A Response to a “Support the Troops” email.
I am sure those who put, “Support the Troops” ribbons on their vehicles, do so with good intentions. I also have reason to believe that those who support the troops in this way know very little about the Afghanistan invasion. If they did know, they would not be in favor of keeping our troops in Afghanistan to kill and be killed. If they really want to support the troops they would be demanding, as I do, they be brought home and apologized to for the lies we have told them.
I believe the facts below are indisputable. I have given references to be checked.
As I said, I believe the people who support the troops in this way do so with good intentions. I believe that most of them are honest and objective. I also understand how they could have these opinions, given the compliant media in Canada and the United States.
People live in a work-a-day world and most don’t have time to search though the alternate press for a dissenting opinion
So, I ask you to read the short history below. If you disagree with it, I would be delighted if you would tell my why. If you agree with it, then ask you to use your talent and your time to put an end to this senseless illegal war and send this article to all of the ones you sent your letter to.
Every reason given for the invasion of Afghanistan has been a lie. What is the invasion about? First let me say what it is not about.
It is not a UN authorized mission. (1)
It is not about a response to terrorism. (2)
It is not about bringing Osama bin Laden back dead or alive. (3)
It is not about bringing democracy to Afghanistan or rebuilding the country. (4)
(1) Walter Dorn is Associate Professor of Defence Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada and the Canadian Forces College, and in the last year has been an outspoken critic of Canada’s abandonment of UN peacekeeping. This is what he had to say about the UN.
”The US has not sought and did not receive UN authorization for its war on terror or the operation designed to carry this war out, “Operation Enduring Freedom” (OEF). Unlike ISAF, OEF has no UN-sanction. Yet Canada entered Kandahar under the banner of OEF and from that moment on, we could not be labelled as impartial or objective or having the population’s interest foremost in mind. We have become increasingly identified with the global perception of the US around the world as seeking to find and defeat enemies in its national interest. We became one of the conflicting parties and we remain so to this today, even though we are currently serving under NATO.”
(2) Richard Clarke was the Whitehouse antiterrorist terrorist advisor. In his book, “Against all Enemies” Clarke makes it clear that Bush had no intentions of invading Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack. He writes, “*Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq.” “I thought I was missing something here,” I vented. “Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.”
Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained to Clarke that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. Clarke said, “At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.” Clarke continued, “He (Bush) looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. “Look, he told us,” ‘I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way.’ I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. “But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this.” ‘I know, I know, but – see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred of evidence.’
(3) After Bush said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, the president was asked, in a March 13, 2002, conference in the Whitehouse ‘Where’s Osama bin Laden?’ “He said, ‘I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.’ We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.’
It is also well known that the United States, through the CIA had a cozy relationship with Osama bin Laden long before 9/11. Both the CIA and bin Laden trained and financed the Kosovo Liberation army in Kosovo and in the eighties both the CIA and bin Laden trained and financed the Mujahideen in their quest to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
(4) Before the invasion of Afghanistan (Oct 07/01) Bush, realizing he could not go directly to Iraq. made two speeches to justify the evasion of Afghanistan. In neither speech did he say anything about bringing democracy to Afghanistan. The closest he came was a couple of short paragraphs in each speech. In the first one he said, “At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”
And in the second speech, “Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan — after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid — but we condemn the Taliban regime.” Nothing was said about bringing democracy Afghanistan.
Commenting on the Manley Report, Eric Margolis writing in the Toronto Sun (January 27, 2008) had this to say.
“The report’s claim that Afghanistan’s U.S.-imposed regime is “democratic” is absurd. CIA “asset” Hamid Karzai was installed by Washington and is kept in power by U.S. troops and a stream of cash payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged “election” was supervised by U.S. troops and bought with $100 bills.
What is the invasion about?
We know from number (2) above that it was about using Afghanistan as a springboard to invade Iraq.
It is also about having a compliant government in Afghanistan that would allow a pipeline to cross the country. The pipeline was planned long before 9/11.
The next two + paragraphs are found in, “Creating A Failed State” “The US and Canada in Afghanistan.”
A book by John W Warnock. (p 83)
In June 2001 Chokila Iyer, the Indian foreign minister, reported that the United States and Russia were planning a military attack on Afghanistan through the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They planned to back the warlords of the Northern Alliance in an effort to overthrow the Taliban government. The Indian government agreed to “facilitate” this military action. This planned attach on Afghanistan was widely discussed at a July 2001 meeting of the G8 countries in Geneva.
The United Nations has been hosting a series of meetings in Berlin between the United States, Russia and the six countries that border Afghanistan, known as the “Six –plus-Two negotiations. The eight governments agreed that what was needed was the creation of a new Afghanistan government of national unity that would be fallowed by international economic aid and the building of the pipelines. Naif Naik, the Pakistani foreign minister reported that the US government threatened the Taliban at the meetings, telling them if they did not agree to this proposal the United States would initiate “a military operation.” Naik reported that US officials told him that the military action against the Taliban would begin in by the middle of October 2001.
Then came the events of September 11, 2001, which provided the rational for the military attack that had already been planned.
Bev Currie 