One year ago, Wikileaks documents showed us why we must leave Afghanistan

But we're still in Afghanistan, for no good reason at all. Greg Mitchell of The Nation tells us what we should have learned and discussed about Afghanistan one year ago, in light of the Wikileaks release of classified U.S. documents regarding Afghanistan:

[The Wikileaks release] not only recounts 144 incidents in which coalition forces killed civilians over six years. But it shows just how deeply elements within the US’s supposed ally, Pakistan, have nurtured the Afghan insurgency. . . . The Guardian carried a tough editorial on its web site, calling the picture “disturbing” and raising doubts about ever winning this war, adding: “These war logs—written in the heat of engagement—show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate. It is in some contrast with the tidied-up and sanitized ‘public’ war, as glimpsed through official communiques as well as the necessarily limited snapshots of embedded reporting.”

Continue ReadingOne year ago, Wikileaks documents showed us why we must leave Afghanistan

People readily go to war, though they claim they don’t want war

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Goring

Continue ReadingPeople readily go to war, though they claim they don’t want war

Double standard

The media is engaged in a stunning double-standard regarding the Norwegian terrorist--except that he's not being called a "terrorist."  As Glenn Greenwald points out, the term "terrorist" is reserved for special kinds of people who wreak destruction:

[N]ow that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism.

As usual, Greenwald has done his homework and offered plenty of links.   When is the word "terrorist" appropriate?

Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target . . . if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence).

Greenwald also gives detailed proof that when there was no evidence that the perpetrator was a Muslim, many media outlets we happy to assume that the perpetrator was Muslim from the Middle East.  This was a total lack of critical thought on behalf of the New York Times and other major outlets, as documented here. None of this is surprising these days, given that the news media so often sees its job as promoting government objectives.   And consider that uttering the phrase Al Qaeda, which was done more than a few times recently, gives the federal government yet more chances to give us nightmares so that we feel that we need the government as our warmongering protector against terrorists, meaning Muslims.

Continue ReadingDouble standard

Advice for Norway

Two weeks ago, my 12-year old daughter and I strolled through downtown Oslo. It was a beautiful city back then, as it will again be someday soon. As my nieces pointed out the various government buildings at the center of downtown, I remember commenting, "They are so very accessible," meaning that there were no imposing walls surrounding them, and I didn't see any heavily armed guards.  I'm attaching a couple photos I took in downtown Oslo during my trip.   As I walked around, the thought keep recurring: This would be a wonderful place to live (I write this based on many conversations I've had with Norwegians, such as this one). And now it deeply saddens me to hear of the recent bombing and shootings. I would only have one bit of advice for the Norwegians:  Don't do what the U.S. did after 9/11. Don't trash your civil liberties.  Don't vilify each other based on "lack of patriotism."    Don't drum up evidence to start an unnecessary war somewhere.   If your conservatives become overt warmongerers as a result of these tragedies, demand that they provide substantial evidence to substantiate whatever claims they make.  Whoever caused this, be very careful to not overgeneralize your anger toward large groups of people who are innocent.   Don't get suckered into draining your treasury to feed new-found paranoia.  Don't become a closed society.  Don't let anyone disparage the importance of your civil rights. Don't let this tragedy define you or obsess you.   Beware that a bomb can, if you are not careful, become a fuse to a much bigger self-imposed tragedy. Don't self-destruct, like the United States is doing. To my Norwegian friends and family, I am so very saddened to hear of this tragedy.   I love your country.

Continue ReadingAdvice for Norway

The cost of America’s warmongering

President Barack Obama recently suggested that America's wars had cost $1 trillion. Reuters suggested that Obama is not being forthright:

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday. The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion
The study referred to is this one, by Costs of War.  Unlike your local newspaper or your local TV news, this is website that pulls no punches. Here are some of the findings:
  • While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6000), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall. Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.
  • At least 137,000 civilians have died and more will die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict.
  • The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the U.S. helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, has taken as many lives as the conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.
  • Putting together the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 225,000.
  • Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. The current number of war refugees and displaced persons -- 7,800,000 -- is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Kentucky fleeing their homes.
    How disproportionate has been America's response to the 9/11 attacks?  Reuters offers this:

    What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.

    Continue ReadingThe cost of America’s warmongering