Monday, November 23, 2009

The ‘Na na na na na’ approach to a conflict

There are so many wrongs that have been done, are being done and will be done in the near future in the Afghanistan conflict. We could talk about oil, pipe-lines, opium trade blossoming, civilians dying, children suffering and so on, but let’s ignore that for a moment and focus on the winning versus the not winning of the so called war.
Basically the US, and its partners in crime haven’t really decided whether or not they want to win, probably because they don’t want to do anything so prosaic. I don’t really know what the real agenda is, but if I were to make a guess it’s about three things; distraction, money and strategy.

When our economies, US especially, is going down the drain it is good to have peoples focus elsewhere. Even if a vast majority has a negative opinion, it’s still better than having people realizing that the biggest robbery in human history has just taken place. Also, since the only positive number in the American economy at the moment is military spending, to cut that would decrease GDP, and the enemy class cannot have that, people might find out how they have been fooled. And people in general want to win conflicts, even those that didn’t want to go there in the first place wants to win, it’s that us against them feeling. So there’s a distraction argument for being in Afghanistan.

Money, of course, is also a reason. The protection of valuable oil findings and pipe-lines has its place as well as the drug trade. Arms-dealers, certain banks and some shadowy groups have earned a lot of money from this conflict, and they have no incentive to stop the killing.

The strategy can involve several things, but certainly not to win, as mentioned the US has no intention of winning. Instead one can see the encircling of Iran as a reason for staying, or any of the other already mentioned. So I would argue that the strategy is to not have a strategy to win. How can I say that? Because this isn’t really a war, it’s a conflict at best, a skirmish. If this really was a war and the US really wanted to win, they would destroy any opposition in a matter of weeks.

There is only one way to fight a war. You commit your nation's resources - material and the most precious of all, human - to the complete obliteration of your enemy. You mass those resources against each objective in turn, without reservation, without holding back, without care for collateral damage or world opinion. You do so until your adversary sues for peace, not because it is the political thing to do, not for expedience, but for one and only one reason: they're tired of dying. There is no "armistice" or "cease fire" in a war. There is only victory or defeat. There is only death or life. Collateral damage, including the loss of innocent life, is a known price that will be paid, although the toll is not of concern in that regard - only the certainty that it will occur.

So if America really committed millions of troops, flew in all their support or started to throw tactical nukes around, they would eliminate every single cave, all Taliban’, all terrorists and Bin Laden would be found in bits and pieces, and they would do so in a very short amount of time. Of course tens of thousands of innocent would die and the world opinion would hate America, but they would win the war and they would really show what happens when you attack the US. I’ve not done the math, but I believe that a month or two of serious waring would mean less innocent dead, less of a cost and would be a much more effective way of making both a point and sending a message. As it stands now, 7 years and counting as many as a million plus people may have died, even more so if counting Iraq and the economic cost is staggering, and there’s no end in sight.

The US and its buddies need to decide, either end it, or leave. But they don’t want to, you see. For the reasons already mentioned and other motives, instead they take what can only be described as the ‘Na na na na na’ approach and kill some, but leave others. They bomb some mountains, but not others, effectively only pissing people off, creating more enemies than they had to start with. And the Afghan people are used to fighting an overwhelming enemy, so there’s really no end here. There are also the soon to be terrorist attacks that will hit one or several targets, such events will probably coincide with worsened public polls or the next economic crash, so another reason for this little conflict to not end.

What the rest of the countries are doing there? Hell if I know, wasting tax money and showing how much they care about one village while the town next to it is destroyed maybe? And since the conflict in itself is highly questionable to start with, we should leave and at the same time tell the Americans to either fight the war or get the hell out.


  1. Stor SKAM!!!
    Medan media mörkar..dock inte all media.
    TROTS möte i Stockholm om uranvapnens konsekvenser i helgen
    vilka används i Afghanistan!

    Visste du det...? Belgien förbjuder uranvapen
    Men i Sverige är det tyst...Skandal!
    vidare om urankonferensen i stockholm och strålninen konsekvenser på individnivå:

    Hur långt den radioaktiva strålningen som inandas sprids
    via vinden är oklart- men det är mycket långt...
    ARK Aktionsgruppen mot radioaktiv krigföring/ Svenska Läkare mot kärnvapen och Svenska Freds - sprider information om, och skapar opinion mot användandet av ammunition med den giftiga och radioaktiva tungmetallen utarmat uran, som idag används / användes i krigen mot Irak och Afghanistan.

    Även i april 2004 hölls en internationell konferens i Stockholm kallad ”Krigets Miljöeffekter”. Där deltog forskare
    och läkare från USA, Storbritannien, Irak, Kanada och Sverige. De redogjorde för sina forskningsrön om
    uranvapen (DU_ vapen) och dess effekter på hälsa och miljö.
    Soldater / civila som får canser, genmutationer odrickbart vatten ,
    fakta om strålningen från krigsvapen som används i dag, även vid Fredsstyrkeinsatser .
    Hur långt radioaktiva strålningen som inandas sprids via vinden är oklart- men det är mycket långt!
    Och- det vore bra för oss människor , ja allt på vår jord, med ett totalstopp kan ja tycka.

    .Ladda ned faktarapporten här

    Ett hån!
    "Accepterat riskerna" skriver DN att soldater gjort- men har de fått reda på fakta om uranvapnens konsekvenser?
    Det fick inte de amerikanska soldater som i da har fått canser…ej heller dessas närstående!