The seemingly growing and angry right-wingers in the US are energized by many concerns. They oppose abortion, taxes, any regulation on guns. They want prayer back in the schools. They want an impenetrable wall built across the South West of the US to keep all illegal immigrants out of the country- and want fewer immigrants overall. They want to keep homosexuals out of the military services and stigmatized and marginalized, that is, until Christian therapy can bring them back to "normality."
The go along with the Republican ideas of privatization and deregulation. Don't say much abour outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries. They hate the idea of government, though personally want the benefits they get from some government programs. Implicitly, this means a different kind of big government, one that would make all of us less free.
This becomes clear, for example, in their support of strong military forces to protect us from enemies. They want a strong military also because, they think, it is the foundation of US power in the world - America first! They also tend to somehow think that military power is necessary to protect our "free market" economy, which, in their logic, makes them personally free, or freer, than otherwise. It also stirs their patriotic feelings and reinforces their macho views of themselves and that disagreements can best be handled by force .
Today, there were two "headlines" on Democracy Now that have some relevance for the right-wingers' views. The headlines reveal how they are being ripped off or not told the whole truth by their own mostly unregulated, but federally debt-financed, military establishment.
Headlines from Democracy Now:
Audit: US Can’t Account for $17.7B in Afghan Spending
A new government audit shows the US can’t account for nearly $18 billion earmarked for the Afghan war. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction says the government doesn’t know how some $17.7 billion obligated to over 7,000 contractors has been disbursed.
Inquiry: Pentagon Official Misled on Spy Program
A Pentagon inquiry has found a senior official deliberately misled top military officers when he established a spy program run by private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The official, Michael Furlong, established the off-the-books operation to help track and kill suspected militants. Furlong has claimed his superiors authorized the program.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Increasing poverty and inequality in Kabul and across Afghanistan
Count the ways that inequality is being increased in Kabul.
On the one hand, powerful oligarchs in government benefit from government corruption. Militias, government officials and gangs control some of the profiable parts of poppy/opium distribution. Those with wealth and connections who have the power to acquire land through force and dispossession, and through massive evictions.
On the other hand, the growing number of poor are forced to survive by creating illegal shanty towns, squatter settlements, and slums, by scrambling to earn a little cash in the informal economy admist high rates of uenemployment and in an overall situations where there is little assistance from the government and where access to NGOs is problematic. The inequality grows across many parts of the country, as US and NATO forces give overwhelming priority to seeking out and trying to kill or capture the Taliban and other insurgents, dropping bombs, and generating chaos that drives yet additional Afghans out of their homes and towns to become refugees, who then wind up living in dismal and seriously under-provisioned camps.
The following article provides further information on the intensified polarization going on in Kabul.
AFGHANISTAN: Mansions amid poverty
19 May 2010 18:18:43 GMT 19 May 2010
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/IRIN/63143f556015f2f3e321065c159687d5.htm
[....]
KABUL, 19 May 2010 (IRIN) - Almost seven years after dozens of poor families were evicted from the suburb of Shirpur in central Kabul where they had lived for decades, they have still not got justice, and the new mansions which have taken their place underline the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The former shanty town has become a symbol of wealth, affluence and some say decadence, in the second least developed country in the world. Many Afghans mockingly call it "Shirchoor" (lion-grabbing), as it contains many of the city's most outlandish buildings - generally owned by current and former ministers, warlords and other powerful individuals.
A UN special rapporteur, Miloon Kothari, who investigated the Shirpur case in 2003, said in a report: [http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/BC10EB9D755A5D8FC1256F5B004A7D97?opendocument] "Notwithstanding the legal considerations as to property rights in this case, I expressed the view that the way in which the forced evictions took place, including excessive use of force, amounted to serious human rights violations."
The spread of Shirpur's mansions, however, can nowhere near keep pace with the mushrooming squatter settlements and slums in and around Kabul where, according to the Ministry of Urban Development, illegal urbanization and land grabbing [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75508] have been going on for years.
"Shirpur is a small sign of the huge crisis of disparity between the rich and the poor in this country," Kabir Ranjbar, a representative of Kabul in the lower house of parliament, told IRIN.
"The rich are powerful and have manipulated everything to their benefit, while the poor are weak and have been marginalized and deprived of their basic rights," he said.
Ranjbar's concerns were echoed, albeit more modestly, by Abdul Rahman Ghafoory, director of the Central Statistics Office (CSO): "Gaps between rich and poor are widening."
He based the remark [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88732] on a National Risks and Vulnerability Assessment which says nine million Afghans (36 percent of the population) live in absolute poverty, and five million "non-poor" live on less than US$2 a day.
Unevenly distributed wealth
Over the past eight years Afghanistan has seen an unprecedented injection of funds for rebuilding and development, thanks to the generosity and strategic interests of donors.
Despite worsening security, the country has made strong macroeconomic progress, achieving a record rise of 22.5 percent in its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009-2010, according to the World Bank.
[http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2010.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/EGUA-85CR2C-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf]
However, the benefits have not been equally distributed, experts and aid workers say.
"The rich have become richer and more powerful while the majority of poor have been marginalized," said Sayed Masoud, an economics lecturer at Kabul University, adding that the aid-inspired GDP growth had been "hijacked by oligarchs".
"Economic growth can help alleviate poverty - but it can also exacerbate inequality, with only a few benefiting from newfound wealth. To some extent, this is what we are seeing in Afghanistan. While entrepreneurs and new businesses, particularly those based around the aid industry, have flourished, many - especially the poor and those in rural areas - have seen few positive benefits," said Ashley Jackson, head of policy and advocacy for Oxfam in Afghanistan.
Risk of social unrest?
According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime: [http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2010/January/corruption-widespread-in-afghanistan-unodc-survey-says.html] "Unprecedented resource flows have created a new cast of rich and powerful individuals who operate outside the traditional power/tribal structures and bid the cost of favours and loyalty to levels not compatible with the under-developed nature of the country."
Pervasive corruption and the abuse of weak state structures by the wealthy and powerful undermine justice and the rule of law, [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89078] and fuel dangerous grievances, expert say.
Officials in the Ministry of Urban Development and Kabul Municipality say up to 70 percent of new high-rise buildings in the capital are illegal and built without regard to local laws or regulations by powerful individuals known as the "land mafia".
The Ministry of Agriculture says up to a million hectares of state land has been seized by militia commanders and powerful warlords across the country in the past few years.
"Social unrest, violence and rebellion against the state are the most likely outcomes in a society where a majority of people live in extreme poverty but small elite groups thrive in affluence," said Masoud of Kabul University, adding that social justice was a prerequisite for peace-making in war-torn Afghanistan.
"The big majority of the poor is indeed a huge problem in this country," said the CSO's Ghafoory, adding that opportunities and resources must be distributed fairly.
Almost seven years have passed since calls for transparency and justice in connection with Shirpur's evictions and land seizures, but nothing has come into the public domain.
The UN's Kothari warned in his report that a failure of justice and transparency on Shirpur would send out the wrong signals to "war lords and commanders to continue to illegally occupy land with impunity".
He was prescient, according to MP Ranjbar and lecturer Masoud.
On the one hand, powerful oligarchs in government benefit from government corruption. Militias, government officials and gangs control some of the profiable parts of poppy/opium distribution. Those with wealth and connections who have the power to acquire land through force and dispossession, and through massive evictions.
On the other hand, the growing number of poor are forced to survive by creating illegal shanty towns, squatter settlements, and slums, by scrambling to earn a little cash in the informal economy admist high rates of uenemployment and in an overall situations where there is little assistance from the government and where access to NGOs is problematic. The inequality grows across many parts of the country, as US and NATO forces give overwhelming priority to seeking out and trying to kill or capture the Taliban and other insurgents, dropping bombs, and generating chaos that drives yet additional Afghans out of their homes and towns to become refugees, who then wind up living in dismal and seriously under-provisioned camps.
The following article provides further information on the intensified polarization going on in Kabul.
AFGHANISTAN: Mansions amid poverty
19 May 2010 18:18:43 GMT 19 May 2010
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/IRIN/63143f556015f2f3e321065c159687d5.htm
[....]
KABUL, 19 May 2010 (IRIN) - Almost seven years after dozens of poor families were evicted from the suburb of Shirpur in central Kabul where they had lived for decades, they have still not got justice, and the new mansions which have taken their place underline the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The former shanty town has become a symbol of wealth, affluence and some say decadence, in the second least developed country in the world. Many Afghans mockingly call it "Shirchoor" (lion-grabbing), as it contains many of the city's most outlandish buildings - generally owned by current and former ministers, warlords and other powerful individuals.
A UN special rapporteur, Miloon Kothari, who investigated the Shirpur case in 2003, said in a report: [http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/BC10EB9D755A5D8FC1256F5B004A7D97?opendocument] "Notwithstanding the legal considerations as to property rights in this case, I expressed the view that the way in which the forced evictions took place, including excessive use of force, amounted to serious human rights violations."
The spread of Shirpur's mansions, however, can nowhere near keep pace with the mushrooming squatter settlements and slums in and around Kabul where, according to the Ministry of Urban Development, illegal urbanization and land grabbing [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75508] have been going on for years.
"Shirpur is a small sign of the huge crisis of disparity between the rich and the poor in this country," Kabir Ranjbar, a representative of Kabul in the lower house of parliament, told IRIN.
"The rich are powerful and have manipulated everything to their benefit, while the poor are weak and have been marginalized and deprived of their basic rights," he said.
Ranjbar's concerns were echoed, albeit more modestly, by Abdul Rahman Ghafoory, director of the Central Statistics Office (CSO): "Gaps between rich and poor are widening."
He based the remark [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88732] on a National Risks and Vulnerability Assessment which says nine million Afghans (36 percent of the population) live in absolute poverty, and five million "non-poor" live on less than US$2 a day.
Unevenly distributed wealth
Over the past eight years Afghanistan has seen an unprecedented injection of funds for rebuilding and development, thanks to the generosity and strategic interests of donors.
Despite worsening security, the country has made strong macroeconomic progress, achieving a record rise of 22.5 percent in its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009-2010, according to the World Bank.
[http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2010.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/EGUA-85CR2C-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf]
However, the benefits have not been equally distributed, experts and aid workers say.
"The rich have become richer and more powerful while the majority of poor have been marginalized," said Sayed Masoud, an economics lecturer at Kabul University, adding that the aid-inspired GDP growth had been "hijacked by oligarchs".
"Economic growth can help alleviate poverty - but it can also exacerbate inequality, with only a few benefiting from newfound wealth. To some extent, this is what we are seeing in Afghanistan. While entrepreneurs and new businesses, particularly those based around the aid industry, have flourished, many - especially the poor and those in rural areas - have seen few positive benefits," said Ashley Jackson, head of policy and advocacy for Oxfam in Afghanistan.
Risk of social unrest?
According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime: [http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2010/January/corruption-widespread-in-afghanistan-unodc-survey-says.html] "Unprecedented resource flows have created a new cast of rich and powerful individuals who operate outside the traditional power/tribal structures and bid the cost of favours and loyalty to levels not compatible with the under-developed nature of the country."
Pervasive corruption and the abuse of weak state structures by the wealthy and powerful undermine justice and the rule of law, [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89078] and fuel dangerous grievances, expert say.
Officials in the Ministry of Urban Development and Kabul Municipality say up to 70 percent of new high-rise buildings in the capital are illegal and built without regard to local laws or regulations by powerful individuals known as the "land mafia".
The Ministry of Agriculture says up to a million hectares of state land has been seized by militia commanders and powerful warlords across the country in the past few years.
"Social unrest, violence and rebellion against the state are the most likely outcomes in a society where a majority of people live in extreme poverty but small elite groups thrive in affluence," said Masoud of Kabul University, adding that social justice was a prerequisite for peace-making in war-torn Afghanistan.
"The big majority of the poor is indeed a huge problem in this country," said the CSO's Ghafoory, adding that opportunities and resources must be distributed fairly.
Almost seven years have passed since calls for transparency and justice in connection with Shirpur's evictions and land seizures, but nothing has come into the public domain.
The UN's Kothari warned in his report that a failure of justice and transparency on Shirpur would send out the wrong signals to "war lords and commanders to continue to illegally occupy land with impunity".
He was prescient, according to MP Ranjbar and lecturer Masoud.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Another disappointing month in Afghanistan
What has the month of October brought us so far from the increased US military forces in Afghanistan? President Karzai government is holding talks with some top Taliban leaders, though US military and government leaders don’t like the idea. The US airwar in Afghanistan creeps up. The US offensive against the rural district of Marjah remains a failure, as marines face full-blown insurgency. General Patraeus continues to suggest we need to stay in Afghanistan for some undefined number of years beyond next summer, when Obama promises the beginning of the withdrawal of US troops from the country. Here are some other reports from the month.
A shaky national election - Jason Ditz highlights some of major problems with the September parliamentary elections in the country. For example, he reports on fraud in the elections which increasingly leaves the official elections results in doubt. “Officials say, 4,169 complaints were issued, centered around 175 candidates,” 25 of whom are “current members of parliament.” Ditz also notes that “more than 1,500 of the nation’s 6,800 [election] centers never even opened.”
Little interest in the ninth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Josh Rushing writes an article for Al Jazeera (Oct, 9, 2010) on the lack of interest among Americans on the anniversary. His first sentence encapsulates the main point of the article: “The invasion of Afghanistan’s ninth anniversary passed in DC this week with hardly a notice.” He found a few dozen vets representing Afghanistan Veterans Against the War demonstrating in front of the Walter Reed Medical Center, urging “the US to stop redeploying soldiers who have been identified as suffering trauma – either post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sex trauma, or others.”
By the way, Aaron Glantz covers the myriad obstacles veterans fact in trying to get treatment in the VA medical system in his fine book, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle Against America’s Veterans.”
An BBC News online headline reads “NATO contractors attacking own vehicles in Pakistan” (Oct. 8, 2010). Riaz Sohail reports: “NATO supply convoys travelling through Pakistan to Afghanistan have regularly come under attack in the past, but following, Pakistan’s decision to block their route through the Khyber Pass, they now face an even bigger security threat.” Sohail continues: “Hundreds of tankers and trucks have been stranded on highways and depots across Pakistan, with little or no security.” The individuals or companies who own the vehicles and who have contracts with NATO, have sell the fuel, blow up their truck, and then receive compensation from NATO for the fuel and a new vehicle.
Juan Cole broadens the context and discusses another aspect of the convoy problem in a post on his blog Informed Comment (Oct. 4, 2010). His headline reads: “28 More US Fuel Trucks Set Ablaze in Pakistan, 6 Killed, as Convoy Boycott Continues.” The focus here is on the Taliban rather than the contractors. Here is most of Cole’s article.
The Taliban Movement of Pakistan (Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan or TTP) claimed on Monday that it was responsible for yet another attack on NATO fuel trucks, this time near Islamabad. Some twenty trucks were set ablaze and 6 people were killed. The trucks were parked in a poorly guarded area near the capital, awaiting permission to cross into Afghanistan at Torkham, the Pakistani checkpoint at the Khyber Pass. Since Friday, Pakistan has closed the crossing to US and NATO military supply vehicles, as a way of protesting the attack last Thursday by US helicopter gunships flying from Afghanistan on a Pakistani checkpoint inside Pakistan, which killed and wounded Pakistani Frontier Corpsmen. A similar attack took place near Shikarpur in Sindh on Thursday night.
The closing of the Khyber crossing and the exposure of stalled NATO convoys to attacks by Muslim extremists has roiled Islamabad’s relations with Washington. The Pakistani government appears to have felt that it had no choice but to take some visible action against the US, given the public rage throughout the country over the US attack on the Pakistani checkpoint and US violations of Pakistani sovereignty.
Some 75 percent of supplies (food, ammunition, even military vehicles) and 50 percent of the fuel needed by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan flow from the Arabian Sea port of Karachi in Pakistan’s Sindh Province up highways to Peshawar and then across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. The convoys are being impeded not only by the closure to them of the crossing at Torkham but also by all the bridges and highways washed out by Pakistan’s recent massive flooding.
High US officers in Afghanistan are said to be furious about the Pakistani closure of the Khyber pass to their convoys. Some one hundred trucks are waiting at Torkham. After Monday’s attack on more fuel trucks, the officers must be even more angry.
[….]
So the US may be done out with Pakistan, and vice versa, but as long as the US and NATO are fighting in Afghanistan, likely Pakistan is the indispensable country for them.
Even inside Afghanistan, convoys are often attacked or are guarded by a ragtag band of private companies, which President Hamid Karzai plans to get rid of, even though there is nothing to put in their place. They have been accused of demanding big bribes
US Army digs in for long haul in Afghanistan, according to Nick Turse’s article published on TomDispatch. I found it on Salon (Oct. 21, 2010). The concluding paragraphs of the article captures its principal points:
“At the moment, the American people are being offered one story about how the American war in Afghanistan is to proceed, while in Afghanistan their tax dollars are being invested in another trajectory entirely. The question is: How permanent are U.S. bases in Afghanistan? And if they are not meant to be used for a decade or more to come, why is the Pentagon still building as if they were?
“Recently, the Army sought bids from contractors willing to supply power plants and supporting fuel systems at forward operating bases in Afghanistan for up to five years. Power plants, fuel systems, and the bases on which they are being built are facts on the ground. Such facts carry a weight of their own, and offer a window into U.S. designs in Afghanistan that may be at least as relevant as anything Barack Obama or his aides have been saying about draw-downs, deadlines, or future withdrawal plans. If you want to ask hard questions about America's Afghan War, start with those bases.”
A shaky national election - Jason Ditz highlights some of major problems with the September parliamentary elections in the country. For example, he reports on fraud in the elections which increasingly leaves the official elections results in doubt. “Officials say, 4,169 complaints were issued, centered around 175 candidates,” 25 of whom are “current members of parliament.” Ditz also notes that “more than 1,500 of the nation’s 6,800 [election] centers never even opened.”
Little interest in the ninth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Josh Rushing writes an article for Al Jazeera (Oct, 9, 2010) on the lack of interest among Americans on the anniversary. His first sentence encapsulates the main point of the article: “The invasion of Afghanistan’s ninth anniversary passed in DC this week with hardly a notice.” He found a few dozen vets representing Afghanistan Veterans Against the War demonstrating in front of the Walter Reed Medical Center, urging “the US to stop redeploying soldiers who have been identified as suffering trauma – either post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sex trauma, or others.”
By the way, Aaron Glantz covers the myriad obstacles veterans fact in trying to get treatment in the VA medical system in his fine book, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle Against America’s Veterans.”
An BBC News online headline reads “NATO contractors attacking own vehicles in Pakistan” (Oct. 8, 2010). Riaz Sohail reports: “NATO supply convoys travelling through Pakistan to Afghanistan have regularly come under attack in the past, but following, Pakistan’s decision to block their route through the Khyber Pass, they now face an even bigger security threat.” Sohail continues: “Hundreds of tankers and trucks have been stranded on highways and depots across Pakistan, with little or no security.” The individuals or companies who own the vehicles and who have contracts with NATO, have sell the fuel, blow up their truck, and then receive compensation from NATO for the fuel and a new vehicle.
Juan Cole broadens the context and discusses another aspect of the convoy problem in a post on his blog Informed Comment (Oct. 4, 2010). His headline reads: “28 More US Fuel Trucks Set Ablaze in Pakistan, 6 Killed, as Convoy Boycott Continues.” The focus here is on the Taliban rather than the contractors. Here is most of Cole’s article.
The Taliban Movement of Pakistan (Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan or TTP) claimed on Monday that it was responsible for yet another attack on NATO fuel trucks, this time near Islamabad. Some twenty trucks were set ablaze and 6 people were killed. The trucks were parked in a poorly guarded area near the capital, awaiting permission to cross into Afghanistan at Torkham, the Pakistani checkpoint at the Khyber Pass. Since Friday, Pakistan has closed the crossing to US and NATO military supply vehicles, as a way of protesting the attack last Thursday by US helicopter gunships flying from Afghanistan on a Pakistani checkpoint inside Pakistan, which killed and wounded Pakistani Frontier Corpsmen. A similar attack took place near Shikarpur in Sindh on Thursday night.
The closing of the Khyber crossing and the exposure of stalled NATO convoys to attacks by Muslim extremists has roiled Islamabad’s relations with Washington. The Pakistani government appears to have felt that it had no choice but to take some visible action against the US, given the public rage throughout the country over the US attack on the Pakistani checkpoint and US violations of Pakistani sovereignty.
Some 75 percent of supplies (food, ammunition, even military vehicles) and 50 percent of the fuel needed by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan flow from the Arabian Sea port of Karachi in Pakistan’s Sindh Province up highways to Peshawar and then across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. The convoys are being impeded not only by the closure to them of the crossing at Torkham but also by all the bridges and highways washed out by Pakistan’s recent massive flooding.
High US officers in Afghanistan are said to be furious about the Pakistani closure of the Khyber pass to their convoys. Some one hundred trucks are waiting at Torkham. After Monday’s attack on more fuel trucks, the officers must be even more angry.
[….]
So the US may be done out with Pakistan, and vice versa, but as long as the US and NATO are fighting in Afghanistan, likely Pakistan is the indispensable country for them.
Even inside Afghanistan, convoys are often attacked or are guarded by a ragtag band of private companies, which President Hamid Karzai plans to get rid of, even though there is nothing to put in their place. They have been accused of demanding big bribes
US Army digs in for long haul in Afghanistan, according to Nick Turse’s article published on TomDispatch. I found it on Salon (Oct. 21, 2010). The concluding paragraphs of the article captures its principal points:
“At the moment, the American people are being offered one story about how the American war in Afghanistan is to proceed, while in Afghanistan their tax dollars are being invested in another trajectory entirely. The question is: How permanent are U.S. bases in Afghanistan? And if they are not meant to be used for a decade or more to come, why is the Pentagon still building as if they were?
“Recently, the Army sought bids from contractors willing to supply power plants and supporting fuel systems at forward operating bases in Afghanistan for up to five years. Power plants, fuel systems, and the bases on which they are being built are facts on the ground. Such facts carry a weight of their own, and offer a window into U.S. designs in Afghanistan that may be at least as relevant as anything Barack Obama or his aides have been saying about draw-downs, deadlines, or future withdrawal plans. If you want to ask hard questions about America's Afghan War, start with those bases.”
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Negotiations, while airwar increases
The following headline from Democracy Now's program today (10-20-10) suggests that there is some tentative headway in efforts to toward a negotiated settlement between the Karzai government and various factions of the Taliban. which are being facilitated by NATO.
"US Allowing Key Taliban Factions to Attend Peace Talks
"New details have emerged on the Obama administration’s backing of peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The New York Times reports US-led forces have allowed senior Taliban leaders to enter Afghanistan for meetings with Afghan leaders in Kabul. The talks have included leaders of three key Taliban factions, including the Quetta shura, which oversees the Taliban’s armed operations in Afghanistan. In at least one case, Taliban leaders flew into Kabul aboard a NATO aircraft."
Dexter Filkins is the journalist who authored the New York Times article referred to by Democracy Now. Filkins opens his article on a hopeful note: "The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Talaiban war effort in Afghanistan. [In addition, leaders of two other factions are involved:] Afghan leaders of the Haqqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerilla factionrs fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in 'eastern Afghanistan'"
Filkins reports that NATO is providing transportation and security in bringing Taliban leaders to Kabul. He also notes that "the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year old war...."
There are caveats. One is that the Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence is reported to be opposed to the negotiations without other Taliban leaders being included. Two, US officials do not see evidence of truly peaceful initiatives from the Taliban. Filkins writes: "As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to make a deal." Filkins quotes Leon Panetta, CIA director: "If there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored....But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile."
In the meantime the US airwar in Afghanistan is being escalated. Jason Ditz reports in an article on antiwar.com (8-19-10): "September saw a massive increase in the number of US air strikes in Afghanistan, with at least 700 distinct strikes across the nation, up from 257 the year prior." Ditz continues: "But the tactic may be even further on the rise in the future, as reports suggest that the Obama Administration has ordered the deployment of the USS Lincoln, another aircraft carrier into the region, adding scores of additional warplanes to the theater of operations."
It's not clear yet whether negotiations have any sound basis.
"US Allowing Key Taliban Factions to Attend Peace Talks
"New details have emerged on the Obama administration’s backing of peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The New York Times reports US-led forces have allowed senior Taliban leaders to enter Afghanistan for meetings with Afghan leaders in Kabul. The talks have included leaders of three key Taliban factions, including the Quetta shura, which oversees the Taliban’s armed operations in Afghanistan. In at least one case, Taliban leaders flew into Kabul aboard a NATO aircraft."
Dexter Filkins is the journalist who authored the New York Times article referred to by Democracy Now. Filkins opens his article on a hopeful note: "The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Talaiban war effort in Afghanistan. [In addition, leaders of two other factions are involved:] Afghan leaders of the Haqqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerilla factionrs fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in 'eastern Afghanistan'"
Filkins reports that NATO is providing transportation and security in bringing Taliban leaders to Kabul. He also notes that "the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year old war...."
There are caveats. One is that the Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence is reported to be opposed to the negotiations without other Taliban leaders being included. Two, US officials do not see evidence of truly peaceful initiatives from the Taliban. Filkins writes: "As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to make a deal." Filkins quotes Leon Panetta, CIA director: "If there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored....But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile."
In the meantime the US airwar in Afghanistan is being escalated. Jason Ditz reports in an article on antiwar.com (8-19-10): "September saw a massive increase in the number of US air strikes in Afghanistan, with at least 700 distinct strikes across the nation, up from 257 the year prior." Ditz continues: "But the tactic may be even further on the rise in the future, as reports suggest that the Obama Administration has ordered the deployment of the USS Lincoln, another aircraft carrier into the region, adding scores of additional warplanes to the theater of operations."
It's not clear yet whether negotiations have any sound basis.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Iran joins international effort to advance a non-military solution in Afghanistan
I found the following article on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11568799 If it is confirmed, the efforts to draw the UN, UE and states from the region around Afghanistan into a discussion of how to resolve the war in this war-beaten country through negotiations are moving ahead. According to the report, Iran is now joining the effort. It's likely that US officials did not initiate the invitation. On first reading about this non-military development, the news is good for those of us who have opposed the war and occupation and supported a full and honest withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan all along.
The article from BBC
Iran joins US for meeting on Afghanistan's future
Iran sent its special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Ghanazadeh
Iran has for the first time taken part in high-level discussions on Afghanistan after the US said it had "no problem" with its participation.
An Iranian representative joined the international "contact group" - which brings together the Afghan government, dozens of countries, Nato, the EU and UN - for the talks in Rome.
It comes amid a renewed push to end the bloody nine-year Afghan conflict.
One senior US diplomat said Iran had "a role to play" in tackling the problems.
"We recognise that Iran, with its long, almost completely open border with Afghanistan and with a huge drug problem... has a role to play in the peaceful settlement of this situation in Afghanistan," Richard Holbrooke - the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan - told a news conference.
"So for the United States there is no problem with their presence."
He said discussions would not be affected by the "bilateral issues" of Iran's nuclear programme, which Iran says is for purely civilian purposes but the US insists is a cover for creating atomic weapons.
Iran sent its special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Ghanazadeh, reported Associated Press.'Realistic aim'
The "contact group" also invited the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents more than 50 states and promotes Muslim solidarity, to attend.
AFP news agency reported Michael Steiner, Germany's special envoy and chairman of the meeting, saying that the talks were aimed at moving towards "a realistic aim, which is sufficient stability for Afghanistan and essential human rights".
On the agenda was how to increase the handing over of responsibility for security to Afghan forces and the possibility of bringing insurgents - including the Taliban - into peace negotiations.
These issues will be further explored at a Nato summit in Lisbon next month. But Mr Holbrooke said there would be no specific announcement of provinces that would be handed over to Afghan forces at the meeting.
"We're not going to lay out specific process," he said. "We're going to talk about the transition process in general."
The article from BBC
Iran joins US for meeting on Afghanistan's future
Iran sent its special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Ghanazadeh
Iran has for the first time taken part in high-level discussions on Afghanistan after the US said it had "no problem" with its participation.
An Iranian representative joined the international "contact group" - which brings together the Afghan government, dozens of countries, Nato, the EU and UN - for the talks in Rome.
It comes amid a renewed push to end the bloody nine-year Afghan conflict.
One senior US diplomat said Iran had "a role to play" in tackling the problems.
"We recognise that Iran, with its long, almost completely open border with Afghanistan and with a huge drug problem... has a role to play in the peaceful settlement of this situation in Afghanistan," Richard Holbrooke - the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan - told a news conference.
"So for the United States there is no problem with their presence."
He said discussions would not be affected by the "bilateral issues" of Iran's nuclear programme, which Iran says is for purely civilian purposes but the US insists is a cover for creating atomic weapons.
Iran sent its special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Ghanazadeh, reported Associated Press.'Realistic aim'
The "contact group" also invited the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents more than 50 states and promotes Muslim solidarity, to attend.
AFP news agency reported Michael Steiner, Germany's special envoy and chairman of the meeting, saying that the talks were aimed at moving towards "a realistic aim, which is sufficient stability for Afghanistan and essential human rights".
On the agenda was how to increase the handing over of responsibility for security to Afghan forces and the possibility of bringing insurgents - including the Taliban - into peace negotiations.
These issues will be further explored at a Nato summit in Lisbon next month. But Mr Holbrooke said there would be no specific announcement of provinces that would be handed over to Afghan forces at the meeting.
"We're not going to lay out specific process," he said. "We're going to talk about the transition process in general."
Monday, October 18, 2010
Rules for an alternative policy in Afghanistan
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould outline an alternative Afghan policy, addressing it to Pres. Obama in the eighteenth chapter of their book, Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story (pp. 315-328; 2009). They write: “President Obama must reverse this process by remaking U.S. policy. That policy will have to be radical, implemented quickly, and designed to address the needs of the Afghan people, not the people in Washington who are making it….He can do this by first establishing a revised set of rules by which the United States must play, stressing a return to the old values of international law and respect for civil and human rights. The president could then initiate these rules by announcing his first priority of their foreign policy in Afghanistan is the preservation of human life.” (p. 316).
Fitzgerald and Gould then list 12 rules around which an alternative policy may be organized. I just identify their points and leave out much of their insightful analysis. You can find it all in their book.
#1 – “Stop killing Afghans,” Stop dropping drones and using fighter jets and other advanced technologies to kill innocent people in their huts and villages.
#2 – “Stop humiliating Afghan men and desecrating their homes.”
#3 – “Call in people with a better understanding of the problem from a diversity of the Afghan political perspective and take their advice seriously.” Stop depending on “Washington’s think tanks and a handful of elite eastern universities,” with their “Anglo-centric view of Afghanistan” and their “free market” ideologies.
#4 – “Start helping Afghans in a way they can understand, see, and appreciate.” Later in this section, they write: “Redirect the focus of U.S. government policy to serving local needs. Roads and irrigation to start, a viable secular education program to compete with Pakistan’s free madrassas….Afghanistan could use a core of mature American civilian experts, (retirees) and lots of them, to help the country rebuild….Empower Afghanistan’s women.”
#5 – “Declare the ‘global war on terror,” the ‘Long War’ and the ‘global struggle against violent extremists’ to be over. They are terribly misbegotten, have failed, and only serve to generate more enemies, waste resources, and kill people.
#6 – “Address the conceptual blurring.” That is: “Determine exactly what the United States hopes to accomplish and settle on one foreign policy as opposed to many competing goals.” For example, is the goal a peaceful settlement or “controlling Shiite-Iranian oil for Saudi/American oil executives”?
#7 – “Get everybody on the same page.” The US cannot afford this war and it has only brought escalated violence and chaos to Afghanistan and advantages to global competitors like China. Do everything you can to normalize “relations between India and Pakistan.”
#8 – “Promote a regional dialogue and invest whatever political currency Washington has left in it before it’s too late.” Support the calls for “a regional summit which includes Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran.”
#9 – “Address the issue of illegal narcotics from where they originate and not to suit Washington’s needs: To the Poor Afghan farmer, the decision to grow opium poppy is a matter of economics….Subjected to crop eradication by chemical spraying that sicken his children and kill his lifestock he is easily recruited by Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight the central government and its American backers.”
#10 – “Much has been written about negotiating with the Taliban insurgents as a way to stop the fighting.” [….] If any negotiations are to be conducted, they must begin with the state within the state sponsors of this Taliban terror, Pakistan’s army and its Inter-Service Intelligence branch….Nothing can be accomplished without neutralizing them as a subversive influence and turning them toward the task of national building.” Incidentally, “…the United States has not done a good job at nation building anywhere.”
#11 – “If President Obama is to save Afghanistan and the United States itself from the impending tipping point, it would be wise to follow the advice of David Walker, comptroller general of the United States….described the country [United States] in an August 2007 interview with the Financial Times as being on a ‘burning platform,’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare under-funding, immigration and overseas commitments threatening a crisis if [non-military] action is not taken soon.”
#12 – “reopen the national debate on U.S. identity and its future, a debate that was silenced on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.” The Cold War and the national security state have ruled out such a debate, and 9/11 reinforced their position. [But] as Andrew Bacevich as contended, we cannot afford, financially or morally, the “unsustainable notion of global hegemony.”
Fitzgerald and Gould conclude their chapter with these words: “If our government has not other purpose than to serve the fantasies of its own defense intellectuals in their desire to create new ways of making endless war, then we are in serious trouble and like the Soviet Union, Afghanistan will be our final test.”
Fitzgerald and Gould then list 12 rules around which an alternative policy may be organized. I just identify their points and leave out much of their insightful analysis. You can find it all in their book.
#1 – “Stop killing Afghans,” Stop dropping drones and using fighter jets and other advanced technologies to kill innocent people in their huts and villages.
#2 – “Stop humiliating Afghan men and desecrating their homes.”
#3 – “Call in people with a better understanding of the problem from a diversity of the Afghan political perspective and take their advice seriously.” Stop depending on “Washington’s think tanks and a handful of elite eastern universities,” with their “Anglo-centric view of Afghanistan” and their “free market” ideologies.
#4 – “Start helping Afghans in a way they can understand, see, and appreciate.” Later in this section, they write: “Redirect the focus of U.S. government policy to serving local needs. Roads and irrigation to start, a viable secular education program to compete with Pakistan’s free madrassas….Afghanistan could use a core of mature American civilian experts, (retirees) and lots of them, to help the country rebuild….Empower Afghanistan’s women.”
#5 – “Declare the ‘global war on terror,” the ‘Long War’ and the ‘global struggle against violent extremists’ to be over. They are terribly misbegotten, have failed, and only serve to generate more enemies, waste resources, and kill people.
#6 – “Address the conceptual blurring.” That is: “Determine exactly what the United States hopes to accomplish and settle on one foreign policy as opposed to many competing goals.” For example, is the goal a peaceful settlement or “controlling Shiite-Iranian oil for Saudi/American oil executives”?
#7 – “Get everybody on the same page.” The US cannot afford this war and it has only brought escalated violence and chaos to Afghanistan and advantages to global competitors like China. Do everything you can to normalize “relations between India and Pakistan.”
#8 – “Promote a regional dialogue and invest whatever political currency Washington has left in it before it’s too late.” Support the calls for “a regional summit which includes Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran.”
#9 – “Address the issue of illegal narcotics from where they originate and not to suit Washington’s needs: To the Poor Afghan farmer, the decision to grow opium poppy is a matter of economics….Subjected to crop eradication by chemical spraying that sicken his children and kill his lifestock he is easily recruited by Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight the central government and its American backers.”
#10 – “Much has been written about negotiating with the Taliban insurgents as a way to stop the fighting.” [….] If any negotiations are to be conducted, they must begin with the state within the state sponsors of this Taliban terror, Pakistan’s army and its Inter-Service Intelligence branch….Nothing can be accomplished without neutralizing them as a subversive influence and turning them toward the task of national building.” Incidentally, “…the United States has not done a good job at nation building anywhere.”
#11 – “If President Obama is to save Afghanistan and the United States itself from the impending tipping point, it would be wise to follow the advice of David Walker, comptroller general of the United States….described the country [United States] in an August 2007 interview with the Financial Times as being on a ‘burning platform,’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare under-funding, immigration and overseas commitments threatening a crisis if [non-military] action is not taken soon.”
#12 – “reopen the national debate on U.S. identity and its future, a debate that was silenced on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.” The Cold War and the national security state have ruled out such a debate, and 9/11 reinforced their position. [But] as Andrew Bacevich as contended, we cannot afford, financially or morally, the “unsustainable notion of global hegemony.”
Fitzgerald and Gould conclude their chapter with these words: “If our government has not other purpose than to serve the fantasies of its own defense intellectuals in their desire to create new ways of making endless war, then we are in serious trouble and like the Soviet Union, Afghanistan will be our final test.”
Training Afghan for police force and army still questionable
Robert Farago raises one of the pivotal questions about the US/NATO (US-led?) occupation in Afghanistan, namely, how long will US/NATO troops stay in the country. Whatever the final answer, you can bet that the US troops will be the last to leave, if they ever leave. Farago’s focus is on the training of an Afghan army and police force, but it has relevance for the question of “how long” military officials estimate it will take to train and equip an independent national army and police force. One of the sources cited by Farago is Brig. Gen. Armelo Burgio, “an Italian officer who commands the police development effort,” who says we need patience and time to develop a “well-rounded” police force – “many years,” he says.
I have posted Farago’s article, as follows. The URL for his article is:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/10/robert-farago/afghan-army-and-police-getting-better-or- not.
See two other sources after the article on the topic of training Afghan men and women for the country’s national police and army.
Farago’s article:
Alone amongst the press corps deployed to the Sand Box, New York Times gun blogger C.J. Chivers has exposed the abject ineffectiveness of Afghanistan’s home-grown army and police force. Not to mention the billions of dollars U.S. taxpayers have wasted on attempting to arm and train same. Reading his latest dispatch is like listening to someone arguing with himself. Chivers chronicles the renewed effort to create an effective fighting force with something bordering on enthusiasm. And then contrasts it with pessimistic (i.e. realistic) assessments. And then cheers up. And then goes back to the dark side. Check it out . . .
Long a lagging priority, the plan to produce many more highly trained Afghan troops is moving this fall at a rapid pace.
Two main training sites — the Kabul Military Training Center, used principally by the Afghan Army, and the Central Training Center, used by the police — have become bustling bases, packed with trainers and recruits, and there is a sense among the officers that they are producing better soldiers than before.
The military center has been graduating 1,400 newly trained soldiers every two weeks, as the Obama administration, eager to show progress in a slow-going war, has devoted more trainers and money to the effort.
Sense and sensibility, then. Yes, well, optimism may be breaking out all over, but there are plenty or reasons not to be cheerful, Part 2.
At the small-unit level, Western troops and journalists have documented their corruption, drug use, mediocre or poor fighting skills and patterns of lackluster commitment, including an unwillingness to patrol regularly and in sizable numbers, or to stand watch in remote outposts.
At the higher levels, Western military officers often describe patronage, favoritism and an absence of managerial acumen, rooted in part in the pervasive culture of corruption and in widespread illiteracy. (Now, 14 percent of the combined force can read or write — at the third-grade level.)
There is also a strong worry about Taliban infiltration into the ranks, especially among the police.
So . . . that sucks, right? But that was then (i.e. the last ten years). This is now!
“Basically, there is a big change in training, the quality of the training,” said Brig. Gen. Aminullah Patyani, the commander of the Kabul Military Training Center . . .
Col. John G. Ferrari, a deputy commander of the NATO Training Mission Afghanistan, spoke of an “inevitability factor,” in which local security forces, in theory and if trained properly, rise in quantity, skill and state of equipment, sharply tilting the war in the government’s favor.
Chivers goes on to describe the attrition bedeviling U.S. and NATO efforts to increase Afghan troop levels. To grow the army by 36,000 soldiers, the government must recruit and train 83,000 Afghans. For the police hit its target of 14,000 more cops, it’s got to train 50,000 more recruits. And guess who gets to pay for all of that?
As they head down the home stretch, U.S. forces and their allies are aware of the long-ignored accountability issue. And they’re doing their level best to deal with it.
Even as these deadlines approach, many officers have spoken of managing expectations.
Brig. Gen. Carmelo Burgio, the Italian officer who commands the police development effort, said that NATO had made practical steps toward police competence, and that training had improved.
But developing a well-rounded police officer, much less a well-rounded force, takes many years — perhaps much longer than America and other NATO nations have the patience for. “We believe we are on the right path,” General Burgio said. “We need time. Without time, without patience, it is impossible.”
Other sources:
Andrew Tighman, “Illiteracy, desertion slow Afghan training, Marine Corps Times, August 24, 2010.
Ann Jones, “US wins minds, Afghan hearts are lost," Asia Times Online, Sept. 22, 2010.
I have posted Farago’s article, as follows. The URL for his article is:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/10/robert-farago/afghan-army-and-police-getting-better-or- not.
See two other sources after the article on the topic of training Afghan men and women for the country’s national police and army.
Farago’s article:
Alone amongst the press corps deployed to the Sand Box, New York Times gun blogger C.J. Chivers has exposed the abject ineffectiveness of Afghanistan’s home-grown army and police force. Not to mention the billions of dollars U.S. taxpayers have wasted on attempting to arm and train same. Reading his latest dispatch is like listening to someone arguing with himself. Chivers chronicles the renewed effort to create an effective fighting force with something bordering on enthusiasm. And then contrasts it with pessimistic (i.e. realistic) assessments. And then cheers up. And then goes back to the dark side. Check it out . . .
Long a lagging priority, the plan to produce many more highly trained Afghan troops is moving this fall at a rapid pace.
Two main training sites — the Kabul Military Training Center, used principally by the Afghan Army, and the Central Training Center, used by the police — have become bustling bases, packed with trainers and recruits, and there is a sense among the officers that they are producing better soldiers than before.
The military center has been graduating 1,400 newly trained soldiers every two weeks, as the Obama administration, eager to show progress in a slow-going war, has devoted more trainers and money to the effort.
Sense and sensibility, then. Yes, well, optimism may be breaking out all over, but there are plenty or reasons not to be cheerful, Part 2.
At the small-unit level, Western troops and journalists have documented their corruption, drug use, mediocre or poor fighting skills and patterns of lackluster commitment, including an unwillingness to patrol regularly and in sizable numbers, or to stand watch in remote outposts.
At the higher levels, Western military officers often describe patronage, favoritism and an absence of managerial acumen, rooted in part in the pervasive culture of corruption and in widespread illiteracy. (Now, 14 percent of the combined force can read or write — at the third-grade level.)
There is also a strong worry about Taliban infiltration into the ranks, especially among the police.
So . . . that sucks, right? But that was then (i.e. the last ten years). This is now!
“Basically, there is a big change in training, the quality of the training,” said Brig. Gen. Aminullah Patyani, the commander of the Kabul Military Training Center . . .
Col. John G. Ferrari, a deputy commander of the NATO Training Mission Afghanistan, spoke of an “inevitability factor,” in which local security forces, in theory and if trained properly, rise in quantity, skill and state of equipment, sharply tilting the war in the government’s favor.
Chivers goes on to describe the attrition bedeviling U.S. and NATO efforts to increase Afghan troop levels. To grow the army by 36,000 soldiers, the government must recruit and train 83,000 Afghans. For the police hit its target of 14,000 more cops, it’s got to train 50,000 more recruits. And guess who gets to pay for all of that?
As they head down the home stretch, U.S. forces and their allies are aware of the long-ignored accountability issue. And they’re doing their level best to deal with it.
Even as these deadlines approach, many officers have spoken of managing expectations.
Brig. Gen. Carmelo Burgio, the Italian officer who commands the police development effort, said that NATO had made practical steps toward police competence, and that training had improved.
But developing a well-rounded police officer, much less a well-rounded force, takes many years — perhaps much longer than America and other NATO nations have the patience for. “We believe we are on the right path,” General Burgio said. “We need time. Without time, without patience, it is impossible.”
Other sources:
Andrew Tighman, “Illiteracy, desertion slow Afghan training, Marine Corps Times, August 24, 2010.
Ann Jones, “US wins minds, Afghan hearts are lost," Asia Times Online, Sept. 22, 2010.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Obama should have supported a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan
The Stop the War Coalition, a coalition of groups in the UK, re-prints below Michael Moore's essay on what Obama should have said - but didn't - about US policy in Afghanistan. As usual, Moore makes many reasonable points here in why we should withdraw our troops from the country. Al Qaeda is not a threat, the US war/occupation is ineffective and a waste of taxpayers' money, the Karzai government is corrupt and many in his administration and government are linked to the production and distribution of "illegal" drugs, and we could better keep the money spent on this war at home to address the needs of Americans.
I would add that the Afghan war/occupation is related to the growing US needs for oil and Afghanistan is a part of the world in which there are large oil reserves, near the Casbian Sea and not too far from the Middle East. There is concern in the higher circles of the US about oil and also about pipelines, one feasible route for which would be through Afghanistan. Also, there are at least four other interests that make it difficult for US leaders to pull out of the country. One, the military establishment is concerned about some sort of success in Afghanistan to justify its huge budget. Second, there are hundreds of thousands of workers in the US who are employed by US weapons and supply producers. We have not yet created good alternative jobs for them. Third, our military and government leaders want to think we can be the big shot in the international community and that it is our destiny to bring "democracy" to all countries we define is relevant to this misbegotten goal. (See William Pfaff,'s book, The Irony of Manifest Destiny.) And fourth, we are concerned about the growing competition from China in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Obama must, then, announce a massive program for greening the economy, ala the Apollo Alliance and even greater, partly financed by the savings from US withdrawal from Afghanistan, from a tax on the wealthy, from the withdrawal of subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, from a tax on transactions on Wall Street....The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan could be a catalyst for transforming our economy and setting an example to the rest of the world. It would be a great beginning.
Senseless war begins 10th year: Time to Go says President Obama
"The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer in Afghanistan. So why are we? It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die, says President Obama (as reported to Michael Moore).
By Michael Mooremichaelmoore.com07 October 2010
My fellow Americans...
(Michael Moore's case for time to go from Afghanistan)
Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I'd just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.
Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country.
And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?
The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!
My generals have also admitted the following to me:
1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.
2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we've only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)
3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).
4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.
The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.
In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?
It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.
It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.
I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.
I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.
And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?
Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.
Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.
And it ends tonight.
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)
I would add that the Afghan war/occupation is related to the growing US needs for oil and Afghanistan is a part of the world in which there are large oil reserves, near the Casbian Sea and not too far from the Middle East. There is concern in the higher circles of the US about oil and also about pipelines, one feasible route for which would be through Afghanistan. Also, there are at least four other interests that make it difficult for US leaders to pull out of the country. One, the military establishment is concerned about some sort of success in Afghanistan to justify its huge budget. Second, there are hundreds of thousands of workers in the US who are employed by US weapons and supply producers. We have not yet created good alternative jobs for them. Third, our military and government leaders want to think we can be the big shot in the international community and that it is our destiny to bring "democracy" to all countries we define is relevant to this misbegotten goal. (See William Pfaff,'s book, The Irony of Manifest Destiny.) And fourth, we are concerned about the growing competition from China in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Obama must, then, announce a massive program for greening the economy, ala the Apollo Alliance and even greater, partly financed by the savings from US withdrawal from Afghanistan, from a tax on the wealthy, from the withdrawal of subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, from a tax on transactions on Wall Street....The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan could be a catalyst for transforming our economy and setting an example to the rest of the world. It would be a great beginning.
Senseless war begins 10th year: Time to Go says President Obama
"The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer in Afghanistan. So why are we? It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die, says President Obama (as reported to Michael Moore).
By Michael Mooremichaelmoore.com07 October 2010
My fellow Americans...
(Michael Moore's case for time to go from Afghanistan)
Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I'd just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.
Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country.
And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?
The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!
My generals have also admitted the following to me:
1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.
2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we've only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)
3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).
4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.
The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.
In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?
It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.
It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.
I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.
I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.
And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?
Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.
Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.
And it ends tonight.
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The many costs and tragedy of the war in Afghanistan
Peter Preston questions why soldiers stationed in Afghanistan are dying needlessly, as the US and allied commanders and political leaders try desperately to find a rationale for pulling troops out of the country. The article is printed below, after some of my own fact-gathering observations and quotes from a new book by Chris Hedges.
The Afghanistan war has taken its toll on US and allied troops. The most recent troop fatality figures that I could find were at the website http://icasualties.org/. From 2001 up through 2010 [not clear whether this includes July and after], there were a total of 2,147 fatalities among US and allied troops, 1,323 were US troops, 340 were UK troops, and 484 were "other." With respect to the wounded, Cause USA estimates that through July 31, 2010, there were 7,285 US troops wounded. Many of these troops will require medical and psychological assistance for years and in some cases for the rest of their lives. In addition, there are often extraordinary financial and psychological demands on the families of these troops.
Afghan civilian deaths were in the tens of thousands. You can find some estimates at Wikipedi, Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
In his cogent new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Chris Hedges summarizes some of the financial costs of the war/occupation for US taxpayers and the misconceived foreign policies. He writes:
"Congress has approved $345 billion for the war in Afghanistan, which includes more than $40 billion for training and equipping the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan and Reconstruction. The United States spends an estimated $500,000 to $1 million per soldier or marine per year in Afghanistan, depending on whether expenditures on housing and equipment are included along with pay, food, and fuel. These funds do not include medical costs and veterans' compensation. Foreign aid to Afghanistan, including food and development assistance, has totaled $17 billion since 2002, according to the State Department and Congressional Research Service documents.
"But it is not the financial cost of the war that makes the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so tragic, wasteful, and immoral. War as an instrument of change is brutal, savage, impersonal and counterproductive. It mocks the fantasy of individual heroism and the absurdity of utopian goals, such as the imposition of Western-style democracy or the liberation of women. In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering....The wounds for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation, and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed, all talk of human rights is a farce."
We are in the grip of a powerful military establishment in the US. It gets significant help from elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, in the White House and Congress and from state governments. There is indeed a military-industrial complex, more so than ever before. The US is following a foreign policy that is based on military force and priorities. This is not all. There are geopolitical reasons for what we have been doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, where the US has about 1,000 military bases. Our leaders are motivated by the aspiration of being a hegemon in the world and by the growing need to ensure America's corporations have privileged access to or control of increasingly scarce resources (e.g., oil and other minerals). The leaders give us the hogwash about wanting to create "democratic" regimes. See Hedges book to disabuse you of this nonsense. Also check out William Pfaff's just published book, The Irony of Manifest destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy. We need what seems impossible now, that is, a transformation of our society's priorities from war- and profit-oriented to a democratic socialist agenda that includes environmental preservation and regeneration.
Peter Preston's article:
Despicable Afghanistan endgame: Obama and Cameron knowingly ask soldiers to die in vain
The politicians are just waiting for a politically acceptable moment to proclaim a phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly, says former Guardian editor Peter Preston. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
By Peter PrestonThe Guardian11 October 2010
Downloaded from: http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2015/1/
You don't cry during TV news bulletins. But there I sat, a few nights ago, watery-eyed as a hero died again. Lieutenant Mark Evison of the Welsh Guards was back from the dead, gripping the imagination. His mother had wanted Channel 4 News to show the video of her son's last few hours on earth.
Evison, just 26, was leading his platoon on patrol in Helmand 18 months ago when the Taliban attacked. He couldn't get a radio connection to call for help, so he broke cover to try again. A bullet took him in the shoulder, rupturing an artery. His men carried Evison back inside their compound and called for an emergency helicopter. If he could get to a base hospital 20km away, perhaps the surgeons could save him. But the helicopter took 94 minutes to arrive. He bled to death.
Evison's mother wanted the film shown because she still sought answers to two questions. Were the radio signals really so frail that her son had had to put himself in harm's way to get a message through – and could a faster medical response have saved him? The answers on offer (via an inquest and a ritual Ministry of Defence statement) set your teeth on edge. An "extensive log" of the patrol's radio connections was produced, so the radios were working. (In which case, why did Evison make himself a target?) And no helicopter arriving even in seconds could have helped him: his wound was "unsurvivable".
Of course you can grow angry over duff equipment, duff support, duff military bureaucracy. But the filming of Evison's dying moments went beyond questions of kit and response time. This, in a way that Hollywood never contrives, was war: real chaos, real gallantry, real death.
Killing fields
I remember in northern Cyprus, once the shooting had subsided, looking down into a foxhole in a Turkish Cypriot garden, and seeing three young Turks lying at the bottom, shot to pieces. I remember travelling the Jammu sector as India and Pakistan fought yet again and seeing the bloated bodies of cows and bullocks alongside the bodies of dead infantry littering the killing fields of retreat. I remember our jeeps strafed by jets. I remember the chaos for myself.
Evison, by these lights, was just one more victim among millions stretching through history. Cue "war" as the darkest destroyer haunting mankind. But the grief, tinged with anger now, went beyond general revulsion over such folly. In death, as in life, stuff happens, which means that sometimes war can't be avoided, sometimes you have to fight.
In Afghanistan, though? In this particular war, with this particular rationale? It doesn't need a murdered aid worker and a botched rescue mission to show you that the reasons for carrying on grow more derisory day by day. Last week the Obama administration sent a report to Congress so feeble it barely crawled up the steps of Capitol Hill. The White House is scrabbling round looking for the nearest exit. Some leftover hawks, watching fuel convoys explode and supply lines blocked, natter about invading Pakistan. The insanity of the endgame.
No, the only "debate" here merely trades dates for Nato departure. Some, like the Dutch, have gone already. The Americans want to start going home next year. David Cameron is as eager as anyone to draw the last line under this misbegotten, failed foray. The last post cannot sound too soon. And that is the real reason to weep as Mark Evison's final moments flash across our screens.
So much bravery, loyalty, devotion; so many young lives snuffed out. But back in London or Brussels or Washington, other young men in expensive suits – who have never pulled on a uniform – are toiling over the politically acceptable moment to proclaim phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
The Afghanistan war has taken its toll on US and allied troops. The most recent troop fatality figures that I could find were at the website http://icasualties.org/. From 2001 up through 2010 [not clear whether this includes July and after], there were a total of 2,147 fatalities among US and allied troops, 1,323 were US troops, 340 were UK troops, and 484 were "other." With respect to the wounded, Cause USA estimates that through July 31, 2010, there were 7,285 US troops wounded. Many of these troops will require medical and psychological assistance for years and in some cases for the rest of their lives. In addition, there are often extraordinary financial and psychological demands on the families of these troops.
Afghan civilian deaths were in the tens of thousands. You can find some estimates at Wikipedi, Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
In his cogent new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Chris Hedges summarizes some of the financial costs of the war/occupation for US taxpayers and the misconceived foreign policies. He writes:
"Congress has approved $345 billion for the war in Afghanistan, which includes more than $40 billion for training and equipping the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan and Reconstruction. The United States spends an estimated $500,000 to $1 million per soldier or marine per year in Afghanistan, depending on whether expenditures on housing and equipment are included along with pay, food, and fuel. These funds do not include medical costs and veterans' compensation. Foreign aid to Afghanistan, including food and development assistance, has totaled $17 billion since 2002, according to the State Department and Congressional Research Service documents.
"But it is not the financial cost of the war that makes the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so tragic, wasteful, and immoral. War as an instrument of change is brutal, savage, impersonal and counterproductive. It mocks the fantasy of individual heroism and the absurdity of utopian goals, such as the imposition of Western-style democracy or the liberation of women. In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering....The wounds for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation, and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed, all talk of human rights is a farce."
We are in the grip of a powerful military establishment in the US. It gets significant help from elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, in the White House and Congress and from state governments. There is indeed a military-industrial complex, more so than ever before. The US is following a foreign policy that is based on military force and priorities. This is not all. There are geopolitical reasons for what we have been doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, where the US has about 1,000 military bases. Our leaders are motivated by the aspiration of being a hegemon in the world and by the growing need to ensure America's corporations have privileged access to or control of increasingly scarce resources (e.g., oil and other minerals). The leaders give us the hogwash about wanting to create "democratic" regimes. See Hedges book to disabuse you of this nonsense. Also check out William Pfaff's just published book, The Irony of Manifest destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy. We need what seems impossible now, that is, a transformation of our society's priorities from war- and profit-oriented to a democratic socialist agenda that includes environmental preservation and regeneration.
Peter Preston's article:
Despicable Afghanistan endgame: Obama and Cameron knowingly ask soldiers to die in vain
The politicians are just waiting for a politically acceptable moment to proclaim a phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly, says former Guardian editor Peter Preston. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
By Peter PrestonThe Guardian11 October 2010
Downloaded from: http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2015/1/
You don't cry during TV news bulletins. But there I sat, a few nights ago, watery-eyed as a hero died again. Lieutenant Mark Evison of the Welsh Guards was back from the dead, gripping the imagination. His mother had wanted Channel 4 News to show the video of her son's last few hours on earth.
Evison, just 26, was leading his platoon on patrol in Helmand 18 months ago when the Taliban attacked. He couldn't get a radio connection to call for help, so he broke cover to try again. A bullet took him in the shoulder, rupturing an artery. His men carried Evison back inside their compound and called for an emergency helicopter. If he could get to a base hospital 20km away, perhaps the surgeons could save him. But the helicopter took 94 minutes to arrive. He bled to death.
Evison's mother wanted the film shown because she still sought answers to two questions. Were the radio signals really so frail that her son had had to put himself in harm's way to get a message through – and could a faster medical response have saved him? The answers on offer (via an inquest and a ritual Ministry of Defence statement) set your teeth on edge. An "extensive log" of the patrol's radio connections was produced, so the radios were working. (In which case, why did Evison make himself a target?) And no helicopter arriving even in seconds could have helped him: his wound was "unsurvivable".
Of course you can grow angry over duff equipment, duff support, duff military bureaucracy. But the filming of Evison's dying moments went beyond questions of kit and response time. This, in a way that Hollywood never contrives, was war: real chaos, real gallantry, real death.
Killing fields
I remember in northern Cyprus, once the shooting had subsided, looking down into a foxhole in a Turkish Cypriot garden, and seeing three young Turks lying at the bottom, shot to pieces. I remember travelling the Jammu sector as India and Pakistan fought yet again and seeing the bloated bodies of cows and bullocks alongside the bodies of dead infantry littering the killing fields of retreat. I remember our jeeps strafed by jets. I remember the chaos for myself.
Evison, by these lights, was just one more victim among millions stretching through history. Cue "war" as the darkest destroyer haunting mankind. But the grief, tinged with anger now, went beyond general revulsion over such folly. In death, as in life, stuff happens, which means that sometimes war can't be avoided, sometimes you have to fight.
In Afghanistan, though? In this particular war, with this particular rationale? It doesn't need a murdered aid worker and a botched rescue mission to show you that the reasons for carrying on grow more derisory day by day. Last week the Obama administration sent a report to Congress so feeble it barely crawled up the steps of Capitol Hill. The White House is scrabbling round looking for the nearest exit. Some leftover hawks, watching fuel convoys explode and supply lines blocked, natter about invading Pakistan. The insanity of the endgame.
No, the only "debate" here merely trades dates for Nato departure. Some, like the Dutch, have gone already. The Americans want to start going home next year. David Cameron is as eager as anyone to draw the last line under this misbegotten, failed foray. The last post cannot sound too soon. And that is the real reason to weep as Mark Evison's final moments flash across our screens.
So much bravery, loyalty, devotion; so many young lives snuffed out. But back in London or Brussels or Washington, other young men in expensive suits – who have never pulled on a uniform – are toiling over the politically acceptable moment to proclaim phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Negotiations, or endless war and chaos in Afghanistan
The Guardian newspaper (UK), published the following editorial on October 7, 2010, titled "Afghanistan: War Without End." The position taken by the editors is that the war (and occupation) of Afghanistan should be ended. In the first sentence, they write: "There is a clear and pressing need to end the monumental folly of prosecuting a war in Afghanistan." They justify their position with a number of points, which I list below from the editorial.
(1) The war is spreading "in intensity into the tribal areas of Pakistan and could yet rattle a weak civilian government in Islamabad to bits."
(2) The US and its allies operate under the "illusion" that they can build a Afghan state that has the capacity to bring stability to the country. This "claim is being routinely undermined by corrupt elections and a president in Hamid Karzai who packs his administration with his relatives."
(3) The US-led occupation intensifies the insurgent and Taliban oppostion to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and "has become both a magnet for, and training ground of, no less than two generations of jihadis, each more determined than the last."
(4) Moreover, the war/occupation, now in its tenth year, serves as a "rallying cause for terrorist acts against civilian targets across the world."
(5) There are huge and increasing resources devoted to the fight against the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, including 150,000 US and allied troops, tens of thousands of private contractors, and "140,000 Pakistan military in the tribal areas alone." The increase in the growing military presence and operations has only "accomplished...a larger battlefield and more intense battle."
(6) The counterinsurgency plan of the Pentagon to increase the US troop level, push the Taliban out of Marjah, then out of "Helmand and Kandahar has faded...." No hearts and minds won in these battles or anticipated battles.
(7) Only a negotiated settlement can bring an end to this wide-ranging war. The Karzai government has begun talks "with the Haqqani network, a group based in North Waziristan and one of the most feared insurgents in Afghanistan," and, in separate secret talks "with
the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organisation based in Pakistan." The Guardian editors think that "taken together there is now credible evidence of a desire in Washington [?] as well as in Kabul to address the leadership of the main Taliban groups, to reconcile the so‑called irreconcilables, and not rely on a policy of removing them."
(8) It is not clear why principal Taliban groups are entering into negotiations, "how far these talks have gone, and "whether indeed they present a viable alternative to the Taliban strategy of waiting the Americans out."
(9) If negotations don't gain traction, there is the prospect of more years of fruitless war and occupation in Afghanistan, and the escalation of military actions in Pakistan, further undermining an already tenuous Pakistan government. Without a negotiated settlement, the US and its allies may face "chaos, the inability to stick to one course of action and to bend competing actors to that end. The war could continue simply because its momentum is now unstoppable."
We agree with the Guardian editorial. The Obama administration should make explicit plans to end US military involvement in Afghanistan, end drone attacks in Pakistan, and do what it can to support and advance negotiations with the principal Taliban groups.
Such a process does not now appear likely. One of the biggest obstacles is that negotiations require a legitimate Afghan central government which does not exist. Among some of the other major obstacles are that the Obama administration continues to bend to the influence of the Pentagon, the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a stagnant economy, Republicans in the Senate and House who want more military resources sent to Afghanistan, and the seeming political momentum in favor of hawkish voters who want US military power to prevail.
(1) The war is spreading "in intensity into the tribal areas of Pakistan and could yet rattle a weak civilian government in Islamabad to bits."
(2) The US and its allies operate under the "illusion" that they can build a Afghan state that has the capacity to bring stability to the country. This "claim is being routinely undermined by corrupt elections and a president in Hamid Karzai who packs his administration with his relatives."
(3) The US-led occupation intensifies the insurgent and Taliban oppostion to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and "has become both a magnet for, and training ground of, no less than two generations of jihadis, each more determined than the last."
(4) Moreover, the war/occupation, now in its tenth year, serves as a "rallying cause for terrorist acts against civilian targets across the world."
(5) There are huge and increasing resources devoted to the fight against the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, including 150,000 US and allied troops, tens of thousands of private contractors, and "140,000 Pakistan military in the tribal areas alone." The increase in the growing military presence and operations has only "accomplished...a larger battlefield and more intense battle."
(6) The counterinsurgency plan of the Pentagon to increase the US troop level, push the Taliban out of Marjah, then out of "Helmand and Kandahar has faded...." No hearts and minds won in these battles or anticipated battles.
(7) Only a negotiated settlement can bring an end to this wide-ranging war. The Karzai government has begun talks "with the Haqqani network, a group based in North Waziristan and one of the most feared insurgents in Afghanistan," and, in separate secret talks "with
the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organisation based in Pakistan." The Guardian editors think that "taken together there is now credible evidence of a desire in Washington [?] as well as in Kabul to address the leadership of the main Taliban groups, to reconcile the so‑called irreconcilables, and not rely on a policy of removing them."
(8) It is not clear why principal Taliban groups are entering into negotiations, "how far these talks have gone, and "whether indeed they present a viable alternative to the Taliban strategy of waiting the Americans out."
(9) If negotations don't gain traction, there is the prospect of more years of fruitless war and occupation in Afghanistan, and the escalation of military actions in Pakistan, further undermining an already tenuous Pakistan government. Without a negotiated settlement, the US and its allies may face "chaos, the inability to stick to one course of action and to bend competing actors to that end. The war could continue simply because its momentum is now unstoppable."
We agree with the Guardian editorial. The Obama administration should make explicit plans to end US military involvement in Afghanistan, end drone attacks in Pakistan, and do what it can to support and advance negotiations with the principal Taliban groups.
Such a process does not now appear likely. One of the biggest obstacles is that negotiations require a legitimate Afghan central government which does not exist. Among some of the other major obstacles are that the Obama administration continues to bend to the influence of the Pentagon, the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a stagnant economy, Republicans in the Senate and House who want more military resources sent to Afghanistan, and the seeming political momentum in favor of hawkish voters who want US military power to prevail.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Obstacles to a negotiated settlement between Karzai government and Taliban
Juan Cole links to the following article by Chris Sands on his blog today (Informed Comment, 10-8-10). In the end, Cole thinks, there will be a negotiated settlement between the Karzai government and the leaders of the Taliban. Reports from other sources indicate that negotiations are already underway, despite objections by the US military.
Sands identifies some of the complex obstacles that stand in the way of an eventually successful negotiation, citing the Washington Post for some of his information. My comments are in parentheses.
See the Sands' full article at: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/south-asia/afghanistan-chance-for-a-breakthrough?pageCount=0
(1) The Taliban have ties with al Qaeda. Sands reports, however, that the Taliban leaders have expressed a willingness "to cut these ties," as part of a general agreement.
(2) The Taliban leaders demand a withdrawal of US and other foreign troop. Sands thinks that the US leadership, implicitly Obama and the generals, want to find a way out of this quagmire and have already promised to "start" pulling out US troops by next summer. (However, Obama has recently suggested that it may take longer than one year to create a "stable" Afghan government.)
(3) "The US has ruled out a deal with [the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar], yet he remains central to the Taliban and there are few divisions among the insurgents." (The US may not have the final say in this regard.)
(4) There are divisions among Afghans "across ethnic, religious and party lines," which complicate negotiations limited to the Taliban and Karzai government.
(5) The Taliban are known for their adherence to their fundamentalist principles and will have to compromise them in order to join a corrupt Karzai administration, which includes many of the Taliban's most hated enemies.
(6) For the Taliban to agree to a settlement, its leaders would have to be given important positions in the government. Such a settlement would generate opposition from leaders of the Tajik ethnic group and the Shite Hazara.
(7) There is concern in Washington that the Taliban would want to restrict women's rights and religious, cultural and social freedoms. (There is already such restrictions, especially on women's rights.)
(Sands finishes his article as follows.) But all the stars surely have to be aligned for this to bring a definitive end to the Afghan tragedy. If the Post's story is correct, there is some hope. But if it is simply an attempt by US officials to sow discord among the Taliban, it is unlikely to succeed. The insurgents now control a large part of rural Afghanistan and have a presence in most provinces across the country. They will not give up easily. (That is, there is no military settlement in sight.)
Sands identifies some of the complex obstacles that stand in the way of an eventually successful negotiation, citing the Washington Post for some of his information. My comments are in parentheses.
See the Sands' full article at: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/south-asia/afghanistan-chance-for-a-breakthrough?pageCount=0
(1) The Taliban have ties with al Qaeda. Sands reports, however, that the Taliban leaders have expressed a willingness "to cut these ties," as part of a general agreement.
(2) The Taliban leaders demand a withdrawal of US and other foreign troop. Sands thinks that the US leadership, implicitly Obama and the generals, want to find a way out of this quagmire and have already promised to "start" pulling out US troops by next summer. (However, Obama has recently suggested that it may take longer than one year to create a "stable" Afghan government.)
(3) "The US has ruled out a deal with [the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar], yet he remains central to the Taliban and there are few divisions among the insurgents." (The US may not have the final say in this regard.)
(4) There are divisions among Afghans "across ethnic, religious and party lines," which complicate negotiations limited to the Taliban and Karzai government.
(5) The Taliban are known for their adherence to their fundamentalist principles and will have to compromise them in order to join a corrupt Karzai administration, which includes many of the Taliban's most hated enemies.
(6) For the Taliban to agree to a settlement, its leaders would have to be given important positions in the government. Such a settlement would generate opposition from leaders of the Tajik ethnic group and the Shite Hazara.
(7) There is concern in Washington that the Taliban would want to restrict women's rights and religious, cultural and social freedoms. (There is already such restrictions, especially on women's rights.)
(Sands finishes his article as follows.) But all the stars surely have to be aligned for this to bring a definitive end to the Afghan tragedy. If the Post's story is correct, there is some hope. But if it is simply an attempt by US officials to sow discord among the Taliban, it is unlikely to succeed. The insurgents now control a large part of rural Afghanistan and have a presence in most provinces across the country. They will not give up easily. (That is, there is no military settlement in sight.)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Indications that the war in Afghanistan will last for years to come
Rick Rozoff's article on Global Research.ca today describes developments in Afghanistan that indicate US military and allied forces will remain in the country for many years to come, as the number of occupational forces increase, the number of bases in Afghanistan and in surrounding countries increase, as military actions become more multifaceted, and despite the rising deaths and casualties among US and allied troops. Rozoff notes also that US troop and drone attacks in Pakistan are causing some tension in Pakistan-US relations. This, along with massive government corruption, increasing insurgent and Taliban advances, a lack of progress in meeting the needs of the great majority of Afghans, appear to conflict with the US generals' dreams of success.
Still, there is strong bipartisan support in the US Congress for the funding of this war. Last July, the Senate supported by a voice vote supplemental funding of over $30 billion for US military forces in Afghanistan. The House passed the request by a vote of 308 to 114. Obama then signed it. A few months later General Patraeus tested the waters, unofficially suggesting even more troops were needed. Congress has not dealt with any further requests. But, sadly, the Obama administration and the US Congress have a proven record of supporting American war efforts and increased military budgets when asked. A rubber-stamp. The US government and military appear not to be deterred in this unending war by rising US troop casualties and seem little concerned about Afghan deaths and the continuing devastation to that country's infrastructure, economy, education, health care, water, and other basic services.
Here are some paragraphs from Rozoff's article.
[....]
"October 7 will mark the advent of the tenth year of the US war in Afghanistan. NATO joined the war on September 12, 2001, "invoking its Article 5 collective military assistance clause." The combined US and NATO forces are referred to as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
[There is little doubt, though, that this is an American-led military occupation.]
"There are now at least 152,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 120,000 under NATO command [US dominates the command], according to several recent statements by American and NATO officials most if not all of them will remain there byond the 2011 withdrawal date announced by the American administration last year."
[....]
American and Alliance military bases have expanded into other central Asian countries - "Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - and the elaboration of networks for the transit of troops, military equipment and supplies and for combat and training and bombing runs from Estonia and Latvia on the Baltic Sea to Georgia on the Black Sea and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistand on the Casbian Sea as well as in several other nations from Eastern Europe to the so-called Broader Middle East, including Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Diego Garcia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Kazakhstan."
[....]
"US and NATO deaths for 2009 and so far this year account for over half of the total of 2,129 killed since the beginning of the war: 1,082."
[....]
Drone attacks are increasing. Rozoff: "The Washington Post...disclosed that massive intensification of drone warfare 'represents a significant evolution of an already controversial targeted killing program, run by the CIA, which in the past month...has been delivering what amounts to a cross-border bombing campaign in coordination with the conventional military operations a few miles away."
[....]
"The integrated strategy the US and NATO are purusing is threefold: Counterinsurgency operations, including targeted assassinations, in Afghanistan's eastern and southern povinces bordering Pakistan; an unprecedented escalation of drone missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan; and attacks by helicopter gunships in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in combination with drone strikes."
[....]
"The Pakistan government has 'halted NATO supply trucks and oil tankers from entering Afghanistan, which policy remainsin force with 160 vehicles stopped near the border on Oct. 5."
Still, there is strong bipartisan support in the US Congress for the funding of this war. Last July, the Senate supported by a voice vote supplemental funding of over $30 billion for US military forces in Afghanistan. The House passed the request by a vote of 308 to 114. Obama then signed it. A few months later General Patraeus tested the waters, unofficially suggesting even more troops were needed. Congress has not dealt with any further requests. But, sadly, the Obama administration and the US Congress have a proven record of supporting American war efforts and increased military budgets when asked. A rubber-stamp. The US government and military appear not to be deterred in this unending war by rising US troop casualties and seem little concerned about Afghan deaths and the continuing devastation to that country's infrastructure, economy, education, health care, water, and other basic services.
Here are some paragraphs from Rozoff's article.
[....]
"October 7 will mark the advent of the tenth year of the US war in Afghanistan. NATO joined the war on September 12, 2001, "invoking its Article 5 collective military assistance clause." The combined US and NATO forces are referred to as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
[There is little doubt, though, that this is an American-led military occupation.]
"There are now at least 152,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 120,000 under NATO command [US dominates the command], according to several recent statements by American and NATO officials most if not all of them will remain there byond the 2011 withdrawal date announced by the American administration last year."
[....]
American and Alliance military bases have expanded into other central Asian countries - "Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - and the elaboration of networks for the transit of troops, military equipment and supplies and for combat and training and bombing runs from Estonia and Latvia on the Baltic Sea to Georgia on the Black Sea and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistand on the Casbian Sea as well as in several other nations from Eastern Europe to the so-called Broader Middle East, including Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Diego Garcia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Kazakhstan."
[....]
"US and NATO deaths for 2009 and so far this year account for over half of the total of 2,129 killed since the beginning of the war: 1,082."
[....]
Drone attacks are increasing. Rozoff: "The Washington Post...disclosed that massive intensification of drone warfare 'represents a significant evolution of an already controversial targeted killing program, run by the CIA, which in the past month...has been delivering what amounts to a cross-border bombing campaign in coordination with the conventional military operations a few miles away."
[....]
"The integrated strategy the US and NATO are purusing is threefold: Counterinsurgency operations, including targeted assassinations, in Afghanistan's eastern and southern povinces bordering Pakistan; an unprecedented escalation of drone missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan; and attacks by helicopter gunships in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in combination with drone strikes."
[....]
"The Pakistan government has 'halted NATO supply trucks and oil tankers from entering Afghanistan, which policy remainsin force with 160 vehicles stopped near the border on Oct. 5."
Withdraw US troops from Afghanistan and join protests on Oct 7-10
The following email was distributed by United for Peace and Justice, with reference to a recently created website, http://www.endafghanistanwar.com The website was launched by Peace Action, AFSC and WRL, and a host of other national peace organizations. In the following message, the coalition of peace groups bring our attention to reasons why we should support the withdrawal of US (and foreign) troops from Afghanistan and also issue a call to action in support of this goal.
Our Call to Action: October 7-10, 2010
As we approach the ninth anniversary of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, we call for decentralized international days of action October 7-10 to bring U.S. and NATO troops home. We call for a ceasefire, negotiations and the withdrawal of foreign forces.
The U.S.-NATO phase of the Afghan War has been predictably deadly and counterproductive since the beginning. Even U.S. military leaders now concede that there is no military solution to what is at its core an Afghan civil war. Yet, in an era defined by the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, instead of investing in job creation and provision of essential social services, our governments are flushing colossal amounts of taxpayers’ money down the drain of a futile, murderous and destructive war.
Rather than “winning hearts and minds”, the war and long-term foreign military occupation have alienated the Afghan people and fueled deepening and increasingly widespread armed resistance by local communities and the fractured Taliban. A new civilian UN mandate in Afghanistan is needed to create and develop human security. A growing majority of Afghans no longer see U.S. and NATO forces as liberators. Instead, they see Western occupiers as the primary cause of their insecurity and suffering and want them to leave. As the international press reports, “a drumbeat is starting to sound across Afghanistan in favor of talking to the Taliban”.
Instead of the promised peace and security, Afghans are suffering an ever-growing civilian death toll. The corruption of the increasingly unpopular U.S.-imposed warlord/Karzai government, which controls little more than the capital Kabul, is now infamous. The 2010 presidential election has been universally condemned as a fraud. Massive increases in poppy cultivation have further corrupted the Karzai government, warlords and the Taliban, who use the drug trade to maintain their privileges and finance the continuing civil war. By allying with minority non-Pashtun warlords to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and making them the foundation of the Karzai government, the majority Pashtuns were further alienated from the rulers in Kabul. And, with the exception of Kabul, the values shared by warlords and the Taliban have meant few or no changes for women.
We therefore call for decentralized international days of nonviolent action October 7-10 urging a ceasefire, Afghan and international negotiations, and the urgent withdrawal of all foreign military forces from that beleaguered nation. With actions from vigils, banner drops, conferences and meetings with government officials to teach-ins, demonstrations and civil disobedience, we can move our governments to end this catastrophic war.
Our Call to Action: October 7-10, 2010
As we approach the ninth anniversary of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, we call for decentralized international days of action October 7-10 to bring U.S. and NATO troops home. We call for a ceasefire, negotiations and the withdrawal of foreign forces.
The U.S.-NATO phase of the Afghan War has been predictably deadly and counterproductive since the beginning. Even U.S. military leaders now concede that there is no military solution to what is at its core an Afghan civil war. Yet, in an era defined by the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, instead of investing in job creation and provision of essential social services, our governments are flushing colossal amounts of taxpayers’ money down the drain of a futile, murderous and destructive war.
Rather than “winning hearts and minds”, the war and long-term foreign military occupation have alienated the Afghan people and fueled deepening and increasingly widespread armed resistance by local communities and the fractured Taliban. A new civilian UN mandate in Afghanistan is needed to create and develop human security. A growing majority of Afghans no longer see U.S. and NATO forces as liberators. Instead, they see Western occupiers as the primary cause of their insecurity and suffering and want them to leave. As the international press reports, “a drumbeat is starting to sound across Afghanistan in favor of talking to the Taliban”.
Instead of the promised peace and security, Afghans are suffering an ever-growing civilian death toll. The corruption of the increasingly unpopular U.S.-imposed warlord/Karzai government, which controls little more than the capital Kabul, is now infamous. The 2010 presidential election has been universally condemned as a fraud. Massive increases in poppy cultivation have further corrupted the Karzai government, warlords and the Taliban, who use the drug trade to maintain their privileges and finance the continuing civil war. By allying with minority non-Pashtun warlords to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and making them the foundation of the Karzai government, the majority Pashtuns were further alienated from the rulers in Kabul. And, with the exception of Kabul, the values shared by warlords and the Taliban have meant few or no changes for women.
We therefore call for decentralized international days of nonviolent action October 7-10 urging a ceasefire, Afghan and international negotiations, and the urgent withdrawal of all foreign military forces from that beleaguered nation. With actions from vigils, banner drops, conferences and meetings with government officials to teach-ins, demonstrations and civil disobedience, we can move our governments to end this catastrophic war.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The costs of war - a comprehensive overview
In the article below, Bob Adelmann compiles a more comprehensive itemized list of the costs of US military spending than most authors. He starts with Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes' estimate of $3 trillion from their book by the same name, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (2008). He points out that the authors now think they underestimaed the costs of this war by one-third. In the meantime, the costs of the Afghanistan War has escalated, while the costs of the war in Iraq have fallen and while the overall military budget has continued to go up. Adelmann also identifies other indirect and not well known costs of war.
The widely cited books by Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power and Washington Rules, provide a historical and political-economic context in which to acquire an understanding of why the US population is so willing to live with such enormous costs of ongoing wars- and other military-related costs. Check them out.
Much of the effects and the contexts are simply not known by the great majority of people. However, in a stagnating, high-unemployment, low-wage, economy in which government services are being curtailed, this information may at some point have an impact. In the meantime, there is extensive support for keeping "the military strong," a view that is constantly being reinforced by the government's ideological justification of a "war on terror" and supported by the media in general and by right-wing sectors of the population.
Bob Adelmann, "The Real Costs of War,"
Friday, 01 October 2010 14:57
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4765-the-real-costs-of-the-war
[....]
Because the number of veterans needing post-combat medical care is about 30 percent higher than their original estimates [i.e., the estimates of Stilglitz and Bilmes], the long-term costs of the wars are likely to exceed $4 trillion.
[....]
Admiral Mike Mullen agrees that these costs are “just not sustainable,” with Pentagon health spending tripling in just the past ten years.
When Publishers Weekly reviewed the book in 2008 [The Three Trillion Dollar War], it said that “Figuring in macro economic costs and interest — the [Iraq] war has been funded with much borrowed money — the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.” And reviewers of the book at Amazon.com noted additional costs, including [some of which are addressed by Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book]:
loss of life and work potential for the private sector
cost of seriously impaired to society
mental health costs and consequences
quality of life impairment
family costs
social costs
Other impacts of the wars are higher oil prices, reduction in capital available for investment in the private economy, and increased pressure on the dollar.... Unfortunately, the authors and reviewers have left out the most damaging cost of all: that wars are used to maintain the oppression of the state against the people. This is the conclusion of a controversial study, The Report from Iron Mountain, published in 1967 by Dial Press and then re-published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster. Responses to challenges to the validity of the report authored by a Special Study Group of 15 highly-placed individuals were resolved when one of those involved in the study, Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote “As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions.”
Some of the conclusions of that study include
war produces waste, which is a way to control surpluses
war produces jobs and industrial advancement
war stimulates the economy
war “is, and has been, the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies”
war is “virtually synonymous with nationhood”
military service has a “patriotic” priority in society
wars "have provided...[a] state-supported haven...for the 'unemployable'"
war can be used as a “…control device over the hostile, nihilistic, and potential unsettling elements of society…”
[....]
[War] has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state [emphasis added] by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.
In his expose of the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, author G. Edward Griffin studied the Iron Mountain report carefully and concluded that “war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal [of stability]. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint … No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”That is the true cost of wars.
The widely cited books by Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power and Washington Rules, provide a historical and political-economic context in which to acquire an understanding of why the US population is so willing to live with such enormous costs of ongoing wars- and other military-related costs. Check them out.
Much of the effects and the contexts are simply not known by the great majority of people. However, in a stagnating, high-unemployment, low-wage, economy in which government services are being curtailed, this information may at some point have an impact. In the meantime, there is extensive support for keeping "the military strong," a view that is constantly being reinforced by the government's ideological justification of a "war on terror" and supported by the media in general and by right-wing sectors of the population.
Bob Adelmann, "The Real Costs of War,"
Friday, 01 October 2010 14:57
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4765-the-real-costs-of-the-war
[....]
Because the number of veterans needing post-combat medical care is about 30 percent higher than their original estimates [i.e., the estimates of Stilglitz and Bilmes], the long-term costs of the wars are likely to exceed $4 trillion.
[....]
Admiral Mike Mullen agrees that these costs are “just not sustainable,” with Pentagon health spending tripling in just the past ten years.
When Publishers Weekly reviewed the book in 2008 [The Three Trillion Dollar War], it said that “Figuring in macro economic costs and interest — the [Iraq] war has been funded with much borrowed money — the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.” And reviewers of the book at Amazon.com noted additional costs, including [some of which are addressed by Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book]:
loss of life and work potential for the private sector
cost of seriously impaired to society
mental health costs and consequences
quality of life impairment
family costs
social costs
Other impacts of the wars are higher oil prices, reduction in capital available for investment in the private economy, and increased pressure on the dollar.... Unfortunately, the authors and reviewers have left out the most damaging cost of all: that wars are used to maintain the oppression of the state against the people. This is the conclusion of a controversial study, The Report from Iron Mountain, published in 1967 by Dial Press and then re-published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster. Responses to challenges to the validity of the report authored by a Special Study Group of 15 highly-placed individuals were resolved when one of those involved in the study, Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote “As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions.”
Some of the conclusions of that study include
war produces waste, which is a way to control surpluses
war produces jobs and industrial advancement
war stimulates the economy
war “is, and has been, the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies”
war is “virtually synonymous with nationhood”
military service has a “patriotic” priority in society
wars "have provided...[a] state-supported haven...for the 'unemployable'"
war can be used as a “…control device over the hostile, nihilistic, and potential unsettling elements of society…”
[....]
[War] has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state [emphasis added] by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.
In his expose of the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, author G. Edward Griffin studied the Iron Mountain report carefully and concluded that “war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal [of stability]. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint … No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”That is the true cost of wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
