Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2013
F**k 'Em All!
So saith my soulmate, upon hearing that we might intervene militarily, again, on one side of an ancient Muslim sectarian dispute.
The Syrian civil war is increasingly a war between Shia, including Alawites, and the Sunni majority. The Sunni powers, the Saudis and the Emirates, are supporting the rebels, including al Qaeda affiliates; the Shiite powers, Iran and Hezbollah, and behind them, Russia, are supporting Assad's Alawite-dominated government.
So, since Russia is heavily arming Syria and Hezbollah, shouldn't the US jump in to support the rebels, along with its long-time 'democratic friends,' the Sunni-dominated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf? Shiite-controlled Iraq, on which the US squandered almost a trillion dollars, is permitting passage of Russian and Iranian weaponry to Assad and Hezbollah.
So, the US should do it again, in Syria, not just offer small arms? It should go in with massive equipment and training for the rebels, or more, even though prominent numbers of the rebels claim sympathy with, or allegiance to, al Qaeda?
The US helped create al Qaeda, back when Americans were seeking allies to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The US supported and trained Osama bin Laden. Don't Americans ever learn? The US's second adventure in Afghanistan turned out so well that a majority of the US House of Representatives (including conservative Republicans) just demanded the US leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013!
Not only has hot-head McCain insisted America intervene in Syria, on the rebel side, but he was publicly seconded by Bill Clinton, who warned Obama would be a "wuss," if he didn't act forcefully on Syria.
It's true the Syrian rebellion started out as a peaceful, secular protest demanding democracy, and the Assad regime attempted violent suppression. Assad had no compunction attacking Syrian civilians with his military: in 1982, his father, Hafez, murdered at least 10,000 Syrians in Hama, alone. But this time, Sunnis rallied and the protest turned into a rebellion, fueled by money and arms from the Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies. Hence, Syrians now fight both civil war and sectarian war.
The US will support the Sunni side, along with al Qaeda, why?
Sunni and Shia have been battling since 661 CE (1,352 years), over who should succeed the Prophet. Why should the US have anything to do with either? Especially, why, since it has already failed twice in its Mideast interventions--Iraq and Afghanistan--and the outcome of its third, Libya, is still uncertain.
The US loses, if it intervenes. As horrendous as the carnage in Syria, the US would make it worse. But Empire is so seductive, especially to the Defense industry. Americans could be bankrupted as the Romans were, but unlike Huns, or Germanic barbarians, US 'enemies' do not threaten America's existence, only each others'.
Let them kill each other until they're exhausted--they will anyway. Or see reason. Let the UN pick up the pieces.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Afghanistan Is Saying Goodbye
When will we get the message? We don't belong there. Many of our soldiers are either Christian zealots, or clueless about the Muslim society in which they're posted. They shouldn't be dying there.
Long ago, in India, there were a bunch of boys, playing a chase game in one of the large markets in Ahmadabad, in Gujarat. Some of the boys were Hindu; others were Muslim. One of the Hindu boys, running through a tiny Muslim bookseller's stall, accidentally knocked a Quran off a shelf; it fell to the ground. That simple mishap started Hindu-Muslim riots that lasted for weeks, and resulted in over a thousand dead.
Muslims in Ahmadabad are urban sophisticates compared to Muslims in Afghanistan. Islam, unfortunately, has never had a Reformation, so its culture is more like the era of the Catholic Inquisition, at the cusp of Europe's modern era, when The Faith was under siege by the Protestant Reformation. In Islam, the besiegers are secular westernizers, and maybe, missionizing Protestants, like American soldiers.
That is the context: the Quran is hallowed by Muslim believers the way the Bible was treated in Medieval Christian Europe, the way the Talmud was viewed in Medieval Judaism. Is it any wonder that Americans are being killed for the intentional burning of many Qurans on a refuse pile outside America's largest, most notorious prison for Afghan terror suspects?
Yes, intentional. Generals and our President have tried to apologize, and have tried to mollify, by claiming the burning was a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake: the burning was intentional. Terror suspects, to communicate with each other, had written notes in the Qurans, according to early accounts. They had also used them to promulgate jihadist messages. In a war like this, the Qurans had to be destroyed.
American soldiers burning the Qurans may or may not have known that they shouldn't broadcast what they were doing, but it's hard to conceal burning sacks of Qurans, when you have Afghans working with you.
Two Americans, working in the inner sanctum of the Interior Ministry, advisors to the Afghan security forces at the highest level, were shot dead by Afghans, probably incensed by the burning Qurans. Other Americans, more exposed, have also been killed. If Americans can be shot behind Interior's layers of security, there is nowhere they can be safe if Afghans are present. So, Americans are confined to their bases. There are riots, protests and killings all over Afghanistan.
So, what does that tell us but: we don't belong there. We never did. The Soviets discovered the same thing in the 1980's, helped, ironically, by our allies, the mujahedeen, who have transmogrified into our enemies: the Taliban.
Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet Empire; it could well be the end of the American Empire, as well. Can we withdraw gracefully, the way the British did after their second try in 1880, or will we be driven out like the Soviets?
Long ago, in India, there were a bunch of boys, playing a chase game in one of the large markets in Ahmadabad, in Gujarat. Some of the boys were Hindu; others were Muslim. One of the Hindu boys, running through a tiny Muslim bookseller's stall, accidentally knocked a Quran off a shelf; it fell to the ground. That simple mishap started Hindu-Muslim riots that lasted for weeks, and resulted in over a thousand dead.
Muslims in Ahmadabad are urban sophisticates compared to Muslims in Afghanistan. Islam, unfortunately, has never had a Reformation, so its culture is more like the era of the Catholic Inquisition, at the cusp of Europe's modern era, when The Faith was under siege by the Protestant Reformation. In Islam, the besiegers are secular westernizers, and maybe, missionizing Protestants, like American soldiers.
That is the context: the Quran is hallowed by Muslim believers the way the Bible was treated in Medieval Christian Europe, the way the Talmud was viewed in Medieval Judaism. Is it any wonder that Americans are being killed for the intentional burning of many Qurans on a refuse pile outside America's largest, most notorious prison for Afghan terror suspects?
Yes, intentional. Generals and our President have tried to apologize, and have tried to mollify, by claiming the burning was a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake: the burning was intentional. Terror suspects, to communicate with each other, had written notes in the Qurans, according to early accounts. They had also used them to promulgate jihadist messages. In a war like this, the Qurans had to be destroyed.
American soldiers burning the Qurans may or may not have known that they shouldn't broadcast what they were doing, but it's hard to conceal burning sacks of Qurans, when you have Afghans working with you.
Two Americans, working in the inner sanctum of the Interior Ministry, advisors to the Afghan security forces at the highest level, were shot dead by Afghans, probably incensed by the burning Qurans. Other Americans, more exposed, have also been killed. If Americans can be shot behind Interior's layers of security, there is nowhere they can be safe if Afghans are present. So, Americans are confined to their bases. There are riots, protests and killings all over Afghanistan.
So, what does that tell us but: we don't belong there. We never did. The Soviets discovered the same thing in the 1980's, helped, ironically, by our allies, the mujahedeen, who have transmogrified into our enemies: the Taliban.
Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet Empire; it could well be the end of the American Empire, as well. Can we withdraw gracefully, the way the British did after their second try in 1880, or will we be driven out like the Soviets?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Beware Pentagon's Imperial Ambitions
An Undersecretary of Defense, Michele Flournoy, can undermine efforts by Obama and Clinton to initiate negotiations with the Taliban. She let slip on purpose that the Pentagon planned to continue Special Operations counter-terror missions in Afghanistan even after most troops withdraw in 2014, and would retain Bagram Air Base to support them.
One requirement of the Taliban, which is willing to negotiate, is that all foreign forces would leave in any final settlement.
Why does Obama countenance such self-serving, aggrandizing behavior by military spokespeople? So, now we're going to have bases and operations in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, after (most of) our troops have "left?"
Does no one in the Pentagon realize that we can't afford to garrison the world? Now we're expanding operations into Libya. While Obama may intend to limit the operation, to step back from US command to US-dominated NATO command of the Libyan intervention, it's likely the Pentagon will push for more money if Qaddafi continues to resist and his military makes mincemeat of the revolutionaries. We'll have to send in "advisors," "trainers," and weapons, of course.
Obama's rationale for intervention makes moral sense up to a point: to protect civilians. The US does have unique capabilities: to blow up Qaddafi's well-armed militias and artillery units, while never touching feet to the ground. Loyalist forces exhibit no compunction at brutalizing and massacring civilians along the way, so, literally, bombing tank units saves civilian lives.
On the other hand, what Undersecretary Flournoy demonstrates, is the Pentagon's insatiable appetite: for more bases, more operations, on into the future. Secretary Gates has made gestures towards cutting the Defense budget, but his underlings make sure that Defense's budget will keep on growing.
A dangerous world is profitable.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to worry that we'll get further drawn into Libya, and that ten years down the road we'll be holding onto bases in that country, even after we "withdraw."
However, something's happening that is cause for guarded optimism: conservative Republicans are beginning to question the unending spending lavished on the military, when they're struggling to find places to cut the Government budget. And conservative/libertarian Republicans are joining with progressive Democrats to question the Libyan adventure.
Why has it been axiomatic until now: cutting budget deficits requires slashing programs that help people who need help, while not touching the lavish Defense budget, which costs more than all other nations' defense budgets combined? Why, also, is there such muted discussion about the other side of the budget deficit: the lowered tax rates for the extremely wealthy, who not only could afford to pay more, but should, since they have gained virtually 100% of the profits from US productivity gains since 2000, and most from the gains accrued since 1980?
Just as in Rome in the 5th Century, it's the military and the super-rich who will bring us down. Maybe we shouldn't let them.
One requirement of the Taliban, which is willing to negotiate, is that all foreign forces would leave in any final settlement.
Why does Obama countenance such self-serving, aggrandizing behavior by military spokespeople? So, now we're going to have bases and operations in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, after (most of) our troops have "left?"
Does no one in the Pentagon realize that we can't afford to garrison the world? Now we're expanding operations into Libya. While Obama may intend to limit the operation, to step back from US command to US-dominated NATO command of the Libyan intervention, it's likely the Pentagon will push for more money if Qaddafi continues to resist and his military makes mincemeat of the revolutionaries. We'll have to send in "advisors," "trainers," and weapons, of course.
Obama's rationale for intervention makes moral sense up to a point: to protect civilians. The US does have unique capabilities: to blow up Qaddafi's well-armed militias and artillery units, while never touching feet to the ground. Loyalist forces exhibit no compunction at brutalizing and massacring civilians along the way, so, literally, bombing tank units saves civilian lives.
On the other hand, what Undersecretary Flournoy demonstrates, is the Pentagon's insatiable appetite: for more bases, more operations, on into the future. Secretary Gates has made gestures towards cutting the Defense budget, but his underlings make sure that Defense's budget will keep on growing.
A dangerous world is profitable.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to worry that we'll get further drawn into Libya, and that ten years down the road we'll be holding onto bases in that country, even after we "withdraw."
However, something's happening that is cause for guarded optimism: conservative Republicans are beginning to question the unending spending lavished on the military, when they're struggling to find places to cut the Government budget. And conservative/libertarian Republicans are joining with progressive Democrats to question the Libyan adventure.
Why has it been axiomatic until now: cutting budget deficits requires slashing programs that help people who need help, while not touching the lavish Defense budget, which costs more than all other nations' defense budgets combined? Why, also, is there such muted discussion about the other side of the budget deficit: the lowered tax rates for the extremely wealthy, who not only could afford to pay more, but should, since they have gained virtually 100% of the profits from US productivity gains since 2000, and most from the gains accrued since 1980?
Just as in Rome in the 5th Century, it's the military and the super-rich who will bring us down. Maybe we shouldn't let them.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pearl Harbor, Afghanistan and the Tea Party
A film version of Pearl Harbor reminded me of how the Japanese military in 1941 controlled Japan. On the other side of the globe, the Nazis preached hate, and attacked with their apparently invincible war machine. Americans didn't want to see what was coming: it took us over two years to wake up. Both systems depended on conquest; the US was at peace.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Nixon's Stroke of Genius
militarized our foreign policy: he abolished the draft. Sounds like a paradox, but it actually makes sense. The common wisdom is that democracies are not warlike. Yet, the US is the most warlike country in the world, although Americans think we're so peaceful. Now, that's a paradox that Nixon's stroke of genius created.
Instead of the draft, we have a professional army. This is no peacetime army like the one we had before WWII; this is a full-time army, with almost continuous wars, even if far from the "homeland."
Because it's a professional army, opposition to the wars is not visceral, the way it was during Vietnam, Korea and before WWII. "Our boys," (and "girls") don't have to go over there. The only ones who go are those who choose to enlist, which means people disproportionately poor, without other prospects, or from "military families," mostly Southern, or from minorities. Endless leftish commentaries have pointed this out, of course.
So, opposition to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is muted: people aren't afraid that they, or their children, are going to have to go. Opposition is much more theoretical. The money we spend on these wars is only a part (a large part) of the taxes we pay, and we may object to that, but "our boys and girls" are not on the line.
We may object to the senselessness of the war, the needless killing, and the hopelessness of the enterprise, but we have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, if he can't get us out of Afghanistan, well, maybe we just should be there. His strategy sounds sort of plausible, but only if you accept certain premises.
For example: al Qaeda can't be allowed to set up camps in Afghanistan, from which they could train to attack us. So, we have to control Afghanistan--but we don't. I pointed out April 5th that the effectiveness of the "drone war" has demonstrated that al Qaeda wouldn't dare set up open camps in Afghanistan: we could cream them with drones. Furthermore, the Taliban wouldn't let them; they wouldn't want us to have a pretext to attack them. Ergo, we don't have to stay in Afghanistan, at all.
Furthermore, even Karzai wants to negotiate with the top Taliban, but the US says 'No.' Isn't Karzai the (more or less) elected President? And we're there to bolster Afghan government institutions? And defend them from the Taliban. Karzai has even made preparations for a loya jirga, the national assembly of elders that has venerable political legitimacy. He had wanted the Taliban to attend. So far, the US has said "No."
Do you get it yet? We have a professional military, courtesy of Nixon. Like the Roman legions, it MUST have wars--and bases in most countries in the world. We the People just get to pay--and deprive ourselves of services--until the US is bankrupted by its wars.
Instead of the draft, we have a professional army. This is no peacetime army like the one we had before WWII; this is a full-time army, with almost continuous wars, even if far from the "homeland."
Because it's a professional army, opposition to the wars is not visceral, the way it was during Vietnam, Korea and before WWII. "Our boys," (and "girls") don't have to go over there. The only ones who go are those who choose to enlist, which means people disproportionately poor, without other prospects, or from "military families," mostly Southern, or from minorities. Endless leftish commentaries have pointed this out, of course.
So, opposition to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is muted: people aren't afraid that they, or their children, are going to have to go. Opposition is much more theoretical. The money we spend on these wars is only a part (a large part) of the taxes we pay, and we may object to that, but "our boys and girls" are not on the line.
We may object to the senselessness of the war, the needless killing, and the hopelessness of the enterprise, but we have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, if he can't get us out of Afghanistan, well, maybe we just should be there. His strategy sounds sort of plausible, but only if you accept certain premises.
For example: al Qaeda can't be allowed to set up camps in Afghanistan, from which they could train to attack us. So, we have to control Afghanistan--but we don't. I pointed out April 5th that the effectiveness of the "drone war" has demonstrated that al Qaeda wouldn't dare set up open camps in Afghanistan: we could cream them with drones. Furthermore, the Taliban wouldn't let them; they wouldn't want us to have a pretext to attack them. Ergo, we don't have to stay in Afghanistan, at all.
Furthermore, even Karzai wants to negotiate with the top Taliban, but the US says 'No.' Isn't Karzai the (more or less) elected President? And we're there to bolster Afghan government institutions? And defend them from the Taliban. Karzai has even made preparations for a loya jirga, the national assembly of elders that has venerable political legitimacy. He had wanted the Taliban to attend. So far, the US has said "No."
Do you get it yet? We have a professional military, courtesy of Nixon. Like the Roman legions, it MUST have wars--and bases in most countries in the world. We the People just get to pay--and deprive ourselves of services--until the US is bankrupted by its wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)