Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Who Are the Real Psychopaths in Afghanistan?

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted May 11, 2009.


The U.S. has killed twice as many Afghan civilians as the Taliban this year and that number is sure to rise.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The bodies of dozens, perhaps well over a hundred, women, children and men, their corpses blown into bits of human flesh by iron fragmentation bombs dropped by U.S. warplanes in a village in the western province of Farah, illustrates the futility of the Afghan war. We are not delivering democracy or liberation or development. We are delivering massive, sophisticated forms of industrial slaughter. And because we have employed the blunt and horrible instrument of war in a land we know little about and are incapable of reading, we embody the barbarism we claim to be seeking to defeat.

We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the Taliban, who Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed during the 10-year war with the Soviet Union. Acid thrown into a girl's face or beheadings? Death delivered from the air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of war. It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak.

Afghan survivors carted some two dozen corpses from their villages to the provincial capital in trucks this week to publicly denounce the carnage. Some 2,000 angry Afghans in the streets of the capital chanted "Death to America!" But the grief, fear and finally rage of the bereaved do not touch those who use high-minded virtues to justify slaughter. The death of innocents, they assure us, is the tragic cost of war. It is regrettable, but it happens. It is the price that must be paid. And so, guided by a president who once again has no experience of war and defers to the bull-necked generals and militarists whose careers, power and profits depend on expanded war, we are transformed into monsters.

There will soon be 21,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan in time for the expected surge in summer fighting. There will be more clashes, more airstrikes, more deaths and more despair and anger from those forced to bury their parents, sisters, brothers and children. The grim report of the killings in the airstrike, issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated that bombs hit civilian houses and noted that an ICRC counterpart in the Red Crescent was among the dead, will become familiar reading in the weeks and months ahead.

We are the best recruiting weapon the Taliban possesses. We have enabled it to rise from the ashes seven years ago to openly control over half the country and carry out daylight attacks in the capital Kabul. And the war we wage is being exported like a virus to Pakistan in the form of drones that bomb Pakistani villages and increased clashes between the inept Pakistani military and a restive internal insurgency.

I spoke in New York City a few days ago with Dr. Juliette Fournot, who lived with her parents in Afghanistan as a teenager, speaks Dari and led teams of French doctors and nurses from Mdecins Sans Frontires, or Doctors Without Borders, into Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets. She participated in the opening of clandestine cross-border medical operations missions between 1980 and 1982 and became head of the French humanitarian mission in Afghanistan in 1983. Dr. Fournot established logistical bases in Peshawar and Quetta and organized the dozen cross-border and clandestine permanent missions in the resistance-held areas of Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Badakhshan, Paktia, Ghazni and Hazaradjat, through which more than 500 international aid workers rotated.

She is one of the featured characters in a remarkable book called "The Photographer," produced by photojournalist Didier Lefvre and graphic novelist Emmanuel Guibert. The book tells the story of a three-month mission in 1986 into Afghanistan led by Dr. Fournot. It is an unflinching look at the cost of war, what bombs, shells and bullets do to human souls and bodies. It exposes, in a way the rhetoric of our politicians and generals do not, the blind destructive fury of war. The French humanitarian group withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2004 after five of its aid workers were assassinated in a clearly marked vehicle.

"The American ground troops are midterm in a history that started roughly in 1984 and 1985 when the State Department decided to assist the Mujahedeen, the resistance fighters, through various programs and military aid. USAID, the humanitarian arm serving political and military purposes, was the seed for having a different kind of interaction with the Afghans," she told me. "The Afghans were very grateful to receive arms and military equipment from the Americans."

"But the way USAID distributed its humanitarian assistance was very debatable," she went on. "It still puzzles me. They gave most of it to the Islamic groups such as the Hezb-e Islami of [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar. And I think it is possibly because they were more interested in the future stability of Pakistan rather than saving Afghanistan. Afghanistan was probably a good ground to hit and drain the blood from the Soviet Union. I did not see a plan to rebuild or bring peace to Afghanistan. It seemed that Afghanistan was a tool to weaken the Soviet Union. It was mostly left to the Pakistani intelligence services to decide what would be best and how to do it and how by doing so they could strengthen themselves."

The Pakistanis, Dr. Fournot said, developed a close relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, like the Americans, flooded the country with money and also exported conservative and often radical Wahhabi clerics. The Americans, aware of the relationship with the Saudis as well as Pakistan's secret program to build nuclear weapons, looked the other way. Washington sowed, unwittingly, the seeds of destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It trained, armed and empowered the militants who now kill them.

The relationship, she said, bewildered most Afghans, who did not look favorably upon this radical form of Islam. Most Afghans, she said, wondered why American aid went almost exclusively to the Islamic radicals and not to more moderate and secular resistance movements.

"The population wondered why they did not have more credibility with the Americans," she said. "They could not understand why the aid was stopped in Pakistan and distributed to political parties that had limited reach in Afghanistan. These parties stockpiled arms and started fighting each other. What the people got in the provinces was miniscule and irrelevant. And how did the people see all this? They had great hopes in the beginning and gradually became disappointed, bitter and then felt betrayed. This laid the groundwork for the current suspicion, distrust and disappointment with the U.S. and NATO."

Dr. Fournot sees the American project in Afghanistan as mirroring that of the doomed Soviet occupation that began in December 1979. A beleaguered Afghan population, brutalized by chaos and violence, desperately hoped for stability and peace. The Soviets, like the Americans, spoke of equality, economic prosperity, development, education, women's rights and political freedom. But within two years, the ugly face of Soviet domination had unmasked the flowery rhetoric. The Afghans launched their insurgency to drive the Soviets out of the country.

Dr. Fournot fears that years of war have shattered the concept of nationhood. "There is so much personal and mental destruction," she said. "Over 70 percent of the population has never known anything else but war. Kids do not go to school. War is normality. It gives that adrenaline rush that provides a momentary sense of high, and that is what they live on. And how can you build a nation on that?"

The Pashtuns, she noted, have built an alliance with the Taliban to restore Pashtun power that was lost in the 2001 invasion. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, to the Pashtuns, a meaningless demarcation that was drawn by imperial powers through the middle of their tribal lands. There are 13 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and another 28 million in Pakistan. The Pashtuns are fighting forces in Islamabad and Kabul they see as seeking to wrest from them their honor and autonomy. They see little difference between the Pakistani military, American troops and the Afghan army.

Islamabad, while it may battle Taliban forces in Swat or the provinces, does not regard the Taliban as a mortal enemy. The enemy is and has always been India. The balance of power with India requires the Pakistani authorities to ensure that any Afghan government is allied with it. This means it cannot push the Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province or in Afghanistan too far. It must keep its channels open. The cat-and-mouse game between the Pakistani authorities and the Pashtuns, which drives Washington to fury, will never end. Islamabad needs the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan more than the Pashtuns need them.

The U.S. fuels the bonfires of war. The more troops we send to Afghanistan, the more drones we send on bombing runs over Pakistan, the more airstrikes we carry out, the worse the unraveling will become. We have killed twice as many civilians as the Taliban this year and that number is sure to rise in the coming months.

"I find this term 'collateral damage' dehumanizing," Dr. Fournot said, "as if it is a necessity. People are sacrificed on the altar of an idea. Air power is blind. I know this from having been caught in numerous bombings."

We are faced with two stark choices. We can withdraw and open negotiations with the Taliban or continue to expand the war until we are driven out. The corrupt and unpopular regimes of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Asif Ali Zardari are impotent allies. The longer they remain tethered to the United States, the weaker they become. And the weaker they become, the louder become the calls for intervention in Pakistan. During the war in Vietnam, we invaded Cambodia to bring stability to the region and cut off rebel sanctuaries and supply routes. This tactic only empowered the Khmer Rouge. We seem poised, in much the same way, to do the same for radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"If the Americans step up the war in Afghanistan, they will be sucked into Pakistan," Dr. Fournot warned. "Pakistan is a time bomb waiting to explode. You have a huge population, 170 million people. There is nuclear power. Pakistan is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. War always has its own logic. Once you set foot in war, you do not control it. It sucks you in."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: afghanistan, chris hedges

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
something odd
Posted by: LillianB on May 11, 2009 7:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something fishy about this war. The media is doing more covering up than covering it. Wonder why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you like DEM jackboots now? Posted by: chance garden
» It is Obama's war now Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: something odd Posted by: mindtrvlr
Chris, the lies of 9/11 brought us the Afghanistan War. Expose those lies and you stop the war!
Posted by: pfgetty on May 11, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christ Hedges, you are one of my favorite writers. You go where others fear to tread.
And yet you ignore the most important story of all time, and I demand to know why.

9/11 brought us the Afghanistan war, and Iraq, and torture and the Patriot Act, and so much you hate. You know that, and I'm sure you have thought a lot about it.
And so you MUST know that the official story of 9/11, that told us agents from Afghanistan attacked us that day, is BS. They told us that we would be attacked again if we did not take control of that country.

In fact, if their official story is correct, then I guess Bush and Cheyney did pretty well in going after those who brought us that horror.
But you CERTAINLY know that the official story is bogus. Our own government was complicit in 9/11. The buildings at the WTC collapsed because of controlled demolition. I have, and I'd assume you have, proof of that. If you don't, email me at pfgetty@embarqmail.com

Alternet and the rest of the alternative sites have completely ignored the overwhelming and glaring evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. We now have irrefutable proof of that, because of the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan and other distinguished scientists and their peer reviewed paper, "Active Thermite found in dust samples at the WTC catastrophe". Read more about that at www.ae911truth.org. But I'm sure you know about that. Any journalist who cares would know.

What on earth is keeping you from doing the responsible and patriotic thing: bringing 9/11 truth to the public. Please tell me and if it is a good reason, I'll not bug you again. But our future depends on it. Our world is a mess because of 9/11, and the truth would bring an end to much of that mess. We continue to slaughter innocent people far away because of those lies, and our own people continue to die, and I can't help but blame American journalists for the continued atrocities, all because they will not expose the lies of the official story of 9/11.

Please, Chris..........I wish I were in your position to bring light to the world about 9/11. Do it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CONDI'S LACK OF IMAGINATION Posted by: Dennis St. John
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» I've never heard of them. Posted by: pfgetty
» More false accusations? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Sounds like a plan %^) Posted by: GuitarBill
» More false accusations, LIAR? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Again, different tactic Posted by: bingahaba
» Guitar Bill Posted by: weathered
» RE: Guitar Bill Posted by: sunnywater
» Stuff your dime-store psychology. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Guitar Bill Posted by: chomsky
» Sorry, dude, I can't read Hebrew. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Why not face the facts? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Why not face the facts? Posted by: chomsky
» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» Go play in the freeway, @$$face. Posted by: GuitarBill
Truth in Exile
Posted by: psychologist on May 11, 2009 8:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it disgusting that a reporter with no experience in our profession would use a psychological term to attack our military and attempt to condemn our work to bring stability in the region. I would remind the good author of this article that 56 million people died in World War Two. The use of carpet bombing under a democratic administration brought countless of thousands to their deaths. That a democratic administration dropped two nukes on Japan, and authorized incendiary bombs on cities that burned the flesh off German and Japanese babies and women without a blink of an eye. Yet you have the audacity to condemn our fight on terror. What is next standing at airport gates and screaming baby burner and spitting on our brave men and woman who are putting their lives on the line in the war on terror?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Truth in Exile Posted by: malehawk
» RE: Truth in Exile Posted by: davy
» Flawed Truth in Exile Posted by: bonapartist
» Idiocy on Parade Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Truth in Exile Posted by: jareilly
» RE: Truth in Exile Posted by: dsmidiman
"War is hell and you cannot refine it."
Posted by: Dennis St. John on May 11, 2009 8:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So said General Sherman, and he should know.

It is reasonable to suppose that the Russians will give us some payback in Afghanistan. Just as we armed the Taliban with sophisticated weapons in order to defeat the Russians, so likewise they may well arm our enemies to defeat us. This is going to be a long, bloody slaughter for everyone involved.

In ten or fifteen years we'll be off to another part of the third world to kill more people. We have entered the Age of Endless War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TAKE A VALIUM Posted by: Dennis St. John
» OK, I was wrong Posted by: leafsong1
DEMS SEEK TO FORCE USA UNDER UN SHARIA LAW BY SEEKING ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT-part A
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 11, 2009 8:31 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DEMS run around waiving their arms that about GITMO AND ABU-GARIB and torture while constantly hiding the fact that the USA confiscated in iraq from a taliban safe-house a torture manual with torture so severe it violates every CONVENTION in existence and that gets swept under the rug along with the fact that...

RIGHT NOW friend and foe here and overseas, want to subject the US MILITARY personnel to indictment and prosecution by the ICC.

GERMANY AND ITALY have actually already indicted US CIA agents for supposedly capturing radical islamic terriorists.

This is an infringement on our SOVEREIGNTY and a dagger aimed at our US MILITARY.

As a result, they may soon want to charge our troops overseas whom are fighting against terriorism, with trumped up "war crime" charges.

Charges like claiming Americans committed genocide, or claim we committed crimes against humanity. There's a leftist group in Paris, plus Argentina, Sweden, whom want to charge Rumsfeld for allegedly authorizing torture at Guantanamo bay, and abu Graib prison in Iraq claiming 1984 convention against torture, which FRANCE has used in previous torture cases.

it's really time to put the UN on notice that the days where the USA would mindlessly supply it with money, men, military equipment and blood without conditions are simply over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please read something Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Huh? Posted by: marid
DEMS SEEK TO FORCE USA UNDER SHARIA LAW BY SEEKING UN SEAT AND ONE WORLD GOV-PART B
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 11, 2009 8:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact the latest---the new UN SEC GENERAL has already stipulated he wants NYC police officers to serve in UN peacekeeping mission in places like haiti, kosovo, and liberia.

here is one more reason why

CLINTON IN 2000 gave his blessing to the whole globalist thing on the UN "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC). The DEMOCRATS all along want to make US citizens SERVANTS TO THE UN AS OUR GOVERNMENT instead of a country governed by WE THE PEOPLE.

Thankfully Bush saw the serious threat this Socialist star chamber posed to our military and he told them to stuff a sock in it. Apparantly at that time the UN was insulted by it. Although the REPUBLICANS tried twice to negotiate immunity for US peacekeepers thru the Sec Council.

Well, the anti-Americans at the UN wouldn't have any of it and the Abu Graib prison gave Kofi Annan the opening he wanted. The he tried to wrap himself in the human right mantle by claiming it would be unfotunate for someone to press for such an exemption given the prisoner abuse in Iraq.

We all know that if Mr. Amman really cared a thing about human rights he would have protested the revolving membership of certain countries with human rights track records. However, the Sanctimonious UN and Annan are always silent on the topic of human rights; except when it comes to taking cheap shots at the US

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMS SEEK TO FORCE USA UNDER SHARIA LAW BY SEEKING UN SEAT AND ONE WORLD GOV-PART C
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 11, 2009 8:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile the globalists Anti-American ICC supporters criticized Mr. Bush claiming we were "undermining international LAW, the reality, THEY were writing new INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO protect themselves.



RIGHT NOW --the GRINCHES at the UN want to create something called a TRANSNATIONAL TREATY where anything protecting our USA PUBLIC that happens in our courts that GOVERNMENT DOESN'T LIKE gets kicked out of court would be sent to THE UN whom will then OVERRIDE THE WILL OF AMERICAN PUBLIC and ENFORCE it's SHARIA LAW rule over this NATION.

Want to know WHAT were the "agreement on the Privileges and immunities of the ICC" ratified with the assent of ONLY 10 NATION--it flat out provides the ICC immunity from "every form of legal process anywhere".

**They stated that the "property, funds, and assets" of the ICC "shall be IMMUNE from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. And, the ICC and it's assets they said "are to be exempt from all direct taxes" including local taxes and customs.

** Meantime they want to IMPOSE the GLOBAL POVERTY TAX which would most certainly bankrupt the USA; while they engage in the Socialist rhetoric of how we are "selfish" for not wanting to pay more taxes. This is their idea of spread the wealth. Notice the funds are always going someplace else instead of to the PUBLIC.

How many people don't know all throughout history the spread the wealth has always been used in facist/socialist/communist elections

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMS SEEK TO FORCE USA UNDER SHARIA LAW BY SEEKING UN SEAT AND ONE WORLD GOV-PART D
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 11, 2009 8:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RIGHT NOW-- OBAMA AND DEMS are attempting to seek a seat at the SHARIA LAW UN and the DEMS want to PUT INTO EFFECT ---TRANSNATIONAL TREATY---what does thaaat mean?? it means anything that the PUBLIC decides in court that is beneficial to WE THE PUBLIC that the GOV doesn't like --it WILL get kicked out of all courts at all levels and be sent TO THE UN international court WHERE they will IMPOSE THE WILL OF SHARIA LAW/UN court on the AMERICAN PUBLIC.

OBAMA AND WASH DC SLUGS WANT TO once again endanger this country by FORCING the US under SERVANTHOOD to the U-NATION which is SHARIA LAW. This will DESTROY our CONSTITUTION and make it IMPOSSIBLE for the USA AMERICAN public to govern themselves. --always the bottom line isn't it??

Long and short of it----the ICC MEMBERS have declared themselves IMMUNE form "personal arrest or detention, Legal process of every kind and immigration restrictions.



Oh then then lastly, the "salaries, emoluments and allowances" of the judges prosecutor deputy prosecutor and the registras of the ICC ARE EXEMPT from taxaition.

What hypocrites, it seems to run DEEP in the UN, but it indicates the lengths to which globalists will go to undermine National SOVEREIGNTY.

There's no mistaking it, the ICC SEVERELY undermines our Sovereignty and has over the years placed our troops at great risk.

It CLAIMS complete jurisdiction over every person in the world and it makes no difference to them whether or not that nation has even ratified the treaty.

And, FRANKLY our own constitution may soon be up to the interpretation of 18 foreign -and for the most part hostile-ICC JUDGES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMS SEEK TO FORCE USA UNDER SHARIA LAW BY SEEKING UN SEAT AND ONE WORLD GOV-PART E
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 11, 2009 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long and short of it, the ICC is literally a dagger in the heart of our US SOVEREIGNTY, our freedom and our independence.

DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how 'STUPID' they view Americans. Here is what Norman THOMAS one of the Founders of the ACLU says QUOTE Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened.

What we need to investigate is how the DEMOCRATS and ACLU think that they can continue to count on Americans being as stupid as the ACLU thinks Americans are. So they can further their Soc/glob/marx/fac/comm agenda.

Right now PUBLIC signatures are needed to legally protect USA sovereignty see American Center for law and justice.
also stoptheaclu.com & focus on the family & familysecuritymatters.org &

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» wow Posted by: antiapathy
» You are such a good little nazi Posted by: leafsong1
» THE ANSEWER Posted by: mindtrvlr
"We have met the enemy...
Posted by: magistre on May 11, 2009 9:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND HE IS US!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chris Hedges perpetuates the myth of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Posted by: LeftWright on May 12, 2009 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html


* * * * * * * *

Dr. Brzezinski admits that he helped precipitate 30 years of U.S. crimes against the Afghan people. This man should be in prison.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The war that could not be won. Posted by: SocoLoco
How far is too far?
Posted by: Basenjis on May 12, 2009 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should set aside this day as a day of national mourning--not only for the wanton and cold-blooded savagery of this, our latest attack on the helpless and hopeless people of Afghanistan--but for the death of even a shred of hope still lingering that the new administration will bring any change anyone at all can believe in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How far is too far? Today! Posted by: VZEQICVA
Operative Line 'WE empowered, funded...."
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 12, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE Broke Afghanistan and left them at the mercy of the Taliban and AQ decades ago.
If we are to ahve a SErious conversation about our obligation to Afghanistan we must begin with OUR part in the Afghani/Russian war and what we failed to do once the Russian left- We left too, leaving a vaccuum for the Taliban and AQ to oppress and abuse the citizens. Fields used for poppies to fund their terrorist activities around the world. People subjected to the strict and harsh rules of this military outfit and their 'moral' justifiers.
WE FUCKED the Afghanis and left them to suffer 2 decades ago- Coitus Interruptus.Those of the time who pretended they were 'helping' the afghanis are to blame for not only this war, and the springboard ability it provided into Iraq, but 9/11. There only interest was in fighting a covert Cold War, they had no regard or concern for the afghani people. They set them up for the foreign insurgency of AQ - which merely used it as ONE of it's College Campus Locations.Providing an excuse years later to use them again for their quest to seize oil rich lands for their Royal Oil Overlords.
so you're all Ready to PULL OUT again? As someone who never wanted boots on the Ground to begin with after 9/11- this seems like 'Deja Vu all over again', Only once again reconstituting the excat same ingredients and conditions to assure we are Attacked 9along with other nations) AGAIN.
This is not going to be easy, it's not going to be without major drawbacks. But that's excatly what happens when you Fuck Something up the First time- It's ten times harder than if you had dont it Right on the First Go around.So ya Wanna Bitch- bitch to those who were in the Reagan Admin,Bitch to McCain who's Group provided not only funds but boots to Binny's fledgling groups of "Afghani Freedom Fighters"- McCain Used that Term during one of his Debates with Obama!!! He's still considers AQ 'Freedom fighters'!!!!! No wonder he 'Knows how to catch Bin laden' He's been to his place for Dinner & Drinks- Is the Estate Called 'Hell'?? McCain would 'chase him to the Gates' Then what take off his shoes and straighten his tie?
You want to help the Afghani People, prove we are no longer part of their oppressors, Not only catch and execute Binny, but prosecute all those Reaganites who GAVE him the Seat of Power in Afghanistan to begin with!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Muslim practice?
Posted by: grindermonkey on May 12, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Muslims usually take great pains to assemble the individual remains of the dead and bury them the same day. Why would they deviate from this religious practice in this case?

The accuracy of the incident needs some amplification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Muslim practice? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Muslim practice? Posted by: babs
Chris Hedges and courageous integrity
Posted by: weathered on May 12, 2009 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are mutually inclusive.

'the God in me bows to the God in you'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are the really "GoodGuys" in all of these world wide wars -----
Posted by: symcokid on May 12, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so our enemies or adversaries have to be the "savages", interlopers, heathens, insurgents and the like - all those "bad guys" are the psychopaths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first casualty of war...
Posted by: QQOblivion on May 12, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About that massacre in Farah, Afghanistan: It seems rather odd that the US, a country with a solid history of telling lies about the battlefield, would first claim that the number of casualties from the massacre is half what others have claimed, THEN turn around and say, "Oh yeah, it was the TALIBAN who did it. Yeahhhh, the Taliban,... That's the ticket." (Allusion to Jon Lovitz's pathological-liar routine.)
I mean, if the US REALLY believed that the Taliban were the ones responsible for the massacre, wouldn't the US have originally upped the estimation of the number dead, instead of lowering it? Then the US changed their story. Fishy.

Now the US is saying that it is the Taliban who are using Whiskey Pete on Afghan civilians. Sure, the Taliban are evil and all, and are probably capable of using white phosphorous on civilians. But there is evidence that it is the US who used the WP. And with the American track-record of truth-telling, or of not doing so, whom are we really to believe? Hmmm?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All bushed up
Posted by: willymack on May 12, 2009 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Texas Turd is gone, but his destructive policies and actions seem to have slopped over into the Obama administration. Obama has a very dangerous and reactionary tiger by the tail in the persons of the bloated Pentagon mini empire, backed up by some very nasty criminals in the shadows, to whom war means huge profits. This sorry state of affairs was predicted by none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower, way back in 1961, in his outgoing speech and his book "Mandate for a Change". Eisenhower was the last REAL Republican in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CONSIDER HIS OPPOSITION... Posted by: joeocho88
Regarding: "It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap"
Posted by: chance garden on May 12, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes the American military strategists believe that they can avoid the SAME FATE as the Russians in Afghanistan?

History repeatedly has taught that Afghanistan is the "Graveyard of Empires." Just like the Russians, America has now been drawn into the "Afghan Trap" and is in fact now ANOTHER VIETNAM.

The escalation of the conflict proves beyond a doubt that the US has NO INTENTION of bringing the troops home from the region anytime soon.

IT IS all about control of the oil and resources, and the profits from sale of the these. This has been the case ever since before 1900 AD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» QUITE SO Posted by: Dennis St. John
» RE: QUITE SO Posted by: babs
» RE: QUITE SO Posted by: chance garden
CHRIS HEDGES, I READ YOUR BOOK
Posted by: Dennis St. John on May 12, 2009 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

I agree with your thesis. The salient point you missed, however, is that the Right is hardly Christian. Most churches in America are corporations doing business as churches.

The church of Jesus Christ was spirited away into the wilderness for 1250 years (see Revelation), during which time the world church system arose, purporting to be Christian and led by ersatz clergy.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light."

There can be no greater perversity than to kill, wage wars, and commit similar evils in the name of Jesus Christ.

Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He possessed the power to annihilate mankind, but he laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example. "Yet will I show you a more excellent Way." Christians by definition follow the teachings and example of Jesus.

The Christian Right is neither Christian nor right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vietnam
Posted by: badkitty on May 12, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, this has to be conclusive proof our military did not learn any lessons from Vietnam. It's past time to dismantle the Department of Defense. We can spend the money on more useful things and probably even lower taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too complex to put across poignantly
Posted by: Bizatch! on May 12, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I appreciate this article and others by Chris Hedges, the real problem for reporters is that this conflict is very hard to explain in obvious terms. This is not a criticism of Hedges, but of the numerous conflicts that rage across the globe: Haiti, the Tamil Tigers, Syria, Central Asia...

To educate oneself about the causes and origins of these events is too much to ask of most people. There's so much regional, cultural information to learn. I've spent much of the last ten years trying to get up to speed myself... when I read another reasonable expose such as this one, I can't help but imagine how many other folks would walk away from such a convoluted, nonlinear narrative. Unfortunately, it is easier for most citizens to accept the neatly packaged reductive stories that emanate from mainstream news outlets.

I can't help but wonder if the State Department doesn't consciously capitalize on this confusion: the stirred-up pot of Afghanistan is beyond the imaginations of most people to begin with. Add all the other tragic flaws behind this debacle, and nothing is lucid anymore. I believe this works to the advantage of 'our' war chiefs in arguing the case at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shocked
Posted by: Ptah on May 12, 2009 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks, Chris. I am shocked but unsurprised by the blind faith of the man in whom I had put so much of my own faith. Barack Obama has let himself be led far astray from the humanistic and natal "aloha spirit" values which he so eloquently espoused during the presidential campaign. Untempered by the personal experience of war, Barack appears to have placed his blind faith in the ravings of the spineless warriors of the Pentagon, and other advisors, who see the tip of a bullet and bomb to be mightier than the tip of the pen and tongue in conflict resolution and intercultural understanding. Where is your aloha spirit of reconciliation rather than of violence, Mr. President? Where are your balls, Barack? You may be too young to remember Vietnam, Mr. Obama, but there are millions of us, your elders, who do. Listen to your fathers and mothers on this and "just say no" to AfPak hegemony and yes to life!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shocked Posted by: GEM-592
civilian deaths
Posted by: Noah_Scape on May 12, 2009 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the term "collateral damage" is dehumanizing. It equates a bridge or a building that gets blown up by bombing raids with a human life - that is the definition of dehumanizing.


The term "civilian casualties" tells the truth better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get A Life
Posted by: shiftjammer on May 12, 2009 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whats the use of having an Army. If we can't kill a few innocent civilians. You Pansy wasted Liberal Democrat Sissy Boys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get A Life Posted by: GEM-592
AS THEY SAY
Posted by: mindtrvlr on May 13, 2009 12:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kill them all and let Allah sort em out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftwright, Cherry Picking Quotes
Posted by: EncinoM on May 13, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does not prove anything. It is just a dishonest tactic of the "truth" movement to attempt to hide the fact that they really have no proof, only rumors and innuendo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real psychopath of Afghanistan? OBAMA
Posted by: xbj on May 13, 2009 10:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama.

Obama.

OBAMA.

Told you a year ago right here that he would escalate his "smart" war in the Mideast.

Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement