Afghan Bog
Filed Under Just Plain War, Media | Leave a Comment
Why the US is losing the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan population:
- Between 1-2am on the rainy night of 16 January 2008, a large number of international military personnel wearing desert camouflage surrounded the house of two brothers living in a two-family house in Kandahar.
According to various family members, the soldiers knocked loudly on the door.
One of the brothers, Abdul Habib, went to answer it and was shot.
Numerous soldiers (“the Americans”, say the family) dragged Abdul out into the courtyard and shot him at least five more times.
Then, inside the house, the soldiers saw the other brother — Mohammed Ali — running up the stairs from his basement dwelling and he too was hit by at least seven rounds and killed instantly.
Members of the household say that soldiers then searched everywhere (“they even opened a package of biscuits”), found nothing (no weapons, nothing else) and left.
And no accountability from anybody.
- The UN expert Philip Alston has tried to investigate the case, noting that the victims “are widely acknowledged, even by well-informed government officials, to have had no connection to the Taliban.” He’s got nothing out of the US commander about what happened.
In fact Firebase Gecko is widely perceived as untouchable, not least because US special forces (“other government agencies” like the CIA) operate from there.
…
In Ahmed Rashid‘s words, the Taliban see themselves “as the cleansers and purifiers of a social system gone wrong.”
If international forces come to seem like part of the social system gone wrong, then they’ll be easy prey for the Taliban propaganda machine.
Into this upside down environment President Obama is sending more US troops — 17,000 to start — and this without any game plan, much less an “end game,” to try and bring under control a conflict gone really, really bad the last couple of years.
Despite the nose on the face, it has been reported again and again, the military alone will not win in Afghanistan (the latest here) and a conflict solution requires doing something about the Afghan/Pakistan border.
One thing, however, must not happen: Compare Afghanistan with Iraq and a “surge” of more US troops.
Noted Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn wrote yesterday that idea would be an enormous mistake.
- The greatest source of error for the Americans in Iraq was not a policy mistake but an abiding belief that they alone made the political weather.
Anything good or bad which happened was the result of American action.
…
If the US intervention in Iraq proved anything it was that the Americans never had the strength to shape the political and military environment to their own liking.
Yet well-reviewed books on Iraq still appear in which Iraqis have a walk-on role and when somebody pushes a button in Washington something happens in Baghdad.
These misconceptions are important because the mythology about the supposed success of the “surge” is being promoted as a recipe for victory in Afghanistan.
This would not be the first time that false analogies between Iraq and Afghanistan have misled Washington.
I was in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002 and one of the most striking features of the conflict was the lack of fighting.
The warlords and their men, who had previously rallied to the Taliban, simply went home because they did not want to be bombed by US aircrafts and they were heavily bribed to do so.
There was very little combat.
Yet when I went to Washington to work in a think-tank for a few months later that year the Afghan war was being cited by the Bush administration as proof of America’s military omnipotence.
It is difficult to believe that the Obama administration is going to make as many crass errors as its predecessor.
So amazed were the Iranians to see President Bush destroy their two most detested enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 that some theologians held that such stupidity must be divinely inspired and heralded the return of the Twelfth Imam and the Shia millennium.
The reinforced US military presence in Afghanistan risks provoking a backlash in which religion combines with nationalism to oppose foreign intervention.
It is this that has been the real strength of movements like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Mehdi Army in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan which the US wants to eradicate.
Read all of Cockburn’s piece here.
Obama and his generals need a blueprint for Afghanistan, and quick.
Wonder with Stevie Wonder
Filed Under Media, Musings | Leave a Comment
This dream-like, can’t-believe-my-eyes presidency continues: “And I think it’s fair to say that had I not been a Stevie Wonder fan, Michelle might not have dated me. We might not have married. The fact that we agreed on Stevie was part of the essence of our courtship.”
(Illustration found here).
And the bare-armed, kick-ass First Lady:
- I’d go to my grandfather’s, because he was a real music junkie.
He’d blast music throughout the house.
And that’s where he and I would sit and listen to Stevie’s music together.
Songs about life, love, romance, heartache, despair.
He would let me listen to these songs over and over and over and over again.
All of President and Michelle Obama’s gushing was aimed at Stevie Wonder, who was presented the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song during ceremonies yesterday at the White House.
The Obamas are something else.
Maybe because George Jr. Bush was so horrifyingly horrible — an idiot surrounded by nasty-faced idiots — has made this president and first lady appear so captivating, even after just a month or so in office, and although true in some aspects, there’s no denying these two guys are a cut above the fold.
Watching Obama nod his head in time with Wonder’s music during inauguration festivities last month, carrying a confident, having-myself-a-real-good-time smile, evoked unreal-like emotions, creating a sense of seeing something so unusual, so outside the grain of normal for a US president, the brain just softly blubbered: Whoa!
The same sensation occurred last summer when Obama made that graceful, three-pointer jump shot during a visit with US troops in Kuwait. (See a quick-video here).
This guy is way too cool — he carries the appearance of unmitigated confidence.
And the real-nagging, dream-like problem here, for me, is both of the Obama’s appear sincere.
And not in that political sincerity kind-of-way — George Jr. was as sincere as a fox-in-the-hen-house, the Clintons are so way-too-full-of-themselves it’s hard to tell, Jimmy Carter appeared sincere (out of his element, but sincere about it) — but more personal, and more accessible.
Not to say Obama ain’t political, he’s some kind of unnatural natural to have come way out of left field and beat them all — 18 months ago wasn’t given a dick’s chance to become president — and he’s still at the top of his game as witnessed by his speech Tuesday night.
And playing the Beltway/Village game like a seasoned pro.
And Michelle?
She’s literally cut the cloth for first ladies:
- Apparently, Obama’s decision to go sleeveless again is stirring up a debate.
The tribute to Wonder was the second time in as many days that the first lady bared her arms: She wore a plum Narciso Rodriguez dress when her husband addressed Congress on Tuesday night.
She appears on the latest issue of People magazine in a sleeveless magenta Tracy Reese frock and also went sans sleeves on her recent Vogue cover.
But should people be up in arms about Obama baring hers?
In the USA Today poll — 40%: Yes, she’s a modern first lady; 11%: No, it seems too informal; 49%: Who cares? It’s her decision.
Michelle Obama is the hottest First Lady since I was in sixth grade.
Unlike Jackie, however, Michelle appears able/willing to kick your ass real quick if need be.
While nearly at the same time, incite a response like this today from an employee at the EPA:
- It was Mrs. Obama’s sixth visit to a federal agency and hundreds of employees lined up for two hours to snag a standing-room-only spot in the gilded, high-ceilinged auditorium.
“We are just thrilled to be working for an administration that respects the work we do, environmental work, but public service more specifically,” said Beth Hall, who works in the ground water and drinking water office.
Ms. Hall, who is also a working mother, said that Mrs. Obama was something of a role model.
“For those of us who’ve been up the mommy track, she’s been very inspiring,” she said.
Both of them Obamas appear sincerely way-too-cool for school.
‘Climate Storm’ — Unstoppable Catastrophic Calamity
Filed Under Media | Leave a Comment
In what could be a major metaphor for the entire climate change debate occurred Tuesday, starting first at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and ending up in the Indian Ocean near Antarctica.
- NASA and climate researchers are weighing their options after yesterday’s crash of a new satellite designed to monitor atmospheric carbon dioxide with unprecedented accuracy.
The big problem with climate change is similar to the one facing the financial meltdown: The concept that got us in this mess is the same one trying to get us out.
(Illustration found here).
A function synopsis of NASA’s satellite from nature.com:
- The $280 million mission would have provided much needed information on the origin and fate of carbon dioxide emissions.
The instruments aboard the satellite were designed to measure carbon dioxide at a precision higher than any current space-based measurements of a trace gas, and would have helped scientists to identify sources and sinks of the greenhouse gas.
Although the project was intended as a science mission, its results would also have been relevant to policymakers.
Yes, indeed, if any measures can be brought to bear on a situation which will make all other situations — i.e., the economy, the war on terror, Jennifer Aniston at 40, etc., etc. — seem like a walk in the park.
Despite all the discussion on climate change, nothing is really being done.
Even David Letterman knows the score.
See his ‘Dead Meat’ rant from last September on global climate change via HuffPost.
In the last couple of years, research studies are seemingly worse than previously reported.
From the UK’s telegraph.com:
- WWF’s report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC’s forecasts.
As an example it says the first ‘tipping point’ may have already been reached in the Arctic, where sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years –
something that hasn’t occurred for a million years.
And it’s not only with CO2, but also CFCs — human-produced compounds called chlorofluorocarbons — which impacts the infamous ozone hole:
- The ozone hole over Antarctica grew to the size of North America this year — the fifth largest on record — according to the latest satellite observations.
…
The main cause of the ozone hole is human-produced compounds called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which release ozone-destroying chlorine and bromine into the atmosphere.
The Earth’s protective ozone layer acts like a giant parasol, blocking the sun’s ultraviolet-B rays. Though banned for the past 21 years to reduce their harmful build up, CFCs still take many decades to dissipate from the atmosphere.
However, with CO2 still legal, still blazing, the future looks really, really bad, as carbon dioxide can stay around for a long, long time.
In an interview Tuesday with McClatchy Newspapers, David Archer, one of the world’s leading climatologists, this “long tail” of CO2 would mean a certain kind of horror for planet earth.
Archer, whose new book, “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” explains the burning of fossil fuels ignited the future: “In the long run, it could be a steep price to pay for a century or so of fossil fuel energy.”
And in order to survive, mankind must adjust:
- “The question may come down to ethics, rather than economics,” Archer wrote, much as the issue of slavery did more than a century ago.
“Ultimately it didn’t matter whether it was economically beneficial or costly to give up. It was simply wrong.”
Wrong doesn’t trump greed and the grind-on of civilization:
- If the world continues its heavy use of coal over the next couple of hundred years until it’s essentially used up, it would take several centuries more for the oceans to absorb about three-quarters of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. In those centuries, there would be a “climate storm” that Archer says would be significantly worse than the forecast from now to 2100.
And to the multitudes under denial:
- There are people who will “believe” anything they want to; the question is whether anyone has a scientifically credible justification for that belief.
It was predicted over a century ago that rising CO2 concentrations in the air would warm the planet.
Now it seems to be doing just that, just as predicted.
If anyone can explain why things should not work in this way, then I’d be interested to hear, but so far there are just no completing ideas, just beliefs stemming from whatever source, and an active campaign at disinformation sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.
Is earth, then condemned?
- No, the damage has not yet been done. We could stop releasing CO2. Technologically that is not so hard.
The problem, though, David, is not technology, but dumb-ass people and most likely we are doomed, a situation akin to George Carlin’s Hippy-Dippy weatherman predictions — and I paraphrase — ‘Rain is forecast, but our radar has also picked up some Russian ICBMs heading this way, so don’t sweat the rain showers.’
yeah…
‘It’s the Economy, Stupid’
Filed Under Musings, Orwellian | Leave a Comment
“Why ain’t they turning?” — Frederick Fleet, in the crows nest of the Titanic.
(Illustration found here).
As President Obama prepares for a major speech tonight to a joint session of Congress — a State of the Financial Union, if you will — on the mysterious horror of our economy, he might pull a spin of Wild Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign workhorse slogan that knocked Bush I out of the White House.
This time, however, Obama needs to tell US peoples the truth — the stupid economy is totally fucked and nobody knows how to fix it.
Although Obama is reportedly ready to render a “sober assessment” of the disastrous US economy, he might follow Clinton’s recent remarks that instead of negative talk, he should lighten up a little: “I just want the American people to know that he’s confident that we are gonna get out of this and he feels good about the long run.”
The long run?
American’s confidence in this ‘feel good’ approach sucks:
- The Conference Board’s index declined more than forecast to 25 this month, the lowest level since data began in 1967, from a January reading of 37.4, the New York-based research group said today.
Another report showed the drop in home values accelerated in December.
…
“Just when you think confidence can’t go any lower, the bottom falls out of it, and you can be sure the rest of the economy is not far behind,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, which had the closest forecast at 26.7.
“If consumers’ spending matches their flagging spirits, this recession is going longer and deeper.”
At least, Mr. Obama, point out the iceberg!
Afghan Rabbit Hole
Filed Under Just Plain War, War & Politics | Leave a Comment
A lot of verbiage was tossed about last week on President Obama’s approval of 17,000 more US troops for Afghanistan, and even the country’s president declared “We have opened a new page” in the conflict.
One needs, however, to check that page against the book from which it comes.
(Illustration found here).
The problem is just not the resurgent, well-oiled Taliban, but the citizens of Afghanistan.
From the Washington Post this morning:
- The additional 17,000 troops the Obama administration is preparing to send to Afghanistan will face both an aggressive, well-armed Taliban insurgency and an unarmed but equally daunting foe: public opinion.
In more than a dozen interviews across the capital this week, Afghans said that instead of helping to defeat the insurgents and quell the violence that has engulfed their country, more foreign troops will exacerbate the problem.
…
“Bringing in another foreign army is not going to help.
They always come here for their own interests, and they always lose.
Better to let everyone sit down with the elders and find a way for peace,” said Ibrahim Khan, 40, a cargo truck driver from Paktia province.
“People are feeling hopeless and afraid, but nobody knows who the enemy is anymore.”
Yes, indeed — who is the enemy?
And the US doesn’t help matters — always in denial, deflecting the killing of unarmed civilians — as raids take out some insurgents:
- But video footage and photographs obtained by Reuters from the site clearly showed at least one young boy had been killed in the bombing which struck an encampment of nomad tents.
Little was left of the other bodies, except mounds of flesh.
U.S. Brigadier General Michael Ryan travelled to the site of the bombing to lead an inquiry.
Though weapons and ammunition were found, investigators concluded only three of the dead were militants and the other 13 were civilians.
What a horrible mess the US has become involved in and with no real way out.
According to one of the best, Gareth Porter, Obama was first asked by the US military for 30,000 more troops for the Afghan mission, but once he discovered there were no real plans for the GIs, nixed the bigger number.
And there’s an eerie resemblance to another bad-run US war effort — Vietnam.
- What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.
It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.
The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question.
At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, “What is the end game?” in Afghanistan, and was told, “Frankly, we don’t have one,” according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.
…
Both Obama’s decision to agree to just over half of his field commander’s request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.
Johnson’s decision, like Obama’s, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam.
Some of Johnson’s advisers still favored a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.
We all know what happened there!
Read Porter’s entire piece here.
Withdrawal is the only solution, but how long will that decision be put off — we hope it’s not like Johnson’s and there’s another five years of death and destruction ahead.
This rabbit hole has a graveyard waiting at the bottom.