NATO: Murdering Afghan Civilians

Source: The Nation

The UN mission in Afghanistan has reported that a record number of civilians were killed in the war-torn, foreign-occupied country in 2011, marking the fifth consecutive year the death toll has risen. 

In its annual report, the mission revealed that 3,021 civilians were killed in 2011, up eight percent from 2010. 

The report differed from the assessment of NATO forces that the year was “remarkably successful.”

It is expected that NATO would try to sell it as such, for it is preparing to withdraw combat troops from the region and hand over responsibility for security to the Afghan government. 

The first question, raised even by the UN report, is who is doing the killing. The report blames the Taliban for 450 deaths. However, though the report acknowledges that the International Security Assistance Force has been responsible for civilian deaths, it does its best to defend them, stating that it has reduced the number of deaths over the last two years. Most of the deaths attributed to NATO were due to air attacks – as widely reported – over even weddings and funerals. These deaths have provoked even the propped-up regime in Kabul to protest.

The report noted that the geographic distribution of casualties had shifted, as the conflict lessened in intensity in the south and increased in the southeast, east and north. This also showed that the resistance to foreign occupation has spread all over the country. 

It is unfortunate that the only sources of information about casualties, civilian and military alike, are the US and the UN. It is therefore of significance that Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has said that Pakistan has not asked the USA to apologise for the Salalah incident, in which 26 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives. 

Though the UN has been forced to report NATO excesses against Afghan civilians, Pakistan’s rulers seem to have learnt nothing, and are working to restore NATO supply lines through Pakistan.

Why Ron Paul Makes a Compelling Case

Source: The Nation
John Nichols

Ron Paul is far from perfect. But the Texas congressman and maverick GOP presidential contender brings to the 2012 race a record far more worthy of commendation than those of his competitors for the Republican nomination.

Paul voted against the Patriot Act.

Paul voted against launching the Iraq War.

Paul has consistently supported moves to bring the troops home from Iraq, from Afghanistan and from just about everywhere else they are garrisoned.

Paul has worked with Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank on a campaign to cut the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion.

Paul has worked with Frank to decriminalize marijuana and to dial back the worst excesses of the drug war.

Paul has consistently opposed free-trade deals that have led to massive layoffs and factory closings in the United States.

Paul has worked with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Florida Congressman Alan Grayson to crack down on the Federal Reserve’s secrecy and abuses.

Yes, yes, of course Paul’s anti-government rhetoric goes to extremes, and, yes, yes, of course he is an inconsistent libertarian on some vital issues.

But Ron Paul really has taken a lot of commendable stands in recent years.

And now, he has done something truly worthy of admiration.

He has chosen not to be ridiculous.

Confronted with the prospect of a participating in a debate hosted by the second-most-absurd figure in American public life, Donald Trump, Paul simply said “no.”

The campaign of the candidate who, in the new Des Moines Register survey is running second in the field of GOP presidential contenders with less than a month to go before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, issued a delightfully snarky statement: