“Spin” defined

World English Dictionary defines "spin" thusly:

13.informal to present news or information in a way that creates a favourable impression
President Obama is kind enough to provide us with an example:
President Obama on Monday announced plans to withdraw combat forces in Iraq, providing assurances that an Aug. 31 deadline will be met as the U.S. moves toward a supporting role in the still-fractured and dangerous nation. U.S. forces in Iraq will number 50,000 by the end of the month — a reduction of 94,000 troops since he took office 18 months ago, the president said in remarks to the Disabled American Veterans. The remaining troops will form a transitional force until a final withdrawal from the country is completed by the end of 2011, he said. ... "Make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing — from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
Only in the world of "spin" (or Orwell) would 50,000 troops be considered a "civilian effort led by our diplomats".

Continue Reading“Spin” defined

Civilian deaths and bloody hands

I was reading this story about Bradley Manning, alleged whistleblower, and my hypocrisy meter was set off so strongly that I fear it may never work again.

Top Pentagon officials slammed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as having "blood ... on his hands" for releasing the sensitive documents, which appeared to include the names of Afghans enlisted as classified U.S. military informants. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said.
Mr. Assange *might* have blood on his hands, the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. This, coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, leader of the US Military which has been raining death on Afghanistan for almost 9 years now.

Continue ReadingCivilian deaths and bloody hands

Founder of Wikileaks explains why he published secret U.S. documents regarding Afghanisgtan

At Common Dreams, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange explains why he published the confidential U.S. military documents regarding Afghanistan:

These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars . . . This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence. . . We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have, and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
Here is the location of the Wikileaks Afghanistan documents. Glenn Greenwald applauds the leak, and condemns the U.S. governments failure to be forthright about the waste of lives and money regarding the U.S. adventure in Afghanistan:
WikiLeaks has yet again proven itself to be one of the most valuable and important organizations in the world. Just as was true for the video of the Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad, there is no valid justification for having kept most of these documents a secret. But that's what our National Security State does reflexively: it hides itself behind an essentially absolute wall of secrecy to ensure that the citizenry remains largely ignorant of what it is really doing. WikiLeaks is one of the few entities successfully blowing holes in at least parts of that wall . . .

Continue ReadingFounder of Wikileaks explains why he published secret U.S. documents regarding Afghanisgtan

Significance of the leaked cables of Ambassador Eikenberry

At Democracy Now, Amy Goodman recently interviewed Michael Hastings, who authored the extensive article the resulted in President Obama's firing of General McChrystal. In that interview, Hastings urged the audience to take the time to read cables by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, which were leaked to the New York Times:

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about Karl Eikenberry. This is a significant split between McChrystal and the ambassador, also a general or retired general, Ambassador Eikenberry, and the cables that he sent that Dan Ellsberg has called the new Pentagon Papers that he sent to Hillary Clinton but were leaked.

MICHAEL HASTINGS: I think this is the most fascinating development and the guy whose job is sort of the most in the balance right now is Ambassador Eikenberry, because it’s known as General McChrystal’s strategy, but guess who was also writing that strategy? General Petraeus. It was a devastating critique. I recommend anyone to go back and read those cables to see probably what was the most prescient and scathing critique of the strategy we’re pursuing and the leak angered McChrystal’s team beyond belief.

You can read those cables at this web page of the New York Times, along with this further description by the NYT. Ambassador Eikenberry's comments constitute a blistering and candid criticism of the policy the United States continues to pursue:
In November 2009, Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan and retired Army lieutenant general, sent two classified cables to his superiors in which he offered his assessment of the proposed U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. While the broad outlines of Mr. Eikenberry's cables were leaked soon after he sent them, the complete cables, obtained recently by The New York Times, show just how strongly the current ambassador feels about President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government, the state of its military, and the chances that a troop buildup will actually hurt the war effort by making the Karzai government too dependent on the United States.
The New York Times reported on these leaked cables on January 25, 2010.

Continue ReadingSignificance of the leaked cables of Ambassador Eikenberry