US ignoring war errors in Afghanistan
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: US ignoring war errors in Afghanistan
topic by
nemesis
4/24/2002 (17:07)
 reply top
US ignoring war errors in Afghanistan


By Peter Baker

KABUL: A delegation of local leaders from Khost showed up at the US Embassy here the other day seeking answers. What they got, they said, was the brush-off.

It has been four months since the US military bombed a convoy heading from Khost to Kabul for the inauguration of the interim Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, an attack even Karzai called a mistake that killed innocent tribal elders. But the Americans turned away the Khost representatives at the gate of the heavily fortified embassy without seeing them.

The seeming indifference has irritated Afghan civilian victims of the war who are now hoping for compensation, or at least recognition, from the United States as it continues to prosecute its battle against terrorism here.

In recent weeks, hundreds of Afghans whose relatives were killed or whose homes were inadvertently destroyed by US bombing have presented claims to the embassy, with no response.

'It's amazing,' said Abdurrahman, a member of the Khost shura, or council, who traveled to Kabul to present the council's case to the embassy. 'The Americans will accept wrong reports and bomb our people. But they don't allow us to come in and tell them the truth.'

A senior US official visiting Afghanistan said ON Monday that the Bush administration was sensitive to the issue and trying to help those who have been hurt. 'I can assure you that we try our darned best to avoid hitting innocent targets - that's not what we're about,' President Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, said at a news conference at the embassy. 'But mistakes do happen. When charges are made, we investigate. And then we do the right thing to respond to the needs of those who have suffered.'

Asked what 'the right thing' meant, he gave no specifics. According to private organizations that monitor the issue, the United States has rarely responded to civilian casualties in Afghanistan with assistance of any kind.

The only known instance cited by the organizations came in the southern province of Uruzgan, where US agents distributed $1,000 to each family of at least 12 people killed in a raid in December that targeted the wrong people. 'They're absolutely not doing the right thing because there are families sleeping without homes,' said Marla Ruzicka, an activist with Global Exchange, a human rights organization in San Francisco that is lobbying on behalf of Afghan victims.

'Nobody's gone to talk to them, nobody's gone to help. If they were doing the right thing, they'd help widows, they'd help the orphans that were created by this campaign.'

The question of how to handle the cases of civilian victims of the Afghan war has drawn only modest attention in Washington. The Pentagon has been reluctant to acknowledge errors and the Bush administration has preferred to highlight its broader efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Global Exchange has tried to force the issue onto the US agenda by enlisting help from relatives of victims of the Sept 11 attacks.

The group's leaders met with State Department officials Monday and will meet with key congressional leaders this week in an effort to lobby the House Appropriations Committee to earmark $20 million for a fund to help civilian victims of the war.

The issue has attracted limited support so far. Republicans Carrie Meek and John Cooksey are circulating a 'dear colleague' letter calling for a compensation fund and have collected just 22 signatures so far, according to a spokesman for Meek.

No reliable figures exist to indicate the number of civilians who have died during US military operations in Afghanistan, although most specialists agree that precision weaponry limited the damage compared with that of most wars in the past.

A research organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Project on Defense Alternatives, estimated in January that 1,000 to 1,300 civilians were killed by mistake.

Global Exchange has estimated 2,000 families were affected, including those whose homes were damaged. The group has collected 470 claims that it has screened and forwarded to the US Embassy in Kabul.

The Washington Post.



reply by
TheAZCowBoy
4/24/2002 (18:03)
 reply top
The IDF is pulling off bank heists now!

Terrorism and Nationalism

What's Your Opinion?



Wednesday, April 24, 2002; Page A28


ISRAELI PRIME Minister Ariel Sharon has insisted that his army's offensive in the West Bank has been aimed at uprooting the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism, in the same way that the United States has used military force to drive al Qaeda from Afghanistan. That seems a worthy goal, and to some a valid comparison -- and yet it doesn't explain why Israeli troops would have raided and deliberately destroyed the civilian ministries of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. At the Ministry of Higher Education, the Israelis stripped all the computers of their hard drives, then piled them together and blew them up. They also destroyed Palestinian television studios, knocked down radio antennas and looted Palestinian banks. Perhaps some of these acts were carried out by undisciplined troops. But the pattern of destruction also suggests a crucial distinction between Israel's campaign and that of the United States. Both invasions are aimed at crushing terrorist organizations that have carried out savage attacks on innocent civilians. But Israel also has another target: the Palestinian national movement, which aims at ending the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and creating a Palestinian state in its place.

The problem with equating Israel's campaign against terrorism with that of the United States, as Mr. Sharon and some of his American supporters do, is that it overlooks this contest for territory and sovereignty underlying the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed. Though it has been contaminated by suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism, the Palestinian national cause and its goals are recognized as legitimate by the Bush administration and the United Nations, and they were tacitly accepted by Israel when it signed the Oslo accords of 1993. Mr. Sharon and most of the rest of his government, however, have never accepted Oslo; on the contrary, they have devoted most of their lives to the dream of permanently establishing Israel's control over most, if not all, of the territories it occupied during the 1967 Six Day War. Few outside of Israel support that plan, but Mr. Sharon and his allies have for decades argued that Israeli occupation and settlement of the Arab lands were necessary to control the Palestinian threat to Israel.

The disastrous decision of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not to accept a negotiated settlement of Palestinian claims and his subsequent encouragement of a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation have justified an Israeli response. But they have also given Mr. Sharon and other Israeli nationalists the cover to pursue their own unacceptable ambitions. In the name of uprooting terrorism, they have systematically destroyed the institutions and infrastructure of Palestinian self-government. To back the Israeli invasion, as the Bush administration has mostly done, is not just to back the cause of counterterrorism; it is also to abet Mr. Sharon's drive to suppress Palestinian national rights.

The Bush administration's uncompromising opposition to terrorism following Sept. 11 is politically and morally powerful and has yielded impressive results, both in Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Nevertheless, if counterterrorism is to remain an effective cause, the administration must discriminate between terrorism and the sometimes legitimate political causes it is used for; and it must also differentiate between legitimate defenses against terrorism and attempts to use counterterrorism to justify unacceptable aims. The Israeli writer Amos Oz has observed that Israel is engaged in two separate campaigns against the Palestinians -- a legitimate war against terrorism and an 'unjust and futile' bid for control of the West Bank and Gaza. The Bush administration needs a policy that can tell the difference between the two.


¿ 2002 The Washington Post Company


reply by
John Calvin
4/24/2002 (20:16)
 reply top
And I think it is worth suggesting that this whole 'return of the beloved King' routine is a ploy to try and get at least a fraction of the aid promised for reconstruction flowing- the only reason the present puppet regime in Kabul is tolerated for one minute. Of course, none of the funds promised for reconstruction have been delivered yet, eccept those pertaining to military and poliice training- reproducing errors made in proping up the Shah in Iran.

One report I read last evening had a top British commander saying again that Afghanistan is a quagmire and that the present mission has little hope for success.
reply by
ozzie
4/24/2002 (22:59)
 reply top
It'll come back & bite the dragon in the ass!