Rethinking Afghanistan

The fact of the matter is that Katrina lacks critical thinking skills and can only offer up a Democratic apologetic. It is all she knows, or will ever know. Pathetic!

"Enjoy your smug superiority along with so many here. I can't find your stance on where we should go from here or what we should say to the next president,"

You should go to some of the other articles and read what i said and what my stance is coz i have no intention of writing it all up again for you ...

I never voted for or endorsed anything Reagan did ... I was appalled when he called the Mujahaeen 'freedom fighters" since their entire purpose was to bring down the, as far as I was aware, communist govenment that the USSR came in to assist... not that there aren't other interpretations.

Certainly the USA's support of the mujahadeen pleased our friends the Saudis... and strengthened their stock as champions of the true faith ... as did all the Saudi charity to the madrassas ...

Using "regieme change" to "take out" the Taliban derailed all other efforts and tactics in play to deal with the Taliban. Yes, this business of sharia is very controversial, but it's not black and white, and it's not going to go away.

To hear life under Karzai's government denounced as "as bad as the Taliban" ... boggles. I don't know what to do.

Enjoy your smug superiority along with so many here. I can't find your stance on where we should go from here or what we should say to the next president, who it appears intends to send in more combat forces, whether it is McCain or Obama.

Unfortunately there's no going back. I'm with those who believe that Afghanistan has the potential to be as bad or worse than Iraq, particularly with all the saber-rattling towards Pakistan in the air.

Iran wouldn't bite ... will Pakistan?

susanparker -- "I would not attempt to guess where or how Afghanistan would be now if the United States had decided to instead just go after Bin Laden, and leave the Afghan people (and the world community) to deal with the Taliban and their nation."

The real question should be posed this way:

I wonder where Afghanistan and its people would be if the United States had decided NOT to use their country as a condom in its fight with the Russians and Communism by creating, training, funding and supporting various islamic fundamentalists passed off as freedom fighters and with Pakistans active support ?

I would guess they would have been another struggling central-south asian republic trying to survive like the others ... instead we have a country completely ravaged, devastated and stripped of any dignity and we did it. We are responsible for the living hell that is Afghanistan, especially for their women and children. We are responsible because as always we looked at immediate strategic victories in our global fight for the American Way Of Life and fuck the rest.

Of course, to hear the American Left pontificate on this new found topic of interest is to say the least galling.

Webwalk!

Great stuff, the right question.

Surely a nationwide complete moratorium on everything excepting public service, emergency, and health care would do the trick nicely.

Consider the fear instilled in the rotten hearts of global corporate criminals when for just 1 to 3 days (the first time) there is literally speaking no one participating in society. At all.

While I am well aware that the average family will be hard pressed to sustain a mere 24 hrs of staying at home, let alone 72 hrs, such an action, organized across the net and loosely coordinated on regional/local
s h i f t i n g
levels is, to my mind, both something constructive that should be attempted n o w, as well as a global citizen activity that will have GENUINE effect on the minds of the enemy.

There are ways.

It is merely obvious that everything in existence...has an opposite.

Keep the Faith.

Thanks, bryanD!

interesting article over at informed comment international affairs blog

http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/07/rubin-scheich-icg-etc-assume-existence....

scroll down for article -- screen looks like an index initially, contents further down.

Well, I would at least -- very least -- like to know what Karzai's priorities are.

Obama was asked briefly about Afghanistan (at HuffPo)and gave even briefer answers (we'll know when we know, sorta stuff, wrt how long) but mentioned only Taliban/AlQaeda and drugs ... manly manly stuff with guns and planes and bombs ... boom.

Karzai seems to have become the whipping boy -- quel suprise!

At one time, tripartite Iraq was the flavor of the month ... and Maliki was the goat ... it seems like a soap opera staged for our consumption...

We need experts.

Not just for there! And where oh where can we order some?

We really need a Patrick-Cockburn-of-Afghanistan (or two).

It doesn't sound -- from the various viewpoint expressed in the last couple of days -- that there is any unifying force ... It's been 6+ years.

The Afghans displaced by the Taliban were said to be returning, 6 years ago. Where are they?

Disenfranching the Warlords and their constituencies doesn't seem like an option to me, and sounds as likely to be successful as de-baathification had been in Iraq.

From what I understand, Afghanistan is a heavily armed nation ... and a poor and illiterate one ... There may well NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution.

We need experts.

I would like to suggest that if not for America's help I can assure you the problem wouldn't be a problem. Afganistan would belong to Russia.

At least thats my opinion. The Taliban are extremist religious radicals. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Chicken V. Egg.

Taliban can demand "protection" and kickback money BECAUSE they already have power... rather than the other way around.

as the old typing drill went, "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" -- absent that, I'm doubtful that even the US military and NATO can "maintain" some kinda Afghan sovereignty ...

So I'm guessing that you approve of increased military numbers in Afghanistan ... and that would be to achieve which mission?

Look to Musharraf and the ISI on why the Taliban insurgency is occuring. They are the ones funding them. Theya re the ones that can stop them. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html

Everyone knows Karzai is the mayor of Kabul and everyone knows the warlords are warmongers.

Afghanistan deserves better then all of the above.

Much of Kofi Annan's proposal for the UN to work for security that includes ECONOMIC security for all people, for jobs, education and health care (and therefore provides true security, not just that "guaranteed" by a constant military presence), was pretty much gutted by John Bolton, who brought to his position as our ambassador to the UN a list of hundreds of deletions of goals that did not seem to support a corporate agency.

I believe Obama will be much closer to Annan than to any unfortunately-remaining neocon and will work to achieve those deleted goals instead of a world dominated by US military power and "allies" frightened at the thought of losing our "friendship" (also spelled "military aid).

I would love to hear your insights on the "Taliban Resurgence" ... I am appalled and baffled and bewildered that they exist openly, have taken over whole towns, opened Sharia courts and the like. I would have thought that impossible.

Obviously, there's more to this story.

I never said anyone was better under the Taliban ... I said merely that it was the first unified national government (to the extent that it was recognized at a national government) after a long period of civil war. In contrast, the current government, the Karzai government, is unlikely to succeed as it will most likely ALWAYS be seen as a puppet, as are the fruits of most "regieme change" coups.

Regieme change does not work. I would not attempt to guess where or how Afghanistan would be now if the United States had decided to instead just go after Bin Laden, and leave the Afghan people (and the world community) to deal with the Taliban and their nation.

Perhaps you have some insight?

Historically, the CIA fomented many coups, most were disasters. Even when not Military Juntas, their fruit (like the Shah)was disasterous, repressive and scarring. External forces upsetting the existant "evolved" social/power structure seems to leave years of power struggling.

As long as the United States and NATO are in occupation, Afghanistan social politics will not be permitted to realign.

Nothing exists.

SusanParker I'd be happy to send you to Wazirstan so you can live under the Taliban and it entails much worse things then wearing a Burqa by the way, but don't you dare say my Afghan mother-in-law in Kabul was better off under them. No way was she. How arrogant you are. You make me sick.

The Taliban were never backed by the Afghan people they are Pakistan's proxies. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

Perhaps if you had contact with Afgans you'd know that. You are just as arrogant as you claim the feminists were.

Its a rather moot point unless Obama is elected. She seems to take that as a given. I'd respetfully suggest that is far from true.

I personally find the Nation to be so intolerant I don't care for it, so my opinion may be biased.

One more thing. She concludes her article noting this:

"It's time to do some tough thinking before we are bogged down in another occupation and we continue to bleed more lives and resources."

Apparently, Katrina does not possess the analytical skills to discern that her objections to Obama and her endorsement of him, does not represent an irreconcilable opinion. Nader offered a rather strikingly accurate metaphor for Katrina and the tripe she disseminates ad nausea: she is like a cow with a ring through her nose and can be led anywhere. By endorsing and voting for Obama she repudiates her own thesis. Where I come from this is call stupidity.

The choice is clear: boycott this tripe and the Nation Magazine which remains an elitist rag in the pockets of Obama and his inside-the-beltway handlers. Obama has not shown good judgment on anything. Katrina never set foot on a battlefield, but she has the audacity to commit more human lives to galactic stupidity. Just another elite throwing human life down the drain to keep her in her enfranchised, white, position.

Read this rebuttal to poor little Katrin's tripe:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/20/10489/

Here is Obama's record on the environment another aspect of his lack of judgement:

(By the way, the only thing Katrina knows about the environment is her front lawn, no doubt sprayed with pesticides.)

In May of 1998, Obama voted for a Bill condemning the Kyoto Treaty while in the Illinois Senate.

Obama pays lip service to the issue of environmental sustainability (no argument here) saying that climate change is "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation." Yet while he was an Illinois state Senator he supported numerous Bills drafted on behalf of the Coal Industry according to legislative records. He also acknowledged his very strong support for coal during his run for the US Senate in 2004 by affirming in a speech, "there is always going to be a role for coal."

Furthermore, Obama's campaign has accepted contributions from the coal industry to the tune of $539,597.00 for both Presidential and Senate campaigns as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.

A key feature of Obama's environmental plan calls for "technologies to reduce coal emissions." But any authentic environmentalist will tell you the scope of obfuscation in his statement: in the words of Meg Boyle (Global Warming Policy expert for Green Peace) recently said, "Those technologies are risky and expensive" and "They cannot deliver in time to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change." Nor are they support by the Coal Industry who would need to implement them to be effective. Obama's environmental agenda is what is called "green washing." And what Katrina offers IS MORE OF THE SAME! Katrina is nothing more than a Lip Service environmentalist.

Frank ODonnell, President of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch noted that Obama is "Trying to straddle two political irreconcilable positions: taking decisive action against global warming while keeping a healthy coal industry" and "Obama's record certainly suggests that environmentalists aren't going to be calling the shots in his Administration without input from the [coal] industry."

In the Illinois State Senate Obama cast the following votes:

1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to fund grants to reopen closed mines.

2001, Voted for legislation that offered 3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal fired power plants with no concomitant protections to control carbon emissions.

2003, he voted to allow 300 million in taxpayer backed bonds to build or expand coal fired power plants

In 2005 in the US Senate, Obama voted for a Bill opposed by most Democrats which contained 9 billion in Coal subsidies.

In 2007, Obama sponsored a Bill calling for 8 billion in subsidies to a technology to convert coal to liquid fuel which the Sierra Club said that liquid coal, "releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline."

Obama presidential campaign asserts three key features of his plan: Coal, Nuclear energy, and Bio fuel. All inimical to our Earth Mother. Nuclear has never resolved the spent fuel problem, i.e., radioactive waste outlives the containers they are stored in by hundred of years, and the current political solution is to bury the waste in Neveda. With regard to bio fuels, as more arable land transitions to higher paying crops for bio fuels, thus taking away land for food crops, food prices will soar, and world wide starvation increase. Bio fuels also contribute to poor air conditions.

Obama, like McCain are both anti environmentalists whose policy objectives will diminish life on planet Earth. Hope may get a lot of mileage in the belt way where Katrina feeds from the same polluted trough, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the Obama's anti environmental record.

Katrina knows absolutely NOTHING about sustainability and it is surprising to me that Gore even endorsed Obama given that his visonary proposals will fall on deaf ears in any Obama Administration predicated on Coal, Nuclear, and Bio Fuel. Katrina is leading all the sheeple toward the precipice.

Finally here is a summary of a future Obama Admin offered in contemporary terms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOtVg05JLPc

It may be that the Pentagon et al are also re-thinking Afghanistan as a Plan B for forward bases in the region if the Iraqi continue to be "uncooperative" and the war continues to be unpopular at home -- as several columnists have noted, the War in Iraq appears to have become "almost over" ... reality to the contrary.

I am thrilled to see the questioning begin.
It seems that it is accepted that this is the "right" war, Obama says the US should be there until they achieve "victory"...media, politicians, public and...progressives seem to be going along with the warlike/Bushlike solutions.
thank you

The west needs the poppies for painkillers. The afghans themselves have suggested the west buy their entire crop. It would cost 6 billion and provide the world with painkillers and addicts with drugs if we took a non-punitive attitude toward narcotic addicts. There is a shortage of pain killers. We could both provide the drugs and make Afghans happy and our friends with this simple approach: buy the crop every year.

Just get some tits on t.v so that people can get their priorities right, then instead of impeaching your president for lying about sex you might impeach one for lying your children to death

yes, McCain and Obama are on the Afghan Express ... whether you like it or not.

I do not think that coming up with an opposition to what appears to be a political-theatre election-year escalation of rhetoric regarding "what's to become of Iraq?" represents capitulation ..

Obviously, many here would rather keep their hands clean, their pincz-nes in place, their powder dry in readiness to fight the REAL BATTLE here at home.

I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 .. I felt it was insupportable "collective punishment" of a textbook variety.

I think the discussions wrt how to "help" while still respecting sovereignty and cultural differences require a lot of input and that hands-off generally are preferable to hands-on.

Re: Afghanistan: When we shattered the Taliban, we shattered the first cohesive "central government" and the first "peace" the country had experienced in too long and I was appalled by the liberals who were elated at the opportunity to "regieme change" for women's rights.

To effect change within despotic and rights-abusing goverments/countries, we have to find alternative methods to support and protect the endangered. American interventionism in the form of "reigme change" and "blowing the things up" have a long history of failure, as if the hypocracy weren't disgrace enough. There is no end to this sort of hubris.

I think Afghanistan will be a "quien est mas macho" pissing contest in the upcoming Obama/McCain faux-fest.

The Afghan population will be the loser in either case. Having "our" talking points and "plan B" does not convey "approval" and may make it clear that there is NO APPROVAL ceded to either candidate.

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires.

And while the Central Asian oil and gas trans-Afghan pipeline dreams may be elusive, there is presently a multi-$Billion opium/heroin trade operating side by side with the U.S. occupation.

from:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/WhoBenefitsAfghanDrugTrade...

" The United Nations has announced that opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has soared and is expected to increase by 59% in 2006. The production of opium is estimated to have increased by 49% in relation to 2005.
The Western media in chorus blame the Taliban and the warlords. The Bush administration is said to be committed to curbing the Afghan drug trade: "The US is the main backer of a huge drive to rid Afghanistan of opium... "

" Yet in a bitter irony, US military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade.

What the reports fail to acknowledge is that the Taliban government was instrumental in implementing a successful drug eradication program, with the support and collaboration of the UN."

" In other words, intelligence agencies, powerful business, drug traders and organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. A large share of this multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions including the Military. "

The entire www.thirdworldtraveler.com Afghanistan page is worth the read:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_page.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntr33452.htm

Afghanistan is rich in natural resources
Uranium is one of those resources which we don't want the Iranians or Pakistanis to get. Interestingly enough its Pakistan that funds the Taliban. Afghanistan's uranium deposits are in the south in the Pushtun tribal areas where the Talibans base once was. Perhaps Pakistan was enriching uranium for more nuclear weapons from Kandahar during the Taliban time....think about that one a moment....

bryanD:

Thanks for remembering Fred Hampton. Now there was a real U.S. hero.

As for our heroine KVH of the Nation: Exactly what do you mean by the following line -- "Shouldn't serious thought be given to how Senator Obama's necessary agenda for healthcare and progressive economic reform might be sacrificed to yet another trillion-dollar war without end?"

Obama's "necessary agenda for healthcare and progressive economic reform?" One he borrows from Hillary, the other from W.

Get real. Your sycophancy and obsequiesence to the DLC Dems is becoming a bit boring.

Doug thanks for the link to the NYT article on Pakistani marble. I'll tell my Afghan friends and we'll urge others not to buy that crap.

The possibility of a civil war happening once foreign troops leave Afghanistan can be minimized by the international community pressuring Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and others who support either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance, not to do so.

That's also the "route out of the...impasse" advocated by Tariq Ali:

The alternative would require a withdrawal of all US forces, either preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the next ten years. Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia and, possibly, China could guarantee and support a functioning national government, pledged to preserve the ethnic and religious diversity of Afghanistan and create a space in which all its citizens can breathe, think and eat every day. It would need a serious social and economic plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people. This would not only be in the interests of Afghanistan, it would be seen as such by its people--physically, politically and morally exhausted by decades of war and two occupations. Violence, arbitrary or deliberate, has been their fate for too long. They want the nightmare to end and not be replaced with horrors of a different kind. Religious extremists would get short shrift from the people if they disrupted an agreed peace and began a jihad to recreate the Taliban Emirate of Mullah Omar.

(1) The United States and NATO are not engaged in Afghanistan to influence the price of natural gas and oil. 9/11 mobilized world opinion against the Taliban and the world came together to oppose them.

"UN Security Council Resolutions 2001″
http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm

(2)The United States and NATO are engaged in Afghanistan because it sits between a nuclear power (Pakistan) and a future nuclear power (Iran). The Taliban are not an indigenous movement (is Osama bin Laden Pashtun?) and they were not elected. They are a religious movement. Defeating them or bringing them into the democratic process are critical to regional stability and global security policies of all nations, particularly those that have been attacked by Al Qaeda.

"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html

"Pakistan Marble Helps Taliban Stay in Business"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html

"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too, imagine all the people, living life in peace."- John Lennon

(3)The Democratic Process, Free Media, and Rule of Law in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be support by the United States, not undermined by a hasty withdrawal from the region. If the Taliban's way prevails, let it prevail by open discussion and democratic elections, not because Saudi aristocracy like bin Laden are bent on subjugating the people to their dictatorship.

"The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception."- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. " - President Barack Obama, August 2007

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=2...

regarding Malalai Joya, she wants the united states out, she wants NATO out, she blames the united states and Karzai

"This (poverty) situation continues because, of the billions of dollars that Afghanistan has received from the international community, most of the money has gone into the pockets of the warlords and druglords that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on our country."

http://rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?x=68242

yet:

"The Congressional Budget Office says that the U.S. will spend $2.4 trillion over the next ten years on the "war on terror." If they instead spent this money properly and honestly, not only would Iraq and Afghanistan be made into heaven but, also, world poverty would be eliminated"

she also states "Karzai Government Treats Women As Brutally As Did the Taliban:"U.S., Canada Supporting Sworn Enemies of the Afghan People"

http://www.asadismi.ws/joya.html

Absolutely, she is a courageous person and an important voice.

What she would like to see happen is this:

"The Afghan people today are sandwiched between the Northern Alliance government, which is made up of pro-U.S. terrorists and the Taliban, who are anti-U.S. terrorists; Afghans want to be ruled by neither. My main message to the Canadian people is to please support the democratic-minded people of Afghanistan and pressure your government to end its support for the fundamentalist Karzai regime, which is a photocopy of the Taliban. Most of the money from the international community is going into the pockets of this corrupt government. We need the material support of Canadians for health and education in Afghanistan, not for the warlords, drug lords, and criminals. This is especially important for improving the position of women and children in my country, who are the main victims of the war. Canada needs to act independently and not blindly follow U.S. policy.

We don't just want the withdrawal of Canadian and other foreign troops from our country. We also want the fundamentalists of both the Northern Alliance and the Taliban to be deprived of their power and resources. The possibility of a civil war happening once foreign troops leave Afghanistan can be minimized by the international community pressuring Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and others who support either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance, not to do so."

I cannot speak to how realistic her assessment or her hope are.

Thanks, Doom and Gloom, you made this old man laugh !

" It's the greatest show on Earth, Obama Vs Osama. While we are fighting the barbarians in far away lands, America will continue to rot from within."

And that rot is the result of endless corporate socialism that has evolved into a form of fascism.

The cost of subsidizing Big Oil schemes for hegemony over Iraq and Central Asian resources is already in the vicinity of $5 Trillion (Stiglitz). Figure these costs over the next century and the expense to the public is far beyond the corporate profits that might be realized.

And feeding at this table of crimes against humanity is the good old military industrial Congressional complex. Perhaps ten MIC taxpayer dollars will yield only one dollar of corporate Big Oil profits.

And what price do we put on human suffering ?

according to sources: CIA Factbook, Nationmasters (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/af-afghanistan/ene-energy), Wikipedia, and Brittanica ... there are natural gas resources which are barely tapped and none of that production is exported.
Other sources talk about possible oil reserves but apparently these have been never been proven. In fact, Afghanistan imports all of its petroleum.

My point was that there is no "gold mine" with which to finance the sort of development of all sorts which might reduce the dependence on OPIUM and bring some legitimate money into the country ... as an alternative to foreign aid.

Regardless of how much potential income might existfrom a pipeline or natural gas or some fortune in as-yet proven oil reserves without security none of these natural resources can be exploited. Similarly, there may be excess hydroelectric power, but most of Afghanistan is not electrified, the infrastructure is not there.

"There is no easy answer here,"

Yes there is, you sleazy leather jacket-wearing TV pundit. Withdraw our troops now.

"It's time to do some tough thinking BEFORE we are bogged down in ANOTHER occupation and we continue to bleed more lives and resources."

Amazing! It's like she doesn't realize we are already bogged down in a occupation of Afghanistan, and have been for even longer than we've been in Iraq.

"Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums"

I love it. What a refreshing change from Bush! Bush's ultimatums were so unclear.

Neville Chamberlain made one good call when he advocated independence for India in the late 1920's (the politician that was vehemently opposed to this was Churchill!). The history of the 30's demonstrates that one good call is just that, nothing less, nothing more. Blunders often follow.
Katrina van den Heuvel must have been blind the past few years because she expresses some dismay at the latest calls of Senator Obama. These calls are pure Obama and could have been predicted with absolute accuracy by anyone who studied the printed interviews of Obama with the Chicago Tribune and his speeches to AIPAC several years ago. Moreover, on several occasions he has voted as Senator for funding the war in Iraq which, according to a Supreme Court ruling of 1990 is the equivalent of a declaration hence approval of war. His anti-war credentials are paper-thin and consist mainly of posturing.
In VOA news, Al Pessin tries to analyze how many US troops will remain in Iraq after an Obama "redeployment" and comes to the conclusion that nobody really knows. He concludes: "In Pentagon Math, even by a candidate who has pledged to end the war, if you deploy troops and then bring the troops home, you're still likely to have a substantial number of troops remaining. But no one is saying exactly how many will be, as we used to say in Old Math, 'left over."
Haaretz of July 25 reports on the issue of Iran: "Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying."
Oho! Ultimatums! Any action (including nuclear bombs?)!! Legitimate!!!! How does that differ from the Bush policy on Iran? Apparently Obama says one thing on Iran when he is in the USA (talks without preconditions)and another when he is in Israel. If you want another huge liar/dissembler as your President, Katrina, go right ahead and vote for him.
On Afghanistan: our armed forces are raining record numbers of 500 and 1000 pound bombs mainly on mud huts there but apparently kill more civilians, especially those going to weddings, than "terrorists". The Talibans have not attacked us. Their alleged "crime" was that they sheltered Al Quaida. We demanded that the Taliban arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden when the truth was that Osama could have easily arrested and hand over the Taliban chiefs to us. He was, after all, their paymaster and had much better trained forces. Obama, what is the "legitimacy" today for continue to "punish" the Taliban when Osama is no longer in Afghanistan? The war in Afghanistan has become one obscene lie.
Obama claims that he has warned for many years that Afghanistan is the "central front of the war against terrorism." Then why are you so dismayed Katrina? Why were you asleep all these years while Obama was making saber-rattling noises about Afghanistan?
What is worse, a Judith Miller who wrote lies about Hussein and weapons of mass destruction or a Katrina van den Heuvel who was asleep on Obama? Both are terrible.
Just as it was no excuse for the Germans to claim "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" (I did not know) there is no excuse for Americans to claim the same regardless of whether Obama or McCain become our next President. It is, however, a hopeful sign that a Katrina van den Heuvel seems to be waking up. Will she fall asleep again?

Doom n Gloom July 25th, 2008 5:18 pm: "Now the so called public servants (corporate servants) are attempting to load the economic losses on consumers (citizens)."

Yes, I love the way when times were good your government was talking about deregulation and free markets and reducing taxes on the wealthy and now that the rich are taking some losses, the government rediscovers socialism and it's you, the regular tax payer, who is stuck with the overextended bar-tab.

It's the greatest show on Earth, Obama Vs Osama. While we are fighting the barbarians in far away lands, America will continue to rot from within. If America goes into free-fall as it appears to be doing, Osama even in death will become an icon of immense proportions. Americans have allowed politicians and economists to reduce their status from citizen to consumer with little concern. Now the so called public servants (corporate servants) are attempting to load the economic losses on consumers (citizens). So in truth the economic elites believe in socialism, not capitalism, but only for themselves. So lets all get behind Obama to get Osama and guarantee socialism for the elites. Now that's something worth dying for right?

Did someone from OxFAM say there is no oil in Afghanistan ?

Afghanistan has both oil and natural gas.

Gas was being exported by the Russians during their occupation although they had trouble with the Afgahans sabotaging pipelines. But there is even more at stake in using Afghanistan as a pipeline corridor for the resources of Central Asia.

There is endless information via Google about Afghanistan as a key location for Big Oil (both American and European corporations) to exploit Central Asia and Afghanistan. At one time UNOCAL was to build a pipeline to supply an ENRON electrical plant near Bombay that failed.

Interesting factoid is that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 Million in 2001 prior to 9/11 while Bin Laden was part of the Taliban political organization ?

from:

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

" Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in the mid-1990s. "

Energy Overview:

" The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s."

"Afghan natural gas fields include Jorqaduq, Khowaja Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 20 miles of the northern town of Sheberghan in Jowzjan province."

"In February 1998, the Taliban announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which was abolished by the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion."

Oxfam and other "aristocrats of mercy" are the last thing Afghans need. Michael Maren, author of The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity has called their impact "positively evil." Here's an interview of Maren who spent decades in Africa and knows first-hand why "the Africa I know today is in much worse shape than it was when I first arrived" thanks to "agents of virtue" working for saintly organizations such as Oxfam, Save The Children, CARE, et al.

I'm with OxFAM here ... "A statement from the international relief and development organization Oxfam America urges both Senators Obama and McCain to expand the debate regarding Afghanistan beyond a discussion of troop levels, examining the importance of targeted development, sustainable aid, and the danger of increasing civilian casualties: "Alleviating poverty and protecting civilians from violence are essential components of a strategy to bring peace and stability to the country. Unless the next American president… builds on the existing commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace…."

The Afghan people have no freedom as long as they are hungry, illiterate, and living in extreme deprivation.

Without reconstruction of irrigation systems, opium is the only viable crop since without irrigation, many food crops are not viable so food must be purchased.

THERE IS NO OIL. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO INDUSTRY. THERE IS NO TAX BASE. THERE'S ONLY OPIUM. UNEMPLOYMENT IS 40%. LIFE EXPECTANCY: 44 YEARS. LITERACY OVERALL 28.1% (WOMEN 12%).

The entire country is a disaster zone rivaled only by parts of Africa. Most of Africa is not nearly as geopolitical desirable.

Obama's only going to do what the corporate interests tell him to do. Unless he turns around 180 and is a braveheart progressive should he make it to the White House, he'll make himself a combo of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and a time like this, the media and the GOP will be even more hostile against Obama and may even pull an unexpected "Gray Davis recall" even before Obama's first term is up. In any case, Obama's made it clear that he intends to destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan even more.

We're seeing that Obama is just another warmongering, pro-Israel Democrat. It's the Party, stupid!

"There is no easy answer here." tory preachment. if you or your allies go around sticking guns in people's faces, eventually -- hopefully -- they will strike back, and you will need to shape up. how difficult an idea is that?

webwalk July 25th, 2008 3:15 pm: "If the "peace movement" feels a need to appeal to myths of US goodness, decency and benevolence, then we find ourselves unable to speak the truth. And if we are unable to speak the truth, we cannot face the true threats to peace, and we remain permanently ineffective."

I agree. I think this is related to the American notion of "exceptionalism". When I read George Will and others going on about this I fell like I'm going to be violently ill. I seem to remember Britts talking like this in the past, the Germans had their famous version of it, the Romans etc.

Sometimes they mean by it that Americans are somehow removed from the rest of humanity by a unique history or destiny. Sometimes they mean simply that Americans are superior. Either way it betrays a sort of imperial provincialism, believing oneself to be the centre of the universe based upon an ignorance of said universe.

...It appears clear that Obama SUPPORTS US global dominance and empire.

But, given the ease with which propaganda campaigns based on the principle of "humanitarian intervention" can take the wind out of any "peace movement", we're fated to remain stuck at ground level. Until and unless more people on the left are willing to face up to the problem of Humanitarian Imperialism, not much is going to be accomplished by their one-eyed pacifism. As Sonali Kolhatkar noted on Democracy Now yesterday:

...humanitarian concerns are something that can be manipulated to justify war, that Americans will be hooked on the notion that we can save those brown peoples over there, that we will support war if it's based on the premise of saving lives, rather than to secure oil flows, etc., capitalizing on a mass sense of well-intentioned superiority that exists in this country that our armed troops can save those brown peoples. The media knows this, because it is part of this fabric. It capitalizes on it, parading a series of grateful spokespeople as proof, rather than giving voice to a majority represented by women like Malalai Joya, who are perfectly capable of saving themselves.

Immanuel Wallerstein makes the point that the rhetoric and moral outlook that justify such "interventions" haven't changed much in 500 years of European colonialism:

The intellectual justifications that Sepulveda gave, in the 16th century, to justify the conquests of the Indian lands are, almost word for word, the same ones used for colonization, and the ones that are given today for what is called intervention. Moreover, Las Casas' responses at that time seem to me much clearer than many criticisms of intervention today. Sepulveda's arguments were as follows: the others are barbarians, we must protect the innocent (whom the barbarians massacre)--constant justification for all interventions--and, finally, it is necessary to permit the diffusion of universalism, supposedly universal values. At that time, it concerned evangelization and the expansion of the Christendom. Today, these values are "freedom and democracy." But they are in fact the same thing.

no discussion of the ME is useful unless it is a discussion of the anglo-american occupation of all the ME. how laughable it would be if the arabs invaded Kansas and the press did not discuss the move as an invasion of the US. whatever its intentions, this article reinforces ruling class lies.

i want to echo JConrad, and praise BryanD's brief rundown of some "highlights" of US history. Anytime anyone calls for a "return" to decency by the US... i want to barf.

Founded in genocide, built on slavery, and now approaching 70 years as the world's top military power, with a long trail of "interventions" and wars, and a current project of "full spectrum dominance". And still a recurring and persistent myth of benevolence and goodness...

Not that there is "no good" in US history, but the base line story is ugly.

If the "peace movement" feels a need to appeal to myths of US goodness, decency and benevolence, then we find ourselves unable to speak the truth. And if we are unable to speak the truth, we cannot face the true threats to peace, and we remain permanently ineffective.

Write/Right On BryanD ! The Nation is a pathetic substitute for true "progressive" journalism.

Boom Boom Obama has to appear tough on "terror" if he is to defeat hopelessly insane McCain. In a recent news appearance McCain spoke of the dangerous border between Iraq and Pakistan.

At least Barack is not a complete embarrassment and is mentally competent. And thank goodness he believes in God and the U.S. Military.

10,000 more Burger King fed troops in Afghanistan will make little difference and never clear the way for oil and gas pipelines so Big Oil can sell Central Asian resources to India and the rest of Asia.

On the other hand Washington just might put everyone in Afghanistan on the American payroll (while millions of Americans are out of work due to the war recession) as they have done in Iraq paid for by the American taxpayer and by printing even more Federal Reserve funny inflationary money.

Only time will tell if Obama will make significant changes in our growing militarism, and over-extended global corporate imperialism.

He might just use his communication skills to put a happy face on American fascism.

i liked what fakedemocracy and amacd posted near the end of yesterday's thread following Medea Benjamin's article on the US peace movement and Afghanistan.

fakedemocracy wrote that the US war in Afghanistan is about the Cold War, geostrategic positioning to thwart Russia and China from threatening US global dominance.

And amacd wrote that the US peace movement needs to be the movement against the US empire.

It appears clear that Obama SUPPORTS US global dominance and empire.

Obama appears to understand that Cheney Bush and Company were too bold in imagining that they could, during their brief turn at the big poker table of world history, finalize a permanent New World Order of unquestionable US dominance of everything forever.

But Obama is obviously not calling the game for what it is. He intends to play "smarter" and with more finesse, but he clearly intends to continue to play this "grand game".

If people in the United States of America wish to work for peace, we must work against the US project of global domination.

It's frankly pretty hard to have anything like a "normal" life in this society, in opposition to US global domination. If, at this hour, we look at our lives and they seem somewhat normal, we are very likely NOT actually effectively living in opposition to US global domination.

Voting or blogging for any politician or party, is not very much.

What will it take for the people of the US to disrupt the US global empire? That's what we need to be pondering, and blogging about, and acting upon.

jlocke says:

"America, Obama is popular around the world right now. People of the world don't know much about him but, to the world, he represents everything that Bush didn't."

On the contrary. People in Europe and in other countries have much more diverse points of view in their media than ours. Even Israel has Haaretz whereas our most "liberal" newspaper is the NYTimes. In many countries they know more about Obama than we do here and he does represent everything Bush didn't.

"come back in six months or a year after the next election and I'll show you an Obama that is just as reviled as Bush is now."

With the relentless attacks of conservatives and their corporate Republican media, that may be as true. It was for Carter and Clinton. Conservatives couldn't destroy Kennedy's Administration, so they killed him.

"[I] never saw a foreign intervention that the [New York] Times did not support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And don't let me get started on universal health care and Social Security. So why do people think the Times is liberal?"
New York Times reporter John Hess

"If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo — but by the democratic ideals to which we aspire."

America, Obama is popular around the world right now. People of the world don't know much about him but, to the world, he represents everything that Bush didn't.

I have the suspicion however that your rulers are gambling that they can spend this political capital, like Bush spent the goodwill after 9/11, on keeping on doing the horrible things they are doing, only under a new banner.

If this is their plan, come back in six months or a year after the next election and I'll show you an Obama that is just as reviled as Bush is now.

The only real solution to America's external 'problems' is to change our point of view. Change from being the center of the universe to being part of the universe.
That's the good news.
We won't do it is the bad news.

The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
George Orwell
*****
"Politicians and the media have conspired to infantilize, to dumb down, the American public. At heart, politicians don't believe that Americans can handle complex truths, and the news media, especially television news, basically agrees."
Tom Fenton, CBS foreign correspondent
*****
"Americans are too broadly underinformed to digest nuggets of information that seem to contradict what they know of the world ... Instead, news channels prefer to feed Americans a constant stream of simplified information, all of which fits what they already know. That way they don't have to devote more air time or newsprint space to explanations or further investigations."
Tom Fenton, CBS foreign correspondent

what a load

what an absolute load

"If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo — but by the democratic ideals to which we aspire"

what was america aspiring towards when it destroyed chile, guatemala, iran (in 1953)

what was it aspiring towards when it killed hundreds of thousands of peasant phillipinos. millions of vietnamese

what was america apiring towards when the cia killed jfk
or bobby
or martin
or fred hampton for that matter

what is america aspiring towards as it spends more on its military (not even counting the black budget) than the rest of the world added together

what is america aspiring towards when it announces its intention of full spectrum dominance, its ownership of space

what is america aspiring towards when, in the midst of 2 illegal wars, and in contravention of all international law, it brags about spending 400 million dollars to destabilize the regime in iran

what is it aspiring to when it has a fleet of navy killing machines of the coast of iran

what is it aspiring towards in supporting the genocide of the palestinians

how dumb is america when it consents to its own afghanistan trap as brzezinski warns

this article is deluded nonsense (at best) - it is stinking up my pc - owwwww!

there is no war on terror - the is only the oil theft

there is no hope of withdrawal of troops - its about the bases stupid

do you think, Katrina vanden Heuvel, that bechtel and kbr built 4- 2 billion dollar bases in iraq just to hand them over to the irais when they turn out the lights - yeh right

there is no war on terrorism in aghanistan - the us is there to protect the heroin growing war lords and to act as security for the pipelines from the caspian basin to the indian ocean

period, end of story

stop it with this bullshit about american benevolence - you are turning my stomach

the chutzpah of it all!

...the democratic ideals to which we aspire...

Much of the world's people do not aspire to American democratic ideals - it might be a cultural thing but there it is. How does corporate America intend to the world's cultures with bombs and bullets? Actually I think corporate America is only interested in subjectification and dominating but certainly not 'democracy' or they would not go so far out of their way to destroy fledgling (and mature) democracies the world around.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of armies down through the ages. And so it goes.

Yo! Katrina -- call Medea, STAT

FYI, Sonali Kolhatkar on Why Afghanistan is "Just as Bad as Iraq".