Afghanistan and Obama's lies--a further note

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 17:00


A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

With Blake firmly in mind, we should not be so troubled by arguments over whether Obama is lying outright or merely "shading the truth", as it were.  What's beyond all doubt is that a lot of Afghanis will die, and that Obama is telling them we're the good guys, and we're killing them for their own good.  If that's not "bad intent", it will just have to do, till the real thing comes along.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

Let's parse this passage, shall we?  On the flip.

Paul Rosenberg :: Afghanistan and Obama's lies--a further note
Obama:

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.

Reality:  With ~ 5% of the world's population, we consume about 25% of its resources.  If that's not domination... but let's put that into some historical perspective, shall we?  From Visualizing Economics:

Since Spain, Holland and Britain all had their turns at being top dogs in Western Europe's share, it would misleading to claim that we're the only 5%ers to have taken such a large bite.  But we're certainly not uniquely unselfish by any stretch of the imagination.

Obama:

Our union was founded in resistance to oppression.

Reality: Which is why we've had so much goodwill, and still do as a people despite robbing half the planet blind.

Obama:

We do not seek to occupy other nations.

Reality: Because most of the time we pretty much realize (a) it doesn't work and (b) it isn't necessary.  But still, we've invaded or intervened in other countries literally hundreds of times.  To take just one decade, almost at random, from one Wikipedia's timeliune of US military operations:

1900-1909

1900 - China. May 24 to September 28. Boxer Rebellion American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.[RL30172]

1901 - Colombia (State of Panama). November 20 to December 4. Panamanian Revolution US forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.[RL30172]

1902 - Colombia. - April 16 to 23. US forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.[RL30172]

1902 - Colombia (State of Panama). September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.[RL30172]

1903 - Honduras. March 23 to 30 or 31. US forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortes during a period of revolutionary activity.[RL30172]

1903 - Dominican Republic. March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.[RL30172]

1903 - Syria. September 7 to 12. US forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared.[RL30172]

1903-04 - Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the US Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.[RL30172]

1903-14 - Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.[RL30172]

1904 - Dominican Republic. January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.[RL30172]

1904 - Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marines were landed to protect the consul general.[RL30172]

1904 - Panama. November 17 to 24. U.S forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.[RL30172]

1904-05 - Korea. - January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A guard of Marines was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.[RL30172]

1906-09 - Cuba. - September 1906 to January 23, 1909. US forces sought to protect interests and re-establish a government after revolutionary activity.[RL30172]

1907 - Honduras. - March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna and Choloma.[RL30172]

1910 - Nicaragua. - May 19 to September 4, 1910. Occupation of Nicaragua US forces protected American interests at Bluefields.

And then there's the little matter of our overseas military bases:

737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire by Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books. Posted February 19, 2007:

Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial "footprint" and the militarism that grows with it.

It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense churning in the numbers of installations.

The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush's strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up.

Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 -- mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets -- almost exactly equals Britain's thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty.

Obama:

We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.

Reality: See the last decade, in general, and my diary, "Obama vs. ISG: Yes Blood For Oil!" in particular.

Obama:

What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

Reality: Which is why our military spending is going up, up, up!  While we're also getting ready to plan on slashing Social Security and Medicare, because simply can't afford them!


God damn reality & its terrible left-wing bias!


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Thinking in Dark Times-Six Questions for Roger Berkowitz" (4.00 / 2)
Arendt helps us to see that these lies were not like the lies a President tells when he conceals information to avoid a panic. Such lies are important to politics. Nor were these post-9/11 lies along the lines of Lincoln's claim that the Civil War was fought so that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth." Such a lie exemplifies the grand and dignified freedom of human beings to change the world for the better. It reminds us that it is the great liars who are remembered as the great politicians.

The political lies Arendt worries about are not mere falsehoods. They are political acts in which facts are denied and alternative realities are created. In denying facts, the political liar acts to change the world, to make reality anew so that it conforms to our needs and desires. In this way, lying is at the essence of political action. - Roger Berkowitz



I Like It A Lot Better When Novelists Lie Than When Politicians Do (4.00 / 2)
Or screenwriters, even.

Still got to get that Dollhouse diary done!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Excellent - I could use some good news (nt) (0.00 / 0)


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link (4.00 / 1)
Fascinating stuff. I should visit Harper's more often than I do, even though the format puts me off.

As for the art of politics being a creative (and hopefully benevolent) form of lying, I agree with Paul. I prefer it when novelists or poets do it. To make something where nothing was before is an honorable calling when one's stock in trade is metaphor. When it destroys the lives of other people, none of which are less valuable than one's own, it becomes a kind of obscenity. Decent politicians are careful about such things, and when forced by circumstance to such extremes -- genuinely forced, as in Lincoln's case -- they understand the necessity of public expiation.


[ Parent ]
I don't disagree. (4.00 / 1)
It was just the discussion that popped into my head as I read Paul's diary.  How was it once explained to me...

There is precision, or absolute accuracy, and there is the "truth" you would rather believe.

There's all manner of "truth."  And, maybe Obama even believes some of this himself.  I don't believe it.  I have no reason to believe it.  But I find the reasons he might think I'd accept this pack of lies a good deal more interesting than Yawn, follow the money.


[ Parent ]
Please See My Latest Diary, William (0.00 / 0)
"Joss Whedon's 'Dollhouse' obliquely asks--will the real Barack Obama please stand up?"

I think you'll have something to say about it.  And it deserves at least one careful reader.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
OT technical comment (4.00 / 2)
The site's broken again, visually. There's no wrap-around, forcing horizontal scrolling. Perhaps the CSS needs some tweaking? The front page is ok, but not the "there's more" part.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

lies (4.00 / 3)
There seems to be two primary components to the war rationale:

1. We need to be there for our security.

2. We need to help the Afghan people.

I can't see a speck of difference between #2 and the same old "white man's burden" nonsense that has justified every colonial occupation throughout past centuries.

As for #1, it seems to depend on trusting the generals and other experts over common sense, which tells us that:

- Terrorists can plot against us from any location and we're not going to occupy the whole world.

- Military occupations of Muslim countries breeds more terrorists rather than reducing their numbers

- The occupation so far has destabilized Pakistan, but continuing it will somehow have the opposite effect?

If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, and tastes like bullshit... I'm going to have to conclude bullshit.

miasmo.com


Though To Be Fair (4.00 / 1)
It could be buffalo shit. People rarely consider that possibility.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It could also be just that he is a Sociopath, (0.00 / 0)
and that lying is a habit to him.  Sociopaths have a personality disorder, and they have no conscience.  I believe that many politicians, especially Republicans are made this way psychologically.  Of course, so are many crooks, thieves, and murderers. But there are regular sociopaths among us too, and the only people affected are the ones that live and work with them. With Obama, one didn't realize he was lying during his campaign, because he was so good at it.  How many of us believed him!  After 8 years of another sociopath, we thought we were getting something better.  But to our detriment, unlike Bush, Obama is so much better at lying, because he is so much more intelligent, and extremely charismatic, and we were taken in.  Now, we are seeing the REAL Obama, and it stinks!

[ Parent ]
Who Provides A More Legit Perspective (4.00 / 1)
I'm not familiar enough with politicians' foreign policy prescriptions, so I ask this in earnest- what politician has ever come within yards of accurately describing our foreign presence and history of mass-slaughter (or did we forget that the 19th century was for all intents and purposes a mass-erasure of the last vestiges of independent Native American civilization)?  You know, something Chomsky wouldn't grimace at.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

I'm Not Asking For That (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't expect a President to be that truthful.

I'd just like one that would avoid creating the need to lie so pathetically.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm Not Trying To Be Flippant (0.00 / 0)
I'm just trying to think of a single politician who has ever acknowledged our role as a neo-colonial power, who has gone the next step beyond "it cost us a lot" to "and by the way, the impulse for it was wrong no matter the cost to us".

If our political environment resists colonial discourse like the plague, which I believe it does, I'd like an example of how a canny politician deals with it and tells something at least closer to the truth.  For my entertainment.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


[ Parent ]
There Are Examples. (0.00 / 0)
David cites some highlights.  There were others from senators during the Vietnam Era.  It's just that we rarely see anything like Bryant or McGovern at the presidential candidate level.  But if you look to House you can find considerably more examples.  Barbara Lee, who comes form a military family, is one example.  Ron Dellums--a former Marine sergeant, who held the same seat before her--was another.  A common theme, whether expressed in those terms or not, is contrasting America's original promise as a republic with what we have become.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Bryan and McGovern (4.00 / 3)
William Jennings Bryan ran against American intervention in the Phillippines in 1900 and resigned as Wilson's Secretary of State because he thought Wilson's policy would eventually lead the US into participating in WW I.  That is pretty pure.

George McGovern did not linger on US atrocoties in Vietnam but he did promise to brng the troops home in 90 days.  And he meant it.  His convention speech, "Come Home America" was one of the best ever along with Bryan's Cross of Gold (1896) and Goldwater's "Choice Not an Echo" in 1964.  All lost.

He was no politician, but Mark Twain's famous piece against the US war in the Phillipines was certainly accurate and blunt.  We will Christianize with dynamite and civilize with the sword.  The inventor of total war, William T. Sherman was likewise blunt.  "War is hell."  Sherman, btw, came from a very political family that probably kept both him and Grant employed.  His father had been chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.  His adoptive father (also father in law) was Secretary of the Treasury (and I think a Senator).  His brother was a congressman, nearly Speaker of the House, a Senator for about 40 years and also Secretary of the Treasury as well as the creator of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Of course Martin Luther King, a great speaker, was strongly and actively against the war in Vietnam.

I really reccommend that you read the McGovern speech.  It's a beaut.  IIRC, the delivery was OK but it reads as well as it came over on TV.


[ Parent ]
Carter was oracular (0.00 / 0)
in his truth-telling to the American people.

They elected a B-list actor at the next available opportunity.


[ Parent ]
Russ FEINGOLD is one of the best, (0.00 / 0)
but he's too "real" a person to be able to win in this rotting political atmosphere.

[ Parent ]
yawn: follow the money (4.00 / 4)
 
we should not be so troubled by arguments over whether Obama is lying outright or merely "shading the truth", as it were.

Actually, what is most exasperating for folks like us is that we really don't have a clue as what is or is not a lie because we have nowhere near the access he has to the "facts on the ground" needed to make that assessment.

Instead, we parse his arguments with the arguments of others in the media who generally share our own political framework in reacting to the escalation.

This isn't a failing on our part though. It is simply the way things are for all of us who get our information about the conflict from the media. The only other alternative, of course, is to go over there and interview as many folks in as many different circumstantial contexts as possible.

Not going to happen though is it? Well, not for me, anyway. So I have to rely on Rachel Maddow, Frank Rich, Gene Robinson and folks like you in here.

Instead, Paul hits the nail right on the head in disclosing the historical reality of U.S. interventions over the decades. We know that Obama is hopelssly distorting our "mission" in Afghanistan because he sprouts baldface lies like, "[f]or unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination."

This is utter bullshit and unlike an ignoramus like Bush 43, Obama knows it is. Anyone familiar with the writing of Franz Fanon [as Obama is] knows full well what a loathsome lie that is.

We can argue endlessly about the facts on the ground in Af/Pac. But not about the history of U.S. imperialism around the world. Start there with exposing this sham war.

Then you can segue into things like this:

Initially the Taliban enjoyed the support of Bill Clinton's administration for a campaign against Iran, but the most strategically important goal was to secure the region's oil and gas. In 1996-98 the US government supported the (US) Unocal oil company's plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

What was support (or indifference) toward the Taliban in the Clinton years, has turned to antagonism and a goal of elimination, whatever the cost, today. So many near neighbours have meddled in Afghanistan's affairs over decades - notably Pakistan and Russia, and to a lesser degree Iran and Saudi Arabia - that the region has rarely been free of conflict. And never more so than now, with the resurgent Taliban being fought vigorously with the stakes raised to dizzying heights in the interests of oil, and oil interests.

Prior to September 11, United States' policy toward the Taliban was largely influenced by oil. In their book, Ben Laden, la verite interdite, 2002, (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document the "oil" connection between George W. Bush and the Taliban.

The United States' dependence on Middle East, and soon Central Asian, oil and gas has led the US government to intervene militarily under a variety of pretexts, which change to suit the domestic political mood at any given time. The development of a coherent U.S. energy policy would obviate the real (or perceived) need to dominate other countries.

Colin Miller at Webdiary.

george:

After which you can clearly argue the war there has virtually nothing to do with 1] democracy in Kabul and 2] U.S. national security.

It's all about the money. Follow it from New York to Washinton and back again and you will understand the conflict in Afghanistan.


Now THIS Has Complexity And Nuance I Can Get Behind! (0.00 / 0)
Since I was just rather harsh in another in diary about what seemed like a way too simplistic observation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Strategy & Tactics (4.00 / 2)
Strategically, the US presence in Afghanistan is for positioning its forces in the heart of the Central Asian energy region, just as Iraq is central to the Middle Eastern region. There will be a considerable US presence in both places for a long time.

Tactically, this is about giving the US a forward base for conducting the real war in the region, which is in Pakistan.


I wonder what Smedly Butler would say about that passage? (4.00 / 1)


I think we are an occupational power. (0.00 / 0)
This is my explanation of Obama's mid-east policy.  With the Obama administration missionless (Sirota source)exercise.

Instead of the classical take over a country, we make outposts to intercept the bad guys before we have to deal with them on the home front.  This keeps us out of the exploitation of the resources of the occupied countries and offers them economic opportunities servicing our forward bases.

It's pretty obvious we will be sitting somewhere in the middle east until we can get a good energy policy.  Iran has told us if we leave, they take over.  If we left tomarrow, we would have to drill (heaven forbid) and mine energy supplies until the alternative energy sources would become market competitive.  This also includes a new distribution system that's not in place either.

I do question the theory that we are making new terrorists by being there.  Clearly we are the infidels and in many cases are natural enemies to their way of life.  We have a lot of enemy combantants in the mid-east already.  Remember all of those video clips of AQ training bases.  Where did all those people go?  By locating in their backyards we are a target for them locally.


Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


How about this lie, Paul (0.00 / 0)
"All men are created equal."

Nothing could be further from the truth. And yet it is a lie worth telling for its effects on human behaviors and institutions.

I'd also wager you support that lie because there is a higher truth that informs it.

Just as there is a higher truth Obama spoke to which was a vision of what America should be.

Few have a stomach for unadorned truth, including you.


Not exactly (4.00 / 1)
All men are created equal does not mean all men (or people) are equally endowed in all respects.  The Declaration says what it means: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." No matter what other inequalities may distinguish people, it does not give one the right to rule over another.

So not a lie - but not to be taken literally.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
I'd Put That Differently (0.00 / 0)
It's not that it's not to be taken literally. It is to be taken literally, but not in the sense that Goodman is giving it.

There's an even older story behind this, going back to the early Greek liberals, who made the same claim.  But what they meant--prior to the development of the "rights" framework--was that people were equal in their needs, a pragmatic/utilitarian approach as opposed to classical liberal one.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
You've got that exactly wrong (4.00 / 1)
The lie "all men are created equal" was aspiring toward a country where people would at least have equal political opportunities.

It was headed in the direction of what's right.

So while "America does not seek domination" is a lie, the comparable use of that lie here would be if a president invoked it while withdrawing.

In that case the lie would be aspiring toward becoming true.

But Obama has told the lie while escalating. He seeks to make it even more of a lie. He wants to intensify the domination-seeking. His lie is in the service of evil.



http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
"a lot of Afghanis will die" regardless what the US do! (0.00 / 0)
Implying that less Afghans would die if Obama made the "right" decision doesn't make logical sense, isn't bolstered by any facts, and only distorts the discussion. If the ISAF forces withdraw, the Taliban will try to get into power in Afghanistan gain. There's can't be much doubt about it. After all, the fundamentalist will try to make up for the recent loss of strongpoints in Pakistan, where the situation is increasingly becoming unfavorable for them. And since the Karzai government, and (maybe more importantly) the warlords won't simply surrender, this means more fighting and more deaths, probably for some years, like the last time. Civilian casualties will most probably go up, since the involved parties in that civil war (if you can call that, many Taliban are Paistanis) aren't very likely to care much about collateral damage. Again, historical precedent shows this.

So, really, implying less Afghans will die if the US move out is phony, borderline dishonest. And I'm surprised that usually reasonable bloggers and commenters raise this fraudulent point, without offering even a glimpse of reason to support this far out argument!


That's because we are smarter than you, (0.00 / 0)
and we KNOW the true story.  We will NOT be propagandized to by anyone!

[ Parent ]
Well, there sure are many people smarter than me... (0.00 / 0)
...but I dunno if you are among those 5% of the population...
However, I you wanna say that collective intelligence tops individual intelligence, you may have a point! However, group dynamics is tricky, and may backfire.
:D

[ Parent ]
Oh, Please! Not The White Man's Burden Again! (4.00 / 1)
"If you don't kill them then the Chinese will.
If you don't want America to play second bill,
Then kill, kill, kill for peace.
Kill, kill, kill for peace."
    --The Fugs, "Kill For Peace" circa 1965

Even if you could prove that as many people will die no matter what, that's not a case for us being the killers.  In fact, if we are the killers, then we have virtually no chance to play a constructive role somewhere down the line.

But, in fact, you can't prove that as many people will die if we don't do the killing ourselves.  (And not just because we're so much more damn efficient at killing people!) This was the argument with Vietnam--we forever heard that a bloodbath would result if we left... while we were busy killing roughly 2 million Vietnamese.  Now, the communist victory was no picnic, but it was no bloodbath, either.  In fact, quite the contrary: the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia and put an end to the ongoing genocide there--at which point the US and China became de facto allies, intervening futilely (thank God!) in support of Pol Pot.

So, please, the next time you get the urge to play omniscient overseer, please run at least a rudimentary background check first, to check and see if you're about to make a fool of yourself.

You're usually a very sharp guy, Gray.  And I really appreciate having input from abroad.  But some of us Yanks actually do know more about our own sad bloody history than you imagine.

Unfortunately for us, I'm afraid.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
"we have virtually no chance to play a constructive role" (0.00 / 0)
Well, do you think by withdrawing from Afghanistan, Iraq will simply become forgotten? Or the foot dreagging on the roadmap? Or that every muslims appreciates the US abandoning it's ally Karzai? Only my opinion, but as I see it, the US has already experienced a serious loss of influnece among people in the Middle east. Going out of Afghanistan won't help much,if anything, in healing that.

And then, of course I "can't prove that as many people will die if we don't do the killing ourselves". Nobody can. But imho I provided a reasonable argument why the killing won't stop, and probably stay at the same level. And you point about the undoubted US efficiency in killing people has a flaw: The number of Taliban attacking Afghanistan won't shrink, maybe it will even rise when the terrifying US army is gone. Karzai and the warlords trying to repel them will result in more death on the side of the "friendlies", because of the lower efficiency. If the number of killed Taliban stays the same (somewhat likely), this will result in a larger bodycount, all in all.

As for the comparison with the aftermath of the Vietnam withdrawal, the much better comparison would be with the civil war in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, between 1992 and 2001 (9 bloody years!) instead, of course. Sadly, I haven't found casualty numbers for that period yet. I guess people where so occupied with killing themselves that nobody had time to keep records...

Oh, and thx, imho you're an even sharper guy. And for a "Yank", you see your own nation in a very realistic light (I'm sure not as objective about Germany, in comparison). But still, sometimes your arguments aren't totally waterproof. Well, nobody's perfect!
:D


[ Parent ]
My Underlying Point Is Fix Israel/Palestine First (0.00 / 0)
We can gain enormous influence and respect by tackling the biggest problem we've helped to create, which is the Israel/Palestine conflict.  There's nothing remotely comparable for us to win in Afghanistan.

Of course, fixing Israel/Palestine is the last thing we want to do.

But that's why we're in such a mess.  We keep avoiding every mess we've already made by making new ones.  We've made so many now that we can't clean them all up--at least not simultaneously.  But we can start with the one that will really test our mettle.

There are legitimate humanitarian aid groups that can do useful work in Afghanistan. There are indigenous activists there who are calling for us to get out, pleading for us to get out, because what we are doing is so counter-productive.  We would not be abandoning Afghanistan to total chaos, especially if we listened to those who know it best.  It will not be easy, of course.  But we will not make it better by making a mockery of ourselves in the guise of helping them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yup, the US pressing home the two state solution... (0.00 / 0)
...would result in a different landscape. However, after good rhetorics at the start, it now seems increasingly unlikely Obama would push for this, against AIPAC's resistance. And those not very closet likudniks will never agree on this.

As for the humanitarian aid groups, they depend on security to do their job. And I've read some have already stopped their work in some problematic provinces. Without the international forces, their position will becom more difficult. Hmm, how many legitimate humanitarian aid groups did work in Afghanistan between 1992 and 2001? Maybe some in the north, if at all...

It's always the same: Without security, not much can be done. But right now it doesn't look like Karzai's army will be strong enough in 2011 to provide it. And then, what?


[ Parent ]
You've Got It Backwards (4.00 / 1)
The interviews I've heard on Pacifica programs (local as well as national) with aid providers and those working with and covering them all point to presence of military forces as undermining their security, both directly and indirectly.

In addition, there's a lot of perception out there that the Nato forces came in with more of protection agenda, and that the US has increasingly skewed it toward a military agenda (with only internal debates about the "right" miitary agenda).

So, layer upon layer of stupid.

Where have we seen that before?

Oh, yes.  Everywhere.

Oh and the Israeli racist nutjobs don't want peace?

What a surprise!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Thank you, Paul, for (0.00 / 0)
your courage in telling truths many do not want to hear.

But many already know. (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for validating us!

[ Parent ]
Yes, Many Already Know (4.00 / 1)
As attested to by the ease of putting together those links.

Which only makes it all the more infuriating that Obama would trot out such a lame pack of lies.

He's not even trying.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox