All We Are Doing In Afghanistan Is Creating More Suffering

The American people have been duped on Afghanistan. They have been told that a victory in Afghanistan would be a victory against terrorism, and that we are (by fighting the Taliban and providing billions in aid) making the lives of Afghan citizens better.

The first was never true. Even if we could win a victory in Afghanistan, which is increasingly doubtful, it would do nothing to stop worldwide terrorism. Terrorists don't need to control a country to exist and do their dirty work. They rely on secrecy, not government control -- and they can live and train in many other countries (moving from one location to another when things get too hot). Winning in Afghanistan would do nothing to curb this, unless we are also willing to invade, conquer, and occupy many other countries also (and only a fool would believe we are capable of doing that, even if it was politically possible).

Now these charts show us that we are also failing in the other mission -- to make the lives of Afghan citizens better. In fact, we are doing just the opposite of that. We are causing more Afghans to have to struggle to live, and even more to suffer. Notice that the longer we have stayed in that country, the less people are thriving (dropping now to 0%) and the more suffering is created (now up to 61% of the population, with the other 39% struggling to keep their heads above water).

Our mission in Afghanistan has been an abject failure -- and there is no reason to believe that would change by staying any longer. But that is exactly what the Pentagon, with the blessing of the president, wants to do. While some troops are supposed to pull out at the end of this month, thousands will stay -- and their stay will be open-ended (having no timetable for a complete withdrawal).

It is time to stop this nonsense, and bring ALL of our troops back home. Staying will accomplish nothing but to kill more soldiers and civilians, and cause more suffering.

The charts above were made from Gallup Polls taken between 2008 and 2014 of a random national sample of at least 1,000 Afghan citizens each year, and has a margin of error of 3.8 points.

Green Party Blasts Israeli Land Theft And Terrorist Violence

Israel is once again sending troops into the Palestinian Territory of Gaza. They say it is in retaliation for Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlements and to find the tunnels that Palestinians are using to make those attacks. What they won't tell you is that the settlements they are defending are illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land -- settlements that have been condemned by most nations as theft.

They also won't tell you that those tunnels can just as easily be found and destroyed from the Israeli side of the border as from the Gaza side. Or that the shelling from ships off-shore just kills indiscriminately and has nothing to do with the tunnels. There is no real justification for this latest Israeli aggression against Gaza (or for that matter, the continued occupation of, and theft of Palestinian land). While I support Israel's right to exist, I cannot condone their land theft, or their continued violence against civilians to try and justify that theft.

On this matter, I find I'm in general agreement with the Green Party. Here is what Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Ajamu Baraka wrote on July 16th:

“Protective Edge,” the cartoonish name given to the latest Israeli military offensive against the occupied people of Palestine, is representative of the inverted reality whereby the 1.7 million captive and largely defenseless Palestinians in Gaza are the vicious aggressors against the peace-loving settlers of Israel. Similar to the inverted reality in the U.S., where the myth of the innocent settler was created to justify the systematic slaughter of Indigenous peoples, the genocidal policies of Israel are camouflaged by the transformation of its position from an armed colonial invader to one of victim.

This repositioning is aided and abetted in the U.S. by a corporate media whose worldview and angle of reporting is framed by the innocent settler narrative. This narrative simultaneously liquidates and normalizes the colonial relationship between the colonizer and the colonized so that the occupied territories are not occupied but transformed into “disputed” territories and all forms of resistance on the part of Palestinians becomes terroristic.

Informed by this imperial vision, the corporate media not only parrot Israel’s victim narrative but go even further with the creation of the two-equal-sides fiction. Mainstream coverage laments how both sides are locked in battle or a spiral of violence, giving the absurd impression that the violence in the occupied territories is a conflict between two forces with similar power and equal moral standing.

“The corporate media parrot Israel’s victim narrative.”

It should be clear that attempting to conceptually equate the force of the state of Israel, one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with a resistance movement of a captive people trapped by land and sea in an open-air concentration camp on one of the most densely populated strips of land on the planet is a position that is fundamentally immoral. Yet for most editors and reporters in the U.S., pro-Zionist liberals and their counterparts in the Christian Zionist movement as well as some elements of the European press and public, the conceptual blinders of white supremacist colonial consciousness makes it impossible to see the immorality inherent in this construction of the so-called conflict.

The position for most of the world is that the latest assault on the Palestinian people is a war crime and an ongoing crime against humanity. That position was affirmed by the international Court of Justice, which ruled that as an occupying military power Israel has an obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to protect the rights of civilians under military occupation. i

Within this legal framework, the killing of civilians under occupation, indiscriminate shelling of Palestinian communities, collective punishments, house demolitions, arbitrary imprisonment, the theft of water and other natural resources and the building of settlements in occupied territories are all considered war crimes and crimes against humanity.ii

That is the real story that should be communicated to the general public in the U.S. But instead, the public is being led to believe that the Israeli military assault is a legally and morally justified response to aggression from Hamas. From this perspective there is no special responsibility on the part of the Israeli authorities to protect the rights of Palestinians under military occupation, and the actions of the Israeli government in response to the killings of the three Israeli teenagers is seen as a measured and rational response.

Colonialism and the humanitarian fraud

Only the most naive believe the current military assault has anything to do with “defense” issues related to the symbolic resistance offered from Hamas via the firing of rockets into Israel. Honest commentators on this issue know that Israel provoked the response from the Palestinian resistance with the mass repression it launched in Gaza after the killings of the three Israeli teenagers in order to use the response to justify its attack on Hamas. An attack meant to destroy the newly established unity government of the Palestinians.

The colonialist mentality sees any resistance, no matter the form, as illegitimate, punishable by death and unrelenting terror. That message is clear for Palestinians as their homes are reduced to dust and the people dig out the bodies of their children, spouses, fathers and grandmothers. The other message communicated to Palestinians, once again, and which they understand all too well, is that compared to the lives of the settlers their lives are worthless and there is no “responsibility to protect” for them.

“Israel provoked the response from the Palestinian resistance with the mass repression it launched in Gaza after the killings of the three Israeli teenagers in order to use the response to justify its attack on Hamas.”

The assault on the people and the institutions of Gaza has as its objective the eradication of the people of Gaza – not necessarily in the physical sense, only because at this stage in global consciousness any such attempt would galvanize universal opposition, but to erase Gaza as a functioning society, to destroy it politically, culturally, spiritually and psychologically. A process that IIan Pappe refers to as “incremental genocide,iii that whatever the label is terroristic in its’ most naked, brutal and devastating effect.

When genocide or systematic ethnic cleansing is not a viable option, reducing the indigenous population to a weak, terrorized and dependent condition is the next best thing for settler policy. The targeting of the civilian infrastructure and governing institutions by the Israeli military makes it clear that this is the objective of the current attack on Gaza.

The international community has failed to hold the Israeli state accountable for war crimes and other serious violations of international law over the last four decades. Human rights organizations and United Nations special procedures have produced detailed reports on the crimes committed by Israel over the last four decades without the perpetrators being brought to justice.iv And when it comes to Israel, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect is exposed as the imperialist ideological construct that it is.

Images of Palestinian children being dug out of bombed-out residential buildings have not resulted in calls for humanitarian intervention to save a population that may be the most brutalized on the planet today. Instead, weak and pathetic calls are made for “both sides” to show restraint and protect “civilians” as though a distinction can be made or is ever made between combatants and non-combatants when it is the whole people who are seen as the enemy by Israeli authorities.

“The only solution to the original sin of the Zionist project is authentic decolonization.”

Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights points out the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to Israel.

“…instead of condemning such recourse to massive violence as ‘aggression’ that violates the UN Charter and fundamental international law principles, the reaction of Western diplomats and mainstream media has perversely sided with Israel. From the UN Secretary-General to the president of the United States, the main insistence has been that Hamas must stop all rocket attacks while Israel is requested ever so politely to show ‘maximum restraint’”.v

What is the future for Palestine? Is reconciliation possible within the context of an ongoing colonial relationship? Is a two-state solution still viable with more than 500,000 settlers occupying almost half of the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian state, a land base that is just 22 percent of original Palestine before the establishment of Israel?

Frantz Fanon argues that:

“One world, either that of the settler or that of the native, must be destroyed to bring the colonial system to an end. Not simply a military defeat or a political deal – the total destruction of the other mode of living.”

As the Israelis continue to steal Palestinian land, murder, degrade and humiliate Palestinian people, and create “facts on the ground” that make it impossible to establish a viable, independent Palestinian state, it is becoming clear that the only solution to the original sin of the Zionist project is authentic decolonization where the presence, humanity and sovereignty of the colonized is restored.

Authentic decolonization is the only solution because the inner logic of the colonial/capitalist process suggests that Fanon’s assertion is correct – that there can be no reconciliation of Palestinian self-determination and independent development with the continuation of the Israeli state as a settler state. Because even within the framework of the so-called two state solution, the material basis of the Israeli colonial project is dependent on the continued expansion and expropriation of Palestinian land and the subordination of Palestinian people.

So while some Palestinians and their supporters still hope for a two-state solution, Israeli rulers also understand Fanon’s position that “only one mode of living will survive” and are moving to destroy Palestinian resistance. This is the real story of Gaza and all of the occupied territories – an ongoing crime that degrades all of us who are forced to witness it.

Russia Puts Its Best - And Worst - Foot Forward

(The top picture is from paralympic.org, and the bottom one is from The Independent.)

Yesterday Russia put its best foot forward as it closed the Paralympic Winter Games with an original and creative ceremony. As with the Winter Olympic Games last month, Russia did a superb job of hosting the Paralympics. The face Russia showed the world was one of competence, peacefulness, integrity, and friendliness. In short, both the Olympics and Paralympics showed Russia in a very good light, and served as excellent public relations for that country.

Unfortunately, while they were putting their best foot forward they were also putting their worst foot forward. At the same time they were hosting the Paralympics, they were also invading and occupying the Ukranian province of Crimea. And yesterday, they oversaw a referendum (which they encouraged) in the Crimea -- a referendum over whether Crimea should leave Ukraine and become a part of Russia.

With about 75% of the votes counted, it is claimed that 96% of voters want to become a part of Russia.  This vote was already very suspect since the streets of Crimea are controlled by Russian troops and tunic-Russian paramilitary thugs, and the nearly unanimous vote makes it pretty obvious this was not a fair and free election. After all, only slightly more than half of Crimean people are ethnic Russians.

This is obviously just a reemergence of the old aggressive and expansionist tendencies of Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). While they mouth the right of the former Soviet States to be independent and go their own way, it is becoming clear that those are just words, and Russia has no intention of letting those countries leave their orbit and influence. It is already evident that Russia has taken the Crimea -- and that they may well be planning to take other parts (or all) of Ukraine. I think I'd be very nervous if I was a former Soviet State.

It is clear that something must be done to show Russia the rest of the world will not let them once again become an expansionist bully. The most reasonable reaction at this point is economic sanctions -- but these sanctions need to be more than just window dressing. They need to hurt, and make Russia think twice before pulling this kind of stunt again.

And a new CNN / ORC Poll (taken between March 7th and 9th of 801 nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points) shows the U.S. public may well be ready for action to be taken against Russia. About 81% say Russia's action against Ukraine was a violation of international law, and 72% say there was no justification for it. In addition, 69% of Americans now view Russia as a threat (from a low of 31%).

NOTE -- I do think the U.S. should take part in economic sanctions against Russia. But in light of the U.S. history of aggression against many other smaller countries (both economically and militarily), I believe the sanctions should be designed by the European nations (and just joined in by the U.S.). I'm just not sure the U.S. has the moral high ground here.

Crimean Referendum To Be Held Under Military Threat

(This political cartoon is by Jimmy Margulies in Newsday.)

The people in the Ukranian province of Crimea are supposed to hold a referendum tomorrow. The referendum is supposedly to determine whether they want to remain a part of Ukraine or become a part of Russia. Unfortunately, that referendum is being held at the point of a gun.

Not only is Crimea being occupied by Russian troops at the current time, but bands of ethnic-Russian "militias" are roaming the streets and doing their best to intimidate non-Russian residents of the troubled region. This makes the referendum little more than a joke -- an excuse for Russia to grab part of the Ukraine for itself, and maybe even provoke a war with Ukraine and grab up the whole country.

There is little doubt how the referendum will come out, since non-Russians living there will probably be too intimidated to go to the polls and vote -- and may even be physically prevented from doing so. Russia claims that Crimea has the right to determine their own future. That might be true -- if the province hadn't been invaded and occupied by Russia. But under the current conditions, the referendum can't be considered to be the true will of Crimeans, and it shouldn't be recognized by any other nation (or by the United Nations).

If the Russians really want Crimea to decide their own future, they should withdraw all of their troops and let the Crimeans do that.

Anything Accomplished In Afghanistan ?

(The image above is from the website called PressTV.)

If you are one of those who think the war is winding down in Afghanistan, then you need to think again. This last week has been a particularly bloody one for American soldiers and civilians in that country. At least 19 American soldiers and civilian personnel were killed in just the last week -- seven in a cargo plane crash, five killed by a roadside IED, and two killed by an Afghan soldier, among other deaths.

The truth is that we are accomplishing nothing by keeping our soldiers in Afghanistan. If our troops drive insurgents out of a province, they just move to another province (and then return when we leave). Any ground gained in this occupation is only for a temporary period. In addition, it is becoming harder for our troops to know who their friends are (if they have any). It is becoming a fairly commonplace occurrence for Afghan soldiers or policemen to turn their guns on our troops.

In other news from Afghanistan this week, President Karzai got worried when it was publicly revealed that the CIA had dropped tens of millions of dollars in cash in secret to the presidential palace. Karzai was afraid the money (which goes into the bank accounts of government officials and war lords) would stop, but he happily announced a couple of days ago that the CIA assured him the secret money drops would continue. It seems strange to me that our government doesn't have the money to help needy Americans, but seems to have plenty to continue under-the-table payoffs to corrupt the Afghan government.

Is there anyone left (except for some misguided dreamers in the government) who actually believes the situation will be any better in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 (the date set by Obama to pull out most of our troops)? Of course not. The number of deaths will be higher (both for soldiers and civilians), and we will be financially poorer for the effort (and the secret payoffs), but that country will still be a mess. We can't impose our will on Afghanistan any more than the Soviets (or the myriad others who tried to conquer that country) could.

It is time to get out of Afghanistan -- and bring ALL of our troops home. Not at the end of 2014, but now.

Give The Afghans What They Want

Past polls have shown that most Afghans would like for the United States to end its occupation of their country, and just leave. Now there is growing evidence that the Afghan government would like the same thing. Just a couple of weeks ago, President Karzai demanded that U.S. troops leave the Afghan province of Wardak -- claiming those troops were using Afghans to torture and kill people.

He has also claimed that U.S. troops enter Afghan universities and arrest students, and has barred those troops from even entering the campus of any university. Now he has insinuated that the U.S. and the Taliban are somehow in cahoots to keep our troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. He said:

"Those bombs that went off in Kabul and Khost were not a show of force to America. They were in service of America. It was in the service of the 2014 slogan to warn us if they (Americans) are not here then Taliban will come."

"In fact those bombs, set off yesterday in the name of the Taliban, were in the service of Americans to keep foreigners longer in Afghanistan."

It is a silly argument to say the U.S. and the Taliban are working in concert to extend U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan, but it does give us a clearer view of what President Karzai wants (although he seems to be reluctant to come right out and say it). Like the majority of his people, he wants the American troops out of his country.

The United States has said the U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan at the end of 2014. But that is not really accurate. The U.S. wants to keep as many as 18,000 U.S. soldiers in that country for "training purposes". The thing that might prevent that is the U.S. demand that those troops left in Afghanistan would be immune from prosecution by that country -- regardless of what crime they might commit.

It was that same kind of demand that forced all U.S. troops out of Iraq, because the Iraqi government refused to agree to that immunity. It is now starting to look like the Afghans might also deny that immunity, as Karzai becomes ever more critical of U.S. involvement.

I think it's time to give the Afghan government and people what they want. It's time to end the occupation of Afghanistan and bring ALL of the United States troops home.

Some will say that would just let the Taliban take over again. But that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide. If they want to live under Taliban rule, they will allow the Taliban to take control. If they don't, they will back their government and keep that from happening. Either way, it is a choice for the Afghan people to make -- not the United States government.

It is time for our government (whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the White House) to realize that we have no business telling any other country what kind of government they should have or who they should pick to run that government. We would not allow any foreign government to dictate that to us, so we must not do it to others.

End Of Afghan War? - Not Really!

Last Friday, President Obama held a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The purpose was to notify Americans that the drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan would begin sooner than was previously believed. The president said the drawdown of the 66,000 troops currently in that would would begin this spring, and at that time the U.S. would basically turn the conduct of the war over to the Afghan government, and the U.S. troops would assume a support role.

The president said, "This war will come to a responsible end."

I really wish that was true. This war should have been ended long ago, when it was realized that nothing was really being accomplished. It should have at least been ended a year ago (the end of 2011), as President Obama promised when he was running for his first term in 2008. But it didn't end back then, and sadly, it won't be ending at the end of 2014 either.

While the president claims he is ending the war, the truth is that he and the military generals want to leave troops in Afghanistan far beyond the end of 2014. That's what he was negotiating with Karzai last week. We don't yet know how many troops they want to leave in harm's way in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014, but we do know it will be in the thousands. There have been various estimates, from as low a number as 2,500 to as high as 15,000 (which is what the generals want). It seems that this administration wants to continue operations in that country for an indeterminate period of time (endless war?), by leaving thousands of American soldiers there to train Afghan troops and to chase the remaining insurgents.

The fact is that neither political party in this country seems to want to end this nasty and unnecessary war. While the Democrats would leave a few thousand troops there indefinitely, the Republicans want to maintain current troop levels (or even send more troops).

There is only one slim hope for the complete withdrawal of American troops. President Obama said troops would remain past 2014 only if American troops are given complete immunity for any crimes they might commit in that country. Karzai believes he can sell that idea to his legislature as not infringing on Afghan sovereignty (even though it clearly does that -- we certainly wouldn't let foreign troops be stationed in this country with complete immunity).

The same demand was made in Iraq, but the Iraqi government wouldn't go along with it. That's the real reason the troops were completely withdrawn from that country. There will be a new election for president in Afghanistan in 2014. We must hope that the new president (and the legislature) will refuse to submit to such a ridiculous notion as giving immunity, regardless of what crimes may be committed. It is our only hope for a complete troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future.

The Occupation Of Haiti

It's been a while since most people thought of Haiti in this country, but they are still trying to recover from the disaster of a few years ago -- and they are still occupied by troops from other countries. Why are those troops still there? When will they leave? Surely the need for them has long since passed.

Uruguayan writer and historian Eduardo Galeano recently gave a speech to a forum held in Montevideo about Haiti, and I really like what he had to say. Here is part of that speech:

Look it up in any encyclopedia. Ask which was the first free county in America. You will always get the same answer: the United States. But the United States declared its independence while it was a nation with 650,000 slaves, who continued being slaves for a century, and in its first constitution established that a black was the equivalent of three fifths of a person.


And if you ask any encyclopedia what was the first country to abolish slavery you will always get the same answer: England. But the first country to abolish slavery was not England but Haiti, which is still atoning for the sin of its dignity.


The black slaves of Haiti had defeated the glorious army of Napoleon Bonaparte and Europe never forgave them for this humiliation. For a century and a half, Haiti paid France an enormous compensation for being guilty of its own freedom, but even that was not enough. That black insolence is still offensive to the white masters of the world.

Currently the armies of several countries, including my own, still occupy Haiti. How is this military invasion justified? By claiming that Haiti puts international security at risk.

Nothing new.


Throughout the 19th century, the example of Haiti constituted a threat to the security of countries that still practiced slavery. Thomas Jefferson had already said it: the plague of rebellion came from Haiti. In South Carolina, for example, the law permitted the jailing of any black sailor while his ship was in port because of the risk that he might spread the anti-slave pestilence. And in Brazil, that pestilence was known as Haitianism.


In the 20th century, Haiti was invaded by the marines because it was an unsafe country for its foreign creditors. The invaders proceeded to take charge of customs and handed the National Bank over to City Bank of New York. And once there, they stayed for 19 years.


How long will foreign soldiers stay in Haiti? They arrived to stabilize and to help, but they have been there for seven years, unhelpful and destabilizing this country that does not want them.


The military occupation of Haiti is costing the United Nations more than 800 million dollars a year.


If the United Nations were to spend those funds on technical cooperation and social solidarity, Haiti would receive a strong boost for developing its creative energy. And it could thus save itself from its armed saviors, who have a certain tendency to rape, to kill and to spread fatal diseases.


Haiti does not need anyone to come and multiply its calamities. Nor does it need anyone’s charity. As an old African proverb says so well, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives.


But Haiti does need solidarity, doctors, schools, hospitals and genuine collaboration to make possible the rebirth of its food sovereignty, destroyed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other philanthropic societies.


For us Latin Americans, that solidarity is a debt of gratitude: it will be the best way to say thank you to this small great nation that in 1804, with its contagious example, opened the doors of liberty to us.