Even before September 11th, things were looking grim in Afghanistan. Then there were approximately 6 million people dependent on international aid for their survival; now that figure is closer to 7.5 million. On September 16th, the US kindly demanded that Pakistan halt the truck convoys that were providing food and other supplies to the Afghanis.
The withdrawal of many of the aid vehicles, combined with the bombing campaign, means that only about half of the necessary aid is now getting through. It doesn't take Einstein to work out that 3-4 million people are probably going to die in the very near future.
In response to this, the US dropped 37,000 individually wrapped food packages, each bearing the American flag and containing, among other things, peanut butter, strawberry jam and a serviette. So, putting aside the intense cultural ineptitude that this cruel PR exercise demonstrates, what we are left with is enough food to feed 37,000 people for one day in a place where literally millions of people are starving to death.
When you add to these figures the fact that Afghanistan has the highest concentration of unexploded landmines in the world, the true absurdity of the food drop becomes apparent. Many major aid agencies (including OXFAM and Christian Aid) have pleaded with the British and American governments to stop the bombing, at least temporarily, so that food can get through before the harsh winter makes many areas totally inaccessible. The plea was rejected. Clare Short's response is particularly quote-worthy.

"There are some agencies who quite frankly want to raise money and therefore want to be in the news" (Telegraph, 19th Oct., p.11)

Noam Chomsky has called what is happening a 'silent genocide'. Without much of a fuss it appears that we are prepared to accept what is effectively the murder of millions of innocent people in the name of a war that we can never win.

Why do people kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

The Hidden agenda
A war for peace, women's lib and the starving kids in Afghanistan? Not likely when there's $5 trillion of oil at stake.
At first this was simply a war on terror. Osama bin Laden, we were told, was behind the attacks and so he and his network must be destroyed. Then the Taliban were accused of sheltering him so they too must be eliminated.
It was not long before additional justification for taking action against Afghanistan was thrown in. Soon western leaders began talking about the need to overthrow tyranny, to counter the evils of fundamentalism and help a long suffering people build for a better future.
Even the suppresion of womens rights has become a fashionable topic -the plight of Afghani girls denied an education or the brutal enforcement of strict codes of dress are now often raised issues by those supporting the offensive.
The idea that western leaders have the interests of the people of Afganistan at heart, as they pound them with cluster bombs, is plainly ridiculous. As any observer with a memory that stretches back before September 11th could point out, the country has quite a history of being used and abused by the west. After all it was the Americans and the British who, during the Soviet occupation, did not hesitate to arm, aid and abet a host of extremists that can now be found within the ranks of the Taliban and Al'Qaida. After that they have by for over a decade while Afghanis were subjected to further war, banditry and oppression.
Western leaders remained muted as both the Northern Alliance and the Taliban swept to power and began subjecting women to draconian diktats. Now they want to be thought of as the would be saviors of the Afghan people. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), whose members risk their lives demanding equal rights, are not buying any statements of concern ­ they have said that the bombing only leads to more suffering of innocent people.
In fact it is not simply Osama bin Laden or the Taliban which makes Afghanistan a target. Since long before September 11th major western oil companies have had their eyes on the country as the most favourable route for a new pipeline transporting the $5 trillion worth of oil believed to be in the Casbian sea. However, as the oil giant Unocol pointed out "construction of the pipeline cannot begin until a recognised government is in place in Kabul that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company".
It seems this is precisely what Bush and Blair have set about achieving. Once again the great capitalist establishment is embarking upon a scheme to secure their control of the earth's resources. Once again it will be innocent civilians who suffer the consequences.