That’s what The New York Times is reporting today. The upcoming Kandahar offensive "has become the make-or-break offensive of the eight-and-half-year [Afghanistan] war" and is "the pivotal test of President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy." Elite forces are engaged and gearing up for the Kandahar offensive.
Of course, civilians are still dying, and yet success in Kandahar depends on "hearts and minds."
As Glenn Greenwald points out much of The New York Times’ article has that uncomfortable feel of war propaganda. How many times did we hear "this is the final turning point" in Iraq and now in Afghanistan?
Greenwald cites The Times of London’s prior language as an example:
Troops start ‘make or break’ assault on Taleban
Allied troops launched a major offensive into Afghanistan’s most violent province last night, in a key part of President Obama’s push to seize control of the Taleban’s last big stronghold. . . . If it fails, many analysts believe that the war will be lost.
The NYT article makes clear that any hopes in Kandahar hinge on pointing to success in Marja (that last big offensive in February) by bringing security to the region. So how’s did it fare?
Well, per the L.A. Times, not so good:
Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said late Sunday that while there are hopeful signs in Marja, with Afghan police patrolling and farmers signing up to grow crops other than opium poppy, the mission's success or failure may not be known for months.
"It's still a fragile security situation," Nicholson said in a telephone interview from Camp Leatherneck just hours before relinquishing command Monday after a year of being in charge of all Marines in Afghanistan. "I think we're off to a good start."
And we all remember how Marjah got off to a bang, don’t we?
US officials have described the operation as a success so far, but on Sunday twelve Afghans died when two rockets fired by NATO slammed into the wrong house. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for an investigation into the deaths. Ten of those killed were from the same family.
Our commander’s response to the deaths of these civilians:
"It’s off to a good start. There’s great focus on—and [Afghan] President Karzai has made this point, and I think this is critical—on having—we would like to have no civilian causalities. I mean, this is focused on the people. This is not focused on the Taliban. And it is a strategy that will not just clear the area, but that will hold it and then build right behind it. So there’s a civilian component here, and there’s a local governance piece, which is going to be installed immediately, as well."
I haven't seen an update, so I don't know how McChrystal plans to manufacture a success to point to in Marjah as a basis to proceed in Kandahar. I'm sure he'll think of something.
Reading the NYT article, I was especially struck by this plum of pure and unadulterated propaganda:
While the officials stressed that they will limit civilian casualties, an increase in operations will put more residents in the cross-fire. The fighting already under way in the province is putting at risk the sharp drop in civilian casualties that followed General McChrystal’s orders to strenuously avoid them. Recent episodes of civilian casualties, including an attack on a bus, have undermined trust for NATO operations. [Emphasis mine]
Sharp decline in civilian deaths? At most five less in 2009 than 2008 and that's highly debatable. And how many have occurred in the first three months of 2010? Also notice the way the reporter excludes all the other civilian casualties, like the 3 killed yesterday which these diaries expose.
How can we take The NYT seriously after they just said on March 26, 2010:
American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul . . .
"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal . . .
Though fewer in number than deaths from airstrikes and Special Forces operations, such shootings have not dropped off, despite new rules from General McChrystal seeking to reduce the killing of innocents.
Meanwhile, two trials of Guantanamo detainees are about to begin. One is of a twenty-three-year-old, Omar Khadr, a Canadian, residing in Afghanistan, who was fifteen-years-old at the time of his alleged "war crime." He will be tried in a military tribunal, as ordered by Eric Holder. He’s been locked up in Guantanamo for seven years for "war crimes" and "terrorism" charges that he was involved in a firefight with the U.S. where he killed one soldier. Khadr was wounded, imprisoned at Bagram, then at Guantanamo. McClatchy reports his horrific claims of torture:
Accused war criminal Omar Khadr says his U.S. captors suffocated him with a bag, terrorized him with barking dogs and threatened him with rape if he didn't cooperate with interrogators.
All of it, he says, happened while he was a teenager in U.S. custody.
Absent a plea deal, both sides plan a parade of witnesses -- from FBI agents and interrogators to guards and doctors -- for hearings that adopt Obama administration reforms of the military commissions the president himself once criticized.
I really hope he doesn’t take a plea deal. This sh*t needs to come out. The government must answer for this. The article concludes with: Khadr is Guantanamo's youngest prisoner, and the only Westerner, among the 183 captives currently held at Guantanamo. You can read his motion to suppress, which details his torture claims, but be forewarned, it's disturbing to read these kinds of allegatios of torture, especially against a child.
Per Glenn Greenwald, "Apparently, if the U.S. Army invades a foreign country, anyone who fights against that invading force -- including a 15-year-old boy -- is a "war criminal" and a "Terrorist," even the Worst of The Worst, which is, of course, all that we're currently holding at Guantanamo. Now that's some robust propaganda. . ."
The other upcoming trial is of a U.S. citizen who is to be tried in New York:
Terror Trial Begins for Jailed US Citizen Held in Lengthy Solitary Confinement
A young US citizen who has been held in twenty-three-hour solitary confinement for nearly three years is set to go on trial Wednesday here in New York. Syed Fahad Hashmi is charged with providing material support to al-Qaeda in a case that rests on the testimony and actions of an old acquaintance who turned government informant after his own arrest. Hashmi is being prosecuted for a two-week period when the informant stayed at his home carrying rain gear that was allegedly later delivered to al-Qaeda members in Pakistan. Hashmi’s period in solitary confinement is believed to be one of the longest ever for a prisoner before trial. On Monday, Hashmi’s supporters held a rally to draw attention to his case. Hashmi’s brother, Faisal Hashmi, said he has no hope of a fair trial.
Faisal Hashmi: "He’s already lost the fair trial portion. The concept of a fair trial is lost. What we’re trying to do is work to highlight what’s going on in his case, and we hope that the people in the jury can see through this facade of justice."
Hashmi’s supporters say they plan to continue weekly vigils throughout the trial.
So, presumably Hashmi was being held in U.S. custody. Where? Twenty-three hours of solitary confinement sure sounds like torture to me. At the very least, it’s a first: Hashmi’s period in solitary confinement is believed to be one of the longest ever for a prisoner before trial.
In light of the rash of civilian deaths, the secret prison camps, the ongoing investigations into civilian killings by special forces (or as the NYT prefers the "elites") and other troops, and the upcoming trials against clear victims of U.S. torture, it is difficult to imagine how we can really hope to win Afgan "hearts and minds."
The one factor on the plus side, if you can call it that, is that most Afghans are illiterate and might not be closely following all the news. Unfortunately, we, as Americans have the knowledge, and I diligently do my daily grieving (reading).
Meanwhile, Afghans continue to experience death and hardship on the ground—my prayers today, and every day, are with the civilians of Afghanistan.
Despite my dig at the NYT for some propaganda, this graphic is well worth checking out: http://www.nytimes.com/...