Kerry: US must win hearts, too, in Afghanistan - Kerry should know better

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivwfcNorDXUqrTAEurbOZI4ehGoAD954TOB02

By GLEN JOHNSON – 1 hour ago

BOSTON (AP) — The United States can gain security by adding more troops in Afghanistan, but only if they work to gain the trust of locals, Sen. John Kerry told The Associated Press

The Massachusetts Democrat and incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told the AP on Wednesday from Afghanistan that he plans to tell President-elect Barack Obama and National Security Adviser-to-be James Jones that simply surging the force won't solve problems in the nation.

Obama campaigned on a pledge to shift U.S. military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, although military leaders have cautioned that differences in terrain, enemy and local customs reduce the chances for a direct replication of the gains achieved against Iraqi insurgents.

"If you add troops and have the strategy we've had, that won't get the job done," Kerry said after having breakfast early Thursday with U.S. forces. "But if you use the troops to give you the ability to do the real work more at the local level, the provincial level, making a difference in people's lives, then you have a chance to win over hearts and minds as well."

[Solly Mack]

1. ...

...

I got nothing

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Yeah, Johnny. Seems you've gone completely over to your born class's side. Forgot

all that Winter Soldier crap. And forgotten how all that "Hearts and Minds" BS actually played out in Vietnam. You know, the "Submit or we'll massacre you" stuff.

As for how that scheme is being played in Afghanistan, see the documentary "Taliban Country" where an embedded journalist travels first with a "We're here to bring you good shit" Hearts and Minds operation, and then later returned to find out what actually was done.

Video here and a few other places: http://www.guerrillanews.com/videos/37/Taliban_Country

Following is a synopsis from that site:

------------------------------------------------------------
Carmela Baranowska’s “Taliban Country” is a rare and damning insight into what U.S. forces are doing in remote Afghanistan. For three weeks, Carmela was embedded with the U.S. Marines in their remote forward operating Base.

Suspicious of what was really happening, Carmela later became the only person in 2004 to return and independently cover this area. She was reported kidnapped by the Taliban but the source of reports of an abandoned vehicle and Taliban abduction of a Western woman have never been uncovered.

Carmela obtained disturbing testimony from local villagers, some of which echo the sexual abuse documented at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Naval Base.

“They fingered us, beat us and humiliated us,” alleges villager Wali Mohammad. “No Muslim should suffer that.” He claims he was imprisoned for three days by the marines after soldiers raided his village and accused him of providing food and shelter to Al Qaeda. His elderly father, Noor Mohammad Lala, was also arrested. “They took my clothes. I could not do anything,” Noor confides. Both men claim they were sexually abused and forced to pose for photographs. “I was so humiliated I couldn’t see for my pain,” states Noor.

The marines’ raid on their village of Passau was so offensive that locals want the camera to record every indiscretion. “They used this as a toilet,” says one man gesturing at the floor of a home. Their wheat harvest was destroyed and the mosque door battered down. As a result of this raid, many people have already left the village. “Almost all the families are gone,” complains the tribal elder bitterly. “Our people are being forced to pack up and leave.”

Stories of abuse have tainted the U.S. military’s entire efforts in this region. A few weeks after the raid, Major Alva Cook, Head of Civic Operations, visited the area with gifts of medicine, seeds and a radio. “He asked if we needed anything,” recalls the village elder. “And I said “Don’t humiliate us.”

For the villagers, the actions of the marines’ allies are as much to be feared as raids by the marines themselves. Local warlord Jan Mohammad has allied with the marines to hunt down the Taliban. But villagers claim that he is exploiting his new American connections to harass villages which belong to a different tribe. “Their tribe, in their areas, have never been searched,” one man complains. His friend claims that Mohammad’s men recently beat and imprisoned several young children in an attempt to gain information.

Ironically, as well as searching for Taliban and Al Qaeda members, the marines are also on a hearts and minds campaign to convince the locals the Americans are their friends. During an earlier raid, Major Alva Cook apologised to tribal elders for the extra dust their vehicles have kicked up. He also provides medical assistance while soldiers crack jokes with local militias about the surrounding poppy fields.

But if the aim of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants and allow the country to embrace true democracy, they clearly still have a long way to go. In this remote corner of the country they are turning the local people against them. Some are being driven to join what remains of the Taliban. As the village leader summed up “Enough is enough …. These Americans must be accountable to someone.”

[karynnj]

3. You are completely misinterpreting what Kerry is saying

It was the author who used the "hearts and minds" phrase which was used in an Orwellian way in Vietnam. What he was speaking of was that people had to feel that the government was making there lives better and easier - this means helping them build the infrastructure needed for a safe day to day life.

This actually IS what he wanted done as US foreign policy - all the way back to Vietnam. He is also speaking against drones and against airstrikes.

So, go back to being cool and attacking - but Kerry might be the highest person saying what you might really want someone to say - just as he was the one at the convention to unambiguously say that all torture is wrong.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. It is neither possible nor desirable to turn Afghanistan into a client state serving foreign

military and economic interests. That is not in the interests of the people of the US or Afghanistan even if it were possible. It is not the just the idiocy and arrogance of the "we'll build them stuff while murdering them and they'll become docile and compliant and behave properly." It is the very objective which is evil.

(edit to add a little)

[karynnj]

9. Kerry was not speaking of turning it into a client state

nor was he speaking of killing them.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Of course he was. He says so himself.

That was the point of the invasion and occupation. And that is the point of continuing to murder them. That is what soldiers are trained and equipped to do. Kill.

Here are Johnny-boy's own words: "Our goal has never been to dominate Afghanistan—but rather to empower the Afghans to govern their own country in line with ... our own national security." http://www.johnkerry.com/blog/entry/kerry_a_winning_strategy_in_afghanistan/ The ellipses exclude the usual arrogant shit about this foreign domination being "for their own good."

(edit to add a line)

[Johonny]

7. I agree

most analysis though say basically it's too late. The US had a window where they could have done this but did nothing, now they have lost a large section of the population.

[Mari333]

4. Bring all the troops home and bring home our TAX DOLLARS

we need to build back the infrastructure HERE, not THERE.

[spanone]

5. and WTF is our mission in afghanistan? get the frak out

[Odin2005]

8. Kerry is totally right.

I see the naive pacifists are moaning, though.

[eridani]

14. Anti-imperialist is not the same as pacifist

Kerry wants to make people in Afghanistan serve US imperial interests. They don't want to, and can be forced to do so only by getting more serious about mass murder.

Unfortunately, with imperial domination helping people is strictly secondary to the domination thing if it occurs at all. You can tell when domiation is the agenda because dominators always look for local elite cats' paws to carry out that agenda, which eventually fails because the locals always have their own sometimes contradictory agendas as well. For that reason, the would-be dominators are constantly switching sides. Look for that--it's how you can tell what's actually going on.

Our first intervention there was recruiting radical Islamists from all over the world to fight against the Soviets starting in 1979, with the deliberate intention (according to Brzezinski) of drawing the Soviets into a Vietnam-like quagmire. We paid American universities to develop pro-jihadi textbooks. Of the native reactionaries, we gave most of our $5 billion or so financial aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who made his bones in the 70s thowing acid in the faces of female university students. (Yes, as late as 1975, female students in Kabul occasionally wore miniskirts.) The CIA knew all about his prior history, and they were happy to watch him burn down girls' schools. Now we have a price on his head. The CIA does a lot BSing about how they never did finacially support bin Laden. True, but only because they invited him to the party precisely because he donated a bunch of his own money to the cause.

After the Soviets left, warlord factions destroyed a lot of Kabul and killed around 40,000 of its citizens. We fully supported the Pakistani ISI in their sponsorship of the Taliban, which the warlord-weary population of Afghanistan thought might suppress lawlessness. Imperial agent Zalmay Khalilzad (currently our ambassador to Iraq) even wrote a WaPo editorial in 1997 explaining how the Taliban were agents of stability and not nearly as bad as those Shi'ite fundies in Iran. Now we don't like them for having temporarily harbored bin Laden.

AFter 9-11 we ignored constant pleas from indigenous anti-Taliban forces to not engage in massive bombing of civilians in support of the Northern Alliance warlords (formerly Soviet-allied, so we switched sides again). After our new allies kicked the Taliban out of major population centers, we refused to let the Loya Jirga of 2002 install their choice of ruler, the former king (favored mainly because he had pissed off the fewest number of people). They also wanted nothing to do with the warlords we insisted on installing instead, but we installed them anyway.

Our current campaign there consists of supporting warlords who are not much different from the Taliban (except for being slightly less puritanical and a lot more corrupt) with extensive bombing of civilians. That's gotten bad enough so that Lambchop Karzai occasionally bites Ms. Shari the Dominator right on the nose, at least verbally.

Why in fecking hell anybody believes that more of the same can possibly do Afghanistan any good is beyond me. Of course, as Kerry stated, "doing good" is strictly secondary to licking the imperial boot and liking it.

[BeFree]

15. Yep

We supported war there forever. The US is a guilty party in destroying that country.
While we do have a great interest in helping individuals there to be as free a people as we are, the way we go about it is awful.

"You can't promote democracy at the end of a gun barrel."

[eridani]

16. Domination is the goal. Freedom doesn't enter into it

--unless it's the freedom of the US imperial juggernaut to do anything to anybody any time it wants to.

[BeFree]

17. Well

It is the only issue that makes me support in any way shape or form the US involvement there.
The women are severely oppressed. Religious freedom is non-existent. And their future is dark.

And the dominators use our hopes of freedom for people as a way to get a foot in the door.

[eridani]

19. Women are severely oppressed there because we supported their oppressors for years

Cluster bombing does not change that in any way. We destroyed their society by turning it into a war of each against all, which women never, ever win. How about we just quit fucking with them and trying to dominate them? NGOs are much better placed to help indigenous feminists there anyway.

[BeFree]

20. You are correct

As I said, democracy at the end of a gun barrel doesn't work.
And frankly, Obama's stated position scares me. And is THE most important thing we need to change about Obama. Kerry's, too.

[tekisui]

18. The naive ones are those who think there is a 'win' to be had

in Afghanistan. The Taliban have retaken over 70% control of the country. 3 of the 4 roads into Kabul are compromised. More troops are going there to prevent the fall of Kabul. To defeat the Taliban, again(temporarily) would take upwards of 100,000-200,000 troops. And, that is a logistical impossibility. Not to mention that Pass through Pakistan, where 60-70% of NATO supplies travels is no longer viable.

It is unwinnable. Ask the Brits, ask the Russians. We need to get out.

[Bigmack]

23. Naive? Naive? ....

Have you ever read anything about Afghan history or culture?

We want to give the dubious benefits of 21st Century democracy and capitalism to folks who are still in the 12th Century.

That's not an insult to Afghans, it's just an observation.

We didn't get where we are without Western Civilization going thru stages like the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. And you meddlers want to do all that at gunpoint?... With people that tough?

One small anecdote: Favorite game in Afghanistan... Two young men stand on separate ridges about 500 yards apart. They shoot at each other - offhand - trying to see how close they can get to hitting each other without actually hitting. The loser chickens out.

Oh, yeah.... people who grow up watching Sesame Street are gonna bend the will of people who shoot at each other for fun. :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. He was wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Afghanistan.

How many lost wars does he want to fight?

[KG]

12. as many as it takes to look 'manly'?

[blm]

22. You think YOU would be 'manly' enough to uncover IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning for 7 years?

You would post against Bushes and their thugs on an internet forum, but, I doubt you'd risk your neck and your career and the lives of your family uncovering their illegal operations around the globe.

[KG]

24. you know nothing about what i'd do about anything so kindly fuck-off

[blm]

25. I know you judge wrongly someone who HAS PROVEN time and time again he'd risk his life

for YOU and YOUR family and your right to open government.

[KG]

26. yawn.

:boring:

[blm]

21. Try some COMPREHENSION - he wants a surge in HELPING Afghanis on their every day needs, schools,

communities and infrastructure needs.

He's saying a surge in troops for warfare is NOT the answer, that Afganistan needs a surge in aid for community building/rebuilding at the local level.

You would prefer to maintain the level of violence?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. With the addition of more cannon fodder for a lost war.

I would prefer that he back getting out of Afghanistan (and Iraq) now.

[blm]

29. Obama is putting more troops in - Kerry wants focus on building and helping Afghanis, to bring

that entire operation to its safest end.

And Kerry has been advocating withdrawal from Iraq since shortly after they held their first election in 2005, including the pushing of withdrawal plan legislation to try and force it to the front of Democratic issues in 2006 and 2008.

[shadowknows69]

13. It's yoo late. Bush has made sure of that. We need to get out

And win hearts and minds through humanitarian help.

[bigtree]

27. He's committing us to a period of warfare and occupation longer than Vietnam

. . .if he expects that our military can nation-build Afghanistan away from the Taliban with our military as a hammer in front of the usual cherry-picking of U.S. friendly interests to arm and 'train.'

What happened to just catching the 9-11 suspects and having done with it? The rest of that mission he wants for our American forces and NATO hasn't been deliberated on and voted on by our Congress. Of course, they'll pretend that the original 'authorization' to use force to 'apprehend the perpetrators' of the 9-11 attacks gives them that authority to defend Kabul.