Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- Global Wealth Inequality - What You Never Knew You Never Knew
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Reflections on Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan
On Wednesday June 22, President Obama announced that 10,000 US combat troops will return from the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2011 and that all troops will be withdrawn by 2014. The news is profoundly welcomed by the military families. It’s also hailed by the significant majority of Americans who do not think the war is worth fighting and the growing number of Americans who feel that the killing of bin Laden achieved the original US goal of the war.
The US mayors have listened to their constituents and taken the message farther than President Obama’s modest cut in troops. At the June 20 plenary session of the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors, they voted to call on the federal government to stop funding wars and to bring the war dollars home. As the Mayor of Eugene Oregon, Kitty Piercy, explained the vote: “Mayors call on our country to begin the journey of turning war dollars into peace dollars…of focusing our national resources on building security and prosperity here at home…It is past due.” At the city and town level, mayors feel more viscerally than Washington the painful tradeoffs between $122 billion spent in Afghanistan in 2011 and laying off teachers and police, cutting social services, and negligible job creation (other than military-related jobs). While at the federal level, budget deficit debates ignore the elephant in the room – a nearly $1 trillion steroidal defense budget that sucks life out of the commonweal and swells the deficit.
The news of troop withdrawal and timeline for ending the war must also be welcomed in Afghanistan, where Afghanis have seen no improvements in day-to-day life throughout the 10 year US Army-run counterinsurgency war. The war was billed originally as hunting down Osama bin Laden and improving women’s rights and more recently as “nation-building” – a vague, arrogant goal. Ten years later, Afghanistan ranks next to last of the 182 countries on the UN Human Development Index and near the top of the Failed States Index. Malalai Joya, a feminist elected to the Afghan Parliament in 2003 and exiled from it for exposing criminal warlord parliamentarians, spoke recently in Northampton. She pleaded for support in getting US-NATO forces out of Afghanistan and for solidarity with the people of Afghanistan in their struggle for democracy and women’s rights.
The war in Afghanistan is poorly understood by most Americans for more than a few reasons. We receive minimal media coverage of the war, estimated at 2% in American news reporting in 2011; and the topic is absent in political campaigns and key political speeches. How many of us are aware that nearly as many American soldiers committed suicide in 2010 as were killed in battle? Can anyone explain the difference between Al-Qaeda against whom we went to war and the Taliban whom we now fight? Who has heard of the investigative piece which revealed that in 2010 General David Petraeus, US commander in Afghanistan, knowingly inflated figures of Taliban captures to spin a story of progress after our “surge” of troops there? Up to 90% of those “Taliban” captured were quickly released as civilians, not insurgents. Who knew that US war aid in Afghanistan has been replacing local sustainable agriculture with a mechanized, fossil-fuel based model and that it by-passed building small scale wind and solar systems in the rural country to develop oil, gas and coal reserves, as was reported on the eve of Obama’s announcement in the New York Times? How many realize that our government is engaged in negotiating a long-term agreement with Afghanistan to keep troops, spies, and air power in that country for decades?
All of this signals concerns to carry with us: Are troop withdrawals sincere political acts with the goal of ending war? Or are they token gestures to a restless Congress and disapproving public? Are they signs of any substantive change in bringing war dollars home and investing in health, education, jobs and well being here? Or will the defense budget continue to enjoy its immunity to budget cuts? Will the government, having learned so little from the ill-fated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, continue to pursue air wars, drone wars, and special operations combat elsewhere as it is currently doing in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and other countries covertly. If so, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is like administering aspirin where radical surgery is needed.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
5 Comments so far
Show AllI can't believe a word that comes out of Oblahblah's mouth ... so you'll have to forgive me for not being filled with rosy optimism (not even the kind tempered by "signals of concern.")
.
At best we can hope that he might roll back the "surge" by the fall of 2012, just in time for the "elections" here at home. So we'll be back to where we were in 2008 .. except 4 more years have gone by, thousands of lives lost, 100's of billions of dollars wasted .... And O will then surely tell us how great that accomplishment is, but also that we need to stay an undetermined amount of time longer, to finish our mission (which is inherently noble, should go without saying.) You know; protecting civilians, spreading democracy, making sure the taliban doesn't cut any noses off, national security, american interests ... All that jazz.
.
Dr. O is probably not substituting aspirin but rather snake oil in place of necessary radical surgery.
"Who knew that US war aid in Afghanistan has been replacing local sustainable agriculture with a mechanized, fossil-fuel based model and that it by-passed building small scale wind and solar systems in the rural country to develop oil, gas and coal reserves, as was reported on the eve of Obama’s announcement in the New York Times? "
I didn't and I really try to pay attention. Thank you for this information. It is not surprising it is always about the desires of the corporations and obviously destroying the ecology of a place is as important to them as killing the people.
Oh no I mean they just want to bring them into the modern world and help them do more productive farming.
More folks need to understand how much the military is responsible for the
ecological crisis.
"Patriarchy will work to make its biblical armageddon come true."
Mary Daly later day Cassandra
Time for Eric and the mercenaries formerly known as Blackwater to take charge....which they will as is happening in Iraq.
Just because we're bringing home our uniformed mercenaries - for that is what they are - doesn't mean the end of our occupation.
I continue to insist that the war is misunderstood, and that its most important pillar continues to be ignored. I speak, as always, of Public Law 107-40 which gave almost unlimited power to the President (and is similar to the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933 which empowered Hitler, and we all know how that went).
- the killing of bin Laden achieved the original US goal of the war. -
Public Law 107-40 declared war against enemies to be named later.
Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Both of those 'groups' are still enemies of the US of A, according to the insane law that was enacted by our feckless and lizard-brained Congress (except for Barbara Lee, the only person to vote 'no').
bin Laden's death changes nothing. Withdrawing some of the troops whom Obama sent to Afghanistan changes nothing. Until P.L. 107-40 is overturned, any President has the power to begin or continue war anywhere that someone finds an al-Qaeda flag or tee-shirt. Yemen, for example.
Until P.L. 107-40 is overturned, any President has the legal right to name new enemies (but does not have to tell us - hence Obama's secret kill lists).
I repeat - the US of A is in a state of war against 'al-Qaeda' and 'the Taliban', and the PTB (Powers That Be) use this to their advantage, not ours.
Until we do something about the cause of this insane and DAFT war to prevent future terrorism, nothing will change except for token measures meant for next year's electioneering.
All troops to be out by 2014? Another election year!
I wonder if future terrorism will be prevented by then.
Hahaha! I make myself laugh.
The insane PL 107-40 gave Bush the authority to go after our enemies --- the "terrorists" responsible for 9/11. He, and now Obama, have used it to carry the war to any country in which possible terrorists might possibly be planning to possibly carry out an attack on US soil. As a result, for 3000 American deaths, we have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, of about 8,000 Afghanis, and of a growing number of Pakistanis -- a tiny fraction of whom in each country are actually members of Al Queda or a similar group.
I believe Eduardo Galeano was talking about traditional bombs when he used these words in a The Progressive article, but they seem to fit our "no boots on the ground" drones used to destroy homes that intelligence says house "terrorists:
"From above the clouds, the bombs kills without knowing whom, as beneath the shroud of smoke, the dead die without knowing what for."