From The Times:
On the eve of a Nato summit in Riga at which member nations will be urged to send more troops, Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai, who led Pakistan’s hunt for Al-Qaeda until 2004 and is now governor of North West Frontier province, said: “Bring 50,000 more troops and fight for 10 to 15 years more and you won’t resolve it. The British with their history in Afghanistan should have known that better than anyone else.â€
So a Taliban controlled Kabul is inevitable. Are we really going to surrender Afghanistan to a regime that suppressed women and violently curbed all freedom of expression?
Sphere: Related Content
Afghanistan has been used as a pawn in a power game of empires - eg British, Russian, American.
Democracy should not be imposed through the barrel of a gun.
Get off your asses come here, see what is going on and maybe you can print something worth reading. The Taliban will not be taking over Kabul. Democracy was not imposed here it was embrassed by the people who want a better life and it is working. Mike. International Security Lead. Fayzagad Afghanistan
Well Mike.
I don’t advocate pulling out.
If it could be arranged, I would be happy to see for myself. Maybe people should hear about Afghanistan from another source but the Mainstream Media?
If you would like this writer to travel and write about the real Afghanistan, please get in touch.
I second Mike.
It is, and has been, impossible for the Taliban to resume control of Kabul.
The people want Democracy. No one made them vote.
Come on over and check out the situation with your own eyeballs. The lying press isn’t giving you a clear picture.
SGT White
Kandahar Air Field
Bill Roggio is the most recent blogger to have come over here as an embed. If you want advice on getting that done, he’s probably the guy to ask.
Thanks for your contribution Robert.
Sounds like an exciting opportunity.
http://billroggio.com/
I may just contact Mr. Roggio.
The invasion of Afghanistan, in the same way as the illegal invasion of Iraq, was made to protect the USA’s commercial interests and the interests of their partner in the Middle East. It’s certainly not a place where NATO troops should be deployed, NATO should not be fighting for American hegemony.
Before the invasion of Afghanistan there was concern that the large gas and oil deposits would be channelled eastwards to China.
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html
“At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,’” Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the Bush administratino began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a US expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of US intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The last meeting between US and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the US government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.
Michael,
“American Hegemony.” Wow. Talk about dusting off the late 60’s playbook. BTW, mind citing what law was broken by invading Iraq?
Thing is, we’d like nothing better than for any oil/gas found in Afghanistan to be funneled toward China, or Russia, or India. Beleive it or not,that’s in our best interests. Best interests of everyone actually. Iraq’s oil too.
NATO is going to have to step up more and more. The UN has long ago (with abberations in 1950 and 1991) abdicated via neglect, its constituted warmaking powers.
“American Hegemony - the late 60’s playbook”.
Yes Robert, and that has been transformed into early 21st Century US “Full Spectrum Dominance” - along with pre-emptive nuclear strikes and militarization of space.
Go on Robert, look it up. It’s an education, rather than indoctrination.
Robert asks “what law was broken in invading Iraq”. The answer is of course that since there was no UN Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq International Law was broken. You see Robert it’s against International Law for any country to invade another, if it wasn’t that way the world would be in even a more chaotic state than it is now.
You also seem to be totally unaware of the increasing competition for oil and gas reserves, whilst you obviously see nothing wrong with Afghanistan’s oil and gas being funnelled towards China, India and Russia I’m afraid the loony in the White House would disagree with you.
Today’s world is nothing like what occurred in the 1960’s to start with there’s unfortunately just one super power in the world when it comes to military spending and that super power is abusing that position.
NATO is clearly working outside its remit, which is simply to protect NATO countries from attack. We now have a situation where the USA’s economic interests are being subsidised by the EU taxpayer. It occurred simply because the USA simply couldn’t handle the resistance in Afghanistan, wanted to reduce their presence and the USA controlled NATO stepped into the breach. NATO in my opinion should be disbanded and an EU Army formed.
The UN of course is what we make it, when I say “we” I mean the countries that form the Security Council. Once again the USA has used the UN , just like NATO, for their own economic and political interests. The UN will not become effective until either the USA’s membership is terminated of the VETO powers of the Security Council members reduced or cancelled.
“NATO is going to have to step up more and more”
says Robert, the reality is something quite different. My view is if the USA wants to control Afghan oil/gas they should fight for it on their own.
From the Indi: -
What reduced US presence? At no time since 2001 have US force levels dropped. In fact they have risen and continue to rise. From 7,000 in 2001 to 21,000 today.
You’ll never make it as an International Lawyer. The Gulf War never concluded. Thre was only a cease-fire. UNSCR 678 can easily be argued to still have force, especaillay in every succeedign resolution it was cited. UNSCR 1441 also cites as authority UN Charter Article VII, which is the language cited for authorizing force. Nothing in International law makes the acto of invasion illegal. Only intent is a problem under international law.
If we don’t want oil and gas going to China, Russia and India, why isn’t Iraqi oil going to the US? Maybe you ought to find out where it is going.
NATO had three purposes when it was created. Keep the US in Europe. Keep the USSR out of Europe. Keep Germany down. Which of those goals is still relevant today? It is about member defense but those defensive needs have obvioulsy changed. The evolution is clear.
Iraqi oil, despite now being nearly 4 years after the illegal invasion, still remains un metered. Metering is not expensive and neither could it be due to action by Iraqi resistance, because the pipeline ends outside Iraqi territory. The USA is stealing Iraqi oil, no record of how much is produced and therefore no record of how much it’s being sold for.
The USA’s intention of course, was to boost Iraqi production to an extent where OPEC could be undermined therefore reducing oil prices. Thankfully this has not succeeded.
NATO troops replace American ones in Afghanistan.
Perhaps in that case Robert you can explain why the USA went to the UN with a pack of lies trying to get UN authorisation for an invasion of Iraq? Even Colin Powell now admits that he feels “embarrassed” about it, you should be too.
Frankly Bush’s invasion of Iraq was as about legal as Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
UN Resolution 678 merely authorised Iraq’s removal from Kuwait.
Resolution 1441 did not include the critical words “all necessary means”. They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.
Nevertheless they claim that Resolution 1441 itself gave authorisation for this illegal war. But if you look at the relevant part of 1441 it says that “the Security Council decides …to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime…” It also says that non-compliance “will be reported to the Council for assessment” and directs the Security Council “to convene immediately” on receipt of the weapons inspectors’ report “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions.” Resolution 1441 further “Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”
That’s it. To anyone vaguely familiar with the English language this can only mean that it is the responsibility of the Security Council as a body — all fifteen members including each of the Permanent Members with a veto — to decide whether and to what extent there has been compliance and what to do about it. It’s not the American government that has to be “convinced” according to 1441; it’s the Security Council.
Indeed if you look at comments made by members of the Security Council during the debate regarding its approval, it’s clear that all of the Security Council, obviously with the exception of the US & UK, specifically stated that Resolution 1441 should not be used an an authorisation for an invasion. It is clear therefore that the USA did not only lie in an attempt to get a second Resolution but they also lied to get Resolution 1441 approved.
The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of “automaticity†for the use of force had been eliminated.
The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution’s requirements.
JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom )said there was no “automaticity†in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council for discussion. He expected the Council then to meet its responsibilities.
ADOLPHO AGUILAR ZINSER (Mexico) said “Those who had advocated the automatic recourse to the use of force had agreed to afford Iraq a final chance, he said. Iraq was now obliged to fully comply with its international obligations. The resolution had eliminated “automaticity†in the use of force as a result of material breach.
RICHARD RYAN (Ireland) said that the unanimous adoption of the resolution was a strong statement of the Council’s unity. The resolution was about disarming Iraq without the use of force.
SERGEY LAVROV (Russian Federation) He emphasized that the resolution did not contain any provisions for the automatic use of force and underlined that the sponsors of the text had affirmed that today.
FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) His country had voted in favour after having received from the United States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for “automaticityâ€.
There is no worse deaf than that who does not want to hear, Michael. And this Robert from Afghanistan (?) sounds like one of those deaf.
It is clear even to high officials in the US, members of the Houses, that the US broke international laws by invading Iraq, but this Robert of Afghanistan seems to know better.
Or is it perhaps that he is intent on crashing the truth, because as you know truth hurts?
Zealots have been and still are. You cannot prevent that, the only way to deal with them is just ignore them, as we ignore lunatics as long as their dangerousness will not harm us.
Not Robert From Afghanistan, Robert in Afghanistan. See the difference?
It’s these kinds of things that lead one to think they understand international law too, when it’s misreading, and interpretation despite, rather than from, the text.
An explanation of the handle: I’m an Oklahoma National Guardsman (named Robert) in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The reality of this place is outside my tent flap.
Robert time to face reality perhaps, if Kofi Annan says the invasion of Iraq was illegal, it was illegal. Please answer why you think the USA tried unsuccessfully to actually get a Resolution authorising an invasion of Iraq, but then went ahead and invaded anyway?
As I wrote previously, it was as legal as Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
· Summary of Article VI.
· :“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.†[US Constitution]
· The UN Charter is of course one of those Treaties refered to in the US Constitution.
In the UN Charter it states;
Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.
· Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. …. [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.†[UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]
·
· AND
·
· Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [UN Charter]
Michael, you’ll have to show me where inteh UN Charter the Secretary-General gets to make binding determinations of that sort. As it is, his comments were simply an opinion and a shockingly ignorant one at that.
It would have been best to have a clear and unambiguous statement from the UN, so you try to get one. When it isn’t forthcoming, it’s okay, because teh statemetns previously are good enough, just not as straightforward as one might wish. Leads to conversations like this one.
You probably ought to look up the Nuremburg transcripts to see why Hitler’s invasion of Poland was found to be illegal.
Anyway, I covered this stuff long ago. Here’s a link. http://signaleer.blogspot.com/2004/09/kofi-annan-says-iraq-invasion-illegal.html
And in case you’re tempted to think I’m the typical conservative UN basher: http://signaleer.blogspot.com/2004/07/why-i-dont-like-un-and-why-we-should.html
Incidentally, a point you made a while back that deserves to be addressed: “all necessary means” as a phrase, does not appear in 1441. It did appear in 678 and the resolution for the Korean War. There is no requiremnt for this formulation and no clear indication that this should or even could constitute some kind of precedent.
Robert you fail once again to answer my questions, here it is once more “Why did the USA go to the UN to try and get a further UN Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq?”.
Of course UN Resolution 678 contained the words “All necessary means” because it authorised the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait, but that’s all, it certainly didn’t authorise an invasion of Iraq 13 years later. Resolution 1441 also says that non-compliance “will be reported to the Council for assessmentâ€. It’s for the UN Security Council to decide if an invasion was required. That of course explains why the USA tried with a catalogue of lies and fabricated evidence but was unsuccessful. As I’ve pointed out already by contemporary comments made by members of the Security Council, there was an expressed intention that UN 1441 would NOT be used to authorise an invasion without referral back to the Security Council.
I’m afraid Robert that neither Bush or yourself has leg to stand on, Bush is a war criminal without any doubt. I would also like to point out that Kofi Annan knows far more about International Law than I do or some dumb grunt sitting in Afghanistan. After all a recent survey suggested that around 80% of these dumb grunts in Iraq thought that Saddam really had WMD even now.
Do you understand this?
Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorised to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorise the use of military force. [UN Charter]
I emphasise this bit
“only the UN Security Council can authorise the use of military force”
Did you miss it? Here’s teh answere as suscinctly as I can put it: PR.
You missed my point here too? They did.
Well obviously Robert you live in world where black is really white and lies are really the truth. The UN did not authorise an invasion of Iraq. it was vetoed by members of the Security Council (thankfully) , the attempt by the USA to try and get a Resolution authorising force failed miserably.
I’m hopeful that with the demise of the US$ on account of its continuing devaluation and the huge trade deficit which is clearly unsustainable, that the USA will have no alternative but to release war criminals such as Bush, Cheney, Rice up to the International Criminal Court. After all the arrogance we now see from the USA and Americans in general was probably the same as the Germans in 1939. I wonder how many of those could foresee the Nuremberg trials happening 6 years later.
Robert, fight on. I can’t agree with you, but keep the dialogue going. It is by so doing that we ALL learn more about ourselves and each other - without killing ourselves or each other.
I’m afraid the exchange comes to a grinding halt when you are up against someone who simply denies reality and continues to spout the party line. There wasn’t a UN Resolution authorising an invasion of Iraq in 2003, that’s the bottom line and that’s why the invasion was illegal.
I think even Robert realises that and that’s why we see such pathetic comments such as the USA trying to get another UN Resolution simply for PR purposes.
When was the USA ever interested in PR at the UN? It has vetoed far more Resolutions than any country in the world.
Michael, I’m a Soldier in a war zone. Denying reality will get me killed.
Let me ask, since you address no point of it in refutation but simply issue a blanket ‘no,’ did you read the articles I linked?
It’s difficult to keep a dialog going if it just comes to yes it is, no it isn’t.
There weren’t resolutions authorizing invasion of Vietnam, Iran, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia/Kosovo, or Afghanistan either. International law, for the most part, is like the Constitution of Great Britain, it is primarilly precendent and not written. These would seem to be strong precedents.
In addition, if absolutely nothing else, the UN has condoned actions in Iraq after the fact by continuing to expressly recognize the role of the US and the Coalition in Iraq ever since. Further there has been not even a hint of a resolution condemning, censuring, or wrist slapping over the matter. Veto or no, at least bringing it up would make a rhetorical case possible.
And don’t be so quick to disregard PR, or my regard for it. If we lose Iraq or Afghanistan it will becasue of having lost the PR fight first. It is impossible to lose militarilly.
You mean the links to your blog? Yes I did look and all I noticed was a group of Americans trying to assure themselves that the invasion of Iraq was legal despite all the evidence to the contrary. The invasion was illegal, the occupation has since been approved.
There was as you write no UN resolution authorising an American invasion of Afghanistan instead there was a UN Resolution authorising a “UN Security Force” invasion of Iraq, thereby making it legal under International Law.
The invasion of Iraq did of course happen within a month of 9/11 at a time when world sympathy for the USA was at its highest, all totally dissipated now of course. We now know that the Afghanistan invasion was something the extremist neocons had planned well before 9/11, if that had been generally known before the invasion it’s unlike ly the USA would have had UN cooperation.
A UN Resolution was not necessary in the case of Vietnam, it was at the Vietnamese Government’s request.
What invasion of Iran are you referring to :).
The invasion of Grenada also violated the United nations Charter.
Likewise with the NATO, not American, invasion of Kosovo, There is absolutely no question that the NATO attack in March 1999 was illegal . Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter clearly says:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
There were many call for a UN Resolution condemning the USA for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the first one being in April 2003, all were either vetoed by the USA or threatened with the veto from the USA.
These are of course example of where the USA uses the UN for its own purposes and why the USA’s membership should be terminated.
As for the USA’s PR battle that was lost years ago, the USA is now seen as the main threat to world peace, it’s having an affect on your precarious trade deficits. It’s essential for the future of the world that the USA is defeated in Iraq.
There was as you write no UN resolution authorising an American invasion of Afghanistan instead there was a UN Resolution authorising a “UN Security Force†invasion of Iraq.
That should read “invasion of Afghanistan”
(CORRECTED COMMENTS)
You mean the links to your blog? Yes I did look and all I noticed was a group of Americans trying to assure themselves that the invasion of Iraq was legal despite all the evidence to the contrary. The invasion was illegal, the occupation has since been approved.
.
There was as you write no UN resolution authorising an American invasion of Afghanistan instead there was a UN Resolution authorising a “UN Security Force†invasion of Afghanistan, thereby making it legal under International Law.
The invasion of Afganistan did of course happen within a month of 9/11 at a time when world sympathy for the USA was at its highest, all totally dissipated now of course. We now know that the Afghanistan invasion was something the extremist neocons had planned well before 9/11, if that had been generally known before the invasion it’s unlike ly the USA would have had UN cooperation.
A UN Resolution was not necessary in the case of Vietnam, it was at the Vietnamese Government’s request.
What invasion of Iran are you referring to
The invasion of Grenada also violated the United Nations Charter.
Likewise with the NATO, not American, invasion of Kosovo, There is absolutely no question that the NATO attack in March 1999 was illegal . Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter clearly says:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.â€
There were many call for a UN Resolution condemning the USA for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the first one being in April 2003, all were either vetoed by the USA or threatened with the veto from the USA.
These are of course examples of where the USA uses the UN for its own purposes and why the USA’s membership should be terminated.
As for the USA’s PR battle that was lost years ago, the USA is now seen as the main threat to world peace, it’s having an affect on your precarious trade deficits. It’s essential for the future of the world that the USA is defeated in Iraq.
Mind you Robert is right about one thing, the USA cannot be defeated militarily, for the moment at least. But that’s simply because it spends more on the military than the combined amounts of the 20 next biggest spenders.
The USA’s defeat will come economically, their excess military might having been paid for not by the efforts of Americans but the generosity and charity of other nations, such as China, Russia and the OPEC countries.
But all the signs are that this is coming to an end, the US$ is in free fall, it’s lost 50% of its value against the EURO in 5 years and the decline continues. The future of the USA doesn’t just count on the Chinese continuing to hold over a $1 trillion US$ but it relies on a continued month after month buying into a commodity that becomes increasingly worthless day by day. Americans like Robert will be paying the bill for decades to come.
But let’s not get soft with them, no thoughts of a kind of “Marshall Plan” to help them out. They deserve what’s coming and they deserve to suffer alone, I for one am totally fed up with their arrogance and ignorance.
At least you are consistent.
Operation Eagle Claw, Invasion of Iran, 1980.
http://www.specwarnet.net/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm
Well that’s hardly an “invasion” is it Robert? :)On this basis you could claim that the USA invaded Pakistan a couple of months ago.
It was as the title from your link suggests “The failed rescue of American hostages, Iran, 1980″.
Well…so much for the consistency.