The Independent's endless thirst for blood

Total military spending vs. total development spending in Afghanistan 2002-2006
As this chart illustrates, despite the extreme poverty in Afghanistan, the majority of spending by the international community is on military rather than development and poverty relief projects.

Dear Tristan Davies, Independent on Sunday Editor,
Dear Simon Kelner, Independent Editor,

Yesterday your leading article read:

"In Afghanistan, the problems are the inverse of those in Iraq. The mission of our troops can be achieved, where in Iraq it cannot. But we need more troops in Afghanistan not fewer. We report today further evidence of the overstretch of military resources caused by engagement in two combat theatres at the same time: the priority is to concentrate resources on the fight that is winnable."

The day before, Robert Fisk, your Middle East correspondent and arguably the most prestigious Independent's signature, had written:

"Abu Henry" says we may have to remain in Afghanistan for decades to protect Afghans from the Taliban. Our ambassador in Kabul - Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, KCMG, LVO, to be precise - apparently sees no contradiction in this extraordinary prediction. The Taliban are themselves mostly Afghans, and the idea that the British Army is in Afghanistan to protect the locals from each other is a truly colonial proposition. It's what we said about the Northern Irish in 1969. Anyway, I thought we destroyed the Taliban in 2001. Wasn't that the idea at the time? Isn't that what Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara, our new man in the Middle East - who will grace us with his first visit next month - said back then?

According to your own Middle East correspondent, the Independent supports “a truly colonial proposition” and that great correspondent appears to be just a beautiful mask to cover your truly horrific face.

On the same day your newspaper called for more troops in Afghanistan, this is what the Washington Post reported those troops already there were doing:

Civilians Die In U.S.-NATO Air Assault In Afghanistan
By Griff Witte and Javed Hamdard
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 1, 2007; A16
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, June 30 -- Just a week after Afghan President Hamid Karzai chastised international forces for being "careless," Afghan officials reported Saturday that possibly 100 or more civilians had been killed in a NATO and U.S.-led assault.

Last September the Senlis Council published “Afghanistan Five Years Later: The Return of the Taliban” (*)

That report informed us among other things, that between 2002 and 2006, the so-called international community had spent in Afghanistan 82.5 billions of US dollars in military spending and just 7.3 in development projects. Still, one year later, your paper can shamelessly call for “more troops in Afghanistan not fewer”, which sounds as the good, old advice: Kill Them All!

Shame on you!

I hope and pray that the souls of those thousands of hundreds of people slaughtered in Afghanistan and Iraq with the help of your active cooperation will visit your nightmares at night and help you to find back that humanity you seem to have completely lost.

With compassion,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

(*) Some excerpts from Senlis Council’s report, “Afghanistan Five Years Later: The Return of the Taliban”:

“After five years of intensive international involvement in Afghanistan, the country remains ravaged by severe poverty and the spreading starvation of the rural and urban poor. Despite promises from the US-led international community guaranteeing to provide the resources and assistance necessary for its reconstruction and development needs, Afghanistan’s people are starving to death. Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators, and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world. Yet, the local and international development community’s abilities to respond to Afghanistan’s many poverty-related challenges have been undermined by the United States’ and United Kingdom’s misguided focus on counter-narcotics eradication policies. As such, these two self-appointed lead nations on terrorism and counter-narcotics are jointly responsible for southern Afghanistan’s current hunger crisis.”


“Afghans’ anger at seeing no representatives from international organisations has only served in endearing the Taliban to the local people. The Taliban are often seen as doing their bit to help the Afghans, despite having much less money than the international community, while international troops are perceived as being in the country for their own purposes. Even those who do not want to turn to the Taliban are forced to do so in order to survive and support their families. After five years of no positive change, the overriding opinion is that this a war – originally supposed to “help” the poor people of Afghanistan – which only serves in making the rich richer, including all “foreigners”. With children dying, people starving and family livelihoods being destroyed, there is an urgent need for a complete rethink on the part of the international community if Afghans are no longer to live in extreme poverty.”


“The ousting of the Taliban regime five years ago was widely believed to mark a new era for Afghanistan. Plagued by decades of violence and poverty, the arrival of the international community heralded a bright future for Afghanistan, confirmed by speeches assuring that the Afghan people would forever be freed from insecurity and oppression. The United States claimed the removal of the Taliban as a humanitarian duty, and promised to deliver enduring freedom to the Afghan people. (…) With civilians being killed on a regular basis, Afghans are angry that the majority of international aid has been spent on the military purposes rather than poverty relief. Many believe that the military missions are misguided, having lost faith in the ability of the “foreigners” to bring stability to the country. A perceived lack of respect from international military troops has fuelled Afghans’ resentment towards the international community. International troops’ apparent unwillingness to study Afghan culture and co-operate with locals, has caused mass hatred of the “foreigners”. Some believe that the ongoing fighting in Iraq and recent clashes in Lebanon are proof that the West is attempting to re-colonise the Muslim world. Many Afghans are now looking to the Taliban for leadership, declaring that they will “die fighting the foreigners".”