&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/afghanistan-american-troops-general/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“Our mission is to protect, not dominate the Afghan population” – Gen. Hodges
Published: 17 January, 2010, 11:22
Edited: 20 January, 2010, 19:20
An Afghan soldier (R) speaks with an American army instructor after a graduation ceremony in Kabul (AFP Photo / Manpreet Romana)
(45.8Mb) embed videoTAGS: Military, Politics, Terrorism, Central Asia, USA
Eighty percent of Taliban militants are not ideologically motivated, believes US Brigadier-General Ben Hodges.
The Director of Operations of Regional Command South of the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan) believes the Taliban do not represent a people’s movement in that they do not do anything for the Afghan people except “scare them to death.” For this reason he has no doubt that the militia organization can be defeated.
Today the Taliban “are facing a critical moment in their own existence,” Hodges said.
He believes that the key to victory is bringing the Afghan security forces to a point where they can deal with the Taliban on their own with the support of the international community.
With the additional 30,000 troops promised by the American president “the coalition is willing to continue to bring the power that is necessary to achieve its objectives,” Hodges said.
The main task for the new troops will be to train Afghan security forces and increase their capability “so that they can protect their own population.”
As for fears that once the coalition leaves Afghanistan the [by then defeated] Taliban will resurface, the General believes the “assessment is based on a false premise.”
“The whole concept is that we’re here to provide an opportunity for the Afghan security forces and the Afghan government to grow and continue to improve,” Hodges said.
The mistakes that American troops made in dealing with the militants lie “in the nature of war” because “you cannot have perfect information all the time.”
“We work very hard to make sure that innocent people are not killed,” remarked the General. “Our soldiers put their own lives at risk to avoid injuring innocent people even though the enemy will fire from a mosque or from compounds where women and children are behind the walls knowing that we will not shoot back.”
According to Hodges, in rebuilding Afghanistan the US is mainly attempting to give every family “clean water, education and health care,” which for an agrarian society like Afghanistan means much more than “Internet, giant TV screens and two cars.”
Afghanistan will never be a safe heaven where Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other terrorist organizations can prepare militants for future acts of terror, the General said.
“The attacks on 9/11 were conducted by people who were trained right here in Afghanistan – that is a very clear connection,” said Hodges.
As for the difference between the Soviet and the American war in Afghanistan, Hodges said that the US has no intention of staying in Afghanistan and dominating its population. “Our purpose for being here is completely different from what the Soviet’s purpose for being here was.”
17.01.2010, 08:57
3 comments
Natural disasters – are we really so helpless?Scientists warned Haitian officials two years ago that the country was on the verge of a major earthquake and told them that the island nation was not prepared to withstand the disaster. |
18.01.2010, 09:41
2 comments
“Christian mafia” rules AmericaA group known as the “Christian mafia” is the oldest and arguably the most powerful and influential religious rights organization in the United States, says American author Jeff Sharlet. |
William, "But it (US) is a free society, its media is mostly privately owned and controlled, and...". Privately owned, or not, the US media are nonetheless heavily controlled! Otherwise, how to explain an almost unanimous reporting about an alleged MDW in Iraq? Now, when it has been officially announced that Iraqi invasion was for oil, and for no other reason than oil, no one in US mentions MDW anymore!? Well, you see William, when the media in a country are that much controlled as it is the case in US, that country cannot by definition be "a free society". "...prevented this humanitarian assistance on which Afghanistan was dependent from reaching Afghanistan. I assumed that is where you got your number from because that was the first thing that came up in a brief internet search..... , so I ask you question, where did you hear that 3.5 million people were killed in Afghanistan?" I understand that it is not that easy to be an American citizen nowdays, after so many crimes have been commited by US. Each American feels a certain guilt for what has been done (and has still been doing), so that many rather try to avoid responsibility by concocting some stories about the tragedy had taken place before the US engagement. Even though I symphatize with you given the kind of the situation that you are now in, I must admit that your reaction is a bit childish. Equaly is childish to ask me where did I hear from that 3.5 million Afghans were killed during the US invasion. It is all around the Internet, and you could have heard for it just so many times, only if you searched and wanted to hear that. As for the "...give me the exact question that was asked (for 9/11)...": What do you think that the question was? Maybe it will help you to hear what the question was not looking alike? Well, it surely wasn't "Do you like your favorite actor (YES, or NO)?"
Count Cash, "The US is not a media free country." Over the past 50 years ago, media ownership in the US has become gradually more consolidated, to the point now where only a few owners own most of the mainstream media. However, increasingly the mainstream media isn't all there is, as various independent internet sources gain a greater and greater share of the market. Reading from google news, and many people do, I randomly read from more than 20 different sources some of which, like Iranian press TV, the BBC (which btw has been highly praised by the Russian government), Russia today, Al Jazeera, and others are foreign. The mainstream media in turn seems more interested in making money than in pushing any political agenda. One of the more insidious aspects of this, which in turn is a market truth in pretty much every country, including yours, is that in order to sell to the largest possible proportion of the populace news sources have to strive to seem uncontroversial. There are exceptions to this, Fox for instance sells to the right-wing fringe, the Huffinton post (which is independent) sells to the left. But most of the media is "neutral". Neutral is of course biased, and the nature of this bias varies from country to country. This is one of the reasons why I make it a point to read foreign newspapers, so that I can see stories from multiple different angles. From this experience, I observe the following: in the US, neutral typically means being less skeptical towards US militarism than say Russia Today and Iranian pressTV tend to be. In my opinion, the various different national "neutrals" all hold their own truths and excesses. There is lot of truth to the view that the US is overly militaristic. But nevertheless, the, to Russian ears, biased "neutrality" of US press in regards to our wars in no way indicates that the US media isn't free. It only indicates, that it is US media and not Russian media.
William, We are talking of an evolving landscape for media, and we have to be careful about the timeline and the tenses. In the past I would believe that the US media was far more diverse in both ownership and viewpoints; in that respect I could postulate that the US had a free media in generally accepted terms, and that this media respected and adhered to American core values. However, we are taking about now and maybe a time horizon stretching back some 10 - 15 years. If we scope the observations around the present and the immediate past. Then we see the consolidated mainstream you talk of. This consolidated mainstream is not free by any stretch of the imagination. It is monopolised by a few and used as a tool for mainstream control. It is the mainstream that delivers the common view that shapes the political landscape. The one that controls who sits in power. What has happened in the US is a movement away from its great core values. A media monopoly has developed and has been siezed upon as a tool for mainstream control. There is a money motive in all this, there always is, but I suggest that the 'only trying to sell papers' is too basic, I suggest the big money is in controlling the peoples views, getting them to keep paying the contracts out, keeping the bankers happy ... on a national scale and then securing oil and other countries resources on an international level. I believe the 'smart' ones worked out some 20 years ago how powerful PR and spin was in the hands of a monopolised media. I believe they saw what could be done in other tatalitarian states and realised they could do the same, with simple ownership. Its effect was the same, but its real brutality was masked in equity ownership. The brutality instead was felt by those who felt the hand of the commercial US military machine. people don't realise that Blackwater is not the only private army, the US is one bug private army in the hands of a few. Other sources are the future!