Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
contrary to the Uruzgan mission which is a clear multilateral NATO alliance mission.

I don't follow that at all. With the collapse of the USSR, NATO lost its legitimate reason for being. Whereas before it served the function of protecting Western Europe from (unlikely) Soviet aggression, after the collapse, its sole purpose became keeping the US in Europe, and making it impossible for Europe to develop a foreign or military  policy independently of the US.

It is specious to say that NATO is a multilateral organization. It is a vehicle for the projection of US power.

There are no valid reasons for European countries to be involved militarily in Afghanistan. Humanitarian goals cannot be achieved by military means. The NATO presence in Afghanistan is a US imperial, not a multilateral humanitarian, project.

And it is hard to see why the US itself should want to stay in Afghanistan, in geopolitical terms. There seem to be three reasons for the continuing presence and escalation, none of them having to do with Afghanistan itself:

  1. The old issue of maintaining US "credibility". If the US left Afghanistan without having achieved something that could be presented as a "victory", one would be reminded of the USSR's fate in Afghanistan. That would suggest that the US's vast military might does not translate into being able to affect outcomes on the ground, reducing US influence.

  2. When there are wars on, the Pentagon gets everything it wants.

  3. Having wars on makes it easier to continue the neoliberal project of cutting social spending, full steam ahead.


A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Sat Feb 20th, 2010 at 01:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A possible geopolitical motive for the US presence in AFPAK is to create instability, thus creating a raison d'être for US military power.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Sat Feb 20th, 2010 at 01:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does US involvement cause anything other than instability?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 12:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is specious to say that NATO is a multilateral organization

"Multilateralism is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working in concert on a given issue."

It is a vehicle for the projection of US power.
It's a vehicöe for the projection of the interests of the members. Like the EU.

There are no valid reasons for European countries to be involved militarily in Afghanistan.
There sure are. For one, the Americans asked us kindly. And as they're our friends, we've chosen to help them. Not only NATO members have taken that position.

Humanitarian goals cannot be achieved by military means.
Humanitarian work is impossible in an insecure environment.

And it is hard to see why the US itself should want to stay in Afghanistan, in geopolitical terms.
Leaving Afghanistan and letting it collapse under its own weight will mean the Taliban will get back into power and the terrs will yet again have a safe haven. There's also the question what effect that will have on Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Feb 20th, 2010 at 02:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and the terrs will yet again have a safe haven.

I don't see why you bother posting such comments here. We have enough of that from the NY Times and The Economist.

You might find the following illuminating:

Our differing approaches to terror

Some years ago, the contrarian Belfast journalist John O'Farrell (not a Protestant unionist) was writing about the career of Martin McGuinness, which had taken him from head of the IRA to minister of education. As O'Farrell said, thanks to the Belfast agreement and settlement, "the children of Northern Ireland will have their futures in the hands of a man who, if he were a Serb, would be indicted at The Hague".

Or try another comparison, the respective fate of two terrorist leaders. One is a white Catholic Irishman, the other a dark-skinned Muslim Palestinian; one is asked to present a programme on Jesus, the other is brutally bumped off - an assassination which, like all such by Mossad, will never be publicly condemned by the US. Suppose that, at the height of the IRA violence, Adams and McGuinness had been the objects of "targeted killing" by MI6. It's interesting to speculate what the American reaction would have been. [...]

Compare and contrast, as exam papers say. The IRA and its front organisation Sinn Fein want to undo the partition of Ireland that was effected by the creation of a separate province of Northern Ireland in 1920. To that end the IRA deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Protestants, and that end, if not the means, "is shared by many of our citizens", Blair says, as well as by millions of Irish Americans.

Hamas wants to undo the partition of Palestine that was effected by the creation of a separate state of Israel in 1948. To that end it has deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Jews. And that end, if not the means, is shared by hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims as well as others in Asia and Africa. Why does their support not equally validate the objective?



A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Sat Feb 20th, 2010 at 02:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose you're one of those who think the CIA/Jews/neocons bombed the WTC and Pentagon?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Feb 20th, 2010 at 02:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course it has to be said he's not a unionist, as if to dispel the reader of the logical conclusion, reading his "contrarianism," of bias. Of course, if Mr O'Farrell has evidence of Republican ethnic cleansing, that which certain Croat, Serb, Kosovar or Bosnian militants and commanders were in the Hague for in the first place. Sometimes the word contrarian simply means off the mark and asshole-ish.

And, you know, the IRA was always seen as a terrorist group, at least officially, like Hamas, though it is true that the IRA was not a creation of the UK (while Hamas was certainly a creation of Israel, to undermine Fatah...talk about blow-back) so I fail to see the point of this "contrarian," on a number of levels.'

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 06:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the world over. Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines coming first to mind.

Afghanistan is not a particularly well located place from which to launch terror attacks, unless of course, through incompetence, no one is paying attention to what they are doing.

It's a vehicule for the projection of the interests of the members. Like the EU.

I think you confuse the actual interests of the EU member states which are part of Nato, and the actual interests of the elites which rule in most of those member states.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 06:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
Leaving Afghanistan and letting it collapse under its own weight will mean the Taliban will get back into power and the terrs will yet again have a safe haven.

I thought the stated US goal at this time was to get the Talibans back into power, within a negotiated framework:

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / Afghanistan - McChrystal sees Taliban role

General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander in Afghanistan, has raised the prospect that his troop surge will lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban.


Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 03:02:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If we can separate the "good" talibans from the "bad" ones, that'll be good enough.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 at 01:39:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this a surprisingly cynical snark from a pro-Afghanistan-war voice, or do you have illusions about "good" Taliban?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 at 05:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good Talibans are Talibans that won't harbour terrs. No more, no less.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 at 08:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the definition of a terr? Is it based on suspicion of future terrorism or accusation of having committed acts of terrorism? In the latter case would it be enough with Talibans who offer to put the accused on trial in a third country?

If so, then the 2001 Talibans were good Talibans.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden - Asia, World - The Independent

Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."

But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. "When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations," Mr Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt."



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 03:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some of them were good Talibans even before 9/11. Here's the Guardian on March 2001.
Last month the Taliban's foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, indicated that the Taliban might be prepared to hand Mr Bin Laden over to another Muslim country where the evidence against him could be weighed by a panel of Islamic scholars. This proposal, rejected by the US, has now been shelved.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 03:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And what is the definition of a good Taliban?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 04:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am working with Starvids definition:

Starvid:

Good Talibans are Talibans that won't harbour terrs.


Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 04:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Somehow I read "are" as "and"... must have been the effect of sleep deprivation.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 09:32:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Oui (Oui) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 09:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"What is the definition of a terr?"

Someone who blows up women and children without proper authorisation from the Imperial Government. Also someone who's so rude as not to use proper high-tech delivery systems to dismember babies.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 05:50:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Terrorism Defined: Bill Clinton Lights Our Way to Truth

Terror mean[s] killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.

It just occurred to me that the "and go beyond national borders" clause is interesting. That makes Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building during Clinton's presidency and abortion clinic bombers not terrorists, since they operate within national borders.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 10:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So if Richard Reed had used an internal flight he wouldn't have been a terrorist?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 12:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess the idea is that since Richard Reed is a self-admitted member of Al-Quaeda, he's a terrorist, since Al-Quaeda operates across national borders.

American right-wing extremists in contrast, being America firsters, typically do not go beyond the American national border.

Of course, the US engages in "killing and robbery and coercion" and goes "beyond national borders" (that's why it's considered to be an empire), but since it has "state authority", it is not a terrorist organization.

Nobody ever said that Clinton's not a clever fellow.

Also, Basque terrorists, for example, do not operate beyond (currently existing) national borders. Thus, they do not challenge the US's role as the hegemon which controls relations between states, and hence are not terrorists.

So Clinton's definition comes very close to saying that a terrorist is anyone who uses violence to challenge American power.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 01:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, Basque terrorists, for example, do not operate beyond (currently existing) national borders.

Really? I don't think there have been any attacks in France, but are you sure none of them come from the French side?

And then there's the Stern Gang's attempted bombing of Whitehall (the timer failed). That would make a Zionist group into terrorists. Does Clinton really mean to say that? Maybe he needs a better definition.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 02:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Oui (Oui) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Oui (Oui) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 03:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No. The King David attack can be made into non-terrorism by a slight modification of the Clinton definition to refer to "future national borders". That's why I picked the Whitehall attack (the aerial London attack is speculation, while the failed Whitehall attack actually happened).
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 04:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.
Article says it all.

Expression America Firster stolen? I liked the native First Nations at the Vancouver Olympics a lot better.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 03:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which makes the IRA not terrorists, most of the time?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 24th, 2010 at 06:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Al-Qaida people who do their best to launch attacks like the oneas against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Among others.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Feb 24th, 2010 at 06:27:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Killers we don't like."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 24th, 2010 at 06:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.
From an earlier comment @BooMan ... Capture or Surrender?

Abdul Ghani Baradar was targeted as a negotiator

THE Afghan Taliban's military leader has been arrested in a crushing blow to morale and logistical support for insurgents fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan.

"Given the fact that (Baradar) is very close to Mullah Omar and one of the key Taliban leaders, this could be an attempt to, on the one hand, use him as a negotiator but on the other hand disrupt the leadership and force the Taliban to come to the negotiating table," International Crisis Group chief Pakistan analyst Samina Ahmed said.

The Dutch don't work with Jan Mohammed in Uruzgan province

A GoA Reconciliation Policy in the Making
Abdul Ghani Baradar and Hamid Karzai both from Popalzai tribe
Expedition Uruzgan: the Road of Hamid Karzai to the Palace by Bette Dam

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 at 07:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ruling elite here in the EU and their deference to US power.

Otherwise you are completely right though I suspect Oui means "multilateral" in the sense that as regards "international law" it is seen as such, including by major opinion segments in the Netherlands.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 06:32:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That the policies of European states are determined by elites as opposed to by the demos is not of great relevance here.

The relevant point is that NATO is a military organization consisting of a set of member states. Multilateralism in substance as opposed to form implies cooperation among equals. Since the military budget of the US dwarfs those of the other NATO members combined, it is not the case that the US in NATO is just first among equals. It basically calls the shots, and that is not multilateralism. The name for it is hegemony. (To get back to your point, hegemony does imply that the hegemon acts in the interests of the elites of the countries which it dominates.)

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Sun Feb 21st, 2010 at 02:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series