[Peace-discuss] Obama's Afghan War

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Excerpts from an important article (with notes & charts) at 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13957>]


During 2009, seven out of ten civilians killed by the Obama and NATO military 
machines have been women and children. Clearly, the Obama regime has failed on 
the metric of civilian casualties.

A tacit agreement operates between the Obama administration, the U.S corporate 
media, most progressive U.S. liberals, and the United Nations Assistance Mission 
for Afghanistan (UNAMA). All dream to a lesser or greater degree of a future 
social democratic paradise in Afghanistan where girls’ schools would be 
flourishing and small farmers exporting pomegranates.[i] Some debate exists over 
the means to achieve this end. Much ado has been made during the past five 
months as to whether the Obama approach to Afghanistan differs or not with that 
of its predecessor.

What is certain is that Afghanistan has become Obama’s war.[ii] Words matter: 
this is Obama’s war and it is a military surge. Obama has put in motion a surge 
of U.S occupation troops raising them by 50% to a level of 55,000 by mid-summer 
2009 (including a 1,000-strong contingent of Special Forces). He is continuing 
and expanding Bush’s use of mercenaries. Pentagon data indicates that private 
security contractors working for the Pentagon have risen by 29% during the first 
quarter of 2009.[iii]

A debate centers upon to what degree the Obama approach is one of 
counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN). Central to the latter is 
the metric of civilian casualties and this is where the U.S media by commission 
and the UNAMA by omission enter the evolving Afghan tragedy. Much of the U.S 
left by having earlier proclaimed that the Afghanistan was the "good war" and 
being inebriated by the nation-building of humanitarian imperialism is now 
suffering from a bi-polar disorder, rendering it irrelevant.

With the sacking of General McKiernan and the entry of General McChrystal (along 
with the continuing prominence of counter-insurgency aficionado Kilcullen), 
Obama appears to tilt towards the COIN approach in Afghanistan. Put in other 
terms, the approach is population-centric rather than military-centric. General 
McChrystal stated in congressional testimony that "the measure of American and 
allied effectiveness would the ‘number of Afghans shielded from violence,’ not 
the number of enemies killed."[iv] He also said, "This is a critical point. It 
may be the critical point. This is a struggle for the support of the Afghan 
people. Our willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage, 
even when doing so makes our task more difficult, is essential to our 
credibility. I cannot overstate my commitment to the importance of this 
concept…Sir, I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of 
the most dangerous things we face in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan 
people, the Pashtun most likely."[v]

His approach hence is classic COIN, rather than focusing forcefully upon taking 
the fight to the Taliban and their associates (military-centric). Naturally, the 
COIN strategy if successful by providing better actionable intelligence enables 
better carrying out the military fight against "insurgents." This strategy finds 
favor both in Karzai’s Kabul (to which yet more monies will flow) and in 
European capitals where the military-centric approach is unacceptable. The "new" 
U.S strategy which it turns out is not new at all, involves building up the 
Afghan military-police apparatus, pressuring NATO to take a greater role, 
employing "precision strikes" to avoid civilian casualties, etc. All this was 
tried under Bush and failed. Why should we expect anything different under 
Obama? ...

As pointed out by Jeff Huber, the McChrystal metric of winning – the number of 
Afghans shielded from violence – is nonsense. How many shielded Afghans will 
equate to victory? Who is going to shield them?[viii] General McChrystal who was 
head of secretive Joint Special Operations Command, involved in widespread 
murder and carnage across Afghanistan? In other words, under the McChrystal 
metric, it will be impossible to know when we have won. This is an invitation to 
war without end.

While it is not my purpose here to critique the feasibility of "protecting 
civilians" and whether such ever was U.S policy - indeed I argued exactly the 
contrary in December 2001[ix] - a few words are imperative. Protecting the 
civilian population requires a massive and prolonged U.S/NATO presence in the 
countryside, but as I have argued elsewhere, such requires around 400,000 
foreign troops.[x] The Obama surge is obvious: to give Afghans enough space to 
rebuild their lives[xi]; but it is far too little, too late.[xii] Establishing 
such a presence necessitates clearing areas of the Taliban and their associates, 
but if many of the Taliban are residents of these regions then such clearing 
must take the form of population removal to fortified strategic villages (as in 
Vietnam).[xiii] Moreover, such clearing carried out with admittedly very poor 
on-the-ground actionable intelligence, will per force kill many innocents (as I 
demonstrate below has "precisely" occurred under the Obama clock)...

It is no secret that Obama has taken over the U.S peace movement.[xvi] For 
example, John Podesta’s ‘liberal think tank the Center for American Progress 
(CAP) strongly supports Obama’s escalation or surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 
MoveOn.org today serves as a full-time cheerleader of Obama’s policy agenda and 
is at best silent on Obama’s Afghan surge. More importantly, the established 
corporate media is largely silent about the continuing devastation perpetrated 
upon Afghan civilians by the Obama Afghan war. Only when a thoroughly egregious 
attack takes place as in Farah in early May 2009 when 97-147 civilians perished 
under U.S. "precision" bombs, is mention made. A British newspaper (not the 
Washington Post or equivalents) published a photo of what happens on the ground 
when a 2,000 pound bomb explodes (see below).[xvii] A B-1B bomber dropped two 
such bombs on a string of villages in Farah province on May 5th with devastating 
results.[xviii] This is precision? The effective casualty radius for such a bomb 
(meaning 50% of exposed persons within this range will die) is at least 400 
meters from impact point...

Facts-on-the-ground reveal that under Obama since January, more bombs are being 
dropped contra the administration’s public relations. Rolfsen reports in The 
Navy Times that

     Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of 
bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show. In the past 
month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever. April also marked the fourth 
consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline 
starting last July. The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support 
sorties. The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers 
don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The 
numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.[xix]

One searches in vain in the U.S mainstream press for reporting upon all those 
bombs being dropped upon Afghanistan. Vietnam-era enemy body counts are now 
officially back as part of the U.S propaganda war.[xx] Even less is written on 
the concrete results - other than the prolific references to "eliminated 
militants" - of such bombing. Such is to be expected from a corporate media 
largely in tow to the Pentagon and the Obama regime. Naturally exceptions exist 
as for example the independent reporting by the freelance journalist, Chris 
Sands of Britain who has been working independently in Afghanistan since 
2005.[xxi] Sadly for every Chris Sands, there are dozens like Jason Straziuoso 
(Associated Press), Lara Logan (CBS 60 Minutes) or Laura King (Los Angeles 
Times) who serve as megaphones for the Pentagon’s version of events...

Having inherited a war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration nonetheless had 
choices. Some for instance like Gilles Dorronsoro argued that the very presence 
of foreign forces was inflaming the conflict and that what was called-for was a 
scaling-down of military action, focusing and exiting.[xxx] Instead, the Obama 
team which includes many members of the former Bush regime, decided to fight the 
"good war" in Afghanistan. During the past five months, the conflict has further 
escalated and promises to do more of the same.

By the announced metric of protecting Afghan civilians, the Obama team has 
failed miserably even more so than its predecessor. What is different is the 
public relations which began with in the words of Michael Stewart "Operation 
Redefinition." One can redefine as much as one wants, the reality for Afghans 
pursuing their daily lives has deteriorated as documented herein. Since taking 
office and assuming the position of Commander-in-Chief, Obama and his NATO 
allies have killed at the very least some 338-419 Afghan civilians (compared to 
278-343 under the Bush clock during the first six months of 2008). In addition, 
deadly CIA drone attacks within Pakistan have continued since Obama took command...

The ex-CIA station chief in Kabul, Graham Fuller is emphatic that Obama’s 
policies are aggravating the situation in Afghanistan (and Pakistan),

     Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to 
allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for 
the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is 
well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal 
circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates 
of electoral success in the Muslim world. But U.S. policies have now driven 
local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As 
Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, 
Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis.[xxxiii]

　



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eneko_afganistan1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 53864 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090612/1fdd139e/eneko_afganistan1-0001.jpg