Friday, September 4, 2009

Afghanistan Airstrike Kills 93. Enjoy The Air Show!

I was walking with my wife and daughter through Dufferin Grove Park earlier when, with an enormous boom, a fighter jet banked hard above us, then shot off down to the lake. Everybody looked up to see the plane and a woman walking her bike near us said: "In most countries we'd be running to hide from that plane."
When I got home and checked the news the truth of what she'd say struck home. Certainly there's some people in Kunduz, Afghanistan who are wishing that their relatives had run more quickly today because NATO dropped bombs killed 90+ people.
The story is that the Taliban hijacked a NATO jet fuel tanker, which then got stuck in the mud near a village. Villagers, all dirt poor, rushed out to siphon off some fuel from the truck. That's when NATO, called in by the German contingent in northern Afghanistan, dropped its payload.
Of course NATO feels bad and will look into it. They might even pay compensation to the families. But, if they hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Ah, but we're there to bring democracy and freedom from the evil Taliban. Trouble is, the democracy is so utterly corrupt that even supporters of the occupation are embarassed by videos of Karzai supporters stuffing ballot boxes, reports of other boxes showing up full to polling stations, intimidation of monitors, etc.
And the Kunduz governor is hardly a progressive, having been allied with ultra-conservative Wahabbi followers, prior to shifting allegiances to a Tajik warlord named Daud, who is himself allied with Karzai running mate, Mohammed Fahim. As human rights watch described him:
“He is one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands from the civil war.” In fact, the brutality of his party Jamiat-e-Islami during the infighting amongst the mujahideen, following the Soviet withdrawal, drove many Afghans to support the Taliban. And the province has itself been a bastion of corruption and narcotic production.
"In February 2004, [provincial police chief] Motaleb Beg was captured by ISAF and Afghan police in Kabul with 300 kilos of heroin. Both Motaleb Beg and the heroin were handed over to the Kabul police with instructions how to handle the case. The following day the heroin had disappeared." (Beg was replaced as police chief by the present governor's brother, recently killed by an IED).
It is no wonder that with these characters in power, backed by western jets and bombs, the insurgency has spread north to the previously peaceful province of Kunduz. This is a big problem for NATO and the US because Kunduz is key to NATO's Central Asian supply lines. Previously, NATO had shipped equipment, fuel, etc. through Pakistan but insurgents in that country kept blowing stuff up. The alternative was to get an agreement from the Russians to move the same equipment, etc. through Russian airspace and then overland from Tajikstan and Uzbekistan. According to a senior US official: "The concern is if we don't stunt the [Taliban] growth, it could cause problems with our northern distribution network."
Things may already be too late, as Gul Agha, head of Baghlan-i-Jadid's criminal investigation department describes it: "Before, [insurgents] moved in very small groups. Now they are moving in groups of 30 to 40, and they have a leader of each group. They have a [shadow] governor, district leaders and recruiters."
Of course, the main people who are suffering as NATO increases air strikes in the north of the country, are civilians. Just as has been the case in the south, with bombings of weddings, funerals, and the like. The longer we stay over there, the more civilian dead there are and the more that we are hated.
This weekend, while you're watching those F-15's flying over the Toronto shoreline with your kids, just think about how a kid in Afghanistan feels when they see those same planes flying overhead. For them it's not a weekend diversion, it's the possibility of death at the hands of their supposed liberators.

2 comments :

Anonymous said...

FIVE MILLION refugees have RETURNED to Afghanistan since NATO started to provide security, build infrastructure and administer services, they're voting with their feet.

The Taliban kill women and girls for leaving their homes or getting an education, if you have a better way of stopping them from doing that, why don't you go over there and stop them?

Those fighter jets have provided you and yours with security for decades and you know it, without them you would be paying your local warlord what he thinks you're worth. Imagine the Hell's Angel's or the Bloods/Crips in charge of your neighbourhood, what kind of social services do you think they would provide?

Redbedhead said...

Of course, what the cleverly named "Anonymous" fails to mention is that many of those who have returned have been forcible repatriated.
For instance, this article from 2007, which notes rioting by thousands of Afghan refugees in Pakistan faced with the bulldozing of their camps, home to a total of 75,000:
"ISLAMABAD, May 16 (Xinhua) -- Pakistan's police Wednesday fired tear gas to disperse thousands of Afghan refugees in the country's southwestern province of Balochistan, who gathered to resist Pakistani security forces to bulldoze the camps, local press reports said."
That's just two camps but there was forced repatriation going on prior to that, with the government of Bajaur region forcibly expelling refugees from 12 camps.
Back in 2007 there was a refugee crisis as Iran forced 50,000 refugees back across its borders in just three weeks, with plans to expel a million refugees. Iran meanwhile has forcibly expelled up to a million refugees.
Of course, such coercion was not solely the work of Pakistan and Iran - the EU was also happy to force out Afghan refugees, as far back as 2002, though the Afghan government asked them not to do so.
And, back in 2005, it was noted that a "huge portion of 3.5 million Afghans who have returned home from Pakistan and Iran... have no proper shelters and adequate income..."
As for killing women and children, as you'll note from my article - the present governor of Kunduz, was a member of a Wahabbist offshoot in Afghanistan - which is very conservative on women's rights. And this is typical - the warlords who were put in place following the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, have terrible records on women's rights and human rights more generally - as documented in loads of places - a quick google search wouldn't go amiss. But, also, if you'd read the newspapers, you'd also probably be aware of the recent passage of the "Shia Personal Status Law which, among other things, permits Shia men to refuse to give food to their wives if they do not have sex with them." Western countries were opposed to taking a stand on the issue because it would "disrupt" the recent elections. Though, one can't imagine how the thoroughly corrupt election that just took place - one that everybody knew would be corrupt far in advance - could have been "disrupted" in the bad sense of the term. It was a farce. In any case, in a country so poor and brutalized by three decades of war, it is the most oppressed - women and children - who suffer the most. It is simplistic and a sign of your ignorance to reduce it to the Taliban.

As for the fighter jets - don't be so fucking stupid. The Hell's Angels and the Blood/Crips haven't been prevented from taking power because the US has thousands of jet planes. That's about the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.
In fact, the US government - along with Canada - has ensured that warlords, drug dealers and human rights abusers call all of the shots in Afghanistan. Independents, like Malalai Joya - the only independent female in the Afghan parliament, are systematically excluded. For the crime of exposing the human rights abusers she has been expelled from the Shora and forced into hiding.

DreamHost Promotional Codes