Afghanistan: I am filled with rage and drenched in tears by what those who own my country have done

[ConsAreLiars]

to millions of innocents around this poor planet. Not just Afghanistan, of course. But Afghanistan is personal for me.

I learned the what, but not the why, during Vietnam, and have ever since tried to resist that evil force. They massacred Vietnamese for no reason that I then understood and they supported the Khmer Rouge against its rivals and even when that evil group massacred those it had subjugated.

Not much later, the "why" became understandable.

While that was going on an odd combination of circumstances found me and a marginally scarfed, tight blue jeaned, female companion entering and traveling through Afghanistan on public buses and staying in public accommodeations and walking around in Herat, Kandahar, and Kabul.

My first and only ever instance of utterly mind-boggling culture shock. I had been overland through almost all of Europe and Turkey was not that different from Greece and Iran not much of a change from Turkey, but entering Afghanistan was like crossing into some alternate universe, where nothing was like anything else I had known.

You can read through the older posts in my journal for some of the details on that, but here I want to draw attention to the slow but organic process of social change toward greater freedom for all that I saw taking place at that time,

Top on the list was that my companion and I were never harassed. Engels wrote in the 1850's that the Afghans were a moderate and tolerant people, and that was still true in 1970-71. We were guests, not intruders or bandits. The near absence of motorized transport or electricity were part of it, but the burqa was one of the most shocking indicators that we were now encountering something completely different.

Yet my companion and I were always treated well. Nomads traveled freely and villagers in remote regions got by with no more covering than the famous Afghan Girl photo showed. And in Kabul the educated elite went around freely with nothing more than a headscarf. There was change taking place. It was something I saw happening and wondered about.

Over time this dynamic (and other intrigues re: king and army and who killed who first) resulted in a progressive (by any measure, but a bit over the top and utopian in terms of trying to mandate change).

Of course, instead of allowing this progressive government to find its way by whatever decisions it made, or fail as a consequence, the US began, with the ISI and and Saudis, importing truly insane religious crazies and the kinds of insane nutters that had been alien to that "moderate and tolerant" society before then.

As a result, instead of a unique, and admirable in very many ways, culture and society moving bit by bit forward, we see mass killings, millions in refugee camps, more millions driven from their destroyed sustainable ecosystems into begging or petty crime in the urban centers. And the monsters who own our land wage mass mu8rder, mass pain, mass suffering there, with the goal of controlling them and their resources as completely as they have done here.

I cry for the people of Afghanistan. I cry for the people in the US who allowed this crime. I am shamed by being one of those who have seen the evil, done what I could to resist it, but failed to stop it. I am shamed by being a part of society that allows and supports such evil.

[Yuugal]

1. I feel that shame too

You can bet the rich people who run the country don't though, that is why they keep coming up with bogus excuses to stay there and keep killing.

[sandnsea]

2. The US didn't destroy Afghanistan

That was done long before we ever got there.

Don't you also say that the warlords have been fighting there for centuries and that is why nobody can "win" a war there?

[ConsAreLiars]

11. This is what I was referring to:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saur_Revolution

"The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union, and the move essentially signaled the end of the détente era initiated by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In 1978 the United States began training insurgents and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan.<7> Then, in early 1979, U.S. foreign service officers began meeting insurgent leaders to determine their needs.<8> According to the then US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, CIA aid to the insurgents within Afghanistan was approved in July 1979, six months before the Soviet Invasion.<9> Brzezinski said that aid to the insurgents, begun under the Carter administration with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, was significantly boosted under the Reagan administration, which was committed to actively rolling back Soviet influence in the Third World."

For decades before 1978 the country was as I experienced it.

[sabrina 1]

3. We are a backward society. Still engaging in medieval wars.

Colonialists, when the the rest of the world had begun to move forward from the evils of Colonialism.

I suppose someday when we evolve from this tragic period of our history, as others did, either voluntarily or because in the end all Empires fall, some other soulless society will do it all over again.

We could have broken the centuries-long chain of violence, oppresion and brutality, given the power we had. But mindless, cruel war-mongers had different ideas of how to use that power.

I know someone who was in Afghanistan around the same time you were and who confirms what you say. That the people were tolerant and moving towards a more modern society.

You didn't fail, it's just that there were forces too powerful to be stopped. At least you were on the right side.

[pinboy3niner]

4. I usually agree with you, but in this case I think colonialism is a stretch

Current U.S. policy is to stand up the government, the military and police and get out (admittedly, even if it takes 10 years or more). There may be some interests that would benefit from (and love to see) a longer-term U.S. presence, but colonization is not a U.S. objective. There's plenty to criticize and debate about the policy, but I don't think colonization is a strong argument.

[ixion]

5. Not in the traditional sense, but the key is in defining what 'stand up' means

Usually, that means a government friendly to Pax-Americana, and anything else is "terrorist."

It is not colonization in the sense that we want to make exurbs in Afghanistan, but it is conquest, as the ultimate goal is to control (or have proxy control of) local land and resources.

By way of example: We want Afghanistan because we want to put a pipeline across their country to make it convenient for us to ship oil over here.

[JohnyCanuck]

6. Of course, others do see the situation somewhat differently

NATO: Whoring Itself To American Imperialism

snip

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while touted as wars of liberation, are really wars of strategic positioning. The US set out to control the politics and resources of the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as containment of Russia and China. Iraq and Afghanistan are mere stepping stones to a larger agenda and they have suffered grievously under the jackboots of American imperialism.

The real “sin” of Iran is that it is a regional power that impedes America’s imperial ambitions. Its repeated and compulsive vilification has the stench of just one more deception.

Where the US claims its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is only temporary the massive infrastructures established in these countries in the form of military bases belies this claim. They are not dispensing “Enduring Freedom” but an enduring presence and Afghanistan and Iraq are only the most recent franchises in a global network of over 700 US military bases.

Imperialism is a very expensive game and has left America the most indebted country in the world. It is fighting foreign wars with borrowed money on borrowed time. It then becomes necessary to defray the costs of this cretinous extravagance by coercing allies, namely NATO, into being the whores of US imperialism all too willing to cough up cash and lives in a sorely corrupted cause for despicable motives.

In this age of denialism and willful ignorance it is beyond the comprehension of most that terrorism is mostly no more than a byproduct of US imperialism.

Equally obnoxious is the fatuous notion the US must guard its national security globally. This is no more than a transparent ruse to justify these imperial ambitions yet it floods the air waves unchallenged.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930842-nato-whoring-itself-to-american-imperialism

[sabrina 1]

8. Hi pinboy3niner.

No problem that we don't agree on something, I generally agree with you also :-)

But to me we are colonialists, colonialism didn't always involve the actual presence of the foreign army once the resistance had been defeated. Setting up a compliant government and controlling it, supplying it with what it needs to suppress any uprisings that might come about, making them a proxy government for the Colonialists, loyal to their interests, willing to hand over the country's resources, that is how Colonialism operated. No Empire can keep troops in every country they conquer.

But if things begin to get our of hand, they are ready to send in the troops again to protect 'their resources', until one day they are just too spread out around the world and they simply cannot do it anymore.

This country was a willing colony of Britain. Ireland was an unwilling colony for 800 years. Neither country had a huge British military presence as we have now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They had people in power loyal to the 'crown' who did the necessary work to hold on to the colonies and were rewarded for their efforts with land, or power, money and position etc.

The U.S. is doing and has been doing the same thing. We conquer them militarily where necessary, covertly where possible, then set up governments we reward with positions of power, money and protection, while they hand over control of their resources to us.

It may have a slightly different face, but to me it is colonialism and I must say to the people of the countries we have conquered and handed over to our dictators of our choosing, many of the people there who already suffered under other colonial powers, don't see much difference.

It's clever of us to say 'we don't want to stay there'. But of course we will be there, as long as they have something we want and they will never be allowed to elect a leader who decides to keep the country's resources. Such leaders end up dead, or ousted in coups with our backing.

Just my opinion from reading history and how the evils of colonialism destroyed so much of whole continents like Africa and S. America.

Maybe there's another name for it, I'm open to that, but whatever we call it, it has the same evil effect on the native people whose resources we steal, whose environments we destroy and whose citizens we kill, torture and rape if they refuse to recognize our superiority and right to their resources.

[pinboy3niner]

12. My reply to you, Ixion and JohnyCanuck:

All of you raise a lot of valid points. My only point is that the traditional definition and understanding of 'colonialism' doesn't fit. Perhaps, sabrina 1, you're right that we may need another name for it. We've already used terms like "puppets" and "client states."

I tend to think in terms of how I discuss my views with my conservative friends. If I use 'colonialism' to refer to a situation that doesn't fit their understanding of the traditional use of the term, they'll just tune me out.

So my disagreement is not with your premise, but with our inadequate and ineffective terminology. There is a great case to be made for how the U.S. projects power and control throughout the world. I just don't think our old terms from previous eras serve us well in characterizing our current reality.

:hi:

[WinkyDink]

9. No, we don't intend to send American settlers there. But we DO aim to OWN the riches. "TRILLIONS."

And the poppy fields.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Your point also is well-taken. Thanks, Winky.

[madokie]

7. I still feel shame about what we did to the Vietnamese people and their country

and I feel shame about what we've done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. All of this is being done for a few people to increase their personal wealth.
please someone show me how I'm wrong in thinking this

[pinboy3niner]

13. No argument here, bro

I always had a fondness for the Vietnamese people, and lived with an ARVN L-T in training before I went over. Leading an Infantry platoon in a free-fire zone, when I ran into civilian woodcutters in the jungle, instead of firing them up I'd stop and chat and sing them a popular Vietnamese song--and they'd be rolling on the ground laughing at my mangling of their song and their language.

I returned to Vietnam three times in the 90's. It was heartening to see how much healing from the war the people had experienced. They'd even filled in most of the old bomb craters with their manual labor, though you could still see a lot of damage in the old I Corps area, up around Phu Bai and North. Saigon was thriving (the government could never make the locals call it Ho Chi Minh City, even though "Uncle Ho" was revered there). Again, it was up around Phu Bai that you'd see a lot of poverty.

When I was staying with a poor family in the Cholon section of Saigon, I hired a dragon dance troupe to perform at the local Buddhist temple for Tet, and I was blown away by how much such a simple thing meant to the community.

From our wartime service, we'll be forever connected to that place and its people. We've re-established our embassy there, and provided aid, but one more thing I'd really like to see our country do is provide direct aid to Vietnamese affected by Agent Orange, and their children who continue to suffer the horrible consequences.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Manifest Destiny

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-manifest-destiny.htm

The idea of Manifest Destiny was also behind American political actions overseas. Although the term ceased to be used in a political context in the early twentieth century, the far-reaching impact of Manifest Destiny was clear. A section of the Manifest Destiny editorial reminded Americans that they were uniquely positioned to spread democracy throughout the world, and this concept clearly played a role in twentieth century American foreign policy. Many historians use the term “Manifest Destiny” to refer to the period in American history which was marked by rapid expansion “from sea to shining sea” through annexation of the Western half of the continent.