To advertise on this space
Per inserzioni pubblicitarie
Um hier Werbung zu machen

Afghanistan

All the news fit to print
To advertise on this space
Per inserzioni pubblicitarie
Editorial correspondence | Back to Politics | Back to the world news
TM, ®, Copyright © 2005 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.

Articles on Afghanistan after 2009
Articles on Afghanistan after 2008
Losing in Afghanistan, after losing in Iraq
The collapse of Afghanistan
Articles on Afghanistan before 2008

  • (august 2008) Losing in Afghanistan, after losing in Iraq. In august 2008 a USA bombing strike killed 90 civilians in the Herat region of Afghanistan, including 60 children. (See this article or this article). One wonders what the average USA citizen would think if a foreign country killed 60 USA children who are asleep. Well, USA citizens felt absolutely nothing: in most newspapers the news was hidden at the bottom of the news, and tv news hardly reported it.
    Sixty dead children probably means a thousand more recruits for the Taliban. The USA lost the war in Iraq mainly because it became extremely unpopular with ordinary people: Bush's theory that the "insurgents" were "terrorists" and "foreign fighters" is just not true, they were ordinary Iraqis or supported by ordinary Iraqis. The reason that the average Iraqi turned against the USA is that the USA didn't do much for them (no water, electricity, jobs, and, first and foremost, security) while killing lots of them (thousands of civilians have been killed by USA soldiers and assorted mercenaries in five years).
    It looks like Afghanistan will simply be a repeat of Iraq. Almost every time that the USA announces that it has killed dozens of Taliban, investigations show that the USA mainly killed civilians. One wonders if the USA has ever killed a Talib. At the same time the Taliban are growing in numbers and are getting more and more support from ordinary Afghani. Only the crooks of the Bush administration can miss the connection.
    If the USA cannot fight a war against the Taliban, it should withdraw from Afghanistan. It is pointless to keep exterminating mountain villages and pretend that we are killing the enemy. The enemy is laughing at us. If the USA wants to fight a war against the Taliban, then it should stop bombing from the air and engage in real combat: shoot only when you see the enemy that you are about to kill. Even better would be to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people by building hospitals and roads, giving them good jobs and plenty of security. So far Afghanistan like Iraq has mainly benefited the USA war contractors (friends of the Bush mafia) not the Afghani people.
    Another war that the USA is losing in Afghanistan is the war against drugs. The USA has de facto accepted that opium is Afghanistan's main produce and main export. The USA turns out to be its main customer (no other country consumes as much heroin as the USA). The Bush administration decided that this is the cheapest and easiest way to give the Afghanis a job. One wonders what kind of future these jobs will provide to the Afghani masses.
    It is unpatriotic that the average USA citizen totally ignores what is happening in Afghanistan, even when its army kills 60 children. It is unpatriotic that USA corporations export millions of jobs to China and India but none of them to Afghanistan, where they would make a much bigger difference.
    This is a war that the USA will lose (morally and militarily) because quite simply nobody in the USA is interested in winning it.
    TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
    Back to the world news | Top of this page

  • (february 2008) The collapse of Afghanistan. Power is rapidly disintegrating in Afghanistan. Reporters moving to the Middle East from Afghanistan are bringing news of a slow but steady decline of authority. The president, Hamid Karzai, has become an erratic and unreliable figurehead. He specializes in grand gestures of piety that puzzle the country and his international allies. At times he sounds like a visionary saint, at times a senile old man, but rarely does he sound like a statesman who is firmly in charge.
    The foreign troops have lost the faith of the people because they rarely engage the Taliban in combat. Mostly they bomb targets at random, frequently killing innocent civilians. The foreign troops are more and more preoccupied with protecting themselves, not Afghanistan.
    Humanitarian organizations are a mixed blessing. They are totally out of touch with reality. They want villagers to send their daughters to school, but forget that those girls can be killed by "terrorists" who live among the villagers. There is virtually nobody who can punish a killer, never mind preventing the killing. The humanitarian organizations want Afghanistan to stop producing heroin, ignoring the fact that it is pretty much the only export of the country. If the USA wants heroin, why shouldn't they grow it? Tell the USA citizens to consume more potatoes and maybe the Afghanis will grow more potatoes, but, as long as the USA citizens consume a lot of heroin, the Afghanis will grow poppies to feed their families.
    The warlords have lost their traditional function of protectors of a region because the USA and the central government have insisted that they bend to the national interest. Unfortunately, this has not made the central government stronger while making the warlords weaker. Therefore many of their men have become bandits. However, the warlords make enough money out of the chaos that none of them is likely to rise up against the deteriorating situation. They figure they only have to gain from a further deterioration.
    The only group that is steadily increasing its grip on some regions is the Taliban. They have regrouped, rearmed, and found new support among villagers who were bombed by the USA or betrayed by the government.
    It is only a matter of time before Karzai realizes that his only chance of surviving is to make a power-sharing deal the Taliban. The USA can preempt that event from happening only if it quickly finds a substitute figurehead. Alas, no warlord commands enough power to rule over the whole country. It is yet another lose-lose situation caused by the Rumsfeld's strategy of committing very few troops to patrol a very large country.
    TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
    Back to the world news | Top of this page

    Articles on Afghanistan before 2008
Editorial correspondence | Back to the top | Back to Politics | Back to the world news