To outsource the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has turned to the cheapest labor possible. About
two-thirds of the 200,000 civilians working under federal contracts in the war zones are foreigners. Many come from poor, Third World countries. Others are local hires.
These low-paid foreign workers face many of the same risks soldiers do. Mortars have killed Filipinos who served meals in mess halls.
For years the United States has used military force as a Band-Aid for a wide-range of global problems ranging from the removal of dictators to ensuring access to global trade partners. Yet it's clear that this has not been successful. For all of the money, time, and lives we have spent to maintain a colossal international force, we are no safer. It's time to reexamine our military involvements and change our force distributions to reflect our goal: true security.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003 with a force of approximately 130,000 troops. Top White House and Pentagon officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz were convinced that, by August, those troops, welcomed with open arms by the oppressed Iraqis, would be drawn down to
30,000-40,000 and housed in newly built,
permanent military bases largely away from the country's urban areas.
Why is Afghanistan so important?
A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.
Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)
Official Washington is buzzing about "metrics." Can the war in Afghanistan be successful?
Don't ask the dead.
Days ago, under the headline "White House Struggles to Gauge Afghan Success," a New York Times story made a splash. "As the American military comes to full strength in the Afghan buildup, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won."
Don't ask the dead. They don't count.
A number of disturbing statistics emerged from a recent survey commissioned by Australian Red Cross. More than 40 per cent of Australians believe it is okay to torture captured enemy soldiers.
Yet almost all of the 1030 people interviewed believe those accused of war crimes should be prosecuted, and 90 per cent think the international community needs to strengthen and enforce the rules of war. It appears we have a strong case of "it is bad when others do it but okay for us".
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens.
As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.
Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year.
The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.
Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times the Army's role would evolve, but the process of "nation-building" would last decades.
Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.
"There is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out," Gen Richards added.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, “the city that made the atom bomb,” clearly
illustrates the difficult conundrum people must face when their
government decides to build a stockpile of highly lethal nuclear
weapons.
The origins of this conundrum are steeped with justifications like (a)
“the bomb” ended the World War II and saved American lives; (b) the
weapons protect us from our enemies and have prevented World War III;
and (c) the research and manufacture of nuclear products preserve jobs,
homes, and the local economy.
