Today, October 7th, 2010, marked the ninth anniversary of United States entry into the quagmire of Afghanistan. According to PBS News, 1321 U.S. soldiers have died to date in the conflict. So far, all that seems to have been accomplished is that the war has spilled over into Pakistan.
Also, today, it was reported that Sgt. First Class Lance Vogeler was killed during his 12th deployment.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ronald Dumbsfeld
The Senate Foreign Relations committee has just released a report in which it is revealed that the military had Osama bin-Laden cornered in Tora Bora in the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2001. It is also noted that then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, apparently feared that to capture or kill bin-Laden would produce a backlash. An absurd fear given the backlash that happened anyway.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Afghanistan: Time to Go
After eight years of muddling about, it has become apparent that it is time to leave Afghanistan. History (previously reviewed in "Graveyard of Empires" post) of the country suggests we should have never gone to begin with, but that point aside, it is now time to go.
Matthew Hoh, a state department official, recently resigned from his post in Afghanistan and made a point of noting in his resignation letter that it was due to the utter disaster that the occupation has become. Later, in an interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS, he discussed the corruption of the Karzai government and noted that our actions in the country are actually fueling the fighting rather than preventing it.
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has expressed similar sentiment in objecting to plans to send more troops to the country. Eikenbery, it should be noted, is a retired general and former commander of the forces in Afghanistan. He also has called the Karzai government corrupt and ineffective.
Afghanistan has become a pointless morass with no semblance of a goal. At this point it seems unclear if we can even tell if we are winning or losing. Time to go.
Matthew Hoh, a state department official, recently resigned from his post in Afghanistan and made a point of noting in his resignation letter that it was due to the utter disaster that the occupation has become. Later, in an interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS, he discussed the corruption of the Karzai government and noted that our actions in the country are actually fueling the fighting rather than preventing it.
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has expressed similar sentiment in objecting to plans to send more troops to the country. Eikenbery, it should be noted, is a retired general and former commander of the forces in Afghanistan. He also has called the Karzai government corrupt and ineffective.
Afghanistan has become a pointless morass with no semblance of a goal. At this point it seems unclear if we can even tell if we are winning or losing. Time to go.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Conventional Wisdom and a Bucket of Spit
In the past week, former Vice-president Dick Cheney has argued with the tactics taken by the Obama Administration towards Afghanistan. Cheney referred to Obama as "dithering" about the issue. This from a man who, in the eight years he largely directed the war, utilized a strategy that can be summarized by the words ignore and under-resource. Cheney's advice should be seen for what it is worth - a warm bucket of spit.
Also in the news this week was the action of the Obama Administration to limit the pay of executives of bailed out banks. As soon as this was announced, pundits began to offer the conventional wisdom that limiting the pay of these executives would lead to a "brain drain." Their stated fear was that the best talent would flee the industry. First let me take issue with the idea that the very people who caused the financial crisis are talented. If these people had known what they were doing to begin with the world's economy would not have teetered on the brink of collapse. A collapse averted only because the U.S. taxpayer bailed them out. The other notion, that they would flee the banking industry for other jobs that paid similarly shows just how out of touch they are with reality. Where else will they find a job that rewards them millions in bonuses for failing? They want what they are worth - then let's give them their bucket of spit.
Also in the news this week was the action of the Obama Administration to limit the pay of executives of bailed out banks. As soon as this was announced, pundits began to offer the conventional wisdom that limiting the pay of these executives would lead to a "brain drain." Their stated fear was that the best talent would flee the industry. First let me take issue with the idea that the very people who caused the financial crisis are talented. If these people had known what they were doing to begin with the world's economy would not have teetered on the brink of collapse. A collapse averted only because the U.S. taxpayer bailed them out. The other notion, that they would flee the banking industry for other jobs that paid similarly shows just how out of touch they are with reality. Where else will they find a job that rewards them millions in bonuses for failing? They want what they are worth - then let's give them their bucket of spit.
Friday, October 9, 2009
What Would Victory Look Like?
As we contemplate pouring more troops and more resources into Afghanistan, certainly assuring that this will become the longest war in which the U.S. has ever been involved, we seem to have lost sight of what we are trying to do.
Can someone please tell me what victory looks like in Afghanistan? We certainly have no role models. Not the British, not the Russians, not the Moghuls, not even Alexander the Great managed to conquer this land. It's not called the "Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.
It is not even clear who could surrender to provide a military victory. Our puppet, Karzai, has no moral authority with the Afghan people and even our government doesn't think he's in charge. In fact, this very question of who is in charge is the rub.
If the U.S. managed to kill every identified opposition leader and we occupied the country for ten years, what would happen when we left? Everything would return to the same -perpetually the year 1300.
Where does that leave us? Occupying Afghanistan forever in what at best might be a stalemate. Have any doubts? Ask the Russians - they're better at chess. They at least knew the game was not winnable and finally resigned.
Can someone please tell me what victory looks like in Afghanistan? We certainly have no role models. Not the British, not the Russians, not the Moghuls, not even Alexander the Great managed to conquer this land. It's not called the "Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.
It is not even clear who could surrender to provide a military victory. Our puppet, Karzai, has no moral authority with the Afghan people and even our government doesn't think he's in charge. In fact, this very question of who is in charge is the rub.
If the U.S. managed to kill every identified opposition leader and we occupied the country for ten years, what would happen when we left? Everything would return to the same -perpetually the year 1300.
Where does that leave us? Occupying Afghanistan forever in what at best might be a stalemate. Have any doubts? Ask the Russians - they're better at chess. They at least knew the game was not winnable and finally resigned.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Our Private Army
Unknown to many Americans is the fact that the United States maintains both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan largely on the backs of "private contractors." These individuals, civilians working for private firms which have contracted with the government, have increasingly replaced soldiers in many positions vital for a military effort.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Vietnam
What do all occupations of foreign lands have in common? Answer: they all fail.
It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.
When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!
Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.
Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?
Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.
Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.
It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.
When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!
Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.
Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?
Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.
Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
17,000 More?
On Tuesday it was announced that 17,000 more troops have been authorized for the Afghan war. According to PBS News, the total number of troops in country will total 55,000 by the end of the summer. Why not a million?
It is time to recognize the Afghan war for the absolute folly that it is. A landlocked country approximately the size of Texas, surrounded by neighbors hostile to the U.S., it is a logistical nightmare as regards supply lines. With mountains rising to greater than 24,000 feet in some parts of the country and deserts in other parts, the terrain is at best foreboding. With a population of around 33 million, (eight million more than Iraq), and a fractured political state, the country is a disaster waiting to happen (see Tuesday's posting, "Whistling Past the Graveyard").
The Soviets, in their miserable debacle there, threw everything they had at the Afghans. Maintaining a force of over 100,000 for most of their occupation, they were not only driven from the country, they were driven out of existence. Is that our goal as well? If not, what exactly is our goal?
The rationale for the Afghan war seems to have been obviated. Al-Qaeda, our initial rationale for invasion, can no longer be considered a reason to maintain this war. The Taliban seems to be gaining strength but show little involvement with al-Qaeda, which seems to have spread beyond the borders of the nation and possibly relocated its base to Pakistan. In any event, it is almost assuredly the case that those responsible for 9/11 have either gone or regrouped elsewhere.
Why then are we continuing, and increasing, our troop presence in Afghanistan? Do we really believe that 55, 000 troops will do the job? As I said earlier, what about a million troops? In a land where it is not even possible to define victory, when will enough be enough? Who would need to surrender before we could claim victory?
The mission is unclear. The opponent is elusive. The only thing clear is what happens to those who choose to fight in this place.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
It is time to recognize the Afghan war for the absolute folly that it is. A landlocked country approximately the size of Texas, surrounded by neighbors hostile to the U.S., it is a logistical nightmare as regards supply lines. With mountains rising to greater than 24,000 feet in some parts of the country and deserts in other parts, the terrain is at best foreboding. With a population of around 33 million, (eight million more than Iraq), and a fractured political state, the country is a disaster waiting to happen (see Tuesday's posting, "Whistling Past the Graveyard").
The Soviets, in their miserable debacle there, threw everything they had at the Afghans. Maintaining a force of over 100,000 for most of their occupation, they were not only driven from the country, they were driven out of existence. Is that our goal as well? If not, what exactly is our goal?
The rationale for the Afghan war seems to have been obviated. Al-Qaeda, our initial rationale for invasion, can no longer be considered a reason to maintain this war. The Taliban seems to be gaining strength but show little involvement with al-Qaeda, which seems to have spread beyond the borders of the nation and possibly relocated its base to Pakistan. In any event, it is almost assuredly the case that those responsible for 9/11 have either gone or regrouped elsewhere.
Why then are we continuing, and increasing, our troop presence in Afghanistan? Do we really believe that 55, 000 troops will do the job? As I said earlier, what about a million troops? In a land where it is not even possible to define victory, when will enough be enough? Who would need to surrender before we could claim victory?
The mission is unclear. The opponent is elusive. The only thing clear is what happens to those who choose to fight in this place.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Whistling Past the Graveyard (of Empires)
Afghanistan: where empires go to die. Ask the Soviets, ask the Brits, ask the Moghuls, ask Alexander the Great. All paid a price here that contributed, if not caused, their demise (see note below). Even Genghis Khan, who came as close to conquering the place as anyone, paid a heavy price.
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saved (Momentarily) by Incompetence
In failing to pass the bail-out/give-away to Wall Street, the House of Representative stumbled, at least momentarily, into carrying out the will of the people. This failure is most noteworthy, not for its effect on the economy, but for its stunning defeat in an era when the final votes are a foregone conclusion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Fooled Again?
Recently there have been familiar rumbles coming out of Washington concerning Iran. The ratcheting up of the rhetoric and the belligerent posturing towards another nation seems like just another summer rerun. The demonization of their government and the alarm over their weaponry have long been undercurrents in the U.S. politicization of relations with Iran. The Democrats are so afraid of being called unpatriotic during an election year that they seem to, once again, be going along with Bush Administration policies.
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
