What are the consequences of NATO's lost war of aggression against Afghanistan?

Switch from war to diplomacy now. Disarm, use the money saved to finance the reconstruction of the countries destroyed by NATO countries, apologise, institute legal proceedings against those responsible for the war, promote religious dialogue for a common world ethic as a basis for peace.

Proposals for the initiation of a necessary public discussion

We citizens of the West have allowed our governments to attack, kill and destroy livelihoods, cities, villages, factories and homes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and elsewhere. And we are still allowing them to do so.

In the countries attacked there are many victims, many traumatised and many who have lost their loved ones. This has created a lot of hatred for the West and gives arguments to those who claim that the West is doing this because it is faithless or even that it can only be stopped by force.

They will take the defeat of the NATO countries in Afghanistan as proof that such armed resistance can succeed. It will encourage those who seek revenge for the injustice they have suffered.

The forces in the West that organised these wars and repeatedly deceived the public to justify them, they will now push again for rearmament and violent solutions. They want to continue the endless war because they earn from it and will lose out on the necessary measures for peace itself.

We put forward the following measures for discussion in order to be able to end this war. We hope that you will take up the discussion:

1.) Their arms superiority has encouraged NATO countries to rely on force, rather than law and diplomacy, after 9/11; also because those who decide in these countries do not have to kill and die in the wars and have no losses but gains from the use of force. We should bring politicians into office who will decide on a decisive disarmament of the NATO states in order to take away their power for further such actions.

2.) We should jointly demand that the money saved by disarmament be used for a fund for the reconstruction of the countries destroyed by the NATO countries and for special compensation for the victims of war.

3.) As citizens of Western countries, we should apologise to the people in the attacked countries for not fulfilling our democratic duty to prevent these wars and to press for diplomatic solutions.

4.) We should join with the people in the attacked states in calling for trials in international courts to investigate these wars and responsibility for them.

5.) We should build joint capacity first at the civil society level and then at the state level to resolve all conflicts by peaceful means in accordance with international law.

6.) We should insist on the right of self-determination of all peoples and oppose the domination of the West and especially the USA.

7.) We should promote religious dialogue for the development of a common world ethic that is binding for all people.

8.) We should stop the defamation of Muslims and live and demand equal respect between all religions.

What do you think? Do you have any other suggestions or criticisms of these proposals?

Wolfgang Lieberknecht

more on the background:


It is not only the NATO concept that has failed in Afghanistan, at least measured by the reasons presented to the public for the war. The whole war in the Middle East launched over Afghanistan has failed by these standards. Here is the explanation: https://www.internationale-friedensfabrik-wanfried.org/post/us-politiker-sahen-%C3%BCber-afghanistan-die-chance-auf-die-eroberung-der-rohstoffe-des-mittleren-ostens

By private economic and geostrategic standards, however, the war was a success: it flushed trillions of dollars into the coffers of the arms corporations, it prevented the oil-producing countries from joining forces once again - as they did in the 1970s - to get inflation compensation for oil. As the French philosopher Alain Badiou explains, the Western states can no longer directly colonise states again. But they can help to escalate the contradictions in the states so that they sink into chaos and then they can get their raw materials again through cooperation with militias. For the people in these regions, Badiou says, this means a life like in hell.

7 Ansichten0 Kommentare