[Peace-discuss] Showdown in Brighton on British troops in
Afghanistan?
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Sep 17 21:37:26 CDT 2009
"The Afghan war is a fraud. It began as an American vendetta for domestic
consumption in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, in which not a single
Afghan was involved. The Taliban, who are Afghans, had no quarrel with the
United States and were dealing secretly with the Clinton administration over a
strategic pipeline. They offered to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and hand him over
to a clerical court, but this was rejected. The establishment of a permanent
US/Nato presence in a resource-rich, strategic region is the principal reason
for the war..."
[It takes an Australo-Brit journalist, an outsider wherever he operates, to say
the simple truth that the pathetic toadies in the US ideological institutions --
media and academia -- refuse even to mention. --CGE]
For Britons, The Party Game Is Over
Sep 17, 2009 By John Pilger
On the day Prime Minister Gordon Brown made his "major policy speech" on
Afghanistan, repeating his surreal claim that if the British army did not fight
Pashtun tribesmen over there, they would be over here, the stench of burnt flesh
hung over the banks of the Kunduz River. Nato fighter planes had blown the
poorest of the poor to bits. They were Afghan villagers who had rushed to siphon
off fuel from two stalled tankers. Many were children with water buckets and
cooking pots. "At least" 90 were killed, although Nato prefers not to count its
civilian enemy. "It was a scene from hell," said Mohammed Daud, a witness.
"Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere." No parade for them along
a Wiltshire high street.
I saw something similar in south-east Asia. An incendiary bomb had razed most of
a thatched village, and bits of charred people were hanging on upended fishing
nets. Those intact lay splayed and black, like large spiders. I have never
believed you need witness such a hell to comprehend the crime. A standard-issue
conscience is enough for all but the morally corrupt and powerful.
Fresh from another dysfunctional photo opportunity with troops in Afghanistan "a
contrivance far from the impoverished suffering of that country" Brown
"authorized" the Rambo-style rescue of Stephen Farrell, a journalist of British
and Irish nationality, at the site of the Nato attack. It was a stunt that went
wrong. A British soldier was killed and Farrell's guide, Sultan Munadi, an
Afghan journalist, was abandoned and killed. Munadi's family now fully
appreciates the different worth of British and Afghan lives.
During the 1914-18 slaughter, Prime Minister Lloyd George confided: "If people
really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they
don't know and can't know." Have we not yet advanced over a century's corpses to
a point where the likes of Brown are denied their mendacious subterfuge? The
Afghan war is a fraud. It began as an American vendetta for domestic consumption
in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, in which not a single Afghan was
involved. The Taliban, who are Afghans, had no quarrel with the United States
and were dealing secretly with the Clinton administration over a strategic
pipeline. They offered to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and hand him over to a
clerical court, but this was rejected.
The establishment of a permanent US/Nato presence in a resource-rich, strategic
region is the principal reason for the war. The British are there because that
is what Washington wants. Preventing the Taliban from storming our streets is
reminiscent of President Lyndon B Johnson's plaint: "We have to stop the
communists over there [Vietnam] or we'll soon be fighting them in California."
There is one difference. By refusing to bring the troops home, Brown is likely
to provoke an atrocity by young British Muslims who view the war as a western
crusade; the recent Old Bailey trail made that clear. He has been told as much
by British intelligence and security services. Brown's own security adviser has
said as much publicly. As with Tony Blair and the bombs of 7 July 2005, he will
bear ultimate responsibility for bringing violence and grief to his own people.
More than MPs' fake expenses, it is this corrupting and trivializing of life and
death that mark a fitting end to the "modernized" Labour Party, the party of
criminal war. Do the delegates preparing for the party's annual rituals in
Brighton comprehend this? It says enough that most Labour MPs never demanded a
vote on Blair's bloodshed in Iraq and gave him a standing ovation when he
departed. One timid motion proposed by the "grass roots" at Brighton might be
allowed. This concludes that "a majority of the public believe that the war [in
Afghanistan] is unwinnable." There is no suggestion that it is wrong, immoral
and based on lies similar to those that led to the extinction of a million
Iraqis, "an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide," according to one
scholarly estimate.
This is largely why the game of parliamentary politics is over for so many
Britons, especially the young. In 2005, a bent system allowed Blair to win with
fewer popular votes than the Tories in their electoral catastrophe of 1997. New
Labour's greatest achievement is the lowest turnouts since universal voting
began. Today, voters watch Brown give billions of public money to casino banks
while demanding nothing in return, having once hailed their practices as an
inspiration "for the whole economy." At the recent meeting of G20 leaders in
London, Brown distinguished himself by opposing, and killing, a modest
Franco-German proposal for a limit on bonuses and penalties for companies that
broke it. The gap between rich and poor in Britain is now the widest since 1968.
New Labour's causes and effect extend from the one in five young people denied
employment, education and hope to the £12m that Blair coins in a year,
"advising" the rich and lecturing to them at £157,000 a time. For the more
extreme among Blair's and Brown's mentors and courtiers, such as the twice
disgraced Peter Mandelson, this represents the most sought after achievement of
all: the positioning of Labour to the right of the Tories, though it is probably
correct to say the two main parties have converged, now competing feverishly
with each other to threaten cuts in public services in order to pay for the
bailing out of the banks and for the druglords of Kabul. There is no mention of
cutting the billions to be spent on replacing Trident nuclear submarines
designed for the defunct cold war.
The game is over. Corporatism and a reinvigorated militarism have finally
appropriated parliamentary democracy, a historic shift. For those Afghan
villagers blown to pieces in our name, one craven motion at Labour's conference
is too late. At the very least, the party's "grass roots" might ask themselves why.
www.johnpilger.com
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list