When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Pakistan late last week for a three-day public relations tour, upon meeting with leaders of Pakistani society a general outburst of anger and incredulity became desperately apparent.
When pressed by one Pakistani whether a U.S. drone attacks violate the judicial process and qualify as terrorism, Clinton carefully paused and relayed, "No I do not." The Star Tribune reports a drone attack killed nearly 100 civilians in Peshawar earlier last week.
Another man respectfully remarked, that Pakistanis feel they are fighting America's war. Clinton could offer little sympathy after a Washington Post article intimated Obama very well may send an addition 15,000 U.S. troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region where Al-Qaeda terrorists are suspected of hiding.
Moreover, with the announcement yesterday of the pullout of Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah of the Nov. 7 retrial "election" after massive vote-fraud perpetuated by President Hamid Karzai was discovered, public legitimacy of U.S. interference in the region is reaching an all-time low. Little hope the partisan-politique smash-up Mrs. Clinton could offer. Instead of attempting true diplomacy, her style of negotiation only offers ultimatums and forced partnerships as acceptable solutions in working with other nations.
Most notably, famed Pakistani journalist Sana Bucha of GEO-TV interviewed Secretary of State Clinton. The Star Tribune reports that she scolded Clinton, instructing er that, "It is not our war, it is your war [...] You had one 9/11, we are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan."
Sadly, western mainstream media marginalized Bucha's heroic stand by only vaguely identifying her as "a woman."
Clinton did not participate much better as conversation indicates. The Star Tribune noted she tersely replied to passionate concerns over extrajudicial U.S. surprise drone executions. Attempting to allay worries, Clinton could only remarked that, "there is a war going on."
These real concerns can no longer be marginalized as people around the globe are now screaming for state leaders to recognize and address these grave inequities. For a great nation who in the past aimed to take the moral high ground, that same concept, now in perverted form, is used to justify mass-executions of innocent bystanders. In some twisted sort of morality, even the unfathomably evil is fair game.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan War. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Dithered Dictation
When General Stanley McChrystal first asked fora second massive troop surge, this time to send 40,000 plus to Afghanistan, the shock of such an astoundingly serious announcement begged for a pause. And so President Obama deferred to respond ilico. And to everyone's relief, our commander-in-chief thoughtfully requested a wider review for American policy in Afghanistan and the greater region.
However, that review that continues today echoes its own presence in reports as largely that of a military nature that neglects the importance of diplomatic and cultural centered efforts.
At that time, in mid-September 2009, President Obama reassured the war-weary public a new plan would be afoot within "a matter of weeks." Yet, as more heated war cries came from the more bigoted tics in Congress, the semblance of strategy the executive desperately sought to hatch.
Upon reports in early October from a BBC journalist that the decision had already been made to send 45,000 more Americans, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied the assertion and placated that a decision would be reached "in weeks." The end of summer and apex of autumn has respectively passed and crested and still no decision has been made.
With the onset of the November 7 Afghan "election," and holiday times approaching rapidly in America, a decision now to send tens of thousands of Americans into a brutal and desperately murderous situation could effectively incite massive uproar among the general public. By going with no strategy at all for 9 plus months and kicking the horribly bloodied can farther down the road, the War in Afghanistan entering its ninth year is about to unravel and explode.
Simply, President Obama's general strategy in every field has been to have no real strategy at all. And by campaigning on the promise to widen the War in Afghanistan to the tune of thunderous applause, the American people have given him and all future executives the power to wage war indefinitely. Rolling with the political winds without any root in principle or practice proves a dangerous experiment.
So detestable is the unlimited power ceded to the "well-meaning" authorities whose blatant lies and empty promises quell the masses into silent destitution. It is no mystery imperial wars and occupations are repeatedly unsustainable and inherently flawed beyond correction. And after a near decade of such fatal folly, there is no question an end will at eventually come. But when?
For now, that question lies in the hands of the warring purveyor of "peace".
However, that review that continues today echoes its own presence in reports as largely that of a military nature that neglects the importance of diplomatic and cultural centered efforts.
At that time, in mid-September 2009, President Obama reassured the war-weary public a new plan would be afoot within "a matter of weeks." Yet, as more heated war cries came from the more bigoted tics in Congress, the semblance of strategy the executive desperately sought to hatch.
Upon reports in early October from a BBC journalist that the decision had already been made to send 45,000 more Americans, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied the assertion and placated that a decision would be reached "in weeks." The end of summer and apex of autumn has respectively passed and crested and still no decision has been made.
With the onset of the November 7 Afghan "election," and holiday times approaching rapidly in America, a decision now to send tens of thousands of Americans into a brutal and desperately murderous situation could effectively incite massive uproar among the general public. By going with no strategy at all for 9 plus months and kicking the horribly bloodied can farther down the road, the War in Afghanistan entering its ninth year is about to unravel and explode.
Simply, President Obama's general strategy in every field has been to have no real strategy at all. And by campaigning on the promise to widen the War in Afghanistan to the tune of thunderous applause, the American people have given him and all future executives the power to wage war indefinitely. Rolling with the political winds without any root in principle or practice proves a dangerous experiment.
So detestable is the unlimited power ceded to the "well-meaning" authorities whose blatant lies and empty promises quell the masses into silent destitution. It is no mystery imperial wars and occupations are repeatedly unsustainable and inherently flawed beyond correction. And after a near decade of such fatal folly, there is no question an end will at eventually come. But when?
For now, that question lies in the hands of the warring purveyor of "peace".
Thursday, October 15, 2009
45,000 to Afghanistan
Yesterday, the BBC broke the story that United States President Barack Obama has already decided to send 45,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan according to an unidentified source of the British government. That would push U.S. presence in Afghanistan to well over 110,000 soldiers, an increase from the 10,000 who overthrew the Taliban in 2001, and an increase from the 40,000 who were stationed there in 2008.
While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied this claim, this potential decision would put the number of U.S. troops occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 at an astounding 260,000. At the height of troop levels under former President George W. Bush, there was a maximum of 180,000 soldiers in the two nations.
The jury has spoken, but where is the judge?
While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied this claim, this potential decision would put the number of U.S. troops occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 at an astounding 260,000. At the height of troop levels under former President George W. Bush, there was a maximum of 180,000 soldiers in the two nations.
The jury has spoken, but where is the judge?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama's Surge
Earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced the deployment of an additional 17,000 U.S. forces to Afghanistan. As the war enters its seventh year, this surge of troops has received little media attention in comparison with the months-long debate over the early 2007 "surge" in Iraq.
In the latest reports to come out of Afghanistan, a new survey showed that civilian deaths increased by 40% in the year 2008. In that year alone, over 2,100 civilians were killed. In other reports, nearly 80% of the Afghan people disapprove of the war in their country and an overwhelming majority predict the situation to worsen over the next years.
On Tuesday, President Obama commented on Afghanistan, noting that the situation "actually appears to be deteriorating at this point."
"I'm absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the spread of extremism in the region solely through military means," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. "We're going to have to use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development."
Despite President Obama's rhetoric urging diplomacy over military means, his solution to send 17,000 more U.S. troops clouds his statements.
Yesterday, Afghan authorities confirmed the deaths of 13 civilians in a U.S. unmanned drone missile strike on Monday near Herat. According to AFP, among the dead were six women and two children.
Before the U.S. began occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the Soviet Union fought their own war and occupied its terrority from 1980-1988. The Soviet Union collapsed one year later.
In the latest reports to come out of Afghanistan, a new survey showed that civilian deaths increased by 40% in the year 2008. In that year alone, over 2,100 civilians were killed. In other reports, nearly 80% of the Afghan people disapprove of the war in their country and an overwhelming majority predict the situation to worsen over the next years.
On Tuesday, President Obama commented on Afghanistan, noting that the situation "actually appears to be deteriorating at this point."
"I'm absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the spread of extremism in the region solely through military means," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. "We're going to have to use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development."
Despite President Obama's rhetoric urging diplomacy over military means, his solution to send 17,000 more U.S. troops clouds his statements.
Yesterday, Afghan authorities confirmed the deaths of 13 civilians in a U.S. unmanned drone missile strike on Monday near Herat. According to AFP, among the dead were six women and two children.
Before the U.S. began occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the Soviet Union fought their own war and occupied its terrority from 1980-1988. The Soviet Union collapsed one year later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
