US War on Terrorism or the war of convenience?

Today, the Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirb said that after Jan 2, US forces in Afghanistan will not target Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders unless they posed a 'direct threat to the US.' Their justification states that ‘being a member of the Taliban doesn't mean that the United States is going to prosecute operations against you for that reason alone.
Now this justification sounds pretty good for letting the most wanted terrorist go, the one who led the Taliban War on Terror, in which large scores of Pakistanis and Afghanis, Americans of course, have lost their lives.
A US Senate report issues a week ago, admitted that the CIA’s interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects was far more brutal than acknowledged and did not produce useful intelligence.  At least 119 individuals were subjected to ‘coercive interrogation techniques’, in some cases amounting to torture. The report concluded “the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation. Seven of the 39 detainees known to have been subjected to the enhanced interrogations produced no intelligence while in CIA custody.
What are they doing to compensate the innocent prisoners subjected to torture, mock executions, sleep-deprivation, profanities, chaining naked, and sacrilegious attacks? Why the suffering? Why the deep-seated emotional scars? 
 And now that US doesn't have any ‘vested interests’ left to safeguard in the region, they leave out the 'Global War against Terrorism' and 'making the world safer' ideology behind. After creating an army of brutally retaliating terrorists and making it easier for them to recruit more - giving them reasons to further retaliate through such gross human rights violations, they have created a never-ending fiasco for others to deal with. How convenient is that!
1910 hours
Monday 22 December

Post a Comment