The killing of Osama Bin Laden may satisfy America’s lust for revenge but ordinary people have paid a massive price in the hunting down of al-Qaeda’s US- trained leader.
Since the infamous 9/11 attacks, untold numbers of civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by American and British forces who have occupied the country for a decade.
America used the lie that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were joint partners in crime, even though they regarded each other as enemies, to invade Iraq. Hundreds of thousands have been killed subsequently, and many driven into exile.
Where there was no al-Qaeda presence before in Iraq, there certainly is now. Even Britain’s MI5 warned former prime minister Blair that the 2003 invasion would increase the risk of terror attacks in Britain.
Blair’s sickening statement today, expressing "gratitude" to the US, and declaring that the killing of Bin Laden showed that "those who commit acts of terror against the innocent will be brought to justice, however long it takes" equally applies to himself.
The issues and causes that have served as recruiting grounds by jihadists everywhere remain absolutely unaltered and unresolved since 2001.
The Palestinians, for example, are perhaps further away from the legitimate goal of self-determination than they were. President Obama has followed his predecessor’s policy, isolating the elected Hamas government and backing Israel’s aggression in Gaza and in settlement building.
Puppet American regimes like the ones in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain continue their pro-Western policies and crack down on dissent with impunity and silence from Washington. American troops remain in Iraq.
There is also a sense that the timing of the US operation – miles inside Pakistan and without authority from the country’s government – is also to do with Obama’s attempt to paint himself as a true patriot and a man the country should re-elect next year.
The fact that the news led to rallies on world stock markets and boosted the dollar says as much about the fragility of the global economy as it does about anything else.
Similarly, state-authorised terror in the shape of the Nato war on Libya has given the beleaguered Coalition government in Britain something to brag about. Cameron’s indifference to the death of one of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons and three children in an illegal targeted assassination attempt is a warning to us all.
With the British economy teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession – boosted only by spending spree on bunting for that wedding – war is good for business.
Enemies abroad are being matched by the targeting of the enemy within. The pre-emptive arrests before the wedding were in the spirit of the authoritarian state built by the previous government. Riot police battering Bristolians protesting about yet another Tesco store aimed at driving small shops out of business is also a sign of the times
The market state, as we have warned, long ago abandoned its stewardship of the economy and the welfare of its people in favour of promoting business as the only business of the planet.
Shorn of social responsibilities, the state constantly falls back on its true nature – as an instrument of repression within its borders and military action outside. None of this makes the country a safer place to live, but then the ruling classes are not particularly interested in this as they don’t travel on the Tube or frequent other likely terrorist targets.
In historical and practical terms, the curtain is coming down on bourgeois democracy. We are obliged to replace the decayed political system with something much more democratic and representative, where financial interests are replaced by social and community need. Saturday’s meeting of the People’s Assemblies Network in London has taken on a new significance.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
For revolutionary solutions to create a sustainable, not-for-profit economy in place of global capital alongside a real democracy based on People’s Assemblies. Visit our web site at www.aworldtowin.net
Showing posts with label Afghanistan civilian deaths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan civilian deaths. Show all posts
Monday, May 02, 2011
Friday, January 18, 2008
Terror from the air
In case you thought that British withdrawal from Basra means that the suffering of Iraq and Afghanistan is coming to an end, think again. A report issued yesterday by U.S. Central Air Forces Combined Air Operations Center shows that last year the US military carried out five times more air strikes than in 2006.
Last year, the United States-Britain-led coalition dropped nearly four bombs a day on Iraq – a total of 1,447. This compared with 229, or four a week, in 2006. The figures do not include US Marine Corps air strikes, or US and NATO bombings in Afghanistan which doubled from 2006 to 2007.
Only last week, Operation Phantom Phoenix carried out air strikes across Iraq. On Thursday morning alone, Arab Jabour, 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives hit an area southeast of Baghdad in just 10 minutes. North of the city, 16,500 pounds of bombs were dropped in a few days last week.
Military commanders like US Army Col Terry Ferrell claim that better intelligence gathering allows precision strikes which “shape the battle field and take out known threats before our ground troops move in”.
But the United Nations and human rights groups say that the latest strategy carries an even higher risk of civilian casualties than before. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) says that more than 200 people have died since last April. “The Iraqi population remains at risk of harm during these operations,” spokeswoman Eliane Nabaa says. “The presence of individual combatants among a great number of civilians does not alter the civilian character of an area.” Human rights groups estimate that more than 300 civilians died as a result of bombing in Afghanistan last year. The Afghan Independent Human Rights commission says that “in previous casualty tallies by the UN, the number of civilians killed by NATO forces has exceeded the numbers killed by the Taliban. What is striking though is the rise in the recorded number of deaths. In July, the UN reported a total of 600 civilian deaths for 2007 to that date, making a monthly average of about 100. Based on that estimate, the total for September has increased by over 50% from the average.”
The US-UK military hope to wipe out insurgents from the air in order to minimise troop casualties as US military deaths have risen to 3,926 since the occupation began in 2003. UK military deaths reached 260 in December and look set to rise in Afghanistan.
And while commanders grotesquely boast about “using air power more creatively” and deploy concrete-filled bombs and 250 and 500 pounders “to make blasts safer for civilians”, no date has been set for a withdrawal of US troops. On the contrary, the plan is for a long-term troop presence.
Both leading US Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have actively opposed setting a date for leaving Iraq or Afghanistan. Both of them approved a no-strings-attached $300 billion war funding. They voted to confirm key players in the pro-war arena: Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, among others. The only wafer-thin difference that separates them is an anti-war speech made by Obama back in 2002. But it’s a different story now.
Meanwhile, back at the International Monetary Fund ranch, it’s business as usual. While Iraqi citizens pay the price of the occupation and civil strife, the IMF expects Iraq's economy to become stabile this year despite political and security problems “as oil production recovers and the government moves ahead with reforms”. Oil production, which accounts for 70% of Iraq’s domestic productivity, is expected to increase 'at least' by 200,000 barrels per day in 2008, according to Mohsin Khan, director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia department.
As one US blogger wrote to the Washington Post: “Who cares if a few more shoemakers and their children are slaughtered. It's all about the economy, stupid!”
Corinna Lotz
AWTW secretary
Last year, the United States-Britain-led coalition dropped nearly four bombs a day on Iraq – a total of 1,447. This compared with 229, or four a week, in 2006. The figures do not include US Marine Corps air strikes, or US and NATO bombings in Afghanistan which doubled from 2006 to 2007.
Only last week, Operation Phantom Phoenix carried out air strikes across Iraq. On Thursday morning alone, Arab Jabour, 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives hit an area southeast of Baghdad in just 10 minutes. North of the city, 16,500 pounds of bombs were dropped in a few days last week.
Military commanders like US Army Col Terry Ferrell claim that better intelligence gathering allows precision strikes which “shape the battle field and take out known threats before our ground troops move in”.
But the United Nations and human rights groups say that the latest strategy carries an even higher risk of civilian casualties than before. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) says that more than 200 people have died since last April. “The Iraqi population remains at risk of harm during these operations,” spokeswoman Eliane Nabaa says. “The presence of individual combatants among a great number of civilians does not alter the civilian character of an area.” Human rights groups estimate that more than 300 civilians died as a result of bombing in Afghanistan last year. The Afghan Independent Human Rights commission says that “in previous casualty tallies by the UN, the number of civilians killed by NATO forces has exceeded the numbers killed by the Taliban. What is striking though is the rise in the recorded number of deaths. In July, the UN reported a total of 600 civilian deaths for 2007 to that date, making a monthly average of about 100. Based on that estimate, the total for September has increased by over 50% from the average.”
The US-UK military hope to wipe out insurgents from the air in order to minimise troop casualties as US military deaths have risen to 3,926 since the occupation began in 2003. UK military deaths reached 260 in December and look set to rise in Afghanistan.
And while commanders grotesquely boast about “using air power more creatively” and deploy concrete-filled bombs and 250 and 500 pounders “to make blasts safer for civilians”, no date has been set for a withdrawal of US troops. On the contrary, the plan is for a long-term troop presence.
Both leading US Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have actively opposed setting a date for leaving Iraq or Afghanistan. Both of them approved a no-strings-attached $300 billion war funding. They voted to confirm key players in the pro-war arena: Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, among others. The only wafer-thin difference that separates them is an anti-war speech made by Obama back in 2002. But it’s a different story now.
Meanwhile, back at the International Monetary Fund ranch, it’s business as usual. While Iraqi citizens pay the price of the occupation and civil strife, the IMF expects Iraq's economy to become stabile this year despite political and security problems “as oil production recovers and the government moves ahead with reforms”. Oil production, which accounts for 70% of Iraq’s domestic productivity, is expected to increase 'at least' by 200,000 barrels per day in 2008, according to Mohsin Khan, director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia department.
As one US blogger wrote to the Washington Post: “Who cares if a few more shoemakers and their children are slaughtered. It's all about the economy, stupid!”
Corinna Lotz
AWTW secretary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)