Afghanistan: another failure of "nation building"

The US spent 20 years, around $1 trillion (closer to $2 trillion if you count long-term costs like treatment for soldiers), over 2300 American soldier lives - to say nothing of time, money and lives spent by European and other countries - trying to build Afghanistan into a viable state. 

 By many accounts, the Afghan army was staffed by decent men who were not given the tools to succeed by their corrupt political non-leaders. 

All that money, time and lives and the country is heading back to square one with the barbarians back in control. It's a tragic day for the people of Afghanistan, who’ve seen many tragic decades. 

No one seriously believes another few months or years would've made much of a difference in that regard.
 

Can we Americans please finally admit that imperialism and nation-building is something that can no longer work in the modern world (ignoring whether it was ever morally justified)? Let's stop starting wars that we are incapable - that no one is capable - of finishing. In the end, the only people who will have benefited from the last 20 years is "defense" contractor stockholders.

The 20 year war in Afghanistan and the failure of regime change

Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of the start of the American invasion of Afghanistan. A decade into what's already this country's longest war, former US commander of NATO forces in the country (retired) Gen. Stanley McChrystal says that the mission in Afghanistan is only half done. 

The Guardian article added: McChrystal said the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq less than two years after entering Afghanistan made the Afghan effort more difficult. "I think they were made more difficult, clearly," he said, because the Iraq invasion "changed the Muslim world's view of America's effort..."

He pointed out that, as is so often the case in the United States' clumsy foreign policy decisions, everyone involved "had a very superficial understanding of the situation and [Afghan] history" and culture and that US forces did not make an attempt to learn the country's languages -- not a task one would normally expect of soldiers but critical to any successful nation building.

The morass in Afghanistan is so deep that the country's president Hamid Karzai, took a (very brief) break from blaming Pakistan, to admit his own government's miserable failure in the security realm.

Speaking of the topic, this essay in The Boston Review points out that, despite supposedly altruistic reasons and despite widespread bipartisan support most of the time, US-imposed regime change simply doesn't work... at least not for the people of the 'helped' country in question.

Americans tend to personalize their conflicts. Almost every target of U.S. intervention in the post-Cold War world has been labeled another Hitler... Since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the United States has become the world’s foremost practitioner of regime change... 

[Guest essay] Christmas in Afghanistan

Republished here with permission of the author.

by Molly Conner on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:40pm

As you go to Christmas services this year, please take a minute and remember the servicemen and women who died in Afghanistan this year.

The United States has lost 494 servicemembers this year. The UK has lost 101. Total Coalition Forces casualties are at 702. It is the deadliest year of the war so far. Yet no one in the United States is paying attention. News coverage of the war makes up 4% of media stories, down from 5% in 2009.

Less than 1% of voters polled before the midterm elections this year considered the war in Afghanistan to even be a major issue.

So please, as you celebrate the holiday this year, take a moment to remember those who gave their lives for this country, those who were wounded, those who lost limbs, and those who lost loved ones. I honestly don't care if any of you are for or against the war. Your position doesn't matter. Just please, keep us in mind, remember us, and pay attention when the stories come on the news. Please let the war in Afghanistan take precedence in your mind over Bristol Palin in Dancing With the Stars, or Lindsay Lohan's latest drama in rehab. Please remember us. Have the debate. Ask the hard questions. Decide if it's worth it, and if it is, what more needs to be done, what you can do to help. Visit your local veteran's center, ask what you can do to help. Donate to the wounded warriors project. Or just visit the websites of the units in Afghanistan, and look at the names, pictures, and biographies of the fallen. I link to my own 101st Airborne Division, which has lost over 100 soldiers this year. But they all deserve to be remembered.

I don't believe that all soldiers are heroes. I don't believe that military personnel should be automatically labeled as role models, as too often happens. I don't pretend that hundreds of thousands don't initially enlist for reasons other than patriotism.

However, I do believe, with my whole heart, that when you allow your elected government to send soldiers to fight and die in your name, you owe them the basic human dignity of paying attention, and acknowledging that sacrifice. And yet, nine years into this war, media coverage is down, and the war is a non-issue in the election, while soldiers continue to die at their highest rates yet.

Attention should be paid.

So please, when you celebrate the holiday this year: remember us.



http://www.icasualties.org/

http://www.campbell.army.mil/eaglehonors/Pages/EagleHonorsHome.aspx

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,840/

Afghanistan is not Vietnam... it’s worse

This weekend, the US will have occupied Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Union did in the 1980s. Often credited for helping bring down the Soviet empire, the occupation of Afghanistan is often referred to as the USSR’s Vietnam. America’s own occupation of Afghanistan is also referred to by many as Vietnam redux. New York Times blogger Richard Wright disagrees: he says the war in Afghanistan is quite a bit more harmful to America than Vietnam.

He writes: And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There’s no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We’re creating them faster than we’re killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over — in South Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

[...]

Al Qaeda’s ideology offers nothing that many of the world’s Muslims actually want — except, perhaps, when they feel threatened by the West, a feeling that isn’t exactly dulled by the presence of American troops in Muslim countries.

None of this is particularly revolutionary to students of world history. Overreach inevitably causes empires to collapse, by creating hostility and resentment and suppressing national and cultural identity. This hostility and resentment usually mystifies the imperial power who has deluded itself to believe that people want to be dominated by foreigners, so long as those outsiders deem themselves ‘enlightened.’ The power thinks that if it replaces one for of overlordship with another, the victims will be grateful for Change. In essence, the imperial power thinks that its own perceived beneficience and omnipotence invalidates human nature.

I almost forgot something that Rep. Dennis Kucinich pointed out: Afghanistan is already America’s longest war... and with no end in sight.

Random thoughts

PRIORITIES
The American people had no problem with kidnapping random and sundry foreigners on foreign soil, guilty or not, and “renditioning” them to torturous regimes under the pretext of national security. We had no problem with funding such tortuous regimes with oodles of your tax money (but God forbid we help working Americans get health care). We had no problem with our agents doing the torturing themselves. We had no problem with the horrors revealed in Wikileaks’ Afghan and Iraq war logs (sorry I can’t link to them as Wikileaks’ site curiously appears to be down). Heck, we had little problem with the insane and counterproductive aggression against Iraq in the first place, even after the WMD fairy refused to show us where those weapons were. But we draw the line at airport pat downs and body scanners?

**
NATIONAL 'DON'T USE YOUR BRAIN' DAY
First, there was a national “Don’t Buy Gas” Day protest. Now, there’s a “Buy Nothing” Day. Do people realize how stupid and pointless these one day protests are? Do you seriously think you’re sending a warning to the consumerist economy by refusing to spend a dime on useless crap today but then going out and buying useless crap tomorrow? Is the self-indulgence of empty symbolism really that powerful? If you really want to send a message, don’t change your day. Change your dang lifestyle.

**
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONE, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL
If teachers should be held “accountable” via their students’ test scores, shouldn’t corrections officers be similarly held “accountable” via their released prisoners’ recidivism rates?

**

THE JUDICIARY HIJACKED BY THE MOB
So Mike Huckabee is gloating that he and his fellow theocrats helped oust several Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of equal protection of the law for gay citizens. He claimed that the ruling sent a message.

It sent a message indeed: beyond a certain level, we shouldn't have elected judges.

The system here in New York is fine. Trial court judges are elected. But appellate court judges, those who set precedents, are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature but to a limited term of office. This gives them a certain degree of accountability but shields them to a certain extent from mob fury.

The judiciary is not supposed represent the "will of the people." It's supposed to uphold constitutions, including minority rights protections, regardless of what the hysteria or scapegoat of the day happens to be.

And it sent another message about why electing judges is dangerous: it lends itself to the same corruption of outside money as the election of politicians.


**

OXYMORON OF THE DAY
New York’s governor-elect wants the judiciary to intervene in a few close election recounts to ensure that we have a “functioning Senate” in January. It’s amusing that he thinks the courts can impose this. Between being run by boobs and criminals (convicted, indicted and not-yet-indicted), NYS hasn’t had a functioning Senate in several years.

**

MONEY WELL SPENT?
The US alone has spent $56 billion on “Afghanistan reconstruction.” For reference, if the US had instead divvied up that money equally and directly given it to the people, that would have put $2000 in the hands of every single Afghan.

**

FORTUNATELY NO ONE EXPECTS COHERENCE FROM SPORTS ANNOUNCERS
Soccer commentators should be thrashed for improper use of the word 'unlucky.' Hitting a shot 15 feet over the cross bar or, worse, out for a throw in is NOT unlucky; it's incompetent. Unlucky is the FC Dallas player who scored the own goal on Sunday night.

**

RADIATING FURY
Last month, Hundreds of gallons of radioactive water from a cleanup at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory spilled from a drainage pipe into the Mohawk River in NY’s Capital District, according to an article in the Albany Times Union. A failed sump pump system caused about 630 gallons of tainted water -- containing Cesium-137, Strontium-90, uranium and plutonium -- to overflow into a culvert draining directly into the river, [the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation] reported.

The T-U described these as ‘known carcinogens.’

I can’t imagine why there’s public reticence about the expansion of nuclear power as an energy source.

The Wikileaks' revelations will harm Afghans and that shows why we need to get out

The Obama administration freaked out at the historic leak of Afghanistan war documents by the whistleblower website Wikileaks and subsequent publication of articles based on that information by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the UK Guardian and Germany's der Spiegel.

Many people, including Daniel Ellsberg himself, compared the significance of what Wikileaks did to the release of the Pentagon Papers. Though, the respected non-profit journalism organization Pro Publica disagrees.

I tend to side more with Pro Publica. The Wikileaks information paints a damning portrait of a morass that was never going to be winnable, but even though I'm no South Asia expert, there wasn't a lot of stuff I hadn't heard before.

It's certainly important in that it illustrates to governments and bureaucracies that secrets are a lot harder to keep in the Internet age and that's certainly a good thing. Bureaucracies, even those of sainted 'liberal' administrations, tend to loathe transparency even though secrecy is the enemy of democracy and good governance.

As expected, the Obama administration and the Pentagon blasted the leaks, as did Afghan president Hamad Karzai. They all claimed it would put Afghan lives at risk. It goes without saying that there's a huge element of spin in this. 'National security' is the perpetual claim any time anything comes out to offer a real version of reality that contradicts the officially approved version of reality.

Yet here's also an element of truth to the claims.

But I think that element of truth is even more damning to the cause of the eternal occupation. How can the foreign occupation possibly succeed (whatever 'success' means) if Afghans who openly cooperate with it are literally risking their lives?

Americans like to believe we can accomplish anything if we just beat our head against a stone wall a little bit harder and never give up until that wall comes down. But what can we possibly accomplish if Afghans are too fearful to work with us? What kind of Afghanistan can be built if Afghans are too afraid to be a part of its construction?

Or maybe the definition of 'success' has other priorities than the security of Afghans and Americans.

And if there's any doubt that the present sainted 'liberal' administration has no interest in even beginning the dismantling the American empire, look no further than the fact that Pres. Obama has ordered all federal agencies to prepare for a five percent budget cut for the next fiscal year... except for the Pentagon, while will be exempted.

Bits and pieces

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

-ABC News takes a behind-the-scenes look at the making of a documentary on the NGO Doctors Without Borders and the truly heroic work they do.

-The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, which focuses on isses relating to rural America, published a report exploring the particularly high rates of young child poverty in the southern US. Carsey also released an interesting report on Challenges in Serving Rural American Children through the Summer Food Service Program.


-A piece on Alternet 6 shocking ways conservatives have caused the economic destruction of America... or more specifically, the conservative ideology.

-Speaking of harm caused by the Supreme Court-sanctioned corporate takeover of government... I noticed an AP piece highlighting how many judges in the Gulf Coast (where lawsuits related to the BP oil catastrophe will be heard) have close ties to Big Oil... 37 of 64 federal judges in the region, to be exact. (And this doesn't even take into account state judges, many of whom are elected and thus raise money) Then, I caught an item about how one of those federal judges struck down the Obama administration's temporary ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Please move along... nothing to see here.

(Also see: MoveToAmend.org - a project of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy)

-Sadly, this area has seen the death of not one but two local soldiers this week in Afghanistan, the latter 19 years old. The deaths of these young men occured the same week that a report by Congressional investigators issued a 'shocking' (not sure I'd use the adjective) report that the US is funding Afghan warlords.

German president resigns after truth-telling 'gaffe'

As I've often said, in politics, a 'gaffe' is when a politician strays from the official orthodoxy and accidentally tells the truth. The latest big gaffe occurred when Germany's president caused a furor after noting that his country was involved in the military occupation of Afghanistan in order to protect commerce.

Horst Kohler stated that "in emergencies military intervention is necessary to uphold our interests, like for example free trade routes, for example to prevent regional instabilities which could have a negative impact on our chances in terms of trade, jobs and income."

Although the German presidency is mostly a ceremonial post, he was widely attacked for deviating from the required narrative that the mission was only related to security and safety.

As a former head of the International Monetary Fund, Kohler has a particularly deep insight about the incestuous relationship between war and financial and commercial interests.

Following his truth-telling 'gaffe,' Kohler resigned.

Afghanistan's Guantanamo

The conservative Times of London has a story on Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, which is increasingly serving the same Gulag-like function as the infamous Guantanamo Bay. It features the case of on UK man who was kidnapped (via the process euphemistically referred "rendition") and shipped to Bagram, whose mother and a human rights organization trying to force the British government to confirm his kidnapping.

The BBC also has a story on alleged abuses at Bagram.

Real sacrifice in "fake America"

You remember during the 2008 campaign when that loathsome Sarah Palin divisively talked about the south and midwest (bastions of GOP support) as the "real America"? It was part of the typical conservative strategy to act like the right alone owned and defined patriotism to manipulate toward its own belligerent ends.

ABC News points out that the greatest burden per capita of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is borne by the state of Vermont, generally regarded as the most liberal state in the country and one which the arrogant Palin would smugly classify as being the anchor of "fake America."

Your tax dollars in action!

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Every year, the non-governmental organization Transparency International publishes a Corruption Perception Index.

2005 was the first year that the index ranked both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2005's index of 158 countries, there were 17 countries more corrupt than Iraq and 34 countries more corrupt than Afghanistan.

In last year's index of 180 countries, Afghanistan was the 5th most corrupt country in the world and only Somalia was more corrupt than Iraq.

Even notoriously corrupt regimes like Equatorial Guinea, the DR Congo, Nigeria and Cameroon as well as the lands run by the much demonized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe are better off than the US-occupied former countries.

This is just one illustration of the wonderful Progress that's being made in those occupied lands and proof that we were right to Stay the Course.

If I've forgotten any empty catch phrases, please leave them in the comments field.

WMD hysteria redux in Pakistan?

This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, IsraelStine and the Trumped Up Enemy of the Month. A list of all pieces in this series can be found found here..


As is now clear, the news media played a role in uncritically megaphoning the Bush administration's false claims about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destructions and the non-existent threat they posed. This was indispensible in allowing the Bush administration to whip up public fervor for an unnecessary and disastrous war of aggression against a country that was never any threat to the United States.

The PBS program Bill Moyers Journal has an interview with two South Asia experts* who claim that the media may unwittingly be playing a similar role regarding the Obama administration's claims about Pakistan.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about the alleged danger to the rest of Pakistan posed by Talibanesque-elements in the country's tribal areas, which border Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even went so far as to call these elements 'an existential threat' to the Pakistani state.

Prof. Juan Cole and journalist Shahan Mufti admit that the Pakistani Taliban is certainly a problem for the central government but emphatically reject claims that they represent anything close to 'an existential threat' to the nuclear-armed state. They point out that the Taliban is pretty unpopular in most of Pakistan. To them, the idea that a small group of militia men armed only with Kalashnikovs can defeat one of the largest, most well-equipped and most powerful armies in Asia strain credulity... especially considering their lack of broad public support. The idea that they would know where nuclear installations are located, let alone be able to seize them, is even more dubious.

The Americans' real concern, they say, is to eliminate Pakistani tribal areas as a safe haven for the Taliban to launch attacks into NATO-occupied Afghanistan. The hysteria whipped up by the Obama administration's disingenuous claims of an 'existential threat' is simply designed to give the Pakistani army political cover to do the Americans' bidding... and most likely to give the Washington an ex post facto excuse for ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan and the controversial deadly drone attacks in Pakistan.

*-Warning: the two commentators, both of whom have actually lived in Pakistan, are both somewhat optimistic about the country's future

Abandon all principles ye who enter power

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I realize that I'm not supposed to criticize President Obama. Even when I disagree with him, I'm obliged to just shut up and praise his "pragmatism." I'm supposed to realize that I shouldn't expect him to actually do anything meaningful because that might (insert menacing music) "give ammunition" to the Republicans. At least that's what I've been told by critics.

Apparently, John Nichols of The Nation never got the memo. He actually thinks that if Obama does something that the left would've slammed George W. Bush for doing, then the left should criticize Obama for it too.

When Bush proposed a 'surge' in Iraq, the left vigorously opposed this. But when Obama proposes something similar to Afghanistan, Nichols points out that the left is largely silent.

This Nichols guy is so naive. He thought the "Change We Can Believe In" slogan implied a change of the fundamental direction of the country, not just a change in the party that occupies the White House.

I'm sure, one day he'll stop being so childish and realize that principles are only for those people whose 'side' is out of power.

Afghanistan, long referred to as 'the place empires go to die,' is far more of a mess than Iraq ever was. The unpleasant reality is that Afghanistan is a morass with American troops and will be without them.

The British Empire couldn't sort out Afghanistan. The Soviet Empire couldn't sort out Afghanistan. The American Empire isn't able to sort out Afghanistan. Here's a novel idea. Why not let Afghans sort things out for themselves?

The astonishing arrogance of the clueless privileged

I'm pretty sure I've never used this blog to refer to President Bush as a 'twat' but it seems the most appropriate word that came to mind. Or at least the most appropriate that I'd publish here.

Our esteemed Leader has expressed his jealousy of the soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed," puffed the Decider.

It's hard to imagine how much unmitigated gall you'd have to say that. But at least he had the guts to look them in the eye and say it to their faces.

Well, not really.

He said it via video link.

England's King Richard I was a fairly old* 41 years when he rode off to personally lead his troops into battle during one of the Crusades.

(*-The life expectancy in England in the late 1200s was 35 years. And Richard died three-quarters of a century earlier.)

Instead of being 'envious,' maybe Bush ought to prove how Lionhearted he is and follow Richard's example. After Bush's jet landing during the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo op, we know the military has a uniform that fits him!

Salon.com seems to remember a war Bush supported and that he could have participated in if he finds war so romantic. We also seem to remember him avoiding that particular war. But then, maybe that's just us.

I suspect a few of the soldiers on the other end of the video link probably wondered the same thing.

NPR, AP name at-risk 12 year old

Recently, I've both heard a story on NPR and read one from the Associated Press about the upcoming movie The Kite Runner. In the movie, based on the book of the same name, one of the key scenes is a young Afghan boy being raped by a bully. Both the NPR and AP stories talked about how the 12 year old actor and his family, who live in Kabul, are afraid of potential recriminations.

Rape victims are shunned in Afghan society. "The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film. They think it has actually happened," explained the father to the AP. The boy expressed fear that schoolmates would taunt him.

Both NPR and the AP quoted experts stating that the boy and his family's concern for their safety as a result of the film scene were genuine.

Yet despite this, both NPR and the AP included the name of the boy and his father in their pieces.

Let's hope the film makers are less irresponsible than these news organizations and omit the actor's name for the credits or use a pseudonym.



Update: Since I didn't link to either piece (for obvious reasons), there is some key info missing. Excerpts from the AP piece...

The boy's father said, "When we argued, they said 'We will cut this part of the film. We will take it out of the script. This part will not be in the film.'"

[...]

But the boy with an endearing, crooked smile said he would never have taken the role had he known (the boy) is raped. The family said they found out about the scene only days before it was shot.


[...]

"They didn't give me the script. They didn't give me the story of 'The Kite Runner.' If I knew about the story, I wouldn't have participated as an actor in this film," (the boy) told the AP