NATO $40 million hospital uses 50% of capacity to heal native Afghans

[American Eagle]

My point is and remains that back in the 1960s I noticed a lesser value placed on life by the locals in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, which conflicted then and now with the value I and others place on all human lives.

Your remarks are culturally backward, and are reverse rascism.

Relying on either "religion" or claiming "racial discrimination or attitudes" are not acceptable and a ploy only a fool will believe or follow.

Shame.

 

[Ahmad]

I doubt you are an Afghan. Your rhetoric comes right out of Fox News. If you are, you're an American stooge. I can't find anyone doing a better job of licking Bush's *******.

Obama says US is losing war in Afghanistan and hints at Taleban talks - Times Online

America might be losing or winning this war, but their presence at the moment in OUR country and not in YOUR country is to our benefit. We are less worse today than we were 10 years ago. As per negotiations, that is good. We have got Taliban representatives in our parliament and they are poliitically active, i dont see the problem if they launch their political party and engage in politics rather than killing their own people.

 

[mayankmatador]

This is a worthwhile read. CLICK ON THE ABOVE SENTENCE IF YOU WANT TO READ THIS WASHINGTON POST STORY WITH COLOR PICTURES STRAIGHT FROM THE WASHINGTON POST WEBSITE.

AMERICAN EAGLE

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, December 25, 2010; 9:52 PM

AT KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, AFGHANISTAN Most of the time, this war-theater hospital crackles with danger and expertise, its staff members working to keep alive people who would be dead if they ended up almost anywhere else in the world.

Military hospital in Kandahar takes care of Afghan civilians, too

But some of the time, often in the morning, it's quiet and almost empty, except for a few recuperating Afghans stoically watched over by family members and, today, a young girl in a pink robe exploring the corridor outside her room in a wheelchair.

The hospital, which opened in May and is owned by NATO, is an odd mix of urgency and relaxation. It features patients whose stays inside its $40 million walls are both shorter and longer than any in contemporary U.S. hospitals.

American soldiers critically injured on the battlefield spend only a day or two here, many unconscious and on ventilators, before being sent to Bagram air base, then to a hospital in Germany and on to the United States.

At the other end of the continuum are the Afghans who make up about half the patients.
They also come aboard medevac helicopters. They get the same immediate treatment as U.S. soldiers. Then they stay, often for weeks, until they are well enough to be transferred to a nearby Afghan hospital or discharged.

Some are Afghan soldiers or members of the national police. Many, however, are civilians or Taliban insurgents. It's often difficult to tell the latter two apart, and to the workers at the hospital, which is run by the U.S. Navy, it's largely irrelevant.

Pediatricians in war zone

About 15 percent of the patients are children. Most are here because of the consequences of war. But there's also a steady trickle of patients who have cerebral malaria, burns from kitchen fires, car accidents, snake bites and obstetrical calamities or have fallen from roofs, where families sleep in hot weather.

"Those are probably the hardest cases, when the kids come in," said Cmdr. Eric Peterson, 40, an emergency nurse. "I don't think people expect that when they come over here."

The Navy did expect it, and planned for it.

"This is the first time the Navy has sent a pediatrician as part of a wartime role," said Capt. Jon Woods, 45, a pediatric intensive care physician. "It is a recognized part of our mission."

'New paradigm' in care

Pediatrics isn't the only addition to what is considered possible and necessary in war-zone medicine. The hospital also has an interventional radiologist, who can snake catheters into bleeding sites that surgeons cannot reach. It has a 64-slice CAT scanner that would be the envy of any radiology department in the United States. It has a neurosurgeon.

"This is a new paradigm, having a neurosurgeon in-theater. But I frankly can't imagine not having this capability," said Cmdr. Steven Cobery, 44, a neurosurgeon who did 120 operations between April and mid-October.

One of the consequences is that some Afghans receive care here and at a sister hospital at Bagram that would be unimaginable elsewhere in Afghanistan. In some cases, it would be rare in the United States.

For example, Woods recently flew to a forward operating base where a newborn had been brought after a difficult delivery. The baby, four hours old, had persistent pulmonary hypertension and meconium aspiration - both life-threatening lung conditions. On the flight back, Woods breathed for the child with a squeeze bag and an endotracheal tube and gave her drugs to keep her out of shock. It was ICU care in a helicopter, delivered by a pediatric intensivist.

The child stayed in the hospital for six days, recovered and went home. The alternative destination - if she had survived to get there - would have been Mirwais hospital in Kandahar City, which has a single ventilator for infants.

Of course, many of the Afghan patients would not need heroic medical treatment if not for the U.S.-led war, now in its ninth year. And much of the time the circumstances of a civilian's wounding are unknown or ambiguous.

To accommodate long-staying patients, the workers at the Kandahar hospital have set aside a room for praying. Relatives are permitted to spend the night in the patient's room. Staff members often get food for the families from the dining hall (and hold it until after sunset during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan). When a patient dies, the face is turned toward Mecca, the big toes are tied together with cloth as prescribed by Islamic law, and someone is called to say the proper prayers.

"We try to be as culturally sensitive as we can, given the mission," said Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Broderick, a nurse who heads the intermediate care ward.

Saving lives, no matter whose

Although the hospital is important to the "hearts and minds" campaign, the military realizes the openness of the doors could compromise the main mission of saving troops' lives. Consequently, if a certain number of beds are filled, the hospital will not take civilians unless they have been injured in combat. Except for the exceptions.

"We always take neurosurgical cases," said Capt. Michael D. McCarten, 58, the commanding officer. "If there is a potential for a life-saving intervention, we'll take them."
In the spring, an Afghan man arrived with his 14-year-old son, who had fallen from a tree. The man had taken the boy to one forward operating base, been turned away and taken him to another. ("Just like in the United States, parents here are very persistent," Woods said as an aside, as Cobery, the neurosurgeon, told the story.)

The boy had a skull fracture. Cobery removed a section of the skull to decompress the swollen brain. He put the skull fragment under the skin of the boy's abdomen, where it would survive until the brain had fully healed. Three months later, the father returned with the child. Cobery put the piece of skull back where it came from. Case closed.

The care and solicitousness extends to Taliban fighters, as well. The only difference is that they are under armed guard until they are handed over to other authorities.

Cobery said, "Not one time has it come into my medical decision-making not to do something for someone because he's a bad guy. To someone, he's a good guy."

Several months ago, the hospital treated a man in his 20s, reportedly a Taliban fighter, who had had one leg amputated very close to the hip joint. The stump had become infected, and the infection had begun invading his pelvic cavity, an ominous development. The doctors told him that they were not sure they could save him.

"He started to cry," Woods recalled. "He said he just wanted to see his wife and kids again."

The orthopedic surgeons mixed bone cement with two antibiotics and fashioned the concoction into small beads. "In the States, this stuff is manufactured. We were our own manufacturing plant here," Woods said. The doctors packed the wound and the pelvic outlet with the beads, then put the patient on extra-high-dose intravenous antibiotics.

He survived.

this is a thankless job these people are not going to understand........
leave them on their own stoning each other

 

[Tigershark]

Your remarks are culturally backward, and are reverse rascism.

The so called “reverse racism” is a front white Repubicans hide behind who feel threatened by justice and equal opportunities to minorities. It is an American establishment propaganda tool and has no currency outside of your country. To see you repeat “reverse racism” ad nauseum only confirms the impression that you are trapped by your country’s supremacist rhetoric. Don’t delude yourself into thinking your parochial rhetoric has any currency outside of the US.

The shame in on you, mister.

 

[Tigershark]

Most in south Afghanistan believe NATO operations are bad for locals

By Andrew Duffy, Postmedia News July 17, 2010

OTTAWA — An new survey in southern Afghanistan suggests NATO's eight-year campaign to win hearts and minds in the embattled region is in serious trouble.

Field researchers with the International Council on Security and Development, a policy think-tank with an office in Afghanistan, last month interviewed 532 men in mostly rural parts of Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

The survey found a significant majority, 70 per cent, of southern Afghans felt military operations were bad for the Afghan people and NATO forces did not protect the local population.

A total of 75 per cent said foreigners did not respect their religion and traditions; a similar number, 74 per cent, believed it was "wrong" to work with international forces.

A total of 59 per cent opposed a new military offensive against the Taliban in Kandahar.

"These results are troubling and demonstrate the mistrust and resentment felt towards the international presence in Afghanistan," concludes the council's report entitled: 'Afghanistan: The Relationship Gap,' published Friday.

The opinion survey was conducted as 30,000 U.S. troops "surge" into southern Afghanistan, which has been the scene of heavy fighting between Taliban and NATO forces.

Since 2002, 150 Canadian soldiers have died serving in Afghanistan, most of them in Kandahar province.

It is estimated the military mission could cost Canadian taxpayers $18.1 billion by the time it concludes in 2011.

Norine MacDonald, president and lead researcher with the International Council on Security and Development, said the survey highlights the communication gap that exists between NATO forces and the Afghan communities they've been deployed to protect.

The survey found most Afghans thought foreign forces were in the country to occupy or destroy it, 44 per cent, or to harm Islam, 12 per cent.

Most in south Afghanistan believe NATO operations are bad for locals

Your claim to represent typical Afghan opinion holds no water. As the article pointed out, your unconditional support for occupation forces is not only in the minority, it shows you are the lapdog of vested foreign interests.

As did the Soviets before them, the americans will crawl home in an ignominious withdraw and the Karzai government will have to make peace with the Talibans and other ethnic factions, holding a far weaker hand. By committing to a withdraw, instead of endless putting it off, the americans can facilitate an early national reconciliation. But by stubbornly clinging to the spector of a declaration of “victory”, the Obama administration is only exacerbating the bloodshed and pushing the country deeper into chaos.

If Nato leaves AFghanistan as you mister canadian suggest, then in Afghanistan there will be rivers and oceans of blood as it happened in the past.

You don’t even try to entertain any solution other than foreigners coming into your country and shooting your countrymen. Any other option you shoot down as inevitably unleashing “rivers of blood,” as though rivers of blood, on both sides has not been shed already. Collaborators like you were shot when the Soviets withdrew. Maybe that’s what you’re afraid of?

 

[CENTCOM]

You should be aware that far more Afghans are shot and murdered than the few who make it to a hospital. For every 1 militant shot, 10 Afghan civilians are killed. That's why American wars are called collateral murder. The Afghan war has far outlasted its mandate to hunt down al-qaeda and turned into a blood occupation. The Americans have no local support, the Karzai government have no authority outside of Kabul, and the war is being steadily lost. Yet the Western media hides behind such heart-warming propaganda to give the illusion that Americans are winning the war. The western capacity of self-deception is limitless. Obama pledged withdraw in July 2011. Now he says he can't get the job down by then so he's going to say 2014. Wake up Americans. Your budget is in the red and your people are unemployed. You cannot afford to win the war you started and I am glad--you will no longer be able to invade countries and murder millions. The American gangster state is at an end. Let a saner, more peaceful American republic take root.

TigerShark, where do you get the information to back up your claims? Polls indicate that majority of Afghans believe they are on the right path towards peace and progress, and that they fear the return of the Taliban after the withdrawal of NATO/ U.S. forces.

Afghans more optimistic about future, poll suggests | World news | guardian.co.uk

This is why we are doing our utmost so that when the U.S troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army and Police will be in a better shape to control the insurgency and uphold stability and peace in Afghanistan. Also, your claim that we changed the date of the withdrawal because “we couldn’t get the job down” is completely fabricated. First of all, since the beginning, we have declared all along that the 2011 date would be the beginning of the transfer of security responsibility and drawdown of our forces, and that this would be dependent on the ground conditions in Afghanistan. Second, 2014 was proposed by the Afghan government and agreed upon at the Lisbon conference, and their goal is to take the lead in providing security by 2014. We fully support the Afghan government and security forces in attaining this goal and recognize the sacrifices and hardships faced by them to ensure that by 2014, they will be fully capable of leading the fight against insurgencies. Both our and the Afghan government’s stance was reflected in the Kabul Conference and the Lisbon Summit held last year. It does not mark a change in our posture whatsoever.

Some of your other claims are equally baseless, such as “for every1 militant shot, 10 Afghan civilians are killed”, “the Americans have no local support, the war is being steadily lost”, “Americans killing general average people in the name of protecting their own ambitions”, serve only to stir hatred and demoralize the people who are making sacrifices to ensure freedom and progress in their future.

According to the U. N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan report, of the total 6,215 conflict-related civilian casualties that occurred during the first 10 months of 2010, anti-government elements were responsible for the deaths and injuries of 4,738 civilians over 76 per cent of the total number of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, 742 civilian causalities were attributed to pro-government forces. Suicide and improvised explosive device attacks caused the most civilian casualties attributed to anti-Government elements. So what sources are these statistical ratios of 1 militant to 10 afghan civilians coming from? From information purposes, here is an assessment by the international community regarding the situation in Afghanistan with accurate numbers and statistics.

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/SG Reports/SG REPORT_10DEC2010.pdf

These figures are corroborated by a recent compilation by the French news agency Agence France Presse, based on Afghan government and independent sources. They found that of the total casualties in Afghanistan for 2010 (just over 10000), total civilian casualties comprised roughly 20 percent of the total. Taliban fighters accounted for more than 5000, and Afghan security forces, killed by the Taliban, accounted for another 2000. So, I do not know from what you base your claim that the US kills ten Afghan civilians for every Taliban fighter we kill. It is simply not supported by the facts.

AFP: Over 10,000 died in Afghan violence in 2010

Lastly, what logical ambitions would we have in Afghanistan other than to fight the terrorist insurgencies? We have no plan, idea, thought or interest in “blood occupation” of Afghanistan, which is why the transition of security responsibility is taking place. If you remember; we withdrew our attention from Afghanistan right after the Soviet War, which did not prove beneficial for anyone. Therefore, this time we are taking steps so that the post-Soviet war situation in Afghanistan does not happen again. Once again we would like to clarify that our commitment to the Afghan people and government is long standing.

LCDR Bill Speaks,

DET-United States Central Command

CENTCOM

 

[Ahmad]

Most in south Afghanistan believe NATO operations are bad for locals

Your claim to represent typical Afghan opinion holds no water.

, the americans will crawl home in an ignominious withdraw and the Karzai government will have to make peace with the Talibans and other ethnic factions, holding a far weaker hand. By committing to a withdraw, instead of endless putting it off, the americans can facilitate an early national reconciliation. But by stubbornly clinging to the spector of a declaration of “victory”, the Obama administration is only exacerbating the bloodshed and pushing the country deeper into chaos.

Here is a detailed and very recent finding which totally contradict what you say:


Security has now overtaken the economy and jobs as their greatest concern. Support for President Karzai remains strong. The Taliban remain unpopular but there is an increase in support for the government negotiating a settlement with them.

More generally, Afghans now feel less confident about the future than they did a year ago.

The polling was carried out from 29 October to 13 November 2010, just before the NATO Summit in Lisbon.
Foreign troops

One of the most striking findings in this poll is the 19% increase in Afghans who think that attacks against US or NATO/ISAF forces are justified. 27% now say attacks are justified, compared with 8% in December last year.

This new figure is back close to the 25% who said attacks were justified in the poll in January 2009. It is also the highest figure since the 2005 poll when it was 30%. A majority (64%) still say that attacks are not justified but this is 12% down, and back at the same level as in January 2009.

There has been a 9% increase in people who blame US forces the most for the violence in Afghanistan, up to 14% from 5%. This compares with 53% who blame the Taliban, al-Qaeda or foreign Jihadis, but this is down 13% since last year. Only 3% blame NATO/ISAF forces (no change).

63% of those polled still support the presence of US forces and 54% still support the NATO/ISAF forces, but support for both are down (5% and 8%) since last year.

However, support has not switched instead to Taliban fighters or Jihadi fighters from other countries. 88% of those polled still oppose Taliban fighters (down 1%) and 82% oppose Jihadis fighters from elsewhere (up 1%).

Those polled also recognised some improvements in the performance of the foreign troops. 30% said they were now better at avoiding civilian casualties, up 6%, and over half (53%) said they were better at training the Afghan National Army and the local police.

But opposition to the increase in the number of foreign troops has strengthened. Almost half of those polled (49%) oppose the increase – that's up 13%.

When asked about the United Kingdom's overall role in Afghanistan, 21% said it was playing a positive role (down 7%); 43% said it was playing a negative role (up 12%).

For the USA, the figures were very similar: 36% said positive (down 9%), 43% said negative (up 12%).
Confidence

Of those questioned, 59% said they felt Afghanistan was heading in the right direction – down from 70% last year, although still up from the 40% low in the earlier poll in January 2009.

Similarly, 65% said they expected things to be better a year from now – compared with 71% last time.

Those polled were also more concerned about the future for their children – 56% thought that their children would have a better life than them, down from 61% last time; 17% thought their children would have a worse life, compared with 11% a year ago.
Problems

According to the poll, the economy and security remain the biggest problems facing Afghanistan. 65% of those polled put these at the top of a list of problems, compared with 66% last time.

But the security situation (warlords, attacks, violence etc) has overtaken the economy as the biggest problem, with 37% putting this first, up 5%.

And 9% more people (30%) said their ability to move around safely was bad, up 12% since they were first asked in 2007. 28% said the biggest problem was now the economy, down 6%.

Living conditions overall have not changed significantly. 70% of Afghans said they were very good or somewhat good, down just 1% from last year.

But there has been a 9% increase (up to 67%) in those who said that the availability of jobs or economic opportunities were bad, and 40% said the jobs situation was getting worse.

However, 71% said roads, bridges and infrastructure were either getting better or were much the same, compared with 28% who said they were getting worse.
President Karzai and the government

Support for President Karzai remains strong though down on last year. 62% said he was doing a good or excellent job and 58% said his government was doing well. A year ago these figures were 72% and 60%.

Support for the police was up 2%, with 65% saying that they were doing a good or excellent job.

But approval for the Afghan National Army has not been maintained, with the figures down 4% since last year, compared with a 12% increase the previous year.

An overwhelming 86% of Afghans said they would prefer to be ruled by the current government although this is down 4%. Only 9% said they would prefer the Taliban, but this is up 3% on last year.

When asked what poses the biggest danger to their country, 64% said the Taliban, down 5% since last year but still the second highest figure since the first poll in 2005. 31% said the Taliban were stronger than a last year, 1% more than last year but still 12% lower than in 2009. 33% said they had remained the same, up 8%.
Taliban

Nearly three quarters (73%) of Afghans now think that the government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, up 8% since last year. 23% say they should continue to fight, down 5%.

Fewer people think the Taliban has grown weaker; down from 40% of those polled to 33% this year. 64% said they would be very willing or somewhat willing to accept an agreement between the central government and the Taliban.

But there is opposition to ceding control over certain provinces to the Taliban; 61% said they would not be willing to accept such an agreement.
Politics

39% of Afghans said that an Islamic state was the best political system for Afghanistan at this time, down 4% from last year. 37% now say they support a democratic system with elections to choose political leaders, up 5%.

Nearly three quarters (73%) said the government should enforce Islamic principles strictly or very strictly.

Over half of Afghans acknowledge that their electoral system is affected by fraud. 56% said that the recent parliamentary elections were mostly fraudulent. But 59% of those polled said they were satisfied with the final outcome.

BBC - Press Office - Afghanistan: national poll for the BBC, ABC News/ARD Germany and the Washington Post

You don’t even try to entertain any solution other than foreigners coming into your country and shooting your countrymen. Any other option you shoot down as inevitably unleashing “rivers of blood,” as though rivers of blood, on both sides has not been shed already. Collaborators like you were shot when the Soviets withdrew. Maybe that’s what you’re afraid of?

Why not? I am always in favour of reconciliation with the opponents and gov. Gov of Karzai need to talk to the Taliban to bring them in political process, he also need to work closely with the largest oppostion party(mujahideen) to help him talk to the taliban, this is the way forward. If the NATO withdrawlls as you suggest, there will be chaos and bloodshed in an unimaginable scale, if you say no, then tell me how will it be? how the americans should leave? who should take the charge? which army? which gov? elected? a religious based gov with a self appointed amir? will it be acceptable to everybody? please give me some explanations for this.

As the article pointed out, your unconditional support for occupation forces is not only in the minority, it shows you are the lapdog of vested foreign interests, As did the Soviets before them

Stop your cheap remarks against me which is repeated in every post by you. My 3 brothers were killed in direct battles against the Soviets and we pretty much lost everything back home, our house, livelihood etc, you in Canada will never feel our pain, not in this world!! I didnt want to mention all these, but you made me to say something. We didnt side with rusians, then why should I be an stooge of americans as you suggest? i say what is best for my country and people, people like you will always create problem for us. Just leave us alone if you cant be of anyhtyhing positive for us.

 

[American Eagle]

Religious murders and terrorism in the name of a heretical excuse for religion which is not what Islam stands for (Peace) makes you a fellow traveler of the Taliban terrorists and their running mates the Wahabbi nutcase al Qaida thugs.

911 is the answer to your remarks. Those same thought and mind control nuts are still in parts of Pakistan, running back and forth murdering fellow Muslims inside Afghanitan, now even Iran, and elsewhere inside Pakistan. Not to mention of course killing our NATO allies in cowardley suicide bomber attacks using women and little children.

Your so called rebuttal is sick.

I myself was wounded being in the wrong place at the right time in the Rann of Kutch in 1965 when Paksitan and India had a dust up. Have been partially disabled since age 25 and I carry no grudges and blame no one. Those are the breaks of the game when you are in a war zone. Cold as this statement is, it applies to me!

 

[Tigershark]

Lastly, what logical ambitions would we have in Afghanistan other than to fight the terrorist insurgencies? We have no plan, idea, thought or interest in “blood occupation” of Afghanistan, which is why the transition of security responsibility is taking place. If you remember; we withdrew our attention from Afghanistan right after the Soviet War, which did not prove beneficial for anyone. Therefore, this time we are taking steps so that the post-Soviet war situation in Afghanistan does not happen again. Once again we would like to clarify that our commitment to the Afghan people and government is long standing.

LCDR Bill Speaks,

DET-United States Central Command

CENTCOM[/FONT]

A willfully blind comment by a man backing US interests. I would refer you to Bush administration's official position on advancing US interests, on taking advantage of unilateral power to ensure no one challenges US "leadership", meaning securing US hegemony. That offers a clear motivation for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have said over and over, Al-Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan, so there is no reason for NATO forces to stay. The US is in Afghanistan to advance its selfish power and is thus no different than the former Soviet Union. It is an occupation force. Its appetite to dominate the world makes it the new Soviet Union.

AFP: Over 10,000 died in Afghan violence in 2010

Your own article says it all. US-led war in Afghanistan is a bloody occupation. You fall into the same trap I criticized before: trying to justify the war before it is not yet a Holocaust. "It's not as bad as what the Jews had to go through under Hitler, so our war in Afghanistan must be good"--that's the gist of your argument.

You quote phrases from my argument, call them false, then offer no evidence to support your claim. You rebuttal is a farce.

 

[Tigershark]

Religious murders and terrorism in the name of a heretical excuse for religion which is not what Islam stands for (Peace) makes you a fellow traveler of the Taliban terrorists and their running mates the Wahabbi nutcase al Qaida thugs.

911 is the answer to your remarks. Those same thought and mind control nuts are still in parts of Pakistan, running back and forth murdering fellow Muslims inside Afghanitan, now even Iran, and elsewhere inside Pakistan. Not to mention of course killing our NATO allies in cowardley suicide bomber attacks using women and little children.

I am sick of Americans holding up 9/11 as the justification of every unpopular american policy, gun-boat diplomacy, and invasion--"woe is me; let's go kill Muslims"

Get it through your head that something called history existed before 9/11. 9/11 is blowback from specific american foreign policy:

The Inescapable Irony of 9/11
Keith Hazelton
March 19, 2007
American essayist Agnes Repplier said humor brings insight and tolerance but “irony brings a deeper and less friendly understanding.”

As our collective grief and anger slowly dissipate in the years since 9/11, an inescapable irony emerges in the aftermath which must be confronted, and which, with hope, may bring us understanding and, more importantly, the courage as a nation and its leaders and as a people to change.

How could they do this to us? How could they hate us this much?” We rhetorically have asked ourselves these questions countless times since 2001, but some answers may be surprising, and will differ from the official, received opinion dutifully communicated to us by a preponderance of the tame, corporate-owned fourth estate.

The tragedy of 9/11 did not happen because Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists hate democracy, capitalism, truth, justice or even the Western Hemisphere's mindless entertainment and rehab-driven popular culture. None of those were cited as casus belli by the as-yet uncaptured, cave-dwelling, Saudi native for the attack he ordered and financed.

No, in several videotaped messages since 9/11 bin Laden gave very different, specific reasons for the attack, to wit: the U.S.-led embargo of humanitarian aid to Iraq in the 1990s following Gulf War I (in hopes that starving, illness-crazed Iraqis would arise to overthrow Saddam Hussein), later replaced with a corrupt and equally ineffective U.N. food-and-medicine-for-oil program, which together were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; America's unwavering Israel-first Middle-East foreign policy which has so often ignored the rights of Palestinians and which contributes to so much instability in the region, and the continued, growing presence of U.S. military bases in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia, the holiest lands in Islam.

Regardless of the reasons for the 2001 attack, the inescapable irony of 9/11 is this: much of Osama bin Laden's inherited wealth came from U.S. petro-dollars recycled through his father's construction company; our CIA trained bin Laden in guerrilla warfare and armed him and his mujahideen to be “freedom fighters” in the 1980s Afghan war, and our “global war on terror” likely will, in fact, increase – not diminish – the possibility of future terrorist attacks in the United States.

The first component is that with our own money Osama bin Laden destroyed our symbols of wealth in New York City and power in Washington, D.C., killing in the process nearly 3,000 innocents, and drove us lemming-like over a neo-conservative cliff of hatred and fear to the abyss below of a liberty-diminishing, civilian-murdering global war on terror.

The wealth that Osama bin Laden inherited and so cruelly used against us was accumulated in life by his father, Muhammad Awad bin Laden, whose construction empire grew fat on newfound wealth represented by oil, largely from the flood of U.S. dollars pouring into Saudi Arabia, and made him one of the wealthiest non-royal Saudis. At the time of his death the elder bin Laden's wealth was measured in billions. Osama bin Laden, one of more than 50 children born of 22 mothers in the house of bin Laden, it is believed, received an inheritance measured in millions.

The second component is Osama bin Laden received arms and training from the CIA, and money funneled through Saudi Arabia, for use in Afghanistan in the 1980s when the United States supported the Afghan mujahideen fighting government and Soviet Union troops (the U.S.S.R.'s “Vietnam&#8221.


We taught bin Laden how to be a terrorist, how to use our weapons and how to recruit and train other like-minded young Arabic men, and, again in a way, how to use our own money in the form of petro-dollars recycled through Saudi Arabia to further the jihadist cause.

Lastly, our undeclared global war on terror, in turn, has led to our current regime-changing misadventure in Iraq where we yet are to be greeted as liberators with flowers and candy, and instead are building at least four major, permanent military bases and a billion-dollar “embassy” complex.

By all accounts, we have squandered whatever international sympathy, empathy and goodwill may have existed immediately after 9/11. Thus completing this miserable trifecta, our policies and presence in Iraq have exponentially increased an environment of Islamic hatred of the United States, which creates a greater likelihood of future terrorist attacks on our soil - “here” - no matter how long and how purposefully we fight them “there.”

Author and professor Chalmers Johnson calls the destructive result of our actions “blowback,” a term first used by the CIA in the 1950s to describe the consequences of its (our) meddling in international affairs. In his 2000 book of the same name, the first of a trilogy meticulously detailing of the imperial nature of what by all accounts is now the empire of the United States, Johnson describes many instances of blowback, of which 9/11 is but the most recent.

In Johnson's view we are reaping what 60 years of policies and actions have sown, and unless we dismantle the U.S. empire, America inevitably will continue to experience blowback in the form of future terrorist attacks.

Few of us have spent sufficient time in the last five years to sort this out, opting instead for government's official version of 9/11 (they hate our freedom and democracy) duly channeled through our corporate-owned media – an evil-doing, liberty-hating bin Laden aided and abetted by a revenge-seeking, terrorist-sponsoring Iraq.

To those of us who have been able to “connect the dots,” 9/11 was the denouement of a macabre Greek tragedy and we its audience.

We realize how bin Laden was unwittingly funded through his inheritance of petro-dollars, how bin Laden purposefully was trained to be a terrorist by the CIA and how misguided Middle-East policies of the last five years in particular have intensified Islamic hatred, while America, the unknowing, possibly doomed, hero on the world's stage - is oblivious to a fate destiny may hold in store for it.

We can cast aside hubris and make an orderly retreat from empire before it's too late. As Britain completely shelved its empire by the mid 1950s and the former Soviet Union unwound itself fewer than 50 years later, it is possible to back away from this perceived, likely bankrupting, need to remain the planet's sole superpower.

Much blood was spilled in September 2001 and thereafter from the senseless deaths and injuries of thousands Afghans, Iraqis and Americans caught in the global war on terror. That so much of it flows upon those faraway sands, under which lies the fix for our oil addiction, demands each of us gain insight from the inescapable irony of 9/11 for a deeper and less friendly understanding, and, more importantly, the courage as a nation and its leaders, and as a people, to change.

 

[Tigershark]

I myself was wounded being in the wrong place at the right time in the Rann of Kutch in 1965 when Paksitan and India had a dust up. Have been partially disabled since age 25 and I carry no grudges and blame no one. Those are the breaks of the game when you are in a war zone. Cold as this statement is, it applies to me!

Previously I cited a figure that 150 Canadian soldiers died. That means hundreds more are wounded, many suffering as much or more than you have. You can understand why I support the withdrawal of coalition forces to prevent more deaths. Dying for a war started by trigger-happy Bush doesn't exactly arouse patriotism as I imagine it does to you. 9/11, of course, would never have happened if not for the genocidal american sanction on Iraq and many other destructive middle-east policies.

 

[Tigershark]

leave them on their own stoning each other

...the history of Afghanistan. Little wonder coalition forces are so eager to leave.

 

[Tigershark]

A recent post by Black Blood:

I think he forgot that Afghanistan (The so Called Graveyard of Empires) is not Japan which was concurred by the USA that allowed them to install their bases over there.

In Afghanistan US and allies are losing if they haven't lost already , so how on earth someone can come up with an idea of building permanent air bases in Afghanistan.

What US should do is pack their bags in C-17s and go home & do not look back , provide Education and Economic aid to Afghanistan for coming years rather than building permanent bases which will just confirm in the minds of Afghans the notion that US is an Imperialist.

 

[PacificBeach]

Four permenant air bases? Yeah right...

Why would the afghans need the air bases for? To protect the Afgan air space against the Taliban squadrons??? This is a total joke but not funny at all...

US wants bases in Afganistan for her own interests and convenience. Due to their location the bases would be mightly important, even in long term just to keep China in check. The majority of Afghan people would never agree to that, of course a puppet in charge might do.

Also if Afghans need military help, Muslims countries can easily come up with a solution, they don't need the invaders for that.

As for the military hospital treating Afghans, would not it be more efficient and humane if US did not bomb weddings, houses, civilians in the first place? (It would be bad for the military industry complex though!)

An appropriate title would read "Killing them by the thousands, and treating by the tens". Interesting...

 

[asianamerican]

Probably paid for Opium trafficking. It is hard to believe American are stupid enough to spend their own money fighting in another country without any financial or economic benefit.