Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Coalition of the Unwilling
It might have actually related not to snow cover, but to a snow job, covering up the growing divide between Afghanistan policies.
U.S. policy in Afghanistan includes a troop surge, already under way, and continued bombing in Pakistan using unmanned drones. Escalating civilian deaths are a certainty. The United Nations estimates that more than 2,100 civilians died in 2008, a 40 percent jump over 2007.
The occupation of Afghanistan is in its eighth year, and public support in many NATO countries is eroding. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, told me: "The move into Afghanistan is going to be very expensive. ... Our European NATO partners are getting disillusioned with the war. I talked to a lot of the people in Europe, and they really feel this is a quagmire."
Forty-one nations contribute to NATO's 56,000-troop presence in Afghanistan. More than half of the troops are from the U.S. The United Kingdom has 8,300 troops, Canada just under 3,000. Maintaining troops is costly, but the human toll is greater. Canada, with 108 deaths, has suffered the highest per capita death rate for foreign armies in Afghanistan, since its forces are based in the south around Kandahar, where the Taliban is strong.
Last Sunday on CNN, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "We're not going to win this war just by staying ... we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency." U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: "The United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory." Yet it's Canada that has set a deadline for troop withdrawal at the end of 2011. The U.S. is talking escalation.
Anand Gopal, Afghanistan correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, described the situation on the ground: "A lot of Afghans that I speak to in these southern areas where the fighting has been happening say that to bring more troops, that's going to mean more civilian casualties. It'll mean more of these night raids, which have been deeply unpopular amongst Afghans. ... Whenever American soldiers go into a village and then leave, the Taliban comes and attacks the village." Afghan Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai, a woman, told Gopal: "Send us 30,000 scholars instead. Or 30,000 engineers. But don't send more troops-it will just bring more violence."
Women in Afghanistan play a key role in winning the peace. A photographer wrote me: "There will be various celebrations across Afghanistan to honor International Women's Day on Sunday, March 8. In Kandahar there will be an event with hundreds of women gathering to pray for peace, which is especially poignant in a part of Afghanistan that is so volatile." After returning from an international women's gathering in Moscow, feminist writer Gloria Steinem noted that the discussion centered around getting the media to hire peace correspondents to balance the war correspondents. Voices of civil society would be amplified, giving emphasis to those who wage peace. In the U.S. media, there is an equating of fighting the war with fighting terrorism. Yet on the ground, civilian casualties lead to tremendous hostility. Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, recently told me: "I've been saddened and shocked by virulent anti-American responses to those wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. They're seen as occupations. ... I think it's very important we learn from mistakes of sounding war drums." She added, "There's such a connection from the Middle East to Afghanistan to Pakistan which builds on strengths of working with neighbors."
Barack Obama was swept through the primaries and into the presidency on the basis of his anti-war message. Prime ministers like Brown and Harper are bending to growing public demand for an end to war. Yet in the U.S., there is scant debate about sending more troops to Afghanistan, and about the spillover of the war into Pakistan.
- Posted in
45 Comments so far
Show Alli don't think it's "public demand" that harper & brown are bending to. public demand in canada and britain has never been for their involvement in afghanistan. never.
more likely it's two things: 1) the economy 2) realizing the b.ho admin has no more idea about what to do in afghanistan than bush did, and that failure is inevitable.
Bush and Obama both DO KNOW what do do in Afghanistan and Iraq...keep all wars going (including the war on drugs and the war on terror)to assure that the military industrial media complex and the prison industrial complex have an eternal revenue stream of taxpayer dollars that can then be channeled into campaign contributions to the Republicans and the Democrats.
Ending the wars would result in at least 25% unemployment in the US by years end and no politician wants to be accused of increasing unemployment in the current economic environment.
Change we can believe in. Ever notice how Obama's disciples ignore these threads.
Gloria Steinem noted that the discussion centered around getting the media to hire peace correspondents to balance the war correspondents.
---------------------
Great idea and I support it 100%.
Unfortunately the Fairness Doctrine was just buried (with overwhelming Democratic support).
So alternative voices will not get a chance to express ideas contrary to those espoused by the military media banking insurance oil complex.
There is no room to discuss peace on the public's airwaves.
Gloria Steinem put women in the prison of the working poor. We will never see justice, fairness or even a level playing field in the US - if we ever had one. Revision of the bankruptcy laws were so damaging to women it is astounding to have watched them go from the Bernaisian days of 'you've come a long way baby' to actually voting the republicans into office repeatedly over the pat 20 some odd years.
One hypothesis: Obama wants to seem tough militarily as cover for a more progressive agenda. BUT AFGHANISTAN INCREASED INVOLVEMENT IS A BIG MISTAKE.
Sioux Rose
SHACH: In times of prosperity a leader could potentially do both, but now it's either guns or butter and it's nothing short of insanity (suicide on a grand scale) to choose guns over butter given what's at stake in the homeland, not to mention the historical track record (which operates almost akin to its own oracle) of Afghanistan... graveyard of empires, karmic school of hubris unlimited.
Thank You Amy for your tireless dedication to Justice!!!
Nothing new here; nothing most of us don't already know or haven't said over and over again; nothing likely to change; but I agree with Glenn Ford: thanks to Amy at least one of our voices is heard.
We haven't learned shit in so long it is beginning to look like politicians come off a war asembly line.Tony
Amy notes, "In the U.S. media, there is an equating of fighting the war with fighting terrorism."
And as Cygnus said, "There is no room to discuss peace on the public's airwaves."
That encapsulates the problem. Corporate media takes dictation from the executive branch, under either wing of the dreadful duopoly we call a political system, and spews it back to the public as if it's holy writ. Obama is totally hypnotised into believing the Global War on Terror is profoundly imperative and our country's most urgent cause, so his stupidity regarding Afghanistan becomes inevitable.
Where are the terrorists? Why, around the Afghan/Pakistan border, of course. Also scattered all over the Middle East, but the elusive Osama bin Laden is, according to legend, holed up in some cave in that border country. So we must spend a few trillion dollars and waste several hundred thousand lives, maybe millions before it's over, rooting him out so Obama can have his moment of war glory, the way Bush did when they ordered Saddam out of his spider hole.
This kind of empty symbolism is necessary so that Real Americans can know Obama means business and isn't going to get sidetracked on sissy issues like global warming, clean affordable energy alternatives (not coal or nuclear, btw), or socialistic health care. Americans want War Presidents! This is what is religiously believed in Washington and no amount of carping and complaining from the progressive left is going to penetrate those thick arrogant skulls.
After 8 years of the Worst President in History, his replacement STILL isn't listening to us! By God, he's surging into Afghanistan and we can bitch about it all we want. He won't be listening, he'll be bailing out more banksters, incompetent auto execs, Wall Street con artists, and paving a clear path for Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, General Dynamics et al. to make as big a killing in Afghanistan as they have in Iraq. This is what he's there for. Not for the likes of us. We know too much and they resent us for it.
Let's go back to 1979 when the Soviet Union had employed an economic and politcal program in Afghanistan that was having success. The United States, under the guidance of Zbigniew Brzezinski, decided that, "If the Soviets are successful in Afghanistan then they will move their program into Iran."
Since that 1979 destabilization program, Afghanistan reverted back to "Warlords" and "Power Conflicts" until the United States and Saudi Arabia put the Taliban in power. Once the Taliban decided to give the "Oil Pipeline" contract to Bridas Oil of Argentina, they were destined to become "The Enemy".
The United States, no Zbigniew Brzezinski, knows that if the Taliban return to power, they will destroy that "Oil Pipeline" and ZB has Obama's ear.
Instead, let's negotiate with those Taliban, after all, they are Sunnis and still supported by Saudi Arabia. We can offer them the Soviet Plan of 1979 and promise none of the aid will be CIA "Black Operations" and we will pay for the oil going through the pipeline.
What a sin, to turn the armies into invasion forces to protect the flow of oil to the United States and kill thousands of innocent civilians who did nothing but live out their lives in poverty. (I would hate to hear what Barbara Bush would say.)
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: Good post, and I share your righteous indignation; but wouldn't you agree that much of what you articulate follows the blueprint Naomi Klein has wisely termed "the shock doctrine?" The strategy is to leave no money in the treasury for things that count, which is to say improve the lives of ordinary citizens. Governments don't listen to their constituents, democracy is just a brand name, and policies serve a very small percentage, the blood thirsty elite. I find the parallels OMINOUS between how this agenda was put forth in other lands and how it's being refitted to compress our nation's psyche, spirit, treasury, and body politic.
As ever, I'm with you 100% Siouxrose. I've read many of Klein's essays and various glosses from others on the shock doctrine but haven't got the book yet. I will soon but most of what she's saying is familiar. It's similar to Turse's work on the MITESMIC complex, in that the intertwining of these organizations, businesses and agencies is so pervasive throughout the society and culture as to literally make the mind reel. When you see how immense this conspiracy is, you absolutely can't even take it in.
When virtually the whole economy of a nation is structured around the idea of military conquest to achieve all its true objectives, an arrangement that is certain to keep the treasury hostage forever to the militarists, there really seems no way to do anything about it. We'd have to mount massive protests and demonstrations that had TEETH and were spontaneous, not these pale, tame, mindlessly rehearsed imitations we've been having for years that accomplish literally nothing. (I've been on a few, and nothing is less inspiring.)
See Naomi Wolf's Youtube video posted yesterday on CD. She is totally right. All the marching and demonstrating has been utterly useless because they've been neutered by the permit police, the bureaucrats telling us where and when we can and cannot go, how we are to comport ourselves, what can be said to whom and how it must be said. Failing to abide by all their rules and restrictions means the cops are set free with rubber bullets, tasers, clubs and everyone's hauled away to jail bleeding. This is the profile of a police state.
Americans are so terrified of stepping outside the boundaries these thugs for war have erected that we can't do anything now that can possibly matter. Until we begin to ignore their restrictions against our movements and speech, they have won, and all we have is blogging. Which by itself accomplishes nothing. The two Naomis know all this. We need to act on their insights and instructions.
Three things don't seem to connect with me here. 1) Obama swept to victory as the anti-war president? He never said he was against the Afghan war. Quite the opposite really---he stressed the belief that Afghanistan was the place where the terrorist were, the place we neglected when we went into Iraq. 2) Amy says the women of Afghanistan will play a key roll in bringing peace to the country. If we leave now---as she seems to be arguing for---the women of Afghanistan will be shunted away under the burkhas again, silenced by the Taliban who will take over---no voice, no schooling, no face. 3) When the Defense Secretary says "The United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory." it would seem to imply that the escalation is NOT all we're thinking about. Obama has said that higher troop levels must be concurrent with improvement in the humanitarian situation.
It's an ugly situation---one we should never have put ourselves in. But we're there now, and I don't think we can just up and leave. There's no controlling authority other than the NATO forces.
I think that yes, Obama DID campaign as an anti-war president. Yes, he said we needed to focus more on Afghanistan and that more troops might be needed, but nothing he said implied he would support greater civilian casualties.
I wish that the author of this editorial could boil it down to a paragraph and asked President Obama to explain his policy. Perhaps at the next news conference someone else can raise the issue?
"but nothing he said implied he would support greater civilian casualties."
Do you seriously believe he sits in the White House looking for ways to increase civilian casualties? I can envision rouge elements in the military who wish to foment disorder by indiscriminately killing civilians, but I don't think the President is there.
He did say during the campaign that he was for bombing the border regions of Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorists. I suppose greater civilian casualties are a trade off he's willing to accept, but I don't think he's actively looking for them.
good morning madcow
I suggest you check into the history of the good ol united states of america.
our leaders have always been using the "we're there now, and I don't think we can just up and leave" comment for along time all over this earth of ours. normally this occurs once they deem the current government can't be bought and corrupted into doing whatever we tell it to.
reverse the situation. afghani soldiers and paramilitary are in the state where you live and drones are going out and have "unfortunately" just wiped (murdered) one or several of your loved ones, perhaps even a child of yours.
Do you still take the same stance "there here now, and they can't just up and leave" or do you take the stance of "get the hell out of our country and for once let us figure it out?
just a question.
I know the "we're there now" argument has been used to further the occupations of the empire. Look at Iraq for the last few years for a prime example. I know we don't have a right to invade countries for resources. And I know that if the situation were reversed we would all be "terrorists" to get them out of our country. But look at what would happen if we left---back to the Taliban. My sense is that the people of Afghanistan don't want a return to that repressive regime. Part of me wants to say that it's totally up to them, and we should just leave, but then the result....
hello madcow.
zeitgeist:addendum is an excellent resource for getting numbers and a quick education about what the mainstream news doesn't want you to know. check out their website and watch the video on youtube at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
its long but if you "scrub" the playhead to the 52:28 mark you'll see the facts in regards to Afghanistans "history" of being the worlds biggest opium/heroin supplier.
"before 1980-Afghanistan produced 0% of the world's opium"
"After the U.S./CIA backed Mujahadeen won the Soviet/Afghan war, by 1986 they were producing 40% of the worlds Heroin supply"
"by 1999 they were producing 80% of the worlds heroin supply"
when the Taliban rose to power in 2000 they destroyed most of the opium fields decreasing the production of the worlds supply by 94%" from 3,000 tons to 185 tons.
then 9/11 happened (or was created?) and now U.S controlled Afghanistan produces 90% of the worlds heroin supply.
why the hell would you want us there if this was true?
I know about the poppies too. The propaganda machine has it that the Taliban, in their desperate search for funds, are the ones responsible for the return of the opium trade. I don't buy it. So the Taliban are good for something. Does that mean they're supported by the people? Does it mean the repression is okay? If the people want them, then okay---I say we leave today. But if not---what? And how can we know what the people want---unfiltered by the propaganda?
And I'm not for an unlimited occupation---just until the government can stand by itself.
Check this out: http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2008.pdf
Nearly 70% of the Afghani people seem to believe that the Afghani police need help from foreign troops to be effective.
I'm getting kind of tired of Amy Goodman's whining.
Then don't read/listen to her...
The only one whining is you whining about Amy...
Perhaps you are confusing the message with the messenger...
Stop whining about Amy Goodman, for God's sake! She's smart and fairly honest and is actually doing something. I wish her good health.
Polls show that most voters are pleased with Obama's policies to withdraw or troops from Iraq although some caveats have been put in place to hedge the bet. There also seems to be alot of rethinking going on about the situation in Afghanistan. The situation in Pakistan is volatile, "nation-building" is not altogether popular in the Pentagon, our resources are stretched to the limit, military spending has reached the point where it has become a two-way street: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Our commitments are largely speculative, our intelligence limited.
The situation on the military and the economic front is far too delicate for serious leaders to get bogged down answering the assine questions of the American press. Our pundits pose as "educators"- Amy Goodman not the least of them- but never has it been clearer that the "educators must themselves be educated". Let us see if any can begin to distinguish themelves in that regard and then open the door to a free-wheeling give and take in the Press room.
" Afghan Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai, a woman, told Gopal: "Send us 30,000 scholars instead. Or 30,000 engineers. But don't send more troops-it will just bring more violence."
Does anyone actually think the United States is wise enough to do such a thing? Hah! LOL! When's Obama going to fly onto the deck of an aircraft carrier?
While I was reading this article I was informed (via CBC) that three more Canadian soldiers lost their lives today (?) in Afghanistan.
Amongst other things, we need to change our thinking and our language. For the US government and the press, every person that takes up arms in any way to protect himself and family, or to drive the occupiers out of his country is a "terrorist" an "insurgent" and probably trained by the often sought, but never found, Al-Qaeda.
If we had enough empathy in this country to realize that most of the violence we see in the Middle East is from people who are, to their own people, patriots! If the tables were turned and we were the occupied country, having our citizens shot and our towns bombed by the invaders, we, too, would be "terrorists" and "insurgents," planting IEDs, cutting throats, sniping, anything to drive the invaders and their Quisling officials out of our country.
So it has been with any occupation. If we cannot learn to sit down and talk these things out to, at least, mutual understanding, we shall just go on, spending huge sums to kill each individual patriot until we run out of money.
Afghanistan has been eating foreign armies since the time of Alexander. They are very good at it. Ask the British. Ask the Russians. Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan are tribal areas, linked by blood and clan. They do not recognize the artificial borders set up primarily by the West. A relation killed on one side of the border will be avenged, if necessary, by a relative on the other side.
Every time we hit a village or a house with a half-million dollar Hellfire missile, hoping to kill a guy or two with a gun, we create yet another blood feud with a people who do not forgive or forget. I would not be a Russian or American tourist in either country, even in the 22nd century, for there will always be somebody who will remember.
We could be an agency for good, with engineers and doctors and builders, but we will accomplish little at the point of a gun. It may already be too late. I watched an interview with some Afghans the other day. Several said, "We don't want your bridges and your schools and hospitals, we want you out of our country, and out of our lives!"
Hear hear! minitrue speaks the real truth. Very well said. Your post should be nailed to the front door of the Oval Office.
"Every time we hit a village or a house with a half-million dollar Hellfire missile, hoping to kill a guy or two with a gun, we create yet another blood feud with a people who do not forgive or forget. I would not be a Russian or American tourist in either country, even in the 22nd century, for there will always be somebody who will remember."
well yeah we do make a enemies, for sure. but minitrue the point is those hellfires actually do also kill people- mostly women and children. sorry about spoiling your vacation plans too....
Yeah, but remember, those women and kids are just collateral damage. We take care of that by giving dollars on a sliding scale of around five hundred to a thousand and voila, the books are cleared.
What would you do if your hopes, your love, your future was blasted into eternity and a guy offered you a shrink wrapped handful of money to forget the whole thing and go your way?
The problem with sending scholars or engineers is that it doesn't benefit the vested corporate interests. If the majority of Americans tuned into Amy Goodman instead of the MSM, then America would have no troops abroad, 9/11 would have never happened and the U.S. would be respected the whole world over.
The key to turning America around is weaning the populace off of the distorted and dangerous info-tainment masquerading as 'news' that we're all subjected to right now in the mainstream media.
Keep up the good work Amy. The rest of us can in the meantime work at the grassroots level by introducing the populace to alternative avenues of information. Take an ad out in the local paper directing people to progressive websites. Encourage public venues to avoid propaganda laden networks. Direct schools to educate children on the motives behind the garbage on TV, radio stations and the printed word.
If Americans can't seize back democracy from our corporate masters, the whole planet will perish.
madcow,
Afghani people have the right to SELF-DETERMINATION. So don't say that they need NATO there to rule them. It's an occupation and it's illegal, so all foreing troops need to be OUT as soon as possible. By the way, the reason why the Taliban are gaining strength is because of the occupation, not the other way around.
does the left still want the USA to be under the World Court Jurisdiction? Your guy is in charge now. Your cabinet. Be careful what you wish or ask for! You just might get it!
By all means.
The Democratic Party is utterly reactionary and now pushing for a coming war against Iran. In each and every essential manner they are continuing to carry out the Re publican's strategy to try to dominate Russia and China through a continual world war supposedly directed against terrorism. The longer that American liberals continue to play stupid about all this and continue to give their support to the Democrats, the worse result we will endure down the road.
We're the city on a hill, the indispensable nation, the goodness for all the world to see. From Jesus, to Mathew, to Henry Luce, to Madelaine Albright, to Wolfowitz--and now Obama--- we are the light of the world, the bringer of goodness and whatever else they teach in US schools.
Except when we're not! Really, we're just an imperialist country trying to rule the world. Bound to come to a bad end--see Rome, Great Britain.
I found Harper's remarks, while true, utterly surprising on US soil "We're not going to win this war just by staying ... we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency." So much so that I wonder whether this was the outcome of his recent discussion with Obama. At least I hope so, in which case he was pushing their joint agenda as a surrogate. Now we need to support this point of view, question the goal in Afghanistan, and enable our leaders to get the upper hand on the war machine.
When Ron Paul, once a solid "anti-imperial" candidate for president, was gaining momentum in the polls, Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! chose to virtually ignore his ideas and focused instead on the candidates backed by the corrupt Democratic leadership.
The ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and "soon to come" Iran, are not just Obama's wars, they belong to Amy Goodman as well.
A little fact about Amy Goodman's Democracy Now:
In 2004, the ACLU refused to take any donations from the Ford Foundation due to their clause, which is as follows:
"By countersigning this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities."
Nevertheless, in 2004, DN! took in a $150,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, according to the Ford Foundation 2005 annual report.
In fact, if you track Amy Goodman's finances, you find a lot of it comes from the Ford Foundation and similar "strategic philanthropy" outlets - and these guys have a long history of setting up bogus news outlets in foreign countries that are cleverly designed to spin public opinion.
Amy Goodman fits the bill - she was a product of Harvard-Radcliffe cognitive science program, right? Then she got a cover working as a reporter in Indonesia, and now she is the darling of the liberal media establishment - all set up by the Ford Foundation... just like Gloria Steinem and the CIA.
It was the post-Seattle response by the American neoliberal elite, who were shocked and dismayed by the site of labor unions engaging in massive protests against globalization, NAFTA, environmental destruction and unfair labor practices.
Yes, that's right - Amy Goodman is a fraud. Look up the history between her and Pacifica, and you'll see that it was a staged takeover - and now Pacifica is as right-wing and pro-corporate as NPR is.
Amy's show is a beacon of light in a dark world. We need more independent views like hers.
good morning gunboatdiplomat and zorax
Please! What madness to go after Amy Goodman and criticize her.
She is truly someone that progressives and the left need on their side now.
Sure she got caught up in the "obama hype" that everyone did a couple of months ago but their has always been counter arguments to current happenings in the world on democracynow. ie, see the excellent (must read) piece from yesterday on DN. "Despite Celebrated Speech, Has Obama Really Ordered an End to US Occupation of Iraq?"
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/4/despite_celebrated_speech_has_obama_really
I have no idea whom either of you voted for? I voted for Ralph, who got way more airtime and press on DN! then any other station. Amy was in Minnesota at the Rep. Conv. and took it on the chin when the Nazi police illegally raided activist's homes.
Burn the American Flag, protest in the streets, but please don't ever call Amy Goodman a "fraud" or Pacifica "right wing".
peace out playahs
and one more thing (I promise ;-)
when the democratic debates were happening, only Amy and DN! allowed the other candidates, Nader and McKinney to respond to the same questioning that Obummer and Billiary were asked,clearly showing that the American People truly could vote for "true" change and hope with either of the afore mentioned candidates.
And to even go further she was right there when Dennis K was being unrightfully excluded from participating in the debates, and showing those who were reading (apparently you weren't) who were really controlling the debates. Again, Dennis K, a vote for "true" change and hope (one of the few people in the U.S. government who spoke up against the atrocities that the Israeli terrorists rained down on the people of Gaza.
Unless you can back up your statements with facts, please rescind your comment about Amy! No hard feelings.
have a great thursday
I'm not dead set against Amy. DN! is clearly better than the mainstream media. I'm merely pointing out she has a flaw that is as serious as Obama's.
Michael Moore and Kucinich have it too. It's a "genetic disposition" to always vote Democratic.
Considering Ron Paul made it very clear he WOULD end our wars pronto, and close ALL our foreign bases, this dream-come-true candidate against empire (who managed to pull off a counter-Republican convention ) should have been given much, much more coverage than what Amy afforded.
Ron Paul came ever so close to "successfully" doing with the Republican Party what Moore prodded progressives to "try" and do with the Democrats: take it over from within. It's a crime Amy didn't offer needed support.
No hard feelings. Have a pleasant day as well!
It would be a very, very bad mistake if we get involved in Pakistan. And that's the result of our policy in Afghanistan. We have to seriously re-examine our policy towards all Muslim states. The best way to fight 'terrorism' is to fight those things that cause terrorism, that is poverty, hunger, ignorance, and greed.