By Chris Hedges

   Chris Hedges
The bodies of dozens, perhaps well over a hundred, women, children and men, their corpses blown into bits of human flesh by iron fragmentation bombs dropped by U.S. warplanes in a village in the western province of Farah, illustrates the futility of the Afghan war. We are not delivering democracy or liberation or development. We are delivering massive, sophisticated forms of industrial slaughter. And because we have employed the blunt and horrible instrument of war in a land we know little about and are incapable of reading, we embody the barbarism we claim to be seeking to defeat.

We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the Taliban, who Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed during the 10-year war with the Soviet Union. Acid thrown into a girl’s face or beheadings? Death delivered from the air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of war. It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak.

Afghan survivors carted some two dozen corpses from their villages to the provincial capital in trucks this week to publicly denounce the carnage. Some 2,000 angry Afghans in the streets of the capital chanted “Death to America!” But the grief, fear and finally rage of the bereaved do not touch those who use high-minded virtues to justify slaughter. The death of innocents, they assure us, is the tragic cost of war. It is regrettable, but it happens. It is the price that must be paid. And so, guided by a president who once again has no experience of war and defers to the bull-necked generals and militarists whose careers, power and profits depend on expanded war, we are transformed into monsters.

There will soon be 21,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan in time for the expected surge in summer fighting. There will be more clashes, more airstrikes, more deaths and more despair and anger from those forced to bury their parents, sisters, brothers and children. The grim report of the killings in the airstrike, issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated that bombs hit civilian houses and noted that an ICRC counterpart in the Red Crescent was among the dead, will become familiar reading in the weeks and months ahead.

We are the best recruiting weapon the Taliban possesses. We have enabled it to rise from the ashes seven years ago to openly control over half the country and carry out daylight attacks in the capital Kabul. And the war we wage is being exported like a virus to Pakistan in the form of drones that bomb Pakistani villages and increased clashes between the inept Pakistani military and a restive internal insurgency.

I spoke in New York City a few days ago with Dr. Juliette Fournot, who lived with her parents in Afghanistan as a teenager, speaks Dari and led teams of French doctors and nurses from Médecins Sans Frontières, or Doctors Without Borders, into Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets. She participated in the opening of clandestine cross-border medical operations missions between 1980 and 1982 and became head of the French humanitarian mission in Afghanistan in 1983. Dr. Fournot established logistical bases in Peshawar and Quetta and organized the dozen cross-border and clandestine permanent missions in the resistance-held areas of Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Badakhshan, Paktia, Ghazni and Hazaradjat, through which more than 500 international aid workers rotated.

She is one of the featured characters in a remarkable book called “The Photographer,” produced by photojournalist Didier Lefèvre and graphic novelist Emmanuel Guibert. The book tells the story of a three-month mission in 1986 into Afghanistan led by Dr. Fournot. It is an unflinching look at the cost of war, what bombs, shells and bullets do to human souls and bodies. It exposes, in a way the rhetoric of our politicians and generals do not, the blind destructive fury of war. The French humanitarian group withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2004 after five of its aid workers were assassinated in a clearly marked vehicle.

“The American ground troops are midterm in a history that started roughly in 1984 and 1985 when the State Department decided to assist the Mujahedeen, the resistance fighters, through various programs and military aid. USAID, the humanitarian arm serving political and military purposes, was the seed for having a different kind of interaction with the Afghans,” she told me. “The Afghans were very grateful to receive arms and military equipment from the Americans.”

“But the way USAID distributed its humanitarian assistance was very debatable,” she went on. “It still puzzles me. They gave most of it to the Islamic groups such as the Hezb-e Islami of [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar. And I think it is possibly because they were more interested in the future stability of Pakistan rather than saving Afghanistan. Afghanistan was probably a good ground to hit and drain the blood from the Soviet Union. I did not see a plan to rebuild or bring peace to Afghanistan. It seemed that Afghanistan was a tool to weaken the Soviet Union. It was mostly left to the Pakistani intelligence services to decide what would be best and how to do it and how by doing so they could strengthen themselves.”

The Pakistanis, Dr. Fournot said, developed a close relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, like the Americans, flooded the country with money and also exported conservative and often radical Wahhabi clerics. The Americans, aware of the relationship with the Saudis as well as Pakistan’s secret program to build nuclear weapons, looked the other way. Washington sowed, unwittingly, the seeds of destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It trained, armed and empowered the militants who now kill them.

The relationship, she said, bewildered most Afghans, who did not look favorably upon this radical form of Islam. Most Afghans, she said, wondered why American aid went almost exclusively to the Islamic radicals and not to more moderate and secular resistance movements.

“The population wondered why they did not have more credibility with the Americans,” she said. “They could not understand why the aid was stopped in Pakistan and distributed to political parties that had limited reach in Afghanistan. These parties stockpiled arms and started fighting each other. What the people got in the provinces was miniscule and irrelevant. And how did the people see all this? They had great hopes in the beginning and gradually became disappointed, bitter and then felt betrayed. This laid the groundwork for the current suspicion, distrust and disappointment with the U.S. and NATO.”

Dr. Fournot sees the American project in Afghanistan as mirroring that of the doomed Soviet occupation that began in December 1979. A beleaguered Afghan population, brutalized by chaos and violence, desperately hoped for stability and peace. The Soviets, like the Americans, spoke of equality, economic prosperity, development, education, women’s rights and political freedom. But within two years, the ugly face of Soviet domination had unmasked the flowery rhetoric. The Afghans launched their insurgency to drive the Soviets out of the country.

Dr. Fournot fears that years of war have shattered the concept of nationhood. “There is so much personal and mental destruction,” she said. “Over 70 percent of the population has never known anything else but war. Kids do not go to school. War is normality. It gives that adrenaline rush that provides a momentary sense of high, and that is what they live on. And how can you build a nation on that?”

The Pashtuns, she noted, have built an alliance with the Taliban to restore Pashtun power that was lost in the 2001 invasion. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, to the Pashtuns, a meaningless demarcation that was drawn by imperial powers through the middle of their tribal lands. There are 13 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and another 28 million in Pakistan. The Pashtuns are fighting forces in Islamabad and Kabul they see as seeking to wrest from them their honor and autonomy. They see little difference between the Pakistani military, American troops and the Afghan army.

Islamabad, while it may battle Taliban forces in Swat or the provinces, does not regard the Taliban as a mortal enemy. The enemy is and has always been India. The balance of power with India requires the Pakistani authorities to ensure that any Afghan government is allied with it. This means it cannot push the Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province or in Afghanistan too far. It must keep its channels open. The cat-and-mouse game between the Pakistani authorities and the Pashtuns, which drives Washington to fury, will never end. Islamabad needs the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan more than the Pashtuns need them.

The U.S. fuels the bonfires of war. The more troops we send to Afghanistan, the more drones we send on bombing runs over Pakistan, the more airstrikes we carry out, the worse the unraveling will become. We have killed twice as many civilians as the Taliban this year and that number is sure to rise in the coming months.

“I find this term ‘collateral damage‘ dehumanizing,” Dr. Fournot said, “as if it is a necessity. People are sacrificed on the altar of an idea. Air power is blind. I know this from having been caught in numerous bombings.”

We are faced with two stark choices. We can withdraw and open negotiations with the Taliban or continue to expand the war until we are driven out. The corrupt and unpopular regimes of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Asif Ali Zardari are impotent allies. The longer they remain tethered to the United States, the weaker they become. And the weaker they become, the louder become the calls for intervention in Pakistan. During the war in Vietnam, we invaded Cambodia to bring stability to the region and cut off rebel sanctuaries and supply routes. This tactic only empowered the Khmer Rouge. We seem poised, in much the same way, to do the same for radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“If the Americans step up the war in Afghanistan, they will be sucked into Pakistan,” Dr. Fournot warned. “Pakistan is a time bomb waiting to explode. You have a huge population, 170 million people. There is nuclear power. Pakistan is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. War always has its own logic. Once you set foot in war, you do not control it. It sucks you in.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

For once I agree with brother Juan Williams, the HAPPY NEGRO affiliated with Fox News.

During last nights Hannity Show, Juan correctly rebuked Sean Hannity’s Xenophobic Anti-Immigrant statements, while he[Hannity] was challenging comments made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Said Williams: “[I]t’s her responsibility to challenge unjust laws, and when you’re taking little babies away from their mothers, I say that’s an unjust law.”

As is customary, the racist, syphilitic, anti-immigrant bigot, Sean Hannity — sought to hide behind THE LAW, to demonize immigrants, who are being incarcerated in large numbers, and herded into American Gulags and “For Profit” Concentration Camps.

It’s The Law!!…It’s The Law!!….We Are A Nation of Laws!! ….Screamed Sean KLANNITY.

Yeah, asshole — the same kind of UNJUST law(s) that you used to shackle, lynch and rape Indians, Blacks, the Japanese, and everybody else who stood in your way, while you were stealing America and huge chunks of Mexico.

You Sean Hannity, are no different than the “Straight-Talk” Neo-KLAN Lynch Mobs, that you, Palin and McCain call the BASE. A breed of ANIMALS ….sick to the bone!

Most of these RACIST LAWS have since been repealed, and so will the UNJUST immigration laws in the books, that provide cover for people like YOU, Sean Hannity. You are not interested in anything JUST for immigrants. If given the opportunity, you would gleefully roast every single person of color in a NAZI Oven.

You are a despicable racist who uses the LAW as a “vehicle” with which to transport and proliferate RACISM in this country, ….a dying breed — hopefully!

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

The candidates have been courting this essential voting bloc, including speeches this week to La Raza. One thing is clear: Latinos will not be ignored.

SAN DIEGO –  During Barack Obama’s speech to the 40th annual conference of the National Council of La Raza Sunday, the presumptive Democratic nominee casually referred to “my friend Hillary Clinton.”

The Latino radio talk show host next to me quipped, “So they’re friends now?”

“Yeah,” I joked. “That’s how you know neither of them is Latino. We’ll hold a grudge for 500 years.”

Latinos aren’t known to forgive and forget. And that’s a problem for John McCain, who spoke Monday. The presumptive Republican nominee has put at risk decades of support from Latino voters in Arizona because of the perception he flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas once he talked about the need for a comprehensive approach that includes giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, he now calls first for securing the border.

But for many Latinos, it’s not just what McCain says that is the problem. It’s why he says it. He’s clearly attempting to placate the nativist fringe of the GOP. So the message that Latinos take away is that the Arizona senator is a fair-weather friend.

A foolhardy strategy

McCain is on a fool’s errand. The nativists detest him for, among other things, calling them nativist. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tried to torpedo McCain in the Republican primaries by revealing that, in a private meeting with GOP senators during the immigration debate, McCain scolded his colleagues for being “xenophobic.” He told them that by being tough on the borders, many Latinos would see it as a racist attack, and he was right. Now many Latinos see McCain as bending under pressure. They want a guarantee that, if elected, it’ll be the old McCain that tackles immigration reform.

Just as he did when the candidates spoke before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the League of United Latin American Citizens, Obama wasted no time in jabbing at McCain’s weak spot. Saying that he once admired McCain because he “used to buck his own party on immigration,” Obama accused his opponent of abandoning that stance. “I don’t know about you,” Obama said. “But I think it’s time for a president who won’t walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.”

The line brought down the house while stinging McCain. When he spoke the next day, McCain made reference to Obama’s attack and sought to “correct the record.” He spelled out the “hard votes” he cast in the Senate in 2005 and 2007 in favor of the comprehensive reform plan he co-authored. And he said Obama declined to cast some of those votes and, in fact, sponsored labor-friendly amendments intended to kill the legislation.

“I never ask any special privileges from anyone just for having done the right thing,” McCain said. “Doing my duty to my country is its own reward. But I do ask for your trust that when I say that I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it.” That straight talk also drew a strong crowd response. Latinos value loyalty, and many are inclined to stay loyal to McCain.

Many people around the country were probably watching to see how the presidential candidates handled their appearances before the nation’s largest and perhaps most controversial Latino advocacy group. I’d call it a draw.

The irony is that, for U.S.-born Hispanics in particular, immigration is just one issue. They tell pollsters they care about Iraq, the economy, education and health care, just like other Americans. But with the immigration debate so heated and the national mood so ugly, Hispanics are more intensely interested in the issue than they were a few years ago when the waters were calm. In fact, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a majority of Hispanics say immigration is a top issue that will influence their votes in November.

La Raza’s mission

As part of that ugliness, the candidates have been criticized for even bothering to court Latino voters. CNN’s Lou Dobbs regularly blasts La Raza as a “socio-ethnocentric organization.” Apparently, the phrase refers to anyone who stands up to fear-mongers who seek attention  –  and ratings  –  by setting off cultural alarm bells and poisoning race relations.

If anything, La Raza has been too corporate, too cautious and too co-opted by Fortune 500 companies seeking an entrée into the $800 billion-a-year Latino market. When its leaders needed to be raising hell, they were raising corporate donations and foundation dollars and steering clear of controversies that could put either in jeopardy.

President and CEO Janet Murguia, who took the reins a few years ago, has been more aggressive in defense of Hispanics. In April, Murguia informed the National Press Club that the immigration debate had turned hateful and that all Hispanics  –  even the 80% who are U.S. citizens or legal residents –  are feeling the backlash. Murguia vowed, “We will not be demonized. We will not be scapegoated. And we will not be ignored.”

Given recent events, I’d say there is little chance of that.

About The Author: Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Ruben is a fresh voice on political and social issues who challenges readers to think in new ways — His twice-weekly column offers new thinking on many of the major issues of the day, especially on thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin….[MORE >>]