02 December 2009

Afghans say: Obama builds occupation

Some change Obama is bringing to this country. This new escalation of the war in Afghanistan makes me sick.

Alan Maki has it right in his letter to leaders of the peace movement (see his blog below this Reuter's article).

Lisa



This article deserves the widest circulation possible…

Afghans say: Obama builds occupation

Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.

"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops."

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP236797

Wed Dec 2, 2009

Afghans unimpressed by Obama's troops surge
Reuters
·


By Sayed Salahuddin
KABUL (Reuters) – Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.

"Even if they bring the whole of America, they won't be able to stabilize Afghanistan," said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. "Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life."

U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital, where few watched the speech on TV before dawn and fewer seemed to think new troops would help.

Obama said his goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda in Afghanistan and "reverse theTaliban's momentum."

The extra U.S. forces, and at least 5,000 expected from other NATO allies, would join 110,000 Western troops already in the country in an effort to reverse gains made by the Islamist militants, at their strongest since being ousted in 2001.

Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.

"The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops," he said. "Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy."

For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.

"More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties," Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.

"The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the U.S. image and cause more indignation among Afghans."

"NOTHING REALLY NEW"

By late morning, the Afghan government had yet to issue an official response to Obama's statement.President Hamid Karzai has in the past said he favors additional Western troops, although he wants Afghan forces to take over security for the country within five years.

Although Obama pointedly addressed Afghans, telling them the United States was not interested in occupying their country, parliamentarian Shukriya Barakzai said she was disappointed because the speech contained little talk of civilian aid.

"It was a very wonderful speech for America ... but when it comes to strategy in Afghanistan there was nothing really new which was disappointing," she told Reuters from her home.

"It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in Afghanistan. His strategy was to pay lip-service, and did not focus on civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights."

Other Afghans, hardened by decades of war and wary of foreign forces whom have for years fought proxy battles in Afghanistan, were skeptical of the United States' intentions.

Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.

"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops."


Tuesday, December 1, 2009

An open letter to peace activists who supported Barack Obama
Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel, American Friends Service Committee;

Here is a President many of you “leaders” of peace organizations supported knowing that Obama’s stated intent was to expand the war in Afghanistan… now he has fulfilled this campaign promise and you pretend to be surprised.

There is no shortage of funding... for wars from the president and Democrats you supported but there is a lack of funds for socialized health care or single-payer. I have to ask a question here: What is going on; will all these organizations go out into the streets and carry signs saying the escalation is a bad idea and then turn around and campaign and vote for the Democrats and Barack Obama in 2010 and 2012?

I hear all kinds of “mass activities” being planned to oppose this escalation of the war; but, why is there no ADDITIONAL suggestion that in retaliation for escalating this dirty imperialist war the Democrats will suffer repercussions at the polls… This is called “accountability.”

“Accountability” is something basic and fundamental to democracy.

“Accountability” goes like this…

No peace; no votes.

Yet, I haven’t heard either of you or one single one of these “leaders” of the peace movement talk about holding Barack Obama and the rest of these warmongering Dumb Donkeys “accountable” at the polls.

What gives?

Go out and hold a little peace parade and then turn around and tell these war mongers you are going to be supporting them in the next election?

Of course, if you aren’t going to be supporting warmongering Democrats in the next Election; that kind of begs another question… do we challenge these warmongers and Dumb Donkeys in their own primaries and continue on as independents in the general election or should progressives begin to consider organizing an alternative to this two-party trap set for us by Wall Street. Could we do both?

Something to think about:

Accountability.

If politicians don’t know the meaning of the word, give them a dictionary… but not your vote.

No peace; no votes.

Should there be an organized movement demanding “accountability” from Obama and the Democrats as a means to end these wars?

Should peace organizations be leading this effort for “accountability” at the polls?

I am having a very difficult time understanding how it is that I should protest the escalation of this war with you if you are then going to go right back and urge people to vote for the Democrats and Obama.



We heard a lot of talk from liberals, progressives and those on the left as they enthusiastically supported Obama often telling us that this support would provide our peace and other progressive movements with clout.

From the same people eager to sell us on Obama we were assured they would be initiating and leading movements for real change as a means of "holding Obama's feet to the fire" but so far we have only seen these people sitting on resources required to mobilize people in defense of their rights and interests, and holding an occasional press conference where they made all kinds of fantastic claims to be "organizing" on our behalf but no movements have developed as these foundation funded organizations walk away from the required struggles.


One has to ask how you get any kind of accountability from Barack Obama and these Democrats if promises are made to campaign and vote for them the next time around?

No peace; no votes.



Something to think about around the dinner table as Barack Obama sends off another 30,000 troops to fight and kill in an unjust, illegal and unconstitutional war in Afghanistan.




Alan L. Maki

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763


Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell phone: 651-587-5541


E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net



Check out my blog:



Thoughts From Podunk



http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/