civilians. It's mid-October, but this is still continually spoken of in
media as McChrystal's "new and different" tactic for Afghanistan.
Does the U.S. Department of Defense figure that less dead women and
children will see fewer Afghani men killing invaders of their country
as they have done for centuries?
Does the Pentagon hope this plan of cutting civilian casualties will
endear American and European soldiers and their air planes to
Afghanis and make them want to cooperate and assist these invading
infidels in killing their own Pashtun brothers?
Thirty years ago, President Jimmy Carter had a different plan. Not a US
invasion to overthrow the then socialist Kabul government, but to
'secretly' fund, arm and train fundamentalist hill tribe terrorists who
did not want their daughters to go to the school. The CIA did this,
even though these tribal fighters were executing teachers who dared to
teach girls. (Twenty-three years later, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton says the United States must remain in Afghanistan so girls
can go to school, but at the time Carter gave his secret order, women
in Kabul were wearing Western clothes and working and studying with
only the women from the countryside wearing the veil or burka.)
Carter's adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a close confident of David
Rockefeller, convinced Carter that if the US supported civil war, the
Soviets would come to the aid of its allied Kabul (women emancipating)
government and be suckered into its own Vietnam scenario of a
The USSR did put its military in Afghanistan six months later to
protect its flank and counter the CIA and Saudi government destabilizing a
neighbor country bordering the Muslim population inside the Soviet
(Nineteen years later Brzezinski bragged that he had predicted that the
Soviets would let themselves be drawn into the conflict in response to
U.S. covert activities. Activities in that time, covert and secret only to the American
public and Congress, but still today, hidden from the eyes and ears of
conglomerate media audiences, though it is posted all over the Internet.)
The Russians spent eight years trying to do what Obama's Gen.
McChrystal is trying to do now. They spent eight years trying to avoid
civilian deaths and make the population see themselves not as invaders,
but protectors against fellow Afghanis terrorizing their own Kabul
government. Then, after eight years of death, the Soviets left. They
went home to a Soviet Union that was falling apart.
After the Russian withdrawal, chaos, lawlessness and bombardment by
battling war lords followed the fall of the Kabul government and the
religious militant Taliban came into being and brought peace and Islamic
law - but a harsh and strict extremely narrow minded but firm form of Islamic law.
Muslims had come from around the world, invited, encouraged and funded
by Saudis and the CIA, to help Afghanis kill the invading Russians.
Afterward, many of those imported devout and dedicated Muslims warriors,
hardened and emboldened during the successful U.S. funded war in
Afghanistan, under renegade Suadi leadership took up a crusade to expel
other foreign military from from Muslin lands, the U.S. included. Thus
the extremist international organization al Qaeda came into existence.
Since the Saudi attack on 9/11, in which no Afghani took part, the U.S. has tried, over an equally long eight year period, to
do what the Soviets failed to do at their own peril.
With calculated deception, the US war media has recently come to
calling all Afghanis fighting the occupation an "insurgency."
"Insurgents?" The former Taliban government, which Reagan supported, and
Bush II overthrew for not turning over bin Laden, is still today, the
de facto government in more than half the area of the country. Bin Laden
is no longer mentioned, and al Qaeda makes more news in a dozen other
countries than in Afghanistan.
We see that it is not by merciful intention that McChrystal seeks to
lessen civilian death from his air strikes and patrols. This McChrystal
plan or tactic is never talked about as one of saving lives, but rather
as a military stratagem. A military stratagem meant to avoid another
'Vietnam', or another graveyard for American boys like the graveyard
Afghanistan was for Russian and the British boys earlier. And these
three great empires managed to make a much larger graveyard for
Afghanis themselves, but as third world citizens, they are considered of no
consequence and not deserving of sympathetic media coverage unless victims of America's perceived enemies.)
Media anchors are not permitted to get choked up about even the most
gruesome of 'inadvertent' or 'collateral' deaths of Afghanis. A
sorrowful tone of voice is reserved for the brave American military
personnel who are killed. And the 'enemy,' never referred to as
having showed bravery, is described as brazen at best.
Washington, the networks and the newspapers in lock step dryly discuss,
from all angles of U.S. concerns, whether or not this plan of seeing
that less Afghanis fall in harms way of the 'coalition forces' is going
to work, so America can "win the
war." (Whatever 'winning' means is up for interpretation.) "U.S. plans
for Afghanistan" are discussed by panels of experts, on talk shows, on
interviews with important people, with nary a single blessed word about
the Afghanis themselves, except as what might serve U.S. interests,
quite as if Afghanistan were owned by the United States - no, actually
much worse - for if it was U.S. territory, its citizens would have some
rights. Already two years ago, the very legislature elected under U.S.
occupation asked that the bombing cease, and that all foreign forces
leave Afghanistan. The Associated Press wire report of this was ignored
by networks and newspapers. We read the AP report on the Internet. The
U.S. will leave when it decides to.
1 | 2