In response to GOP Congressional insistence on including a $200 million Defense appropriation to build new barracks at Guantanamo, after Obama declares he'll try again to close it:
Anything that boosts Defense Appropriations is a good thing, obviously.
It's estimated that 3-8% of released Guantanamo detainees may have returned to terrorism. Even if a third of detainees returned to terrorism--largely in their own countries--would their actions cost more than the loss of credibility the US expends by keeping Guantanamo open? Guantanamo continues to imprison 86 men convicted of no crime, and cleared for release three years ago.
It's about the money. Defense contractors favor their friends: Republicans continue to be their loudest and most effective supporters.
The Guantanamo appropriation is symptomatic of the whole Defense complex. It makes you wonder: who really controls?
Noam Chomsky suggested in a recent article, "Humanity Imperiled," that the US has consistently opted for policies that increase tensions not reduce them. Examples included: JFK not agreeing to a public compromise to the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking nuclear war to achieve a secret deal that appeared as if only Krushchev backed down.
In '73 Kissinger risked nuclear war, calling a high nuclear alert, to warn the USSR not to interfere in the Arab-Israel war; in 1983, Reagan ordered SAC bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace to test their responses--risking nuclear war, again. Last year, Obama rejected meeting multilaterally with Iran to consider a nuclear ban in the Middle East.
A decade earlier, Clinton quashed an Israeli-North Korean agreement that would have stopped North Korean exports of nuclear and missile technology in return for Israel's recognition. Agreements with North Korea by Clinton and later, Bush, were sabotaged by the latter, when he reneged on the agreement and intensified sanctions. Obama just oversaw a US-South Korea military exercise that had mock bombing runs up to North Korea's borders. Each incident elicited a predictably bellicose North Korean response.
The US invaded Afghanistan claiming it was responsible for 911 (most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis, the planning was done in Germany and the US), and then invaded Iraq--Bush's personal vendetta--and upended the Middle East. Now the US is engaged in sub-rosa wars: in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and probably in more places we don't know about.
Is there a pattern here? Regardless of the President, ever since Eisenhower warned against the growing power of the "defense-industrial complex," US policy has favored an increasingly militaristic foreign policy. The military, and/or the industries that batten from it, push the US toward aggression: they profit from it.
Everyone else, worldwide, is impoverished and endangered, including the American Empire. Its overreach, and the selfishness of our Senatorial class, is bankrupting us and helping to destroy the planet, much as Rome despoiled Europe and the Mediterranean, then bankrupted itself through endless wars and the rapacity of the Senatorial class.
Showing posts with label Afghan war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghan war. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Thursday, April 19, 2012
April's Afghan Outrage
Ah, April: time for another Afghan horror. Every month, it seems, someone in the military releases some damning news, or photo, or carries out a massacre or other Afghan scandal.
In January, soldiers urinated on the dead bodies of Afghans, claimed to be insurgents; in February there was the "inadvertent" burning of Qurans, in March there was the massacre of Afghan villagers by a deranged American sergeant.
Now, in April, the LA Times published the photos of American Airborne soldiers posing, and mugging for the camera with the body parts of suicide and IED bombers. The pictures were actually taken in 2010, but the soldier who released them, sent them to the Times this month.
First of all, these horrors were conscious acts by US soldiers. The first and last events: pissing on bodies, and posing, grinning, with body parts, reflects some American soldiers' attitudes towards Afghans, for whom supposedly they were sent halfway around the world to protect. Probably there are many American troops for whom this kind of cavalier disregard for the people of Afghanistan is not acceptable. It wasn't for the soldier who released those photos; he had complained to his superiors that such attitudes contributed to lax security.
The Quran burning, meanwhile, was not "inadvertent" at all. The Qurans in question had been seized from detainees at the large American detention center in Bagram, and according to accounts there, some at least had been used to send and receive messages between detainees: subversive messages.
If you want to prevent detainees from organizing, obviously, those Qurans had to be destroyed, or, at least, shipped out of the country. What was "inadvertent," was destroying them in plain sight, where our Afghan collaborators could see what to any Muslim would be supreme sacrilege and desecration. What was inadvertently revealed was Americans' total ignorance of the people they are supposedly there to protect.
So far, we have no General Dyer, who ordered machine-gunning peaceful Indian protesters during India's independence movement. However, these Afghan incidents are typical for imperialist militaries: the local people aren't quite real; they are so foreign. The incidents underline why Indians threw out the British and why Africans threw out all European colonials, despite the very real improvements all these imperialists made: roads, railroads, schools, hospitals. It's also, why we lost in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan before us.
These incidents again demonstrate why Americans and NATO have to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible and why empire, especially now in the 21st century, is unsustainable.
Military might, the Romans discovered, is especially transient when the people are against you. Resistance to the Barbarians was ineffective in part because the peasants were already oppressed: they welcomed new conquerors.
Given the above, it's surprising we haven't yet been thrown out of Afghanistan. Better to go before we have to scramble for the helicopters.
In January, soldiers urinated on the dead bodies of Afghans, claimed to be insurgents; in February there was the "inadvertent" burning of Qurans, in March there was the massacre of Afghan villagers by a deranged American sergeant.
Now, in April, the LA Times published the photos of American Airborne soldiers posing, and mugging for the camera with the body parts of suicide and IED bombers. The pictures were actually taken in 2010, but the soldier who released them, sent them to the Times this month.
First of all, these horrors were conscious acts by US soldiers. The first and last events: pissing on bodies, and posing, grinning, with body parts, reflects some American soldiers' attitudes towards Afghans, for whom supposedly they were sent halfway around the world to protect. Probably there are many American troops for whom this kind of cavalier disregard for the people of Afghanistan is not acceptable. It wasn't for the soldier who released those photos; he had complained to his superiors that such attitudes contributed to lax security.
The Quran burning, meanwhile, was not "inadvertent" at all. The Qurans in question had been seized from detainees at the large American detention center in Bagram, and according to accounts there, some at least had been used to send and receive messages between detainees: subversive messages.
If you want to prevent detainees from organizing, obviously, those Qurans had to be destroyed, or, at least, shipped out of the country. What was "inadvertent," was destroying them in plain sight, where our Afghan collaborators could see what to any Muslim would be supreme sacrilege and desecration. What was inadvertently revealed was Americans' total ignorance of the people they are supposedly there to protect.
So far, we have no General Dyer, who ordered machine-gunning peaceful Indian protesters during India's independence movement. However, these Afghan incidents are typical for imperialist militaries: the local people aren't quite real; they are so foreign. The incidents underline why Indians threw out the British and why Africans threw out all European colonials, despite the very real improvements all these imperialists made: roads, railroads, schools, hospitals. It's also, why we lost in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan before us.
These incidents again demonstrate why Americans and NATO have to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible and why empire, especially now in the 21st century, is unsustainable.
Military might, the Romans discovered, is especially transient when the people are against you. Resistance to the Barbarians was ineffective in part because the peasants were already oppressed: they welcomed new conquerors.
Given the above, it's surprising we haven't yet been thrown out of Afghanistan. Better to go before we have to scramble for the helicopters.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Generals Lying?
In the waning days of the Soviet Union, an American was travelling from the Black Sea to Moscow, by car; he was lost. He kept seeing huge billboards proclaiming: "You Are On The RIGHT ROAD, Comrade!" When he asked directions, from a farmer on a tractor, he was told to turn around: he was going the wrong way.
Our war in Afghanistan is like that, and in fact, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was like that, too (the point of the article), and was nearly the last straw, because everybody knew the government lied.
Would American generals lie about the Afghan war? Most Americans would have a hard time believing it: that's why Generals like Petraeus and McChrystal get away with it. They prevaricate to the American people, but also to Congress and the President.
First of all, Petraeus and others, with support from the Secretaries of State and Defense, persuaded President Obama to surge troops to Afghanistan, because they fundamentally mis-represented the reason why violence diminished in Iraq after Iraq's surge. Additional troops were only a small part of it; the bigger part was the Sunni Awakening, a response to the incredible brutality of al Qaeda in Iraq, their sometime ally, against Shias and Sunnis alike. They allied with the US to defeat the worse enemy.
In Afghanistan, as Petraeus et al, must have known, there was no significant al Qaeda group brutalizing the population--it was hiding in Pakistan--and there was nothing comparable.
More important, ultimately, the generals, not just Petraeus, have created an information warfare capability that is not only used against our adversaries, but against American public opinion, and even against members of Congress and the administration. With that system, they have systematically lied about the Afghan war, about how well we're doing (not), and even about weapons complexes they are supposed to be developing (are spending billions to develop).
In the Soviet Union, when the generals said they were winning the Afghan war, Soviet citizens knew the opposite must be true, and it was. When generals in the US say that a weapon system has passed all its tests and is ready to be deployed, the claim needs to be examined, since, in a number of cases we know the tests were rigged. When generals say, year after year, that we're winning the war in Afghanistan, that there will be fewer casualties as the surge troops secure the nation, and then we see that casualties rise with the number of troops, should we believe them about winning the war, or believe the opposite?
The beginning of the end of a political system (democracy or dictatorship) is when the people no longer trust the information that comes from their government, especially their armed forces. Unless something changes, that day is coming soon to the American Empire.
Our war in Afghanistan is like that, and in fact, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was like that, too (the point of the article), and was nearly the last straw, because everybody knew the government lied.
Would American generals lie about the Afghan war? Most Americans would have a hard time believing it: that's why Generals like Petraeus and McChrystal get away with it. They prevaricate to the American people, but also to Congress and the President.
First of all, Petraeus and others, with support from the Secretaries of State and Defense, persuaded President Obama to surge troops to Afghanistan, because they fundamentally mis-represented the reason why violence diminished in Iraq after Iraq's surge. Additional troops were only a small part of it; the bigger part was the Sunni Awakening, a response to the incredible brutality of al Qaeda in Iraq, their sometime ally, against Shias and Sunnis alike. They allied with the US to defeat the worse enemy.
In Afghanistan, as Petraeus et al, must have known, there was no significant al Qaeda group brutalizing the population--it was hiding in Pakistan--and there was nothing comparable.
More important, ultimately, the generals, not just Petraeus, have created an information warfare capability that is not only used against our adversaries, but against American public opinion, and even against members of Congress and the administration. With that system, they have systematically lied about the Afghan war, about how well we're doing (not), and even about weapons complexes they are supposed to be developing (are spending billions to develop).
In the Soviet Union, when the generals said they were winning the Afghan war, Soviet citizens knew the opposite must be true, and it was. When generals in the US say that a weapon system has passed all its tests and is ready to be deployed, the claim needs to be examined, since, in a number of cases we know the tests were rigged. When generals say, year after year, that we're winning the war in Afghanistan, that there will be fewer casualties as the surge troops secure the nation, and then we see that casualties rise with the number of troops, should we believe them about winning the war, or believe the opposite?
The beginning of the end of a political system (democracy or dictatorship) is when the people no longer trust the information that comes from their government, especially their armed forces. Unless something changes, that day is coming soon to the American Empire.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9-11 Commemorative Blindness
Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution.
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Friday, June 24, 2011
Nowhere Near Enough
Thirty-three thousand over more than two years; ten thousand this year. When you consider the numbers of troops involved (about 100,000) that Obama proposes is certainly not a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan--and yet it's more than the "military wanted."
More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.
In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.
What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.
The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.
More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.
Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.
Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.
What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.
More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.
In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.
What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.
The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.
More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.
Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.
Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.
What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
So, the Wicked Witch is Dead?
Let's notice: Osama bin Laden was not killed in a conventional military operation, and no conventional American or NATO forces are in Pakistan, nor was it a drone attack.
Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.
Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?
Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.
Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.
AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.
The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.
The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.
Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.
Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.
But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.
Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.
Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?
Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.
Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.
AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.
The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.
The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.
Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.
Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.
But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
MLK Hangover
When is an anti-war activist for a war? In the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., apparently, it's 43 years after his death. Yes, the Pentagon celebrated Martin Luther King Day. The address by the Pentagon's Counsel, a friend and classmate of MLK's son, didn't entirely elide King's opposition to the Vietnam war--and war in general-- but Johnson certainly tried to sugarcoat it for those listening. American soldiers as Good Samaritans:
"Those in today’s volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road, and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people." (Jeh Johnson's Address to the Pentagon on MLK Day).
I would be the first to applaud the unusual military men and women who do "administer aid" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but wanting "peace, freedom and a better place" in those war-torn countries is not the same as bringing peace. However, the military is brainwashed into thinking that it is.
American planes rain down destruction on both places, as do unpiloted drones in Pakistan and the border areas, Special Ops go out on night raids and kill people, some of whom are labeled "bad guys" after they are killed, while others are hauled off to hell-holes like Bagram, where they are mistreated and/or tortured. How does this bring "peace" and "freedom," how does this create a better place? Too often, innocents, including women and children are killed. Sometimes, Americans have even falsified the carnage afterwards to make it look as if the innocents were "insurgents," placing guns, or explosives paraphernalia near them to incriminate them after the fact.
So many observers have pointed out that every woman and child, every non-combatant killed, or detained in our notorious "black" prisons, creates dozens of supporters of the insurgency, even if many don't know what the insurgency is. Some go over to the other side even with their eyes wide open: they know the brutality of the Taliban, and its retrograde social policies, but they see the US/NATO as worse!
Their conclusion is justified, even if the Taliban are more intentionally brutal than US/NATO forces. It is the US/NATO presence that drives the war; its technology and money makes the destruction possible.
If MLK were alive now, he'd say 'let the Afghans choose their own way.' He'd also denounce the huge sums of money spent by the US on destruction (euphemistically labeled 'Defense.') He would point out, in his resonant voice, that all those hundreds of billions of dollars were snatched from the hands of babes, children, and our future, that if we spend on destruction, instead of education, we'll reap the whirlwind.
That's what the Romans did. They didn't even spend money on their famed roads, only on their 'volunteer' (mercenary) military. Look where that got them!
"Those in today’s volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road, and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people." (Jeh Johnson's Address to the Pentagon on MLK Day).
I would be the first to applaud the unusual military men and women who do "administer aid" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but wanting "peace, freedom and a better place" in those war-torn countries is not the same as bringing peace. However, the military is brainwashed into thinking that it is.
American planes rain down destruction on both places, as do unpiloted drones in Pakistan and the border areas, Special Ops go out on night raids and kill people, some of whom are labeled "bad guys" after they are killed, while others are hauled off to hell-holes like Bagram, where they are mistreated and/or tortured. How does this bring "peace" and "freedom," how does this create a better place? Too often, innocents, including women and children are killed. Sometimes, Americans have even falsified the carnage afterwards to make it look as if the innocents were "insurgents," placing guns, or explosives paraphernalia near them to incriminate them after the fact.
So many observers have pointed out that every woman and child, every non-combatant killed, or detained in our notorious "black" prisons, creates dozens of supporters of the insurgency, even if many don't know what the insurgency is. Some go over to the other side even with their eyes wide open: they know the brutality of the Taliban, and its retrograde social policies, but they see the US/NATO as worse!
Their conclusion is justified, even if the Taliban are more intentionally brutal than US/NATO forces. It is the US/NATO presence that drives the war; its technology and money makes the destruction possible.
If MLK were alive now, he'd say 'let the Afghans choose their own way.' He'd also denounce the huge sums of money spent by the US on destruction (euphemistically labeled 'Defense.') He would point out, in his resonant voice, that all those hundreds of billions of dollars were snatched from the hands of babes, children, and our future, that if we spend on destruction, instead of education, we'll reap the whirlwind.
That's what the Romans did. They didn't even spend money on their famed roads, only on their 'volunteer' (mercenary) military. Look where that got them!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
American Checkers, Persian Chess
Americans play checkers, the Persians play chess. In Middle East intrigue, Americans are outclassed. The Persians have been around for at least 5,000 years. Americans are johnnys-come-lately.
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
An Awful Anniversary
Ten years ago today the US invaded Afghanistan: it's the longest war in our history, and in some ways, the worst. I think, in terms of outcomes, Afghanistan will rank as the worst, for us, for the Afghans.
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Budget War and the War War
Paul Krugman decries the deficit hysteria, but even he doesn't make much of the connection between our turning off the streetlights (literally) and the Wars, and/or "Defense."
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
War Absurdity
What would happen if Obama said, 'Okay, I get it,' and insists on winding down the Afghan war as quickly as possible? The right wing would be predictably outraged. However, the large majority of the electorate, according to polls, feels the war wasn't justified, or worth fighting. Could the right-wing media machine whip up enough rage to convert majority anti-war sentiment to pro war?
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Heat and Idiocies
It's high 90's; the humidity is climbing. We try to shelter in our cooler houses, go to air-conditioned movies, or are almost thankful we're at work in air-conditioned offices.
It's hot here in the northeast.
Do people ever consider the plight of people in places like Baghdad? There, the temperatures soar into the 120's and 130's, and, in the city, where you'd expect air-conditioning, most people consider themselves lucky if they get a few hours of electricity.
Why? Before the US invasion, Baghdad had power outages, but electricity was generally available. The US, back in 2002, was going to make things better for the Iraqis, by driving out Saddam Hussein. We drove him out; his own people executed him. Meanwhile, Baghdad suffers heat we can hardly imagine. It has no air-conditioning, because when we invaded, we destroyed their power plants. Many billions of dollars later, many power plants have not been successfully repaired, nor the distribution system.
Meanwhile, American troops in their big bases have air-conditioning, hot and cold running water, all the amenities. Probably, in most forward operating bases, Americans enjoy air-conditioning and hot showers.
But the Iraqis do not.
The story is probably similar in Afghanistan, except that there was less to destroy, so Afghans may be less worse off after our invasion than the Iraqis.
What have our invasions accomplished? In Iraq, we got rid of a bad guy, who had been a CIA client, and we also killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot. We so totally destabilized the society that we had to stop a civil war. It could break out again once we leave.
In Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban from power, restored education for girls in a very few places, and put in place an ineffectual government that is one of the most corrupt on the planet. We also killed (and continue to kill) many Afghans, both combatants and non-combatants. But we failed to destroy the Taliban. Despite its unpopularity, Afghan majorities now believe it will return to power in some form; they also want the US and NATO to leave, because we're repeating Vietnam: destroying villages "in order to save them."
Which Afghans want us to stay? The ones who have grown fat on US contracts, or US-funded bribes, are maintained in power by our military, or are allied with those who are: a small minority.
Why do we stay--in either place?
Is it because our military craves large budgets and opportunities for promotion? Is it because defense contractors sell larger and larger contracts?
Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed can't get jobs, and the Senate refuses to extend their benefits--because of budget deficits. The largest discretionary budget item is Defense: $680,000,000-1,300,000,000. (Social Security/Medicare is larger, but self-funded and not discretionary).
Our best plan for a stimulus would be: cut bases worldwide and get out of both wars; spend the money at home.
It's hot here in the northeast.
Do people ever consider the plight of people in places like Baghdad? There, the temperatures soar into the 120's and 130's, and, in the city, where you'd expect air-conditioning, most people consider themselves lucky if they get a few hours of electricity.
Why? Before the US invasion, Baghdad had power outages, but electricity was generally available. The US, back in 2002, was going to make things better for the Iraqis, by driving out Saddam Hussein. We drove him out; his own people executed him. Meanwhile, Baghdad suffers heat we can hardly imagine. It has no air-conditioning, because when we invaded, we destroyed their power plants. Many billions of dollars later, many power plants have not been successfully repaired, nor the distribution system.
Meanwhile, American troops in their big bases have air-conditioning, hot and cold running water, all the amenities. Probably, in most forward operating bases, Americans enjoy air-conditioning and hot showers.
But the Iraqis do not.
The story is probably similar in Afghanistan, except that there was less to destroy, so Afghans may be less worse off after our invasion than the Iraqis.
What have our invasions accomplished? In Iraq, we got rid of a bad guy, who had been a CIA client, and we also killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot. We so totally destabilized the society that we had to stop a civil war. It could break out again once we leave.
In Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban from power, restored education for girls in a very few places, and put in place an ineffectual government that is one of the most corrupt on the planet. We also killed (and continue to kill) many Afghans, both combatants and non-combatants. But we failed to destroy the Taliban. Despite its unpopularity, Afghan majorities now believe it will return to power in some form; they also want the US and NATO to leave, because we're repeating Vietnam: destroying villages "in order to save them."
Which Afghans want us to stay? The ones who have grown fat on US contracts, or US-funded bribes, are maintained in power by our military, or are allied with those who are: a small minority.
Why do we stay--in either place?
Is it because our military craves large budgets and opportunities for promotion? Is it because defense contractors sell larger and larger contracts?
Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed can't get jobs, and the Senate refuses to extend their benefits--because of budget deficits. The largest discretionary budget item is Defense: $680,000,000-1,300,000,000. (Social Security/Medicare is larger, but self-funded and not discretionary).
Our best plan for a stimulus would be: cut bases worldwide and get out of both wars; spend the money at home.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Ron Paul: Anti-war, Anti-Fed
I knew Ron Paul was a rare conservative Republican against the war in Afghanistan: outspokenly against. I had seen him in the Presidential debates, and he had seemed too old, and too obsessive about a lot of more quirky issues: I didn't take him seriously.
But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.
Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.
Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.
Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.
Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?
The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.
It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"
But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.
Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.
Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.
Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.
Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?
The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.
It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Afghan War and US Politics
Karzai, Afghan President, wants to open negotiations with the Taliban, even with Mullah Omar.
Until now, the administration has said that it has to stay in Afghanistan and beat up the Taliban before we (or Afghans) can talk. Yet, Obama insists he will start removing troops next year. Either we are fighting for the Afghans or we're fighting against them: a majority of Afghans want peace talks, according to the latest polls.
Karzai is visiting Washington this week. In fact, a good part of his cabinet has come with him.
Last I checked, a majority of Americans felt that Afghanistan was not a fight worth fighting (about 52%). Further, the latest attempted NY bombing came out of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The precipitating factor in that attack probably was Obama's intensified drone war in Pakistan.
Obama has had trouble maintaining his popularity in the face of right-wing media attacks, and a signal to the elected government of Afghanistan to go ahead and negotiate, might drive the right wing crazy. However, despite Fox's attempt to spin it as "weakness," peace negotiations would be popular.
It wouldn't be popular with the generals. McChrystal might hate it, and Gates might have to hold his nose (or resign, not a bad thing). But Obama should consider: Democrats, in the run up to the Congressional elections could run on: a recovering economy and negotiations leading to withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats could also push the Feingold-Kaufman amendment (again), to facilitate breaking up the big banks. Then they could run on: Peace, recovery and fixing Wall Street. Let the Republicans run against all that!
In any case, now is a golden opportunity to seize the populist initiative temporarily lost to the Tea Party crowd, by coming down on the side of peace in Afghanistan.
Why not? If the administration continues to lean on Karzai to forego top-level negotiations, then we should all know who is really in control here: it isn't Obama, and it isn't the Democratic majority in Congress, either. It's the Imperial caucus: the generals, the defense industry fattening on the wars, and the right wing media machine that hypes them.
Think about it, President Obama! You won election by being against the war in Iraq, and polls show a majority of Americans against the Afghan war. Your support has slipped with your base, partly because of that war. Your support among independents has slipped because of the emotional attacks on "government takeovers" by the right-wing media.
Yet, you can legitimately claim you saved the economy through your actions. What you and Democrats can't claim, yet, is that you have brought peace. Your base will be lukewarm until you can.
Tell Karzai, "Okay. Negotiate." Then hype it and see your poll numbers surge. And the chances for Democrats in the Fall would improve as well.
So, is it Empire, or electing a Democratic Congress?
Until now, the administration has said that it has to stay in Afghanistan and beat up the Taliban before we (or Afghans) can talk. Yet, Obama insists he will start removing troops next year. Either we are fighting for the Afghans or we're fighting against them: a majority of Afghans want peace talks, according to the latest polls.
Karzai is visiting Washington this week. In fact, a good part of his cabinet has come with him.
Last I checked, a majority of Americans felt that Afghanistan was not a fight worth fighting (about 52%). Further, the latest attempted NY bombing came out of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The precipitating factor in that attack probably was Obama's intensified drone war in Pakistan.
Obama has had trouble maintaining his popularity in the face of right-wing media attacks, and a signal to the elected government of Afghanistan to go ahead and negotiate, might drive the right wing crazy. However, despite Fox's attempt to spin it as "weakness," peace negotiations would be popular.
It wouldn't be popular with the generals. McChrystal might hate it, and Gates might have to hold his nose (or resign, not a bad thing). But Obama should consider: Democrats, in the run up to the Congressional elections could run on: a recovering economy and negotiations leading to withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats could also push the Feingold-Kaufman amendment (again), to facilitate breaking up the big banks. Then they could run on: Peace, recovery and fixing Wall Street. Let the Republicans run against all that!
In any case, now is a golden opportunity to seize the populist initiative temporarily lost to the Tea Party crowd, by coming down on the side of peace in Afghanistan.
Why not? If the administration continues to lean on Karzai to forego top-level negotiations, then we should all know who is really in control here: it isn't Obama, and it isn't the Democratic majority in Congress, either. It's the Imperial caucus: the generals, the defense industry fattening on the wars, and the right wing media machine that hypes them.
Think about it, President Obama! You won election by being against the war in Iraq, and polls show a majority of Americans against the Afghan war. Your support has slipped with your base, partly because of that war. Your support among independents has slipped because of the emotional attacks on "government takeovers" by the right-wing media.
Yet, you can legitimately claim you saved the economy through your actions. What you and Democrats can't claim, yet, is that you have brought peace. Your base will be lukewarm until you can.
Tell Karzai, "Okay. Negotiate." Then hype it and see your poll numbers surge. And the chances for Democrats in the Fall would improve as well.
So, is it Empire, or electing a Democratic Congress?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Trained to Kill
An Afghan bystander asked plaintively, after US troops shot up a bus in Kandahar, "Why didn't they shoot out the tires? Why did they shoot the people?"
It's a good question.
When I was in Basic Training back in 1961 (Yes, the Dark Ages), our cry as we lunged at stuffed dummies with our bayonets was: "Kill, Kilo, Kill!" It was Kilo Company, you see.
Since 1961, since the Vietnam war, and then the wars since (quite a few), American soldiers (and marines) have been trained to be more and more lethal killers, it seems. With their weaponry, American troops are probably the most deadly military on Earth.
But in wars of counterinsurgency, killing is counterproductive most of the time. As both military and civilian leaders keep on saying, the American mission in Afghanistan is to win over the people to the established Afghan governing institutions. Killing ten civilians here and 5 there, is not going to win their hearts; shooting pregnant women and then gouging the bullets out of their bodies to hide their crime isn't cool, either: it's going to drive them into the hands of the Taliban.
With the Joker we foisted on them (Karzai), what other choice do they have? We prevented them from naming a stable head of state (their former King), which was the Afghans' first choice in the loya jirga, the one in which they finally were persuaded/pressured (by our Ambassador) to pick Karzai, instead.
Yet, it seems clear, from sources like the Wikileaks video of a helicopter gunner, and this report of the bus killing (four or five dead and 30 wounded?) that American soldiers may be there to win hearts and minds, or to "clear, hold and build," but what they seem to be trained to do best is to kill lots of people--very quickly.
Don't get me wrong: American servicemen and women aren't evil. Most of them probably think and hope they're doing good. And many try hard. But the military-industrial-security complex is evil; it drives people to do evil, whether they know it or not.
When I was stationed in Turkey (1962-3), I worked and bunked with fellow Traffic Analysts, and drank with them, too, occasionally. I liked them, and they all meant well. But the common opinion they held of the local Turks was appalling: dirty "abies," who will always cheat you, or kill you if you so much as look at their women.
I doubt that American soldiers in Afghanistan are as well disposed towards the locals as my friends were. After all, none of the Turks were trying to kill us.
We don't belong there; we end up killing civilians--and being killed. Afghanistan could bury the American Empire as it buried the Soviets in the 1980's; it could weaken us as decisively as Goths debilitated Romans when they beat Emperor Galen at Adrianople in 378, beginning Rome's slide into oblivion.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Afghan President's Brother
“If they let Ahmed Wali (Karzai) stay in power, it means they are not serious about governance,” said a diplomat in Kabul. [New York Times: 3/31/10]
The Afghan President's brother reportedly controls almost everything in Kandahar, the southern Afghan province that the US is poised to "clear and hold" with a large influx of troops: US, NATO and Afghan.
Ahmed Wali is the most important businessman in the area, and he has used his connection to the President well. He seizes land the Americans want to use--so they have to lease it from him; he controls armed groups that patrol the city; he pays off the Taliban to protect his lands and shipments. While the Taliban controls behind the scenes, Ahmed Wali insures that his businesses flourish. He stole the election in Kandahar for his brother. He even, reportedly, launders drug money for the Taliban, as well as for himself.
The greatest reason for the Afghan government's inability to combat the Taliban is that Afghans perceive it as irretrievably corrupt, reportedly one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Ahmed Wali is Exhibit A.
As American troops assemble to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar, many independent advisors, from NGO's to NATO, probably including US diplomats, have urged that Ahmed Wali must go--if the US is serious about "holding," i.e. bringing in an Afghan government that wins the loyalty of the people.
But Ahmed Wali is the President's brother. He also, reportedly, has been useful to the CIA. He's one of those manipulators of power, who are able to land on their feet, regardless of who holds the whip. Ahmed Wali is going to stay.
Earlier, after the assault on Marjah, in Helmand province, McClatchy reported that the "returning" Afghan government (the governor had hardly ever set foot in Marjah) was universally despised and distrusted as corrupt.
So, this is a pattern. The US is not "serious about governance."
What does this say about the vaunted "counter-insurgency" strategy, which supposedly aims to put effective government in place to counter the insurgency, to attract Afghans' loyalty?
Despite Obama's hurried, secret visit to Karzai, when he reportedly lectured Karzai on getting rid of corruption, that's not going to happen.
The US can win all the battles--while accidentally killing more civilians--but this is no way to beat an insurgency. All we are doing is spending lives (Afghan and American) and money ($1 million per soldier/marine per year), boosting the earnings of defense contractors and making some parts of Afghanistan safe--for Chinese investment--temporarily.
The US lost Vietnam, despite winning all the battles, because its client government was hopeless: the Vietminh/Vietcong offered a better alternative.
Karzai thumbs his nose at the US, even inviting Iran's Ahmadinejad to dinner to spite us.
Afghanistan is "déjà-vue all over again." The only question is: when will the empire collapse?
Monday, March 8, 2010
What If Nothing Works?
What if the Democrats pass healthcare reform and we find that the back room deals have made it meaningless?
What if Iraq explodes into renewed civil war, and the US stands powerless to stop it? Our guy Maliki was the one who signed on to banning Sunni and secular candidates.
What if Iran announces it will build a bomb, and enough companies and countries are willing to buck or veto sanctions that Iran can't be stopped?
What if Obama and Democrats are unable to re-stimulate job growth, and we are stuck at near 10% unemployment?
What if the Republicans are unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to lead if and when they regain power in Congress?
What if Afghanistan after Marjah is simply more of the same: a corrupt government takes over in daylight, and the Taliban comes back in at night?
Does President Obama lie awake wondering what to do about all these problems?
Last night, as I imitated Harry Reid, it occurred to me: why did Democrats elect such a wimp as their Senate leader? With his soft-high voice, who would ever listen to him; who would ever change their vote hearing his limp-wristed entreaties?
I yearn for a Senate leader like LBJ. He could twist arms, make deals, and carry out a Democratic agenda even in the face of a (moderate) Republican President. And then ram through civil rights legislation and Medicare when he was President.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid symbolizes Congressional Democrats, so it's no wonder that Congress is held in contempt by huge majorities of Americans. On the one side: timorous Democrats, afraid even to vote for what they believe in--think of Harry's soft high voice. On the other: Republicans who refuse to compromise and insist on playing victim to the big bad Democrats: think of John Boehner, whose voice is made for accusation and flippant denial.
Polarization is worse now than it was when Obama first started to campaign against it. The US Congress will drive the US into "failed state" status, unless it mends its ways, unless party discipline overcomes petty ambition and un-petty corruption.
Ironically, the peace president faces bipartisan support only on the wars. So long as Obama plays the generals' game, he'll get enough Republican votes to offset liberal, anti-war Democrats. No wonder he resists calls by Kucinich and Feingold to buck this rare consensus by adopting time-certain withdrawal plans for Afghanistan!
The US as failed state, except as bully-boy for global corporations. That is what it looks like--and the emerging nations will take over, like the Barbarians. They'll do business with whomever, ignoring global warming--they didn't cause it--until we--and they--are burned to a cinder.
It doesn't have to be this way. All that's needed is a little courage to act like commonsense human beings facing perennial disasters, instead of grasping idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)