U.S., Afraid to Use Its Own Soldiers
to Guarantee Food Aid to Starving Millions, Also Refuses to Let Europeans Do
So
November 30, 2001
While many thought that the
conquest of northern Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance and the resultant
end of U.S. bombing there would allow food shipments to resume in
significant enough quantities to prevent mass starvation of millions of
Afghans, the opposite has been happening.
According to The New York
Times, the level of tonnage being delivered has actually dropped
by 50% in the last two weeks.
The main problem is
insecurity. Towns and cities are so chaotic that relief agencies cannot
safely operate. Many roads are off limits because of lawlessness and
banditry.
Most foreign aid workers
have yet to return to Afghanistan because their organizations fear for
their safety, a fear underlined by the killings of eight foreign
journalists.
"Our expectations for
returning quickly and resuming our work were certainly not met," said
Oliver Ulrich of the United Nations Office of the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs. "The general lawlessness is a huge problem —
not knowing who is in control and who can assure your safety."
Instead of new supply
routes opening up to fleets of trucks, old routes are shutting down.
The U.S. bombing campaign
forced a halt to the truck convoys carrying food aid at a crucial time,
right before the harsh Afghan winter. The U.S. has a moral obligation
to quickly establish law and order so that millions don't starve because of
our bombing.
What is completely and
absolutely disgusting is that not only won't the U.S. send its own troops to
do the job, but it won't let anyone else do it either!
Several European nations
have been eager to send thousands of troops to parts of Afghanistan no
longer controlled by the Taliban to bring order and ease aid shipments,
but American officials so far are resisting.
The Bush administration
said today that it was too soon to send international peacekeepers to
Afghanistan, calling the conditions there too uncertain and too dangerous
for that mission.
Huh?! Conditions are
"too uncertain and too dangerous" for soldiers?!
The European nations
understand that "uncertain" and "dangerous" areas are
precisely where soldiers are supposed to go. That's what
they're trained for.
Early in the war, aid groups
asked for a short bombing halt to allow food shipments in. The U.S.
refused.
Then after the Taliban fell,
the British started landing troops near Mazar-i-Sharif to establish security
in that area. The Northern Alliance objected, and the British scuttled
the idea.
Since then, the Northern
Alliance has shown that it either cannot establish order or doesn't want
to. And it won't let anyone else do so either.
It's almost like the United
States and its best new friend, that band of human rights abusers and former
dictators of Afghanistan known as the Northern Alliance, actually want
to see mass starvation.
It's really quite
incomprehensible. Unless, of course, the explanation is that we have
some "evil-doers" among those leading us. |
