FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ:
A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
by Dr. Zoltan Grossman
The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890
to 2010.
Below the list is a Briefing on the History
of U.S. Military Interventions.
The list and briefing are also available as a powerpoint
presentation.
This guide does not include:
- mobilizations of the National Guard
- offshore shows of naval strength
- reinforcements of embassy personnel
- the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement
Administration)
- military exercises
- non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
- the permanent stationing of armed forces
- covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
- the use of small hostage rescue units
- most uses of proxy troops
- U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
- foreign or domestic disaster assistance
- military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
- civic action programs
- and many other military activities.
Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional
Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History
Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances
of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier
of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg
in Protest & Survive.
Versions of this list have been published on Zmag.org,
Neravt.com, and numerous
other websites.
Translations of list: Spanish
French Turkish
Italian
Chinese Greek Russian
Czech Tamil Portuguese
Quotes in Christian
Science Monitor and The
Independent
Turkish
newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book
of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions.
A BRIEFING
ON THE HISTORY
OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
By Zoltán Grossman, October 2001
Published in Z
magazine. Translations in Italian
Polish
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, most people in
the world agree that the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, without
killing many thousands of civilians in the process. But unfortunately,
the U.S. military has always accepted massive civilian deaths as part of
the cost of war. The military is now poised to kill thousands of foreign
civilians, in order to prove that killing U.S. civilians is wrong.
The media has told us repeatedly that some Middle Easterners hate the
U.S. only because of our "freedom" and "prosperity."
Missing from this explanation is the historical context of the U.S. role
in the Middle East, and for that matter in the rest of the world. This
basic primer is an attempt to brief readers who have not closely followed
the history of U.S. foreign or military affairs, and are perhaps unaware
of the background of U.S. military interventions abroad, but are concerned
about the direction of our country toward a new war in the name of "freedom"
and "protecting civilians."
The United States military has been intervening in other countries for
a long time. In 1898, it seized the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico from Spain, and in 1917-18 became embroiled in World
War I in Europe. In the first half of the 20th century it repeatedly
sent Marines to "protectorates" such as Nicaragua, Honduras,
Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. All these
interventions directly served corporate interests, and many resulted in
massive losses of civilians, rebels, and soldiers. Many of the uses of
U.S. combat forces are documented in A History of U.S. Military Interventions
since 1890: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
U.S. involvement in World War II (1941-45) was sparked by the
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and fear of an Axis invasion of North
America. Allied bombers attacked fascist military targets, but also fire-bombed
German and Japanese cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, party under the assumption
that destroying civilian neighborhoods would weaken the resolve of the
survivors and turn them against their regimes. Many historians agree that
fire- bombing’s effect was precisely the opposite–increasing Axis civilian
support for homeland defense, and discouraging potential coup attempts.
The atomic bombing of Japan at the end of the war was carried out without
any kind of advance demonstration or warning that may have prevented the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
The war in Korea (1950-53) was marked by widespread atrocities,
both by North Korean/Chinese forces, and South Korean/U.S. forces. U.S.
troops fired on civilian refugees headed into South Korea, apparently fearing
they were northern infiltrators. Bombers attacked North Korean cities,
and the U.S. twice threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea is under
the same Communist government today as when the war began.
During the Middle East crisis of 1958, Marines were deployed to quell
a rebellion in Lebanon, and Iraq was threatened with nuclear
attack if it invaded Kuwait. This little-known crisis helped set U.S. foreign
policy on a collision course with Arab nationalists, often in support of
the region’s monarchies.
In the early 1960s, the U.S. returned to its pre-World War II interventionary
role in the Caribbean, directing the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs exile invasion
of Cuba, and the 1965 bombing and Marine invasion of the Dominican
Republic during an election campaign. The CIA trained and harbored
Cuban exile groups in Miami, which launched terrorist attacks on Cuba,
including the 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jetliner near Barbados.
During the Cold War, the CIA would also help to support or install pro-U.S.
dictatorships in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia,
and many other countries around the world.
The U.S. war in Indochina (1960-75) pit U.S. forces against North
Vietnam, and Communist rebels fighting to overthrow pro-U.S. dictatorships
in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. U.S. war planners
made little or no distinction between attacking civilians and guerrillas
in rebel-held zones, and U.S. "carpet-bombing" of the countryside
and cities swelled the ranks of the ultimately victorious revolutionaries.
Over two million people were killed in the war, including 55,000 U.S. troops.
Less than a dozen U.S. citizens were killed on U.S. soil, in National Guard
shootings or antiwar bombings. In Cambodia, the bombings drove the Khmer
Rouge rebels toward fanatical leaders, who launched a murderous rampage
when they took power in 1975.
Echoes of Vietnam reverberated in Central America during the
1980s, when the Reagan administration strongly backed the pro-U.S. regime
in El Salvador, and right-wing exile forces fighting the new leftist
Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Rightist death squads slaughtered
Salvadoran civilians who questioned the concentration of power and wealth
in a few hands. CIA-trained Nicaraguan Contra rebels launched terrorist
attacks against civilian clinics and schools run by the Sandinista government,
and mined Nicaraguan harbors. U.S. troops also invaded the island nation
of Grenada in 1983, to oust a new military regime, attacking Cuban
civilian workers (even though Cuba had backed the leftist government deposed
in the coup), and accidentally bombing a hospital.
The U.S. returned in force to the Middle East in 1980, after the Shi’ite
Muslim revolution in Iran against Shah Pahlevi’s pro-U.S. dictatorship.
A troop and bombing raid to free U.S. Embassy hostages held in downtown
Tehran had to be aborted in the Iranian desert. After the 1982 Israeli
occupation of Lebanon, U.S. Marines were deployed in a neutral "peacekeeping"
operation. They instead took the side of Lebanon’s pro-Israel Christian
government against Muslim rebels, and U.S. Navy ships rained enormous shells
on Muslim civilian villages. Embittered Shi’ite Muslim rebels responded
with a suicide bomb attack on Marine barracks, and for years seized U.S.
hostages in the country. In retaliation, the CIA set off car bombs to assassinate
Shi’ite Muslim leaders. Syria and the Muslim rebels emerged victorious
in Lebanon.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the U.S. launched a 1986 bombing raid
on Libya, which it accused of sponsoring a terrorist bombing later
tied to Syria. The bombing raid killed civilians, and may have led to the
later revenge bombing of a U.S. jet over Scotland. Libya’s Arab nationalist
leader Muammar Qaddafi remained in power. The U.S. Navy also intervened
against Iran during its war against Iraq in 1987-88, sinking Iranian
ships and "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian civilian jetliner.
U.S. forces invaded Panama in 1989 to oust the nationalist regime
of Manuel Noriega. The U.S. accused its former ally of allowing drug-running
in the country, though the drug trade actually increased after his capture.
U.S. bombing raids on Panama City ignited a conflagration in a civilian
neighborhood, fed by stove gas tanks. Over 2,000 Panamanians were killed
in the invasion to capture one leader.
The following year, the U.S. deployed forces in the Persian Gulf after
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which turned Washington against its
former Iraqi ally Saddam Hussein. U.S. supported the Kuwaiti monarchy and
the Muslim fundamentalist monarchy in neighboring Saudi Arabia against
the secular nationalist Iraq regime. In January 1991, the U.S..and
its allies unleashed a massive bombing assault against Iraqi government
and military targets, in an intensity beyond the raids of World War II
and Vietnam. Up to 200,000 Iraqis were killed in the war and its imemdiate
aftermath of rebellion and disease, including many civilians who died in
their villages, neighborhoods, and bomb shelters. The U.S. continued economic
sanctions that denied health and energy to Iraqi civilians, who died by
the hundreds of thousands, according to United Nations agencies. The U.S.
also instituted "no-fly zones" and virtually continuous bombing
raids, yet Saddam was politically bolstered as he was militarily weakened.
In the 1990s, the U.S. military led a series of what it termed "humanitarian
interventions" it claimed would safeguard civilians. Foremost among
them was the 1992 deployment in the African nation of Somalia, torn
by famine and a civil war between clan warlords. Instead of remaining neutral,
U.S. forces took the side of one faction against another faction, and bombed
a Mogadishu neighborhood. Enraged crowds, backed by foreign Arab mercenaries,
killed 18 U.S. soldiers, forcing a withdrawal from the country.
Other so-called "humanitarian interventions" were centered
in the Balkan region of Europe, after the 1992 breakup of the multiethnic
federation of Yugoslavia. The U.S. watched for three years as Serb forces
killed Muslim civilians in Bosnia, before its launched decisive
bombing raids in 1995. Even then, it never intervened to stop atrocities
by Croatian forces against Muslim and Serb civilians, because those forces
were aided by the U.S. In 1999, the U.S. bombed Serbia to force President
Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw forces from the ethnic Albanian province
of Kosovo, which was torn a brutal ethnic war. The bombing intensified
Serbian expulsions and killings of Albanian civilians from Kosovo,
and caused the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, even in cities
that had voted strongly against Milosevic. When a NATO occupation force
enabled Albanians to move back, U.S. forces did little or nothing to prevent
similar atrocities against Serb and other non-Albanian civilians. The U.S.
was viewed as a biased player, even by the Serbian democratic opposition
that overthrew Milosevic the following year.
Even when the U.S. military had apparently defensive motives, it ended
up attacking the wrong targets. After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies
in East Africa, the U.S. "retaliated" not only against Osama
Bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan, but a pharmaceutical
plant in Sudan that was mistakenly said to be a chemical warfare
installation. Bin Laden retaliated by attacking a U.S. Navy ship docked
in Yemen in 2000. After the 2001 terror attacks on the United States,
the U.S. military is poised to again bomb Afghanistan, and possibly
move against other states it accuses of promoting anti-U.S. "terrorism,"
such as Iraq and Sudan. Such a campaign will certainly ratchet up
the cycle of violence, in an escalating series of retaliations that is
the hallmark of Middle East conflicts. Afghanistan, like Yugoslavia, is
a multiethnic state that could easily break apart in a new catastrophic
regional war. Almost certainly more
civilians would lose their lives in this tit-for-tat war on "terrorism"
than the 3,000 civilians who died on September 11.
COMMON THEMES
Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives
and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often
left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners
made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel
zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure,
such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies,
etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military
technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when
the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as
"accidental" or "unavoidable."
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were
carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy,"
nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S.
elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S.
was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as
defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company
investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such
as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s
people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new
democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism,"
"atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing,"
but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If
a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors
terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive
bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s
double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition "defensive,"
but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition "offensive."
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with
nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in
a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends"
and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy
tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in
the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if
one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political
or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further
destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and
again on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against
him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the
list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside
of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you
will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others
may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves
as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming
many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people
like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.
- German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered
millions of people.
- British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought
brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
- Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in
Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
- Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians
and Lebanese.
- Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S.
and Israeli civilians.
- U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands
in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the
capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is
intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them.
War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only
succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent.
The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’
toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for
our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing
out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our
own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.
…and I am Sid Harth
Barack Obama enlists Afghan war leaks in support of policy switch
Material cataloguing blunders justifies decision to deploy 30,000 more US troops, US president says
Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 19.46 BST Article history
Barack Obama says the ‘documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan’. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
Barack Obama today claimed the disclosures about the mishandling of the Afghanistan war contained in leaked US military documents justified his decision to embark on a new strategy.
Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden after a meeting with congressional leaders to discuss funding for the war and other issues, deplored the leak, saying he was concerned the information from the battleground “could potentially jeopardise individuals or operations”.
His first public comment on the leaks came as the US army announced a criminal investigation into their source. Obama chose to play down the leaks’ significance, saying: “These documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan.”
But he went on to say the material highlighted the challenges that led him to announce a change in strategy late last year that involved sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The policy is due to be reviewed in December.
The thousands of documents, sent to the website Wikileaks and published in the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, dealt mainly with the conduct of the war during the Bush administration. Obama has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of ignoring the Afghanistan war because of its focus on Iraq.
“We failed for seven years to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge,” Obama said today, of the period starting with the 9/11 attacks. That is why we have increased our commitment there and developed a new strategy,” he said, adding he has also sent one of the finest generals in the US, General David Petraeus.
Insisting that the strategy “can work”, he ended with a plea to the House of Representatives to join the Senate in passing a bill to provide funds for the Afghan war as a matter of urgency.
The leaks have focused attention on Afghanistan at a time when the Obama administration would rather concentrate on the economy – the main issue among voters – and have put pressure on him to explain why he thinks his new strategy will succeed where the old one failed. He is also facing pressure to explain continued financial, military and other support for Pakistan, despite allegations in the documents that elements in Pakistani intelligence are supporting the Taliban.
Members of Congress are becoming increasingly sceptical in public about the conduct of the war, and public support is falling. According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos, satisfaction with Obama’s handling of the war has dropped to 33%, from 38% in January and 47% in February last year.
The US army is leading a criminal investigation into the source of the leak, the Pentagon said today. The army’s criminal investigative command is the same body that investigated and arrested Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst charged earlier this month with leaking a video and other material relating to the Iraq war.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said he was appalled by the leaks, telling reporters “there is a real potential threat there to put American lives at risk.”
As well as discussing the war funding bill, Afghanistan was being talked about elsewhere in Congress. The Senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on potential talks with Afghan insurgents and a Senate armed services committee held a confirmation hearing on General James Mattis, who is set to replace Petraeus as head of Centcom. Mattis, who will have overall responsibility for the US military in the Middle East and Afghanistan, was reprimanded in 2005 for saying: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap around women for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
Series: Patrick Blower’s livedrawPrevious | Next | Index
To be, or not to be in Afghanistan?As Barack Obama formulates his Afghan policy, comparisons are drawn to the Vietnam war
This is the latest in a series of animations
by Patrick Blower for Comment is free
(12)Tweet this (7)Comments (139) World news
Patrick Blower guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 November 2009
Video play settings
Short link for this page:
Terms and conditions of use
Source: guardian.co.uk
In this series
Related
Most viewed
The special relationship (1min 20sec) 23 Jul 2010 Meanwhile, in Derry… (1min 25sec) 16 Jul 2010 Between a rock and a hard place (1min 57sec) 9 Jul 2010 Modern art (1min 19sec) 2 Jul 2010 Ageing Britannia (1min 40sec) 26 Jun 2010 Today the Gulf, tomorrow… (1min 36sec) 18 Jun 2010 World Cup 2010: Celebrating the British way (1min 49sec) 12 Jun 2010 Who’s that getting covered in oil? (1min 04sec) 4 Jun 2010 12345Series: Patrick Blower’s livedraw
Afghanistan – raise, fold or call? (20min 19sec) 3 Dec 2009 Tomasky Talk: Obama’s hard sell over Afghanistan (3min 31sec) 3 Apr 2009 Obama pledges help in Mexico’s war on drugs (1min 33sec) 17 Apr 2009 Barack Obama welcomes Karzai and Zardari (2min 22sec) 7 May 2009 Obama and Hu pledge greater co-operation (52 sec) 17 Nov 2009 Tomasky talk: Winning and losing in the game of attack politics (2min 42sec) 4 Dec 2009 Tomasky Talk: Is President Obama too friendly? (2min 38sec) 21 Apr 2009 Barack Obama: ‘We will rebuild and emerge stronger’ (3min 40sec) 25 Feb 2009 12345More video
David Cameron backs Turkey’s bid to join EU (1min 37sec) 27 Jul 2010 Exclusive trailer for Abbas Kiarostami’s Certified Copy (2min 03sec) 27 Jul 2010 Ed Balls: ‘I always wanted to be part of Tony Blair’s team’ (13min 09sec) 27 Jul 2010 Waiting for the bulldozers: the women of Dale Farm (4min 46sec) 27 Jul 2010 Earth to Alys: The art of weeding (4min 25sec) 27 Jul 2010 Watch a Bulmers cider ad (41 sec) 27 Jul 2010 Afghanistan war logs: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange – ‘There… (5min 06sec) 26 Jul 2010 Test driving the Parrot AR.Drone (2min 14sec) 26 Jul 2010 12345More video
Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs: ‘They show the true… (3min 57sec) 25 Jul 2010 How to read the Afghanistan war logs: video tutorial (2min 41sec) 25 Jul 2010 Video of police attack on Ian Tomlinson (2min 41sec) 7 Apr 2009 Summer holiday circumcision: girls’ bodies at risk (8min 36sec) 25 Jul 2010 India unveils world’s cheapest ‘laptop’ (51 sec) 23 Jul 2010 Elephant attacks trainer at an Ohio Zoo (54 sec) 23 Jul 2010 How to cook: bread (7min 52sec) 20 Jul 2010 Jack Straw clashes with Nick Clegg at PMQs (2min 30sec) 21 Jul 2010 12345More video
‘s comment
Showing first 50 comments
FilkaMorozov
13 Nov 2009, 7:42PM
Then, as now, Americans believe they are a HIgher Species than other nations, and have the power of life and death over the rest of us.
Brits mistakenly believe this nonsense is true.
Recommend? (33)
AlanBloomer
13 Nov 2009, 7:44PM
Unduly distracting (crap) audio.
If Blundering Broon’s handwritten notes are “an insult to the brave dead” – God Knows what his pathetic choice of Defence Minister is…
Recommend? (7)
nicetim
13 Nov 2009, 7:47PM
Just play the end of that ghastly soundtrack at the Taleban – they won’t like it up ‘em…
Recommend? (2)
lightning3
13 Nov 2009, 7:48PM
When the Taliban begin to gloat its time to worry.
Recommend? (0)
corrocamino
13 Nov 2009, 8:13PM
At least he’s not a chinless wonder…
Recommend? (2)
heatwave2022
13 Nov 2009, 8:14PM
What comparison can be made with Vietnamization?
SImilarities include the general paranoia of a domino effect: yesterday the Communists, today the Islamists.
However, the Communist spillover stopped in Cambodia. It never reached Thailand.
If a comparison has to be be made, Islamism may reach Pakistan, but will never reach into India.
After so many years of antiCommunist paranoia, Vietnam is no longer a ‘threat’ to the USA. it has never been.
An Afghanistan under a loose coalition including the guerrilla can work without foreign troops.
Recommend? (10)
chagall
13 Nov 2009, 8:22PM
It wasn’t an American soldier who ‘executed’ that Vietcong fighter in Saigon in 1968, but Colonel Nguy?n Ng?c Loan.
Recommend? (4)
MoveAnyMountain
13 Nov 2009, 8:27PM
heatwave2022
SImilarities include the general paranoia of a domino effect: yesterday the Communists, today the Islamists. However, the Communist spillover stopped in Cambodia. It never reached Thailand.
Meanwhile of those of us in the reality-based community will notice that the Communists in Thailand did wage a reasonably long guerilla campaign against the Thai Government. But that the combination of local death squads and the Chinese break with the Soviets (and hence Vietnamese) which lead to a quick Thai-Chinese rapproachment and Chinese restraint on the CPT, halted the spread of Communism in Thailand.
If any theory was proven correct it was the domino effect. It is just that they were stopped at Thailand instead of South Vietnam.
If a comparison has to be be made, Islamism may reach Pakistan, but will never reach into India.
That will, no doubt, come as news to the people of Mumbai.
After so many years of antiCommunist paranoia, Vietnam is no longer a ‘threat’ to the USA. it has never been.
Vietnam never was, but the world-wide Communist conspiracy, of which it was a part, was a threat to the whole world. And the Communists were certainly a threat to the people of Vietnam and the rest of Indo-China.
An Afghanistan under a loose coalition including the guerrilla can work without foreign troops.
Why do you think this? For the same reason you think the Americans invaded Somalia post-9-11?
Recommend? (7)
exArmy
13 Nov 2009, 8:36PM
MoveAnyMountain
wrote
Vietnam never was, but the world-wide Communist conspiracy, of which it was a part
So which part of the world-wide Communist conspiracy plan involved Communist Vietnam invading Communist Cambodia, then Communist China invading Communist Vietnam.
Where did the Communist Sino Soviet war 1969 fit into the sino soviet war 1969.
How about the Vietnam war really being a civil war where the great powers of the day involved them selfs in.
Sorry I forgot anyone not a Russian, Chinese European or American are children who are easily led and need to be protected from themselfs and each other.
Recommend? (16)
exArmy
13 Nov 2009, 8:40PM
heatwave2022
An Afghanistan under a loose coalition including the guerrilla can work without foreign troops.
MoveAnyMountain
Why do you think this?
Well maybe they dont need us there to help them fight there civil war.
Put it this way even though as an Englishman think you will be the better fighter with your inbuilt superiority I would rather a local tribal type to back me up in a punch up than you my old MAM.
Recommend? (5)
peerlesspundit
13 Nov 2009, 9:40PM
To believe in a world-wide Communist conspiracy, one would need to believe in the rhetoric of Stalinism, in effect to be a Stalinist. Oh yes MAM. I forgot, you are.
Meanwhile, back in the reality-based community, I, along with exArmy and heatwave 2022, can see the difference between terrorist attacks in Mumbai, London or anywhere else and the possibility of of an Islamist government coming to power.
Afghanistan, clearly, is a geographical entity rather than a functioning state. Various warlords compete for power. The US has decided that one of them, Mr Hamid Karzai, should and could rule the whole country.
To this end British soldiers are deployed in isolated pockets, which some believe should be dependent on helicopters for their very existence. They train Afghanis to be soldiers and policemen, in numbers the Karzai clique could never sustain. The open countryside is left under the control of those whom we define as the Taliban, our enemy.
Should the helicopters which are called for be deployed, then yes, British casualties might be reduced. The actual situation on the ground however, would not change.
If British and other forces are to remain in this awful place, then those who support this should say why.
What are they meant to achieve, and how will it be accomplished?
Recommend? (8)
xxxxxx
13 Nov 2009, 10:31PM
To this end British soldiers are deployed in isolated pockets, which some believe should be dependent on helicopters for their very existence.
what are our special forces doing ? theres more to this conflict than what is on show in our media and governmental missives.
obama has been promising both uk and usa neo cons the afghan surge .. he wont let them down .. he has form.
Recommend? (1)
MoveAnyMountain
13 Nov 2009, 10:32PM
peerlesspundit
To believe in a world-wide Communist conspiracy, one would need to believe in the rhetoric of Stalinism, in effect to be a Stalinist. Oh yes MAM. I forgot, you are.
No, one would need to have an ounce of respect for the historical record. The world’s Communist Parties were little more than puppets of the Soviet Union and did what they were told. When the Soviets told them to be friends with the Nazis, they were friends with the Nazis. When they told them to be enemies of the Nazis, likewise.
That changed when Communist Parties came to power without any Soviet soldiers present to enforce unity. But it does not change what they were.
Meanwhile, back in the reality-based community, I, along with exArmy and heatwave 2022, can see the difference between terrorist attacks in Mumbai, London or anywhere else and the possibility of of an Islamist government coming to power.
As can I. The relevance being what precisely?
The actual situation on the ground however, would not change.
Well that’s not true. The world is shifting against Islamism. Even in Pakistan. The Taliban is not much popular in Afghanistan either. We can and should wait them out. This is not a war we can lose unless we choose to. They do not have an infinite supply of volunteers and they cannot win unless we surrender. So why should we? British forces in Iraq adopted this utter defeatist attitude and withdrew from Basra. Leaving it to the Shia Islamists. The Americans did not. They have since defeated the Islamists as a whole and in the end they had to go into Basra to do what we would not. Who thinks the British Government who ordered that retreat comes out of that with any honour or dignity at all?
If British and other forces are to remain in this awful place, then those who support this should say why. What are they meant to achieve, and how will it be accomplished?
Because we are there for one thing. We are winning the battle for hearts and minds. We should continue to do so. Withdrawal would inspire more attacks and more terrorism. What they are meant to achieve would depend on the situation in country. As much as possible. First of all they should simply wait for the Taliban to be defeated. The Taliban is only alienating their supporters by cruel and insane attacks on civilian targets. They should continue to work towards making Afghanistan a proper country. But wating the Taliban out is enough I think.
Recommend? (8)
lightning3
13 Nov 2009, 11:10PM
Time to ask the army or pull out.
Recommend? (2)
mariela
13 Nov 2009, 11:42PM
Where is the bulk of the American soldiers ? Protecting the area where Unocal is to build the pipeline from Turkmenistan ? Let´s not forget that the Taliban were guests of honour with the oil people in Texas and until the summer of 2001 they got most of their money from the US government. But then the Taliban made a terrible mistake: They gave an oil contract to an Argentinian firm. But most importantly to get oil and gas from five central Asian countries to Karachi.
Recommend? (12)
mariela
13 Nov 2009, 11:45PM
Where are the US soldiers ? Where Unocal is to build a pipeline to take oil and gas from five central Asian countries to Karachi ?
Recommend? (2)
peerlesspundit
13 Nov 2009, 11:48PM
Thank you for your insights MAM.
As you point out, the world-wide Communist conspiracy, as orchestrated from Moscow by the government headed by Mr Joseph Stalin, inevitably contained the seeds of it’s own destruction.
What (I think) you are saying is that the world-wide Communist conspiracy collapsed because of the seizure of power by the Communists in China. It occurred because Soviet Communism was, in fact, Russian Imperialism, which differed hugely from Chinese Ntionalism/Imperialism.
To return to the present. You state that “we”, whoever “we” are, are winning the battle for hearts and minds, as though that was an incontrovertable fact. Why do you think this is so? You may have seen Mr Hamid Karzai the other day saying that he did not think that the US, Britain etc. were in Afghanistan to help the Afghans, but to hunt down Al Qaida, whatever that might be. Do you think the Afghan President is wrong, and you know better than him?
I think the British defeat in Basra was just that. A defeat. The British Army, as I am sure you know, is not properly equipped for the tasks it has been asked to undertake in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It lacks sufficient infantry. It is poorly led.
It is in this state because successive British governments have been wedded to the idea that Britain is (still) a world power which requires bomber submarines, EuroFighters and aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. No government since 1951 has been willing to properly finance these daydreams, and none since the late sixties has been willing to ruthlessly prioritise on defence spending.
You implied that the British Army could and should, simply stay in it’s bases, safely supplied by helicopter, waiting for events to defeat the Taliban, whoever and whatever that term defines.
You also know that the only reason British forces are in Afghanistan, and were in Iraq, is because the military and political elite in Britain believe, as they have done since 1940, that it is vital to British interests to remain as closely allied as possible to the U.S. This may, or may not be true. I do not know. I think it needs to be debated openly.
Unfortunately, this debate is not going to happen. The British political elite does not trust the ordinary people sufficiently to tell them this fact straight.
As a Stalinist MoveAnyMountain, I know that you approve of such restriction of information, but being just a dull and simple old codger myself, I would like such a debate to take place.
By the way, what is the origin of MoveAnyMountain? Is it an adaptation of the very old Comintern slogan, There Is No Fortress The Bolsheviks Cannot Storm?
Recommend? (4)
exArmy
13 Nov 2009, 11:50PM
. MoveAnyMountain
So why should we? British forces in Iraq adopted this utter defeatist attitude and withdrew from Basra. Leaving it to the Shia Islamists. The Americans did not.
This from a man who takes pride in the fact that he has never taken part in a punch up.
In Basra in or AOR my heroic manly butch MoveAnyMountain we had neither the men or resources to fight a real counter insurgency operation.
It cost something very close to your sweet little heart money, that folding stuff that is the only thing that excites you well that an talking manly like.
America showed us the way alright they paid out vast amounts of money to the varouse militia groups not to fight, the sort of thing we know you would do in reality if asked for your wallet you would give it, pay someone not to hurt you.
As for that hearts and mind is there nothing more heroic than some military bookworm buff spouting forth book learned comments on war and assorted military operations.
There is no so brave so wise as those who never faught.How glorious the battles you never fought.
As a aside our brave an heroic commited anti communist was such a commited anti communisted he was a banker in China, which is still a communist country.
Fair question have you ever commited to anything you believe in or are you what every here thinks you are a producer of hot air.
Recommend? (7)
exArmy
13 Nov 2009, 11:54PM
peerlesspundit,heatwave2022
MoveAnyMountain does believe in the world-wide Communist conspiracy, he believed in it so much he worked as a banker in China, helping to fund it.
Even MoveAnyMountain has to admit that if he was living in Stalins USSR he would be a member of the party and the NKVD happily denouncing everyone mouthing empty party political slogans, he is good at it and looking out for number one, his main concern in life.
Recommend? (7)
Khondakar
14 Nov 2009, 12:11AM
Move your moutain of misinformation-
‘
Goa bombers tried to leave Muslim imprint
Investigators believe that the Sanatan Sanstha men who were killed while allegedly planting bombs in Goa during Diwali celebrations last month were hoping to fan communal tensions by misleading the police through items they wanted to leave behind at the site: a shopping bag from a shop in ?Khan Market?, Delhi, a bottle of traditional perfume popular among Muslims and an empty bag of branded Basmati rice on which all the words were in Urdu.
The items were recovered by police from the site of the crude bomb blast in Margao on October 16 in which two Sanatan members, Malgounda Patil and Yogesh Naik, were killed. It was found after investigations and the subsequent arrest of two men suspected to be linked to Patil and Naik that they were allegedly carrying these items to leave them behind at the blast site and signal a Muslim hand. The alleged plan to indicate the bomb blast to be the handiwork of Muslim groups had echoes of the Malegaon bomb blast last year, the officer said. Members of Hindu extremist group Abhinav Bharat, who have been accused for that blast, had parked the motorbike packed with the bomb below the defunct first-floor office of the outlawed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
11/9/09 Indian Express, www.antiwar.com-11/12/09
Move the munatain further—-USA is supplying dollrs to Taliban now. Basra prison was broken into to rescue British sp-mercenaries-soldiers who were captured while shooting at a market wearing Arab dress. Peter Galbraith has made 100 millions supporting Kurdist cause .
Scoot the mountain a little more– Its diffcult who is more fundamentalist Taliban or the cheer-leaders of wars against Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran? The supporters have enough scoundrels in Evangelical and FOX mannsion. Taliban has already arrived in USA.They just call them Freedom loving gun toting antiabortion pro war,pro Goldman Sachs anti-immigrant ,pro below living wage,anti health care,creationist and never averse to use the macbre techniques of Stalin and Al Quiada at home and abroad.
Recommend? (8)
Khondakar
14 Nov 2009, 12:19AM
Move the Mountain now to somalia
Foreign Policy i( FP)s reporting this month the known facts after 4 years that the intervention of Ethiopia and USA plunged Somalia in the receivership of Al Quiada .Al Qaida was not an entity before 2006 in Somalia.Its reporting that Somalia was actually evolving to multiparty system based on geography,clans,and a combination of Somalian Customary laws,Sharia,and British left over. USA decapitated that child.
Recommend? (4)
peerlesspundit
14 Nov 2009, 12:22AM
exArmy, I can only salute your comment, which, as ever, gets to the heart of the matter.
Our mutual friend MoveAnyMountain, though he claims to be anti-Communist, is in fact a Stalinist. That is to say, he believes in a highly centralised authoritarian state, in which ex soldiers, and dull and simple old codgers are told what to think by their betters. If it suited the boss class that you and I be shot, or starved to death, MoveAnyMountain would sign the order.
Note his assertion, without any evidence, of dubious contentions, such as we are winning the battle for hearts and minds.
Of course being a banker in an authoritarian state would suit him fine.
In the Soviet Union they called the likes of MoveAnyMountain apparartchiks. In China they call them capitalists. Same old Bolshevik bosses. Move knows this.
As for his militarism coupled with a distaste for getting his own hands bloody, well, the late Herr Heinrich Himmler was similarly fastidious.
You, exArmy, would probably count me as a bookworm, and that I am. Move is not that. Reading might challenge his fixed beliefs.
I have never been a soldier, but I have had to make harsh decisions, and enforce them on physically on recalcitrant people. I have been assaulted, and was the subject of a serious and determined murder attempt. I do not think that I could be a combat soldier.
I hold in utter and complete contempt armchair FieldMarshals, or those who sit in offices disposig of the lives of others. Whether they are called commisars, apparatchiks or bankers in dictatorships, they are to be despised.
Recommend? (8)
Khondakar
14 Nov 2009, 12:23AM
Just like they manged to bring Al Quiada in Iraq 1983 and AlQuida monsters in Afghanistan in 1980
Was there any muslim terrorism in Britain before? Well Al Quaida wa waiting to be Al Qaida in Britain expecting a divine intervention by God fearing Bush.
Recommend? (1)
Khondakar
14 Nov 2009, 12:26AM
There was no Taliban-Alqida brigade in UK planning and perpetrating attcks in train and buses before God fearing and Bible consulting Bush revealed himself through the bodies of Neocons.
Recommend? (4)
savvymum
14 Nov 2009, 7:04AM
Contributor @ex army
Your comments are good and accurate. Not only did the Brits pay off insurgents in Iraq, but the Americans did it left, right and centre. They also supplied them with weapons as well as the huge amounts of cash.
At the moment, I’m ghostwriting a book about the Iraq war, by a whistleblower, who actually was on the small convoys, taking the money to the insurgents and the weapons.
Many of us are old enough to remember Vietnam. I was a kid in America, and can remember it all over the T.V. I also remember our neighbours son running to Canada after receiving his draft papers. I don’t think people here in Britain got the saturation coverage we did in America.
Afghanistan is an unwise war, as it is currently being fought. Democracy and freedom? Well, you just saw the election and Karzai’s corruption – total screw up. Freedom? half the population are in barbaric servitude (women) and nobody says anything. people feel the same way about Afghanistan as Vietnam – they just don’t know what this war is about, or when it will end.
Recommend? (11)
Jeeeeeeesus
14 Nov 2009, 9:07AM
The whole idea of the COLD WAR was to have short proxy wars agiant two opposing political ideologies financed to keep the US military industrial complex fully occupied making laser-guided stinger missiles…state of the art weapons of mass destruction.
Direct military involvement should never be used like Viet Nam (or Iraq) because the people back home will start asking questions after 56,000 US soldiers died in the paddy fields based on a lie conjured up by a right-wing think-tank in Washington DC.
Enemies must be recreated to justify the CIA budget.
To be or not to be be (in Afghanistan)….what is the next question?
The next question is have we lost and dont know it yet.
Recommend? (4)
exArmy
14 Nov 2009, 9:14AM
Hi Peerlesspundit I usually dont bring in what did individual do in the war until debating with the likes of MoveAnyMountain who write things like
“British forces in Iraq adopted this utter defeatist attitude and withdrew from Basra.”
Was he there no, does he no anything about what happend there apart from what he read on the blogs no, would he ever serve no. Yes he sets himself above all those who served with his third no fourh hand judgement.
I dont think I have ever seen a comment wriiten by him which is not sneering about those less fortunate than him. If he is not sneering he is sucking up to those he thinks his betters.
Yes a authoritarian stalinist state would suit him down to the ground.
Recommend? (6)
exArmy
14 Nov 2009, 9:17AM
Savvymum
Good luck on your book, I think more people need to know that all these great Military operations in our name to protect us also include paying out vast sums in civilian life would be called protection rackets.
Recommend? (5)
Jeeeeeeesus
14 Nov 2009, 9:24AM
The trouble with Britain is that they think they can run everything on a shoestring….this mentality comes from WW2 and their ration-card mindset. Create shortages…that way you get higher house prices. Or pay politicians what they think is a lousy wage of 64,000 Pounds a year for 9 months work and start fiddling the expenses and pay their wives as secretaries. They think that is fair. Well if they dont have any morality or values we can see where the rot started. British society was always sailing close to the wind in terms of standards of common decency . Note: BANKERS. However if there are too many things failing simultaneously…one could see a major political upheaval. Even English people have a breaking-point…Afghanistan may be that crack in the dam. The truth is hard to challenge. After 8 years…we lost that one!
Recommend? (3)
Jeeeeeeesus
14 Nov 2009, 9:33AM
FT:
HOW THE BRITISH ARMY LOST BASRA
Dated 20 August 2007 by Stephen Fidler
Just for the record……
exArmy
14 Nov 2009, 10:06AM
Jeeeeeeesus
wrote
They think that is fair. Well if they dont have any morality or values we can see where the rot started.
No we dont, and America is now better you have a presidency only the very rich an powerful can by.
In America morality or values means many things, I guess it mainly means caring about things where you dont have to put your money where your mouth is.
As for Basra, Both Britian an America forces suffered from the same simple problem, no defined objectives, no planning, no real resources and told that we will be pulling out as soon as Saddam was toppled.
Well it did not go the way are wonder and wise an knowledgeable politicians both sides of the pond expected.
It went tits up the way all us old sweats new it would, it will go wrong, it will always go wrong so bloody prepare.
But the American right had it so sown up even trying to plan for it all going wrong was being seen as a traitor to America and Bush.
What happen when the crap hit the fan, well nothing, because there was still no clear direction from above. And it bloody went on, and very bloody it was.
Well the American used fire power lots of it, you got a problem blow it up, after all they were only arabs.
Us well we were told to patrol in berets like it was North Ireland, just goes to show how stupied the young are. Our young politicians did not know we only patrolled in berets after a very long, very bloody Counter Insurgency War in North Ireland.
We did not have the men, we did not have the resources, we did not have the plan, and we did not have a clear well defined objective.
Apart from stay out there so that the politicians both sides of the pond dont look bad, until they can think of something, which they did they borrowed an idea from the Romans and paid the tribes not to fight them.
Whose to blame, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair and the gutless generals both sides of the pond who did not have the guts to stand up to the politicians.
Recommend? (8)
UncleVanya
14 Nov 2009, 10:49AM
“Alas, Poor Kharzai, we know you know not”
“In Saddam’s World, Shi’ite happened…!”
winterleaves2
14 Nov 2009, 10:51AM
MoveANyMountain
Well that’s not true. The world is shifting against Islamism. Even in Pakistan. The Taliban is not much popular in Afghanistan either.
If you think the unpopularity of Taliban/Al Qaida groups in the Muslim world means the US is popular youre deuding yourself. People generally dont like people who bomb them whoever they are
We can and should wait them out. This is not a war we can lose unless we choose to. They do not have an infinite supply of volunteers and they cannot win unless we surrender. So why should we? British forces in Iraq adopted this utter defeatist attitude and withdrew from Basra. Leaving it to the Shia Islamists. The Americans did not. They have since defeated the Islamists as a whole
Er you are aware that the Iraqi governemnt is an Islamist one and Iraq is certainly much less secular than it was under Saddam.
But the question I think we all are asking is when Move Any Mountain, the keyboard warrior, is signing up to go to Helmand?
Recommend? (3)
kentiwari
14 Nov 2009, 10:58AM
Once again please may I repeat my self, in that old English Language.
Dear Barak Obama was Elected by his beautiful fellow American-Citizens,
to represent them, with their Interest first, and I think he is doig just that !
As for the war in Aghanistan, initiated by Osma’Bin Laden & Al’Qaeda,
And it was tackled by 43rd president of that Great nation = the USA,-
together with all the nation from the United Nation, as or Britain we
were part of of USA-for centuries and we are, So please ;-
Don’t blame 44th President of USA-if he is hesitant on this wretched
Afghanistan, this is not his fault, All plitcian hae a duty to represent
the Interest of his own community befoe other Country?+!
Please,remember the Terrorist problem is the united nation’s problem
and not Just Barak Obama-or-any single nation-America-or-Brtain?
It’s UN-must do somting before you attack 44th-President of USA……
” God bless us all “-and down with, all teh terrorist…….
heatwave2022
14 Nov 2009, 11:26AM
How America’s Wars Are Systematically Destroying Our Liberties.
We fight their wars. They are destroying our liberties.
Recommend? (4)
heatwave2022
14 Nov 2009, 11:28AM
If you are a soldier and find that you cannot speak out freely, consider this:
Soldier arrested for speaking out against the Afghan war.
Recommend? (2)
exArmy
14 Nov 2009, 11:31AM
winterleaves2
wrote
But the question I think we all are asking is when Move Any Mountain, the keyboard warrior, is signing up to go to Helmand?
He wont be back on this thread, he keeps forgetting him self going into a anti communist rant then getting caught out with his banking job in China.
So he bugs out for a while.
Recommend? (5)
exArmy
14 Nov 2009, 11:37AM
heatwave2022
wrote
If you are a soldier and find that you cannot speak out freely, consider this:
Serving soldiers should not be allowed to attend demostrations or speak out against military operations.
The fact is we have to obey our legally elected representitives even if like myself we have no respect for them.
Want to oppose the war, you have to do what I do, resign, as a reservist it was a lot easier, and alot older.
Soldiers cant pick and choose what operations they want to go on, from deciding which orders we obey is not to far from deciding lets make the orders are self.
Recommend? (4)
WhattheDormousesaid
14 Nov 2009, 11:41AM
Both Vietnam and Afghanistan a waste of time.
Both lost by the US raher than won by their enemies.
Recommend? (3)
TomWonacott
14 Nov 2009, 1:02PM
Savvymum
“……Your comments are good and accurate. Not only did the Brits pay off insurgents in Iraq, but the Americans did it left, right and centre. They also supplied them with weapons as well as the huge amounts of cash…..”
So? Do you believe that Muslims celebrate Ramadan year around? Iraqis need to eat too. “Buying” their support worked.
savvymum
14 Nov 2009, 1:02PM
Contributor exArmy,
I can tell that you are an authentic voive who is telling the truth.
The Brits in Basra were considered by many contractors to be by far the best soldiers out there. The ordinary Brit soldier went round in poorly adapted landrovers, offering no proper armour nor protection, whilst the Americans went round in fabulous safe vehicles.
Americans patrolled (when they were forced to leave the Green Zone) with plenty of ammo and grenades. Our Brit lads had limited ammo and no grenades – they tried to scrounge them off contractors, as well as decent body armour.
Everyone knew that the Brits had a much better relationship with the local civilians than the Americans who hated them – universally referring to them as ‘ragheads’ and ‘sand niggers’. Brits would laugh with and engage with the civilians in a much more human way than other nations, especially the Americans. However, the military leadership was poor, and our soldiers were let down by what has been described to me as a bunch of “Ruperts”, who were ordered around ultimately by the Americans anyway.
The stress of serving in that situation is phenomenal and us back home have no idea what it is like to be a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the battle fatigue that can set in, and what that looks like.
Our soldiers deserve better leadership and a clearly defined goal and reason for dying there. You should hear in private how angry the military are at our present government. They are loyal to Queen and country, but not totally loyal to the government, which has let them down.
Ex Army is right – they cannot and will not speak up. But once their service is over… ha ha! you’ll find they have plenty to say.
Recommend? (11)
savvymum
14 Nov 2009, 1:14PM
Contributor @ TomWonacott
Iraquis need to eat, and buying off insurgents worked. Well only up to a point – there was plenty of danger and buying off the insurgents was not as successful as you’d think. I’m sure exArmy will be able to tell us about the terrible dangers that really existed.
The coalition of the willing couldn’t give a damn about the Iraqi people. Most of them were sitting in the greenzone and had no idea what was going on. Contractors often did some of the worst and most dangerous jobs.
Have you heard about the rubbish problem in Baghdad? The place stank – everywhere there were piles of old, rotting uncollected rubbish.
Do you know about the sewage? The overpowering smell of excerement in that heat, everywhere.
No clean water, no power, queues for petrol 2 miles long, day in day out.
No medicines nor anaethetics left in the hospitals – women given ceasarians
without aneasthetic. Coalition hospitals refusing to treat civilians as a matter of policy.
We are not told the real story, but there are soldiers out there who know this is all true. Eventually, I hope their stories reach us and that one day soon, we will know the truth, and not the propoganda we’ve been fed.
Recommend? (11)
ParagAdalja
14 Nov 2009, 1:23PM
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, 1995-2001….exactly TWO countries recognized the government. Only two countries – the rest 130 plus found the regime abhorrent. You may want to do some research and find out the reasons why.
What makes you think talking to the Taliban and letting them back into governing would be different this time.
Recommend? (3)
TomWonacott
14 Nov 2009, 1:40PM
Savvymum
“…..he coalition of the willing couldn’t give a damn about the Iraqi people. Most of them were sitting in the greenzone and had no idea what was going on. Have you heard about the rubbish problem in Baghdad? The place stank – everywhere there were piles of old, rotting uncollected rubbish…..Do you know about the sewage? The overpowering smell of excerement in that heat, everywhere.
No clean water, no power, queues for petrol 2 miles long, day in day out….”
Well, no surprise there. Its a war zone. Its been estimated that a million Iraqis died because of the invasion.
The question is, however, what will be the long term affects of the invasion? While the left dwells on the brutal conditions of the war, the Iraqis are moving forward, and in a positive direction. The entire story needs to be evaluated, and time will tell if the invasion was a success or failure.
South Korea resulted in 2-3 times the amount of deaths than in Iraq, but who can doubt that the South Koreans are much better off today?
Recommend? (4)
Building7
14 Nov 2009, 1:49PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted. TomWonacott
14 Nov 2009, 1:50PM
ParagAdlja
“…..What makes you think talking to the Taliban and letting them back into governing would be different this time…..”
Anyone who thinks that the Taliban – and I mean the hard core Taliban – will negotiate a settlement, is just interested in getting out of Afghanistan. There is no merit to the argument that we can negotiate a settlement with the Taliban and peace will return to Afghanistan. None.
Recommend? (4)
heatwave2022
14 Nov 2009, 2:02PM
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, 1995-2001….exactly TWO countries recognized the government.
The rest 130 plus were pressured by the USA and Israel not to recognize any Taliban government.
This was already in preparation for war.
Recommend? (6)
peerlesspundit
14 Nov 2009, 2:09PM
ParagAdalja, I do not think that the Taliban would be any less brutal if they returned to government in Afghanistan.
I do not think the current situation, dependent as it is on a foriegn (mostly American) occupation is sustainable, and I am concerned about the death and physical and mental injuries being suffered by British soldiers.
Perhaps you can tell me how many such casualties you think are acceptable to maintain the occupation.You might want to do some research into this.
What makes you think that their sacrifice will make any difference.
Recommend? (3)
peerlesspundit
14 Nov 2009, 2:19PM
TomWonacott, Define what you mean by hard core Taliban, and tell us what other sorts there are.
You might also like to tell us how the occupation army is going to bring peace to Afghanistan.
Iraq is moving onwards and upwards is it? So Tom, these reports of bombings in Iraq, causing huge casualties, just propagandist bollocks are they, or is that what you are posting here?
Recommend? (5)
switzerland
14 Nov 2009, 2:19PM
‘Should we be in Afghanistan’? Well, by ‘we’ I think you mean British and American squaddies. One military charity calls itself ‘Afghan Heroes’, but they aren’t talking about Afghan people, no way.
Afghan people have no choice but to be in Afghanistan, and are among the very poorest on earth. A recent Newsnight report on maternal mortality had an Afghan saying that his village, just one village, had lost fifty mothers and children that winter. The Western doctors, midwives and aid workers who might help them will find themselves treated with hostility because they are identified with Western aggressors.
By the way, my answer to your question is No.
…and I am Sid Harth
Oh, I think it’s fair to also say that the more you GIVE them (millions amd millions; new war toys, etc…) the more entrenched they become and the more they don’t see a path forward with you.
Steve Coll’s excellent book, “Ghost Wars”, is required reading for anyone who wants to understand our relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan empowered the Taliban. They couldn’t have beaten Masoud and the rest of warlords in what became the Northern Alliance, without Pakistan’s help.
It’s insane to think that we’re going to be able to threaten OR bribe them into doing what we want them to do. It’s just one more crazed pre-supposition that anyone who wants to sustain the lunacy for another month, is pimping.
There is no “right way” to win in Afghanistan. And the bloggers parsing it from, ostensibly, the progressive side to try to cover Obama’s ass, are every bit as dishonest and full of shit, as were the people doing in on Bush’s behalf.
BTW, Nomolos: I don’t know if the CIA had a hand in Bhutto’s murder or not, but given the CIA’s track record, bringing it up sure as hell doesn’t qualify you for the kind of ridicule that Macaquerman handed you.
Pakistan is a snake’s nest of competing factions; the kind of situation which a CIA Station Chief takes one look at and gets a hard-on that a cat couldn’t scratch. Assuming that they had no inkling of an attack on her, is probably more inaccurate and foolish than assuming they did.
