Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati'Rethink Afghanistan' Destroys Failed Logic of War
NY Times Whines That 'Rethink Afghanistan' Film is Not "Balanced"
Perhaps more than any other major corporate news outlet, The New York Times
played a central role in promoting the Bush administration's fraudulent
case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The "reporting" of Judith
Miller and Michael Gordon basically served as a front-page fiction
laundering factory for Dick Cheney's fantasy of a "mushroom cloud"
threat from Saddam Hussein looming on the immediate horizon, topped off
with a celebratory slice of yellowcake. More recently, the paper's
propagandists, William Broad and David Sanger, have aimed their sights
on reporting dubious claims about Iran's nuclear program.
Readers of the Times, therefore, should take with a huge grain of weaponized salt the paper's "review" of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, Rethink Afghanistan. With no sense of the painful irony of writing such jibberish in the Times, reviewer Andy Webster declares that the film could "use balance, something in short supply here:"
At an almost breathless pace that leaves little room for reflection, Mr. Greenwald presents a flurry of sights, voices and figures, many of them compelling but all reflecting his point of view. A historical summary is fleeting. What appears, again and again, are terrifying images of children: dead, hideously maimed or, in one instance, almost put up for sale by a frantic civilian in a refugee camp. Military engagements, it seems, are messy and claim innocent lives.
If it takes Greenwald's "point of view" to see the human costs of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in the form of deformed, maimed and dead civilians, then his film should be required viewing for anyone purporting to support the war.
Anyone who has actually seen the film knows that a string of former top intelligence officials, perhaps most significant among them the former head of the CIA's Counter-terrorism Center, Robert Grenier, are heard meticulously deconstructing the dominant justifications for the continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. What does Grenier know? Oh, he was just the CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, where he was one of the Agency's top officials planning the U.S. invasion. Grenier, along with former CIA operative Robert Baer and other former intelligence officials, rebut in detail the claim that the war in Afghanistan is about fighting al Qaeda or making America safer, which Baer says bluntly in the film is "just complete bullshit." The film also features Graham Fuller, the former CIA station chief in Kabul. (Click here to watch this part of the film)
I guess the Times would have been satisfied if the film did not also include extensive analysis from Anand Gopal, the Afghanistan correspondent of that famed leftist, anti-war rag, The Wall Street Journal. "Al Qaeda and the Taliban are groups with completely distinct ideologies and goals," Gopal says in the film. The Taliban, he says, has as its central goal "to kick out the Americans." Greenwald's film would presumably have been more "objective" in the Times's eyes if it had included the analysis of, say, Steve Coll, whose definitive book on al Qaeda, Ghost Wars, won the Pulitzer. Oh, right, Coll is a major voice in Greenwald's film.
Webster complains that the film "has no time to approach an opposing view with sympathy or understanding for its concerns." First of all, that is just plain false. What Greenwald does is divide the one-hour film into cogent sections that address the most common arguments made in support of the war in Afghanistan, namely national security, counter-terrorism and women's rights. These are all familiar to anyone paying even a tiny amount of attention. But more to the point, why should a documentary calling on people to "rethink Afghanistan" be required to rehash or offer "sympathy" to ideas or policies that are promoted endlessly on major news programs, in corporate newspapers and by an endless string of U.S. government and military officials?
Rethink Afghanistan does not present the perfect argument against the war in Afghanistan (I certainly have had my own disagreements with Greenwald and with some of the film's politics), but that is not what Greenwald and his team intended to do. The title says it all: they want Americans to stop and rethink support for a war that worsens by the day, costs billions of dollars, causes the deaths of U.S. soldiers and countless Afghan civilians and which, ultimately, will make the U.S. less safe.
The Times snarkily declares that Rethink Afghanistan is "unlikely to win over new supporters" to the anti-war or anti-escalation crowd. Quite the contrary: there are 600 screenings of the film scheduled and MoveOn.org, which has been very sluggish in coming around to criticizing the Afghan war, has just teamed up with Greenwald to promote the film. That in and of itself was no small accomplishment. The timing of Rethink Afghanistan is very important and will serve a utilitarian purpose for those people serious about the facts and not manipulating them, as has been the case on the pages of a certain newspaper we all know.
To watch the film, go to Brave New Film's Rethink Afghanistan website.
27 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a great video and I dont have any problem with it. But
even here, even amongst the many people who are saying that the US is
behaving stupidly, there are so many lines that adopt the language and
mindset of US propaganda:-
* "What can we do about the Afghanistan problem" - what problem? You
mean the US troops? Bring them home!
* "... yet Packistanis view the US as a greater threat than Al Quaeda
..." - Amazing - did you really think those drone bombs on villages
would cause them to love the US? What threat from Al Quaeda ?
* "Obama needs Pakistan to be part of the solution to terrorism, but
Pakistan may be part of the problem" - OMG - Please take a look at the
FBI definition of terrorism. Does bombing Pakistani villages fit that
defintion - Yes it does. The USAns ARE the terrorists. The solution to
terrorism is to stop doing it.
* "... Alliances amongst the extremist groups ..." - Would those be the
groups attempting to defend against foreign invaders? Would you call
them extremist groups if they were people within the US attempting to
defend from foreign invaders?
* "... a threat to us ..." - How are they a threat to us? Only because
we are there.
* "... our attacks on the leaders of the terrorist groups ..." - Would
those be the groups attempting to defend against foreign invaders?
* "... project miliary power in order to stabilise Afghanistan ..." -
Well after 8 years of "stabilisation", it should be rock solid by now.
I'm not sure how much of the film is like this, but based on clips at Youtube that I viewed, the film has some good content, while also some content that struck me as rather worthless, maybe a little worse than worthless, too.
"stabilisation"? Regardless if the war's been going on for eight years, there is NO stabilisation at all to honestly speak of, so much less "rock solid" stabilisation.
One thing I find rather seriously lacking about or in the film, according to the several clips that I viewed, that is, is the LACK of reference to the 9-11 attacks; the failed and corrupted (by Bush Jr, Cheney and the CIA) 9-11 Commission inquiry and its report; many important, definitely fitting, but also important questions about the attacks still not being answered; and no true, honest inquiry or investigation being even permitted by the government, much less conducting such an investigation, one the government would recognize, that is. This is all directly related to the GWoT wars, starting, as we know, with the war in Afghanistan.
Any documentary on the war on Afghanistan, or either of the GWoT wars, needs to include this earlier part of the story, the 9-11 attacks; the Bush administration having received many warnings from several or more foreign intelligence services or agencies, apparently including from the Israeli Mossad, which is something I learned of in Sept., last month, and I think it's from a video-taped interview with Ray McGovern. Other important parts of the story are that the Bush admin. ordered the FBI to cease its monitoring of suspected terrorism plotters in the U.S.; questions about then VP Cheney's highly suspect (or worse) doings during the morning of the 9-11 attacks; then-AG John Ashcroft having told a reporter in July 2001 that he was no longer using commercial airlines, the normal means of air travel, due to warnings from the FBI about terrorists then planning on likely hijacking commercial airliners to use them as "missiles"; the FBI [not] having Osama Bin Ladin on the Top or Ten Most Wanted list while having him listed for 1998 bombings in Africa (and I think also one on a USN ship), the U.S. Justice Dept or Supreme Court still not having ruled that OBL was indeed responsible for or in the 9-11 attacks; and more important questions.
It's important to include that the war's based in fraud, likely high treason, and that it's never been authorised by the UNSC, also f.e.
There's evidently some good footage in Rethink Afghanistan for interviews or short pieces with some Afghans speaking anyway, and about the economic plight there and the consquences of this greater poverty than before the war was launched. But some of clips that I viewed are very poor, imo. Nevertheless, for a documentary to be complete about this war, I believe the above 9-11 topic must be included and well done.
The NYT is full of pompous, holier-than-thou con artists who think they can write because they bow before their editors.
All that blather they print isn't worth the cost of the newsprint for the front page.
Sounds good, but MoveOn.org needed this to realise the war on Afghanistan is WRONG? This is NOT anti-war leadership by example! I don't know why anyone would want to support MoveOn.org and we don't need to do that to oppose wars of aggression. We should have enough SENSE of our own. Otherwise, we're idiots who always need others to tell us how to think, etcetera, and we'll always be late, very. MoveOn.org seemed possibly good several or more years ago, but also died several years ago when its leadership were full of crap and I don't need more of their bs today, even if it finally has woken up about the war ihn Afghanistan. I was at that point before the damn f*cking war was launched. Only idiots need MoveOn and being a little late is one thing, but several years late? No.
If you need idiots like that to tell you how to believe, vote, live your life, then you're an awfully "sorry soul". MoveOn is a pointless organsation. It should do comedy commercials.
And I don't know why people need to bother referring to Judity Miller of the NYT. We've long known about her bs and should also know, long enough by now, that any news media that supports any US wars is full of sh*t.
NYT, BBC, etcetera; a lot of bs! They're all propagandists and do not work for countries. They work for "elites".
The above post or rant is not to say that those "news" media don't provide some truthful reporting, for they evidently do (some). But we know that they also produce enough junk and some, if not much, outright propaganda of deception and misinformation, which is unacceptable of any news media; and their latter kinds of reporting definitely outweigh any value (for truth) that these news media have.
Judith Miller, however, is only one example of [rotten] journalists, which is why I don't think it's really important to bother mentioning her; all while believing that what she did nevertheless needs to be part of documented history that is easy for the public to access, not more "hidden history" that's hidden until someone finds and reports it decades later. We need all rotten journalists and news organisations to be included in this history though and I doubt that there's a list anywhere for this. We might have some Wikipedia pages on individual journalists, but do we have a fairly or very thorough compilation resource anywhere? F.e., a website could have a "Rotten journalists and news media" page for an hyperlinked index of journalists' names, years of the "work", and news organisation when the links are for journalists.
It apparently would be a lengthy list or index. I don't know that Wikipedia could be trusted with this, but we should have this kind of historical reference somewhere on the Web. While I don't know journalists and news media enough to really contribute to any significant degree for preparing such a reference or resource, there must be some people who know enough of the information to be able to create a serious resource.
If the public is going to be lied to, dis- or mis-informed, and with considerable ease on the part of the reporters, then the public should have access to a resource that can help us to quickly find useful information on the writers or reporters.
Hmm.
Pardon the digression back to the baseline problem, but I have to ask:
What should the U.S. have done as a result of the attacks on the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the rest -- instead of the war (battles? sub-wars?) in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I'm not being a smart-a**. Really. What would have been more effective than the right cross to the terrorist home states?
However I feel about those wars, for the life of me, I cannot think of what I might have done had I been our leader when it all happened. Should we have done nothing? Should attacking America, then scattering to the winds be seen as an action that will garner no retaliation?
Just WHO attacked us? Not Afghanistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
"Right cross to the terrorist home states"
Read the FBI definition of terrorism. Terrorism is what you do. It is actions - Not whether you wear a bhurka or turban and not whoever the corporate media of the USA chooses to demonise or label as terrorist. The US is the only country convicted of terrorism in the World Court of the UN and the country that is the most guilty of terrorism:-
"Terrorism: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." - FBI.
The terrorist threat to the middle east from the US is very very real. Iraq, a country that had a better medical and education system than the US has been totally destroyed. Packistan suffers daily terrorist bombings from US drone planes.
Nothing lasts forever. We can see that the US as an empire is in its twilight era. There are choices to be made. The powers that be can continue to take it down to a quick but painful death or sensible people can take control and navigate it to a peaceful retirement. I believe that if the course is to be reversed it will have to come from a new union of states. That was the origin of the "United States" and that can be its salvation. To begin every member state should recall its citizens from theaters of war for needed home duty.
The New York Times naturally supports the Empire State.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
If you are interested, Go to Google and hit
"Afghanistan proposed pipe line" and get the facts.
The New York Times cannot stop you from reading
the facts on Google. They lied to us about Iraq,
about Globalization, about Nafta, about the loss of
our industrial base to China via Bill Bubba Clinton.
Time for a Wake-up call...
Even though there'll be anti-war rallies in many U.S. cities tomorrow as well as next March, the anti-war movement is and has been ineffective ever since the Iraq War started five years ago. Seems that the failure of literally millions of people worldwide to prevent the U.S. from invading Iraq, convinced most Americans that in matters of war, our government couldn't care less what the public thinks. Which suggests that these periodic protests may be counterproductive, in that they have little or no sustaining power. It's build up the energy for one big rally, then nothing, then another rally & so on & so forth. Sure, these rallies keep the coals of anti-war sentiment simmering, except simmering isn't enough, since stopping the war machine that is Empire-USA it's going to take a mass mobilization even larger than the one that helped end the Vietnam War. But if not periodic mass rallies, what? Well, for starters, a moritorium on periodic mass rallies until there's reasonable certainty that millions of people will not only participate, but will stay the course for as long as it takes to get our government to agree to troops out now. Meanwhile, there needs to be lots & lots of online discussion as to what to do in lieu of those ineffective periodic rallies. One suggestion hereby offered is that TROOPS OUT NOW bumper stickers be widely and freely distributed with the stipulation that when these are placed on, say, ten percent of all cars, then & only then, there'll be an online call for a mass uprising (peaceful, of course) that's to last until President Obama & Congress call off these perpetual wars. Another possibility would have those opposed to these wars standing outside their homes at say, 6 pm in a half-hour candlelight vigil, with the mass mobilization kept on hold until a certain percentagea of the public (again, say 10%) are participating, as estimated by aerial photographs.
This film is a "Wake-up Call",,,,,,,,,,,,
The U.S. is in self destruct mode.
Get the U.S. "boots on the ground" out of the AFGHAN TRAP,,,,
Start waging a radical war on these guerrilla-terrorists,
shift to Plan B.
/
Why it* stays in Afghanistan??
It has a corpo-psychiatric problem, thinking with the wrong head...
Superpower Step on Foreskin Syndrome---SSFS.
There's just something about tribal culture that draws over-reaching empires to their doom.
*Not "we" any more...an "it".
Moot point, though, if we don't dodge the climate bullet...
Having the Times review Greenwald is like having Wall Street review Michael Moore.
We say we're fighting al Qaeda; but we mean we're grabbing energy supplies.
Our military might goes where the oil,gas, associated pipelines go. That's the way wall Street likes it and Obama just follows along.
Well said, dr wu. Any article about this "war" that does not contain the words "gas" or "pipeline" is propaganda to distract you.
http://freepublictransit.org
The fish wrap, otherwise known as the NY Times, tried the same approach when reviewing my film "One Bright Shining Moment: The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern" - a "review" which was more gibberish from deep inside the temple of American corporate political orthodoxy.
Scahill (as always) hits the nail on the head: "Why should a documentary calling on people to "rethink Afghanistan" be required to rehash or offer "sympathy" to ideas or policies that are promoted endlessly on major news programs, in corporate newspapers and by an endless string of U.S. government and military officials?"
In the case of the McGovern film it was about why I didn't represent the so-called other side, which amounted to 35 years of recorded history - history already slammed down the throat of the collective American sheep herd on the road to kingdom come.
Since the US does not understand or present the realities on the world other than from a very self serving and censored perspective, we never have a "balanced" view of anything. A perspective that criticizes the status quo policy is considered unbalanced, while whatever the govt and textbooks says are balanced. What a joke!
We lost in Vietnam, lost in Iraq and losing in Afghanistan too. Face it.
I wonder, what would "winning" look like?
Don't forget Korea.
Thank you, Jeremy.
Just as you've worked to expose private security contractors in Iraq and elsewhere for the predatory, brutal thieves that they are, and as you've been trying to bring reason to the vitriol that's been leaped onto ACORN, you now are trying to wake people up to the absolutely skewed, hypocritical and biased reporting that The NY Times has a tendency to engage in when it comes to the Middle East.... among other issues.
At times, I have to remind myself when reading the NY Times that it is not a Rupert Murdoch publication... Or is it??
More power to you!
- the U.S. war in Afghanistan -
And here yet again is the sloppiness of thought currently in vogue. Note how the US military effort is described as being 'in place x'.
- Al Qaeda and the Taliban are groups... -
Here is an Afghan source. Notice how he give name to the US enemies.
There is no 'war in Afghanistan' and using this language perpetuates the problem and hides the solution.
The only war is against 1. al-Qaeda 'and its affiliates', and 2. the Taliban. This US military effort to punish them and to prevent future terrorism takes place in more places than just 'x' or 'Afghanistan'.
I ask, is the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan a different war than the preventing of terrorism by al-Qaeda in Iraq? I suggest that they be considered merely as separate theaters of war/absurdity.
It would greatly benefit our cause if more accurate language is used than the sloppy language that has been used for 8 years so far, a language that has made no progress.
cont'd
The aggression going on in Afghanistan is part of a bigger picture, a global picture. Focusing peace efforts on stopping war by withdrawing from 'place x' will not succeed because the bigger picture is ignored.
Peace will not be possible unless Public Law 107-40, the engine that drives the madness, is mentioned in public.
And also RETHINK THE F**KIN' USA PATRIOT ACT!
I think "Rethink Afghanistan" should be the beginning of a new series from Mr Greenwald. Here are some new ideas: How about RETHINK OBAMA; RETHINK THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM; RETHINK THE WHOLE ELECTION PROCESS; RETHINK THE 2ND AMENDMENT; RETHINK CUBA; RETHINK 'K' STREET; RETHINK BILLY MCCRYSTAL; RETHINK THE BUSH DOCTRINE; RETHINK THE CLINTON CRIME SYNDICATE; and on and on. Thank you for your time and may God bless Corporate Amerika, one nation ABOVE the law.
Rethink the whole GOD-FEAR-CAPITALISM thing.
Would Roosevelt today be saying "We have nothin' to fear 'cept THE FASCIST PLUTOCRATS what sends us to war to protec they stuff!"
SMASH THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL WELFARE BULLIES!!
"rethink" is full of syllogistic accommodations to the parasites' party line.
'Think and act', would be more appropriate and effective.
The truth is not difficult to discern here. Shedding the spin and doublespeak of the parasites is a more difficult task.