Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Thursday, December 3, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
The Afghan Quagmire
Misusing professional cadets at West Point as a political prop, President Barack Obama delivered his speech on the Afghanistan war forcefully but with fearful undertones. He chose to escalate this undeclared war with at least 30,000 more soldiers plus an even larger number of corporate contractors.
He chose the path the military-industrial complex wanted. The “military” planners, whatever their earlier doubts about the quagmire, once in, want to prevail. The “industrial” barons because their sales and profits rise with larger military budgets.
A majority of Americans are opposed or skeptical about getting deeper into a bloody, costly fight in the mountains of central Asia while facing recession, unemployment, foreclosures, debt and deficits at home. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), after hearing Mr. Obama’s speech said, “Why is it that war is a priority but the basic needs of people in this country are not?”
Let’s say needs like waking up to do something about 60,000 fatalities a year in our country related to workplace diseases and trauma. Or 250 fatalities a day due to hospital induced infections, or 100,000 fatalities a year due to hospital malpractice, or 45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance to pay for treatment, or, or, or, even before we get into the economic poverty and deprivation. Any Obama national speeches on these casualties?
Back to the West Point teleprompter speech. If this is the product of a robust internal Administration debate, the result was the same cookie-cutter, Vietnam approach of throwing more soldiers at a poorly analyzed situation. In September, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen told an American Legion Convention, “I’ve seen the public opinion polls saying that a majority of Americans don’t support the effort at all. I say, good. Let’s have the debate, let’s have that discussion.”
Where? Not in Congress. There were only rubberstamps and grumbles; certainly nothing like the Fulbright Senate hearings on the Vietnam War.
Where else? Not in the influential commercial media. Forget jingoistic television and radio other than the satire of Jon Stewart plus an occasional non-commercial Bill Moyers show or rare public radio commentary. Not in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post.
A FAIR study published in the organization’s monthly newsletter EXTRA reports that of all opinion columns in The New York Times and the Washington Post over the first 10 months of 2009, thirty-six out of forty-three columns on the Afghanistan War in the Times supported the war while sixty-one of the sixty-seven Post columns supported a continued war.
So what would a rigorous public and internal administration debate have highlighted? First, the more occupation forces there are, the more they fuel the insurgency against the occupation, especially since so many more civilians than fighters lose their lives. Witness the wedding parties, villagers, and innocent bystanders blown up by the U.S. military’s superior weaponry.
Second, there was a remarkable absence in Obama’s speech about the tribal conflicts and the diversity of motivations of those he lumped under the name of “Taliban.” Some are protecting their valleys, others are in the drug trade, others want to drive out the occupiers, others are struggling for supremacy between the Pashtuns on one side and the Tajiks and Uzbeks on the other (roughly the south against the north). The latter has been the substance of a continuing civil war for many years.
Third, how can Obama’s plan begin to work, requiring a stable, functioning Afghan government—which now is largely a collection of illicit businesses milking the graft, which grows larger in proportion to what the American taxpayers have to spend there—and the disorganized, untrained Afghan army—mainly composed of Tajiks and Uzbeks loathed by the Pashtuns.
Fourth, destroying or capturing al Qaeda attackers in Afghanistan ignores Obama’s own intelligence estimates. Many observers believe al Qaeda has gone to Pakistan or elsewhere. The New York Times reports that “quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well—if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms.”
Hello! Congress did not authorize a war in Pakistan, so does Obama, like Bush, just decree what the Constitution requires to be authorized by the legislative branch? Can we expect another speech at the Air Force Academy on the Pakistan war?
Fifth, as is known, al Qaeda is a transnational movement. Highly mobile, when it is squeezed. As Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the former CIA officer operating in Pakistan, said: “There is no direct impact on stopping terrorists around the world because we are or are not in Afghanistan.” He argues that safe havens can be moved to different countries, as has indeed happened since 9/11.
Sixth, the audacity of hope in Obama’s speech was illustrated by his unconvincing date of mid-2011 for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan. The tendered exit strategy, tied to unspecified conditions, was a bone he tossed to his shaky liberal base.
The White House recently said it costs $1 million a year to keep each single soldier in Afghanistan. Take one fifth of that sum and connect with the tribal chiefs to build public facilities in transportation, agriculture, schools, clinics, public health, and safe drinking water.
Thus strengthened, these tribal leaders know how to establish order. This is partly what Ashraf Ghani, the former respected Afghan finance minister and former American anthropology professor, called concrete “justice” as the way to undermine insurgency.
Withdraw the occupation, which now is pouring gasoline on the fire. Bring back the saved four-fifths of that million dollars per soldier to America and provide these and other soldiers with tuition for their education and training.
The principal authority in Afghanistan is tribal. Provide the assistance, based on stage-by-stage performance, and the tribal leaders obtain a stake in stability. Blown apart by so many foreign invaders—British, Soviet, American—and internally riven, the people in the countryside look to tribal security as the best hope for a nation that has not known unity for decades.
Lifting the fog of war allows other wiser policies urged by experienced people to be considered for peace and security.
Rather than expanding a boomeranging war, this alternative has some probability of modest success unlike the sure, mounting loss of American and Afghani lives and resources.
He chose the path the military-industrial complex wanted. The “military” planners, whatever their earlier doubts about the quagmire, once in, want to prevail. The “industrial” barons because their sales and profits rise with larger military budgets.
A majority of Americans are opposed or skeptical about getting deeper into a bloody, costly fight in the mountains of central Asia while facing recession, unemployment, foreclosures, debt and deficits at home. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), after hearing Mr. Obama’s speech said, “Why is it that war is a priority but the basic needs of people in this country are not?”
Let’s say needs like waking up to do something about 60,000 fatalities a year in our country related to workplace diseases and trauma. Or 250 fatalities a day due to hospital induced infections, or 100,000 fatalities a year due to hospital malpractice, or 45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance to pay for treatment, or, or, or, even before we get into the economic poverty and deprivation. Any Obama national speeches on these casualties?
Back to the West Point teleprompter speech. If this is the product of a robust internal Administration debate, the result was the same cookie-cutter, Vietnam approach of throwing more soldiers at a poorly analyzed situation. In September, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen told an American Legion Convention, “I’ve seen the public opinion polls saying that a majority of Americans don’t support the effort at all. I say, good. Let’s have the debate, let’s have that discussion.”
Where? Not in Congress. There were only rubberstamps and grumbles; certainly nothing like the Fulbright Senate hearings on the Vietnam War.
Where else? Not in the influential commercial media. Forget jingoistic television and radio other than the satire of Jon Stewart plus an occasional non-commercial Bill Moyers show or rare public radio commentary. Not in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post.
A FAIR study published in the organization’s monthly newsletter EXTRA reports that of all opinion columns in The New York Times and the Washington Post over the first 10 months of 2009, thirty-six out of forty-three columns on the Afghanistan War in the Times supported the war while sixty-one of the sixty-seven Post columns supported a continued war.
So what would a rigorous public and internal administration debate have highlighted? First, the more occupation forces there are, the more they fuel the insurgency against the occupation, especially since so many more civilians than fighters lose their lives. Witness the wedding parties, villagers, and innocent bystanders blown up by the U.S. military’s superior weaponry.
Second, there was a remarkable absence in Obama’s speech about the tribal conflicts and the diversity of motivations of those he lumped under the name of “Taliban.” Some are protecting their valleys, others are in the drug trade, others want to drive out the occupiers, others are struggling for supremacy between the Pashtuns on one side and the Tajiks and Uzbeks on the other (roughly the south against the north). The latter has been the substance of a continuing civil war for many years.
Third, how can Obama’s plan begin to work, requiring a stable, functioning Afghan government—which now is largely a collection of illicit businesses milking the graft, which grows larger in proportion to what the American taxpayers have to spend there—and the disorganized, untrained Afghan army—mainly composed of Tajiks and Uzbeks loathed by the Pashtuns.
Fourth, destroying or capturing al Qaeda attackers in Afghanistan ignores Obama’s own intelligence estimates. Many observers believe al Qaeda has gone to Pakistan or elsewhere. The New York Times reports that “quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well—if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms.”
Hello! Congress did not authorize a war in Pakistan, so does Obama, like Bush, just decree what the Constitution requires to be authorized by the legislative branch? Can we expect another speech at the Air Force Academy on the Pakistan war?
Fifth, as is known, al Qaeda is a transnational movement. Highly mobile, when it is squeezed. As Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the former CIA officer operating in Pakistan, said: “There is no direct impact on stopping terrorists around the world because we are or are not in Afghanistan.” He argues that safe havens can be moved to different countries, as has indeed happened since 9/11.
Sixth, the audacity of hope in Obama’s speech was illustrated by his unconvincing date of mid-2011 for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan. The tendered exit strategy, tied to unspecified conditions, was a bone he tossed to his shaky liberal base.
The White House recently said it costs $1 million a year to keep each single soldier in Afghanistan. Take one fifth of that sum and connect with the tribal chiefs to build public facilities in transportation, agriculture, schools, clinics, public health, and safe drinking water.
Thus strengthened, these tribal leaders know how to establish order. This is partly what Ashraf Ghani, the former respected Afghan finance minister and former American anthropology professor, called concrete “justice” as the way to undermine insurgency.
Withdraw the occupation, which now is pouring gasoline on the fire. Bring back the saved four-fifths of that million dollars per soldier to America and provide these and other soldiers with tuition for their education and training.
The principal authority in Afghanistan is tribal. Provide the assistance, based on stage-by-stage performance, and the tribal leaders obtain a stake in stability. Blown apart by so many foreign invaders—British, Soviet, American—and internally riven, the people in the countryside look to tribal security as the best hope for a nation that has not known unity for decades.
Lifting the fog of war allows other wiser policies urged by experienced people to be considered for peace and security.
Rather than expanding a boomeranging war, this alternative has some probability of modest success unlike the sure, mounting loss of American and Afghani lives and resources.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
54 Comments so far
Show AllNader suggests taking one fifth of our war funds and give it to tribal leaders to be used for building public facilities in transportation, agriculture, schools, clinics, public health and safe drinking water. Good idea---but I'd like to make one amendment. Take those funds and give them to our state governments to be used for building public facilities in transportation, agriculture, schools, clinics, public health and safe drinking water.
As a nation it is our first responsibility to take care of the affairs of our own nation. Obama claims to be defending us from foreign threats while we are rotting from within due to the corruption of our democracy. Our elected officials are not heeding the words of the people of this nation, but are serving the needs and demands of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.
The hell with the empire!! We need to take care of ourselves. Spend those war funds on putting Americans to work. Let's reinstate the WPA and the CCC. And face the fact that our congress is corrupt...both major political parties are working for the same pay masters. Vote them all out of office while some semblance of our democracy remains.
However, we do owe invaded nations like Afghanistan some kind of reparations, as IVAW* proposes for Iraq. A great deal could be done on the homefront with the 4/5, and Americans for the most part still enjoy a standard of living well above that of much of the world.
Iraq Veterans Against the War: http://www.ivaw.org/
I'll say it for the Democrats, to save them the trouble:
Don't listen to Nader! He is "unelectable". He "steals" our votes! Just try to run again, Nader, or anyone who dares to challenge us, and our lawyers will make sure you spend more time trying to get on the ballot than actually campaigning!
Obama 2012! (at least he is not Palin)
You left out the most important charge, jlocke: Nader Took (Takes) Money from the Republicans!
That makes him no better than a common whore-- WAY worse than the handful of respectable progressivish Democrats who submit freely to brutally punishing Republican intercourse, but proudly refuse to take a penny of Republican tribute!
Unlike that shameless opportunist Nader, Democrats have their standards, you know.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I thought I would remind everyone that Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.
"Democrats have their standards, you know." -- Obedient Servant
Obama in 2012?
I don't think I can do that!
And, what a poor excuse to support him -- (at least he's better than Palin)?
BTW, Nader is only unelectable if we don't vote for him. And, he didn't steal my vote, I was happy that he was on the ballot, so that I could pull the lever and vote for him.
We should only listen to electable people? Can't we consider an argument on its own merits? Has Argumentum ad hominem become something other than a logical fallacy?
It's 2009, three years from the next presidential election. Mr. Nader isn't running for election here, he's advocating for a different foreign policy with good information.
As for the following comment about Nader taking money from Republicans; why shouldn't he? As an artist I take money from anyone, as long as there are no strings attached.
It's arguable that Republicans like Bush II, McCain, or Palin might be preferable to Obama in the sense that they mobilize people. Dubya didn't fool as many people as Obama has. It's a good cop, bad cop routine. How will it end? How can we minimize overall suffering? (humans, other animals, the planet in general)
The lesser of two evils still leads us down the drain.
I'll take that as a tongue-in-cheek response as I giggle. :)
Seriously though, if Nader doesn't run, I hope that someone as good as him can step in for him. Maybe Cynthia Mckinney can try again and this time, the Green Party had better show up on the ballot in my state if she or someone like her is the nominee. If Nader doesn't run in 2012, it won't be because he is conceding because he would never concede unlike most Democrats. Nader did a lot for this country and most of it long before I was born. I can feel his pain election after election in trying to put up with a pathetically dysfunctional cornfed electorate having a voting disorder of "voting for the lesser of the two evils instead of on principle". :(
Jennifer, we are trying to get Ralph to run for the Senate to take Chris Dodds' seat.The Connecticut Green Party is floating a petition to gauge support.People can encourage Ralph by showing they would work for and support his campaign and sign the petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nader10/ if that link doesn't work search petitionline.com C.D. administrators please cut me a break on this. peace
I say Nader in 2000, 2004, 2008. I'll take Mr. Nader any damn day, week, month or year. Run, Ralph, run!
Here's Cynthia McKinney's take on Afghanistan:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24112.htm
And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other.
Thom 47:2
Sometimes the bible is dead on, isn't it? It easy to see which 'master' Obama serves and is a 'slave' to.
Barack to the 'Nam, indeed and if MLK were alive; he'd see the content of US presidents' character unCHANGEd and the only "change" has been in color. He'd counsel his brother in withdrawal abroad and for those here at home, Desistance!
Do you think a quarter million paid professionals chasing 100 Al-Qaeda people in Afghanistan is enough? It is surely enough to bankrupt our treasury and inslave our grandchildren. This, I think, is the real Mission to be Accomplished.
After 50 years of plundering the Middle East by Empire USA,
revenge caused 9/11.
Perfectly predicted and much desired by our multinational rich,
as it allowed them to make trillions by butchering over a million in Iraq.
Comes now Ralph Nader to have only 10% support of society,
which means that we have 90% locked in darkness either unwilling
or unable to see the light.
So things have to get worse before we can make them better,
so that the terror of it will force the darkness to give way.
So the gut question is, when our enemy gets more powerful then us,
will Empire USA get humble or go nuclear as it has always threatened to do.
Ralphie writes:
"...Or 250 fatalities a day due to hospital induced infections, or 100,000 fatalities a year due to hospital malpractice, or 45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance to pay for treatment,..."
250 daily fatalities due to hospital induced infections is more than 91,000 deaths a year. If that is over and above the 100,000 deaths caused by "hospital malpractice," we're talking around 200,000 annual deaths caused by hospitals (exclusive of the cover-ups).
Maybe access to "health insurance" is a bad thing!
My late mother warned me about iatrogenic illness and the threat of intervention by well-meaning but often wilfully ignorant people who proclaim they "know what is best" for you. Sort of like what we're doing in Afghanistan...
As for the "45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance," I keep seeing this figure again and again but have yet to find the source for it. It seems to be part of the MSM echo-chamber.
-30-
OleManRiver, you say, "As for the "45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance," I keep seeing this figure again and again but have yet to find the source for it. It seems to be part of the MSM echo-chamber."
There is a place on your computer screen where you can type in words (try "45000 deaths per year from lack of health insurance") for a google search. If you can't find that place on your screen, go to google.com, a website where you can search for information.
After you type in "45000 deaths per year from lack of health insurance," press the return button on your keyboard, and soon you will see a long list of what is called "links"--places where the information you're seeking can be found. The first link you'll see is to a Reuters article explaining where the 45000 figure comes from--a Harvard medical school study. Here's that link (type it all in one line in your address bar:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews
/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
One study never reveals the truth.
This study is swirling around all over the news just in time to prevent malpractice reform as a method of keeping costs down.
Nader is right here about Afghanistan, of course, but that's an easy call.
It is very strange that of all the problems in America, Nader is giving iatrogenic illness and malpractice top billing.
Really coming through for the ambulance chasers there, Ralph--and what a lovely bunch they are.
Thank God my parents were lucky enough to find one of these attorneys to represent them after their lives were forever changed by the malpractice of a surgeon whose carelessness almost killed my dad and left him damaged forever. The award they received didn't restore my dad's health, but did make it possible for him to exist with a little dignity.
Google "malpractice reform to keep costs down." You'll learn that litigation costs and malpractice insurance are 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.
Then google "percent of malpractice victims who sue." You'll learn that only about 2% of malpractice victims sue, and few of them end up winning compensation since the system is rigged against them.
For regular people, the "ambulance chasers," which is what you call personal injury attorneys, ARE a "lovely bunch," because they will represent you for a percentage of the award they win for you. If you get no award, you don't have to pay, despite all the attorney's work and expenses. Corporations and doctors have all the lawyers they want. The rest of us can't afford to sue, because we don't have the money. Thanks to the personal injury attorneys, we can seek redress when we are injured by malpractice.
I'm not sure why you think that medical personnel should not be accountable for their errors. My guess is that you are one of those who prefers that legal representation be available only to those on the top of our economic system, leaving the rest of us totally powerless.
I am sorry about your tragic incident, however for every story like this there are other stories about physicians who didn't do anything wrong but get sued, and patients who look at a physician as an opportunity to cash in. Fear of huge lawsuits causes physicians to settle cases out of court even when they have not erred because you are at the mercy of the whim of juries.
Jurors are very rarely versed in the intricacies of medicine, yet they decide when malpractice has occurred.
I am not a physician, by the way, but I have worked in hospitals and see this happen all the time.
For those who covet European or Canadian style health care it is important to realize that these huge malpractice awards just don't happen there.
The ambulance chasers would not give you the time of day if they thought your case wouldn't produce anything.
A physician, on the other hand, is obligated to take care of everyone regardless of ability to pay.
Of course I think physicians should be accountable for their errors.
The current system does little to address real malpractice.
You say, "A physician, on the other hand, is obligated to take care of everyone regardless of ability to pay." This is not true.
Please try calling some physician's offices tomorrow morning and try to get an appointment. Tell them you don't have insurance, or are on Medicaid. You won't be seen. Even if you have Medicare, many physicians won't see you. The only physicians who are "obligated to take care of everyone" are the ones in the emergency room, IF you make it past the billing clerk and the triage nurse.
I have worked in hospitals for years, and in fact am STILL working in a hospital, and I know that you are mistaken. Malpractice suits are extremely rare, though malpractice is not, and physicians who settle out of court do so when their attorneys don't think they can win, despite the fact that juries tend to be heavily biased in favor of physicians, as are the malpractice statutes.
You are correct that "the ambulance chasers would not give you the time of day if they thought your case wouldn't produce anything," though I'm not sure why you think this is a bad thing. Would you want them to be willing to file frivolous lawsuits, which would just be thrown out by the judge, anyway? Personal injury attorneys don't get paid anything unless they win an award for the victim of malpractice, so of course they take only the cases that have real merit. What would be the point of doing otherwise? If your case can't win, they can't help you. On the other hand, the physicians who won't see you because you don't have insurance COULD help you. They just won't.
Under European or Canadian single-payer health care systems, huge malpractice awards don't happen because they're not necessary: the victim of malpractice is assured of care for the rest of his life. This is not true in the U.S., and that's why trying to make it even harder for malpractice victims to be compensated for their injuries is so cynical and cruel.
In an Emergency Room setting, you will be taken care of by a physician regardless of ability to pay.
All of your points assume that justice is served in the legal setting in malpractice cases.
I can tell you it is usually not.
Lawyers do not look to take the cases of people who have legitimately been wronged. They look for cases they can win. There is a big difference there.
Also, as for Europe and Canada, malpractice awards often go to the family of deceased individuals.
For example, do you remember the child who got the wrong heart in a heart transplant and died shortly thereafter?
Her family was talking to lawyers before she died.
I find that disgusting
"Lawyers do not look to take the cases of people who have legitimately been wronged. They look for cases they can win. There is a big difference there."
I guess I don't understand what you're saying.
The way it works is that lawyers DO take the cases of people who have "legitimately" been wronged, but they have to be able to PROVE it to the judge and jury. It has to be obvious enough that the jury won't be snowed by the physician's lawyers, who will try to obscure what happened. That's our legal system. I'm not sure why that's a reason to prevent people from seeking redress for medical malpractice. Cases that are weak are eliminated at the outset by the judge, so there is no point in attorneys taking weak cases. What would be the point? Who would it help?
And I would not presume to judge a family whose child was dying needlessly as a result of such obvious malpractice as you cite. (And did this really happen? I can't find anything by searching on google.)
Ralph Nader says that putting caps on injury compensation did/does little to lower insurance rates (the line that the insurance companies gave to obtain caps on compensation). petrkrop offers an excellent perspective relating to how having a single payer health care system might reduce the number of suits for malpractice. It may be semantics, but I think it is a kind of cruel malpractice to refuse to see patients just because you think they MIGHT not be able to pay. At least give them a chance to make payments on a bill, and offer them your best rate.
Instead, when someone doesn't have insurance they gouge them with a much BIGGER bill and/or send them out begging! The system we have now goes beyond cruel and borders on sadistic. So if you want to hinder a patient's ability to sue for malpractice, aren't you likewise inhibiting his or her ability to get treated for that damage? What other recourse does he or she have, and if the doctor should not be held responsible, who should be?
"Also, as for Europe and Canada, malpractice awards often go to the family of deceased individuals. For example, do you remember the child who got the wrong heart in a heart transplant and died shortly thereafter? Her family was talking to lawyers before she died. I find that disgusting."
More disgusting than making a sick or dying patient beg for charity or refusing a modest treatment that can keep an individual from getting even sicker?
Your heart may be in the right place, but perhaps you're emphasis is on the wrong thing.
Doctors and hospitals have changed the way they treat people because of fear of malpractice suits.
The vast majority of diagnostic exams--specifically X-Rays-- performed today are negative.
Unnecessary tests do not improve the quality of care for anyone and expose patients to radiation.
Physicians fear that if they do not order every test available, some one might sue them.
There really needs to be a panel of health care professionals that determine if malpractice occurred or not.
Although the specific increase in insurance premiums may not be significant in increasing health care costs, the defensive medicine that physicians feel they must practice does increase the costs of American health care while decreasing the quality.
Furthermore, it is rarely mentioned, but health care workers spend a huge amount of time merely documenting what they did instead of actually taking care of patients. Again, fear of lawsuits is the root of the problem.
If lawsuits only occurred in cases of malpractice, that would be great.
This is not the case.
I know people who receive horrible care but don't sue. I know people who go to the hospital and look for an opportunity to sue someone.
Really, cases like the McDonalds hot coffee, occur in the medical setting too.
My father died of a brain tumor, largely because of the neglect and incompetence of several doctors in Kingman, AZ. One of these doctors was his primary physician. I kept extensive and accurate records of the eight months that Mom and I fought for his life, and after he died I was able to contact a lawyer on the internet who said he would take our case and even pay the legal costs, in return for a large percentage of the settlement. He said because of my record keeping (which included hospital records which I pried from reluctant hospital staffs) I had an excellent case, and a good chance. But he warned that because of malpractice insurance doctors are able to drag out suits for many, many years and it would be a long time before we saw any compensation. He advised us to take our lumps and forget about it if we wanted to have a life. I was in my sixties and Mom's was in her late eighties. So we took our lumps and got on with it. Since then, I have been Mom's caregiver, and also her sisters. I have witnessed countless acts of incompetence and neglect and greed by doctors, emergency rooms, and hospital staff. One example: My aunt and I waited an hour and a half in one of her doctor's exam rooms because he was 'consulting' with drug reps over new medications. Another example: this same aunt waited all day in a wheel chair in the packed emergency room at University Hospital here in Tucson, and finally was taken home after 10 hours of waiting. She was 95 and died several weeks later without ever seeing her doctor (who flatly refused to see her). Up until several months before her death she was healthy, doing yard work and even driving a car. Another: I went to visit Mom when she was in Tucson Medical Center with pneumonia. I found her laying in a pile of her own feces, and puddles of her urine on the floor. I buzzed the nurse and started cleaning up Mom. After about 15 minutes an aide came in and very ungraciously helped me finish up the cleaning job. When I got Mom home I found she had a bed sore and it took me three months to clear that up. l I would like to know what you consider 'real malpractice'. It's true, there are many fine doctors, nurses, and hospitals, but there are a hell of a lot of jerks out there too, and the public is at their mercy.
These are tragic accounts, I agree.
Regarding the ER visit and the Tuscon Medical Center, that is about poor nursing care, not physician malpractice. Nurses rarely get sued because they usually don't have a lot of money and they usually don't have malpractice insurance.
I have another type of example for you.
The daughter of a wealthy family was in a single car accident late at night about 10 years ago.
She was intoxicated.
When paramedics got to her, she was paralyzed from the neck down and unable to breathe on her own.
She managed to live, but of course, there are no happy endings here.
Her family sued every physician involved in her care for no reason.
No malpractice occurred.
I don't know the outcome of the lawsuits, but they had no problem finding lawyers to represent them.
The health care system and the legal system both need massive overhaul.
I don't think the government will get either right.
I think the more they meddle, the worse an already bad system will become.
What really bothers me here is that Nader is again persecuting physicians and revering malpractice attorneys.
In this article you can see that he is paying lip service to Afghanistan, then rushing on to bash physicians.
What is his deal?
Thank you, Ralph Nader. As always, you are the intelligent enlightened voice of sanity and reason -- unlike our illustrious so-called "leaders of the free world".
It's politics that keeps this pathetically dysfunctional system all oiled up and running. If people would learn to look at the issues non-politically, we would be having sweethearts such as Ralph Nader to lead instead of mediocre lamebrains such as Dubya and Barry putting us and the Afghans in tears. I hope this US Empire building fails and falls in Afghanistan like Humpty Dumpty never to be put back again !
Obama is O-Bomb-A-Nation (Abomination) and another betrayer of humanity and the American people!! The world community needs to establish a thorough movement of Boycott, Divest, and Sanction of the two great terrorist states of the world today: Israel and the U.S.A. This would be the effective way to stop the criminal insanity that these nations are perpetrating on the rest of humanity, especially the Islamic culture.
Afghanistan has never been 'conquered,' in spite of their lack of an Air Force, Navy, Marine Corp, Special Ops, drones, tanks, and uniforms.
So what are 'we' training them for? How to be even more unconquerable?
If you owned a company, and after 8 years of 'training' your staff still didn't 'rise up,' would you ask for more money so training could continue until 2013? Or would you have fired them all after the first six months?
Forgive us, Ralph, because we have forgotten for so long that we need to listen to you. In the 1960's we listened to you and our cars got a lot safer. In the 1970's we listened to you and our air and our water got a lot cleaner. In the 1980's we listened for a while, and for a while there were laws that helped assure our products were safer and we weren't ripped off by the con artists and crooks as often.
Then we stopped listening. We ignored you in 2000 and again in 2004 and again in 2008. We thought we would find "salvation" in Gores and Kerrys and Obamas.
Forgive America, Ralph, for it knows not what it is doing.
As usual, Ralph makes too much sense. We have to keep the voice of sanity rolling though, and maybe something, someone, somewhere, will break the insane momentum to destruction and fall of our world, much less, the US. Life is precious and temporary, resources should be there for it's needs, not the desires and destruction by the elites! What is it that those fools don't understand?
"The principal authority in Afghanistan is tribal."
And each American administration is composed of the family and friends of the previous one.
Since Osama is the recognized leader of AlQueda we must assume that he was the mastermind of 9/11. He wisely predicted that the US gov would react hysterically, thrash around in all directions, over-extend its finances and its military, causing the mighty evil empire to come crashing down leading to the millenium of 1000 years of peace. Eventually, Nader will be elected president while OBL will receive the NPP for his contribution to world peace.
This is not about Afghanistan but about Pakistan. Our troops will hunker down in the former because we are not welcome in the latter, where extremists and terrorists can ( and possibly will ) access an atomic device in the event that the government of Pakistan goes sour! It's all theater, look behind the curtain!
West Point ,,,,,,,, real political theatre.
Cadet Corps ,,,,,,,, just props from Central Casting.
Obama's long awaited speech ,,,,,,,, the Road Map to Disaster.
Afghanistan is still the "Graveyard of Empires".
More of Same Old Shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
The peace dividend comes to USans only after they decide to live in the reality zone instead of the delusion zone. Choosing to remain in the delusion zone, the "Good USans" will go down with the imperial juggernaut.
"so many more civilians than fighters lose their lives"
Oceanian youth should know that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in World War I was 20% civilian while in Oceania's 21st century wars of imperial choice it's something like 80% civilian. Big Brother's a thug!
“This is not about Afghanistan but about Pakistan.”
No, this is not about Pakistan, but about Russia, China,
oil and trading war materials for Middle East oil.
Also about keeping Russia and China boxed in so they don't
start a worldwide economy more competitive then ours.
Spot on Alabama!
Hmm. How does this war keep Russia and China boxed in?
China is happily financing our war, presumably so they can secure their status as wealthy superpower of the world, with America bankrupt.
I don't think you can find any benefit economic or otherwise for the country as a whole. Only a handful of corporations are raking it in.
I think it is very clear what sinister forces are behind this war.
We are following a playbook of the Soviet disaster. The war is endless by design.
In the playground the massive bully on steroids is beating the little foreign weed to death.
Tut! Tut! But here is another stick.' say the bully's friends.
'He hurt me! He hurt me! Ooh, look at my bruises. ' says the bully as he breaks the weed's other leg.
'Now, now, be reasonable.' says the school committee.
'Western culture' explains the wide eyed Chinaman to his shocked and sobbing family as they stand outside the fence looking in.
'Uyghurs, Tibet, communists' screams the crowd inside in response.
'Westerners, you are an obscene joke!' says this African.
there are so many angles on this...
if... your mother... father... sister... brother... uncle... neighbor... or friend... gets blown to smithereens... or worse... survives getting blown to smithereens... by ANYONE... you're gonna remember that for the rest of your waking days...
so... how... pray tell... does blowing up civilians make us safer??? isn't our meddling over there since the 70's a key part of the "blow back" we got on 9/11???
now... the poor souls who survived the iraqi mess are starting to show significant effects of the depleted uranium... where some parents are committing infanticide rather than subject their offspring to a lifetime of horrible deformity...
let's get real... how many palestinian suicide bomber attacks occurred prior to 1947... i have nothing against jews... i'm agnostic...
but let's say... oh... i don't know... the street you live on... the town you live in... half the state you call home... was GIVEN... to oh... say... nigerians... or canadians... or anyone...
and now... after you... and maybe several generations... had to squeeze into some undesirable locale...
would you be sending christmas cards to those who now lived in your old house????
i think not...
there's are endless derivative narratives and outcomes depending on which country you discuss... from central america... to the former soviet republic... of the 195 existing countries on the planet... the united states military has a presence in 177...
what galls me is the "we didn't ask for this war"...
problem is it ain't the kind of war we're organized to fight... terrorists don't hold news conferences... nor do they hold prime time speeches... they issue videos and manifestos... but they strike where they can... when they can... and where it hurts...
people aren't "born" terrorists... things happen that shape their actions...
unless we're going to station a special ops force every quarter mile throughout the planet... and set up surveillance cameras on every living being... we're in for the long haul...ever squeeze a water balloon...?
Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are two of my heroes.
And I have very few heroes.
President Obama, SHAME on you.
Though Congressman Dennis Kucinich was my favorite candidate for President in 2008, I thought that Barack Obama would be a better, more decent man than he is revealing himself to be, based upon his actual actions.
Once more, President Obama, SHAME on you.
freedom and democracy my a**...
From 1979 to 1989, Khalilzad worked as an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. During that time he worked closely with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
the Carter Administration's architect of the policy supporting the mujahideen resistance to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.[2] (See also: Operation Cyclone.)
In 1984 Khalilzad accepted a one-year Council on Foreign Relations fellowship to join the State Department,
where he worked for Paul Wolfowitz, then the Director of Policy Planning.
From 1985 to 1989, Khalilzad served in President Ronald Reagan's Administration as a senior State Department official
advising on the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Iran–Iraq War.
During this time he was
the State Department's Special Advisor on Afghanistan
to Undersecretary of State Michael H. Armacost. In this role
he developed and guided the international program to promote the merits of a Mujahideen-led Afghanistan to oust the Soviet occupation.
From 1990-1992, Khalilzad served under President George H. W. Bush in the Defense Department as Deputy Undersecretary for Policy Planning.
Between 1993 and 2000, Khalilzad was the Director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Force Structure at the RAND Corporation. During this time, he helped found RAND's Center for Middle Eastern Studies as well as "Strategic Appraisal," a periodic RAND publication. He also authored several influential monographs, including "The United States and a Rising China" and "From Containment to Global Leadership? America and the World After the Cold War." While at RAND, Khalilzad also had a brief stint consulting for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which
at the time was conducting a risk analysis for Unocal, now part of Chevron, for a proposed 1,400 km (890 mile), $2-billion, 622 m³/s (22,000 ft³/s) Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan. He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.[3]
As one of the original members of Project for the New American Century,
Khalilzad was a signatory of the letter to President Bill Clinton sent on January 26, 1998, which called for him to accept the aim of "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" using "a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."[7]
In 2001, President
George W. Bush asked Khalilzad to head the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Department of Defense
and Khalilzad briefly served as Counselor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In May 2001, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced Khalilzad's appointment as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In December 2002 the President appointed Khalilzad to the position of Ambassador at Large for Free Iraqis with the task of coordinating "preparations for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."[8]
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush came to rely on Khalilzad's Afghanistan expertise.
Khalilzad was involved in the early stages of planning to overthrow the Taliban and on December 31, 2001 was selected as Bush's Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan. He served in that position until November 2003, when he was appointed to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.
Khalilzad held the position of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 until June 2005.
During this time,
he oversaw the drafting of Afghanistan's constitution,
was involved with the country's first elections,
and helped to organize the first meeting of Afghanistan's parliament (the Loya Jirga).
At the June, 2002, Loya Jirga to select the Head of State,
Khalilzad personally strong-armed the former king of Afghanistan, 87-year old Mohammed Zaher Shah, to withdraw from consideration,
even though a majority of Loya Jirga Delegates supported him,
a move which angered Pashtuns who were concerned with the disproportionate power of the Northern Alliance in the Karzai government.[9]
He subsequently denied it, claiming that "It was just a rumor, don't believe in rumors." It was also well known that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was very reliant on Khalilzad's guidance, not making the smallest decision as President without first calling Khalilzad on his mobile phone[citation needed]. However, Khalilzad denied this.[10
squidd: Thanks for reconnecting some of the dots for me, and the addition info about which I was unaware!
It's so important to understand the beneath-the-surface goings on; and how those links effect us today.
I still remember the Carter administation, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, involvement in the beginnings of this interconnected mess that continues today.
A few years ago, I read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars -- which reminded me that the CIA seems to be at the bottom of so many of our foreign policy issues -- continuing with the Afghanistan/Pakistan fiasco that currently is supposed to be our most important National Security concern, according to O.
I agree -- "freedom and democracy my a**..."
wikipedia - straight copy 'n paste... hats off to those guys... hope i don't have a copyright infringement... but the topic is too grave... no pun intended.
Seems to me this is stuff that has been said before, but what I expect from Nader is a close up of where Mr. Obama is with this Pentagon and who is in control? We have now occupied every single Central American Country and it never gets a mention. We essentially gave our blessing to the overthrow of Honduras, than we even had the audacity to make it seem like we were fighting for democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the world are apparently our oyster but Mr. Nader wants to talk Taliban or Al Qaeda, just perfect for the war mongers. How does a president or a party dismantle this military and intelligence community and not let the country get overthrown in the process? And which would be worse?
Dear thong-girl---
The country is already overthrown.
Hugo Chavez to Obama: "Are you a prisoner?"
A rhetorical question?
-30-