In 1881 British Redcoats got their arses well and truly kicked in Afghanistan and had to withdraw. It was one of the worst defeats British colonialism had experienced. The similarities don't end there least of all the real reasons for being there in the first place. In 1881 it was, according to the government of the day, to guarantee access to India. Today, it's oil of the Caspian Basin and the strategic locations of the former Soviet states that is the real reason for USUK presence. Forget all that crap about the Taleban, the Taleban government was supported by the US up until it became expedient to dump on them just like any and all so-called US allies when the circumstances warrant it.

And, as with the Soviet 'invitation' to support the regime in Kabul in 1979, the current occupation is creeping toward ever greater involvement by the West and with the same predictable results. footnote #1

One hundred and twenty-five years later a spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence described its military presence in Afghanistan as "overstretched" and as a result an extra 900 troops are to be sent to the 'lawless' Helmand province following the loss of six soldiers in a couple of weeks. This will bring the total UK presence to 4,500. By contrast, the Soviet occupation had an estimated 118,000, well short of the estimated minimum number it needed to 'pacify' the country, around 150,000 footnote #2. By contrast, the US had at its highest point 500,000 in Vietnam and still lost.

Back in April 2006 a BBC report told its readers

"In many ways it's the mistakes and the lessons the British learnt over the centuries in this region that will, they hope, make the new deployment of UK troops better equipped than any other international force to deal with what follows." - Afghan history's warning to UK troops [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4926628.stm]

The same report said

"... [T]oday's British soldier is almost unrecognisable. Their leadership has been a lot more thoughtful about this new deployment than some of their predecessors."

Thoughtful perhaps but no less deluded than their forebears. The story asserted that the current situation is all down to the US failure to 'follow through' on its invasion of Afghanistan and that somehow 4500 or so British soldiers will make all the difference with its experiences gained "over the centuries". It had after all, suffered two disastrous defeats trying to colonise Afghanistan and according to the 'pundits', learned all the appropriate lessons, except it seems, the most basic one of all.

And in the same BBC story we are told that

"... their [the British army's] political masters have already made what many see as a good start by refusing to move into Helmand until the worst examples of mis-governance in the province - by people like the former Governor Mullah Shermohammad Akhund - were ended.

"The newly-appointed governor of Helmand, Eng Daoud, is considered to be clean and against the drug trade."

But back in September 2005, this is what the BBC was telling us in another story:

"A recent reshuffle of Afghanistan's powerful regional governors was widely seen as cosmetic and insufficient to reduce the influence of the warlords." - Afghanistan's security challenges [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4714357.stm]

As per usual, the BBC speaks 'with forked tongue', dutifully carrying out its mission of pushing the official line, which changes like the wind, from day to day.

Amazingly, given the uncritical support the BBC has given the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq the story goes on to blame the Americans for the current situation

"The American resources that could have transformed Afghanistan and secured the whole country from a Taleban resurgence were instead diverted into toppling Saddam Hussein and then trying to deal with the terrible mess that followed."

Initially, we were told that the upgraded British involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan would be about 'winning hearts and minds' and would be focusing on "reconstruction", a position that lasted about one month. The BBC story repeated this deception -

"The British troops are deploying in much larger numbers and with much more interest in winning hearts and minds."

Interest is an odd choice of word but then to say otherwise it would have to admit that the British occupation has nothing to do with 'winning hearts and minds' but in propping up a corrupt as well as ineffectual narco-government. What is clear from this story is that BBC coverage of the situation in Afghanistan is in absolute lockstep with the British government's propaganda.

Reinforcing the collusion between the BBC and the state, in its sidebar under the heading 'Related Internet Links', all we get in the way of a 'broader picture' are two links to the Afghanistan government's website and to the US defence department.

Curiosity made me look at other BBC stories on Afghanistan and see what other external links the BBC considered useful to 'broaden the mind' of the inquisitive reader. Guess what? It's more of the same.

Thus a story dated 8 December 2005 has the following external links, US Department of Defence, Afghan government and the US Navy Seals.

Another story dated 17 April 2005 lists the UK Defence Ministry, the Afghan government and Combined Forces Command.

In fact, after looking at half a dozen stories on Afghanistan, the only non-state links I could find was one to ActionAid and one to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. So much for the BBC's commitment to the 'bigger picture' and its legally mandated Charter to inform the public. footnote #3

So what does the BBC have say a couple of months later? Not an awful lot. Today (11/7/06) the BBC's website has only one story headlined 'Rumsfeld praises Afghan mission' full of all the usual nonsense about fighting the 'war on terror' and how successful the US was in killing 'terrorists'.

Toward the end of the report we read that

"On Monday, UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told MPs that reinforcements, which will boost UK troop levels in Afghanistan to 4,500, would head for the Helmand province to help security and reconstruction efforts." news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5167474.stm

There's none so blind as those that refuse to see as the BBC coverage of the (third) disastrous British occupation of Afghanistan so aptly illustrates.

It's pointless to ask the BBC to fulfill its mandate and supply truly independent news and analysis to its readers but at least dear reader, be aware that when the BBC speaks, it speaks with its master's voice.

References

1. Index on Afghanistan http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/04/index-on-afghanistan.html

2. The Soviet Occupation http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/TheSovietOccupation.html

3. The BBC Charter http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/

When a war is not a war (unless the media says it is)

"Dawn air strikes on south Lebanon on 13 July 2006 claimed the lives of at least 44 civilians, including over 15 children, and wounded over 100. Israel bombed bridges linking the north and south of the country and all three runways of Beirut's commercial airport. The Israeli army's Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz, promised that 'nothing is safe in [Lebanon], as simple as that'." - 'Israel attacks Lebanon, http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/445.shtml, 14/7/06

But it's not all going Israel's way. An eyewitness reports an Israeli naval vessel being hit by a missile [http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5004.shtml] and sunk off the coast of Beirut.

Meanwhile, back in the safe confines of London, the Frontline Club, an exclusive hang-out for the aristoracy of the journalistic 'profession' has a special discussion coming up this coming Tuesday titled 'IS THE MIDDLE EAST ON THE BRINK OF A NEW WAR?'.

What I find amazing about the title of this 'discussion' is that it illustrates just how myopic, or perhaps delusional the mass media is about the Middle East. After all, what is happening in the Occupied Territories if not a war? A very one-sided war it's true but one that Israel can't win short of total extermination of the inhabitants.

But of course, it illustrates the fact that Palestinian deaths are not really deaths or, as a short note I got sent yesterday says:

"Yesterday, I was coming back on foot from the Brookings Institute where I attended a session on Iraq and I ran into an acquaintance of mine who was very "agitated" and "disturbed” by Hizbollah's action.

"Exercising total self-restraint, I quietly told him he reminded me of a Jewish joke a friend once told me. In a country governed by a repressive military regime, a boy comes rushing home and, breathless, announced to the family assembled in the sitting room: "The police is massively in our neighborhood and have arrested all the Jews and the barber”. The different members of the family all together responded "Why the barber? How horrible!”

"I added: "you seem to be interested only in the barber. What about the Jews of this story, who, in this case, are the Palestinians? I left my office two hours ago and there were already 18 Palestinians killed in Gaza. Probably by now, there will be 22-23”. In fact there were 23 Palestinians killed when I returned to my office.

"How often do we encounter that type of selective indignation as though our blood and tears do not count. As though our dead deserve to be killed. As though our victims are nameless, fatherless, motherless, childless … worthless?

"There should be a limit even to indecency. Afif Safieh

"P.S.: I also happen to care about the barber.”

So back to the war that's not a war. The most obvious thing about media coverage is the fact that without exception the MSM has accepted the version put about by the Israeli government, that its barbarous assault on Lebanon was in 'retaliation' for a Hizbollah attack on Israel. But does anyone really believe this? Well yes, the MSM does and it has done a very good propaganda job on behalf of the Zionist goverrnment in pushing this lie.

Only one story made a reference to a report that the Israeli soldiers were captured by Hizbollah forces on the Lebanese side of the border. So what is going on here?

Not only has the massive military assault on Gaza not had the (alleged) desired result of getting the return on the soldier captured during the military raid on the Israeli post, it has hardened the Palestinian resistance.

I contend that the attack on Lebanon is an attempt to divert attention away from the slaughter going on in the Occupied Territories where now it seems the Occupation Army is murdering entire families. footnote #1 So great is the slaughter that even the pro-Israeli Western media has been finding it difficult to ignore. There are also credible reports of Israeli use of chemical weapons against the civilian population, also not reported in the Western media. footnote #2

Thus it was necessary to create conditions which would seem to justify the wholesale murder taking place in the Occupied Territories. This they appear to have achieved by connecting Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran together and once again invading Lebanon on the pretext that it's up to the Lebanese government to put a stop to it.

From the statements being put out by the Israeli government, they are looking to create a basis for widening the war from the Occupied Territories to include both Syria and Iran including an allegation that the two soldiers captured by Hizbollah soldiers are going to be transferred to Iran.

'We have concrete evidence that Hezbollah plans to transfer the kidnapped soldiers to Iran. As a result, Israel views Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran as the main players in the axis of terror and hate that endangers not only Israel, but the entire world,' AFP quoted Deputy Director General of the Foreign Ministry Gideon Meir as saying. footnote #3

Dire predictions of a more general war are now being made in Western capitals and it's most definately a war that that the imperialists states are not ready for-not yet anyway.

It's difficult to gauge exactly what the Israeli government hopes to gain from this desperate strategy, aside from the vain hope of the total destruction of Hamas, Hizbollah and no doubt Damascus and Tehran. Most definately, they got the nod from Washington to go ahead, Tel Aviv doesn't make a single move without first clearing it with its 'patron'.

Of course it's possible that Israel is trying to lure both Syria and Iran into coming to the aid of Lebanon, not a very likely scenario.

Boys with lethal toys?

One commentator alleges that the Israeli generals are fed up with fighting a 'low intensity conflict' such as the one that has been conducted for six years in the Occupied Territories. footnote #4 All that firepower and nowhere to use it, but I find this to be a simplistic explanation and completely without merit.

Destroying Lebanon again, and a Lebanon rebuilt almost entirely with US money makes no sense except to draw attention away from what is happening in Gaza. This is 'collective punishment' on a grand scale, one that Hitler himself would have been proud of. In the end, it can only further isolate Israel and make the job of resolving the Palestinian issue even more difficult. If nothing else, it should surely make clear to anybody with an open mind that Israel is a murderous, racist, colonial state that needs to be dismantled before it plunges the region into an even wider conflagration.

The solution, if there is to be one, lies with the Israeli people themselves. They have to get rid of a government that appears to have completely lost the plot.

References

1. "Red Crescent Society: new Israeli tactic is to kill entire Palestinian families" and "Husband, his wife and their seven children killed by Israeli shells in Gaza"

2. "Ministry of Health report on toxic Israeli weapons confirmed by Gaza City medical sources" & ''Gaza: "bodies seemed to have been chemically burnt"'

3. IDF retrieves bodies of four tank soldiers killed in south Lebanon, Ha'aretz 7/14/2006.

4. ''What Does Israel Want?', Ilan Pappe, The Electronic Intifada, 14 July 2006

See also latest VTJP News Digest for stories on the scale of the atrocities being committed in both Gaza and Lebanon.

–   William Bowles

In the seventies I worked in electronic publishing (SouthScan), radio production (WBAI FM), television (South Africa Now) and ultimately on to Africa. During this period I [became] involve[d] with the African National Congress and later SWAPO in Namibia and work in Central America, again using computers as tools of communication and change. For the past ten years I've been working in Johannesburg, South Africa, firstly for the ANC where I set up the Election Information Unit for the 1994 democratic elections. I then directed the development of the first digital multi-media centre in Africa in COSATU's headquarters, the Centre for Democratic Communications. But writing, which has always been a passion and a talent I was fortunate to possess, led me back into the world of words, although I continued to work in the world of information technology but with the focus less on the technology than on the skills needed to harness it in the transformation of society. I lectured and developed courses at the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism at Wits University in the online environment as well workshops on the role of IT in the transformation of government for the School of Public Development Management. Amongst the last projects I completed in South Africa were three scripts for television, for a young, black-owned film production company, Fuzebox Productions on Freedom Day, Youth Day and the National Anthem, Nkosi Sikilel i'Africa for the SA government. But after 27 years abroad, I find myself back in the city of my birth, London, and where I spent the first 30 years of my life, contemplating my future and the direction I would like my life to take. Since coming back to London I have been involved in a number of projects including developing the brief and business plan for city-based broad band wireless network with the focus on marketing/distribution of digitally based cultural products and home and office based connectivity (still on-going) and spending a lot of time writing, both fiction (one novel completed and a second in the works) and current affairs essays. Web site: http://www.williambowles.info/

---

| Back | Feature Archive Index | The Celtic Tiger Economy's Potato |

---