Here are some trenchant insights from David Lindorff in Holiday Greetings: President and Man-of-Peace Obama Has a Xmas Present for Afghanistan.
Excerpts:
Merry Xmas Jarheads!! The Man of Peace, Nobel Laureate-to-be, President Barack Obama, your chickenhawk commander-in-chief, is shipping you out as a holiday gift to the people of Afghanistan.
You will be delivering bullets and bombs, with my name and the name of other American taxpayers on them, to the long-suffering people of Afghanistan by December 25, according to what Mr. Hope and Change’s told the nation in a speech delivered at West Point last night.
Back here in America, the land of the free and brave, come the holidays, we will be scraping together the cash to buy small gifts for our kids, hopefully without having to miss a rent payment or a mortgage payment. Fortunately, we’ve got Food Stamps, which are now, we are told, flooding the suburbs, and are “no longer a stigma,” so we won’t be hurting too much for Christmas dinner—though you still can’t use the stamps to buy eggnog.
It will be interesting to hear what your commanders tell you your mission is. The president is saying we need to keep Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, which he dishonestly called the "epicenter" of global terrorism, but from what I hear, there are no Al Qaeda operatives in the country. They all upped and left for greener pastures a long time ago—to places like Pakistan, Somalia, and maybe Europe and the USA. Hell, they can go anywhere. How do you spot an Al Qaeda guy anyhow? The fellows getting on the plane in Boston on 9-11 were clean-shaven and wore Brooks Brothers shirts, looking more like bond traders than bombers.
No, you will be targeting the Taliban. But the Taliban are Afghans, and look just like the people who are not Taliban, so what you’ll most likely be doing half the time or more is shooting up ordinary struggling Afghani peasants and shopkeepers, or members of weddings or funerals, whose angry relatives will then seek revenge by setting traps or ambushes for you. ...
You’ll be called “our heroes,” too. I’m not sure why. I mean, it takes a certain amount of guts just to sign up for an outfit like the Marines, I know (my dad volunteered to be a Marine in WWII). But I just find it hard to see what’s so heroic about being part of the best-armed, best-trained fighting force in the history of mankind and fighting a group of poor, uneducated peasants armed at best with AK rifles and home-made bombs—especially when you guys reportedly outnumber your enemy by better than 10:1, and have the backing of completely unchallenged air support—F-16s, helicopter gunships, fixed-wing gunships and B-1 bombers. That’s not a fight. It’s a slaughter. ...
So when you’re over there, try to kill as few of the poor Afghanis as you can. That would be a genuine act of heroism. Or just refuse to go. That would even be more heroic still.
Don’t believe your commander-in-chief when he says you are defending America over there. I’m confident that you’ll see pretty quickly once you get there that the notion that those poor people could be in any way a threat to this nation is beyond ludicrous.
No, what you’ll be defending is Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama’s scheme to look tough on defense, and to be able to kick the can of this ugly, pointless war down the road past the 2012 election without having to run as the "president who lost Afghanistan."
4 comments:
Ms. Wright,
You wrote,
And so, more 21-year-old Americans will not get to live out their 20's. Not because they're defending a homeland under siege or even in threat of danger, but due only to deceiving politicians, who are egged on by zealots whose warped sense of patriotism is tied to their love of war..
Except for the line about a "love of war," this is spot on. This forced globalization of the Muslim world is foolish and costly. Good men are losing their lives to make the Muslims into liberals/egalitarians. It's absurd and criminal.
But then you say this to American servicemen fighting the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which seems odd:
That’s not a fight. It’s a slaughter. ...
So when you’re over there, try to kill as few of the poor Afghanis as you can. That would be a genuine act of heroism. Or just refuse to go. That would even be more heroic still.
But of course the men in uniform do not select their enemies. To follow your advice, then, they'd have to leave the service/never join.
Also, you imply that the Afghans are victims simply because they're weak. But that logic does not follow. The Afghans, however weak, did attack us and kill 3000 of our people using very rudimentary methods. True, they could do so only because we foolishly allowed Muslims into our country, but they still did it all the same.
They are weak, yes, but not innocent.
Bartholomew wrote:
But then you say this to American servicemen fighting the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which seems odd: "That's not a fight. It's a slaughter. ...So when you're over there, try to kill as few of the poor Afghanis as you can. That would be a genuine act of heroism. Or just refuse to go. That would even be more heroic still."
But of course the men in uniform do not select their enemies. To follow your advice, then, they'd have to leave the service/never join.
This text that you quote is what I referred to as the "trenchant" words of David Lindorff, author of the article being cited. They are not my words.
However, many young soldiers have left and others are serving time in military jail for their refusal to do any more damage to these people. First of all, whether or not the 9/11 plot took place in Afghanistan, the majority of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, so why aren't we bombing that country? We all know why.
And, are you saying there are no innocent civilians in Afghanistan? I guess those eight dead children (from one family) don't count as innocents? Or that mother, who pitifully tried to protect her two daughters by covering them and herself with blankets and other items, but all three were murdered by fire from the air. One of the most horrifying photos is of her and the children -- she, with her open mouth still in a scream and her arms around both dead children. But she and those children were probably militants, right?
I'm sorry about the mistake; I should have read more carefully.
It seems from your response to me, though, that you agree with what Lindorff has written.
You wrote,
First of all, whether or not the 9/11 plot took place in Afghanistan, the majority of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, so why aren't we bombing that country? We all know why.
Well, I too find Saudi Arabia to be a questionable "ally" but that doesn't make them responsible for 9/11. Should we have bombed Britain because one of its citizens tried to take down an American airplane with his shoe? Of course not. But what if British intelligence had equipped him with that shoe and paid for his ticket? Well, I think you'd agree that the British government would be significantly more culpable.
And, are you saying there are no innocent civilians in Afghanistan? I guess those eight dead children (from one family) don't count as innocents?
Yes, it's true that our military has killed innocents. But that's true of every military engagement, American or otherwise. If you applied a "no innocent casualties" standard consistently, you would have to disallow war completely. Now if you're a pacifist, that's fine, but you ought to state that openly, particularly if you advise, even indirectly, active duty servicemen.
Bartholomew wrote:
Yes, it's true that our military has killed innocents. But that's true of every military engagement, American or otherwise. If you applied a "no innocent casualties" standard consistently, you would have to disallow war completely.
No, I'm not a pacifist. But I'm against totally unnecessary war that is really generated by hidden agendas. And I'm certainly against the U.S. government being held hostage to a military establishment that, because of its size and the tens of thousands of individuals dependent upon its paychecks, to say nothing of the multitude of weapons contracts, looks around for the next atrocity it can stir up. Those 19 hijackers of 9/11 were thugs who should have been hunted down, not by a military, but by a police force, as is done in this country.
And I'm against fat, comfortable men, who sit on their asses here at home and care nothing about the young men who are dying for absolutely nothing. These young people are also trapped, due to their financial circumstances, with limited options, which the military exploits. Not one of these soldiers has played a role in "protecting" this country, because it has no need of protection. It's that little Chosen Land in the Middle East that's in need of protection.
So, la-de-da that innocents are killed. Gee, it happens in every worthless war. Why make a fuss about it, right? After all, they're only A-rabs!
Post a Comment