How well I remember our Afghanistanposted by orthogonality at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2010
How the blood stained the sand and the water
And how in that hell that they called Oruzgan
We were butchered the lambs at the slaughter
We very much value it, because the mission is so important to our national interest. The mission is critical to making sure that this place does not again become a training ground, a place that sponsors violence and terrorism that is visited on innocent people around the world, but particularly on innocent Australians. We've lost too many lives in terrorist attacks and what you are doing is making sure that this place does not continue to be part of that cycle of terror that has taken the lives of so many Australians...It's worth noting that she also specifically refers to the Parliamentary debate on Afghanistan we'll have in the Commonwealth Parliament during the next session as a result of the negotiations with the Greens and independents after the last Federal election.
As The Australian puts it, ‘The difficulty in Afghanistan's near-impossible circumstances is that soldiers, insurgents and civilians are killed regularly’ and ‘The casualty rate would soar if Diggers became reluctant to open fire for fear of repercussions when split-second decisions were demanded.’Actually, it's solving a different problem, and Jeff Sparrow's being disingenuous. Supporters of the war shouldn't see a process of military justice as a threat to the ADF mission, and as opponents of the Australian presence—a group of which I'm part—shouldn't try to argue that the deaths of soldiers are in any way an argument against a military operation. If the war is worth fighting, then it's worth a casualty rate, and if military laws have application, they're worth testing in processes that affect the actions of real soldiers. Military justice processes are a good thing, and evading them for a political end is a very unwise thing to do.
Well, there’s a three-word solution to both these problems. It goes like this. Bring. Them. Home...
Its hard to debate (and for the media to report in an interesting manner) such a cornerstone of Australian life as the US alliancejjderooy, if you haven't yet, check out Hugh White's Quarterly Essay on China. The short story is that Australians accept the US Alliance (and the military misadventures that go with it) because it's a cheap and easy way of establishing regional security, but can't do so indefinitely into the future. The short short story is that the utility of the US Alliance is measured in renminbi.
Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction - the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.posted by notion at 8:02 AM on October 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
The US has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents.
If Pakistan does not agree to this and other US demands, it may come under direct attack as well - with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to US demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban - who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society.
Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing - a truck driven into a US military base - drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.
-Noam Chomsky, 9/18/2001
*cough* East Timor *cough*Mmm, and the Australian debate back in '99 certainly included lashings of historical guilt about the New Guinea campaign and Clinton's obligation to provide diplomatic cover as well as aircraft carriers. We do patronising interventionism just as well.
The idea that there is some kind of "ledger", and the we "owe" you for saving us from Japan is frankly just such so much typical American imperialist bullshitNo, "thanks to Uncle Sam" is pretty much how the Australian defence establishment and enough public opinion has always argued it. We spend relatively little of our own budget on our own defence and shelter under the strategic umbrella of whichever friendly foreign power cares to establish a regional hegemony. Before the Curtin government the UK, after Curtin, the US. Should the US choose or be unable to maintain hegemony, we'll find someone else.
I would wager that support for the Afghanistan War is higher in Australia than in the USHaving had a quick look around the internet, it's surprising that none of the Australian polling companies have released much in public about support for the war: it doesn't even seem to be something that's being measured. My view would be that Australian public opinion supports Australian involvement in US operations simply as a matter of course---that an individual operation makes no strategic sense doesn't mean our involvement in it isn't part of a greater tradeoff.
''The last thing that people would want to see is soldiers being stabbed in the back by their own government, and I know a lot of people think that's what's happening.''Tones really has no fucking clue when it comes to the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary (even when military), and cultivates ignorance among the general populace.
"A few days ago, US officials demanded that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) ban the al-Qaeda organisation, extradite Osama bin Laden and close down his camps," the Taliban foreign ministry said in a statement issued in Kabul.------
"The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has not received any evidence against Sheikh Osama bin Laden for it to examine," it said. October 6th, 2001 (source)
Thursday night, Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over all leaders of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization to U.S. authorities, close its training camps in the country and surrender "every terrorist and every person in their support structure" to appropriate authorities. He said the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion. (source)This is the diplomatic equivalent of "go fuck yourself." If Bush had been serious about the offer, he wouldn't attach such heinous conditions to it, or have already drawn up battled plans and approved their execution.
Reports of the talks come amid what Afghan, Arab and European sources said they see as a distinct change of heart by the Obama administration toward full backing of negotiations. Although President Barack Obama and his national security team have long said the war would not be won by military means alone, sources said the administration only recently appeared open to talks rather than resisting them.So, after ten years, losing hundreds of American lives and tens of thousands of Afghani lives, spending half of a trillion dollars, giving al Qaeda the chance to kill more Americans, failing to catch bin Laden or bring any major terrorist to trial for their crimes, destroying America's diplomatic reputation with much of the Arab world, we are finally doing what Bush refused to do: negotiate with the Taliban.
"We did not have consensus, and there were some who thought they could do it militarily," said a second European official. The Europeans said the American shift began in the summer, as combat intensified with smaller-than-expected NATO gains despite the arrival of the full complement of new U.S. troops, amid rising U.S. public opposition to the war.
The United States' European partners in Afghanistan, with different histories and under far stronger domestic pressure to withdraw their troops, have always been more amenable to a negotiated settlement.
"Taliban Foreign Ministry officials tell CNN that their anti-aircraft artillery fired from three locations Saturday at a U.S. plane over Kabul without hitting it. The plane was not attacking, the ministry in Kandahar, Afghanistan, said."Compare this to your initial statement:...where you seem to be either lying, or perhaps just a bit confused. Do you, perhaps, work for the US Government?
"They asked the US to stop killing civilians, while they discussed extradition."
Note that your citation from Oct. 6th, 2001 mentioned only flyovers... not attacks or killing civilians. CNN from that time also specifically cites Taliban leaders saying that there were flyovers, but no attacks.
"Taliban Foreign Ministry officials tell CNN that their anti-aircraft artillery fired from three locations Saturday at a U.S. plane over Kabul without hitting it. The plane was not attacking, the ministry in Kandahar, Afghanistan, said."
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.McChrystal’s staff apparently defined these as “neutral” so as to include populations in districts where US and NATO forces have carried out operations aimed at clearing the Taliban and are now the subject of attempts to change their political views.The Taliban has not only advanced in Afghanistan, but now occupies a significant corner of Pakistan where it is the de facto government as well. Since the entire country is now just trying to stay alive after the floods, I doubt they are going to make much progress in the near future, as sectarian violence continues to rise during the displacement of refugees.
Earlier this year, however, an ISAF official familiar with the assessment on which the command was basing its plans clearly included those same districts among those in which the Taliban were regarded as having gotten popular support. The official told Inter Press Service in an interview in late January, “We have a system of 80 districts where Taliban influence is strongest, where people support the Taliban for whatever reason.”
That set of 80 districts that are the most pro-Taliban in the country is the same set of 80 “Key Terrain districts” defined in the new Pentagon report as “areas the control of (and support from which) provides a marked advantage to either the Government of Afghanistan or the insurgents”.
...
Although McChrystal seemed to reject the idea that the Taliban had broad political support in his initial assessment last August, an “integrated campaign plan” jointly agreed by McChrystal and the US ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, that same month hinted strongly at such support in Pashtun areas.
The campaign plan document concluded, “Key groups have become nostalgic for the security and justice Taliban rule provided.”
McChrystal’s announcement earlier this year that ISAF would establish a “contiguous security zone” which would include the bulk of the population of Helmand and Kandahar provinces may have been a response to the recognition that the Taliban had formed its own zone of political dominance in southern Afghanistan.
However, given recent evidence that foreign troops have been unable to clear insurgents from Marjah, and that local leaders and elders in Kandahar are opposing US military operations in and around the city, that objective now appears to be well beyond the reach of US and NATO troops.
it is frankly nothing short of appalling that inaccurate and often sensationalist media coverage of the February 2009 incident in Afghanistan is causing so much public confusion and even ill-informed political comment. Even many war veterans, who were assumed to have a better understanding of the laws and accountabilities involved, seem confused. Much media reporting and especially commentary is grossly misleading about the legal and operational contexts, and nature of the charges, and indeed concerning the most basic facts about the incident they stem from.posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:46 PM on October 17, 2010
The ADA has been advising all its military and civilian members not to sign either of the two petitions against the charges being circulated on the World-Wide-Web. Based on erroneous media reporting and perhaps on ill-informed partisan comment, both petitions at best are based on assumptions that are either not true or that need to be tested in court to find out if they are true. Both petitions also seriously misunderstand and misquote the law applying and indeed the history of the ADF in previous wars.
Even more importantly, the poor media coverage, and especially the confused and inflammatory nature of the petitions, will not actually help the three personnel facing charges. Indeed, they risk making their trial a political and emotional travesty, rather than the fair and objective court martial they need to clear their names once and for all.
« Older Stop Looking at My Moms! (YT)... | How to Buy a Round-the-World P... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by wilful at 7:23 PM on October 11, 2010