War in Afghanistan: a crime against humanity?

Published time: October 07, 2011 18:00
Edited time: October 07, 2011 22:00
AFGHANISTAN, Kabul : Afghan protestors hold placards as they shout anti-US slogans during a demonstration ahead of the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion, in Kabul on October 6, 2011. (AFP Photo / Shah Marai)
Download video (47 MB)
Embed

The decade-long war waged by the US and its allies in Afghanistan does not seem to be coming to an end. With tremendous civilian casualties and a ruined economy and institutions, the justification for the war seems to be dubious and ill-considered.

The war against Afghanistan was an act of illegal aggression by the United States and NATO despite its being presented as a response to 9/11, believes Michel Chossudovsky, editor at the Center for Research on Globalization.

However, “Afghanistan as a country was not behind the attack,” he underlines.

The legacy of the war which started in 2001 is a wrecked economy and institutions, lack of public health and mass unemployment, he adds.

Chossudovsky doubts that it is possible to plan a large-scale war in Central Asia in just four weeks.

The war on Afghanistan was on the drawing board of the Pentagon. Iit was in advanced stages of planning before 9/11,” he claims.

And 9/11 provided the pretext and justification for waging a war on a sovereign country, an impoverished country in Central Asia,” he says, labeling it as a fabricated pretext.

This war still stands out as violation of international law and a crime against humanity,” he claims.

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, former commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, has harshly criticized the US campaign in Afghanistan, claiming that allied forces are only “50 per cent of the way” towards achieving their goals.

The retired general said "We didn't know enough and we still don't know enough. Most of us, me included, had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years."

According to Michel Chossudovsky “the statement by General McChrystal is a cynical statement.” He notes that it somehow suggests that this is a humanitarian operation to come to the rescue of the people of Afghanistan, while all the evidence demonstrates quite the opposite.

Comments (7)

Tom Petrie 13.10.2011 02:11

Of course, the war in Afghanistan should be considered illegal for a very simple reason: This country appears to have had nothing to do with 9/11/01, but was used as a justification of the war.  Here are a few useful sites to educate oneself on this issue. Sorry, but this site counts 850 characters (including spaces), as over 2,000 characters.  I guess my word processing program can't count.  For those that want the links REMOVED from this post, e-mail me at .  I'm tired of wasting any more time on this.

0

Undo

Count Cash 09.10.2011 05:58

Fred, great comment - Why didn’t Americans care about people from other countries getting killed, whilst they were eating those greasy hamburgers? Whereas once the greasy hamburger was at risk, it’s out on the streets. Well Fred, I wouldn’t be too hard on Americans for this, in that it is pretty normal tribal behaviour. Their leaders showed the blood of killed ‘villagers’ and pointed over yonder to a land where they could lead the men uh! uh! uh! uh! Ape style with clubs to sort them out! This satisfied the ‘villagers’ need for justice so that was mission accomplished. This indeed is the fatal flaw of national democracies, the leaders want to take or stay in power, and they can do this by catering for their populations needs, regardless what affects that has on the rest of the world. Basically as long as not too many body bags come home, anything goes. It is the perfect sub-optimisation, leading to an overall non optimum solution. That is why greasy hamburgers are important, whereas an Afghans child’s mutilation is not. How to fix – the soft way is through education and building a wider networked world, so that people are not so isolated, not so tribal and have contact, understanding and empathy for different peoples – to travel wider than the village, whist still maintaining and being proud of their ‘village’. The hard way, provide a mechanism that each ‘village’ can destroy the other ‘village’ if attacked, bringing the benefits truly home to the democracy, in the instigating village – enter the thermonuclear weapons for now. In reality no one trusts the soft way, so they rely on the hard way as the end stop, and the soft way as the attempt to prevent the end stop. So was that mayo or ketchup you wanted?

0

Undo

Fred 09.10.2011 04:56

@ EDDIE; Well we sure made the hole bigger, who won? 1.2 trillion dollars spent in the middle East 4,800 dead in Iraq and 2,800 in Afghanistan and countless civilians dead...we attacked Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11...unfortunately we have a country run by idiots and an uninformed populace of sheep...Occupy Wall Street? a little too late, sure didn't care about all the innocent people we were killing around he world when we could stuff our guts with those greasy hamburgers.USA, USA fred...oregon, usa

0

Undo

View all comments (7)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us