Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Um... Taliban Surrenders, U.N. Says No?

Frances Farmer

19:14 / 20.11.01

Taliban requests unconditional surrender, moderated by the U.N. The U.N. says they have "no means" to moderate such a surrender. Fighting goes on.

So, once the opposing force asks to surrender... Is continuing to slaughter them the equivelent of murder? Or, dare I say it, terrorism?

Questions, people. Answers?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

19:46 / 20.11.01

Links, please. The UN has no business refusing to do this...if they can't get involved, what the fuck are they for?

Frances Farmer

20:25 / 20.11.01

Oops -- thought I had that.

Here ya go.

Sorry 'bout that.

And, seriously -- that seems like an awfully good question.

01

00:50 / 21.11.01

It seems like a really dirty political move by the US to kill the remaining hardcore Taliban, as opposed to taking them in as war criminals, or to giving them protection from the UN. The US wants to squeeze the Taliban's options so it forces them into a situation where all they can do is fight. Then, surprise, surprise, the US is justified in wiping them out. The UN saying they can't do anything to facilitate a surrender translates into the US telling UN to step aside.

autopilot disengaged

05:07 / 21.11.01

...which, co-incidentally - is the tactic employed in most american action films - esp the mainstream efforts from the 80s/90s - think: how many times have you seen the villain defeated, humbled and about to be captured - suddenly make some desperately EVIL lunge - giving the hero no choice but to dispatch them beyond the credits?

it's always the way. by virtue of stacking/loading the narrative in a particular manner, the hero is given no choice - providing the audience with the cathartic moment of MurderDeathKill without tarnishing the hero's image (or the audience's own, linked, self-image).

it's fucking sick, is what it is.

another interesting parrallel here is starship troopers - try any of the military message boards to see how the whole clean-cut all-amerikan fascist archetype has taken off in a big way - "...before 9/11 i guess i was one of those people you might accuse of being a 'slacker' - but this tragedy woke me up - yessir i am ready to fight and die for my country. GOD BLESS THE USA..."

and last - let's face it - no one's gonna capture bin Laden. they're gonna kill him in the field (if they can). why risk opening a trial that would a)restore some legitamacy to the due process of law, rather than vigilanteism, or b)create an open public forum - a trial - in which bin Laden's representatives could talk at length about the CIA and USOilCo's previous involvement in making him the man he is today?

loooong sentences. messy thoughts. sleepy eyes.

05:15 / 21.11.01

So let me get this straight: they've offered to surrender and the UN's said they won't let them. So we're going to go on bombing the shit out of them instead.

Um, has anyone explained to these guys what the chief aim is in having a war?

05:23 / 21.11.01

but this isn't a war, is it? the whole thing was always about wiping out the taliban.

in my more extreme paranoid moments, i was close to believing that the US govt had organised the sept 11 attacks to justify doing an awful lot of things they wouldn't have got away with otherwise.

but that's going too far. isn't it?

autopilot disengaged

05:30 / 21.11.01

hold the front page!

i don't mind being wrong if innocents are going to be saved - groovy.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

05:31 / 21.11.01

Looking at the article, the UN is saying they don't have the resources on the ground to do this - ie. presumably no military presence to oversee the surrender and guarantee treatment of the surrendered fighters etc.

That's probably entirely true.

Still and all...

Frances Farmer

05:49 / 21.11.01

Right... But I would think (and obviously, I don't know) that the U.N. would have the power to demand the military aid of a constituent country. Like Iran, for instance. What would be wrong with the U.N. putting administrative staff in to oversee Iranian troops who are acting as the 'backbone' for surrender oversight?

But, I think that clearly, the U.S. has asked the U.N. to back down. I mean, seriously -- "we can't guaruntee the safety of our people, so we won't help those in Afghanistan"? Doesn't the U.N. do stuff like that .. Well .. Often? (Provided it's in line with U.S. interests, I suppose). [The above paraphrase was the U.N. response to Afghani requests for food and medical aid for casualties still located in Afghanistan]

It just doesn't sit well over here. Plus, it's ambiguous. On the front page of CNN it said "Taliban surrenders unconditionally," but it seems the overall impression is that the Taliban is trying to negotiate with the U.N., while Rumsfeld says "We will not negotiate with terrorists!".

For fuck's sake. That's not even what the damn article said. It just didn't say much of anything, while making clear that the killing goes on.

I mean, I knew the term would be seriously overused. I knew this. But I guess Bush was being utterly literal when he said "We will not differentiate between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them,". Which is frightening. Considering, technically, that Osama bin Laden didn't commit these acts, and other heads of Al-Qu'aida are in fact based elsewhere. And I mean, this whole Northern Alliance thing is so absolutely bunk. These assholes were infamous for rape and torture -- the Taliban is just known for it. So we're not really picking the lesser of two evils here -- the U.S. already did that.

The plausability matrix for justification in these acts has worn so incredibly thin.

[ 21-11-2001: Message edited by: Frances' Tired Tear Ducts ]

13:23 / 21.11.01

...in my more extreme paranoid moments, i was close to believing that the US govt had organised the sept 11 attacks to justify doing an awful lot of things they wouldn't have got away with otherwise. but that's going too far. isn't it? – shortfatdyke

No. It isn't. It is in fact extremely plausible. Let's allcheck out Lionheart's thread for more thoughts in a similar vein.

(edited to make my suggestion more general: sfd has seen Lionheart's post and commented on it.

)

[ 21-11-2001: Message edited by: Ierne ]

13:58 / 21.11.01

Bear in mind that this is not a collective offer of surrender from "the" Taliban, but of commanders in a single city. Since the UN, or even US don't have facilities/manpower to hold them as prisoners, the only ones who do are the NA forces, unless you want to say "be good now", release them, and hope they don't join Taliban forces elsewhere. Their not wanting to surrender to the NA is, of course completely reasonable, and a demonstration of the practical reasons not to summarily execute prisoners.

Frances Farmer

16:43 / 21.11.01

quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:
Bear in mind that this is not a collective offer of surrender from "the" Taliban, but of commanders in a single city. Since the UN, or even US don't have facilities/manpower to hold them as prisoners, the only ones who do are the NA forces, unless you want to say "be good now", release them, and hope they don't join Taliban forces elsewhere. Their not wanting to surrender to the NA is, of course completely reasonable, and a demonstration of the practical reasons not to summarily execute prisoners.

Oh, I know it is -- and really only a handful of guerilla fighters at that. I say killing soldiers who have requested oversight for surrender constitutes a war crime. Someone told me Ashcroft went on TV and said, and I mean quite literally: "We don't want them to surrender. They're terrorists. We would rather just kill them."

The Damned Yankee

00:21 / 22.11.01

Meanwhile, none of this addresses the attacks on 9/11, which were at least allegedly the reason for all of this. Now it seems like the deaths of thousands is merely a pretext for the US to remove inconvenient Middle East regimes. According to AlterNet, there's a push among the hawks in the Bush administration (as opposed to Colin Powell's more moderate coalition-building faction) that wants to take the fight into Iraq and finish the job that George Senior didn't during the Gulf War.

Dubya was at my old post today. I wanted to heave when I heard him say "Air Assault" (the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) battle cry)!

I hate him. I knew that we were in for a rough ride when he got elected, but he really takes the fucking cake.

00:21 / 22.11.01

Colin 'strike with overwhelming force' Powell is a moderate? wow. our definitions have shifted a helluva lot since the US election.

this whole surrender issue is a tacit admission that, in truth, nobody is in control of this situation.

quote: velvetvandal- Um, has anyone explained to these guys what the chief aim is in having a war?

Don't worry vv, they got that part figured... the chief aim is to blow up as much shit as possible. This keeps your blowingshitup skills honed and ready to blowshitup whenever it's necessary in the cause of Freedom. It's also good if you can get foreign nationals to pay for the bombs (UK) or fight for you (NA.) In these terms, accepting surrender is counterproductive, and a waste of valuable munitions.

[ 22-11-2001: Message edited by: Flame On ]

12:38 / 22.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Flame On:
Colin 'strike with overwhelming force' Powell is a moderate? wow. our definitions have shifted a helluva lot since the US election.
[ 22-11-2001: Message edited by: Flame On ]

No, the so called Powell Doctrine is to be very careful about what situations you use force in, and if so, not to use half measures.

Frances Farmer

14:27 / 23.11.01

Which is reasonable in a historical context. Don't do it if you can avoid it. If you can't avoid it, do it so effectively you'll never have to do it again.

Hopefully.

Looks like the Taliban surrendered Konduz without mediation.

autopilot disengaged

15:39 / 23.11.01

surely the PowellDoctrine is essentially a way of using yr embarrassingly overwheleming technological advantage to lay much of the enemy's infrastructure (including massed soldiers) to waste, without risking yr own troops' lives... even if that means - in that case - dropping bombs from a height which pretty much makes targetting a lottery regardless?

is it true that Powell, back in the day, was the officer responsible for whitewashing My Lai? (sp?) anyone know?

Frances Farmer

15:59 / 23.11.01

quote:surely the PowellDoctrine is essentially a way of using yr embarrassingly overwheleming technological advantage to lay much of the enemy's infrastructure (including massed soldiers) to waste, without risking yr own troops' lives...

Frankly, I'm not sure precisely what Powell's all about. From the sound of it, though, this portion is a matter of interpretation. How the result of swift and effective military action is acheived is, I think, an open question. Powell simply suggests you find a way to do it in such a way that it is "done", and hopefully not prolonged.

quote:even if that means - in that case - dropping bombs from a height which pretty much makes targetting a lottery regardless?

Are we discussing the Powell doctrine, or is this a critique of what's going on in the world right now?

I don't personally think that Powell's got a whole lot to do with this bit. Rumsfeld all the way.

Anyway, my point was, essentially, that you can't get into government without advocating war. Governments are all about war. If that's going to change, the first step would be folks in government who are careful about war. I hope Powell is. It sounds as if he has at least considered means of acheiving results and is not simply screaming "bomb the living shit out of them!" from the rafters, which tends to seperate it from his contemporaries.

But, we can only hope, where this is concerned.

autopilot disengaged

16:14 / 23.11.01

quote:The My Lai massacre. On March 16, 1968, US soldiers from the Americal Division slaughtered 347 civilians--primarily old men, women, children, and babies--in the Vietnamese village of My Lai 4 (pronounced, very appropriately, as "me lie"). The grunts also engaged in torture and rape of the villagers.

Around six months later, a soldier in the 11th Light Infantry Brigade--known among the men as "the Butcher's Brigade"--wrote a letter telling of widespread killing and torturing of Vietnamese civilians by entire units of the US military (he did not specifically refer to My Lai). The letter was sent to the general in charge of 'Nam and trickled down the chain of command to Major Colin Powell, a deputy assistant chief of staff at the Americal Division, who was charged with investigating the matter and formulating a response.

After a desultory check--which consisted mainly of investigating the soldier who wrote the letter, rather than his allegations--Powell reported that everything was hunkey-dory. There may be some "isolated incidents" by individual bad seeds, but there were no widespread atrocities. He wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." The matter was closed.

To this day, we might not know about the carnage at My Lai if it hadn't been for another solider who later wisely sent a letter to his Congressman.

- from disinfo

that'd be a 'yes', then.

autopilot disengaged

16:24 / 23.11.01

by the way, frances - i hear what you're saying. powell is obviously wiser than many of those around him. not good - but not the worst.

i do think the doctrine he championed is, more than anything, about easing the political ramifications of foreign adventures - cutting the military casualties - a PR damage limitation exercise which, *ironically*, ratchets up the risks to civilians etc by its necessarily scattershot remote control, broad front strategy ...less US body bags is fine and dandy for US soldiers and public, but seems to be a rather cavalier way of waging a 'war' - that said, yeah - i think you're right in saying, if he had his way right now things wouldn't have reached quite this level of future primitive brutality.

and, every time i see him, i can't help but imagine him in a StarTrek federation uniform...

[ 23-11-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]

01

16:34 / 23.11.01

I agree. With all of the lunatics running the asylum, Powell does seem to be the most level headed among them. I think if he wasn't involved, the entire operation would've been swifter and bloodier. On Sept 14th, they had the mandate and domestic approval to do almost anything they wanted.

The Damned Yankee

23:09 / 23.11.01

So Powell actually [i]is{/i] the moderate here. Scary, yes?

01

01:33 / 24.11.01

Comparatively speaking, yes, he is the moderate.

Frances Farmer

19:52 / 25.11.01

In fact, Powell's difficult to predict. He has a tendancy to ignore the party line -- but whether or not he as a result takes it further to the right or to the left is a bit of a flipped coin. He's supported Democrats in a push for welfare, etc -- but then, he also has a military backround full of the standard conservative grab-bag.

Still, I think Powell was the first one to say "Hey.. Guys.. Maybe we oughta... You know.. Pay attention to this Isreal-Palestine thing?" -- which is good. 'Cause frankly, having the U.S. there to coddle Isreal through it's Human Rights issue is revolting. It's bad enough that the U.S. can thumb off the U.N. on all kinds of stuff, but providing shelter for Isreal to do the same is... Scary.

01

23:17 / 25.11.01

Just goes to show what a sham international law is. It's good that there is a framework in place but essentially its meaningless because the US only turns to it when it's convienient for them, and blatantly turns it's back on it when at odds. The ZNET article with Chomsky was awesome because it provided instances where the US has rejected international rulings.

Harold Washington died for you

03:49 / 26.11.01

quote:Originally posted by zerone:
Just goes to show what a sham international law is. .snip. The ZNET article with Chomsky was awesome because it provided instances where the US has rejected international rulings.

I agree, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. To have an international law you need to have some sort of armed force only loyal to that law to enforce it. Like some new world order black helicopter driving men in black gestapo!!!

Well, right? Why should we have to follow the same rules as Afghanistan? In a realpolitik sense we don't have to.

[ 26-11-2001: Message edited by: Morocco Mole ]