What is the U.S. military's goal in Afghanistan? This is a difficult question to answer. It ought to puzzle the most intellectual of minds because no single response could make sense entirely. The American Revolution was a conflict to break from the bondage of an empire. The Civil War was a battle for national identity and unity. World War II had a concrete objective: to defeat fascist aggressors in Europe, and end Japanese imperialism. These are wars with clear objective and victory.
Afghanistan on the other hand? We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation. What could this possibly mean? No one knows, apparently. The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts. The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government. Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place.
Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule. A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..." What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape. Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her." Oh okay, cool. All cleared up. Thanks Asef!
But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war. No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind. We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple. Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945. We alone determine global economic policy.
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say. I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course). This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering! A miracle? Must be! "A million Iraqis died? Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app? Pretty sweet, huh. Tiger Woods had an affair? What sport does he play again? Hey, pass the cocaine. And hand me that silly as shit magazine. Yeah, the one about nothing."
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there. Who are they again? Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line. These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists. To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations. Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people. But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all. It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom. That is not Freedom, that is tyranny. President Washington would be ashamed. Jefferson too. Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty? To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands? What American cares about those people? Please, tell me if you do!
We are trying to change cultures. Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine. We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world. Perhaps we never will. The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years. It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Resistance to Afghanistan War Grows
This logic makes sense to me!
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."-- Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."-- Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Pressure of Peace
While I'm not sure I understand exactly why the Nobel Committee in Norway decided upon Barack Obama as winner of the Peace Prize so early in the game, I'd like to try and imagine the potential of this strategic gesture.
This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President. It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate. You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation. He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms. Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.
But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace. For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers. We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.
Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA. But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter? Why should we listen to the desires of other states?
These are common questions-- and they are fair questions. We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit. But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine. It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island. We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict. We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries. We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.
The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States. Europe understands it. We seem to be realizing it.
While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people. We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom." We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems. That war yields peace.
Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires. Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.
So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society. Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought. Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.
People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand. President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right. Be strong and call your people to action. We'll fight with you.
Or against you.
This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President. It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate. You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation. He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms. Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.
But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace. For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers. We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.
Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA. But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter? Why should we listen to the desires of other states?
These are common questions-- and they are fair questions. We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit. But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine. It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island. We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict. We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries. We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.
The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States. Europe understands it. We seem to be realizing it.
While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people. We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom." We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems. That war yields peace.
Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires. Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.
So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society. Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought. Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.
People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand. President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right. Be strong and call your people to action. We'll fight with you.
Or against you.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 3
Here is the final part of a Pakistani perspective. Regardless of how you believe, this is a thoughtful essay and important to think about.
Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?
o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.
o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.
We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.
Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?
o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.
o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.
We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.
Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 2
Judgement Day for the Pure, PART II
by G, the Legend
Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.
o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.
o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.
by G, the Legend
Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.
o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.
o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I
Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:
Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend
As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.
The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:
Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?
Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:
* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:
o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’
As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:
*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)
This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:
* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR
o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR
o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.
Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend
As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.
The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:
Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?
Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:
* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:
o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’
As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:
*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)
This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:
* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR
o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR
o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change
When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?
Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)
For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":
1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it
2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it
3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check
4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check
5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style
6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy
7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie
8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba
Got any more? Let's hear!
[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger. Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem. President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]
Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)
For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":
1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it
2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it
3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check
4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check
5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style
6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy
7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie
8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba
Got any more? Let's hear!
[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger. Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem. President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Military-Industrial Complex: It's Real
The "Military-Industrial Complex". It characterizes one of the most influential (and terrifying) undercurrents of power in the United States government, and conceptualizes the fusion of government and military business. The term, immortalized by President Eisenhower in his farewell address, refers to the dangerous relationship between government and "for-profit" business, which fuels "for-profit" conflicts and wars. And what a perfect example we have in front of us!
On the Iraq war, author and journalist Naomi Klein said on Democracy NOW:
Do you know how many Blackwater-soldiers-for-hire (aka mercenaries...not all BW) there are in Iraq? Answer: 180,000 (highlight to see answer... so you can guess) ...source.
And guess how many Blackwater mercenaries have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq? Answer: 0!
Moral implications aside (like how the war has cost probably over 1 million Iraqi lives), let's try to bring this back to the economy. Francis Ferguson, phD economist, explains his view:
On the Iraq war, author and journalist Naomi Klein said on Democracy NOW:
And one of the things that I think is most important for progressives to challenge is the discourse that everything in Iraq is a disaster. I think we need to start asking and insisting, disaster for who [?], because not everybody is losing. It’s certainly a disaster for the Iraqi people. It’s certainly a disaster for US taxpayers. But what we have seen—and it’s extremely clear if we track the numbers—is that the worse things get in Iraq, the more privatized this war becomes, the more profitable this war becomes for companies like Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and certainly Blackwater. There is a steady mission creep in Iraq, where the more countries pull out, the more contractors move in...Do you know how many American troops are currently stationed in Iraq? Answer: 160,000
Do you know how many Blackwater-soldiers-for-hire (aka mercenaries...not all BW) there are in Iraq? Answer: 180,000 (highlight to see answer... so you can guess) ...source.
And guess how many Blackwater mercenaries have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq? Answer: 0!
Moral implications aside (like how the war has cost probably over 1 million Iraqi lives), let's try to bring this back to the economy. Francis Ferguson, phD economist, explains his view:
As the US slides into recession, economists wonder why the massive government spending on Afghanistan and Iraq provides so little economic stimulus. World War Two brought an immediate end to the Great Depression, yet a current $600 billion dollar defense budget (not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) does little to stop the emerging recession. Part of the minimal effect results from the fact that we were already spending well over $300 billion on the military prior to 9/11, whereas the US defense budget was trivial prior to the beginning of World War II. The other reason for the minimal economic stimulus lies in the fact that so much of the expenditure goes to fund wages and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so much flows as excess profits to American corporations rather than into the pockets of American workers who would have a greater tendency to spend those earnings here. Finally, even the portion of war spending that does flow to American workers has, today, a very high probability of being used to buy imported consumer goods, providing stimulus, ironically, to our friends the Chinese—the very people who fund our wars (but that's another story).So why do I bring this up today? Well it's still quite relevant, and I think people should be concerned about it and the effects upon the country and world. But the New York Times actually brought me back to this important issue in their 11/29 article entitled "One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex"--which places special emphasis on the media's role is fueling the MIC. It's long, but important... please read. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
