Afghan War: US Soldier Kills 16 Civilians

Ghastly outcome from US imperial policies.

From the Bloomberg,

A U.S. soldier shot to death 16 Afghan civilians in their homes before returning to his base and being taken into custody, Afghan and NATO officials said.

The shooting spree yesterday threatens to reignite anti- American protests weeks after a Koran-burning incident triggered violence. Women and children were among those killed in the attacks in the southern province of Kandahar, which has been a stronghold for the Taliban.

Ever wonder why the proliferation of anti-American sentiment especially in places where the US intervenes? And why there will always acts of reprisal via terrorism? Interventionism breeds terrorism.

Unintended Consequences Of America's Foreign Policy: Hydra Of Warlordism

Given the recent political controversy which resulted to the resignation of General Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan, we came across an interesting insight which reveals of the unintended consequences from America's Afghan policy...the hydra of warlordism has been a product of American policies!!!

This from CATO's Malou Innocent. (Bold highlights mine)

The New York Times reports that congressional investigators have found mounting evidence that “American taxpayers have inadvertently created a network of warlords across Afghanistan who are making millions of dollars escorting NATO convoys and operating outside the control of either the Afghan government or the American and NATO militaries.”

The Financial Times broke this story back in March. But their most startling discovery was that after nearly a decade at war in Afghanistan, Washington still has no clue as to who its true enemies (and allies) are.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that some prominent Afghan officials are in fact saboteurs of America’s presumptuous and dangerously quixotic nation-building endeavor, instituting policies that feed the insurgency’s momentum in order to get more economic assistance from the coalition. America’s Ambassador to Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry, said as much last November. Eikenberry warned (of course, to no avail), that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden. . .He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further.” [Emphasis added]

Karzai knows very well that once the conflict ends, his open aid spigot will dry up. Indeed, Karzai has become notorious for replacing and undercutting people in his government who become too well-liked and “clean,” fearing these officials will become more popular than himself. Such double-gaming leads us to Karzai’s younger half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.

I guess the US haven't learned from their regrettable experience with Osama Bin Ladin who allegedly had been an erstwhile ally of the CIA.

Maybe learning isn't the right word or phrase, maybe promoting vested interest is.

The huge amount earmarked for military expenditures seems like a compelling incentive for vested interest groups and the political bureaucracy to sustain such 'imperialist' policies in spite of the tremendous costs (needless deaths and corruption of society). As these signify political control over money and power.

Yet we are reminded of former US president Dwight Eisenhower's warning in his farewell speech, where he said,

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."