U.S. Special Forces Out of Wardak Province: My Take

There are quite a few knee jerk reactions a person could make, after reading this headline and the first sentence:

"Karzai orders US special forces out of Afghan province"
BBC News (February 24, 2013)

"The Afghan president has ordered US special forces to leave Wardak province within two weeks over allegations of disappearances and torture.

"The measures were being taken due to the actions of Afghans considered to be part of US special forces, said a spokesman for Hamid Karzai.

"The strategically significant, central province of Wardak has been the recent focus of counter-insurgency operations...."

I've known folks who sincerely support some, ah, colorful views. Depending on what assumptions the individual makes, I might expect reactions like these to the Afghan president's decision:

How dare they! Don't those foreigners know that America is always right?!

It's a CIA plot.

No doubt this is yet one more manifestation of the rampant cultural insensitivity typical of the authoritarian, male-dominated, all-white American power structure.

I think there's a bit of truth to each of those caricatured attitudes: a tiny bit.

Quotations and Conspiracies

Taking those over-simplified assumptions in order:

How dare they!

I'm an American citizen, and know that America is not perfect. Being immersed in the daily blunders and brilliance of this country, we're in a better position to appreciate this than folks living elsewhere. I am convinced that America isn't the cause of the world's problems, either.

It's a CIA plot.

Not everything is a CIA plot. I like good conspiracy theories: in fiction. Assuming that unpleasantness is the result of conspiracies seems dubious, at best. In my youth, a remarkable number of Americans seemed convinced that commie plots were behind everything they didn't like. I get the impression that seeing CIA plots behind every door is more fashionable now, but it's the same attitude.

No doubt....

Like the fellow said:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965), via The Quotations Page

Some folks didn't like shortcomings and outright injustices in the way American society worked, 50 years ago. I was one of them.

America has changed quite a bit in the last half-century. Some of it I think was long-overdue, some was not good. But America has changed. Some folks don't seem to have gotten the memo.

Individuals and Responsibility

"...In a hastily convened news conference, the presidential spokesman said US special forces would have to leave Wardak within the next two weeks.

" 'There are some individuals, some Afghans, who are working within these cells, within these [US] special forces groups' in Wardak province, said spokesman Aimal Faizi.

" 'But they are part of US special forces according to our sources and according to our local officials working in the province,' he said.

"These Afghan units are facing allegations of involvement torture and disappearances, says the BBC's Karen Allen in Kabul. A preliminary investigation also blamed them for beheading a university student in the province.

"Wardak is seen as a gateway for the Taliban to target Kabul, our correspondent adds...."
(BBC News)

I think what presidential spokesperson Aimal Faizi said is important: the issue is what some individuals did. These individuals seem to be Afghan citizens who were working with U.S. special forces. They may have been acting on orders, or they may have been acting as individuals. Either way, what their actions can be seen as being the responsibility of U.S. special forces, and NATO.

I'm not happy about that. At all.

Based on previous events, I'm inclined to believe the BBC's paraphrase of a United States spokesman: that we take "all allegations of misconduct seriously." I've posted about that before.

Politics

Some details, like beheading someone, seem more consistent with cultural norms of the region than American foreign policy: but I can hardly expect the Afghan president to acknowledge that, under the circumstances.

I also sympathize with Mr. Karzai, to an extent:

"...Mr Karzai gave a blunt statement for the reasons for the ban.

" 'Our forces ask for air support from foreigners and children get killed in an air strike,' he said."
(BBC News)

I grieve for the families who lost children. On the other hand, I hope that Mr. Karzai and others will remember that the folks trying to overthrow his government seem to enjoy using human shields; and that American weapons technology, like this country, is not perfect.

Related posts:

• Afghanistan
  • "War is Not Nice"
    (February 15, 2010)
  • "Afghanistan: Diplomacy, Dialog, Cultural Sensitivity, and 4,000 Marines"
    (February 12, 2010)
  • "Stephen Farrell's Rescue: 'It's Not Fair!' and Assumptions of Omnipotence"
    (September 10, 2009)
  • "NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress"
    (September 5, 2009)
  • "Afghan Election: A Few Observations"
    (August 20, 2009)
• America
  • "Guatemala, Dr. John Cutler, Tuskegee, Nürnberg, and Learning"
    (October 2, 2010)
  • "A Chilly Cell, the AP, the CIA, and Emotions"
    (March 28, 2010)
  • "Abu Ghraib: Abuse and Sexual Humiliation by American Soldiers in the News Again"
    (January 25, 2009)
  • "America, Racism, and What Didn't Happen at Virginia Tech"
    (January 22, 2009)
  • "Army Report: Big Mistakes in Iraq!"
    (June 30, 2008)
    Particularly
    • Big Iraq Mistakes Report Creates Big Dilemma
    • Too Many Facts
    • "The Past is Prologue" - Learn From It!

Today's News: Now What?!

Today's news is more of the same: only more so, in the case of Korea.

This is a somewhat rambling post. A point I'm trying to make is that not all countries are the same. I've said this before. (June 9, 2009)

That may seem obvious, but I've gotten the impression that folks with quite a few sorts of views sometimes think that all countries are pretty much like America - except that America is at fault for their problems; or that all countries should be like America. I don't mind living in a world where everybody isn't exactly like me - and that's another topic.

Korea

"South Korea's defense minister vows airstrikes if North Korea attacks"
CNN (December 3, 2010)

"South Korea's new defense minister said his country would respond with airstrikes if North Korea attacks it again, South Korean state media reported Friday. It is some of the strongest rhetoric since the conflict broke out late last month.

" 'We will definitely air raid North Korea, Kim Kwan-jin said at his confirmation hearing when asked how the South would respond if struck again, according to the official Yonhap News Agency.

"Kim was appointed defense minister last week amid growing tensions on the Korean peninsula following an exchange of gunfire between the two sides.

"His comments reflect a potential shift in South Korea's policy toward provocations from the North. Previously, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak warned of severe consequences if the North launched another attack, but declined to name specifics...."

I can't say that I'm happy about this development.

I'd prefer that North and South Korea get along. Better yet, that the country have one government. One run by sane people, who had some sort of checks and balances to keep them from being too irresponsible.

While I'm wishing, I'd prefer that America's checks and balances worked. And that's yet another topic, sort of.

This isn't a perfect world, so North Korea is run by Dear Leader, who seems to be arranging for his son to take over. South Korea is run by a President, a National Assembly, and a Supreme Court.

North Korea has a billion-dollar economy which produces armaments, textiles, and agricultural products, among other things.

South Korea has a trillion-dollar economy, making electronics, cars, and ships - also music videos and various consumer products. (CIA World Factbook, "Korea, South" (last updated November 17, 2010)"Korea, North" (last updated November 9, 2010))

I think the radical differences between the two halves of Korea are due mostly to the style of leadership on each side - but that's my opinion. Dear Leader's take is that the half of the country he doesn't control is the "South Korean puppet group." (November 23, 2010)

'I Predict' - Something Will Happen

As for 'what next?' That's a good question: but I really don't know.

The most recent attacks could be another case of bad behavior, followed by demands for concessions. If Dear Leader was younger, I'd probably think he probably just wanted more lobster, or maybe a special seat at the United Nations.

What troubles me is Kim Jong Il's age, and what appear to be his efforts at setting up his son to be the next warlord. When Kim Jong Il dies: well, the death of a warlord has sometimes set off quite a scramble among the folks who want the position. This lot has nuclear weapons, and missiles that can reach quite a few countries bordering the Pacific.

One of the wannabes might get the idea that incinerating, say, Tokyo, Vladivostok, or Seoul, was a good way to show determination. Or someone in North Korea might start believing their own propaganda. Again, my opinion.

On the other hand, the government in Seoul might get a telephone call tomorrow, from Pyongyang - collect - saying: 'sorry about that: it was all a big misunderstanding, it's a mess here, and we'd like you to take over now.'

I really don't think that'll happen.

Afghanistan

"Obama in Afghanistan, U.S. to release war review soon"
Caren Bohan, Reuters Edition: U.S. (December 3, 2010)

"President Barack Obama visited Afghanistan on Friday but bad weather kept him on a U.S. military base and forced him to cancel a planned face-to-face meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Obama was due to speak with Karzai by phone from Bagram Air Base outside the capital, U.S. officials said. They previously hoped to set up a secure videophone line but weather and technical difficulties prevented that.

"The trip, the second to Afghanistan of Obama's presidency, comes as the White House prepares to release a review of the war strategy the week of December 13.

"It will assess and potentially recommend changes to the strategy Obama rolled out a year ago when he ordered 30,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone.

"Obama is under pressure to show progress in the increasingly unpopular nine-year-old war and the visit is a chance for a first-hand assessment...."

I've said it before: 'It's different, when you're in charge.'

Let's remember that Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, 1996-2001, and had a series of civil wars before that. The country is not in great shape. (CIA World Factbook, "Afghanistan" (last updated November 22, 2010))

Whatever the president of the United States says, week after next, it's going to be criticized. I'm no great fan of the current president, but I'm waiting until I see what the man has to say, before commenting on it.

And, if there's an unfavorable fluff-to-content ratio, I may not comment at all. Moving on.

Ivory Coast, Africa

"Ivory Coast poll overturned: Gbagbo declared winner"
BBC News Africa (December 3, 2010)

"Ivory Coast's Constitutional Council has overturned earlier poll results and declared President Laurent Gbagbo the winner of Sunday's run-off.

"On Thursday the electoral commission head said opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara had defeated Mr Gbagbo.

"But the Constitutional Council chairman said results in seven regions in the north, where Mr Ouattara draws most of his support, had been annulled.

"The poll was intended to reunify the nation after a civil war in 2002.

"Paul Yao N'Dre, chairman of the Constitutional Council which validates election results, said Mr Gbagbo had won a little more than 51% of the vote.

"The head of the electoral commission had said Mr Gbagbo won 46% of ballots cast....

"...On Thursday evening, the military closed the country's borders and international news sources were suspended...."

Okay. This sounds familiar.

• 'Elected' leader stages election
• 'Wrong' candidate wins
• Ballots for 'wrong' candidate declared invalid
• 'Elected' leader's enforcers
  • Close borders
  • Shut down news

No bragging about how that could never happen in this country. I live in Minnesota. 'Nuff said. This isn't a 'political' blog.

If "Ivory Coast" doesn't sound familiar, you may know the country as Cote d'Ivoire. (CIA World Factbook) Cote d'Ivoire is in better shape than Somalia: but most countries are.

About the recent election, Laurent Gbagbo's folks may be right - there might be legitimate reasons for throwing out ballots from areas that supported the other fellow. A point in Gbagbo's favor, given my biases, is that the 'official' count is around 51% - not the 99%, give-or-take, that some folks presumably got. Officially.

So, what does this election SNAFU have to do with the war on terror?

Directly, not all that much.

Indirectly, Cote d'Ivoire is a pretty good example of how countries aren't all alike.

For example, part of Cote d'Ivoire's economy involves what's politely termed "trafficking in persons." Illegal immigrants occasionally show up on the domestic staff of American political leaders - and folks breaking into this country are a hot-button issue. But forced servitude isn't - really - a significant part of America's economy. The opinions of a few college professors and terribly earnest folks notwithstanding.

The idea that people are commodities that can be bought and sold is not a good fit with the ideals of personal freedom that quite a few folks in America and Western civilization at least pay lip-service to.

I've made the point before: Islam is at least as diverse as Protestant Christianity. Muslims seem to have an extremely wide range of beliefs, based in part on local and regional cultures. Islam is not some monolithic block of Osama bin Laden clones.

However, the local/regional flavors of Islam often tolerate quaint customs. Like forced servitude. It's not called that - not in polite society, anyway. But the folks whose leaders are sitting on the heart of Islam import "...workers from South and Southeast Asia who are subjected to conditions that constitute involuntary servitude including being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, non-payment of wages, confinement, and withholding of passports as a restriction on their movement...." (CIA World Factbook, "Saudi Arabia" (last updated November 9, 2010))

'The war on terror' isn't a war on Islam. But outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have attitudes and beliefs that aren't all that unlike those of the Saudi upper crust. Those beliefs aren't a good fit - at all - with the way Americans, and folks in Western countries generally, have gotten used to living.

Folks living in Cote d'Ivoire, by the way, are about 1/3 Muslim, 1/3 Christian, and 1/3 something else. And I'm not trying to say that Islam causes slavery. Cultures that Islam appears in these days? That's yet again another topic.

Related posts:

• "North Korea: Nukes, Missiles, and Underfed Soldiers"
  (November 24, 2010)
• "Korea: 'South Korean Puppet Group' and the Real World"
  (November 23, 2010)
• "A Chilly Cell, the AP, the CIA and Emotions"
  (March 28, 2010)
• "Kenya and Somalia: Getting Along with Crazy Neighbors"
  (June 25, 2009)
• "North Korea and the Kim Jong Dynasty: Not All Countries are the Same"
  (June 9, 2009)

A Chilly Cell, the AP, the CIA, and Emotions

An AP story, about the death of a "militant" in a CIA prison:

"More than seven years ago, a suspected Afghan militant was brought to a dimly lit CIA compound northeast of the airport in Kabul. The CIA called it the Salt Pit. Inmates knew it as the dark prison.

"Inside a chilly cell, the man was shackled and left half-naked. He was found dead, exposed to the cold, in the early hours of Nov. 20, 2002.

"The Salt Pit death was the only fatality known to have occurred inside the secret prison network the CIA operated abroad after the Sept. 11 attacks. The death had strong repercussions inside the CIA. It helped lead to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forced the agency to change those procedures...."
(The Associated Press)

Anyone who likes perfection, instant gratification, and universal niceness, will not like the CIA, or the American judicial system. I'm no fan of America's Department of Justice myself: largely because of what I continue to view as ideologically-motivated efforts to achieve social engineering. A catchphrase describing that sort of thing has been "legislating from the bench." We may be emerging from that - interesting - period. Which is another topic.

What, if Anything, does This Article Show?

I don't know that I'd fault The Associated Press for the article's second paragraph:

"Inside a chilly cell, the man was shackled and left half-naked. He was found dead, exposed to the cold, in the early hours of Nov. 20, 2002."

Yes, it paints a vivid picture, and uses emotive terms when more clinical ones could have been employed. But news services are businesses. One of their primary goals is to make a profit. Experience seems to show that strumming on people's heartstrings is an effective way to sell newspapers.

And The Associated Press made what might be viewed as a remarkable statement in the third paragraph:

"...The death had strong repercussions inside the CIA. It helped lead to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forced the agency to change those procedures...."

Reform? CIA?? As something that's happened?! Not as something tearfully called for by the Society for the Liberation of Chilly Half-Naked Prisoners? There are days when I think that an acknowledgment by a traditional news service that the CIA did something right is news in itself.

The AP makes up for that (error?) a bit later in this article:

"...The CIA's program of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of suspected terrorists has been debated since it ended in 2006. The Salt Pit case stands as a cautionary tale about the unfettered use of such practices. The Obama administration shut the CIA's prisons last year.

"It remains uncertain whether any intelligence officers have been punished as a result of the Afghan's death, raising questions about the CIA's accountability in the case. The CIA's then-station chief in Afghanistan was promoted after Rahman's death, and the officer who ran the prison went on to other assignments, including one overseas, several former intelligence officials said.

"The CIA declined to discuss the Salt Pit case and denied a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the AP...."
(The Associated Press)

I'll repeat the first paragraph of that excerpt again.

"...The CIA's program of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of suspected terrorists has been debated since it ended in 2006. The Salt Pit case stands as a cautionary tale about the unfettered use of such practices. The Obama administration shut the CIA's prisons last year...."

The AP doesn't actually say that waterboarding is what killed that "militant." But I think an argument can be made that it's implied. Hats off, in a way: the paragraph is, to the best of my knowledge, factually accurate.

And, I think just as important: the AP acknowledges that the CIA has reformed its practices. Yes, it was "forced to:" but I suspect that since the article does not mention who or what applied the force, it wasn't the Obama administration or a 'concerned citizens' outfit.

I learned about "checks and balances" in high school. The American system has them built into its government. The people who wrote the Constitution apparently realized that this new country's government would be staffed by human beings: and that we're not perfect. Oversight - intelligent oversight - is important.

Although it's the "fourth estate," and not a formally-recognized part of government, I think the press is in effect a sort of 'check and balance' on governmental institutions. Which is one reason why I think the Freedom of Information Act was a good idea.

I also think that allowing some requests for information to be denied is a good idea.

"...The CIA declined to discuss the Salt Pit case and denied a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the AP...."

Do I think the CIA is trying to cover up something? Of course I do! They'd jolly well better be trying to cover up those details of their operation which could get their agents and American citizens killed.

It's possible, of course, that the CIA is engaged in some sort of plot to enslave the world, stifle freedom, and kill fur seals. Maybe that's why they denied the AP's request. Or maybe the CIA is more interested in protecting Americans, than in selling newspapers.

Related posts:

• "Police Abuse: America isn't Russia"
  (February 19, 2010)
• "News Stories You're Not Supposed to Know About"
  (December 31, 2009)
• "Imperialist American Aggressors Attack Poland?"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Attack on New York City Thwarted; or Your Constitutional Rights Threatened: Depends on Your Point of View"
  (October 6, 2009)
• "Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News"
  (September 9, 2009)
• "'America Tortured Prisoners' - Here We Go Again"
  (August 25, 2009)
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Abu Ghraib: Abuse and Sexual Humiliation by American Soldiers in the News Again"
  (January 25, 2009)
• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)
• "Army Report: Big Mistakes in Iraq!"
  (June 30, 2008)
• "Waterboarding, Moralizing, Politics, and Security"
  (April 23, 2009)
• "Japanese Court, Okinawa, Kenzaburo Oe: There's a Lesson Here"
  (April 5, 2008)
• " 'The Army is Unraveling' - Just Like Vietnam!"
  (March 19, 2008)
• "Top Newspaper's Journalists Praised: Blackout Imposed on Praise"
  (October 15, 2007)

In the news:

• "AP INVESTIGATION: Details in CIA detainee's death"
  The Associated Press (March 28, 2010)

War is Not Nice

The headline says it all:

"Civilians die in second day of Afghan offensive"
CNN (February 14, 2010)

"Twelve Afghan civilians were killed Sunday when two rockets fired by coalition forces in southern Afghanistan missed their intended target, as the Taliban showed stiff resistance to the NATO assault against the militant group.

" 'We deeply regret this tragic loss of life,' U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, said in a statement. 'The current operation in Central Helmand is aimed at restoring security and stability to this vital area of Afghanistan. It's regrettable that in the course of our joint efforts, innocent lives were lost.'..."

War is Not Nice: Things Get Broken, People Get Killed

I think it would be nice to live in a world without war.

I think it would be nice if nobody ever got sick, or stubbed their toes, or had a toothache.

And I think it would be really nice if airliners hadn't been piloted into New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon a few years ago: with another crashing into a field as the passengers were regaining control.

That would be nice.

I think war is not nice. Things get broken. People get killed. Sometimes people who don't think God is telling them to kill other people get killed.

That is not nice.

The Taliban is Not Nice, Either

Afghanistan was run by the Taliban for quite a few years. I've gotten the impression that not everybody in Afghanistan was entirely pleased with how that particular bunch of self-proclaimed defenders of Islam acted when they were in charge. Banning soccer wasn't the best idea, from a public relations point of view.

Then there was what was done to the Bamiyan Buddhas. ("February 17, 2009)

If the Taliban had stopped with destroying irreplaceable ancient works of art, I might not be so unwilling to regard them as nice people. But killing their fellow-Muslims for being Islamic the 'wrong' way?

That's not nice.

Civilians Got Killed in Afghanistan: That's Not Nice

The BBC's article on this incident had the same headline for a few hours yesterday. They've changed it: which I think is nice. And, just as accurate as CNN's more old-school "Civilians die..." line. Here's how the BBC article started, with the new headline:

"McChrystal regrets Afghan deaths"
BBC (February 14, 2010)

"Nato has confirmed that two rockets fired at militants during its offensive in Helmand, south Afghanistan, missed their target and killed 12 civilians.

"The rockets struck a house in Marjah as thousands of Nato troops continued their operations to oust the Taliban.

"Nato's commander Gen Stanley McChrystal said that 'we deeply regret this tragic loss of life'.

"Coalition forces are aiming to build on gains in Operation Moshtarak, tackling snipers and booby-traps on day two...."

Credit where credit is due: Both CNN and the BBC acknowledge that NATO tried to warn people in the area that not-nice things would be happening there. That act stood out in my eyes, because one of the advantages a military force can have is that of surprise.

Distributing leaflets and warning civilians that a military operation was going to happen soon reduces that element of surprise, a lot.

I suppose it helps that this is a NATO operation, not one involving those awful, nasty, rough Americans.

American Imperialist Warmongers?

Oops. Actually, over 4,000 Marines are involved.

I think there's a strong tendency to identify military operations where American troops are involved as "NATO" or some other not-American name.

When it's fairly obvious that an effort is being made to keep innocent civilians from being killed, or when things are going well.

When something's amiss, though: It's often "America" and "American." It's really hard to shake the impression that a 'blame America first' attitude is behind quite a bit of news coverage.

I've written before, that I don't think America is perfect. (More: "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business" (July 3, 2008))

I don't think this country is the source of all the world's ills, either. And I do think that America is one of the few countries around with the ability and the willingness to take on - and occasionally take the lead - with unpleasant tasks like dealing with outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Related posts:

• "Afghanistan: Diplomacy, Dialog, Cultural Sensitivity, and 4,000 Marines"
  (February 12, 2010)
• "Imperialist American Aggressors Attack Poland?"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Pakistan, the Taliban, and Peace Through Diplomacy"
  (February 17, 2009)
• "Abu Ghraib: Abuse and Sexual Humiliation by American Soldiers in the News Again"
  (January 25, 2009)
• "Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Foreign Troops: One Issue, Two Approaches"
  (September 16, 2008)
• "Global Patriot Reporting: Anti-American Bias? Could Be"
  (March 25, 2008)
• "U.S. Warship Kills Innocent Egyptian!! No Wonder Everybody Hates America!!!"
  (March 24, 2008)

In the news:

• "Civilians die in second day of Afghan offensive"
  CNN (February 14, 2010)
• "McChrystal regrets Afghan deaths"
  BBC (February 14, 2010)

Afghanistan: Diplomacy, Dialog, Cultural Sensitivity, and 4,000 Marines

BBC reports have been stressing the NATO aspects of an offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Understandably, since it's a British institution, and much closer geographically to Europe's NATO than to the country that grew out of those 13 colonies.

Nato, Diplomacy: and Marines

One of today's BBC articles on the developing situation in Afghanistan makes the military operation sound - well, military.

"Nato begins major Afghanistan offensive"
BBC (February 13, 2010)

"Thousands of US, British and Afghan troops have launched the biggest offensive in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

"Helicopter-borne forces are attacking the Taliban-held districts of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province in a bid to re-establish government control.

"Nato says Marjah is home to the biggest community under insurgent control in the south and 400 to 1,000 militants.

"Many residents fled ahead of Operation Moshtarak - meaning 'together' in Dari.

"Nato had distributed leaflets in the Marjah area warning of the planned offensive in a bid to limit civilian casualties. Villagers said they warned Taliban fighters to leave the area or be killed...."

"...Operation Moshtarak is being led by the US Marine Corps, but a total of 4,000 British troops are involved on the ground and in support, supported by Danes and Estonians.

"The initial offensive in Marjah, in Nad Ali district, began early on Saturday.

"More than 4,000 US marines, 1,500 Afghan soldiers and 300 US soldiers moved in by helicopter under cover of night...."

What's a bit less obvious in leading news from Afghanistan is the sort of diplomacy that's going on before - and, quite possibly, during - the strictly military aspects of the operation.

I'd like to live in a world where outfits like the Taliban - particularly their leaders - would have a change of heart, decide that it's okay for women to drive cars, apologize for killing people they didn't approve of, and start being nice.

I think it's likely enough that some people who supported the Taliban out of fear or inadequate knowledge will be willing to abandon terrorism. But dedicated islamic terrorists? No, I think the odds are strongly against their deciding to be nice.

"Nato forces in Afghanistan to launch Helmand operation"
BBC (January 25, 2010)

"...But if there was a conversation before the operation between the Afghans and village leaders, he said, 'we often find the Afghans don't fight - but they will welcome you'.

"He pointed to an operation run in a similar way by Canadian forces to the west of Kandahar 'where not a shot was fired'.

"And in an operation by the Grenadier Guards in central Helmand province 'the same effect was created', he said....'

I'm reminded strongly of what the American-led coalition did in Iraq. (And, no, Bush wasn't "going it alone" - although admittedly a little under one in eight of Earth's 265 nations and other administrative units were in the coalition. (August 9, 2007))

Many Iraqis simply didn't know about foreigners, western or otherwise. As they discovered that these foreigners, when they weren't fighting Al Qaeda or Hussein holdouts, repaired and restocked hospitals, fixed sewer systems, and made themselves helpful in other ways - Al Qaeda propaganda started to be questioned.

Al Qaeda's efforts to win support by cutting off people's heads probably didn't help their popularity, either.

I doubt we'll hear much about the Anbar Awakening and related grass-roots movements in Iraq: That was, after all, Al Qaeda in Iraq, not the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Besides, America has a new administration now - but perhaps I'm being unfair.

Related posts:

• "Iraq's Soft Surge; Pakistan and the Taliban: Weekend News and History"
  (May 10, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
• "Good News From Iraq? There Must be Something Wrong Here"
  (October 23, 2008)
• "Good News: Anbar Province is Just About Ready for Hand-Over"
  (January 11, 2008)
• "Beheading Iraqis: Not Al Qaeda's Brightest Idea"
  (October 25, 2007)
• "Locals Join American Forces, Purge City of Terrorists"
  (September 11, 2007)
• "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!"
  (August 9, 2007)

Afghan Immigrant, Hydrogen Peroxide, New York City Subways, and a Close Call

It looks like New York City's subways had a close call:

"An Afghan-born Colorado resident may have plotted an attack on New York commuter trains for this month's 9/11 anniversary, a US prosecutor has said.

"The suspect, Najibullah Zazi, is accused of receiving explosives training in Pakistan and buying large quantities of bomb-making chemicals...."
(BBC)

This thwarted effort at self-expression through explosives is pretty big news in the English-speaking world, at least.

"Evidence of one of the biggest US home-grown terrorism threats in almost two decades unfolded this week as investigators described a plot to detonate explosives made with beauty-industry chemicals.

"Using information gleaned from phone and email intercepts, surveillance footage and receipts from vendors, prosecutors drew a picture of Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghan at the centre of the scheme.

"They accused him of conspiring with at least three others, including a New York imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, and of lying to US authorities investigating an alleged terrorist conspiracy to deploy weapons of mass destruction in the form of hydrogen peroxide bombs. The imam was released on Thursday after his family posted bail of $1.5 million ($1.72 million)...."
(Brisbane Times)

I remember, after the Oklahoma City bombing, some of America's lawmakers talking - seriously, it seemed - about banning ammonium nitrate. For those city boys, it probably made sense. The first they'd heard of those big words was in connection with a bomb: and naturally, they'd want to ban something that dangerous.

Never mind that it's a key ingredient for fertilizers. Which farmers use to grow the food that winds up in Washington.

That time, sanity prevailed, and we're still allowed to grow food using 20th-century technology.

This time, hydrogen peroxide, acetone and hydrochloric acid were on the list of bomb-making ingredients. That's a whole bunch of big words, too: but since hydrogen peroxide and acetone, at least, are used in hair salons, my guess is that our leaders will know enough not to talk about banning their use.

But, I've been wrong before.

Remember the Liberty City Seven?

Najibullah Zazi and all seem to have gotten much closer to actually carrying out their plans than most have.

That Brisbane Times article mentions the time, down in Florida, where some guys either tried to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower - or were trying to snooker Al Qaeda. Either way, not the sort of people who should be left unsupervised. The American press has been calling that lot the Liberty City Seven. (March 27, 2008)

The alleged terrorists had hydrogen peroxide, acetone and hydrochloric acid. Mix them the right way and you get triacetone triperoxide. That's TATP: The stuff used in the 2005 London train bombings and what Richard "shoe bomb" Reid would have used in 2001. (The New York Times, Reuters)

"Said," "Admit:" There's a Difference

A caption under the alleged terrorist's photo reads, "Najibullah Zazi has said he is not involved in terrorism" - and I have no problem with that caption. He probably did "say" that.

Here's what FBI officials said, as quoted in a traditional news outlet: "FBI officials have admitted that such cases are 'aspirational' rather than operational." (Brisbane Times) [emphasis mine]

The alleged terrorist "said" - FBI officials "admitted" - well, there's nothing unusual about that. The verb "to admit" is frequently used to describe statements by law enforcement officials. But how often do we read something like "Greenpeace representatives admitted that they interfere with whalers"?

Of course, that's different. 'Everybody knows' that Greenpeace is a bunch of idealistic people, dedicated to defending delicate little Mother Earth from the big, bad whalers. And that the fuzz are jackbooted oppressors. Ask 'anybody.'

I don't think the said/admit dichotomy is entirely deliberate. I do think that there's a very definite set of values held by many of the traditional information gatekeepers - and that's a whole different topic. (September 18, 2009, August 14, 2009, for starters)

9/11? Yeah, it Could Happen Again

So far, we've been "lucky." Or, more accurately, outfits like the FBI and CIA, by intercepting messages between terrorists and doing other things that 'rights' groups generally don't like, have kept people like the Liberty City Seven and Najibullah Zazi's merry band from killing a whole lot of other people.

All things considered, I'm rather glad that Chicago's Sears Tower is still there, and that New York City's subways are no more dangerous than they usually are.

With the sort of "luck" that allowed the CIA and FBI to notice an imminent terrorist attack, and stop it, America may not have a replay of 9/11. I rather hope that's what happens. And, that other countries can avoid terrorist attacks.

What I hope and what I expect aren't necessarily the same thing, of course.

The War on Terror Will End: Eventually

I think it's nice that the current administration has dropped the "War on Terror" phrase. (March 30, 2009) I'm sure that it's a gesture that is appreciated - in some circles, anyway.

But, whether we like it or not, the war against groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban is not over: and, in my opinion, won't be for years. Decades. Generations.

On one side, you have people who give every indication of believing that God wants them to maintain an extreme form of a culture that has more in common with Assyria and Harappa than Austria and Hong Kong.

On the other side are people who have gotten used to wearing trousers if they want to; not killing their wives; and allowing women to drive cars.

I don't see a lot of room for compromise here.

The situation isn't hopeless, though. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not all there is to Islam. (I've written quite a few posts on that topic.)

I think there's a reasonable hope that Muslims around the world will re-evaluate what they believe, separate cherished customs from places like Sudan and Saudi Arabia from what the Prophet said, and make the - in some cases difficult - decision to come up to speed with at least 18th-century ideas of personal freedom and social order.

That sort of massive social, cultural - and economic - change won't come easily, and I doubt that it'll come quickly. But I am pretty sure that it will come.

That, or we'll all have to get used to living under a Taliban-style caliphate.

Related posts:

• "No More 'War on Terror' - Officially?"
  (March 30, 2009)
• "Famous People Say America Must Lead"
  (September 23, 2008)
  • "No, it isn't a sign of the Apocalypse...."
• "9/11 and What They Want You to Believe"
  (September 11, 2008)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)
• "United States in Iraq, a United Nations Mandate, and What Iraq's Leaders Want"
  (June 11, 2008)
• "The 'Liberty City Seven' - American Nitwits and Al Qaeda"
  (March 27, 2008)
• "U.S. Warship Kills Innocent Egyptian!! No Wonder Everybody Hates America!!!"
  (March 24, 2008)
• "American Government Intercepts, Reads Private Correspondence!"
  (October 5, 2007)
• "How Dare General Petraeus Bring Facts to Congress?"
  (September 11, 2007)
• "Locals Join American Forces, Purge City of Terrorists"
  (September 11, 2007)

In the news:

• "US man linked to 9/11 train plot"
  BBC (September 25, 2009)
• "More than a wannabe: attack imminent, say US official"
  Brisbane Times (September 26, 2009)
• "A Terror Case Takes a Chilling Turn"
  City Room, The New York Times (September 25, 2009)
• "Source: NYPD commander in terror probe transferred"
  The Associated Press (September 24, 2009)
• "FACTBOX: FBI outlines bomb plot case against Zazi"
  Retuers (September 24, 2009)
• "RAW DATA: Department of Justice Terrorism Plot Charges Against Najibullah Zazi"
  FOXNews (September 24, 2009)

Afghan Husband Rapes Wife: Culture, Law, History, and Catching Up

Men getting a bit frantic about having children isn't unknown in Western civilization. Take England in the early 1500s, for example.

Henry VIII of England had a problem having children. Boys, anyway, who would live past their teens. Although, given his bed-hopping habits, it wouldn't have been hard to claim that just about boy whose mother was in or near London was an illegitimate son of the "Defender of the Faith" (who later set up his own church).

That was then, this is now. These days, heads of state are expected to keep their shenanigans discretely under wraps: although some still do get a little carried away. (Reuters)

Ishmael to Internet in One Lifetime

I've made the point before, that many Muslims have been dragged across several thousand years of history and cultural change in one or two generations. Stable cultures, carrying on traditions which had been ancient when Abraham moved out of Ur, were relatively isolated until Western civilization needed petroleum.

Then, the world of individual rights, Barbies, beer, bikinis and Mickey Mouse dropped into their quiet world. It must have been like a retirement community suddenly having a frat house near the golf course.

'I Can't Get My Wife Pregnant: It Must Be Her Fault!'

Afghanistan is an Islamic country. It's also in the Middle East - or just outside that region, depending on who you're reading.¹ And, it's not the best spot in the world to live if you're a woman.

Take Shameen, for instance. She's had a rough time lately. She and her husband haven't had children. He blames her, and apparently Afghan culture backs him up.

"... After one severe beating, she ran from her home and to the police station. Her husband promised the police he would not attack her anymore, so she gave in and agreed to go back home with him.

Days later, Shameen's husband took her on a trip to visit her sister's grave -- a 15-year-old sister who was burned to death for displeasing her husband.

"Shameen says her younger sister was 11 years old when she was forced to marry an older man. He would beat and abuse her until one day he killed her.

"As Shameen walked along the graveyard with her husband he took her near a shrine where he forced her to the ground, lifted her burqa and raped her. He then threatened her with a knife and asked her who was going to help her now. She was screaming as he slashed her throat and body.

"A passerby saved her.

"Now, she has no one to turn to -- not even her own parents. In their eyes, she has brought them shame, an offense punishable by death.

"In Afghanistan, a woman is blamed for the injustices she must live through. Shameen says when her sister was killed, her parents turned a blind eye...."
(CNN)

Rape isn't Nice, and We Shouldn't Do It

Rape is a serious offense. And, yes: a husband can rape his wife. It's wrong, it's bad, and it's a monumentally stupid thing to do. But, it's possible.

This definition and discussion of rape might help clarify my views:

"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2356)

A key word here is "forcible." Shameen's husband forced himself on her. That may be okay in some cultures - but I don't buy into the multicultural ethic that says morality is determined by culture. Some things are wrong anywhere, and rape is one of them.

"A passerby saved her."

I think there's some hope for Afghanistan. The CNN article says: "A passerby saved her." At least one person in the country doesn't think that sexual assault in a cemetery is okay. And, the Afghan government not only allows shelters for abused women to exist, but cooperates with them.

"... Authorities brought Shameen to a shelter run by Women for Afghan Women (WAW). The organization started in New York to provide humanitarian assistance to women who do not know they have rights.

"In this safe house, WAW is currently providing care, security and an education for 54 women and children.

"Nearly 90 percent of Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women...."
(CNN)

I was doing time in a university in the eighties, when political correctness was in flower, so I've got - ambivalent? - feelings 'women's rights' and other PC dogmas. But the CNN article gives no clear indication that political indoctrination is part the WAW shelter's program: And those women desperately need a place to stay.

Islam, Culture, Rape and Attitude

There are more Muslims in America today then there were when I was growing up: but they're still a tiny minority here. My guess is that many Americans get their impression of what Islam is from the antics of Sudan's government, Saudi clerics, and people like Shameen's husband.

It's sort of like knowing Christianity from the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK in the sixties. (November 26, 2007) Yes, those outfits claim to be Christian - and their members may believe it sincerely - but their actions are not typical of Christianity as a whole.

With Islam, it really is different. It looks to me like we've got a situation equivalent to entire nations being controlled by analogs of the Ku Klux Klan, as was in the sixties, at least; and the Westboro Baptist Church, with it's notions about the American military being part of a homosexual plot. (October 31, 2007)

But, based on what I've read - and correspondence with Muslims and Muslimas who do not think terrorism is a good idea - I think that Islamic belief is highly influenced by the culture of whatever region Muslims live it. I see a strong analogy to the "Bible truths" preached by some Christian groups: like 'alcohol is the work of the Devil' or 'rock music is Satanic,' which appear to stem more from the personal preferences of the pastor and mores of the local culture, than anything else.²

I've used Indonesia as an example of a very Islamic country that doesn't act like Sudan or Saudi Arabia. I don't think Indonesia is perfect, by any means. (August 22, 2008) Indonesia's officials may be struggling with reconciling their own beliefs, demands by Islamic crazies, and awareness of what's happened since the Magna Carta: and trying to run a country where terrorists have a limited - but significant - number of supporters.

For that matter, I don't think America is perfect. Which is another topic. (July 3, 2008)

I'm old enough to remember the 'good old days,' when significant numbers of Americans - including judges - figured that if a woman got raped, she must have been asking for it. Okay: In some cases, the victim was behaving imprudently. But that wasn't an excuse for rape. Not. At. All.

That attitude, and an indulgent view of drunk driving, seem to be on the wane. At least, I sincerely hope so.

Afghanistan is in Bad Shape - Abandoning Them to the Taliban Won't Help

I've said, often, that who wins the war on terror matters (July 30, 2009, for starters) Abandoning Afghanistan and the rest of the Islamic world to the Taliban and Saudi clerics isn't just wrong, it's a bad idea. There are Muslims - many, I hope - who would say "this is not us" about jihad as imagined by Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (August 9, 2007)

If they're not given an opportunity to develop an Islamic world that's a bit more post-18th-century than what the Taliban and Al Shabaab have in mind, I don't think it would be long before the rest of the world had a relatively united block of terrorist nations to deal with.

Related posts:

• "Sudan, Women, Trousers, Culture and Common Sense"
  (September 7, 2009)
• "The War on Terror: Yes, Who Wins Does Matter"
  (July 30, 2009)
• "Eight-Year-Old Raped - Time to Think and Pray"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (July 25, 2009)
• "Marriott, Ritz-Carlton in Indonesia Bombed: It Could Have Been Worse"
  (July 18, 2009)
• "Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric"
  (September 19, 2008)
• "Sandeela Kanwal, Chaudhry Rashid: Honor Killing? Maybe, Maybe Not"
  (July 9, 2008)
• "The West and Today's Somali President: The Enemy of Your Enemy is Your Friend?"
  (March 19, 2009)
• "Muzzammil Hassan's Beheaded Wife No Honor Killing - Move Along"
  (February 19, 2009)
• "Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, and the Lizard People"
  (January 14, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Israel and the 'Great Satan America'
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)
• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "Indonesia, 'Allah Akbar,' and Muslim Tolerance"
  (August 22, 2008)
• "Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks"
  (November 26, 2007)
• "Tolerance Only Goes So Far"
  (October 31, 2007)
• "More about 'Yeh Hum Naheen' / 'This is Not Us' "
  (August 9, 2007)

In the news:

• "Afghan women hiding for their lives"
  CNN (September 24, 2009)

---

¹ With a world population of a bit over 6,000,000,000, somebody's going to have a passionate opinion about whether or not the term "Middle East" should be used at all.

I try to use terms that most people who understand English are familiar with. And "Middle East" is a whole lot shorter than "the-swath-of-countries-along-the-south-and-east-shores-of-the-Mediterranean-around-the-Caspian-and-south-shore-of-the-Black-Sea-and-eastwards-to-India."

Sure, "Western Asia" sounds cool - but leaves out the northern tier of nations in Africa, and Sudan: which have more-or-less-strong cultural similarities to the other Middle Eastern countries.

² There's an anecdote, which I haven't traced to its source, about a Christian denomination with members on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Sometime in the 20th century, when transportation technology made a national convention practical, delegates from north and south got together.

The 'Bible truth' that one set believed was that alcohol was okay, but tobacco was the work of the Devil. The other was okay with smoking - health problems notwithstanding - but knew that God Himself had declared alcohol to be the work of the Devil.

They had, I heard, quite a lively theological discussion before thrashing out a compromise.

Stephen Farrell's Rescue: 'It's Not Fair!' and Assumptions of Omnipotence

The death toll for the rescue of Stephen Farrell, a British journalist working for The New York Times, is now four. Besides a British commando and Sultan Munadi, an associate of Farrell, a woman and a child were killed.

For once, it isn't mostly the fault of the Americans. It's the fault of the British. Or NATO. According to an Afghan journalists' group, anyway.

Darkness, Bullets in a Pre-Dawn Raid

A CNN article filled in more details of what happened during the rescue, and what people felt about it.

"The British journalist recently freed in a NATO military operation described his Taliban hostage-takers as 'hopelessly inept,' and praised his Afghan colleague who died in the rescue.

"New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell described his four days in captivity in a blog on the newspaper's Web site, posted late Wednesday just hours after he was freed.

"Taliban militants kidnapped Farrell and Afghan journalist, Sultan Munadi, on Saturday. During a pre-dawn raid Wednesday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force plucked Farrell to safety, but did not retrieve the body of Munadi, who died during a fierce firefight between troops and Taliban militants. A British commando was also killed, as were a woman and child...."
(CNN)

From the sounds of it, soldiers with NATO weren't all that pleased about rescuing a journalist - Western or no.

"... International troops, including British forces, have expressed their unhappiness about having to extract a Western journalist from the area, a Western military source in Kabul told CNN. Meanwhile, NATO has come under fire from a coalition of Afghan journalists working for foreign news outlets who called the pre-dawn raid 'reckless and double-standard behavior.'

"The Media Club of Afghanistan issued a statement Thursday saying it 'holds the international forces responsible for the death of Mr. Munadi because they resorted in military action before exhausting other nonviolent means.'

" 'There is no justification for the international forces to rescue their own national, and retrieve the dead body of their own soldier killed in action, but leave behind the dead body of Sultan Munadi in the area. The MCA deems this action as inhumane.'..."
(CNN)

I can see the MCA's point. It would have been nice to recover Sultan Munadi's body. I'm sure that the Munadi family would have preferred it.

British, Yes: Omnipotent, No

Let's look at what was happening when Sultan Munadi was shot.

"...Someone loomed out of the dark. I lost my balance and fell back, my leg still somewhat impaired from the motorcycle accident.

It was Sultan, in the last minute of his life. He held out a hand, steadied me and asked if I had my contact lenses in, which I had. With him already in front we crouch-ran along a very narrow ledge of earth — less than a foot wide — along the outer wall of the compound.

It was dark. There were trees to our left and a high mud-brick wall to our right. We could see nothing more than a few feet in front of us.

We had no idea who was where, and there were bullets flying through the air...."

British commandos found Farrell, after he called out and signaled with a camera light.

"...I lay on the ground, gave my name and newspaper and pointed to where Sultan was lying behind me, telling them I thought he had been shot.

"The body was lying motionless in the ditch where I had seen him go down. I hoped he had dropped and was lying still. I knew it wasn't the case. They told me they had his picture and would look for him, then dragged me away past the house across a rutted field and toward the helicopter landing zone.

"It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life...."
(Stephen Farrell, At War Blog)

My guess is that the fallen soldier's comrades knew where he was when he was shot, and that he hadn't moved all that far afterward. That body would have been relatively easy to spot.

Sultan Munadi was 'somewhere out there,' in a ditch. It was dark, and bullets were flying.

I've been outside city limits at night. It's dark: not the hard-to-read-a-newspaper dark you get between streetlights; the can't-see-the-fence dark that makes getting around a chore. Never mind searching for a body while someone's trying to shoot you.

Even assuming that the commandos had night vision equipment, Sultan Munadi's body was a lump in a ditch. And he was in no condition to flash a light to show where he was.

There's a tendency to assume that policemen, mayors, soldiers, and others in positions of authority, have 'powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men' - and it just ain't so.

I'm quite willing to believe that the commandos searched for Sultan Munadi's body. Within the limits imposed on them by the situation. They didn't find it. That's sad.

The deaths of the woman and child, who presumably weren't involved in the firefight is sad, too. I grieve for the families.

But - blame the British? I'm sure we'd all be happier if "nonviolent means" had been successful - but I don't know enough to guess what the chances were of that. I do know that outfits like the Taliban have a less-than-stellar record for being nice to hostages: As Leon Klinghoffer found out, on the Achille Lauro. (August 5, 2007)

Related posts:

• "Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News"
  (September 9, 2009)
• "NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress"
  (September 5, 2009)
• "NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice"
  (September 4, 2009)

News and views:

• "Freed reporter: Taliban hostage-takers 'hopelessly inept' "
  CNN (September 10, 2009)
• "The Reporter's Account: 4 Days With the Taliban"
  Stephen Farrell At War Blog, The New York Times (September 9, 2009)

Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News

Every news service has to select which facts it publishes. It's not, I think, a cover-up, or some kinda plot.

Partly, it's the fact that there isn't room in any newspaper, or enough patience among readers, to include every detail that reporters and researchers dug up. Also, I think, it's the fact that reporters and editors are people. They have a particular point of view, and have working assumptions about what their readers are interested in.

NATO, America, German Officers, Bombed Fuel Trucks

Real events are seldom all that simple.

"British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.

"Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.

"Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.

"The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Farrell was unhurt...."
(FOXNews) [emphasis mine]

That FOXNews story, attributed to the AP, is one of the few that emphasized that a soldier died in the process of freeing the reporter.

Sky News puts more emphasis on the death of a British commando - understandably, since it's a British publication.

Individuals Count: So Does the Big Picture

What happened in Kunduz, in my view, is not just about a British commando dying in an effort to rescue an American journalist; or the Munadi family's loss; or German officers ordering American pilots to bomb hijacked fuel trucks; or NATO killing innocent(?) civilians who were pilfering fuel. All of that is involved, and important - particularly to the people directly involved.

But the Taliban gives every indication of having an active interest in regaining control of Afghanistan. Understandably, since the country has become downright 'un-Islamic' by the Taliban's peculiar standards since they were pried out a few years ago.

Afghanistan's current government doesn't particularly want the Taliban back in power. I don't think Afghan's current leaders are so much 'pro-western' as they are aware that it isn't the eighth century any more.

NATO, and its member countries, have an interest in what happens to Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, that country served as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. I think European leaders have twigged that Islamic crazies are a real problem - more so when they've got the support of at least one national government.

Headlines, Story and Background

I've made the point before, that news needs to be studied, not just read.

Headline

Headlines pique your interest because they're designed to do just that.

Story

The story will tell you what an editor decided to select from information and impressions that a reporter collected. Even if it's more than one editor and several reporters, the principle is the same: you're reading a digest of an event, from a more-or-less limited point of view.

Background

The best news stories give some background, showing how events fit into what's happened before, and the assumptions and history of the people involved. I think it's a good idea for a reader to do a little checking, if for no other reason than to verify that the news service got their facts straight.

Happily, with the information technology we've got available these days it's fairly easy to do research. As I said earlier this year:

"...It's complex, and confusing. Anyone who tries to pay attention finds contradictory views, backed by various combinations of facts and wishful thinking.

"I love it...."
(January 30, 2009)

Related posts:

• "NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress"
  (September 5, 2009)
• "NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice"
  (September 4, 2009)
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• " 'America Tortured Prisoners' - Here We Go Again"
  (August 25, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "All Those 'Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!' "
  (January 4, 2009)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "The Effect of Information Technology and Media Preoocupation with Urban Events on the Relative Sophistication of Urban and Rural Populations"
  (April 13, 2008)

In the news:

• "Times Reporter Is Freed in Afghan Raid That Kills Aide"
  The New York Times (September 9, 2009)
• "NYT Reporter Freed; Colleague Killed in Afghanistan (Update2)"
  Bloomberg (September 9, 2009)
• "New York Times: Commandos free Times reporter"
  The Associated Press (September 9, 2009)
• "Two Die in Afghan Raid to Free Seized Reporter"
  FoxNEWS (an AP story, but not quite the same as the one above) (Septmeber 9, 2009)
• "British Soldier Killed In Reporter's Rescue"
  Sky News (September 9, 2009)

NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."¹

Remember yesterday's news? When NATO aircraft bombed fuel trucks hijacked by the Taliban? (September 4, 2009) And it looked like quite a few civilians got killed? Probably? It'll be harder sorting this out, because by the time a German military unit attached to NATO arrived, the bodies had been carried away.

My guess is that civilians actually were killed: and that "NATO" aircraft really were involved.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Today, it's America that killed all those people.

"...Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by the White House to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance. And their unease was fueled by another bombing, that left as many as 70 dead, including civilians who were killed when the U.S. blew up tanker trucks hijacked by the Taliban...."
(AP) [emphasis mine]

I think it's very likely that "the U.S. blew up tanker trucks" and that NATO dropped bombs on the hijackers. NATO is 28 independent countries, including Germany and the United States.

American aircraft, American pilots, working with NATO to keep Afghanistan from enduring more years of Taliban rule. That sounds complicated. It's so much easier to say "the U.S. blew up tanker trucks".

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Two years ago, America was 'going it alone, 'unilaterally' involved in Iraq - along with over two dozen other countries. (August 9, 2007)

Today, it looks like the current Administration is looking at taking action in Afghanistan: instead of politely allowing the Taliban to re-take the country. If successful, putting Afghanistan on its feet will benefit Afghanistan.

It wouldn't be exactly an altruistic act, though. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was a base of operations for Al Qaeda:² making it easier for Al Qaeda to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks. Most Americans, I think, would just as soon not see hijacked airliners running into buildings again.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

It's nice to want peace, love, and understanding. Unhappily, not everybody has quite that nice a view of the world.

These days, outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem downright determined to get peace on their terms; love for their rules;, and understanding that anyone deviating from their preferences will die; established around the world.

As I've written before, war isn't nice: but sometimes it's better than the alternative.

Also as I've written before: "Congress must decide who to protect Americans from". (August 5, 2007)

Somewhat-related posts:

• "NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice"
  (September 4, 2009)
• "A Winnable Afghan War: Afghanistan isn't Iraq"
  (August 31, 2009)
• "'U. S. Bombed Mosque:' Iran Official - 'When in Doubt, Blame the Americans' "
  (May 29, 2009)
• "President Obama and State Secrets: It's Different, When You're in Charge"
  (April 13, 2009)
• "Congress Must Decide Who to Protect Americans From"
  (August 5, 2007)

In the news:

• "Dems signal resistance to Afghan troop increase"
  The Associated Press (September 5, 2009)

---

¹ Some people say, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Or, say it in French. ("Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.") The French novelist Alphonse Karr wrote it down (Famous Quotations & Authors), but my guess is that the proverb goes back further than that.

² GlobalSecurity.org)

NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice

War isn't nice. Things get broken and people die.

A case in point:

"A NATO jet blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, setting off a huge fireball Friday that killed up to 90 people, including dozens of civilians, Afghan officials said.

"The NATO command said a 'large number of insurgents' were killed or injured in the pre-dawn attack near the village of Omar Khel in the once-calm province of Kunduz. In Brussels, the alliance's chief said it was possible civilians died...."
(AP)

The same event, as reported by The New York Times:

"A NATO airstrike before dawn on Friday killed 80 people or more, at least some of them civilians, in a once-calm region of northern Afghanistan that has recently slipped under control of insurgents, Afghan officials said.

"NATO officials acknowledged that coalition aircraft had destroyed two hijacked fuel tankers in the tiny village of Omar Kheil, 15 miles south of Kunduz. They said they were investigating reports of civilian deaths, but stressed that the attack was aimed at Taliban militants...."
(NYT)

Yet again, from The Age in Australia:

"...Mahbubullah Sayedi, a spokesman for the Government in the Kunduz province, said about 90 people were killed - mostly militants.

"The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the strike killed a 'large number' of militants, and it was investigating reports of civilian casualties.

"ISAF said two fuel trucks were stolen and spotted several hours later on the banks of the Kunduz river. 'After assessing that only insurgents were in the area, the local ISAF commander ordered an air strike, which destroyed the fuel trucks, and a large number of insurgents were killed and injured,' a spokeswoman said...." (The Age)

It's almost certain that some number of people were killed. Differences in the numbers published is par for the course after an incident like this: everyone except reporters is more likely to be treating the wounded, putting out fires, cleaning up the mess and dealing with bodies: and less likely to be doing a methodical head count.

NATO and Afghanistan's Kunduz province government says many or most of the dead were with the Taliban. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid says 'were not!' I doubt he put it quite that way: but that's the gist.

'No Man is an Island' Had a Point

John Donne's "No Man is an Island" - a little excerpt plucked from a greater whole¹ - points out that: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Like the song says: "we're all in this together."

A Short Digression

That bit from Donne was repeated with variations over and over again in the sixties: but what Donne wrote some 385 years ago goes 'way beyond that period's groovy feelings planting seeds of friendship.

My religious beliefs require me to be "involved in mankind" - although I find it easier to care for people who are more-or-less like me. Like the folks living in Ziarat.

I can't see 'real Americans' as actual people; and foreigners as, well, foreigners. And, I can't be 'relevant,' or whatever it's called these days, and regard people and institutions as valuable and correct to the extent that they're not American.

I'm required to care about people.

Whew! That's Over: Back to Taliban, Medium Rare

From the news, I gather that the events went like this:

• Two trucks carrying fuel from Tajikistan to NATO forces in Kabul were hijacked by Taliban fighters (insurgents, whatever)
  • And the drivers killed
• The Taliban
  • Mired their prizes in mud, trying to cross the Kunduz River
  • Then
    • Dumped some of the fuel to lighten the load
    • Called people from Omar Kheil over to get free fuel
    • Some combination of the above
  • NATO aircraft fired on the trucks
    • Resulting in quite a few deaths
  • By the time German soldiers came to investigate the scene, Afghan soldiers had removed the bodies

I appreciate the tidiness of the Afghan military - and the feelings of people who may have lost loved ones in the attack. But removing evidence like that makes figuring out what happened more difficult.

Let the Blame Games Begin

I'm pretty sure that partisans from most sides will say that the other guy is to blame. I've got an opinion, myself.

Someone who's rather closer to the mess had a few words to say:

"...Mohammad Daud, 32, said the Taliban were trying to move the tankers across a river when one got stuck.

" 'So they [the Taliban] told villagers to come and take the diesel. Villagers rushed to the fuel tanker with any available container that they had, including water buckets and pots for cooking oil,' Mr Daud said. 'This was when they were bombed. Everyone around the fuel tanker died.'..."
(The Age)

Like I said, there are plenty of places to put blame:

• American imperialism
• Big Oil
• President Bush
  • Either one
• Failure to legalize marijuana
  • Blame doesn't have to make sense, I've learned
• Islam, because
  • It isn't 'American'
  • It's an evil death cult
  • Muslims look funny
• The Afghan people, for
  • Not being American
  • Letting the Taliban take over their country recently
• NATO, for being puppets of Western imperialism
• People in Omar Kheil who decided to carry fuel in open containers
• The Taliban

Assuming that civilians were killed - and that isn't at all unlikely - NATO does bear some responsibility for their deaths.

Common Sense, Trustworthiness, and Carrying Petrol in a Pot

On the other hand, I rather doubt that the people living in Omar Kheil were "natives" in the old sense: none-too-bright nitwits with barely enough sense to come in out of the rain. Or, in this case, not carry volatile, explosive, liquids in open containers. With a really good chance that an air strike would happen before they got away. Of course, again assuming that some of the dead were civilians, they may not have been aware that there's a war on - or had an unwarranted level of confidence in the Taliban's trustworthiness.

Much of the responsibility, I'm inclined to think, belongs to the Taliban. They're the ones who hijacked the trucks, killed the drivers, and then - according to one account - called people over to get 'free fuel.'

NATO? I'm nowhere near 'sophisticated' enough to assume that they would deliberately kill innocent (if lethally imprudent) civilians. Considering the sort of criticism that brings, it just isn't good sense.

Although there may be mitigating circumstances, I'm inclined to blame the civilians a little: for being wildly incautious.

In a way, what happened is like those news items you see now and then, about a hapless burglar getting stuck in a chimney, or hurt when he falls through a skylight. Sure, you feel sorry for the cluck: but I don't get upset with the householder for having a narrow chimney, or the business owner for not providing safety rails and a ladder in the skylight.

Generations ago, the phrase 'poor but honest' became a cliche: and may have been a reaction to a notion that poor people were intrinsically dishonest.

For decades, some American subcultures have - to hear their claims - assumed that poor people are just natural thieves. And, that it's okay because they're oppressed. Me? I don't buy that.

Bottom Line: Lots of People Dead, and It'll Happen Again

One thing is sure: lots of people died, and more are wounded. I'm sorry about the deaths, and the suffering of survivors. Taliban, careless civilian: they're people.

On the other hand, I don't think that NATO should withdraw because people got hurt and killed. The Taliban didn't treat Afghans very well when they were running the country, and there's no reason to think they've changed.

Given time, and no resistance, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and like-minded outfits would see to it that men were given the choice of not wearing trousers or being shot; women allowed to live, unless a male relative had a snit; and anything not sufficiently Islamic was destroyed. I wouldn't like that. Not one bit.

War isn't nice. It's nasty. But, sometimes, it's necessary.

As for what's happening in Afghanistan? Yes, I think it's necessary: to keep the Taliban from reclaiming that country.

Of course, I'm one of those people who don't think 9/11 was an inside job, or that "high-level government officers had allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to occur." (AP) But that's a whole different topic.

Related posts:

• "Al Qaeda, Al Arabiya, Dubai, and Common Sense"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "A Winnable Afghan War: Afghanistan isn't Iraq"
  (August 31, 2009)
• "Afghan Election: A Few Observations"
  (August 20, 2009)
• "'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society"
  (February 24, 2009)
• "Earthquake in Ziarat: I Have to Care"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (October 29, 2008)
• "Afghanistan's Arghandab District and the Taliban: It Must Have Been a Plot!"
  (June 20, 2008)
• "Mohammed the Teddy Bear vs Islam: The Saga Continues"
  (December 1, 2007)
• "Islam and the 21st Century: Not the Best Fit?"
  (September 27, 2007)
  • Depends on how "Islam" is defined

In the news:

• "NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90"
  The Associated Press (September 4, 2009)
• "Scores Are Dead in NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan"
  The New York Times (September 4, 2009)
• "Scores killed in NATO attack"
  The Age (September 5, 2009) (Australia) (Date is as given: International Dateline stuff)

---

¹ "No Man is an Island" is a little excerpt from the acres and acres of John Donne's "Devotions."

"No Man is an Island" was really big in the sixties. Hollywood made a movie of it - sort of; Joan Baez sang it - again, sort of; until the changes had been rung. Over and over again. One of the songs actually used more than the first five words of the standard excerpt.

Here's that "No man is an island ... it tolls for thee" bit that you see in textbooks: with some of what comes before and after.

"...The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction...."
(Excerpt from XVII. Meditation. Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, John Donne: from a copy of Ann Arbor Paperbacks, the University of Michigan Press 1959 / Project Gutenberg)

That stuff about God wasn't considered 'relevant' in the sixties - and wouldn't have fit the lesson plan for some of the classes I took, back in the day.