WAR LIES!

[Roger Baker]

The big lie is that we aren't trying to do "nation-building" but are merely 
trying to break the grip of the Teliban so the Afghan people will be free to 
conduct their business in a civilized manner.

Face it, we're nation building, as the quotes below prove beyond a doubt. 

(And likewise we're lying about not showing bin Laden on US TV for fear he might 
transmit code through his dress somehow. And we drop 37,000 food packages as token 
TV propaganda where millions are starving and malnourished. Meanwhile the one good 
thing about this war is that we know just where to send the cruise missiles because 
the CIA helped set up the training camps). 

Meanwhile, here is the American Prospect link and a snip that explains why, in 
the opinion of experts familiar with Afghanistan, why "nation-building" probably 
won't work. 

What did we learn from Vietnam?; a country that wasn't surrounded by dominos 
ready to fall? 

-- Roger


       ************************************************

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2001/10/vest-j-10-01.html 


"...But wariness of Pakistan should not be limited to matters of intelligence. "Putting 
U.S. troops into a place like Peshawar [the largest Pakistani city near the Afghan 
border] would be similar to [putting a] Marine barracks in Beirut," says Dienstag. 
"I do not share others' confidence that this is a workable partnership. Be prepared 
for Pakistan to implode. The cancer of extremism there has advanced to the terminal 
stage."
 
The mere presence of U.S. troops will inflame public opinion and political intrigue, 
adds O'Donnell. If there's any notion of using a city like Peshawar as a secure staging 
area for U.S. soldiers, particularly ground troops, forget it. The area, he says, is 
awash in all manner of small arms and artillery, as well as Taliban-style Islam. About 
a third of Taliban cadre were taught in madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan's 
Northwest Frontier Province near Peshawar, and the madrassas have continued to send 
recruits. They also have entrenched Talibanism on the Pakistan side of the border, 
effectively erasing the border.
 
"Everything west of Peshawar to the border, going north and south, is called the 
'Federally-Administered Tribal Area'. When we were there, we referred to it as the 
'Tribally-Administered Federal Area,"' O'Donnell says. "The British could never 
control it; the best they could do is get a treaty that gave them jurisdiction over 
the roads. The Pakistani government inherited that agreement, and they don't go in 
there without troops, and they don't stay for long. If we try to go in overland from 
Pakistan, it's a logistical nightmare, and a tactical one as well. Taking any armor 
through the tribal areas would be ill-advised. And while we could get in with 
helicopters, troops would have a world of hurt waiting for them in Pakistan after 
they got back from a mission." 

Appreciate that getting rid of Osama Bin Laden will not "win the war," and a war on 
Bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda, means a war with the Taliban. The intelligence 
analysis submitted to the Secretary of Defense maintains that Bin Laden's "death would 
demoralize his followers although by itself [it] will not destroy his organization." 
Anthony Davis agrees with the last part but takes issues with the first. "Either the 
Taliban decides to hand him over, he gets snatched, or he gets killed," Davis says. 
"Paradoxically, any of these could be the worst options. He will become either a martyr 
or more of a cult figure than he already is. At the same time, his whole infrastructure 
will remain behind. And the Taliban will say, 'You've got what you wanted, but now you 
want more, so it's not about Bin Laden, but about Afghanistan and Islam.'"
 
"We have to acknowledge that this so-called 'war' is pointless unless we aid the process of rebuilding the country now," says a senior intelligence
official. "But in situations like this, this is always the hardest thing to do, or the thing that gets lost in the shuffle."...
 

-- Roger
  

               ***************************************
 
October 4 -- NOT "NATION-BUILDING"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/international/04ASSE.html?searchpv=past7days


"...Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has spoken clearly on the subject, telling 
a Labor Party conference in Brighton this week that the Taliban must "surrender the 
terrorists or surrender power."
Sometimes President Bush has sounded just as firm, but he has also insisted that the 
United States is not interested in using its military for "nation-building" — a 
reference to the American misadventure in Somalia and the long-running peacekeeping 
mission in the Balkans — and other senior officials have used murkier language. 
Clearly, one of the problems is that Mr. Bush must speak to several audiences at the 
same time.
Tough talk goes down well at home and, to varying degress, in Britain, France and
 Germany. But for many in the Islamic world, anything that smacks of a generalized 
anti-Islamic operation, as opposed to a concerted campaign to bring down Osama bin 
Laden and company, is not only distasteful but dangerous..."

          *************************************

Oct. 9  -- NOT "NATION-BUILDING"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/09/international/09ATTA.html?pagewanted=2&searchpv=past7days

"...The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it was ``not the job of the United 
States to engage in nation building'' by seeking to orchestrate the shape of a future 
Afghan government. He reiterated administration policy, saying, ``We do not want to 
choose who rules Afghanistan, but we will assist those who seek a peaceful, economically 
developing Afghanistan, free of terrorism.''
 
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that 
``the Taliban is effectively already gone.''...


                  **************************************


Oct. 10 -- WE'RE NATION-BUILDING AFTER ALL!!!!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40263-2001Oct10.html

Thursday, October 11, 2001; Page A01
 
JABAL SARAJ, Afghanistan, Oct. 10 -- Afghan opposition forces said today they have 
agreed to delay a crucial offensive to take control of Kabul until an interim government 
can be established to replace the ruling Taliban regime, a decision that could prolong 
military action in Afghanistan for weeks.

The guerrilla commanders of the Northern Alliance postponed an assault on the capital 
after negotiations with U.S. and international officials who fear chaos and bloodshed 
if rebel warlords seize the city before a functioning government or security forces are 
in place.

In a bid to forestall any advance by the rebels into Kabul, U.S. and Pakistani officials 
said, the United States and Britain are holding off aerial bombardments against the 
thousands of Taliban and Arab troops arrayed in three defensive lines on the plains north 
of the capital. Instead, the U.S. and British warplanes and missiles are attacking 
airfields, artillery batteries and other targets to assist the Northern Alliance in 
capturing key northern and eastern Afghan cities.

Airstrikes against the forces around Kabul -- including an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 Arab 
troops financed and armed by accused terrorist Osama bin Laden -- would be necessary 
before any offensive toward the capital, which lies 40 miles to the south of the rebel 
front line, the officials said. "U.S. forces have not targeted Taliban artillery and 
other military hardware positioned around Kabul," said one Pakistani military official. 
"Hitting the Taliban artillery now [would] mean giving the Northern Alliance a walkover."

The decision to temporarily allow Taliban fighters to retain their positions defending 
Kabul underscores how the U.S.-British military campaign has moved far ahead of efforts 
to organize a post-Taliban government...