I have been gone for what seems like forever!! But it feels good to be back and engaged again. I want to comment a little on a fascinating, enlightening, and very persuasive article I read by Carol Cohn entitled "Slick-ems, Glick-ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned To Pat The Bomb."
In the article she basically spent a lot of time hanging around nuclear defense intellectuals studying nuclear strategic analysis. Her article begs the question as to whether or not she overestimates the influence exerted by intellectuals by asserting how their professional language sets the terms for public debate and whether or not such technical language usually becomes public only when it is subsumed within the broader discourse of conventional language.
Maybe I was influenced by Cohn's many references to Alice In Wonderland, but she had me sold in the affirmative. The use of what she calls "technostrategic" language by the defense intellectuals does an amazing job of disassociating them from the reality and destructive capabilities of the weaponry.
Using "technical" terms like "collateral damage" and "counter value attacks" has a stoic value to it that does not bring to mind the horrible and nightmarish images of unimaginable carnage that the use of these weapons can inflict upon a community of human beings.
I read a book a few years ago, aptly titled, Hiroshima, written by survivors of that massacre. One image that sticks in my mind is when a young doctor is quoted as saying how he tried to pull people out of a near-by river, but could not because their skin was literally falling off in his hands. This encounter was written as graphically and with as much articulation as one could have possibly used to try to make the readers understand the horrific happenings of that day...but still, I can not possibly fathom what a scene like that would be like. Imagine then, how using these "technostrategic" terms so flippantly can espouse such a nonchalant attitude about the use of these weapons. If one cannot possibly imagine the horrors of the use of these weapons when put into the most graphic of terms, how can one possibly be able to fully understand the repercussions of their use when put into "technostrategic" terms...which is precisely the point.
I think that whoever the "hawks" may be at the time mean for this technical language to become public and subsumed within the broader discourse of conventional language. The more terms like "nuclear holocaust" and the like are used, the less real and scary they become.
Cohn goes on to make an excellent point in that to be engaged in the discourse, one must use this technical language-not doing so would make the debater seem uneducated and naive. No matter how well one might word their argument, to use actual English instead of the expert jargon, immediately makes one seem ignorant and simple-minded. Obviously in order to engage in the discourse, one must co-opt the technical language, but the pitfall in doing so is to immediately take the reality out of the conversation. It really becomes a kind of "damned if you do-damned if you don't" situation.
Although Cohn offers no solutions at all to this delema, it was an interresting article to say the least, and I certainly will be more conscious of the words that I use.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Watch your mouth!
Ok, so i've been almost living in the pharmacy at one of any of 3 CVS locations as of late, so of course I have not been keeping up with Jon Stewart's lovely political satire by any means. Today I caught an episode from the 9th when he interviewed Newt Gingrich: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-9-2010/newt-gingrich
For the most part, they were arguing about whether or not the current administration's decision to Mirandize suspected terrorists was radical or not. Jon called for trying terrorists not in military tribunals but in our own justice system-thus defining them in a "criminal context instead of a war context."He claimed that doing otherwise really" gives them more credibility and credence." Newt's response to this was that these terrorists are our "mortal enemies."
I found Newt's remark to be an excellent example of this crazy religiously polarizing rhetoric that some people have been using since 9/11 that actually does in fact give validation to this Jihadi mindset. Take for instance John McCain's quote(amusingly, also on the Jon Stewart show from May 19th) that "This is a transcendent evil that wants to destroy everything we stand for and believe in." ....I hope that people realize how ridiculous this sounds!!
By putting this conflict in these metaphysical terms we are in fact falling right into the hands of the Jihadists and getting ourselves wrapped up in what author and theologian, Reza Aslan, has dubbed a "Cosmic War" in which both sides claim to have God on their side in an epic struggle of good v. evil. Bush reaffirmed this by claiming that "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." I am a cynic is the most strict sense of the word, but c'mon, even the most idealistic person among us can easily see that this is an unwinable and unending battle.
As I've stated in a previous post, Jihadists, like al Qaeda, may go on and on about the actual, real greviances of their Islamic brothers and sisters...but they also offer no real solutions. As i've said, they talk quite a bit of the plight of the Palestinians, but of course establishing a Palestinian state is in direct conflict to al Qaeda's visions of a global Caliphate. Of course the plight of the Palestinians is a real issue that seriously needs to be addressed...and in doing this, we would take away one of al Qaeda's talking points/recruiting tools...which is how we win.
It is certainly a nice thought to think that one day the forces of good will defeat the forces of evil(however one wants to define good and evil and defeat). It will however not be done in the context of the War on Terror or Global Contingency Plan, or whatever they're calling it now. To continue put this conflict, (that is not even one conflict as much as it is many) into these religious terms is both dangerous- as it incites religious tensions- as well as utterly ridiculous...and I hope people will quickly reject this kind of vocabulary when they hear it in the future.
For the most part, they were arguing about whether or not the current administration's decision to Mirandize suspected terrorists was radical or not. Jon called for trying terrorists not in military tribunals but in our own justice system-thus defining them in a "criminal context instead of a war context."He claimed that doing otherwise really" gives them more credibility and credence." Newt's response to this was that these terrorists are our "mortal enemies."
I found Newt's remark to be an excellent example of this crazy religiously polarizing rhetoric that some people have been using since 9/11 that actually does in fact give validation to this Jihadi mindset. Take for instance John McCain's quote(amusingly, also on the Jon Stewart show from May 19th) that "This is a transcendent evil that wants to destroy everything we stand for and believe in." ....I hope that people realize how ridiculous this sounds!!
By putting this conflict in these metaphysical terms we are in fact falling right into the hands of the Jihadists and getting ourselves wrapped up in what author and theologian, Reza Aslan, has dubbed a "Cosmic War" in which both sides claim to have God on their side in an epic struggle of good v. evil. Bush reaffirmed this by claiming that "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." I am a cynic is the most strict sense of the word, but c'mon, even the most idealistic person among us can easily see that this is an unwinable and unending battle.
As I've stated in a previous post, Jihadists, like al Qaeda, may go on and on about the actual, real greviances of their Islamic brothers and sisters...but they also offer no real solutions. As i've said, they talk quite a bit of the plight of the Palestinians, but of course establishing a Palestinian state is in direct conflict to al Qaeda's visions of a global Caliphate. Of course the plight of the Palestinians is a real issue that seriously needs to be addressed...and in doing this, we would take away one of al Qaeda's talking points/recruiting tools...which is how we win.
It is certainly a nice thought to think that one day the forces of good will defeat the forces of evil(however one wants to define good and evil and defeat). It will however not be done in the context of the War on Terror or Global Contingency Plan, or whatever they're calling it now. To continue put this conflict, (that is not even one conflict as much as it is many) into these religious terms is both dangerous- as it incites religious tensions- as well as utterly ridiculous...and I hope people will quickly reject this kind of vocabulary when they hear it in the future.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
We may no longer be "top-dog"...but that's ok...
I had recently been reading Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post-American World." Consider these stats from his book:
**The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. **The largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. **The biggest refinery is being constructed in India. **The largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. **The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi. **The biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. ** The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. **The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. **The Mall of America in Minnesota(once the largest in the world) now doesn't even make the top 10!! **In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. -AND we used to be numero-uno in each of those categories!!
Shit huh?? Well, we do still trump everyone with our military. On this point though people can have different views. Personally, I think we need our military might to keep being a power in the world(especially when one looks at how we rank globally in terms of education...terribly!). As Eisenhower was my fav president though, I agree with him that we should use a lot more of that money to build up ourselves domestically in an attempt to halt this decline into becoming the big dumb bully on the block. The rise of everyone else though is not really something to fear(unless we don't get environmental issues taken care of). Take our recent economic crisis-it was a good thing that other countries were strong and could help out and prevent the whole world from going down with us. America can remain strong if we continue to be open with our immigration policies.
For example: Foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in this country. In 2006 they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity....but if they leave, they take that with them. Americas strength has always been our ability to remain open and flexible and absorb other people's cultures, languages, ideas, etc. We must not become overly nationalistic and close ourselves off to the rest of the world-our survival as a global power depends on it.
A few issues that do come up with the rise of the others is now they can be a little more tough with us. Take this for example: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/china-warns-barack-obama-that-meeting-dalai-lama-would-hurt-relations/19341118 -If you're lazy and don't want to read it, basically China said Obama better not meet with the Dalai Lama or it may "hurt America's prospects of economic recovery." We also plan on selling Taiwan $6.4 billion in weapons-prompting China to threaten sanctions....China would not have dared this 10 years ago.
An important player then to pit against China becomes another rising giant-> India... if we do not continue to make the mistake of ignoring them to please Pakistan. If anything we should allow India to continue to build-up Afghanistan(as they have been attempting to do for years now)-even if this is to undermine and piss off the Pakistani government and their influence in Afghanistan.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that the American Empire is in decline. It is now for us to decide if we will embrace the rise of other countries as powerful global actors or will we try to fight it and get snuffed out?
**The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. **The largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. **The biggest refinery is being constructed in India. **The largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. **The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi. **The biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. ** The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. **The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. **The Mall of America in Minnesota(once the largest in the world) now doesn't even make the top 10!! **In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. -AND we used to be numero-uno in each of those categories!!
Shit huh?? Well, we do still trump everyone with our military. On this point though people can have different views. Personally, I think we need our military might to keep being a power in the world(especially when one looks at how we rank globally in terms of education...terribly!). As Eisenhower was my fav president though, I agree with him that we should use a lot more of that money to build up ourselves domestically in an attempt to halt this decline into becoming the big dumb bully on the block. The rise of everyone else though is not really something to fear(unless we don't get environmental issues taken care of). Take our recent economic crisis-it was a good thing that other countries were strong and could help out and prevent the whole world from going down with us. America can remain strong if we continue to be open with our immigration policies.
For example: Foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in this country. In 2006 they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity....but if they leave, they take that with them. Americas strength has always been our ability to remain open and flexible and absorb other people's cultures, languages, ideas, etc. We must not become overly nationalistic and close ourselves off to the rest of the world-our survival as a global power depends on it.
A few issues that do come up with the rise of the others is now they can be a little more tough with us. Take this for example: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/china-warns-barack-obama-that-meeting-dalai-lama-would-hurt-relations/19341118 -If you're lazy and don't want to read it, basically China said Obama better not meet with the Dalai Lama or it may "hurt America's prospects of economic recovery." We also plan on selling Taiwan $6.4 billion in weapons-prompting China to threaten sanctions....China would not have dared this 10 years ago.
An important player then to pit against China becomes another rising giant-> India... if we do not continue to make the mistake of ignoring them to please Pakistan. If anything we should allow India to continue to build-up Afghanistan(as they have been attempting to do for years now)-even if this is to undermine and piss off the Pakistani government and their influence in Afghanistan.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that the American Empire is in decline. It is now for us to decide if we will embrace the rise of other countries as powerful global actors or will we try to fight it and get snuffed out?
Friday, January 1, 2010
End the Seige in Gaza!
It's been one year since Israel launched a three wk offensive in Gaza that killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and destroyed more than 50,000 homes in an effort to stop rocket fire by the Islamic group, Hamas, who is in charge of Gaza. Not only was the response by Israel totally over-the-top, as confirmed by UN Sec. Ban Ki-moon, but Israel also ignored Intl. law and used white phosphorous weapons against civillians in one of the most densely populated areas in the whole world (It is illegal because it basically burns your skin off like napalm).
A year later, what has changed?? Well, 80% of Gazans now surviving on humanitarian handouts from the UN Relief and Works Agency(UNRWA). International doners attempted to give over 4.5 billion dollars to Gaza to help...but Israel has blocked these funds from reaching them and is holding Gaza under seige. According to the UNRWA:
"97% of Gaza's factories have shut down, raising unemployment higher than 43%. With scarce sources of income, many Gazans would probably starve if not for food handouts from the U.N. and other agencies. More than 40,000 Gazans have no electricity; 10,000 have no running water in their homes; and because Israel bans entry of the spare parts needed to run Gaza's sewage-treatment plant, every day 87 million liters of sewage are dumped into the Mediterranean."
So, what does Israel say they want from the Palestinians living in Gaza?? They want the people to overthrow the democratically elected group, Hamas. Ummm....the chances of this happening are VERY slim. Hamas smuggles arms, money and life-saving supplies into Gaza through tunnels from Egypt. They were elected b/c they build schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure for the Palestinian people. Egypt has recently contemplated blocking off these tunnels, the result of which would be disasterous. Hamas has even proposed a deal with Israel in which Hamas would release an important Israeli prisoner in exchange for an end to the seige. Unfort. this probably won't happen as the whole broad end-goal of Israel is genocide for the Palestinians living in Gaza and even the West Bank for the most part.
I find a grim irony in the way that Israel is now engaged in their own ethnic cleansing. Really, have the atrocities of the Holocaust been so quickly and easily forgotten?
Learn more, END THE SEIGE!! http://endthesiege.blogspot.com/
A year later, what has changed?? Well, 80% of Gazans now surviving on humanitarian handouts from the UN Relief and Works Agency(UNRWA). International doners attempted to give over 4.5 billion dollars to Gaza to help...but Israel has blocked these funds from reaching them and is holding Gaza under seige. According to the UNRWA:
"97% of Gaza's factories have shut down, raising unemployment higher than 43%. With scarce sources of income, many Gazans would probably starve if not for food handouts from the U.N. and other agencies. More than 40,000 Gazans have no electricity; 10,000 have no running water in their homes; and because Israel bans entry of the spare parts needed to run Gaza's sewage-treatment plant, every day 87 million liters of sewage are dumped into the Mediterranean."
So, what does Israel say they want from the Palestinians living in Gaza?? They want the people to overthrow the democratically elected group, Hamas. Ummm....the chances of this happening are VERY slim. Hamas smuggles arms, money and life-saving supplies into Gaza through tunnels from Egypt. They were elected b/c they build schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure for the Palestinian people. Egypt has recently contemplated blocking off these tunnels, the result of which would be disasterous. Hamas has even proposed a deal with Israel in which Hamas would release an important Israeli prisoner in exchange for an end to the seige. Unfort. this probably won't happen as the whole broad end-goal of Israel is genocide for the Palestinians living in Gaza and even the West Bank for the most part.
I find a grim irony in the way that Israel is now engaged in their own ethnic cleansing. Really, have the atrocities of the Holocaust been so quickly and easily forgotten?
Learn more, END THE SEIGE!! http://endthesiege.blogspot.com/
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"Well gotta know the enemy...wah hey"-Green Day
FYI: The beginning of this may be a tad controversial.
I will say that I am in no way defending the actions of Major Hasan or his dispicable act of mass murder...but a member of my family brought up the title of a controversial presentation that Major Hasan gave to his classmates-"Why The War on Terror is a War on Islam."(The NYT confirmed this) ...and I must admit that without having seen this presentation to gauge it's accuracy, I agree.
Upon reading a book by William R. Polk entitled "Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq" I've realize what a long and successful history acts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare have been used to level the playing-field against a stronger entity.
The recent War on Terror however, had a very narrow line of sight: 1. The group must be Islamic. 2. The group must use terrorism as a tactic.
If this were truly a War on Terror, and not just targeting an Islamic flavor, then it would also include: The Basque separatists in Spain, Christian insurgents in East Timor, (until recently->) Hindu-Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Action Directe in France, Aum Shinrikyo(religious zealots) in Japan, Babbar Khalsa(Sikh separtists) in India, etc. http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Terrorist.html
Do not think that this goes unnoticed by the Muslim world as well: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?lb=brme&pnt=361&nid=&id=
"8 in 10 countries believes that the US seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world."
Not only did we forget to mention some terrorist groups, but we made the stupid mistake of lumping all Islamic terrorist groups together.
Groups Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, most of Taliban(in Afghanistan at least- Pakistani Taliban is more of a global org.) cannot be lumped in with al Qaeda.
The reason for this is b/c those first couple of groups are totally and strictly nationalist groups with real grievances and tangible aims. They want to establish Shariah Law within their borders(assuming they have obvious borders...not so much with Hamas). Their aims are really no different than other religious nationalist groups like evangelicals in the US, Zionists in Israel, or PJP party in India. Their method however, is a violent one. The thing is, we can address their issues and actually deal with them.
al Qaeda however is a transnationalist group that wants to get rid of all nations and establish a global caliphate. They use the plight of the Palestinians and other things as rallying points but really, they don't give a shit about the Palestinians trying to form a nation b/c al Qaeda itself is anti-nationalistic. They have been refered to as Islamofascist but as my Italian heritage has taught me, Fascism is a uber-nationalist philosophy...and al Qaeda is anything but nationalist.
It is important then, to take those rallying points away from al Qaeda. We must solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, we must stop supporting dictators in the Middle East, we must stop killing civillians and starting BS wars, etc. We will never succeed in killing every al Qaeda operative, but we can make their movement obsolete. As both Sun Tzu and the band Green Day put it: "Know Your Enemy."
I will say that I am in no way defending the actions of Major Hasan or his dispicable act of mass murder...but a member of my family brought up the title of a controversial presentation that Major Hasan gave to his classmates-"Why The War on Terror is a War on Islam."(The NYT confirmed this) ...and I must admit that without having seen this presentation to gauge it's accuracy, I agree.
Upon reading a book by William R. Polk entitled "Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq" I've realize what a long and successful history acts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare have been used to level the playing-field against a stronger entity.
The recent War on Terror however, had a very narrow line of sight: 1. The group must be Islamic. 2. The group must use terrorism as a tactic.
If this were truly a War on Terror, and not just targeting an Islamic flavor, then it would also include: The Basque separatists in Spain, Christian insurgents in East Timor, (until recently->) Hindu-Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Action Directe in France, Aum Shinrikyo(religious zealots) in Japan, Babbar Khalsa(Sikh separtists) in India, etc. http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Terrorist.html
Do not think that this goes unnoticed by the Muslim world as well: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?lb=brme&pnt=361&nid=&id=
"8 in 10 countries believes that the US seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world."
Not only did we forget to mention some terrorist groups, but we made the stupid mistake of lumping all Islamic terrorist groups together.
Groups Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, most of Taliban(in Afghanistan at least- Pakistani Taliban is more of a global org.) cannot be lumped in with al Qaeda.
The reason for this is b/c those first couple of groups are totally and strictly nationalist groups with real grievances and tangible aims. They want to establish Shariah Law within their borders(assuming they have obvious borders...not so much with Hamas). Their aims are really no different than other religious nationalist groups like evangelicals in the US, Zionists in Israel, or PJP party in India. Their method however, is a violent one. The thing is, we can address their issues and actually deal with them.
al Qaeda however is a transnationalist group that wants to get rid of all nations and establish a global caliphate. They use the plight of the Palestinians and other things as rallying points but really, they don't give a shit about the Palestinians trying to form a nation b/c al Qaeda itself is anti-nationalistic. They have been refered to as Islamofascist but as my Italian heritage has taught me, Fascism is a uber-nationalist philosophy...and al Qaeda is anything but nationalist.
It is important then, to take those rallying points away from al Qaeda. We must solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, we must stop supporting dictators in the Middle East, we must stop killing civillians and starting BS wars, etc. We will never succeed in killing every al Qaeda operative, but we can make their movement obsolete. As both Sun Tzu and the band Green Day put it: "Know Your Enemy."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Now That's the pot calling the kettle black
Being the cynical pessimist that I am, it is a very rare occasion that someone is able to sink so low that I am left completely flabbergasted.
This week however, I was made aware of a recent quote by the big Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens. Pickens is quoted as stating that "We're entitled to it"-with regards to Iraqi oil contracts that US energy companies should recieve as compensation for the loss of American troops in Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Pickens is unaware of what a ginormously, Brobdignagian(I apologize for my Gulliver's Travels reference) mistake the invasion of Iraq was and continues to still be...he IS a Texan after-all. For a look at the Iraqi body count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We must of course also mourn the senseless loss of American lives http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
but it is the Iraqi people who continue to suffer massive loss of life. Just in one day(Oct. 25) more than 155 people, including 30 children, were killed in Baghdad's "Green Zone". And This is supposed to be the most heavily protected and secure area??
Furthermore, Pickens had just recently been parading around the country trying to sell his "Picken's Plan" http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ telling us how "America is addicted to foreign oil. It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security."
To me, Pickens is like the fat lady shamefully admitting that Americans are fat and should diet... while greedily wolfing down the entire pan of brownies. How about we just let that blood-money be and get to building those fancy windmills??
This week however, I was made aware of a recent quote by the big Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens. Pickens is quoted as stating that "We're entitled to it"-with regards to Iraqi oil contracts that US energy companies should recieve as compensation for the loss of American troops in Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Pickens is unaware of what a ginormously, Brobdignagian(I apologize for my Gulliver's Travels reference) mistake the invasion of Iraq was and continues to still be...he IS a Texan after-all. For a look at the Iraqi body count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We must of course also mourn the senseless loss of American lives http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
but it is the Iraqi people who continue to suffer massive loss of life. Just in one day(Oct. 25) more than 155 people, including 30 children, were killed in Baghdad's "Green Zone". And This is supposed to be the most heavily protected and secure area??
Furthermore, Pickens had just recently been parading around the country trying to sell his "Picken's Plan" http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ telling us how "America is addicted to foreign oil. It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security."
To me, Pickens is like the fat lady shamefully admitting that Americans are fat and should diet... while greedily wolfing down the entire pan of brownies. How about we just let that blood-money be and get to building those fancy windmills??
Friday, October 9, 2009
My own two cents on the situation in Afghanistan
I’ve wanted to write something on this for some time but it’s such a huge and very complicated issue that I still have no idea how to make it more concise…but I’ll give it a shot.
I honestly think that there is no ideal solution to the war in Afghanistan. If we pull out entirely as some have called for, we continue in the tradition of the British and Russian empires. The Afghans learned from them that through guerrilla warfare, seemingly David v. Goliath situations against foreign powers can be made too costly to sustain and the foreigners would eventually leave. If we cut and run now, we will also give terrorist organizations the propaganda tool to recruit many more people and al Qaeda will come back to Afghanistan.
Gen McCrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops and has said, “The situation is serious but winnable with the right strategy and additional resources.” I don’t think it is so cut and dry that if we just had more troops we could better “take and hold” areas and prevent them from becoming “Talibanized.” The people in Afghanistan do not want us there-they do not necessarily want the Taliban back in power, but they don’t see Karzai’s govt. as legit and certainly do not want a foreign power interfering with their daily lives. The people of Afghanistan are intensely loyal to their little clans and basically are just a collection of nation-states. They are not united so much by an ideology or religion but by their mistrust of foreigners. The insurgency movement uses this more than anything to gather popular support, or at least acquiescence to their cause by creating the age-old “Us v. Them” mentality.
We got into this whole thing because the Afghans refused to turn over Osama bin Ladin and other al Qaeda operatives. It was not because they supported the ideology of al Qaeda(really, the Taliban cares not for the Islamization of the world and are quite content to just focus on keeping Shariah in their own areas) but because of a societal code of honor. Due to the fact that Afghanistan has always been a route to somewhere else (as opposed to an actual destination), the concept of “Melmastia” came to be. “Melmastia” is the notion that refugees or travelers would receive both hospitality and protection as guests in the Afghan village. This practice goes waaay back to ancient times, and this willingness to be hospitable, though the hosts may live in the worst state of poverty, really establishes a sense of personal worth and pride within the village. We offered the Afghans over 25 million dollars for bin Ladin…and then refused. This was not so much a hostile act of war, but a strong and silent showing of moral fiber in accordance to their own unique culture.
So, we screwed that up, what do we do now? Like I stated in a previous post on the AfPak nonsense, I would like to see us open up talks with the Taliban. They are oppressive but also fair and outlawed the drug-trade that has so corrupted Karzai’s government. At least we know what to expect with them and perhaps if given some legitimacy while being monitored they will become more moderate. We should also use Pakistan’s version of the CIA, the ISI, to hunt down and “off” al Qaeda leaders. The ISI likes to play political games and use their intelligence as leverage with the US, Taliban, al Qaeda, and India->as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks there. We need to appeal to the ISI and make sure they’re only batting for our team; we can do this monetarily and through threats of military action in order to use them to get to al Qaeda. Lets also Not forget about Iran. They also have something to fear from Sunni militancy. None of this will be easy, but I think that Obama has the wisdom to examine all of his options and take into account the many variables in order to make a responsible decision.
I honestly think that there is no ideal solution to the war in Afghanistan. If we pull out entirely as some have called for, we continue in the tradition of the British and Russian empires. The Afghans learned from them that through guerrilla warfare, seemingly David v. Goliath situations against foreign powers can be made too costly to sustain and the foreigners would eventually leave. If we cut and run now, we will also give terrorist organizations the propaganda tool to recruit many more people and al Qaeda will come back to Afghanistan.
Gen McCrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops and has said, “The situation is serious but winnable with the right strategy and additional resources.” I don’t think it is so cut and dry that if we just had more troops we could better “take and hold” areas and prevent them from becoming “Talibanized.” The people in Afghanistan do not want us there-they do not necessarily want the Taliban back in power, but they don’t see Karzai’s govt. as legit and certainly do not want a foreign power interfering with their daily lives. The people of Afghanistan are intensely loyal to their little clans and basically are just a collection of nation-states. They are not united so much by an ideology or religion but by their mistrust of foreigners. The insurgency movement uses this more than anything to gather popular support, or at least acquiescence to their cause by creating the age-old “Us v. Them” mentality.
We got into this whole thing because the Afghans refused to turn over Osama bin Ladin and other al Qaeda operatives. It was not because they supported the ideology of al Qaeda(really, the Taliban cares not for the Islamization of the world and are quite content to just focus on keeping Shariah in their own areas) but because of a societal code of honor. Due to the fact that Afghanistan has always been a route to somewhere else (as opposed to an actual destination), the concept of “Melmastia” came to be. “Melmastia” is the notion that refugees or travelers would receive both hospitality and protection as guests in the Afghan village. This practice goes waaay back to ancient times, and this willingness to be hospitable, though the hosts may live in the worst state of poverty, really establishes a sense of personal worth and pride within the village. We offered the Afghans over 25 million dollars for bin Ladin…and then refused. This was not so much a hostile act of war, but a strong and silent showing of moral fiber in accordance to their own unique culture.
So, we screwed that up, what do we do now? Like I stated in a previous post on the AfPak nonsense, I would like to see us open up talks with the Taliban. They are oppressive but also fair and outlawed the drug-trade that has so corrupted Karzai’s government. At least we know what to expect with them and perhaps if given some legitimacy while being monitored they will become more moderate. We should also use Pakistan’s version of the CIA, the ISI, to hunt down and “off” al Qaeda leaders. The ISI likes to play political games and use their intelligence as leverage with the US, Taliban, al Qaeda, and India->as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks there. We need to appeal to the ISI and make sure they’re only batting for our team; we can do this monetarily and through threats of military action in order to use them to get to al Qaeda. Lets also Not forget about Iran. They also have something to fear from Sunni militancy. None of this will be easy, but I think that Obama has the wisdom to examine all of his options and take into account the many variables in order to make a responsible decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
