Words from an Afghan-American

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

There is a great article over on Salon.com today (Editor's Pick) from a woman who has a unique perspective as an Afghan-American. Here is an excerpt: "Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. "

-- Anne (HealthyTouch101@wildmail.com), September 19, 2001

Answers

Concerning the part of the letter about U.S. ground forces, I doubt there will be any significant amount, since the U.S. has other weapons in their tool kit, as General Powell said at the start of the Gulf War. Likely it will be high altitude attacks against suspected terrorist camps. Remember, during the Gulf War B-52s bombed Iraq from bases in the U.S. and Dega Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The terrorist should ask soldiers from North Vietnam what it is like to have a B-52 drop a load of iron bombs on them. They fly too high to be seen. One second everything is normal and the next the world around them explodes. To go against a single structure the U.S. has the F-117. The pin point precision of their bombing was illustrated during the Gulf War. Ground troops would likely be Special Forces units who would go in, destroy their target(s) and then get out.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), September 19, 2001.

I wouldn't use the Gulf War as an example, given that one of the objectives was to remove Saddan Huessein from power. Last time I checked he was still alive and in power, despite all those bombs we dropped on him. Do you really believe we'll have any better aim trying to bomb Osama bin Laden?

-- Sherri C (CeltiaSkye@aol.com), September 19, 2001.

What Sherri said. In fact, I had a son in a unit 50 miles from where the big man was and they were called off. Why was that anyway???? He is a big part of the al-Qaida system. I think a view of surgical removal of the problem as shallow and uninformed and includes a world view that will pose a great problem in the months and years to come.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.

Hussein was left in power and the troops called off in an effort to keep world opinion, and especially middle-eastern opinion , on our side. If anyone cares to remember, the stated goal of the military exercise was not to remove Hussein from power, but to remove his forces from Kuwait. This is all the leeway the "coalition" charter gave us. At no time were we given the go ahead for a full scale invasion of Iraq, and indeed had we, the opinion in that part of the world would have turned against us much quicker. Had we overstepped our bounds, the "moderate" (at least by our standards) govts. would have had no choice but to act against us. How do you spell high oil prices. Our true mistake was in not supporting the internal opposition to Hussein to the full extent we could have. One of the things Bin Laden hates most about us is our continued military presence in Saudi. Would he feel better if we had fully invaded Iraq?

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.

The Afghan people are in dire straights for certain, this seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to take advantage of using "The milk of human kindness" instead of the terrors and tragedies of warfare, after all, that is all the Afghan people have ever known. Perhaps if they knew the possibility of a "normal" life, they would not despise and hate us so. That and practicing the acknowledgement of the inherent differences between the Western Worlds Ways and the ways of Islam, we unknowingly commit actrocities to their way of believing across the world on a daily basis, we slap them in the face and don't even realise it.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), September 19, 2001.


There's a difference between living in a Stone Age society and living in hell. Maybe we should just show them how much worse it can get.

-- Rick#7 (rick7@postmark.net), September 19, 2001.

I am a Deist. I can accept the thoughts and beliefs of any extant religion. I am not omniscient enough to figure out which is the "right" religion. I only know that I believe in God, and have a belief, not well publicized, that is similar to our (USA) founding fathers. Those who believe in Islam, as those who believe in Buddism, Christianity, or any other "organized" religion, including Wiccans, are my brothers and sisters in having a belief in God. It is only the "leaders" in these beliefs who become corrupt and wish to manipulate the masses that create the problems. The Taliban is corrupt, but the believers in Islam are for the most part wonderful people, and I consider them to be my friends. I will not go into specifics, but I believe the "leaders" of most religions are equally corrupt, for personal gain. I do not know a member of any religious belief that I would not embrace as a friend. It is only when they embrace the propaganda of the self-effacing "religious leaders" that the inability to accept other's religious beliefs causes strife. Why can we not accept that we need to ascend the mountain to heaven, and our choice of the route is of little importance? Maybe I am naive. Maybe I have just had friends who had religious beliefs that were not identical to mine. Maybe I am a dingbat. But I believe that all of us who have beliefs can accept the beliefs of those who may have some disagreement with us. If you disagree, send me your address, and I will kill you! (JOKE!)

Pussycat Brad

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), September 19, 2001.


Brad, I agree with you. I don't have any problem with people having different religious views than my own. However, what the government is proposing is not a war against the Islamic religion. It's a war against terrorism, terrorists, and those who harbour and support them. I don't care if they're Islamic, Hindu, Wiccan, Christian, or Atheists! And I would say that there are most likely members from each of those religious involved in terrorist activities. In my opinion, if they're part of a terrorist society, they need to be removed from this planet.

-- Cheryl in KS (cherylmccoy@rocketmail.com), September 19, 2001.

The full text of the letter to which Anne refers can be found in my earlier post entitled 'Letter from an Afghan... Long but worth it' dated 9-18 for anyone who would like to read it in it's entirety. I hope this helps.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), September 19, 2001.

Hmmmmmm so am I to understand that if people are a member of a society where terorists live we should annhilate them. If the terrorists live there, we should assume that they are being supported by the populace, correct? Am I to assume you are suggesting we begin full scale bombing of timothy Mcveighs home town. Hmmmmmm doesn't make much sense to me.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.


i just have one question to all those here this eve. has any1 took a long hard look at our own government? i'm not saying i am anti government but alot of things go on that they do to us as americans and then they say someone else has done the damage!!! case in point Pres Kennedy

-- shannon (mikenshannon@msn.com), September 20, 2001.

I have nothing against the Afghan people, neither do I have any sympathy for them. All of my sympathy is being used up in my own country. Too bad about their government being so awful to them. Why do they put up with that - surely they have not always been so put upon or have they. Not much happens that the people do not allow. Would we allow ourselves to be treated so badly by our government? They stood by and allowed this government to take control - they were not willing to die for their freedom. Americans are and always have been. I would not go so easily to a mass grave.

-- Linda Al-Sangar (alsangal@brentwood-tn.org), September 20, 2001.

Linda, I had to read that a few times to make sure I understood you. It's good to have sympathy for those who are in pain. But why does it have to be limited to only our people? Don't you think those people in Afghanistan have experienced quite a bit of pain also. Why do they put up with it? As stated, they are starving and haven't the means to overthrow the Taliban. Would we allow ourselves to be treated so badly by our government? Well it hasn't gotten to that point yet, but if we keep letting our freedoms be taken away it could be. I don't believe for moment they just stood by and let this happen! Many did die! For there to be peace in this world, it can't always be about me, my, and mine.

-- Denise (hammj@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

With all due respect, the American government does abuse its citizens. Their methods are insidious. The American government tells lies, the media reports them and Americans just believe them all -- lock, stock and barrel. Americans are far from free: they are kept in the dark and slave away their whole lives to sustain an economy which facilitates the development of the largest, most powerful military-industrial complex in the world today -- which wouldn't be so bad if some good came out of it, but such is not the case. At least the Afghani people know they're being controlled. I don't hate Americans (in fact, one of my very dearest friends is an American). I just have to say something when the rhetoric gets too heavy and the ignorance gets too thick. Afghanistan and her people don't revolt because they have been beaten down severely by the Taliban and before that by the Russians (who, incidentally, they defeated). They are not a weak people. Perhaps when you're starving you don't have time to watch CNN.

-- Emily Jane (emilyjanejenkins@hotmial.com), September 20, 2001.

Emily jane, Not sure where you're from, but I hope it's not one of the places outside the US that has suffered any kind of natural disaster over the last half century. You decry that the "military-industrial" complex does no good, but it is this same complex that allows US planes and relief supplies to be on the forefront of almost every disaster relief effort across the globe. It is the same complex that has both fostered and defeated repressive govts. and agression. Are we a perfect country? No we're not. Do we do our best? Not always. But I will hold that the good we, as a nation, have done far outweighs whatever evil you wish to find in us.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.


The percentage of our GNP spent on military is 3 percent. So that leaves the other 97 percent for a host of other things, including supplying money to foreign countries. Americans have always tended to have a strong work ethic, and other countries, not just ours, benefit from it.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 20, 2001.

Does anyone remember our "War on Drugs"? I'm afraid a "War on Terrorism" will be as successful.

If we were able to get Bin Laden, what about the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the IRA, the abortion clinic bombers and the thousands of other terrorist organizations both here and abroad?

I can easily see this escalating into a full-blown world war.

-- Lynne David (lynnedavid@msn.com), September 26, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ