Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Coffins from Ghana
Video
What Would Jesus Buy?
Blog
David Byrne: Gas Wars
Game
No More Heroes 2: Desperate Struggle
Art
New York photographer Trixie Bedlam plays with toys
Cool tools
Hot links
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Crude War of Revenge - From Mike Whitney

The Bush war in Afghanistan has brought only suffering and devastation. Thousands have been killed or displaced. Vast swathes of the countryside have been contaminated with radioactive dust that collects in clouds and sweeps across the interior plains poisoning the groundwater and spreading cancer; another tragic memento of the U.S. occupation that will last for decades.

Afghanistan was supposed to be "the Good War". Originally, 95% of the American people supported the invasion as the proper response to the attacks of September 11. Liberals and conservatives alike joined the rush to war. The world needed to see America's iron-fisted wrath. It was "payback time". Tariq Ali called it, "A crude war of revenge". He was right. No one talks about caves anymore - or smoke. The pre-war zeal is gone. Vanished. The "hearts and minds" campaign is lost, too.

"The American war on terror is a mockery and so is the U.S. support of the present government in Afghanistan which is dominated by Northern Alliance terrorists," says Malalai Joya. "Far more civilians have been killed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan than were killed in the U.S. in the tragedy of September 11. More Afghan civilians have been killed by the U.S. than were ever killed by theTaliban... The U.S. should withdraw as soon as possible. We need liberation not occupation."

The Bush administration has reneged on every commitment it made to the Afghan people. There was never any attempt to provide security beyond the capital. Never. The U.S. handed over the countryside to the warlords who run their fiefdoms like Mafia Dons. There's no freedom. There's no safety. There's no rule of law. It's all a fabrication - another made-for-TV invasion that's 99% fiction. [More]

Go back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

Two victories in a single month. Amid the encircling economic gloom, it's hard to believe we deserve such good news. First, of course, Barack Obama's election win. And now Iraq's unexpected deal with the American government for the occupation to end at last.

Debated by the Iraqi parliament today, the agreement has been virtually ignored in many left-liberal circles as well as by most of the mainstream American media. We are so inured to thinking that the US will always get its way in Iraq, thanks to its enormous investment of troops and treasure, that any potentially contrary development is dismissed. The US has agreed to leave Iraq. "You must be joking," comes the response. "Why would they build 14 mega-bases if they didn't intend to stay for decades?" The US is allowing Iraqi courts jurisdiction over crimes committed by American troops. "Give me a break. You can't believe that," I hear the sneer.

Well, look at the agreement's text. It is remarkable for the number and scope of the concessions that the Iraqi government has managed to get from the Bush administration. They amount to a series of U-turns that spell the complete defeat of the neoconservative plan to turn Iraq into a pro-western ally and a platform from which to project US power across the Middle East.

The title gives the game away - Agreement on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organisation of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq. Remember how Bush (and his ally, Gordon Brown) constantly rejected any "artificial timetables" for pulling out the troops. Everything had to be "conditions-based", meaning that no dates could be given in advance since all depended on whether Iraq's own forces were ready to fill the gap. It was an elastic formula that allowed Washington to delay a withdrawal for ever.

That has gone by the board. The agreement stipulates that "all US forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31 2011". More remarkably, all combat troops will leave Iraqi towns and villages and go back to base by the end of June next year. Pause for a moment and take that in. Six years and three months after the invasion, Iraqi streets will be a US-free zone again.

 . . read more