Obama Slaughters a Village in Afghanistan
When Stanley McChrystal replaced David McKiernan as NATO's Supreme Commander in Afghanistan after NATO "close air support" killed almost 100 children in one strike, Obama's new man promised new rules of engagement to limit civilian casualties...
NATO airstrikes will in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun by enemy fighters.
But what did you really expect from the con-man and compulsive liar Barack Obama and his stooge McChrystal?
NATO officials acknowledged that coalition aircraft had destroyed two hijacked fuel tankers in the tiny village of Omar Kheil, 15 miles south of Kunduz.The public health officer for Kunduz Province, Dr. Azizullah Safar, said a medical team sent to the village reported that 80 people had been killed, and he said that "most of them were civilians and villagers."
Moin Marastial, who represents Kunduz province in the Afghan parliament, told Al Jazeera: "More than 100 people had been killed, according to local sources."
The air attack exploded the tankers, and people close to the trucks were blown to bits. Some of those farther away died from severe burns, said the police chief of Kunduz Province, Gen. Razaq Yaqoobi.
Were there NATO soldiers in that little village, in danger of being "overrun by enemy fighters?"
No.
But almost everybody in Omar Kheil, Kunduz Province, Afghanistan, was blown apart or burned to death by Barack Obama and his stooge Stanley McChrystal today, September 4, 2009, in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere, with no strategic importance whatsoever.
Tragic.
Thanks for posting.
You are a good man Rootie.
September 4, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tragic, yet the next time the Taliban hijack fuel tankers and behead the drivers Taliban supporters and others might not rush with their jerry cans to load up on fuel. German and Afghan troops called in the strike 7 km outside of the city according to BBC, Obama wasn't with them.
September 4, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Germany also says that no civilians died in the attack.
So why believe the local Afghan public health officer, the local Afghan member of parliament, and the local Afghan police chief, when you can get the real story from Germany?
September 4, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may also be worth mentioning that all NATO forces in Afghanistan (ISAF) are under the command of General Stanley McChrystal, and General Stanley McChrystal works for Barack Obama.
September 4, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you are still a fucking idiot.
September 4, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how many of the relatives of the dead children are now going to join Al Qaeda as opposed to passively co-operating with them?
Destroying hearts and minds in order to provide security for the people of Afghanistan is the precise, self-defeating tactic that produced the Vietnam quagmire.
September 4, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe any government official in Afghanistan, especially President Karzai, who was installed by George W. Bush. His brother was involved with stuffing 23,000 ballots in Kandahar, and his administration's corruption is not worth preserving with the life of one more American.
The villagers and even their children likely did not give a damn that the kerosene they sought was bought at the life of the beheaded driver, who was probably of another ethnic group or tribe so in their eyes he life was worth less than that of a goat.
I do think the time is long past to get the hell out of Afghanistan.
September 4, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's how you justify incinerating children. Just how do justify incinerating the babies in arms?
Besides it backfires and costs more American lives if those are the only lives that matter to you.
September 4, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
RUTABAGA RIDGEPOLE IS A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!
September 4, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine you're gonna get heckled for putting it so harshly Ruta, but that's mostly because the truth is pretty friggin harsh. People need to face this about Obama, our military and they need also to understand that complacency makes each of us the killers of those innocents as well.
September 4, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were clearly not entirely innocent as they sought to profit from what what obviously a crime committed by their sacred Taliban who stole the truck and killed the driver.
September 4, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine really what it would be like to be there --from where I sit in my comfort of America this is definitely a shade of gray. It would be nice to have clear cut good guys and bad guys, to say pull the troops out now, and yet know what the girls in Afghanistan have struggled for, died for, been burned by acid for, just to receive a basic education. No easy answers. No easy solutions.-
September 4, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have no business in their country. The original point of our being there has long since been abandoned. These deaths were completely unnecessary as are all the others related to the pointless and futile imperialist venture in Afghanistan.
September 5, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't really agree with this sentiment. Neither Obama or McChrystal ordered the attack. They maybe the highest echelon of the command, but the create policy and direct strategy. It is those who ordered the attack and carried it out that potentially need to be punished.
What are the current rules of engagement and escalation of force procedures in Afghanistan? Did this attack adhere to this protocol? This could all boil down to friction and disorder inherent to combat.
I will wait for the results of the investigation. The crux is whether our policies are abetting needless death, or if the individuals who miscarried this attack acted inappropriately... Or with poor intel.
Poor intel is a big problem on this conflict, Ruta. There aren't enough patrols and fobs that can reveal the movements and whereabouts of villagers. This is why the transition from urban to mountain warfare is taking place domestically.
Now, we can discuss the overall issue of the war itself. You have made the reasonable assertion that we have no business there and in fact are making an abysmal situation hellish through our meddling. But the tack of pinning this incident on Obama directly just doesn't jibe with the reality of warfighting.
September 4, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for commenting, Zipperupus.
I don't always blame the CiC for every civilian casualty, but in this instance McChrystal was brought in specifically to avoid exactly this sort of "collateral damage," and when McKiernan was fired the US was facing a very serious threat from the Loya Jirga to hold American soldiers accountable under Afghan law... the same thing in effect as throwing out our whole operation. McChrystal was deal that put that initiative to sleep, and now here we are again.
Karzai has been complaining about "long-range counter-insurgency" ever since he was elected, but just as you say, Zipperupus, our intel sucks, and what choice do we have?
"You don't fight an insurgency by firing a field-gun at a village from 30 kilometers away," said Karzai, but again...
Without reliable intel, what else can we do?
I think you're exactly right that bad intel is at the core of our problems in Afghanistan, but I also think that bad intel is a sign of something deeper.
If we had the support of the civilian population, we would also have decent intelligence about the insurgency, but we don't, and we don't, and Obama should know it by now.
Even granted that McChrystal has been given a hopeless task, it was still his responsibility to set up command procedures which would have prevented exploding a couple of loaded fuel-tankers, for God's sake, with who knows who in a crowd around them, and it was Obama's responsibility to find a general who could get that job done.
In this case, with a habitual set of problems well-known to both MvChrystal and Obama, I have to say that responsibility for this disaster travels directly up the chain of command, and the blood of those villagers is on Obama's hands.
September 4, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crux of the issue is whether what transpires if the US leaves Afghanistan is also Obama hands.
September 5, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the real core of our problem is that we should long ago have admitted we failed in the effort to get Bin Laden and there is no military solution to the problems our presence there have created. We need to get out.
September 5, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't disagree with your assessment. The explosion of fuel tankers by missile is retarded. I can't imagine the scenario where that is acceptable... I can only presume that they had no clue that a refugee or nomad village set up in the vicinity and believed that there was no harm in a little target practice.
I can see where you are coming from. Honestly, I think McChrystal is the wrong man for the job. I think General Mattis would have been a more competent choice, but he is being groomed for Joint Chief and he can't politically afford leading the current quagmire. So we are stuck with a black ops specialist where transparency is more preferable.
September 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Z,
As someone has said, Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan. These bombings of civilians are becoming routine and we don’t even hear of the smaller incidents. McChrystal said, “When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces. I want everyone to understand that.” McKiernan had said something similar. This is not a new issue.
Obama's said in August 2007, "We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.” HRW sent this letter to President Obama in March. The tactics, rules of engagement or whatever are obviously not working if we can't help killing 60, 80, or 100s of villagers every few months (and the military continues to try to cover-up and spin civilian casualties). These deaths are not intentional, but how many accidents killing dozens or hundreds of Americans every couple of months would we accept before correcting the failure?
What has been our answer to this “unavoidable” collateral damage? Escalation. We have more troops, and more on the way, and are expanding the robotic war of the drones, and more on the way, bombing inside Pakistan now (I missed the declaration of war or even an AUMF on Pakistan). We have more troops counting security contractors there now, and more on the way, than the Soviet Union had at the height of their war. I first heard the word “escalation” as a kid in news about Vietnam. I learned its meaning slowly but profoundly. Escalation means more American casualties. Escalation means more civilian deaths.
September 5, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don:
Thank you for your response. Commandant Conway has been advocating escalation in Afghanistan for over a year and a half. The reason is that the Marine Corps is better suited to the Afghan mission. The problem is that we are trained for urban and rural desert warfare. We are also trained under an entirely different rules of engagement.
Where you see escalation, I am seeing a transition. I MEF is now training exclusively for mountain warfare. Interpreters are now being hired in droves. An entirely new emphasis is being placed on recon patrols so that the maps can be redrawn. The new logic is that we can obtain the actual movements of the nomadic culture and persuade them through guns and butter. That is when my MOS and Civil Affairs comes in.
The goal is to ostracise the radical elements, isolate them, and kill or disable their capabilities. Of course, none of this can be done if the Afghan government can not be trusted to aid their people. Right now, between our blundering and expensive air attacks and the Karzai government's corruption/mendacity, there is no way to foster stability.
In my opinion. Afghanistan's stability is crucial because of Pakistan. Israel and Palestine must reach an accord that appeals to the region. Iraq must develop and effective three-tier state that harmonizes ethnic and religious concerns... And Afghanistan mustn't become a Wahabbist enclave.
And above all, we must wean ourselves from oil politics and allow for ME self-rule. We took up the colonial slack left by the British, French, and Dutch and our military has metastasized and overcome our Republic. Until we can stop being a imperial military hegemon, fires will ceaselessly erupt for the young men and women to try and put out. And civilians will continue to die and suffer by the millions.
But... IMO, the current military presence can not simply be yanked away. Force must gradually yield to diplomacy and the fangs of reactionary terror must be blunted. The temptation to about face from Bush's legacy in toto is a trap. The resulting vacuum will foster an untenable chaos that will empower neoconservative ideology domestically.
September 5, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Force must gradually yield to diplomacy and the fangs of reactionary terror must be blunted.
Well put, and thanks for the explanation. But what is required to defang terrorism as a threat to the US? What I could never buy under Bush and won’t believe just because it’s coming from Obama is that we have to fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here. And I have wondered with the appointment of McChrystal (or indeed, retaining Gates) if there was any real will or momentum to drastically change course.
It almost seems like the object of withdrawing troops from Iraq was only to send them to Afghanistan. But the American people didn’t sign on to an indefinite occupation or a nation-building (or region-building) exercise. The American people were only interested in getting those who attacked us. That said, I don’t think we can just quit and pull out either. And it would be a mistake, as you say, to leave the region in an even more unstable condition than it was.
It is, in the end, about hearts and minds. I don’t know that it is in the realm of possibility to contain Islamic fundamentalist influence and control in the region except by replacing it with a confederacy of corrupt warlord tribalism, which is what we have now, at least in part. The oil drop strategy isn’t applicable with the many isolated factions, terrain and safe harbor in Pakistan for hit and run. One thing that we cannot become or be perceived to be, as in Iraq, is perpetual occupiers. I have a hard time seeing a positive outcome in nation-building; at least, trying to create anything approaching a western style democracy anyway.
I’m of the same mind that Pakistan is key. The F. A. Tribal Area is a stateless territory as much as Afghanistan was. But I don’t see an answer to what are really two states there except that it involves engaging Pakistan as a state not just making these little backdoor deals to hunt and peck at the targets hiding there. Most of the civil strife in the region arises from past colonialism, doesn’t it? The Pakistani government is and has been dysfunctional to put it mildly and
I think our buddy-buddy approach under Bush, as with other dysfunctional and oppressive ME governments, is wrong headed and like the killing of civilians only increases hated of America. Avoiding civilian destruction isn't only about hearts and minds, it's part of the recognized rules of engagement in war. Any and all efforts, including strategic planning, to prevent collateral damage is required of a nation that stands for human rights.
I certainly appreciate your service, your conscientiousness and integrity (not to mention your intimate knowledge of the situation). And I hope you’re right that escalation is a signal of a change in direction rather than simply throwing more weight at the problem. It is a minefield though.
September 5, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we have more people (George Will, et.al.)calling for an increase in drone attacks. (the Robotic Wars, ugh.) How can a drone be directed well, and just because our soldiers aren't dying, does that make it all right? Opium, a US-appointed leader, corrupt elections and a corrupt government? Oh, god, it is all so hard to bear. I'm sorry I don't have more to offer. I liked Barack's ideas on foreign policy: engaging with our enemies, finding ways to neutralize animosities. But bringing democracy to other nations is such a vain quest.
And McCrystal does not seem to be a Good Guy, given the questions of his behavior in the Pacific Rim theatre.
September 4, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drone escalation is simply war profiteering. Drones are a disaster in the making. The danger is in reverse engineering. The Army doesn't appreciate it when a squad of Marines drops a broken drone off at their coc. But it's a hell of a lot better than letting the enemy tinker with them.
George is one of the foremost pinheads on military operations. Between he and Krauthammer they could end life on this planet a thousand ways without an exit strategy. They are members of a death cult that loves nothing more than young men and women in flag draped coffins. They are sick and neurotic men.
September 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often appreciate your comments, but this is flagged as one of your more poetic.
September 6, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." taken from Obama's speech Feb. 10, 2007 announcing his run for presidency.
I didn't read anywhere in there about going to Afghanistan.
September 5, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been looking for the stories about McChrystal on one of the Pacific island nations that alleged he allowed genocidal attacks on a group. Along the way, I found this esquire piece:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal-051909
September 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink