At the core of Rev. King’s speech is his call for a “true revolution” ,
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. …
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. …
A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
Rev. King’s message remains relevant, his call sadly still in need of our response.
Today we continue to occupy Iraq– and now with the Obama administration’s strategy for the war on Afghanistan, we are diving deeper into the quagmire – and expanding to Pakistan.
We see the growing distress of Afghans – both in their own coutnry where they face a growing threat from military actions and in those who flee including the 24 unaccompanied children found living in an Italian railway station this week and news of more and more women fleeing the country.
While presented as a new and more sensible approach to Afghanistan, once again we are planning a surge with no exit plan and a continued lack of concern for the most basic protection of the civilians in the land we claim to liberate.
Just last week, eleven humanitarian organizations called on the US and our allies to institute new policies to counteract the increase in danger to civilians which will follow the escalation.
Instead of listening to these experts, the administration seems determined to continue the failed policies of the past including the militarization of humanitarian aid which is presented as a balance to the increased deployment of US forces but which actually increases the suffering of Afghans:
The report warns the military are blurring the distinction between aid workers and soldiers by doing extensive humanitarian and assistance work for counter-insurgency purposes, and by using unmarked white vehicles, which are conventionally only used by the UN and aid agencies. This undermines local perceptions of the independence and impartiality of aid agencies and therefore increases the risk to aid workers, and threatens to reduce the areas in which they can safely work.
The agencies also warn that the increasing distortion of humanitarian and development assistance for military aims could undermine long-term stability.
Agencies say that the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the military-led security and reconstruction teams, continue to receive massive amounts of funding: the annual PRT budget for the United States – over $200 million – exceeds the Afghan national budgets for health and education combined. The agencies recommend a phase-out of militarised aid and a substantial increase in development and humanitarian funding for civilian institutions and organisations.
This is just one part of what is so wrong with the new plan for Afghanistan. Today, as part of Get Afghanistan Right’s campaign, you can raise the issues that concern you about the escalation in diaries at Oxdown. GAR will be collecting and publicizing the diaries so the policymakers in Washington know that we are insisting on a genuinely new approach.
Forty two years ago, Rev King asked us to hear the voices of those who suffer in our wars – and to raise our voices. Today, we need to hear yours.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

I guess my problem is this; while it is not in any way a good thing to blur the lines with the vehicles, there is going to be a need for more troops in country to provide some level of security to the people of Afghanistan if there is going to be any meaningful reform of the justice system and the government in general. There is also the problem of the aid workers themselves needing protection as we know that the Taliban insurgents do and will attack them, if it looks like they are making progress that might undermine their efforts.
I do think that we have to build up the support of the people and civil society, if we are to leave something other than a failed state when we do leave, but I don’t see how we can do that with the amount of troops we have, as they have always been less than what was actually needed to stabilize the country after we ousted the Taliban government.
I would ask those that will insist on a different course to keep this in mind as we talk about the policy moving forward. To my mind it would be as bad or worse for us to do nothing about removing the threat which the Taliban posses to the people in the areas we do not control than it will be to make a focused effort to fulfill our responsibilities as the occupying power that removed the previous government.
When was the last time nation building worked? East Timor and Kosovo, much smaller than Afghanistan, should be the test cases and they are still basket cases.
Do-gooders are just as wrong-headed about intervention, imo, as neocons. Outsiders cannot solve a country’s problems, though if invited to help (by a non-puppet peaceful govt), that might be another story.
When was the last time any outsider ever created order in Afghanistan? When was the last time an outsider didn’t leave Afghanistan with its tail between its legs?
The Afghans have to do it for themselves. What you describe as an exit strategy is a pipe dream, meaning the U.S. will be there forever.
As for terrorist safe havens, that’s an intelligence and police function, not a military one.
what ecahn said (except maybe the part about east timor and kosovo).
what makes you think you have the right to order anyone else’s society? i’m all for providing assistance. but that would require, um, assisting afghanis.
Every invading army in the history of humanity has portrayed itself as a “Liberator”. Every occupying army in history talks about trying to “provide some level of security to the people” . This is “Occupier Speak” for denying the enemy access to the population. “stabilize the country” is OS for militarily destroying the enemies ability to operate.
The amount of money needed to dominate Afganistan and Pakistan is many times the annual natinoal budget of both countries combined. This translates into, these Western financed puppet governments cannot ever survive on their own. They will need massive infusions of cash and fighting men annually forever. This is the cost of empire. We are not in the middle east to protect ourselves from Arabs. We are not there to promote good government.
It is utter nonsense to talk about propping up puppet governments around the world forever. We just don’t have any where near enough gold or young men. In the end we world be defeated and destroyed anyway. The monsterous advances in warfare that we are seeing are a horrific portend of the future. How long will it be before our equally intelligent opponents get to make use of this technology themselves? Logic dictates and history shows that eventually every weapon we now possess will be available to our enemies
In the 21 century it is a small matter to deliver a lethal weapon to any common address. How long will it be before the people we are killing wholesale return the favor?
Well, Barbara Starr reported that The Taliban is now as powerful as ever and will soon be sending aircraft carriers and battalions of troops to invade California if we don’t act now.
We must fight them over there!
Second verse, same as the first.
President Obama’s gladhanding is starting to leave a bruise.
-G
One of my favorite examples of that was the Strategic Hamlet Program in Vietnam.
The problem is that while Iraqi and Iranian nuclear threats are largley neocon wet nightmares, the Pakisani potential is fully realized.
My impression is that the US Afganistan policy is more driven by this factor than the liklihood of new AQ training camps.
I am not a believer in a military solution in the area, but at this point I do not think the “declare victory and leave” approach is really in the US’s best interests.
Ever been in a country occupied by foreign troops? Ever been an occupier? Ever see the look in a person’s eyes that says, “If I could I would kill you?”
Do you really think US troops will provide security for Afghanis? Buying off Sunnis and promising them jobs in the Iraki security forces resulted in a decrease in both Iraki and American casualties, temporarily it turns out. Now that al-Maliki has imprisoned one of the Sunni Awakening leaders, the promise of jobs goes unfulfilled and we’ve halted payments to the Sunnis we now have multiple bombings in Shi’ite areas of Baghdad. How’s that for security? Are we going to buy off the Taliban in order to prop up an American puppet who’s playing both sides of the fence?
“I will believe that violence will overcome violence when you can convince me that darkness will overcome darkness.” M K Gandhi
What I don’t understand is that this whole thing started off with al Quaida as the enemy; now, it’s the Taliban.Why are THEY “insurgents” now, they friggin’ LIVE there. It’s their society, bad as it may be.
We’ll always be able to find someone, somewhere who doesn’t agree with US.
Obama is really beginning to scare the living daylights outta me.
Gee Mack, Israel is not a very stable country and they have nukes, should we occupy them?/s
The strategic hamlet program was used sucessfully by the Brits in their insurgent war in Malaya in the 50s. The US figured that if it worked their. it should work in Vietnam. It did not. As a Vietnam Vet over the last 35 years I have read every book I could find on the region. We simply went in on the heels of the French and attampted to do what they could not. We were going to fail in that war from the gitgo due to a total failue to understand the people and the reasons for the actual fight-civil war-going on there. I have been against the Iraq war from the start. I am much more ambivalent about Afghanistan. We had a good reason to invade, however we went about it wrong. We started by going in cheap and compounding the error when we had almost all of the alQaeda leadership trapped in Tora Bora. Micro management by Rumsfeld resulted in the escape of alQaeda. Since then the problem has moved into Pakistan-nuclear weapons anyone? Why should we bother about Pakistan? Because their govt is corrupt, their ISI intel agency funded the Taliban, which has spread itself into Pakistan and could take over the govt. I don’t know what needs to be done, but this I can say with knowledge and certainty. If we do nothing, then we will be attacked by alQaeda once more, possibly with a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Peace, while nice to talk about, has never worked. It is only the countries with strong militaries that have not been attacked. I can go on for hours with examples of this fact. OTOH I do not believe in the current militarism of the US. What we should do is protect our own country. Bring home the troops from Germany and Japan. It has been over 60 years, I do not think that they will go to war again against us.
Why is it Pearl Harbor comes to mind?
Rome became an empire because of its military might.
Britain became an empire because of its military might.
Japan became an empire because of its military might.
The US has become an empire because of its military might.
All of this military might was used to create and maintain wealth for a select few.
There will be no peace as long as some country wants to become an empire.
As Jefferson Airplane said 40 years ago, “War is good business. Give your son.”
Troops
Home
Now
As I understand the Malay insurgency, it was primarily carried out by ethnic Chinese who constituted about 10% of the population. I don’t mean to imply that all ethnic Chinese living in Malaysia were insurgents; only used that stat to indidicate that the insurgency was centered within a population that was a substantial minority. The rest of the Malaysians were biased against the ethnic Chinese. So the Brits had a much easier time siding with the vast majority against the insurgents, and keeping the vast majority relatively safe, however they did it.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How many heard that message in the last years?
Have we learned it yet ?
Permit me to follow your JA quote and muddle the picture by pointing out that there IS a country dying next door in Pakistan.
Maybe we should be concerned (didn’t want to say “occupied”) with that situation short-term and then pull out.