Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Hopes for Obama May Die in Afghanistan
Sometimes we separate foreign policy and national security issues from our domestic agenda, leaving the former inordinately in the hands of experts and officials. Today, we do so at our peril. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has begun an escalation of the war in Afghanistan while US citizens weigh in on abortion, clean fuels and health coverage. Despite the financial meltdown, hopes abound for major changes in health care, education and the green economy. Sadly, this may all be lost in the inhospitable mountains and desserts of Afghanistan and its Pakistan border. Recent efforts to kill militants are predictably killing civilians and creating enemies. The prospect of widening this war threatens to undo the hopes that have been raised by the Obama presidency.
As a candidate, Obama pointed out, it was not just the vote to allow the invasion of Iraq but the whole mindset encouraging such a policy that was wrong. That same mindset was one that drew the world into adversarial camps in a fight for ultimate victory with unrestricted use of military means. It was a view voiced before by the brightest and the best as the Kennedy and Johnson administrations drew the US into a war in Vietnam. That war was precipitated by false evidence, continued by massive public deception, escalated time and again when each previous promise of victory and each call for escalation proved itself to be wrong. Fear of admitting we were wrong led to one new tactic after another. With military efforts bogged down in unfriendly jungle areas, we resorted to the use of toxic herbicides and "open target area" bombing, burning villages, torturing peasants for information, propping up a succession of puppet governments -- all ineffective against an enemy that disappeared among its supporters and grew increasingly committed to repel the invaders. Efforts to "win the minds and hearts" of people were undermined by military violence and a nearly universal wish to get the US troops out of their country The heralded program of "Vietnamization," the arming and training of pro-government "pacifiers" proved a costly failure. By the time it ended 58.000 American soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese had died. Many more faced the lasting effects of land mines, agent orange exposure, PTSD, and substance abuse. But for President Lyndon Johnson who was voted in with a landslide on the hope and promise for a "war on poverty" and building "the great society," the Vietnam war proved to be a huge drain. It was the end of his dream and a closing of the opportunity to be honored in history. And some of the best and the brightest insiders were forced to admit that they had not understood either the culture or the history of Vietnamese resistance against Chinese, Japanese and French invaders. Those who had opposed the war from the start were right but the moment for change had been lost.
Now Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledges that Afghan soldiers and police will have to take the lead to counter the expected Afghan public turning against foreign troops occupying their country. At the same time he announces the sending of three brigades of US troops and Vice-president Biden presses Europe to send more. Predictions of what will happen here are no more realistic than those made by the former Defense Secretary a Rumsfeld and former vice-president Cheney who told us, six years ago, that the invasion of Iraq would be quick and result in a secure and democratic middle East. Instead, the families of more than one million killed and four million displaced Iraqis have learned to despise the US. The argument in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, will be over tactics but the underlying mindset will doom the effort. Afghanistan through history has been a graveyard for empires that sent military incursions.
The mindset is a strategic game called "kill the bad guys." It begins with naming an enemy as the center for a new war against a new evil and it has led us to military incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The planned escalation of war in Afghanistan repeats the mindset and the blindness of the Pentagon and CIA officials who provided the daily briefings to the President during the Vietnam era. Each day they recount acts of military resistance, the bombing of the Khyber pass bridge, new caches of weapons being delivered, the leads provided to a secret intelligence unit that some paid informant was telling us which house to bomb to kill some militant leader. He will hear of "success" claimed by military authorities in getting the US supported governments in Kabul, or in Islamabad, to cooperate with us at the cost of increased internal strife in their own countries. He will not hear daily reports about how the expanding cost of that war are draining our economy and our soul, with no end in sight.
Afghanistan is a strategic gateway for trade between Europe and India. Its history has been a battle of invaders from Alexander the Great in 328 BC, to the Huns, the Turks, the Arabs, and Imperial Britain. In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets were met with Mujahedeen resistance fighters who were supported by the U.S., Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. In 1989, the USSR withdrew leaving the land in ruin and the warring factions in chaos. Civil war ensued in which tribes fought for control. By 1996 the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban movement ruled most of Afghanistan, but was met with resistance from the Northern Alliance, supported by Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The legacy of that war includes a country with a 64% illiteracy rate, a reported 48% of its children suffering from malnutrition, and a life expectancy of 46 years according to a World Bank Report of 2001. By the time of the destruction of the World stage Trade Center the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan. They asked to see the evidence against Osama bin Laden. The US refused to provide the evidence. It is not only Afghanis but a significant portion of the US population who still not been convinced by the evidence of sole responsibility by Osama bin Laden
Planning to remake Afghanistan in the back offices of the Pentagon is to repeat the neglect of cultural and historical factors in VietNam. The Afghanistan people are worldly through contacts with traders and conquerors, yet isolated by terrain and a 250 year old agreement permitting self-governance for its tribal leaders. This tribal federalism defies U. S. - led coalition attempts to superimpose a central government. Ten major tribes speak more than 30 languages. Lacking a national identity, Afghans do not refer to themselves as Afghans until they leave Afghanistan. Contrast this reality the US plan to arm and train Afghan soldiers and police. When this was tried in Vietnam the effort helped to undermine the US supported South Vietnam authority. The military were filled with Viet Cong supporters who transferred military equipment to them. The loyalty of different Afghan soldiers will reside with their family tribal units and not with a central government supported by a foreign power. Setting up a network local units to receive aid in return for turning in Vietcong supporters was tried and failed in Vietnam. It will not work against the Taliban in Afghanistan
Afghans have never left a centuries old agricultural, tribal existence. 85% are farmers and herders of sheep and goats, many nomadic, moving with their herds. Their sparse existence is upon a land that has been destroyed by years of war and drought; 10 million landmines, unsafe drinking water that must be avoided by children and adults, herbicide destruction of crops along with poppy fields, livestock have perished, and rural economies have collapsed. There are few economic options in Afghanistan beyond labor migration, becoming a mercenary or cultivating opium. The global trade in illegal drugs generates billions of dollars in profits for the refiners and distributors. But for the farmers it is their only way to eke out a bare living to feed large families, since other crops yield no profit at all. The only drop in opium cultivation followed a time when a US supported Taliban religious leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar invoked a mandate to stop growing poppies. All that has been reversed since the US military incursion. Now opium is their only tradable commodity.
Liberating Afghanistan
Both the U. S. and Britain saw the drug trade as a threat to Afghanistan's economy and the burgeoning democracy that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to set up in Kabul. The publicized post-invasion gains in education for girls and voting in elections have affected only a miniscule number of people in the cities. When regions anywhere become highly militarized, the results are worse for women. Rapes, prostitution and trafficking increase sharply. For the rest, war brings disaster and deaths of civilians doom efforts at community outreach. A military occupation is violent and insensitive to the history and culture of the region. It has cast into doubt the idea that either democracy or legitimate economic development can be attained by military force.
The paradox is that war increases poverty, degrades living and incites people to strike back violently. Weapons flow to Afghanistan from the US led coalition and from international traffickers. If stabilizing the economy and democracy in Afghanistan are true goals, rural communities will need alternatives to the credit, employment, and cash incomes that opium provides. They do not need US soldiers.
Afghanistan does have the location for a pipeline for oil to the Caspian Sea. But the short booms created by massive construction projects replace what few viable resources people had before. Contractors lobby for such contracts as props to the local economy. Such projects, however, do not support small farms, schools or medical facilities. Instead they devastate the ecology leaving people as impoverished as they were before.
The U.S. led war of retaliation against al-Qaeda has killed many more civilians than were killed in the bombing of the World Trade Center. The continuing war and the extreme poverty in Afghanistan have sent more than four million people to take refuge in other countries and several hundred thousand have been displaced within their own country. Many live in refugee camps. They witness family members die of starvation, particularly in the winter. Some have fled to join militant Muslim groups across the Pakistan border. Aerial raids kill civilians and makes enemies. Hot pursuit of suspected militants terrorizes civilians and turns them into supporters of terrorist resistance. Whether the Pakistan government officially condones such actions matters little since many civilians in Pakistan, some equipped and trained by decades of US military assistance, support the resistance of their tribal relatives in Afghanistan.
The administration has begun spreading the war to Pakistan, a nation with over 100 million people, an historically autocratic military with nuclear weapons at its disposal. The largest tribal group are Pashtun, 40 million strong, who are the most offended by US military incursion. US policy, since its encouragement of the Mujhadeen to disrupt the Soviet Union, has assured that Iran on the west border and the ex-Soviet states on the north border will not be helpful to any military effort.
The Change We Need
President Obama on whom so many hopes for change now rest, has said he would send more troops to Afghanistan but he has also pledged not to send troops anywhere without a clearly defined mission and an exit strategy. Afghanistan does need help. It needs help to lessen hunger, to restore lost herds, It needs help in removing land mines and providing medical care. It needs dialogue with how best to preclude terrorist activities by militants in their country and by the coalition forces against suspected enemies. It needs a respectful dialogue with Taliban leaders. They need to hear the leader of the world's most powerful country saying that collateral damage is illegal, that it is terrorism and not to be US policy -- just as it must not be the policy of adversaries. They need to hear Obama repeat to Washington insiders, the words of British Prime Minster Arthur Gladstone more than a century past to "Remember the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eyes of Almighty God as your own." Such actions would do more to protect our security than military measures could ever hope to achieve.
And we in the US need to hear President Obama rise to the stature shown in his candidacy when he spoke about race and how it is used to blame and scapegoat instead of permitting the needed change for economic justice. He now needs to tell the American people that if we allow the military intelligence community to create an exaggerated fear of enemies, we will never make the turn to a society in which hopes can flourish. We need to hear that dialogue is the first measure of the courage needed to protect our lives.
More troops, tanks, helicopters and drones will only widen an unwise and an un-winnable war. That was the path in Vietnam and it doomed the Great Society and Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon as well. Homeless veterans of that war are still pan-handling on our streets. War in Afghanistan will drain scarce funds, divide this country and bury President Obama's domestic agenda. What a tragic mistake and a loss for all of us!
- Posted in



36 Comments so far
Show AllThe Change We Need = Death.
Excellent Excellent Article! The truths need to be actualized.
I am very skeptical about the USA increasing its involvement with Afghanistan, as well as bombing the area of Waziristan without regarde to what the Pakistan government feels about this action by the USA military. I am VERY concerned...
Technically, no one even knows FOR CERTAIN if Osama bin Laden was the 9/11 mastermind. Although he may have admitted this on tape, bin Laden may have had an ulterior motive for doing such (such as the bankruptcy of the USA - which may well happen very soon. Americans played right into bin Laden's hands!). Unfortunately, the USA has difficulty cutting its losses and declares surrender too late historically speaking (bin Laden took advantage of this social mindset also). Clearly, the USA views revenge, scapegoating, arrogance, and ignorance as virtues. Very unfotunate as a society, but true nonetheless. Somehow the USA believes that because it has the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth, the USA will stay the same and be the same ol' nation with the same ol' policies until the end of time - to their misfortune.
The USA believes it can kick Afghanistan's a**! Unlike Vietnam, there is a chance that the USA just might be able to do so this time around. Currently, the USA is striking a POSSIBLE deal with China to help the USA out with Afghanistan. Since the USA is unable to find help with surrounding countries in regards to Afghanistan, the USA MIGHT be looking to China for help. This I find VERY uncomfortable and I am sure most people would here as well for obvious reasons. In my opinion, there would be a SLIGHT chance that the USA could claim victory in Afghanistan with the help of China (provided that the USA military and China military can trust one another in this possible endeavor - which I do doubt). IF the TRUE conquering (meaning ALL who live in Aghanistan would perish in this scenario - which is possible with the joint effort of USA and China. Let's face it, what nation is able to take on China and USA if they both joined forces?) of Afghanistan would happen, China would more than likely demand that what was Afghanistan would belong to China - regardless of how the USA feels about this.
The confusion I have about this development is:
WHY would China join forces with the USA regarding Afghanistan? I mean...unless China is looking after its investment with the USA-led "War on Terror?" Still, if I was Hu Jintao, I would say no deal with the USA. THEN, I would ask, "Where is the money you owe China USA?"
havenofearjason...
"The USA believes it can kick Afghanistan's a**! Unlike Vietnam, there is a chance that the USA just might be able to do so this time around."
I'd like to suggest there is not a chance, sorry. Most military thinking says you can't "win" in Afganistan. Take every problem we had in Viet Nam and triple it...you get Afganistan. Afganistan is a lot of mountain. Having served in both the jungle and the mountains, I'll take the jungle every time.
We can win every single regular battle we might engage in, but just like Viet Nam, unless we want to use unrestricted warfare, indulge in no limits of engagement, no exceptions,(which we will never do) we will lose the war just as we did before.
I can't imagine us asking China for hep and if we did, I'd come to your conclusion
So, have we reelected an FDR or a Lyndon Johnson? Every time I read of how many civilian Afghanis or Pakistanis we just killed with our latest missile strike I feel very sad. Why do our presidents keep listening to the wrong people?
I was deeply concerned when candidate Obama said we must get out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. There was a window when the Taliban was driven from power, but Bush blew it, as he has done with everything in his life, and that window is now closed. My son pointed out at the time we needed to put money into infrastructure and education - didn't happen. I think now the only thing we can do is get out and offer asylum to Karzai. Surely his head would be the first to roll.
I agree that our leaders do not understand the traditions and complexities of tribal relationships of those people. They use us against each other and we don't even know what's going on. But we end up being everybody's enemy. No wonder Afghanistan is every occupier's Waterloo.
I hope Barack is smart enough and strong enough to catch on and do the right thing instead of doing what Bush did, killing civilians and creating more terrorists. So far, he's going down Bush's path. And he will drag our economy down with him. Afghanistan could create a one-term Presidency. I hope not, I think he could do great things, if he gets himself out of this quagmire.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"Why do our presidents keep listening to the wrong people?"
Because the "wrong people" give them huge campaign contributions.
Why do you imply that the US government is "we" or "us"? I don't know about you, but I'm not part of the US government. The US government is "them."
articles like this - long winded and point laden - represent the illiteracy of the talking heads and the gullibility of the masses who read them
without a clue - the lot of them
it is blind leading the blind
let's review: the united states has been involved in an unending war with the world since 1945
most americans don't even know this basic fact
this is a tribute to the corporate non-reality called media (chomsky: the purpose of the media is to confuse, not clarify) and the modern american education system. it is no small fact that the united states no longer competes in international science and technology student competitions - an american high school graduate typically can neither read nor write - their education in grade 12 is comparable to grade 6 in china
it is no accident
the foundations: carnegie, ford, rockefeller etc fund and control education, medicine and business completely and totally and the undecuation of america has been one of their great achievements
it also helps them to avoid paying taxes - a true measure of a good citizen we used to think, was paying taxes
the adage: 2 things in life you can count on - death and taxes
no sir, the rich do not pay taxes
how many of obama's appointees were found to be tax cheats
leona helmsley said: only the little people pay taxes - sometimes a glimmer of truth emerges - got her ass sent to jail
new adage: one thing we can be sure of - death
and believe me folks - death is what the united states sells
1 million dead iraqis, 2 million dead vietnamese, couple hundred thousand in afghanistan, darfur, guatemala, chile, on and on
looking to obama to resurrect the fallen american system makes me laugh
the naivette displayed by the illiterate, uneducated masses on the continent is hysterical
the machiavellian insanity of preferring what seems rather than what is
i know most americans will have to look up machiavelli - check out dante's inferno while yu are at it - too much effort required - ok fuck it
what's it matter anyways
we have fat boy limbaugh to explain things
also the arrival of obama in the 11th hour of the nightmare that is modern america is yet another hilarious mindfuck
what the cia director in "burn after reading" calls a cluster fuck
the spectacle of the terror laden americans turning to a black man to save their asses would even frost machiavelli's windshield
true he is only half black and may not even be an amercian citizen but that doesn't matter
he is a psyop folks and he isn't going to do shit for you
he is what david icke calls "the suits who come an go"
bit players, assigned for set tasks in obama's case his role is to string along the illiterate masses for as long as he can
keep the faith brothers and sisters - soon we will be back on top and all this shite will be a thing of the past
a trillion here - a trillion there
who cares - not many people can even imagine a trillion let alone the interest accruing on it
too uneducated - exponential mathematics too hard to grasp
economist richard cook:
"During fiscal year 2009 the U.S. Treasury is on-track to pay over $500 billion just in interest payments to finance the already-existing debt. New debt this year will likely exceed a trillion dollars. The total debt burden on the economy as a whole could reach $70 trillion by 2010, with annual interest payments for individuals, households, businesses, and all levels of government likely to reach $3 trillion out of a $14 trillion GDP that is now in sharp decline."
here is the deal:
bankers control the world through debt (fiat money)
they create wars to steal resources
they are on the verge of starting a new and huge war for control of asia and russia, the last two notable holdouts to central banking
how about this gem, 1991 david rockefeller to the bilderberg group: “The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
the spectacle of hillary clinton begging the communist chinese to keep buying us debt was a reality check. she says the fortunes of both countries depend on it
huh
when did the imperial american war machine resign itself to a full fledged partnership with the chinese peasants, after all it is their savings that is being loaned
their savings paid for the "surge" in iraq - add 1.1 trillion to the debt with that little sucker
stay awake: new point - these bankers are bankrupting the united states by design
they will plunder the dollar to its last dime and then introduce the amero
here is a youtube talk by tom barnett - war planner at the naval war college - about the real aims of the imperium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs
war war and more war
debt funded
hope you like the plan - you are paying for it
have a good day
cheers, b
If you get your ideas and information from David Icke, I'd like to point out that he believes that reptilian humanoids (literally - not symbolically depicting the likes of Cheney, et al) have taken control of the earth. David Icke is also an egomaniac and full of hubris believing in his own super powers of perception - the characteristics he projects onto Obama.
bs
i don't need david icke to tell me that dick cheney is an evil shape shifting alien lizard
i thought it was obvious
don't forget there was that awkward moment during bush's third state of the union when the camera caught cheney lash out with a 20 inch tongue to pick a fly right out of the air
he then sort of belched and swallowed spending the rest of the speech with an eerie look of contentment
another thing i am pretty sure of is that david icke has a lot more to say than you do friend
cheers, b
Whereas I agree that the scenario you present is an elitist's wet dream, it ain't gonna happen ,bubba.
Why?
1) Commerce needs paying consumers so we are not about to kill lots of Chinese.
2) The next big hole in our wallet will be space exploration and colonization. This turns the overpopulation thing on its' head. Business needs more people, not more wars. People are cheaper than robots.
3) But all this shit, by design, as you say, has brought more depression than the elitist tools can handle (you've got to pay your enforcers, you know).
4) Bankruptcy is in the driver's seat, not Obama or the government.
long-winded.
You could be underestimating President Obama, but this article is necessary constructive criticism.
I agree. And the title itself "The Hopes for Obama May Die in Afghanistan" could be quite true.
Ezeflyer,
Every time I attempted to second guess this President he proved me wrong. I only wish I had the crystal ball many of the commentators here on CD appear to have....But then again..these are the so-called progressives who know everything and want everything immediately....
"You could be underestimating President Obama..."
Of course they are. It is all part of a collective obsession to wish for nothing but failure for this President and his administration. There really is not much difference between those on the far left and those on the far right in this regard. Thank God they only make up a tiny percentage of the American voting public.
Again an article expecting any and all progress to come from President Obama. It's almost like we're being set up to be disappointed when he can't do everything.
Why should the hopes for Obama die there? What happened to our hopes for what a Democratic Congress could accomplish?
Why does Congress do nothing to help? They started this mess - over seven years ago. Most of them are still in office. Maybe I answered my own question.
locust
"Why does Congress do nothing to help? They started this mess - over seven years ago. Most of them are still in office. Maybe I answered my own question."
BINGO!!
Barack looks more and more like Gerald Ford to me. Ford had to pretend to be CHANGE, too, even as he implemented the exact same agenda as before. He was the PARDON THEM government and so is Barack Obama.
True...
But we've got a 30% unemployment picture aproaching the "let's let bygones be bygones" government like a frieght train. It won't work. The military industrial financial bribe the congress complex is going to crash and burn.
How?
1) Foreigners stop buying treasury bonds.
2) Wars and overseas bases can't be financed.
3) No matter how big a budget the congress authorizes, the deficit spending comes to a screeching halt because the fed can't collect interest on the fiat money loans.
4) Unemployment causes such social distress that troops are required HERE for order and services to the homeless such as temporary housing by the Army Corps of Engineers and meals ready to eat for food shelters.
5) Wall street stays dead so congressional pacs stop being bought.
The crooks will still make some money but they'll be mostly in retreat. Remember, they have a lot of money to hide that they stole from us with their war profiteering.
Yeah Ford had the right name as he drove the get away car for a crook called Nixon who used the infamous quote: " I AM NOT A CROOK". Now Obama is driving the same car for Bush and Cheney! When you have a government run by a crime family that talks about law and order, as long as it is THEIR law and THEIR order, nothing changes, just the players. Change we can believe in?
Excellent article. Should be mandatory reading for all members of Congress,DOD, State Dept.,and President Obama..but wait..that would mean having an open mind with respect to understanding a culture different from ours and applying the lessons learned from wars of the past...ops..sorry..forget it!
Peace
I see the author's argument, but I think he assuming too much when comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam and to former Empires efforts. I do think he's connection to the Caspian Sea is a good point. I would argue it is a race to the finish for Caspian Oil. Russia v US! Russia already secured working relations betwen Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Look for a pipe between Bosporus and Baku, bypassing Georgia. (which is a pawn in a US attempt to decrease any development of CIS strength). Georgia is now bypassed as CIS becomes stronger -for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Empire Armenia and Azer have an accord.
In the case of Vietnam v Afghanistan, I think he'd be better served comparing French Colonialism to the American efforts in Afganistan, but through the lens of the El Salvador Option. With that comes a different approach .
Let me explain what I see.
Basic counterinsurgency plot summarized through the cynical lens of me, chuk-it-levi-strauss:
The primary Afghanistan argument is “social workers with guns” attempting to win over Afghanistan “village by village”. The “drones” and nerd-inspired warfare should be considered as the “soft” touch of America’s new warfare technique.
The front face is the “social worker” military sent out in team and squad levels designed to not directly engage insurgency –unless the insurgents are in the way of mission outline for that area and there is direct risk of losing the initiative. Otherwise, this new tactical approach is designed not to engage. Their purpose is to foster relations and gradually create indigenous security teams mirrored after the indigenous insurgency model of that particular sub-region (structural, organizational, applied anthropology).
The “social worker” MIL “beat cop” assumes an ability to build reassurances of stability and gradually trust. When there is insurgency activity the use of drones creates a tangible distance from the squad on the ground. While social worker mil-squad X is working to “preserve the peace”, Drone X is destroying an encampment or Taliban movement elsewhere. The inhabitants of sub-region X are then less likely to associate death and destruction with the social worker team they’ve seen every day for the last 6 months.
This is nothing new, often Civil Affairs and PSYOPS and Special Forces are designed to use this form of indirect warfare. The only difference is the structural decision by the MIL to use these techniques across the board. Indeed, complaints from SF were about how the only aspect of their teams being used was the A-Team –direct warfare, and that the soft-hand style was being overlooked by the Bush Administration. I am of the belief this was never an oversight as much as we are led to believe by press accounts. Instead, I see this as a long strategy of 25 years. The first and second phases of the military strategy are now done. The next phase is now to implement the tasks SF had said was being neglected.
I think much of the counterinsurgency aspect of US policy based on rather old Colonial work done under the French, but also the El Salvador technique used under Reagan.
Final points,
Social workers with guns:I believe this route of warfare will draw the more “liberal” population into empathically responding to our country’s wars abroad. At this juncture, if my predictions are correct, when Obama increases the Peace Corps he will revamp it to become politicized like in its original design (60s-70s liberal protest reduced the significant policy designs of Peace Corps). America’s understanding of warfare will be challenged and there will be a higher percentage of the populace connecting Humanitarian Assistance/Reconstruction directly to the social worker with a gun indirect warfare.
Here is an in/direct link of what one can expect to see as the "lens" presented to the American population. Don't look at the way she died, look at the underlining message an how it can be used to increase recruitment.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/12-3
last and final point this organization should be seen as the voice of the Obama DOD/Pentagon. Indeed, many of his top picks are either from here, or are associated with this newly minted think tank..
http://www.cnas.org/
What?
CNAS = "Center for New American Century" cnas.org original design came from Clinton officials. Think of Barack Obama's recent speech talking about America's New Century.... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_a_New_American_Security
---------
1)David Kilcullen, advisor to David Petraeus is now advising Barack Obama. He is "the" anthropologist.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100942657.
Kicullen's bio at cnas.org http://www.cnas.org/node/539
----------------
2)Richard Danzig, top advisor to Obama, and was believed to be pegged for SECDEF before Gates, is CNAS
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/17/danzig-odd-man-out-joins-cnas.aspx
-----------------
3)Michele Flournoy, former President, co-founder of CNAS, now part of Obama's transition team and slated as #2 in DOD: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michele_A._Flournoy
former Clinton DOD.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/americano/3217306/staffing-the-pentagon.thtml
Many an empire has died in Afghanistan. Perhaps we can chalk up one more in the very near future.
People should be writing about the extraordinary blind faith that many people have put in Obama. This may be one of the most dangerous periods in modern America, more so than when Bush was in because Obama has neutralized the anti-war movement and he will shortly badly disappoint and ultimately disillusion the Muslim populations of the world due to his highly bellicose actions as demonstrated by this article. I have been saying this for many years now. Obama's public service record is similar to Bush's military record. It is non-existent. And yet people have faith that he's a good person. That sort of blind faith in a leader often comes in times of economic upheaval and if we look back through the 20th Century we see countless leaders making good on such conditions and then leading their flock or their country into war. Their followers believe in whatever he does, no matter how heinous. Obama has already killed illegally via drone attacks whilst being photographed lovingly by Annie Leibowitz. He must be stopped but I see very few liberals rising up against him. Many of the old liberal friends I know are on board with the killing that's going on in Afghanistan because Obama is perpetrating it and condoning it. Thank God for Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers, but in the end, their voices may be drowned by the mass adulation of this prevaricator.
Blind faith in Obama? Excuse me but Nader and Mckinney wouldn't even be able to get 20% of the vote in my state let alone 41% or for that matter snatch an electoral vote from the Republicans. Sorry but 3rd parties need support and respect from the local levels first. Running for just the White House as a one man show is not how you win.
Non-Sequitur.
Whatever any third party does or does not do has nothing to do with the fact the previous poster pointed out.
Yes, American pop culture is rife with blind faith in Obama. And they are gradually going to lose that faith.
Uranium bombs: the ultimate exit strategy for all of humanity...enjoy every breath you've got left my friends. All in all it's been a fine trip, on to creating and destroying another planet; sure it might take 10 billion years to get another orb started...but what's time to eternity?
I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
– Mark Twain
The author:
=====
President Obama on whom so many hopes for change now rest, has said he would send more troops to Afghanistan but he has also pledged not to send troops anywhere without a clearly defined mission and an exit strategy. Afghanistan does need help. It needs help to lessen hunger, to restore lost herds, It needs help in removing land mines and providing medical care. It needs dialogue with how best to preclude terrorist activities by militants in their country and by the coalition forces against suspected enemies. It needs a respectful dialogue with Taliban leaders.
=====
I couldn't agree more, and the Afghanis themselves could surely lengthen the list for us.
The discordance in this scenario is the first sentence though. Obama, military troops are not qualified to conduct the tasks listed. They are, instead, trained to kill.
Obama's obvious intent is to send more killing troops into Afghanistan, following on Bush's illegal attack, invasion, and occupation of that country.
What is it with Obama? He thinks his mojo is dependent on being a warmonger, too?
He thinks we don't see that oil pipeline behind the curtain, as chuk-it-levi-strauss pointed out?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html
He thinks we don't know that US authorities cannot find that OBL was the mastermind of 911 but rather that the US arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, sent him to Guantanamo, tortured him until HE confessed to being the 911 mastermind, but is now insane?
http://www.september11news.com/2003KSM.htm
He thinks we don't know that if OBL was NOT responsible for 911, the entire reason for Bush's attack on and invasion of Afghanistan in the first place is a chimera, a ghost, a ploy to cover another reason having nothing to do with 911 or national security?
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
He thinks we don't know that he's increasing the military push to illegally grab Afghanistan's primary geopolitical resource -- its oil pipeline? To set up permanent military bases to keep Pakistan, India, and Russia in US sights?
He thinks we don't know these things?
He may think these things, but he'd be wrong.
Thou shall not kill! The continued use of drones to send deadly missiles down on targets in Pakistan as part of the US-Afghan conflict is totally illegal and clearly immoral.
1) If the victims are innocent civilians, targeted in error, the charge is self-explanatory.
2) If the victims are convicted terrorists; then it is an extra-judicial execution carried out by military personnel in a country that the US is not at war with.
3) If the victims are unconvicted, suspected insurgents; then it is an extra-judicial execution of a possibly innocent suspect carried out by military personnel in a country that the US is not at war with.
4) If the victims are innocents in close proximity to the intended target then it an extra-judicial execution for the "crime" of merely being in the presence of terrorist or suspected insurgent.
Such actions are possible for strong nations who wish to act with impunity in the international arena. However, if as President Obama says, America is ready to lead again then the continuation of this policy means that while proclaiming the rule of law the US is actually flaunting its power to break the law.
Such a policy exposes the US leadership to charges of hypocrisy, state terror and murder. It also makes it impossible for the many friends of the US around the world to stand with the US against the forces of extremism.
What defense could President Obama and the relevant military personnel mount if the family of one of the many innocent victims presses for criminal and civil charges to be laid?
thank you professor for such an excellent and clear article, which should be cautiously read and deepely discussed not by all americans but by the rest of the citizens of this planet. i do fear the next months won't let president obama take the right decision about the future of afghanistan occupation and knowing afghanistan and pakistan as i do - have been there for several months for several times working as a journalist - i do believe that mostly of the people who discuss the "subject" are completely unaware of both realities.
america will deepened its and the rest of the world problems if it maintains the same strategy...(writting from lisbon, portugal)
Well-stated, Professor Pilisuk!
What an exceptional manifesto!
Indeed, to continue as we are in Afghanistan is a "tragic mistake and a loss for all of us!"