Khan writes: "What we have seen is the Middle East and large parts of North
Africa on the receiving end of death, destruction, and displacement over the
last 15 years."
FA-18 Hornet Navy fighter takes off from an aircraft carrier. (photo: AP)
US Foreign Policy: Killing People to Save Them
By Dr. Arshad M. Khan, teleSUR
12 October 16
What we have seen is the Middle East and large parts of North Africa on the
receiving end of death, destruction and displacement over the last 15 years.
The 15th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan - a war with no foreseeable
end in sight - quietly passed by unnoticed Friday by major U.S. media.
The number of troops due to remain in Afghanistan has been raised 50 percent
to 8,400. Drones based in Pakistan continue to play their deadly role. On
the anniversary date, attacks on security checkpoints in the Chashma area of
Maiwand district in the southern part of Kandahar province resulted in a gun
battle lasting several hours. Afghan officials concede three soldiers died
and four were wounded. The Taliban claim the surrender of an entire
battalion and one tank.
As incongruous as it might appear in hindsight, there was much talk of
"nation building" in the Bush years. What we have seen instead are a Middle
East and large parts of North Africa on the receiving end of death,
destruction and displacement, on a scale unheard of since the World War II.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, even Ukraine are
fractured states, the ensuing misery for their citizens a natural
consequence.
Iraq is back in the news again not just for the reinsertion of U.S. forces,
but also for a new planned battle to recapture Mosul from the Islamic State
group - a battle likely to be another hell for its Sunni citizens who
probably do not relish a return of the now essentially Shia Iraqi military.
Sectarianism, Balkanization of states, a rendering of the delicate fabric of
these multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies may not have been the stated
aim but are certainly the aftermath. The fact is when the same scenario is
repeated time and again, many see it as the goal of U.S. policy disguised in
platitudes. Hence the ill-will toward U.S. citizens across a wide swathe of
lands running from North Africa to India. It is a sobering prospect in an
inter-connected world.
The most troubling aspect of the Afghanistan war is one basic irrefutable
fact: Neither the Afghan people nor their government had any involvement in
the 9/11 attack. Yes, Osama bin Laden was a guest in the country, but only
because he had helped in repelling the Soviet invasion. The Afghan
government requested evidence, the U.S. reply: surrender him or else. To
neighboring Pakistan Richard Armitage delivered the notorious line, "we'll
bomb you back into the stone age," according to then President Pervez
Musharraf.
Were there no other alternatives to full-scale war? How about a police
action targeting bin Laden's group? Or, for a peaceful solution, how about
the possibility of surrender to an international tribunal that would have
guaranteed no death penalty. He claimed to be a leader conducting war, and,
it is fair to say, many other wartime leaders have ordered far worse. A
guest in a world where honor is important might have been obliged to accept
such surrender terms, but certainly not the demands of a revanchist
superpower intent on his execution.
The war made enemies out of friends, and left nuclear armed Pakistan
considerably less stable by importing religious extremism - bombings and
terror attacks, once almost unheard of are now quite common.
Based on lies, as the Chilcot report in Britain affirms, the Iraq war was
even more egregious and has left unimagined problems in its wake. Given
these experiences and Libya to boot, one would have thought arming jihadi
groups - wasn't the Osama bin Laden experience enough - was playing with
fire. But here we are again: the U.S. fighting a secular government in Syria
that was never a threat, and trying to replace it with jihadis who harbor a
visceral hatred toward it.
The logic that prevails is also of powerful Washington insiders, who, too,
harbor visceral hatreds but cloak their arguments. Who ever heard of killing
people to save them?
________________________________________
Dr. Arshad M Khan (http://ofthisandthat.org/index.html) is a former
Professor, whose comments over several decades have appeared in a
wide-ranging array of print and electronic media including The Christian
Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), Forth Worth Star
Telegram, Asia Times Online, Countercurrrents, Counterpunch, Pambazuka News,
teleSUR, and many others.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
FA-18 Hornet Navy fighter takes off from an aircraft carrier. (photo: AP)
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/US-Foreign-Policy-Killing-People-to
-Save-Them-20161012-0002.htmlhttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/US-For
eign-Policy-Killing-People-to-Save-Them-20161012-0002.html
US Foreign Policy: Killing People to Save Them
By Dr. Arshad M. Khan, teleSUR
12 October 16
What we have seen is the Middle East and large parts of North Africa on the
receiving end of death, destruction and displacement over the last 15 years.
he 15th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan - a war with no foreseeable
end in sight - quietly passed by unnoticed Friday by major U.S. media.
The number of troops due to remain in Afghanistan has been raised 50 percent
to 8,400. Drones based in Pakistan continue to play their deadly role. On
the anniversary date, attacks on security checkpoints in the Chashma area of
Maiwand district in the southern part of Kandahar province resulted in a gun
battle lasting several hours. Afghan officials concede three soldiers died
and four were wounded. The Taliban claim the surrender of an entire
battalion and one tank.
As incongruous as it might appear in hindsight, there was much talk of
"nation building" in the Bush years. What we have seen instead are a Middle
East and large parts of North Africa on the receiving end of death,
destruction and displacement, on a scale unheard of since the World War II.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, even Ukraine are
fractured states, the ensuing misery for their citizens a natural
consequence.
Iraq is back in the news again not just for the reinsertion of U.S. forces,
but also for a new planned battle to recapture Mosul from the Islamic State
group - a battle likely to be another hell for its Sunni citizens who
probably do not relish a return of the now essentially Shia Iraqi military.
Sectarianism, Balkanization of states, a rendering of the delicate fabric of
these multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies may not have been the stated
aim but are certainly the aftermath. The fact is when the same scenario is
repeated time and again, many see it as the goal of U.S. policy disguised in
platitudes. Hence the ill-will toward U.S. citizens across a wide swathe of
lands running from North Africa to India. It is a sobering prospect in an
inter-connected world.
The most troubling aspect of the Afghanistan war is one basic irrefutable
fact: Neither the Afghan people nor their government had any involvement in
the 9/11 attack. Yes, Osama bin Laden was a guest in the country, but only
because he had helped in repelling the Soviet invasion. The Afghan
government requested evidence, the U.S. reply: surrender him or else. To
neighboring Pakistan Richard Armitage delivered the notorious line, "we'll
bomb you back into the stone age," according to then President Pervez
Musharraf.
Were there no other alternatives to full-scale war? How about a police
action targeting bin Laden's group? Or, for a peaceful solution, how about
the possibility of surrender to an international tribunal that would have
guaranteed no death penalty. He claimed to be a leader conducting war, and,
it is fair to say, many other wartime leaders have ordered far worse. A
guest in a world where honor is important might have been obliged to accept
such surrender terms, but certainly not the demands of a revanchist
superpower intent on his execution.
The war made enemies out of friends, and left nuclear armed Pakistan
considerably less stable by importing religious extremism - bombings and
terror attacks, once almost unheard of are now quite common.
Based on lies, as the Chilcot report in Britain affirms, the Iraq war was
even more egregious and has left unimagined problems in its wake. Given
these experiences and Libya to boot, one would have thought arming jihadi
groups - wasn't the Osama bin Laden experience enough - was playing with
fire. But here we are again: the U.S. fighting a secular government in Syria
that was never a threat, and trying to replace it with jihadis who harbor a
visceral hatred toward it.
The logic that prevails is also of powerful Washington insiders, who, too,
harbor visceral hatreds but cloak their arguments. Who ever heard of killing
people to save them?
Dr. Arshad M Khan (http://ofthisandthat.org/index.html) is a former
Professor, whose comments over several decades have appeared in a
wide-ranging array of print and electronic media including The Christian
Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), Forth Worth Star
Telegram, Asia Times Online, Countercurrrents, Counterpunch, Pambazuka News,
teleSUR, and many others.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
