but many Afghan women, men and children are silently dying behind the
burqa of U.S. deceit.
The facts are simple. Massive food distribution programs put in place
prior to 9-11 in response to widespread famine were derailed by the
anticipation of and then the actual U.S. bombing campaign, and have
been even further set back by the Taliban's retreat. According to the
New YorkTimes (11/30/01), "In the past two weeks, the tonnage [of aid]
delivered dropped to a pace less than half of what it had been in the
previous two weeks." The problem is that the "towns and cities are so
chaotic that relief agencies cannot safely operate. Many roads are off
limits because of lawlessness and banditry."
Those of us who opposed the U.S. war in A fghanistan nevertheless saw
its apparent rapid resolution as an opportunity to at least get much
needed supplies intothe country. Having routedthe enemy, perhaps the
United States would stop the bombing, allowing food trucks to move in
from across the border. But, instead, the opposite is true. As of this
writing (December 5), the bombing continues, civilian populations are
leftat the mercy of maraudinggangs, and food aid dwindles.
There are a few simple things we could do that would immediately turn
down the torture in Afghanistan.
First, the U.S. should stop bombing. There is no real accounting yet
of the civilian casualty rate, but reports in the last few days claim
that U.S. bombshit four villages near Tora Bora, possibly killing
hundreds (NYT 12/3/01). This is an unethical and illegal use of U.S.
firepower. If it's Osama binLaden who we are still after, it is never
too late toapprehend him in a manner that accords with international
law -- present proper evidence and allow the UN to mount a prudent,
ground-based multilateral campaign to capture him. In any case, since
there is no Afghan enemy mounting any kind of defense or engaging in
battle, there is no excuse for large-scale bombings --whether directed
by the U.S. or the UN.
Second, the bridge to Uzbekistan, which is a key passage for aid
trucks, should be secured. And weshould meet Uzbekistan's demand that
an international force providesecurity at their Afghan border. Instead
American military officials are sayingthat although they"recognize the
urgency of opening the bridge from Uzbekistan, [U.S.] troops will not
be protecting the border."
There is callous disregard for human life in this casual
acknowledgement of the urgency. American officials understand the
consequences of their inactivity, but are blithely sitting back and
saying they want Afghan forces --not foreign troops -- to police the
roadways, whenthe only Afghan forces thatexist in the country
are"lawless bandits," and it is American officials themselves that
installed them. Having destabilized the country to the point where it
is not even safe for aid trucks to travel, it seems the U.S. is
washing its hands of the disaster.
If only that were the case.
Instead, the U.S. is actually blocking efforts to bring inthe very
peacekeepers thatmight secure the roads and borders, and facilitate
the transport of life-savingaid. Buried in an article about how the
Northern Alliance, during negotiations in Bonn, finally relented on
allowing foreign peacekeepers into the country, the Boston Globe
(11/30/01) reported that some U.S. officials believe peacekeepers will
be a nuisance to their unilateralconduct of the war. "Citing Bush
Administration officials, the Washington Post reported that `the
U.S.Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, is
opposing the imminent deployment of peacekeepers in areas freed from
Taliban control out of concern this could encumber U.S. military
operations.'"
In a New York Times article (12/3/01) about theBonn negotiations, a
brief aside mentions the"Pentagon's unwillingness to take part in any
peacekeeping force or to favor placing peacekeepersanywhere where they
could get in the way of thewar against Al Qaeda." Specifically, since
November 12 when the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the Pentagon has
blocked proposals by France and Britain to send thousands of troops to
secure Kabul, the northern half of the country, and aidroutes. On
December 4, thePentagon said it would"not object to peacekeepers
confined to Kabul and its immediate vicinity" -- a concession that is
mostly symbolic (only 200 peacekeepers will be admitted) and is
nonetheless entirely irrelevant to ensuring open channels for aid
(NYT12/5/01).
--
- - - - - - -