Let terrorists into the system?
By Walter Haan, www.war-books.com
I've been thinking about terrorists lately. Nation states have been fighting terrorists forever. Great Britain fought what it thought were terrorists in the 18th century in North America. That fight became known as the American Revolutionary War. The terrorists, also known as the rabble, or the American patriots, won.
There's an interesting experiment in Nepal right now. The Maoists, labeled terrorists by the US, fought for ten years throughout Nepal...until the government promised to fulfill some of their demands if the Maoists would put down their weapons and join the system. One of the Maoists' demands was to overthrow the monarchy, which had acted like a terrorist organization itself in 2006 and 2007. In December the Nepalese government agreed to provisionally marginalize the monarchy. Then elections were held in April which included the mainstream Nepalese political parties and the Maoists. The big surprise of the elections was that the Maoists won it. Now they're part of the system and have to perform to make peoples' lives better. The US still labels the Maoists as terrorists. Never mind the election results and that the lives of ordinary Nepalese are better. So much better that tourists are returning.
A former prince of the Afghan Royal Family has recently suggested that the best way to end the conflict in Afghanistan against the Taliban is to let them be part of the governing system. Make the Taliban part of the government and let them run in elections and let's see what happens. That is the prince's idea. He is part of the current Afghani government.
Based on Nepal, I think the idea has merit. I don't like the Taliban but there seem to be enough Afghans that like them, that support them, to keep the war going. Maybe it doesn't matter whether I like the Taliban or George Bush doesn't like the Taliban.
The US is free with its labeling of people as terrorists. During the Vietnam War, the US called the Viet Cong terrorists. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong used terrorism, according to President Johnson. North Vietnam was also considered a Communist state and the US was afraid that the Communist terrorists would win, setting off a domino effect of Southeast Asian nations falling to Communist terrorists across the region. But the truth was that those Vietnamese Communist terrorists were actually just nationalists. They just wanted their nation back from France and then the US. We lost over 58,000 of our best and brightest because we misunderstood.
Now in Iraq, Al Quaida, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish terrorists oppose our efforts there. We've lost over 4,000 of our best and brightest again trying to keep the artificial nation-state of Iraq together. Iraq's artificial border was drawn in 1920 by the British and French.
Of course all of these terrorist wars are really about economics. The US wants to control the Iraqi oil. In Vietnam the US wanted to prevent Vietnam from being a springboard for Communist terrorists into Thailand. Afghani territory could be used for oil pipelines by US oil companies so the US must "hold" Afghanistan.
And in Nepal, the US and India recognize that Nepal is a buffer nation-state between China and India. Conservative Indians don't want Maoist terrorists controlling Nepal. And neither does the US which wants to limit Communists farther south than China. India and the US would probably prefer the Nepalese royalist terrorists because they would be "our" terrorists.
What is that old statement? "They may be bastards, but they are our bastards." There it is in a nutshell. The US only supports its own terrorists, the ones it knows and controls. Like Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti and Trujillo of the Dominican Republic in the sixties. Or Saddam Hussein in the eighties when we armed him to fight Iran.
Terrorists who don't do our bidding must be eliminated according to US policy. Think of the lost lives and treasure we've lost because of that failed US policy. The US, the largest democratic nation in the world, does not support other democratic movements if they get in our way. We overthrew the Iranian democracy in 1953 because it was going to nationalize Iranian oil. So we overthrew that democracy and put the Shah back in power. Another of "our" bastards.--Copyright 2008 by Walter Haan, www.war-books.com
I've been thinking about terrorists lately. Nation states have been fighting terrorists forever. Great Britain fought what it thought were terrorists in the 18th century in North America. That fight became known as the American Revolutionary War. The terrorists, also known as the rabble, or the American patriots, won.
There's an interesting experiment in Nepal right now. The Maoists, labeled terrorists by the US, fought for ten years throughout Nepal...until the government promised to fulfill some of their demands if the Maoists would put down their weapons and join the system. One of the Maoists' demands was to overthrow the monarchy, which had acted like a terrorist organization itself in 2006 and 2007. In December the Nepalese government agreed to provisionally marginalize the monarchy. Then elections were held in April which included the mainstream Nepalese political parties and the Maoists. The big surprise of the elections was that the Maoists won it. Now they're part of the system and have to perform to make peoples' lives better. The US still labels the Maoists as terrorists. Never mind the election results and that the lives of ordinary Nepalese are better. So much better that tourists are returning.
A former prince of the Afghan Royal Family has recently suggested that the best way to end the conflict in Afghanistan against the Taliban is to let them be part of the governing system. Make the Taliban part of the government and let them run in elections and let's see what happens. That is the prince's idea. He is part of the current Afghani government.
Based on Nepal, I think the idea has merit. I don't like the Taliban but there seem to be enough Afghans that like them, that support them, to keep the war going. Maybe it doesn't matter whether I like the Taliban or George Bush doesn't like the Taliban.
The US is free with its labeling of people as terrorists. During the Vietnam War, the US called the Viet Cong terrorists. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong used terrorism, according to President Johnson. North Vietnam was also considered a Communist state and the US was afraid that the Communist terrorists would win, setting off a domino effect of Southeast Asian nations falling to Communist terrorists across the region. But the truth was that those Vietnamese Communist terrorists were actually just nationalists. They just wanted their nation back from France and then the US. We lost over 58,000 of our best and brightest because we misunderstood.
Now in Iraq, Al Quaida, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish terrorists oppose our efforts there. We've lost over 4,000 of our best and brightest again trying to keep the artificial nation-state of Iraq together. Iraq's artificial border was drawn in 1920 by the British and French.
Of course all of these terrorist wars are really about economics. The US wants to control the Iraqi oil. In Vietnam the US wanted to prevent Vietnam from being a springboard for Communist terrorists into Thailand. Afghani territory could be used for oil pipelines by US oil companies so the US must "hold" Afghanistan.
And in Nepal, the US and India recognize that Nepal is a buffer nation-state between China and India. Conservative Indians don't want Maoist terrorists controlling Nepal. And neither does the US which wants to limit Communists farther south than China. India and the US would probably prefer the Nepalese royalist terrorists because they would be "our" terrorists.
What is that old statement? "They may be bastards, but they are our bastards." There it is in a nutshell. The US only supports its own terrorists, the ones it knows and controls. Like Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti and Trujillo of the Dominican Republic in the sixties. Or Saddam Hussein in the eighties when we armed him to fight Iran.
Terrorists who don't do our bidding must be eliminated according to US policy. Think of the lost lives and treasure we've lost because of that failed US policy. The US, the largest democratic nation in the world, does not support other democratic movements if they get in our way. We overthrew the Iranian democracy in 1953 because it was going to nationalize Iranian oil. So we overthrew that democracy and put the Shah back in power. Another of "our" bastards.--Copyright 2008 by Walter Haan, www.war-books.com
posted by Walter Haan at Thursday, May 08, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home