Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A war that can’t be won- Starts with candy, ends in napalm

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 08:09 AM
Original message
A war that can’t be won- Starts with candy, ends in napalm


A war that can’t be won
Starts with candy, ends in napalm
by Serge Halimi

Barack Obama once described the operations in Afghanistan as a “necessary war”. That war has lasted eight years and General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the US forces there, appointed by Obama, is urging him to deploy 40,000 more troops.

In Indochina, the US supported corrupt and illegitimate puppet governments, to no avail. In Afghanistan, Britain and the Soviet Union failed to subdue the country, despite all their efforts. US military losses have been relatively small (880 since 2001, compared with 1,200 a month in Vietnam in 1968) and anti-war protests have been low-key, but have the western armies any chance of winning, lost in mountains, surrounded by drug traffickers (1), and suspected of crusading against Islam?

The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner still hopes to “win hearts and minds with a bullet-proof vest” (2) and McChrystal assures the world that “the American goal in Afghanistan must not be primarily to hunt down and kill Taliban insurgents but to protect the population” (3). Apart from their cynicism, these statements are based on a common assumption that social development can be combined with military operations in a country where it is impossible to distinguish between insurgents and civilians. In Vietnam, the US journalist Andrew Kopkind summed up this kind of “counter-insurgency” in 1966 as “candy in the morning, napalm in the afternoon”.

Washington appreciated the strength of Afghan nationalist and religious forces when, with American aid, they drained the Soviet Union. The US may have no hope of decisively beating them now, but it would like to weaken the loose links between the Taliban and al-Qaida militants (4). After all, Washington’s reason for deploying troops and drones in central Asia following the attacks on 11 September 2001 was to destroy al-Qaida, not to secure an education for Afghan girls.

...

http://mondediplo.com/2009/11/01afpak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sattahipdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. “Face-Off”
Jeremy Scahill debated the neconservative, pro-Empire Max Boot
about Afghanistan.

http://rebelreports.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 09:29 AM
Original message
It's deju vu all over again.....

and it ain't no mistake, it's a money maker.

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's deju vu all over again.....

and it ain't no mistake, it's a money maker.

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC