, May 3 2010

Kabul — Civilian deaths in the last month jumped by one-third over the same period a year ago, the Afghan government said Sunday.

…

Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry said 173 civilians were killed between March 21 and April 21. That represented a 33 percent increase from the same dates in 2009, ministry spokesman Zemari Bashary told a news conference in Kabul.

Bashary said the deaths, coupled with the injuries of 380 civilians, were largely caused by explosions — either suicide bombings or roadside bombs.

…

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of all Western troops in Afghanistan, has made safeguarding civilian lives a top priority. But military officials acknowledge that noncombatants are often caught in harm’s way during upsurges in battlefield activity, such as the fighting earlier this year in Helmand province, where U.S. Marines seized the Taliban stronghold of Marjah.

…

[Read entire story]

NATO checks report of Afghan civilian deaths

by Ismail Sameem and Peter Graff, REUTERS, May 1 2010

KANDAHAR — NATO said … it was investigating whether shots fired by its troops in southern Afghanistan had killed two women and a child traveling in car.

A spokesman for the governor of Zabul province said the passengers were shot Friday while driving toward a roadblock where a combined group of NATO and Afghan troops were trying to disable a roadside bomb.

…

A spokesman for NATO …, Lieutenant-Colonel Todd Vician, said troops had reported stopping to assist Afghan police clearing a bomb, and firing warning shots when a vehicle approached. In the troops’ account, the driver stopped, got out of the car, spoke to Afghan police and then drove away, Vician said.

The investigation would try to explain the differences in the two accounts, he added.

…

… recent weeks have seen a spate of so-called “escalation of force” incidents, in which troops open fire at vehicles that approach them. In the past two weeks, troops killed four civilians in a passenger car in Khost province, and killed four people and wounded 18 others after firing on a bus in Kandahar province.

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan … described the recent spate of killings as a “disturbing trend.”

[Read entire story]

Elizabeth Rabia Roberts: Letters from the Road

April 21, 2010

I recently was referred to a series of essays written by Elizabeth Rabia Roberts, a long-time Quaker peace activist who has done what many peace activists have not: travelled to countries at war to see the situation for herself.

In 2002, she and her partner Elias Amidon began writing and posting “Letters from the Road” about their experiences in the lands they have visited.

They also co-founded the Boulder Institute for Nature and the Human Spirit in 1994, which works to promote peace through citizen diplomacy. Roberts and Amidon now direct the Institute’s “Path of the Friend” project dedicated to environmental education, social justice, and peace building in places of conflict around the world. The project also gives out development micro-grants in some of the places they visit.

Several recent Letters from the Road (#37, #38, and #40) concern Afghanistan and the ongoing war there. Since many PeacePundit posts have been about the war in Afghanistan, a peace-activist friend thought I should read some of Roberts’ letters. I did, and recommend that others read them as well. They are well-informed, thoughtful, and reflect a deep dedication to working towards a peaceful world.

Some readers may not agree with all of Roberts’ conclusions. I certainly have concerns about some of her recommendations about Afghanistan. For example, she recommends that the US remain in Afghanistan until we have helped put it on firm footing. While I agree with her that we should not repeat our past mistake of abandoning Afghanistan (as we did after we helped them oust the Soviets), I would like Roberts to address the distinction between military forces and some combination of peacekeeping forces and infrastructure-building forces. I think that we should replace Army combat troops with the Army Corps of Engineers, plus some U.N. peacekeepers to protect them. My conviction is that military action, even training Afghan military personnel, will not achieve peace there. I also am distressed by the amount of civilian casualties US and NATO forces have caused and continue to cause in Afghanistan, and want that to end.

Nonetheless, I am in awe of the courage and strength Roberts has shown going to Afghanistan to see with her own eyes what is happening, and am impressed by her ability to sort through and try to explain a complex situation.

Excerpt from Letters from the Road #37: Confessons of a Peace Activist

Kabul: armed guards, machine guns and sand bags at every intersection and at the door to my guest house — open sewers and fecal dust — traffic jams of SUVs, military convoys, bicycles and pedestrians — six-story buildings amidst crumbling houses and filthy refugee encampments — men, lots of men everywhere, and street children. The women on the streets are conservatively dressed (no skin showing) with big scarves. About a quarter of them wear the signature blue head-to-toe burqa.

I have come to Kabul because I want to experience for myself what is happening here, eight years after the U.S. ousted the Taliban. I have spent the past 40 years of my life protesting war and working for peace in conflict areas. I don’t believe that killing leads to peace.

I came here as part of a small peace delegation of mostly women who share my conviction that President Obama must not send more troops and should set a timeline for withdrawal of the 60,000 that are here.

But now — after seven intense days and nights of interviews and meetings in Kabul — I no longer have that conviction.

The best path to peace may not be the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops. And since the troops here now are not able to provide enough security for the Afghans to rebuild their country, it is possible more troops may be needed.

It shocks me to admit this. …

[Read entire Letter #37]

Excerpt from Letters from the Road #40: Afghanistan: Glimmers of Light

Most of my liberal friends are discouraged about Afghanistan. They are convinced the Afghans don’t want us there, that the military is not capable of doing anything right, and that we have to admit the Taliban are the default leaders of so backward and misogynist a country.

When this discouragement is coupled with news media dishing out the standard fare of war coverage — IEDs, suicide bombings, civilian casualties, and acid-throwing Taliban — then where can we find hope for a better future for Afghanistan?

…

I would like to suggest that to recognize light in the surrounding darkness is our most crucial responsibility. …

I have written in previous Letters from the Road (#37 and #38) about the role the US has played in the past 30 years of war Afghanistan has endured. To summarize: we armed and supported the most fundamentalist Mujahedeen warlords to fight the Soviets for 10 years, then walked away in 1989 when the Soviets left. Without reconstruction and even a modicum of international security, the Mujahedeen then fought among themselves for power, throwing the country into five more years of a terrible civil war that ended when the Taliban entered Kabul.

The people of Afghanistan will tell you the Taliban rule was “a living horror,” “a blanket of fear,” and it became a natural home to anti-Western fundamentalist terrorists. In 2002, after bombing the country and chasing the Taliban into Pakistan, we turned our misguided attention to Iraq and once again abandoned the people of Afghanistan, leaving them undefended against the returning Taliban, growing corruption of the government, and the build up of a criminal drug economy. Now we have the perfect storm.

Each time we have ignored our role in helping the Afghans help themselves rebuild, the situation has returned worse than it was before. This is not only bad for Afghans, it is bad for regional and U.S. national security. If we walk away once again we risk decades more of blowback. We need to leave behind some stability and security and a workable process — a process of development in which we partner with all Afghans and with the international community for the well-being of Afghanistan, the region, and ultimately for all of us.

…

Archive for the ‘Civilian Casualties’ Category

Table of Contents

Related Previous PeacePundit posts

Related Stories:

Afghan leader says U.S. must reduce troop presence

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Anti-War Perspectives from the Left and Right

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Nearly 6 In 10 Americans Oppose The War In Afghanistan (POLL)

Petraeus Opposes a Rapid Pullout in Afghanistan

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

News Reports of Troop Withdrawal

Related PeacePundit Posts

Karzai says 52 Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

CIA Hires Private Security Firm Xe, Formerly Blackwater, In Afghanistan

Related Peace Pundit Posts

Civilian Deaths Spike in Afghanistan

NATO checks report of Afghan civilian deaths

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Excerpt from Letters from the Road #37: Confessons of a Peace Activist

[Read entire Letter #37]

Excerpt from Letters from the Road #40: Afghanistan: Glimmers of Light

[Read entire Letter #40]

[Letters from the Road Archive]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Pages

Categories

Latest Posts

Blogroll

Subscribe

Follow “Peace Pundit”