http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/aug/31/afghanistan-nato-soviet-russia
The Afghan 8Os Are Back --
Nato's failing mission is increasingly coming to resemble the Soviets' disastrous campaign
Jonathan Steele
guardian.co.uk
Monday-31-August-2009
It is deja vu on a huge and bloody scale. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, is about to advise his president that "the Afghan people are undergoing a crisis of confidence because the war against the Taliban has not made their lives better", according to leaked reports. Change the word "Taliban" to "mujahideen", and you have an exact repetition of what the Russians found a quarter of a century ago.
Like Nato today, the Kremlin realised its forces had little control outside the main cities. The parallels don't end there. The Russians called their Afghan enemies dukhy (ghosts), ever-present but invisible, as hidden in death as they were when alive – which echoes Sean Smith's recent photographic account of the fighting in Helmand and the failure of the British units he was with to find a single Talib body.
The Soviet authorities never invited western reporters to be embedded, but you could track down Afghan war veterans in Moscow's gloomier housing estates. They were conscripts, unlike British and US troops, so perhaps they had a heightened sense of anger. But how many British vets would share the sentiments that Igor expressed, as he hung out with his mates one evening in February 1989 and let me listen? "You remember that mother who lost her son. She kept repeating, 'He fulfilled his duty. He fulfilled his duty to the end.' That's the most tragic thing. What duty? I suppose that's what saves her, her notion of duty. She hasn't yet realised it was all a ridiculous mistake. I'm putting it mildly. If she opened her eyes to our whole Afghan thing, she'd probably find it hard to hold out."
Every time I see footage of British troops riding in armoured cars past shuttered bazaars and empty streets, I think of Yuri, who told me that his first glimmerings of the war's futility came when he realised how little contact he and his comrades had with Afghans, the people they were supposed to be helping. "Mainly our contact was with kids in the villages we went through. They were always running some kind of little business. Swapping stuff, selling stuff. Sometimes drugs. It was very cheap. You felt the aim was to get us hooked. There was not much contact with Afghan adults except the sarandoy, the police."
Only when he got back to Moscow did Yuri feel calm enough to reflect. "The first feeling while you're there is you start to get fed up. You get fed up with the shooting. But you don't think about it. You don't want to. Slowly, very slowly, after the war, you begin to think, to imagine, to remember what happened, the ruined villages, the expressions on people's faces. Not all the Afghan vets understand. Many of them, a substantial proportion, think what they did was necessary and right," he told me.
The details of the Soviet war were different from today's. The enemy used primitive mines rather than today's more sophisticated, remotely triggered roadside bombs. Without infrared night-sights for their sentries, Russian outposts were easy to overrun. Troops travelled in long tank-led columns that were prime targets for ambush. But the basic parameters of an asymmetrical war – hi-tech machines versus agile guerrillas – have not changed. It's just that Nato relies more on drones rather than helicopters to fire its missiles – and civilians still get hit.
Nor is there much difference between Nato's prized techniques of "cultural awareness" and Soviet practice. "They gave us a small piece of paper telling us what not to do and a little dictionary," Igor explained. "That was it. 'Don't fraternise. Don't look at women. Don't go into cemeteries. Don't go into mosques.'" The Russians' contempt for their local allies, the Afghan army, sounded just like that of British squaddies. "Many are cowards. If the ghosts shoot, the army runs away," said Igor as he recalled asking one Afghan soldier what he would do when his conscript service ended. "He said he'd join the ghosts. They paid better."
Nato's war aims echo the Soviets' – prop up a modernising and secular government against the threat from fundamentalist tyranny. The Soviet advantage was that they were operating in an age when nation-building by foreigners was in vogue. The Kremlin did not have to fall back on the claim that terrorism had to be stopped in Kabul in order to keep it from it the streets of Moscow.
The big difference, so far, is that after years of remorseless losses the Soviet leadership realised the war was unwinnable. Mikhail Gorbachev tried talking to the enemy to form a coalition Afghan government (shades of the current "Do we talk to the Taliban?" debate), but when they and their western backers refused, he pulled out anyway. Does Obama have the sense to do the same? In January 1989, six weeks before the Russians completed their withdrawal, I wrote in this newspaper: "The Soviet invasion was an outrage which the majority of the world's nations rightly condemned … But the manner of their departure has been nothing but honourable … What led to the U-turn was a combination of factors: the political mistakes of their Afghan allies [in 2009 read "the corrupt Karzai government"], awareness that the entry of Soviet troops had turned a civil war into a holy crusade, and recognition that the mujahideen could not be defeated. It required a new leadership in Moscow to accept what Russians had privately known for months."
Yuri put it graphically: "It wasn't a Soviet-Afghan war. It's a civil war. A powerful country like ours can't be defeated. If we had sent in more men, it would have been outright occupation or genocide. We thought it was better to leave."
Monday 31 August 2009
Sunday 15 March 2009
DIRTY ZIONIST/ZIONAZI PIG FARMERS IN ACTION
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/03/200931113340555177.html
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama pick quits over Israel lobby
SOURCE: aljazeera.net
Freeman said the Israeli lobby blocks 'serious public discussion' on Middle East policy
The candidate for a leading US intelligence post has withdrawn his nomination after accusing the country's Israel lobby of plumbing "the depths of dishonour and indecency" to assassinate his character.
Charles "Chas" Freeman, a former US ambassador who is now president of the Middle East Policy Council think-tank, had initially agreed to chair the US National Intelligence Council that produces assessments of security issues.
But on Tuesday he withdrew his nomination following what he called a "barrage of libellous distortions" of his record by the Israel lobby in the US.
"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired," Freeman said.
"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.
"The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favours."
Setback for Obama
Opponents were quick to point out that Freeman's withdrawal was merely the latest in a string of personnel setbacks for Barack Obama as the president struggles to staff his administration.
Pete Hoekstra, the leading Republican on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said this was "yet another breakdown in the Obama administration vetting process - one more in a long series of missteps".
Freeman, who in 2007 said "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending", was criticised by some in the US congress for remarks seen as critical of Israel.
Freeman quotes
2007 - "The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending"
2007 - "Israel is even more despised and isolated than we are, and together with the Israelis we are rapidly multiplying the ranks of terrorists with regional and global reach."
But he countered in an email to supporters on Tuesday: "It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends."
Max Blumenthal, a blogger and journalist for the Daily Beast website who has been following Freeman's nomination process, told Al Jazeera that his withdrawal was "a catastrophic defeat for the Obama administration".
"What happened is the Israel lobby won," he said.
"What [Freeman] said that I think is most remarkable in his statement, is that apparently the Obama administration will not be able to dictate its own Mideast policy and he places the blame for this squarely on the Israel lobby."
Blumenthal said that the Israel lobby had "been furiously emailing sympathetic reporters, smearing him [Freeman] in public" and that "political decisions came into play with respect to [Freeman's] views on Israel and essentially his appointment was torpedoed".
This was the Israel lobby's "first all-out fusillade and they succeeded because they knew that Freeman would be dispensable to political elements in the White House that needed to court the Israel lobby, needed their money for senate races", he said.
China-Saudi links
Freeman is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has also served as an assistant secretary of defence and a senior US diplomat in China.
Admiral Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director who chose Freeman for the council position, had defended him in congress on Tuesday as a man of "strong views, of an inventive mind and the analytical point of view".
Blair said he preferred that to "pre-cooked, pabulum judgments".
But Freeman's perceived criticisms of Israel along with his ties with China and Saudi Arabia, stirred controversy.
CNOOC board
Freeman served on the international advisory board of the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation when it made its 2005 bid for US oil firm Unocal that was thwarted by US congressional protest.
His Washington-based Middle East Policy Council think-tank received funding from Saudi Arabia.
Freeman said he had resigned from all his private positions when he decided to accept the intelligence council post.
After Freeman's withdrawal, Blair's office said he accepted his decision "with regret".
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Feedback
Number of comments : 3
Linda
Afghanistan
14/03/2009
Charles Freeman
Because of this article I think that America is part of Israel. Why do we put up with this. Why is Israel so important to us, that we send them arms, money and anything else they need. I just don't get it
Independent Voice
United States
14/03/2009
Mr Freemans Withdrawal
Mr. Freeman is a man of courage in expressing his views on Israel Lobby in USA. What he said is absolutely correct. Many Americans agree with him and are very disappointed that campaign donations from that lobby dictate how congress votes. Any individual that express any other position than that of the israel can expect similar attacks. Americans must be force feed that position or Israel would be commended if open discussion was allowed.
M Naqqaad
Afghanistan
14/03/2009
On the Jewish Payroll
By this standard, we forgot how many are on the payroll of the Zionist lobby. If we do not accept the pay, we are doomed. Ultimately, it is systematic undoing of the US of A. We already find the US economy going to dogs. It is just the beginning uncle Sam!!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama pick quits over Israel lobby
SOURCE: aljazeera.net
Freeman said the Israeli lobby blocks 'serious public discussion' on Middle East policy
The candidate for a leading US intelligence post has withdrawn his nomination after accusing the country's Israel lobby of plumbing "the depths of dishonour and indecency" to assassinate his character.
Charles "Chas" Freeman, a former US ambassador who is now president of the Middle East Policy Council think-tank, had initially agreed to chair the US National Intelligence Council that produces assessments of security issues.
But on Tuesday he withdrew his nomination following what he called a "barrage of libellous distortions" of his record by the Israel lobby in the US.
"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired," Freeman said.
"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.
"The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favours."
Setback for Obama
Opponents were quick to point out that Freeman's withdrawal was merely the latest in a string of personnel setbacks for Barack Obama as the president struggles to staff his administration.
Pete Hoekstra, the leading Republican on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said this was "yet another breakdown in the Obama administration vetting process - one more in a long series of missteps".
Freeman, who in 2007 said "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending", was criticised by some in the US congress for remarks seen as critical of Israel.
Freeman quotes
2007 - "The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending"
2007 - "Israel is even more despised and isolated than we are, and together with the Israelis we are rapidly multiplying the ranks of terrorists with regional and global reach."
But he countered in an email to supporters on Tuesday: "It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends."
Max Blumenthal, a blogger and journalist for the Daily Beast website who has been following Freeman's nomination process, told Al Jazeera that his withdrawal was "a catastrophic defeat for the Obama administration".
"What happened is the Israel lobby won," he said.
"What [Freeman] said that I think is most remarkable in his statement, is that apparently the Obama administration will not be able to dictate its own Mideast policy and he places the blame for this squarely on the Israel lobby."
Blumenthal said that the Israel lobby had "been furiously emailing sympathetic reporters, smearing him [Freeman] in public" and that "political decisions came into play with respect to [Freeman's] views on Israel and essentially his appointment was torpedoed".
This was the Israel lobby's "first all-out fusillade and they succeeded because they knew that Freeman would be dispensable to political elements in the White House that needed to court the Israel lobby, needed their money for senate races", he said.
China-Saudi links
Freeman is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has also served as an assistant secretary of defence and a senior US diplomat in China.
Admiral Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director who chose Freeman for the council position, had defended him in congress on Tuesday as a man of "strong views, of an inventive mind and the analytical point of view".
Blair said he preferred that to "pre-cooked, pabulum judgments".
But Freeman's perceived criticisms of Israel along with his ties with China and Saudi Arabia, stirred controversy.
CNOOC board
Freeman served on the international advisory board of the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation when it made its 2005 bid for US oil firm Unocal that was thwarted by US congressional protest.
His Washington-based Middle East Policy Council think-tank received funding from Saudi Arabia.
Freeman said he had resigned from all his private positions when he decided to accept the intelligence council post.
After Freeman's withdrawal, Blair's office said he accepted his decision "with regret".
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Feedback
Number of comments : 3
Linda
Afghanistan
14/03/2009
Charles Freeman
Because of this article I think that America is part of Israel. Why do we put up with this. Why is Israel so important to us, that we send them arms, money and anything else they need. I just don't get it
Independent Voice
United States
14/03/2009
Mr Freemans Withdrawal
Mr. Freeman is a man of courage in expressing his views on Israel Lobby in USA. What he said is absolutely correct. Many Americans agree with him and are very disappointed that campaign donations from that lobby dictate how congress votes. Any individual that express any other position than that of the israel can expect similar attacks. Americans must be force feed that position or Israel would be commended if open discussion was allowed.
M Naqqaad
Afghanistan
14/03/2009
On the Jewish Payroll
By this standard, we forgot how many are on the payroll of the Zionist lobby. If we do not accept the pay, we are doomed. Ultimately, it is systematic undoing of the US of A. We already find the US economy going to dogs. It is just the beginning uncle Sam!!
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/03/200931518462459201.html
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Chavez moves to take transport hubs
Chavez told the military that opposition governors may try to flout the new law [AFP]
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, has ordered the military to take over the country's ports and airports, removing them from the control of state governments controlled by the opposition.
"We are going to take over ports and airports throughout the republic, whoever wants can oppose it, but it is the law of the republic," Chavez said during his weekly broadcast on Sunday.
Congress recently passed legislation allowing the central government to assume responsibility for roads, ports and airports if state governments failed to adequately maintain them.In his comments, Chavez said that naval vessels were being sent to seize control of Port Cabello in Carabobo state and Maracaibo Port in Zulia state.
He also hit out at the opposition governors in those states warning military leaders that the two men might attempt to flout the new law."If he gets smart ... that deserves prison," Chavez said of Henrique Salas, the Carabobo governor. "The same goes for the governor of Zulia [Pablo Perez]."
'Security issue'
The Venezuelan president has described the new legislation as a "security issue", but the opposition has accused him of undermining elected officials in their regions and concentrating his power.Under the law, states and municipalities can no longer collect tariffs at transportation hubs or establish tolls along highways, meaning governors and mayors will have less money for local public projects.
In elections in November, Chavez's allies won 17 of 22 gubernatorial races, but opposition leaders gained ground, winning five governorships and the Caracas mayor's office. Although the opposition accuses him of using state resources to promote his own political agenda, Chavez is broadly popular among the country's poor for his social programmes financed with oil revenues.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Chavez moves to take transport hubs
Chavez told the military that opposition governors may try to flout the new law [AFP]
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, has ordered the military to take over the country's ports and airports, removing them from the control of state governments controlled by the opposition.
"We are going to take over ports and airports throughout the republic, whoever wants can oppose it, but it is the law of the republic," Chavez said during his weekly broadcast on Sunday.
Congress recently passed legislation allowing the central government to assume responsibility for roads, ports and airports if state governments failed to adequately maintain them.In his comments, Chavez said that naval vessels were being sent to seize control of Port Cabello in Carabobo state and Maracaibo Port in Zulia state.
He also hit out at the opposition governors in those states warning military leaders that the two men might attempt to flout the new law."If he gets smart ... that deserves prison," Chavez said of Henrique Salas, the Carabobo governor. "The same goes for the governor of Zulia [Pablo Perez]."
'Security issue'
The Venezuelan president has described the new legislation as a "security issue", but the opposition has accused him of undermining elected officials in their regions and concentrating his power.Under the law, states and municipalities can no longer collect tariffs at transportation hubs or establish tolls along highways, meaning governors and mayors will have less money for local public projects.
In elections in November, Chavez's allies won 17 of 22 gubernatorial races, but opposition leaders gained ground, winning five governorships and the Caracas mayor's office. Although the opposition accuses him of using state resources to promote his own political agenda, Chavez is broadly popular among the country's poor for his social programmes financed with oil revenues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
