Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Neoliberals: Selling His Afghan War One Report at a Time
In its support for the Afghan war, the Center for American Progress is aligning itself with the “experts” who have been wrong about pretty much everything
“The problem is not that the Bush administration’s effort in Afghanistan failed,” CAP declares. “The problem is that it was never given a chance to succeed.” The report is replete with the language of Empire and phrases like, “vital U.S. interests” and “U.S. national interests.” The phrase “Afghan interests” is never used. CAP also calls for a continuation of the US bombing raids in Pakistan. In calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, CAP relies on the classic hubris of empire, saying, “U.S. policymakers and military leaders must be aware that throughout their history Afghans have resisted large numbers of foreign forces on their soil, but today the situation is different.” Why is it different? According to CAP, “Nearly two-thirds of Afghans still support U.S. forces throughout the country.” This claim would be funny if it wasn’t so lethally misleading.
US-backed leader Hamid Karzai can barely step foot outside of his palace without risking being killed. “Some intelligence officials estimate that the government of president Hamid Karzai now controls approximately one-third of Afghan territory,” CAP acknowledges. How on earth, then, do they pretend to know that Afghans actually love the US occupation? Well, check the footnotes in CAPs report and you see that CAP is basing its claim on an ABC News poll, “Public Opinion Trends in Afghanistan,” which is based on 1,534 interviews conducted in December 2008/January 2009. When you actually take the time to read the details of the poll CAP cites, that claim that “two-thirds” of Afghans “support…U.S. forces throughout the country” is extremely dubious and outright misleading. The poll actually says that 52% of Afghans have an “unfavorable” view of the United States—up from 14% in 2005. It also says Afghans give the US a 32% performance rating, down from 68% in 2005. Only 37% of Afghans say there is “support” in their area for US/NATO/ISAF forces. The statistic the CAP report singles out for its “two-thirds support” claim is one labeled “Presence of US Forces in Afghanistan,” which says that 63% of Afghans support it. However, in the next graph, only 18% of Afghans say they want the force increased and 44% want it decreased. So, read into this what you will, but do read it before buying CAP’s claim.
In its report, CAP acknowledges the growing global unpopularity of the US occupation of Afghanistan, saying, “In a U.S. poll taken in mid-March, 42 percent of the respondents said the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, up from 30 percent just a month before and from 6 percent in January 2002. Europeans are even more skeptical, with majorities in Germany, Britain, France, and Italy opposing increased troop commitments to the conflict.” Such public opinion is worrying to CAP and the report says, “Convincing the American people, our NATO allies, and the countries in the region why an increased effort in Afghanistan is essential to their vital security interests will be one of the most difficult challenges facing the new administration.” In its report, CAP called on Obama to forcefully make the case for escalating the war in Afghanistan and Obama certainly did his best on his trip through Europe for the G20. The bottom line for CAP’s argument, which is also Obama’s, is this: “Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of choice, the war in Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity.” This line is hardly new. The report says “vital US interests will be served” by:
—“Ensur[ing] that Afghanistan does not again become a launching pad for international terrorism.”
—“Prevent[ing] a power vacuum in Afghanistan that would further destabilize Pakistan and the region.”
—“Prevent[ing] Afghanistan from being ruled by extreme elements of the Taliban and other extremist groups.”
Of course, there are opponents of the Obama administration’s escalation in Afghanistan who argue for a withdrawal from Afghanistan on moral grounds, as the War Resisters League, Peace Action and others have. “Others have laid out reasons from Afghanistan’s topography to the U.S. economic crisis that would make an expanded war in Afghanistan ‘unwinnable,’” declared the WRL in a recent statement. “WRL does not base our opposition on such arguments. While they may be correct, we challenge the very idea of a ‘winnable’ war and oppose this one as we oppose all war: not solely for practical and strategic reasons, but because of our, and [Martin Luther] King Jr.’s, decades-long commitment to nonviolence.” That position is very clear. However, there are others who agree with Obama and CAP in their basic portrayal of the “threats,” but who still question the military escalation, arguing that it will make the situation even worse. As Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin recently argued, “the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan — and possibly an additional 10,000 troops next year — before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. So long as the Taliban can flee into Pakistan and operate from there with relative ease, any gains against them in Afghanistan may well be temporary at best. Meanwhile, our troops would be threatened by forces who are largely beyond their reach, in Pakistan, while our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment among the Afghan people.”
In late March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent Obama a letter arguing, “The 2001 authorization to use military force in Afghanistan allowed military action ‘to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.’ Continuing to fight a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan does not appear to us to be in keeping with these directives and an escalation may actually harm US security.”
CAP, however, is clearly not listening to “progressive” or anti-war lawmakers. In fact, CAP says that Bush did the war against Afghanistan “on the cheap and committed too few troops and resources.” Therefore, CAP is calling for a stunning expansion of the scope of the military occupation of Afghanistan, a “nearly 300 percent increase over the average force level for the period from 2002 to 2007,” according to the report. CAP goes beyond what Obama has already committed to and calls for 70,000 US troops and an additional 30,000 allied troops—a total of 100,000 troops, plus an expanded Afghan Army and police force. CAP calls for “a prolonged U.S. engagement using all elements of U.S. national power—diplomatic, economic, and military—in a sustained effort that could last as long as another 10 years.”
To pay for this, CAP in part suggests taking what it claims will be a $330 billion savings from “reduced combat missions in Iraq” and applying $25 billion of it every year for five years to the “increased U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan” with another $5 billion per year “to increase U.S. foreign aid and diplomatic operations.” While there is a much bigger argument to be had here about spending priorities while millions of Americans are suffering from the economic meltdown, there is serious reason to question the idea that somehow we are going to be seeing any substantial “savings” in Iraq spending (except, of course, through the kind of creative accounting that masks actual US military expenditures, particularly relating to Iraq).
While calling for the US military to hammer the regions of Afghanistan where opposition to the occupation and the puppet regime in Kabul is strongest, CAP suggests the US “disperse economic assets and development teams to more stable and cooperative parts of the country.” The goal of this is to “reward the allied population with improved economic conditions and to demonstrate to the adversarial population the tangible benefits of cooperating with U.S. and allied forces.” This is similar to the US economic wars against Iraq and Cuba where the population is punished for its leadership and the US attempts to force them into submission to occupation or subjugation.
CAP acknowledges the “Taliban’s increasing power and influence,” adding that “many Afghan leaders have become increasingly critical of the conduct of international military operations in the country… Primarily because of the increasing and understandable unpopularity of NATO and U.S. air strikes,” but doesn’t call for a halt to them. Instead, CAP concludes, “it should be noted that violent insurgent attacks, particularly the proliferation of suicide bombings, still inflict the majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.”
CAP doesn’t just limit its belligerence for the Afghans. The report bluntly states that Obama must “Maintain capability to conduct missile strikes in Pakistan’s border regions absent Pakistani capability and will to do so itself.” Perhaps CAP should check in with retired United States Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and ask him why he recently declared that the U.S. should halt all Air and Predator drone strikes against Pakistan.
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald just returned from Afghanistan as part of his important documentary series, Rethink Afghanistan, which he is producing as a rolling web-based work-in-progress. In a climate where anti-war voices are being systematically kept off the corporate airwaves, Greenwald has managed to break up the party a bit, even making it onto MSNBC where he said “there is a significant belief that troops are not the answer.” While Greenwald is not exactly storming the White House to demand the immediate withdrawal of all US troops, his Brave New Films Foundation has issued a petition calling for hearings in both the House and Senate before Obama deploys more troops to Afghanistan, saying, “At a time when our country faces a credibility crisis around the world, record casualties in Afghanistan, and an economic meltdown at home, oversight hearings are needed now more than ever.” That is the least Congress could do and Greenwald’s ever-expanding film would be a good starting place for lawmakers to do some (overdue) fact-finding. The folks at CAP would be wise to watch them as well before putting out any more reports.
Here is the bottom line: the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse. As CAP states, “Last year was the deadliest on record for American troops, and fatalities in the first two months of 2009 are outpacing 2008 figures for a similar period. Afghan civilian casualties skyrocketed 40 percent in 2008—their highest since the beginning of the war.” According to the UN 2,118 civilians were killed in 2008 (other estimates put the number much higher). CAP even admits, “U.S. and NATO efforts to respond to the rise in attacks, have led to a dramatic increase in the number of civilian casualties suffered by the Afghan people.”
And yet somehow, in the eyes of CAP, all of these statistics seem to just beg for even more US troops in Afghanistan, continued bombing and sustaining the missile strikes in Pakistan. Those opposed to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan can take heart in the justice of their cause: on this issue, CAP is not on the side of those who were right about Iraq, who confronted the WMD lie, who stood up to the illegal war. No, instead, CAP is on the side of the neocons, the “experts” who know so little about so much who have been wrong about, well, almost everything for a long time.
- Posted in
27 Comments so far
Show AllWe need some new metrics on determining success. How about US dollars per dead US soldier, dollars per dead non US, and military dollars per ton on opium or military dollars per opium dollars?
O Bomb A was just another MIC stooge or he would not been able to run for President as the crime family that really runs things would not allow it. Tooo bad people were fooled again!
Go back to the Vietnam War and the regime of Lyndon Baines George Wanker Bush Johnson and you will find precisely the same cast of well educated, over achieving closet ninjas and legends in their own minds (McGeorge Bundy immediately springs to mind) that exist now in "The Presidency of Barry-O", currently filming in Warshington. D.C. (Death and Corruption). Re Afghanistan, the end will be similar to Vietnam. Give a boy scout like Barry-O a chance to play guns with real blood and real bullets and you have created a high risk for disaster.
Sioux Rose
Perhaps it's time for a word that can define an exponential degree in the expression of hubris because the word just isn't broad enough to cover the legacy of disasters the neocons have orchestrated or otherwise engineered. From the colossal losses at home, to the expunging of a million persons (or more) from Iraq, added to providing a ghastly example to Israel in the ways and means to unapologetic empire (being an empire means never having to say you're sorry), to witnessing a nation's civil liberties eclipsed with a transparent judicial fig leaf cover added as excuse and encouragement for torture. At a time when ecological threats are greater than any posed by singular groups of human beings, the neocon maniacs have acquired access to our collective hours of labor (in the form of taxes collected) to further their narrow blood-soaked dreams of empire.
Just as Midas learned that if everything turned to gold he'd have nothing like vital food to keep him alive; I shudder to think the neocons are directed at discovering this same lesson, however, I hope the universe will prove merciful to the rest of us who would prefer to learn the ways to live peacefully together in this world. The investment in weapons across the past 5-6 decades has led to a sickness, a madness that indeed wants to use these instruments of mass destruction as children would play with toys. If no human agency can rope in these criminals, it is my hope that something else soon will.
Siouxrose: "...it is my hope that something else soon will."
Not 'something else' , 'someone else' and that Someone Else is US. If we don't, it won't. If we do, it will. That simple. Gnr' Strike Sick Out: Out of Iraq/Afghanistan; Single Payer; Card Check. It's hard but it's not complicated. We just stay home and don't buy anything. We shut the country DOWN. It is our country isn't it? Wasn't it? Couldn't it be again? The only part that says, "No" to that is the part that has been beaten into learned helplessness, and we can change one pretty easy.
Sioux Rose
LUCKY: I can't do a general strike because as a freelance writer, I work for myself. I think there will come a point, and no one knows what the catalyst will be, the moment when all of a sudden everyone at a huge factory just sits down. The moment when a respected marine puts down his gun, and then his buddy does, and this movement follows on down the line like something akin to "the 200th Monkey" phenomenon. Maybe something could be organized across the Internet, but I believe there are ineffable forces that move us, moments when things "just line up" and then suggestions, probably those planted years, months, weeks prior--just manifest.
Americans may be a spoiled, selfish people, but when they cannot pay their rent or cable TV bill or buy the foods they are accustomed to, that loss of "freedom" through what paper greenbacks are in their wallets will create something like a groundswelling political tsunami. We are on its cusp... hence all this "new money" pumped into the old supply like an impoverished mother adding water to the last drops of grape juice to give the kids the semblance of a treat when their hunger would otherwise get the better of them.
By the way, welcome back. Seems you went missing for a few months (?)
As Israeli hostages, we must either fight their Islamic enemy, or Israel will start a nuclear holocaust.
I believe that Israel is as much hostage of American policy in the Middle East as we are of theirs.
The only way I can see to stop the war is for Congress to force Obama to get out by cutting the funding. The only way Congress will do that is if we push them to.
A new war funding supplemental bill is coming up shortly, yet I'm not seeing any organized effort to get Congress to vote against it. Instead the organized peace movement, such as it is, is advocating stopping the surge, congressional hearings, and diplomacy. What are they afraid of, that peace activists might turn against a Democratic president? Isn't it about time?
http://tinyurl.com/warfunding
well done jeremy, as always
i was reading last week an interview with a russian general who pointed out that the soviets won 99% of the battles they fought in afghanistan - to no avail
no mater how hard they tried they couldn't kill them all
they killed a lot of people
they lost 15,000 men
and they destroyed their own country which doesn't even exist anymore
Success metrics can also be defined as how the homeless and unemployed are increasing in the US, and how climate change accelarates while trillions are spent on the Quagmire and Baddy-Stan wars. Success means lots of refunding to rich bankers on Wall Street. The current metaphor of the US government is the predator drone. Destructive guidance by remote control. They are the latest high tech means of avoiding direct contact with people and reality. The avoidance of dealing with reality, humanity and nature is now a full time occupation, the chief purpose of which is to maintain the illusions of power of the US government by guided destruction.
At the end of this presidency , it will be said how well Obama maintained the symbology of the presidential Office, despite things getting on the whole, rather worse. Making war, cracking down on the lower classes and constitutional rights, keeping American wealth secure, and following the Zionist dream of cleansing Palestine of the natives. All the traditional despotic virtues of a man puffed up by his Office.
Sioux Rose
B3NIGN: Powerful and astute post, particularly your first paragraph. Your vision is clear.
True.
However, Obama has a problem. Hell hath no fury like a downtroden people who were wooed to new trust only to have that trust dashed. You could see Bush was an unfeeling clod. But this is worse than treason. I think the economy (the real one, not the wall street mafia) is in the driver seat, not Obama or his elite handlers. We are at critical mass. So I do think some good things are coming for the common people out of elite fear of us.
Perfect, B3nign. How ironic that the defense of our country has turned into the means of our destruction? What does it matter if Obama "wins" in Afghanistan if our people and the freedom the military was supposed to defend is destroyed? Seems that we lost WWII after all. Finance, defense and intelligence have grown into an industry that we now serve instead of those institutions serving us. Puffed up Obama is a better front man than Bush.
I just do not understand any of this! Please forgive me.
Two things are for sure: 1) al-Qaeda raises Hell throughout the world once in a while to get their message across and use violent methods to do such. That is important to understand. Ok? 2) It is understandable why most people in the world are skeptical about a military excursion inside, of all nations on Earth anyhow, Afghanistan.
IF the al-Qaeda central command is truly in Waziristan, they could not have picked a better place anywhere on Earth to hide. Personally, I am very skeptical about a successful outcome in this decision made by the NATO alliance (which basically means USA) to go into Afghanistan for the simple fact that it is Afghanistan this article discusses.
Could haves would haves should haves? Well, in retrospect,the USA should have cut its losses after 9/11! Unfortunately, this decision would have been politically unpopular inside the USA because most USA citzens had a deep thirst for revenge. Pity...
I think it is too little to late for NATO to do what it needs to do. I do NOT want this to turn into another lengthy excursion like Vietnam was. I want this done lickety-split! At minimum, I expect NATO to demand the Afghan people to be more civilized (After all, the citizens of Afghanistan are NOT civilized in many senses of the word) or risk their extinction. Of course, NATO DOES have the power to state this to the citizens of Afghanistan. Yes, the Afghans throughout human history were able to successfully defend themselves from foreigners for the most part; BUT, I seriously doubt that NATO would be as kind to them as the Russians were! Unlike the former Soviet Union, NATO sounds like they mean business regarding Afghanistan - and Pakistan to go along with what NATO wants. I believe that, when push comes to shove, THE BOMB will be dropped on Afghanistan by NATO if the Afghan people refuse NATO's terms to destroy any al-Qaeda people in their country and if the Afghan people refuse to treat the women of Afghanistan as equal to men. In other words, if Afghans refuse to act like a civilized people and to stop f-ing with the First World. If people here catch my drift...
Civilized people? Are you saying we are civilized in the USA? What kind of country spends 44% of their budget on war and weapons and less than 2.5% on education? And you call that civilized? We are barbarians! We are on the Uranium and Plutonium standard of brutal bully might makes right. Civilized? You've got the wrong place, pal. Our government doesn't give A TINKER'S DAMN about how brutal the Taliban are. It's all about oil and the control of it. The rest is propaganda. You have had a sheltered life.
According to congressional budget office, defense spending makes up 21% of the federal budget. Also, isn't education mostly paid for by state budgets?
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
OVERVIEW
The Federal Role in Education
Overview
Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.
That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 9 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program. Even when support for postsecondary education is added in, ED's contribution, including loans and other aid made available as a result of ED's student financial aid programs, is only about 12 percent of the total spending for all levels of education. ED's $68.6 billion appropriation, by the way, is less than 2.3 percent of the Federal Government's $3 trillion budget in fiscal year 2008.
Although 12 percent may not sound like much, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
Your post shows plainly that your politics lacks depth, any nuance or understanding, shows no subtlety and cries out that you read and ponder further prior to making up your mind. Because you decided that you need a rapid solution is not a reason to suggest any sort of ridiculous strategy as you do.
Dropping any bomb, much less THE BOMB, does not bring about the desired conclusion. All it will do is change the location of AlQaeda's headquarters and increase manyfold the numbers of extremists who battle against western imperialism.
And now from our intrepid media matrix, this gem of lies for propaganda to shut up dissenters of war in Afghanistan. Busy, busy bees:
The Taliban is supposed to have flogged a teenage girl. The story is pushed as "Outrage in Pakistan over Taliban behavior". Well, what a coincidence that the Taliban gets in the news when President Obama wants to send troops there. It's a lie folks. Do you see how this works? Listen to Sioux Rose. She knows the score.
This sure doesn't sound any different from the way Dubya sold his WMD in Iraq lie to the general public. Who the hell is owning CAP anyway ?
Jeniffer it isn't. BHO is borrowing more pages from the Bush/Cheney Imperial Torturers Handbook. The first step was no NIE. That means you make it up as you go along and say anything you damn please.
Peace
" Who the hell is owning the CAP anyway? Just follow the $$$$$$$ Jennifer!
So call a Gnr'l Stryke - right from here. Nobody goes to work on Wednesday the X Day - we call in sick "Sorry boss, puking and vomiting and diarrhea all night long. Not in today." Call and leave the message at 5am (can't argue with a message) - SICK OUT. And maybe somebody decides to sit down that day with 100000 of their close friends in the middle of Main Street - every Main Street - in waves.
1. Out of Iraq/Afghanistan NOW.
2. Single Payer NOW
3. Card Check NOW
If we hit those points, it will start an avalanche. Out of Iraq/Afghanistan puts our Thumb in the eye of the MIC and frees BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of our $$$ to work here at home; Conyers Medicare for all DESTROYS the Corporate lock on Health Care and frees massive sums not spent on corporate richfilth animals: Card Check - as originally written - changes the balance of power in the workplace. Those three will shatter the dam.
I'm tired of talking folks. It is past time we reminded these animals of what real Americans are about when they get fed up with richfilth bullies who think they own our world. THEY DON'T, we've just let them use it a lot longer than we should have. WE HAVE CHANGED OUR MIND.
Our parents and grandparents did not fight Adolf Hitler so that we could lay down for the grandchildren of the double Traitor Prescott Bush, and his current Overseer. No more Richfilth Traitors making our country a land of torturers, usurers, and degraded despots.
WE ARE NOT ENTERTAINED!!
People have asked me about 3 Tags instead of just the 1: Out of Iraq/Afghanistan; Single Payer; and Card Check; Here are the reasons:
1. Any single stick can be broken, put 3 together not even the strongest can break it.
2. There is no confusion about what they mean. OUT means OUT. Single Payer is already written. Card Check is written and known (before the dims and our POTUS proceed to mangle and rape it to death).
3. Every single one of these shifts the balance of power from the corporations to us. Card Check in the workplace; Single Payer in health care; and Out of Iraq, the MIC. Every single one puts money in our pocket, puts power in our hands, and frees money to rebuild this broken country.
4. Each of the 3 has major constituencies it brings to the table: Anti-War (all of us); Health Care (all of us); and Labor (all of us).
And all we have to do is stay home and buy nothing.
10 million, 20 million, 30 million adults stay home from work.
Workplace Empty
Schools Empty
Colleges Empty
Stores Empty
Freeways Empty
Silence that will shock the world and change American history.
And no marginally literate high school graduate with a badge and a gun, "just following orders" gets to degrade a Citizen or shoot them in the face with rubber bullets or push their face into the pavement and taser them as punishment merely for standing up as a Citizen.
Remember the song from "Old Blue Eyes"? "Start spreadin' the news..."
Excellent points.
The recent general strikes in Guadeloupe and Martinique, and the limited one in France, were very effective. All it takes is some calls from organizers and the citizenry goes to work.
But here in the US, most people have never even heard the word "solidarity" much less know what it means. So instead, we have people going insane and lashing out violently - like the guy in Binghamton and, and the nut who killed three policemen at his home near where I live.
Lets call this Escallation of the AfPac war what it is..."ObamaNam."
This continued belligerence is particularly disturbing given that the federal government also continues to attempt to centralize control of media, including digital media:
"Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems."
(More here:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040209-obama-cybersecurity-bill.html)