Michael Parenti:
> U.S. forces went into Afghanistan, destroying much
> of that already battered country-all supposedly to catch Osama bin
> Laden. They never caught him, and now they say, "Oh that's not very
> important anyway, we don't really have to catch him." The White House
> is now predicting that al Qaeda is planning some other terrorist
> strikes of major magnitude, coming soon. So what exactly was
> accomplished by waging war upon a weak impoverished battered country?
> People say, "Well what would you do?" I would go out and hunt the
> terrorist cells, specifically. I wouldn't go out and bomb whole
> cities and villages.
In the mid-80s, in a Dupont Circle restaurant in DC at a small luncheon honoring Chomsky, I was seated next to Parenti who, apart from being loud and obnoxious (and conspicuous wearing a Panama hat indoors), told me how the Soviets should wipe out the mujahideen and their collaborators in Afghanistan. When I said that the Soviets were killing untold numbers of civilians in their effort, Parenti bellowed that his beloved Red Army was fighting CIA-backed fascists and had to win.
Well, Parenti was right, but he showed zero concern for the lives of Afghan civilians, and the cities and villages they occupied. It was bombs away, all the way. Now he sheds tears on behalf of those whose relatives he once condemned to a swift, violent death. And had the Taliban stayed in power and the millions who were expected to starve last winter did, would we see such anguished words from Parenti's keyboard?
Spare me.
DP