Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
General Petraeus' Catch-22
President Obama is in Lisbon today for the NATO Summit on Afghanistan
where political spinmeisters will be earning every dollar in their
paycheck. Things are bad and getting worse there, notwithstanding the
new and improved strategy announced a year ago complete with a
commitment of 30,000 more US troops. Majorities of the citizens of the
participating NATO countries have turned decidedly against the war,
including the United States. Under pressure to show tangible results on
meeting military "metrics" at the Lisbon summit and the
administration's December review, General Petraeus has decided to throw
caution to the wind and greatly expand US firepower and its military
imprint in Afghanistan.
Which has created what we knew in the Vietnam era as a classic "Catch-22". Expanding the use of US/NATO firepower and its footprint in Afghanistan is collapsing prospects for ultimate success.
Afghanistan President Karzai made a dramatic public appeal to the US political elite when he told the Washington Post last week that the stepped up use of nighttime military raids by NATO forces in Afghanistan is unacceptable to the Afghan people and must stop. The nighttime raids have more than tripled since July. He went on to say: "The time has come to reduce military operations. The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan."
Apparently private appeals were not doing the trick. General Petraeus, who is running the show in Afghanistan, was furious with President Karzai's public appeals and canceled a long scheduled meeting to show just how he felt about the President's position and his much publicized remarks. To drive home the point, the Pentagon told the Post yesterday that Petraeus has authorized the deployment of heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the war. These tanks are a huge 68 tons and are propelled by jet engines. Their use in Afghanistan had been previously rejected for fear that they would remind Afghans of their last military occupiers, the Soviets. The nighttime raids, huge tanks and increase in firepower has become a cornerstone of Petraeus' military strategy and an absolute necessity for success, according to the Pentagon. They are also angering and alienating the Afghan people and reinforcing the Taliban narrative that the nation is under military occupation by western military powers. That narrative has been extremely effective in driving Afghans who are famous for being allergic to occupying foreign armies, into their ranks.
In short, the United States finds itself in a classic "Catch-22": The strategy that the military has determined is critical for its success is the very strategy that is rapidly eroding the chances for success. Everyone seems to agree, including General Petraeus, that a military victory in Afghanistan is not possible. Reconciliation of the warring parties and a political deal is the only way out, including at least elements of the Taliban. The difference lies in how to create the conditions to make political compromise and reconciliation possible. From a military prism, that means inflicting so much pain on the enemy that he believes his only option is to come to the negotiating table. Seen through a wider prism, it becomes clear that while you might succeed with every military tactic, including the use of massive firepower, you simultaneously move further away from any hope of success by alienating the very Afghan people on whose support success depends. President Karzai felt he had no option but to speak out against the expanding raids and growing US military footprint in his country not only because they are counterproductive but because they make him even more of a US/NATO puppet to Afghans than what he now appears to be.
According to the Times: "Many Afghans see the raids as a flagrant, even humiliating symbol of American power, especially when women and children are rousted in the middle of the night. And protests have increased this year as the tempo has increased." The Washington Post reported this morning on a plea made by an Afghan farmer in the Arghandab district of a NATO general at a recent community meeting: "Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?" Good question.
These points, of course, are obscure at best when you are looking through a military lens. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail. General Petraeus and the US military is calling the shots of US Afghanistan policy. If you have any doubts about that, read Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars". Seen through the military prism, a larger US military footprint and greater use of force can actually be helping to bring unity among the Afghan people and their government. I am not making this up. According to the Washington Post, a senior US military officer explained: "By making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, 'in effect, you're connecting the government to the people'.
Perhaps the December report on progress in Afghanistan will be called "Winning Hearts and Minds Through US Firepower" . Hopefully there will be at least some members of Congress who will call it what it is: "Catch-22".
- Posted in


51 Comments so far
Show All"General Petraeus and the US military is calling the shots of US Afghanistan policy." Perhaps the author forgot who is the commander in chief of the armed forces? Is anybody else sick of hearing excuses for the Democrat's war crimes?
As long as capitalist imperialism dominates the Earth, there will be war, poverty, national/racial oppression, environmental ruin, and gross, illegitimate inequality. We have no business giving these monsters advice on how to 'win' their murderous colonial exploits. Our business is to overthrow them with international workers' revolution, led by a Leninist party. There is not, and cannot be a capitalist solution that is also humanitarian. The primary task today is to build and lead the party of revolutionary communism.
"There is not, and cannot be a capitalist solution that is also humanitarian."
Because the goal of capitalism is to concentrate as much wealth as possible into as few hands as possible thus creating mass poverty.
Your statement should be so obvious to one and all but common sense has been blunted by corporate capitalist propaganda... imho of course...
"...so obvious..." I clearly agree, but how is it that propaganda can so totally wipe out critical thinking, and even naked self interest? I fear that I will go to the grave without understanding that. Can anybody shed some light?
I like the eonomic engine to have a well regulated capitalist generator and an extremely equitiable distributor
That will never be more than a pipe dream, GF. The imperialist beast despises nothing more than restraint, and if momentarily contained, will immediately plot to break its chains. Capitalism is violent economic anarchy at root - every man for himself.
You named it right, "the capitalist beast", beast meaning the Beast of Revelations, the One World System, Globalization, New World Order. The Beast is a system not an entity and the Beast is Global Capitalism complete with nuclear arms.The end will be ugly.
"I clearly agree, but how is it that propaganda can so totally wipe out critical thinking, and even naked self interest? I fear that I will go to the grave without understanding that. Can anybody shed some light?"
Yeah, the answer is right in front of your nose...
There is no "critical thinking" in need of wiping out. There was never any critical thinking there in the first place.
This is the first step of tyranny: eliminate the ability of the populace to think critically. In the US, I don't know when this happened, but it was certainly a significant amount of time before I was born (late 70s).
If you assume that the average person is capable of rational thought, none of what is happening makes sense. That's not the case though--in reality, the average person is not capable of rational thought whatsoever, and this can be verified "in the field" in 10 minutes on basically any street corner in the country.
The world has known this 'strategy' since antiquity.
May I suggest that the word "propaganda" itself signifies two major devices used by media that represent the wicked originator of the substance :
One. To confound the "truth" replacing it by seemingly appropriate 'un-truths'
Two. To repeat the un-truth over and over and over and over and over again - and for longer still - till it becomes difficult for the common person to reject it's perfidy.
Having said that and having recognized it's originators' wicked purpose, it'll be meet to be aware of the subversive intent of the propaganda, then stalwartly refuse to be taken in.
A Leninist party. Ha ha! Too bad that those of you who clamor Communism can't live under it.
Ha, ha! How would you or anyone know? Communism has never existed.
The intellectually challenged love to point to the impoverished, isolated, and imperialist-invaded Soviet Union as 'proof' that communism cannot work. It's rather like the imperialist general Stoneheart, who conveniently sees the 'terrorist' resistance of Afghanistan as 'proof' that we must redouble our invasion.
I challenge the good Reverend to sketch a capitalist-dominated world without war, racial/national/sexual oppression, poverty, and massive environmental destruction. Ha-ha! Now that IS a laugh!
Ha, ha! How would you or anyone know? Communism has never existed.
The intellectually challenged love to point to the impoverished, isolated, and imperialist-invaded Soviet Union as 'proof' that communism cannot work. It's rather like the imperialist general Stoneheart, who conveniently sees the 'terrorist' resistance of Afghanistan as 'proof' that we must redouble our invasion.
I challenge the good Reverend to sketch a capitalist-dominated world without war, racial/national/sexual oppression, poverty, and massive environmental destruction. Ha-ha! Now that IS a laugh!
You would undoubtedly be more persuasive if you didn't put together sentences that suggest you don't understand the words you employ.
"Clamor" generally refers to the activity of an entire crowd. It less frequently can refer to the noise made by individuals, but in all cases it would require a dative pronoun: i.e. "those of you who clamor FOR Communism."
So, I don't know. If you have time to collect your thoughts and decide what it is that you mean, we'll be here and ready to listen. Hint: try to support your poorly phrased assertions with some kind of evidence. Ad hoc claims are not very convincing to anyone but morons like yourself.
All The King's horses and all The King's men
will never find Osama bin Laden again.
This is hilarious, but it would be a lot more hilarious if it were not so tragic.
Yeah, we may as well be desperately searching for the foul villain known as "Humpty Dumpty."
"Obama signed onto Afghanistan before the election."
During the "anti-war" candidate's campaign he promised us he would escalate in Afghanistan and that he would escalate the illegal drone attacks in Pakistan. Then the "anti-war" democrats voted him into office.
Jill,
Thank you.
We're a nation of war criminals. What do you expect? Tea and cookies?
We have no moral compass, we have no compassionate leadership. We want war and more war, and that's what we're going to have, dammit!!
Evil nations do evil things. Accept it or change it, but stop whining about it.
Speak for yourself. I was so displeased with the direction of our country that I dropped everything and emigrated to Canada.
There is nothing that any person could do to influence the US government. Though you apparently remain in the US, I don't blame you for the mid-east conquest that is going on. Do you blame yourself?
I think Obama should get another Nobel Peace Prize! He's really doing the very most for world peace today...especially for the Arab people's, particularly the Palistinians. If not Obama, my second choice for the prize would be Israel's Netanyahu. Moral giants those two!
LOL!
Doesn't look to good for the Pipeline.
If we walk away, no chance for the Pipeline
Will someone tell Andrews about the Pipeline?
Just a freindly reminder militaries don't start OR end wars. The Nation's Leaders do. Long past time to put this man, Petrarus - and the Pentagon in their place.
As far as reinforcing the Taliban's narrative that the nation is under military occupation by western powers - well it is, by any recognizable standard.
Just as in Vietnam, our military and political leaders continue to carry on with the slaughter of both the Afghan people and our own soldiers rather than admit the entire venture is both unwinable (whatever winning means) and that the death and destruction was meaningless from the start.
Not that this should be the reason for ending this mess, but in case anybody's interested here's what we can look forward to spending on fuel for these things.
Fuel Consumption A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather.
0.6 miles per gallon.
60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country
30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal
10 gallons basic idle
How much do they charge us for a single gallon of gas?
$400 per gallon.
$120,000 a day to fuel one tank.
The Abrams is designed to run only for a few hours/day, or else they run up against their mandatory maintenance schedule very quickly. They are transported into/out of the field on flat-bed, and deployed long enough to bed themselves into a berm. Tanks are of limited use these days being overshadowed by AH-64 Apache and now MQ-1/9 Predator/Reaper. Tanks are largely limited to psy-ops, though the army will never admit this.
Dear Military:
GET OUT NOW!
Here's how you do it.
Afghanistan is a country of clans; most have no concept of our idea of democracy. Find out what they want.
You should already know that, so here's a clue. They want:
LUMBER, CEMENT and BLANKETS.
Change your purge into something good, a surge of consumer goods a la , The Petreaus GENERAL Store. Round up your military and pull them out now Mr. Petraeus. Have the Blackwater/Xe/ KB etc. etc. support contractor people stay behind to dole out the goodies. If they steal, then it's on their heads( in more ways than one.)
YOU LOST! YOU GAINED NOTHING! THE NATION ( theirs and ours ) LOST BIG TIME!
China is already getting their Afghanistan copper mine work ready, so you might as well leave them the oil , the gems and minerals too.
Oh the irony.." What price liberty?" We can't afford it, so move along people, there's nothing to see here.
The raids have been increased, more innocent afghan people are being killed, a foreign presence humiliates the natives, tanks now increase NATO firepower, more men are being deployed,American foreign policy poops on the muslims,raids on individual homes increase, American youths kill people for sport, the afghan government is corrupted by dope amd corporate greed,the Pentagon is now used to the old colonial powers military presence Lol. Guess where this is all going?Put it it this way.We aren't making any friends.
Freddie, the pipeline has been built... to China.
Battle Tanks... The Afghans are the world champions
of tank killing.
The runner-up is Hezbollah.
All this militarism is no more than supply&demand
for the only "industry" still operational in the USA.
The Military Industrial Corp, LTD ( you know... limited liability.... like in collateral damage, torture,murder,rape, bribery, genocide,and DU poisoning)
The crimes covered by "LTD" make the USA hated.
But, to keep the only "Industry" going, "consumables"
must be "consumed", so that "new " stock can be profitably
produced.
This economic "Circle of Death" must end.
Investors are complicit.... dividends are demanded.
So, tanks (and their crews) are the next consumables.
Big physical losses mean big profits/dividends.
It's a wonder that Americans can stand it.
Petraeus will be your next Prez if you don't smarten up.
Believe me there is not much hope of US ever getting out of the Muslim lands on their own given that people like Andrews ten years after the fact feel compelled to explain the conundrum of more fire power versus reconciliation in a forum like CD.
The elites must really be pissed. Full spectrum dominance isn't working in Afghanistan. Has American world domination met it's waterloo? To find out non-working Americans must provide another two trillion dollars to the war effort. Crazy insane is now normal.
"Majorities of the citizens of the participating NATO countries have turned decidedly against the war, including the United States."
I must have slept thru that uproar in the US.
"They are also angering and alienating the Afghan people and reinforcing the Taliban narrative that the nation is under military occupation by western military powers. That narrative has been extremely effective in driving Afghans who are famous for being allergic to occupying foreign armies, into their ranks."
The Taliban narrative? What narrative? What denial! It is an occupation. No narrative about it.
"Everyone seems to agree, including General Petraeus, that a military victory in Afghanistan is not possible. Reconciliation of the warring parties and a political deal is the only way out, including at least elements of the Taliban."
They should listen to Gorbachev:
"The former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has warned Nato that victory in Afghanistan is "impossible".
Mr Gorbachev said that the US had no alternative but to withdraw its forces if it wanted to avoid another Vietnam.
"Victory is impossible in Afghanistan. Obama is right to pull the troops out. No matter how difficult it will be," Mr Gorbachev said" - BBC, 10/27/10
But Obama won't as he will obey his MIC/corporate thug masters.
deficit reduction - eliminate the Pentagram
This pointless injury is way out of control.
Can military minds see the war thru the eyes of terrorized Afghans?
"reinforcing the Taliban narrative that the nation is under military occupation by western military powers. That narrative has been extremely effective in driving Afghans who are famous for being allergic to occupying foreign armies, into their ranks."
The reason this "narrative" is so gosh durned effective is that it's not a "narrative," it's the truth.
Remember the "Afghan Girl"? She is the 13 year old Afghan girl who was found by National Geographic Magazine in the 1980's. She was so beautiful that they put her on the cover. It was said that her gorgeous sad eyes seared through the souls of Americans who felt compassion for this victim of Russia's war against Afghanistan and wanted to help her.
Shach:" Can military minds see the war thru the eyes of terrorized Afghans"? Maybe that is why so many troops are suffering PTSD and the suicide rate of soldiers is high. If a beautiful Afghan Girl with terror in her eyes was on the cover of a popular U.S. magazine I wonder if Americans who support their war against Afghan would feel compassion for the innocent victim of the American war against Afghanistan and want to help her by working for peace? Many Americans think the U.S. can do no wrong and they are deaf to their the screams and blind to the terror in their victims eyes.
You obviously missed Time's propaganda cover for August 9 2010. Again, a beautiful young woman, but Time was beating the war drums. See it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/world/asia/05afghan.html
This article was carefully orchestrated to work with the Obama Administration's efforts to rebrand the occupation of Afghanistan as a war to improve the plight of women in Afghanistan.
Wot, no Osama bin Laden? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Genie,
Now you can go and thank your DLC Democratic Party for their warmongering.
The war criminals are stepping up their violence in Afghanistan as a message to the Iraqis: You shut your mouth, or we'll Shock and Awe you all over again, except, this time, s l o w l y!
I know how to stop all the wars:
Have ONE-TERM limit with ONLY PUBLIC FUNDING. That will free our politicians from having to beg for campaign funds from BANK CONTROL, or to sell out to MEDIA CONTROL(which swears allegiance to a foreign entity) for favorable coverage. That should also free our politicians from catering to MILITARY CONTROL, thus avoiding war crimes on our national conscience and making America safer.
The only sensible strategy is to get CANDIDATES to swear to bring the above up for a vote, and hold them to it. Those voting against are thrown out of office, with a microscope over their public and private lives.
Anything else is just flopping lips to make noise. Our very system encourages our politicians to shyte on us. They get money and praise for doing it. We need to remove the incentives to bullshyte the American people for profit.
We didn't use tanks 'cause it'd remind the Afghans of the last brutal foreign power to tramp all over them?
Well, at least Afghan patriots and freedom fighters will have larger targets now. Picking off individual U.S. mercenary thugs is so tedious.
Bloody wimps. In Australia we kick in each others doors at midnight and terrorise our neighbours for sport. Just offer them a Fosters and sheel be right mate.
What? Neither counter-insurgency (which we preach but don't practice) nor bombing, nighttime raids, drones, tanks are working in Afghanistan. Still we stay. Gas routes, inertia, stubbornness, stupidity???
The objective in Afghanastan was to establish a free government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, we did that. The people elected Karzai.
Now, we ought to respect Karzai's wishes, as the duly elected President of Afghanastan.
Personally, I would like to put Petraeus on a new front in the War on Terror ... SAUDI FREEDOM.
No More Saudi Kings ...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-More-Saudi-Kings/153215088054948
There was no such objective--that is all lies.
Why we are there can be summed up into two words:
NATURAL RESOURCES.
Wow, he has metal stars and colorful decorations on his carefully washed and precision pressed clothes. It's a valiant try, but no one out glams the pope.
capitalism
liars
thieves
killers
What is so encouraging is the number of comments that recognize the futility of what's being done by us in Afghanistan.
The millions of people that live in that mountainous wild and inhospitable terrain are not new to warfare. This land has forever been in conflict - with foreign occupiers, also within their own brutally independent regions. As a people they have forever displayed tremendous stamina to outlast the will of those that defy them. Their subservience to their tribal chiefs is total. For them their chief's word - traditionally - is almost like the voice of god. Death - during conflict - is a welcome route to their concept of paradise.
Over to the military force
A military general in command, to fulfill the task ordered, has few options other than the use of military force as his primary means. It is the responsibility of the Commander-in -Chief to lay down the time span in which the desired task has to be completed. As that time passes the force commander will normally keep asking for his command to be augmented by more troops so that his military mission can be fulfilled. When the force has been augmented and the achievement of the objective still remains doubtful the commander will normally ask for more time in which to get the task completed. That's basically how a 'surge' phenomenon comes to be exercised.
The fallacy that it was the 'Bush surge' in Iraq that provided a welcome turn in the military situation there, needs to be seen in the light of the truth. In reality that 'turn' was the outcome of Muqtada al Sadr's decision to opt out of combat temporarily - so as to re-organize his huge and brutally determined militia while he himself needed time to acquire the certification since long due for his role as their spiritual leader.
For President Obama to order a similar surge of 30,000 soldiers into Afghanistan - without General Petraeus having ensured a prior let up of combat by an adequate number of the country's tribal milita - resulted in little military advantage to the Nato force in operation there.....
to be continued
........continuing
So it is evident that the Catch 22 is of the making of the general in command and the general's commander-in-chief in the futile quest of ultimately becoming the "glorious victorious".
The recent meeting at Lisbon has also resulted in a vain-glorious proclamation to the effect that "let it be known that we intend to achieve final victory in Afghanistan".
History has recorded numerous prior examples of such futile chest-thumping. The British might and the Russian might ended in different conclusion. The British decided to gracefully come to terms with the Afghan trait of dogged independence and set up a system of paying the tribes huge regular sums of money to keep them out of combat and as such were sagaciously successful. The Russians were literally 'scalped' out and had to contend with what soon after came to be seen as a somewhat consequential dissolution of their mighty Soviet Union. And we also know how all that had been accomplished as well as how the "jihad" of men like Osama had resulted in letting the awesome genie escape from the bottle ! The defeat of a super-power - even though that was Russian - has demonstrated to many how the Afghan people are up to taking on future challenges meaningfully.
Do we really think that an Afghan army can be trained to fulfill a federal task of keeping the thousands upon thousands of tiny utterly rural tribally-led locally complete jirga-based democracies -
yes I said democracies - in check ?
As one example of democracy, a brief explanation of their normal simple Afghan judicial system follows :
When something is to be decided within a rural set-up any member can ask for a gathering (a "jirga") of all under the jurisdiction of the local chieftain so as to determine a just decision. When assembled the chieftain hands the Koran in turn to one contestant, pronounces "Allah Wakeel" i.e. "let god be witness". The contestant now under oath of Koranic perjury delivers his statement. He can call witnesses to testify in the same fashion. The crowd listens. Any member may question the contestant or witness for clarity. This procedure is then repeated with each other contestant. Any member of the congregation assembled can ask the chieftain for clarification. Then comes the assembled's giving their assent to the chief's decision by voice vote. End of trial. The matter has been justly decided there and then. No contestant dare flout that decision.
When a dispute is inter-tribal the same general system - duly modified by age-old Afghan tradition gets put into effect. The decision once again is on the spot prompt and upheld by the assemblage. The famous precept "justice delayed is justice denied" is followed to the ' t '.
As regards nation-building as we perceive it here. That is a tall order for the Afghans :
It will take generations still for this tribally organized furiously independent people - that runs its own affairs according to a strict mutually agreed and well-established system - to change to a new setup. Any attempt to try and federalize process from the top will be viewed with customary suspicion by the people unless the rural chieftain or regional chieftains can first be educated to view change that will not detract from their authority as existing.
The quicker we grasp the difficulties obtaining in that region the faster will the existing grave situation be addressed. The solution is to decrease and then do away with military action. In its place to approach them and to encourage the Taliban leaders to see the result of peaceful negotiating to help raise their people out of the "middle ages" and out of poverty rather than expecting reasonable solutions to emerge by mutual purposeless killings.
The so-called economy of force predicated by indulging in drone assassinations is nothing but a farce, and totally counter productive, and has gone on for far too long. It has resulted in steady and meaningful increase of opposition to us by the huge numbers of those affected by these strikes. How can we refer to it as advantageous for us. It's not unrealistic to assume that each drone assassination results in no less than 30 Afghans seething thereby for revenge against us.
The facts of America's situation in Afghanistan will determine the outcome. These are a given which no foreign occupier has the power to change. It therefore matters not a hoot who is in charge - Petraeus, McChrystal or Sergeant Bilko - or what "strategy" they choose to pursue. The end result will be the same: another humiliating lesson for the US in how not to conduct a foreign policy (from which precisely nothing will be learned) and untold evil for the wretched Afghans.
The facts of America's situation in Afghanistan will determine the outcome. These are a given which no foreign occupier has the power to change. It therefore matters not a hoot who is in charge - Petraeus, McChrystal or Sergeant Bilko - or what "strategy" they choose to pursue. The end result will be the same: another humiliating lesson for the US in how not to conduct a foreign policy (from which precisely nothing will be learned) and untold evil for the wretched Afghans.
"In its place to approach them and to encourage the Taliban leaders to see the result of peaceful negotiating to help raise their people out of the "middle ages" and out of poverty rather than expecting reasonable solutions to emerge by mutual purposeless killings."--Wyatt
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
you certainly said a mouthful, wyatt. sounds like you may have spent some time in the middle east, right? i'm not sure what you mean by "help raise the people out of the'middle ages' and out of poverty," though. do you suggest to follow the successful blueprint by which the european settlers uplifted, enriched and civilized native american savages? do you mean how the settlers brought the people of africa to share in their version of civilization? i often wonder how the words 'civility'(politeness)and 'civilization'(advanced kill-power) sharing one root have come to mean such different concepts. we tend to see those living in harmony with nature as simple people, fishing, hunting, farming, feasting and dancing around the campfire as sadly impoverished and lacking in the gifts of the tech world wonders. here's a little quote from greg mortenson, author of "three cups of tea."
~ ~ ~
"the way warring parties held a jirga before doing battle, to discuss how many losses they were willing to accept, since victors were expected to care for the widows and orphans of rivals they had vanquished." page 142
“but the worst thing you can do is what we’re doing—ignoring the victims. ‘to call them collateral damage’ and not even try to count the number of dead. But to ignore them is to deny they ever existed, and there is no greater insult in the Islamic world. For that, we will never be forgiven.” page 294
“it may seem absurd to believe that a 'primitive' culture in the Himalayans has anything to teach our industrialized,
but our search for a future that works keeps spiraling back to an ancient connection between ourselves and the earth.”
“the true measure of a nation’s success is not gross national product, but gross national happiness.”—a king of Bhutan, page 120