NATO wants more Afghan war

This video is called Anti-NATO protests in Lisbon.

The NATO summit in Lisbon endorsed the Obama’s administration’s demand that troops from the US and allied countries occupy Afghanistan indefinitely: here.

NATO summit reveals cracks in Atlantic Alliance: here.

Pentagon blows up thousands of homes in Afghanistan: here.

Save the Children blasted a Nato official’s claim today that youngsters in Kabul are safer than their peers in Glasgow or New York: here.

‘Fake Taliban’ dupes Nato negotiators into peace talks: here.

A military investigation of US soldiers accused of mutilating corpses and slaughtering Afghan civilians for fun is now focusing on their commanding officers, testimony in the case against one soldier revealed on Monday: here.

This video is about the Anti-war song of the week No.82: Eric B. & Rakim – Casualties of War. Lyrics are here.

This is a video about the 20 November 2010 London anti Afghan war demonstration.

USA: Chalmers Johnson: ‘Imperialism is a form of tyranny. We spread democracy with an assault rifle.’ Interview: here.

Call To Help NATO In Afghanistan Rattles Russians: here.

2 thoughts on “NATO wants more Afghan war

  1. published online: 11/22/2010

    Afghans losing patience in war

    Decade of fighting increases fatigue as end appears far off.

    Associated Press

    KABUL, Afghanistan – U.S. and NATO forces will stay in Afghanistan for at least another four years, yet there are growing signs the West has worn out its welcome.

    With the war in its 10th year, foreigner fatigue is becoming more apparent among Afghans as the United States and its international partners try to shore up support among their own populations for continuing the fight. President Barack Obama and other Western leaders approved plans during a weekend summit in Lisbon, Portugal, for Afghans to move into the lead role in fighting the Taliban and its allies by the end of 2014.

    The reasons for Afghan patience running out are numerous. Progress against insurgents is only mixed at best. Tactics like night raids on homes to capture militants fuel resentment in a society with a centuries-long tradition of resistance to foreign domination. In a sign of the ill-will, Afghans often blame coalition troops for killing civilians even though the Taliban and militants kill more.

    Moreover, the Western footprint has grown. The buildup of 30,000 U.S. reinforcements this year made the foreign presence even more overt, but underscored Afghan feeling that all the troops and billions in aid haven’t substantially improved their daily lives.

    “I don’t think NATO has done much good,” said Siyal Khan Farahi, a 39-year-old contractor in Kandahar in the south, where the Taliban insurgency was born. “They are spending millions of dollars over here but I don’t see many signs of prosperity or anything that can change the people’s standard of life.”

    “America calls itself a superpower, but they can’t control these insurgents so they should leave this place.”

    The concern among international representatives is the sentiment will undermine NATO’s attempts to win public loyalty away from the Taliban. Reflecting the mood, President Hamid Karzai has grown more vocal in criticizing the roughly 147,000 international troops on his country’s soil.

    Karzai’s comments in turn make it difficult for Obama and other Western leaders to sell their war policies at home, if there’s a perception even Afghans don’t want troops there.

    For Afghans, the current war comes on top of decades of conflict, including the fight against occupying Soviet forces in the 1980s and bloody factional war that followed until the mid-1990s. But broader exhaustion with war seems to be moving into a sense that Afghans are tiring of outsiders’ involvement.

    Bitterness has even bubbled up among factions that fought side-by-side with the West to topple the Taliban in 2001.

    One recent day, a group of former fighters loyal to Ahmad Shah Massoud – the famed anti-Taliban commander killed by suicide bombers just two days before the Sept. 11 attacks – railed against U.S. involvement, saying they caused civilian deaths and had at times disrepected Afghan culture and the Muslim faith.

    Standing at Massoud’s marble tomb in the Panjshir Valley, they watched as American soldiers took off their combat boots and walked around taking snapshots of the tomb.

    “They are the problem – the foreigners,” one of the former fighters, Mohammad Mahfuz whispered as he pointed their way. “They came here for their own security and are making life difficult for the nation.”

    Anti-foreigner sentiment is easily inflamed.

    In July, an angry crowd rioted in Kabul, shouting “Death to America!” after U.S. contract employees were involved in a traffic accident that killed four Afghans. The crowd hurled stones and set fire to two vehicles before Afghan police moved the contractors to safety.

    Last week, Karzai said Afghans are skeptical because they are getting mixed messages about why international forces are here. He bluntly declared NATO must cut back the “intrusiveness” of its forces.

    That runs counter to the U.S. war strategy of interacting with the public in areas cleared of insurgents, bolstering governance and rushing in development aid. The counterinsurgency strategy of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, instructs his troops to: “Earn people’s trust. Talk to them. … Listen. Consult and drink lots of tea.”

    American officials recognized the possibility of a popular backlash given the large cultural differences and Afghans’ history of rejection of foreign domination. Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said recently in Islamabad that there were lengthy discussions about whether the U.S. surge in forces would create further animosity.

    Mistrust between Afghans, their government and the international community grew significantly in the past year and a half, a July report from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs found.

    The report pinned this on growing fatigue with an international presence that “has yielded insufficient results for the vast majority of the Afghan populace in comparison to the cost in lives and resources.”

    Suspicion of Western motives is deep in some areas. An informal October survey of 1,000 people in Kandahar and Helmand provinces – two battle areas where winning over the population is key – found that 40 percent believe international forces aim to destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan.

    Also, 92 percent were unaware of the Sept. 11 attacks and that they triggered the international move against the Taliban, according to the poll by the London-based International Council on Security and Development.

    There also is resentment against Western aid workers, who live in heavily guarded upscale homes, shop in expensive Western-style supermarkets and drive large vehicles with tinted windows.

    “Some are good and some are bad,” said Abdul Saleem, who sells telephone cards on Kabul’s streets. “They shouldn’t try to bring their culture here. If they are drinking, they are not respecting Afghan law.”

    The most friction has come over civilian deaths and the NATO tactic of night searches.

    The number of Afghan civilians killed or injured soared 31 percent in the first six months of the year, but they were largely caused by Taliban attacks, according to the United Nations.

    Casualties from NATO and Afghan government forces dropped 30 percent compared with the first half of 2009, mainly because of curbs on the use of airpower and heavy weapons, the U.N. said.


  2. Nato official’s remarks over safety in Kabul spark criticism

    Tuesday November 23, 2010 (1413 PST)

    Related Links
    US formally apologises for breach of Pak airspace
    Nato regrets Pak troop deaths, urges route re-opening
    No timeframe for reopening Nato supply route: Pakistan
    Six killed as 28 Nato oil tankers set ablaze in Islamabad
    The NATO Money to Ensure Taliban Security

    KABUL: The Nato’s senior civilian representative here provoked sharp criticism from children’s advocates on Monday after he said Kabul was safer for children than Western cities.

    “In Kabul and the other big cities, there are very few of these bombs,” the representative, Mark Sedwill, told an interviewer for a BBC children’s television programme broadcast on Monday. “The children are probably safer here than they would be in London, New York or Glasgow or many other cities.”

    “Most children can go about their lives in safety,” he added. “It’s a very family-orientated society. So it is a little bit like a city of villages.” Children’s advocates were quick to dispute his characterisation. Peter Crowley, Unicef’s Afghanistan representative, said the agency continued to regard Afghanistan “as being one of the worst countries in the world to be a child.”

    “Afghanistan has the highest infant mortality rate in the world and one in five children dies before the age of 5,” he said. Sedwill served as the British ambassador here before taking over as Nato’s top civilian official in January.

    As word of his remarks spread around Kabul, Sedwill sent out an e-mail statement that tried to re-contextualise his comments. “I was trying to explain to an audience of British children how uneven violence is across Afghanistan,” he said. “In cities like Kabul where security has improved, the total levels of violence, including criminal violence, are comparable to those which many Western children would experience.

    For most Afghans, the biggest challenges are from poverty — the absence of clean water, open sewers, malnutrition, disease ó and many more children are at risk from those problems than from the insurgency.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.