Subscribe to Desicritics
Stingers: Sores That Hardly Heal
Harold Bergsma
The pain was almost intolerable. Burning, searing fire that ran down the side of my face onto my neck made me shout and scrabble about like a mad man. I had been picking oranges from a tree in our central Nigerian compound when I disturbed a nest of wasps that had taken residence in that tree, not more than two feet above my head. Six of these warriors descended on me and began to sting, each one multiple times. Wasps do not commit suicide when they attack, they use their stingers again. Years later, in 1985 I was reading on the verandah of our Model Town home in Lahore and a bee landed on my neck. I brushed it aside, but not quick enough and got stung. It was not as painful as the wasps had been but there was one difference. It left its stinger behind, and in doing so had committed suicide, tearing out its guts as it was brushed aside. Pindi, my cook pulled the stinger out with a tweezers, warning me not to leave it in as it would create a bad sore and become infected. I had to hear the terrible stories of children in his village that had been stung and had suffered terribly because the parents did not know enough to get rid of the deadly stingers and not to leave them embedded.
I had been reading the Pakistan newspaper, Dawn, at the time and news about the very beginning of the defeats and withdrawals of the Soviet military forces from Afghanistan because of such effective rebel fighting, like “persistent wasps”. This withdrawal eventually culminated in 1989, supported by the many small victories of the Mujahideen in their fight against the cursed invaders, and the support given by the Americans to this effort of the guerrillas during Operation Cyclone, support by the supply of arms and weapons to the freedom fighters. Stingers! Yes, these were supplied by the CIA in the hundreds to the forces fighting the Soviets. Some sources say as many as two thousand stingers were given to the Mujahideen. After the withdrawal of the Russians there was a concern that the Taliban now had many of these weapons, Stingers, which, with their heat seeking devices had been lethal against Soviet helicopters and low-flying aircraft. Now American forces could become targets of these very weapons.
But, allied experts said, the battery systems which operated these weapons became useless after a few years. (But the technology to repair and put in new battery systems existed; in fact Pakistan now has its own version of the old Stinger) I love the title of the article by Ken Silverstein in the State Oct.2, 2001, “Stinger, Stingers, Who’s Got the Stingers?” In that article he reviews the Reagan administration’s programs to arm the Mujahideen with Stingers to battle Soviet aircraft, he says that the Taliban now possess many of these weapons as do others to whom they were sold who ‘reverse-engineered’ these and made their own. Many worried about this because Islamic fundamentalist who loathed the West, about as much as they hated the Soviets, could possibly share these wonderful high tech weapons with, and think of this, with terrorist groups.
In 1986, Congress had approved the deal and CIA then shipped 300 Stingers to the rebels and the next year 700 more. The Stingers were now embedded, not only among the rebel forces, but according to some sources, Pakistan stock piled the Stingers it got, and some say, sold a few to the Chinese for sums unknown, who were clever and reverse-engineered them and produced their own, and since there was a hot market for these, reverse sold these to the ones who first had them. According to Silverstein’s article these weapons now were dispersed by the rebels to Tajikistan, Chechnya and Algeria. And, he says that the Pentagon approved the sale of Stingers to at least 21 countries, mostly NATO of course, such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. ( I love the word mostly. The selling of American weapons by Americans is a really big business, and this does not just include little Stingers, it includes weapons of pretty ‘mass destruction’ in the form of high tech aircraft and their missile systems. You know, keep the economy going.) The Soviets stole the design and made their own SAM-14 Gremlin, a virtual copy of the Stinger. Oh my! What a hornet’s nest!
The CIA later, in its $65 million program, (It is as if they gave each Afghan citizen $2) offered $150,000 to $200,000 to the very ones they had supported by giving them these amazing weapons. This was more than production cost, but cheaper than having their planes shot down. This buy-back program resulted in the return of very few of the Stingers and the authorities were concerned that the Taliban, who later waged a bloody insurgency, had stockpiled these weapons. In fact, the coalition authorities had no idea where most of these lethal Stingers were. These were a hidden threat and are still a threat today, imbedded, festering Stingers. This was a sore spot. The buy-back flopped, by and large. If the Americans thought that Stingers were worth about Rupees 1,200,000 each, these must be pretty good things to keep around, just in case. And it is a well know fact that in bargain situations, when one party seems a bit desperate to buy something, it may be a good strategy to hold back a bit and wait and see if the buy back price will rise. Imagine getting the Stingers free and then later selling them back at highly inflated prices to the donor and making a few dealers rich in the process. Riches buys land, good land for growing poppies.
These embedded Stingers may still be around. India claimed that in a 1999 attack Muslim rebels in Kashmir used a Stinger to down a military aircraft.
Kathy Gannon’s book I is for Infidel: From the Holy War to Holy Terror: 18 Years Inside Afghanistan, 2005, Perseus Book Group, speaks about the war in Afghanistan as being “yesterday’s war”. “The wider world had done the most dangerous of things. It had stuffed this tiny country with massive amounts of weapons, including the precious Stingers, turned over the countryside to the volatile discordant mix of mujahadeen factions—and then walked away.”
In 2001, following the Sept.11 attack the U.S. launched “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a military campaign to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist camps inside Afghanistan, the very ones with whom they had had a common cause, you know, the Afghan Mujahideen and who now said thanks for the free Stingers. The Stingers were not like those of the wasps, burning, searing, but temporary. They were like those of bees, which left imbedded, make their way deep into the flesh while pumping venom all the while and leaving a festering sore that hardly heals.
In the 2008 political campaigns new political solutions are being suggested about Afghanistan, new efforts that will need to be made to subdue the rebels in their mountain dens in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan and hopefully get the really bad guy, bin Laden in the process. What a holy terror our soldiers will face once again when ‘Yesterday’s War’, thanks Kathy, becomes Today’s Military Operation in which, on their turf, using our weapons, our Stingers, they, the bad guys, face off against us, defending their holy land with religious Islamic zeal, cursing oaths of vengeance.
Not to worry folks. Dear Wikipedia gives us the answers, “The US inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000.” Let’s see, if we divided this by the population of Afghanistan which is about 33 million people it could set up the entire population with a nest egg for small business development that would put it on its economic feet, peacefully. Imagine what that money could do to build schools for Afghani boys and girls. I forgot; inventory means that the money has already been spent by U.S. tax payers to engineer and manufacture these arms which now exist and are waiting for new batteries and need to be used.
That is a lot of bees to contend with, a pretty big hive. Let the Taliban be warned, our hive is bigger than yours. The pain will be intolerable, a real pain in the neck! But for whom?
Guido
August 15, 2008
03:03 PM
Harold,
I'm reminded of the movie, "1941". There was a scene where Major General Joseph Stilwell (Robert Stack) was confronted by someone frantically announcing enemy planes spotted over Los Angels. The General took a deep breath and shouted, "BOMBS! If the Japanese traveled all this way, don't you think they might have brought a few BOMBS!?!"
Echoing MGen Stilwell's wise words, don't you think that if the Taliban possessed MANPADS (any type) they would have used them by now? The fact that shoulder launched missiles haven't been used, leads me to believe they don't have them. Nonetheless, the threat is real as long as the potential for MANPADS exist. Having been a NATO participant over potentially hostile skies, I can confidently say that the aircrews will and do practice passive and active SAM suppression techniques in the event they get "stung".
I'm a little confused about your statement concerning missile costs. Are you suggesting that the US (or India) scrap its defense? I suppose we could disarm, eliminate the DoD, and distribute the money worldwide. In a perfect world that would be the sane option. Or in a sane world that would be the perfect option. And if pigs had wings they could fly.
I'm curious. If forced to choose sides, who would you support?
Ciao, Guido
commonsense
August 15, 2008
03:40 PM
Harold:
"""The US inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000."""
Sick. now put all the inventory, not just the one owned by the US and imagine how much money goes to waste. and of course there is always a dearth of funds for the building of a community centre, a public library, an athletic facility or for loans to small business, for plain clean drinking water etc. etc. etc. Defies commonsense for sure. But then there will always be supporters of the supposed dangers of a non-perfect world to justify this criminal waste of funds.
commonsense
August 15, 2008
03:49 PM
As war-profiteers, and defense contractors who happen to be statesmen too, rake in billions of tax-payers hard-earned money, despite its age, Joseph Heller's novel _Catch 22_ continues to be more relevant than ever.
Guido
August 16, 2008
04:46 AM
"But then there will always be supporters of the supposed dangers of a non-perfect world to justify this criminal waste of funds."
And sadly there will always be those who ignore reality.
This complex world is as dangerous as it is beautiful. Those who choose to shut their eyes to this truth (collective or individual) unfortunately receive a harsh or sometimes fatal wakeup call. But I'm stating the obvious. Just read the headlines, watch the news, or visit the history section of your local library.
If you're baiting me; bravo! Mission accomplished. However, if you honestly believe that the free world can disarm and everyone will sing kumbaya, then take a peek out the window and report Porky's rate of ascent.
Ciao, Guido
commonsense
August 16, 2008
10:23 AM
Guido,
No, I am not baiting you at all. Like it or not, when it comes to the tragic waste of such colossal resources and life, all justified by "kids, the world is a dangerous place", so let me keep it safe for you, at a cost of a few hundred billion dollars a year, you and me are not of much consequence in the larger scheme of things ie. of making money reagardless of the costs.
""But I'm stating the obvious. Just read the headlines, watch the news, or visit the history section of your local library.""
When reading those headlines and watching news, it might help if you tried to INTERPRET it, rather than swallowing everything hook line and
sinker.
My posts have nothing to do with YOU personally, trust me!
Ciao,
CS
kerty
August 16, 2008
12:32 PM
In doing cost benefit analysis of a defense program - there is a tendency(mainly among leftists) to pre-suppose that money spent somehow evaporates into thin air and society is deprived of that money that could have been spent on so many other things. As if defense contractors take that money home and sleep on it and thus money is gone up in a smoke in some godforsaken war- no that money is spent on payroll, purchases, utilities etc and thereby flows right back into the economy, benefiting whole society at large. Thus, money spent for economic activity never goes wasted - it circulates and stays in the economy generating more economic activities. The economy benefits, society benefits and nation gets robust national defense - win-win for all. So it is a non-issue. The only issue if there is one is - is this the best use of money? - since government has limited money confiscated mainly from people thru taxes, its spending has to have a sound national imperative and it better be used for achieving national and people-centric objectives with good return for the money - if people can do it in private sector more efficiently, than government better let people do it rather than try to do it inefficiently thru government. Government should try to decentralize and localize as many things as possible and empower people to take up those roles and functions. That would restore balance in government and its programs.
Guido
August 16, 2008
02:26 PM
CS #5
Happy to know you're not playing games...or insinuating I'm naïve...or that I'm preaching. I'll defer interpreting your remarks and just take them at face value. And of course I trust you CS.
I'll assume from your comments that your answer is "yes". You believe free and democratic nations can dismantle their defenses and all will be right with the world.
Ciao, Guido
Guido
August 16, 2008
02:30 PM
kerty,
Well stated.
Ciao, Guido
commonsense
August 16, 2008
03:10 PM
Guido,
If I say I'm sincere I mean it, despite the edge to my preachy post. However, you might want to reflect on the Walter Reid issue that is not limited to just the Walter Reid, but a general reluctance to spend money on veterans and those who have bravely put their money where their mouth is by joining the forces and by sometimes by being used by those who instigate wars for profit. I am sure you know that more american soldier died AFTER the Vietnam War, and in the US, not in Vietnam, because after the war was over, the goverment and others who egged them on, did not give shit for them. 58,000 died in combat; double that died of neglect and suicide, after the war. A number of documentaries and reports on the attempt to curtail benefits to those who come back from Iraq, are also publicly available.
There is no shortage of empirical data available that documents the amount of money that is being ripped off in the defence industry. not for nothing it is called the military-industrial complex and we have gone thru this before. not for nothing the person who coined the term was not some wacko leftist, but a decorate five star American general and later president, Eisenhower or Ike.
Kerty likes to inflate his ego by throwing around ideological terms like "leftists", so I will let him do exactly that.
Guido
August 16, 2008
03:28 PM
CS,
Thanks for the post-war lesson. As a combat veteran, I'm encouraged by your interest in our plight. But it doesn't seem relevant to the question. Do you believe free and democratic nations should dismantle their defenses.
Ciao, Guido
harold bergsma
URL
August 16, 2008
07:23 PM
Guido, Appreciate your comments and personal service in a combat unit situation.
Ghandi, peace and non-violence, all seem like strange terms right now. Ethnic violence, wow, it just doesn't go away. 'Must democratic countries disarm themselves?' is your question. Is the question a mute one?. However:no,but should countries seek every possible means to avoid war and still preserve their identity and their integrity. Yes.
My I take the liberty to refer you to a great article about this debate, not a new one, but well written and well thought out by M.B. Nisal in the International Seminar 0n Conflict Resolution, Feb. 15-17, 2003, "The Role of Civil Society in Conflict Resolution" I am sure you can google it rather than my attaching it here. The next question not usually asked is,"Should one or another country become the arbiter,defender, preserver, decision maker re. political philosophy, agression,etc for another? Should a most powerful nation call the shots? How? I am not looking for a reply on this one, obviously.
Con. Rice very recently did some strong persuasion and it appears the leader of a democratic and independent country listened. It may have been a classic example of limited "conflict resolution" that has kept, at least for now, the world from war.
I appreciate all of your comments, Kerty and Commonsense, thanks for the dialogue. I will leave it at that, commensense, and a big tad of peace as my choice. Our ethnic selves, economic selves, caste and our religious selves strongly color our cognitive and rational selves, and unhappily so much of international, civic and even village level strife tie to these.
harold bergsma
URL
August 16, 2008
07:24 PM
Gandhi. Sorry.
commonsense
August 16, 2008
10:21 PM
Guido:
""Do you believe free and democratic nations should dismantle their defenses.""
Just as I don't think you are naive, you might at least think the same of me. Should any country or will any country ever dismantle their defenses? Of course not. But this does not mean that peace treaties and pacts do not work, and the only alternative is to continue with an unrelenting arms race, regardless of the cost. The choice is not between complete disarmament (naive to say the least) and an all out race that in the end harms the human race.
As a veteran, I repect the choices you have made in life, but I do think that in a democracy, non-veterans are also allowed to have some opinions, if not actually a say in what happens in the sphere of armed conflicts. I don't think you would disagree with that.
As for Kerty comment about "lefties":
""As if defense contractors take that money home and sleep on it and thus money is gone up in a smoke in some godforsaken war- no that money is spent on payroll, purchases, utilities etc and thereby flows right back into the economy, benefiting whole society at large.""
Despite his RED herring about lefties, I think that his analysis his simply brilliant. I would go even further than him and support:
1. All of us voluntarily paying banks to keep our money, instead of expecting interest. After all, it's not as if the banks will not reinvest the money we give them. Their reinvestment will invigorate the economy and it will be a win-win situation for all, with a stronger banking industry.
2. When we go to restaurants, we should voluntarily insist on paying double the price quoted on the menu. After all, it's not as if the restaurant owners will sit and fart on the money. They will eventually reinvest it, and it will be a win-win situation for everyone, plus tastier food.
3. When we file for income tax, we should voluntarily pay double of what we owe. After all, the state will not sit on its ass with the money. They will spend it on arms, create more jobs and it will be a win-win situation.
Where is the need for any regulation, oversight, fair-play, rules, rationality when we can have multiple win-win situations. Let us give the state total power to spend as much money it wants on an all-out arms race for this win-win situation. In the end, even when thousands of people die, cities and entire countries are destroyed, it's not as if there are no new jobs to be created in rebuilding them via the no-bid contracts for Haliburton etc. It's always a win-win situation for sure. A minor detail that in this win-win situation, as Orwell would remark, some winners win more than the other winners.
kerty
August 17, 2008
04:53 AM
CS
Each instance(1,2,3) you cited will spur the economy as money will flow right back into productive economy - that is why Bush handed out tax rebate checks to spur spending and economy, that is why government undertakes infra-structure projects during recession to stimulate economy, that is why wars and post-war re-construction creates economic boom. When A steals money from B, money still remains in the economy - economy does not care if it is a drug money or stolen money or welfare money or hard-earned money. It is the society and its value system that cares about such things and create rules as to what is acceptable way to make money. Economy does not care.
In a society, everybody would want money and lots of it, and therefore, there is no better way than to have people compete for it by giving something back to the society in return - money has to be earned, and to maintain fairness and equity to all others, not be handed out as freebie. Economic participants have to be made to compete to attract the flows of money by providing something that adds value and create win-win for both sides in a transaction. Why would I double up my tips to waiters, or pay more to any party including government, what incentive do I have to part my money - there has to be some rational justification for me to part with my money - it has to create win-win for me and party at the other end of transaction. Rational decisions are guided by - is this the best use of my money and what am I getting in return. That is the criteria by which money flows in the economy. Not that economy cares one way or the other, but people do.
Similarly, economy does not care how government or people spend their money - but people and their ideologies do care how they are spent. It boils down to how government is defined and what role is vested in government by competing ideologies. I tried to point out that leftists have a distinct view of government and its role.
Guido
August 17, 2008
10:20 AM
Harold,
Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful response.
I enjoyed the article and agree with Prof. Nisal that little attention is devoted to studying peaceful multiethnic society, as compared to the focus on ethnic violence. An analogy would be concentrating on symptoms of an illness vise causes. It would be interesting to see Prof. Nisal's concepts holistically incorporated with other contributing factors, i.e. nationalism, greed (economics), and power (ego). No small task.
One of many lessons I learned during my involvement in the Balkans, was that in some instances ethnicity was only one contributing factor to violence. Nationalism, greed, and egos were also heavily at play, depending on the season and region. Reading a few books on the subject improved my awareness ("The Bosnian Chronicles", "Burn This House", and the "The History of Yugoslavia") and reinforced the complexities of the conflict. But the real learning occurred through interactions with the people.
I apologize if my initial post seemed defensive.
Non-violence and peace are words that strongly resonate with me and nearly every older vet I know. Appreciation of those concepts become amplified after participating in the opposite fare; an appreciation born from experience. Too often I am on the receiving end of some rant by persons void of pragmatic experience. While I understand the importance of and encourage diverse views, I am sometimes impatient; a reflection of my own intolerance.
It may surprise you to know that I agree; it is literally insane to spend obscene amounts of money on defense when those funds could be used for humanitarian purposes. But the fact is every country must devote part of its GNP to defense or perish. And I don't believe understanding is enhanced by remarks comparing apples to oranges. We need missiles for defense. I believe a more responsible and effective comment should highlight the need for affective and efficient defense spending and allocation, rather than comparing bullets to beans.
Ciao, Guido
commonsense
August 17, 2008
11:32 AM
Guido:
""It may surprise you to know that I agree; it is literally insane to spend obscene amounts of money on defense when those funds could be used for humanitarian purposes.""
Hear! Hear!! You can say that again!
(After transparently slimy and devious cut/paste that will fool no one who has been following this exchange, to make it appear that Guido has finally come around to my original idea)
commonsense
August 17, 2008
12:57 PM
Kerty #14
Excellent! Kerty will now deposit a dollar into Aaman's account for each comment he makes. This will be applied retroactively. It will be a win-win situation since THE ECONOMY does not care who has the money and who does not, as long as Aaman reinvests it in on DC or even his family cat or garden. This rule will of course apply to me to, but given my zillions of rants, I will be bankrupt many times over. But what the heck, it will be good for something called THE ECONOMY that does not care whether basic commonsense is flouted or not. THE ECONOMY with its own brains and body, is the name of the game, not basic commonsense, nor, perish that thought, real human beings. Congratulations Aaman for this unexpected financial windfall, brought to you courtesy the genius of Kerty.
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8115)