In continuing the points made in my previous post titled,”Where The US Military Meets Frankenstein’s Monster At The Grave Yard Of Conquerors” , I decided to pull three videos together to give the reader a broader look along with background. That way, a person can sift through what is political talk, propaganda to further a geopolitical and economic hegemony game for trans-national oil interests, and how it relates to growing debt and economic conditions in the United States (sorry but it doesn’t have anything to do with liberals, or spending too much of the public’s money on the public’s welfare).

Does anyone get the symbolism of the targets now of the acts of the terrorists that flew the planes on 9/11/01 of the World Trade Center , the Pentagon , and Capitol Hill ?. And if you want a wider look at the grand chess board of American geopolitical hegemony policy, read or reread “Moon Water And Sibel Edmonds” . It is also important to keep in mind that since the formalization of OPEC, the U.S. dollar has been has been tied to oil instead of gold (countries have to pay for oil in US currency) and in recent years, Iraq and Iran were attempting to trade oil in Euros. If you contemplate that in recent years, more countries have been contemplating this move and have been changing their reserve currencies to a mixed bag of currencies and subsequently dumping or buying less US bonds, it should make you a little nervous. Should we continue this game or adjust policy to avoid any potential of it being a house of cards? Shouldn’t we have a national conversation on the issues at hand especially given our trade deficits and increasing lack of a manufacturing base not to mention the moral issues?

Nation-Building in Afghanistan Instead of at Home Will Produce New ‘Misery Index’

Congressional Democrats Beware: Unemployment at Home + Casualties Abroad = Defeat at the Polls in 2010

By Tom Andrews Dec. 3, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

President Obama’s decision to nation-build in Afghanistan in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression is likely to produce a new Misery Index for Americans: The escalating numbers of dead and wounded American soldiers in Afghanistan PLUS the likely high level of unemployed Americans at home. For Congressional Democrats, the Misery Index could add up to big trouble at the polls in November 2010.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan coined the term “misery index” as a very effective way to focus attention on the Carter administration’s double barrel headache in 1980: rising unemployment and inflation. President Obama’s decision to double down on a failing Afghanistan strategy by ordering an immediate military escalation is likely to present Democratic Congressional candidates with a Misery Index of their own in 2010.

President Obama wants to rush the troops that General McCrystal has requested for Afghanistan as soon as possible so that they can be in place for the so-called spring “fighting season”. The significantly larger military footprint of foreign forces will, inevitably, swell the ranks of Taliban fighters who have been successfully using the presence of these forces as their most potent recruitment weapon. The result is not hard to predict: a significant spike in US casualties in Afghanistan in the summer and fall of 2010 at precisely the time that Members of Congress are facing voters in the 2010 elections…..
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/03-

See more at flickr.com

On December 5, 2009 the Minnesota Anti-War Committee held a protest in Minneapolis, MN to protest against the escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. This was a response to the December 1 announcement by President Obama of planned increases in military resources to be allocated to the Afghanistan and Pakistan area.

Characters:

Fletch

Zack!

Basil

Act One

Zack is sitting in front of his computer.  On a whim, he minimizes the solitaire window and brings up his web browser (Mozilla, por supuesto).  There is a rifle hanging above the fireplace.

Zack!:  Hello, what’s this?  (now muttering) Garble, garble, Fletcher posting another–erm–post…I’ll show him…(crescendo) Tonight I’ll write the (sf) POST OF THE CENTURY!!!!!

Basil wakes up at all of the commotion.  Pathetic cries offstage.

Zack!:  Damn you, Fletch!  Waking my baby up!  You will pay for your incessant productivity!  I know what you think…you think I am the grasshopper, fiddling away in the shade while you, the ant, store your witty posts away for the winter.  I am no grasshopper, no!  I am the Lord of all Ants! The Ant Queen!  King!!  Fuck!

(Zack! storms offstage to attend to Basil.  The lights dim, leaving only the glow of the computer monitor.   Close curtains.)

Act Two

Fletcher’s apartment.  Fletch finishes his daily regimen of jump rope and finger-flexing exercises and logs onto his computer.

Fletch:  Doo-doo-doo.  I guess I’d better put something up on the Agenda tonight.  Hmmm.  Whatever shall I write?  Dope-doh-doh-doh-dope.  (he scratches his left ear.  That feels good, so he scratches his right ear. ) Oooh!  A video!  Hahaha.  Silly muppets!

Fletch finishes his post and goes to the kitchen.  He pours himself a bowl of Cheerios.

Fletch:  Mmmm.  Cheerios.  If only I had enough leisure to eat you one at a time.  (pause) Whatever.

Fletch pours the bowl over his face, eating whatever happens to fall into his mouth.  He chews, swallows, and then falls on the floor, fast asleep.  Lights dim.  Curtains close.

INTERMISSION–Muffins will be served.  No blueberry.

Act Three

Back in Zack!’s house.  It is three weeks later.  He has not slept and is still working on the post to end all posts.  Basil can be heard off stage, yelling like a 1940’s stereotype of an Indian on the war path.  The room is filthy, piled high with aluminum cans of varying sorts and random dishes.  He is wearing the same clothes as in Act One.   They, too, are filthy.  Zack! is crying.

Zack!:  (through sobs) Why?!  Why does it have to be so hard?

Basil: (from off stage) That’s what she said, Daddy!

Zack!:  AUUUGGHH!  The horror!  The horror of the blank input box!  Meanwhile Fletch (my arch nemesis, my Iago, my Benedict, my Brutus!) has posted seven hundred and forty nine posts in the last two weeks!  And it wasn’t even holiday break!

Zack breaks down into a disgusting, weeping mess.  A commotion can be heard off stage–it sounds like animals stampeding, and possibly fire.

Zack!:  I can’t take it anymore.  This has to end.  It’s just you and me, computer.  No one can save you now.

Zack! grabs the rifle from the fireplace and does whatever one would do to get a gun ready to fire.  That’s what he does.  And he makes it look good, like he knew that’s what one should do.

Zack!:  You will haunt me no longer, foul beast.  Prepare to return to the hell from whence you came!

Zack! aims, presumably taking up some sort of action hero stance necessary to compensate for the kick back of such an awesomely manly weapon–not that he couldn’t handle that sort of thing in the first place.  He laughs maniacally and pulls the–

Update: This manuscript was retrieved from the burnt up remains of a house in north Wichita.  The cause of the fire was not immediately released, although inside sources have reported that there was indication that a homemade explosive device may have been involved, and that a large amount of stuffed animals and Play-Doh appear to be the primary incendiaries.  More as it becomes available.

So as expected, Obama became the latest American War President this week. He was one already by virtue of being the Commander-In-Chief of an army engaged in two wars. But it was made official because of his embrace (however reluctant it appeared) of the battles he inherited.

So 30,000 more troops and 18 months to “finish the job” that 8 previous years have failed to put on dent on.

What was he thinking?

Well, politically the plan is masterful. Even brilliant. First he acquiessed to the demands of the Generals which endears him to the military brass. But it also allows him to blame them if it all goes haywire in 18 months.

Second the plan relies on a lot of moving parts Obama can only influence from far, but cannot directly control: The Afghan government, the Pakistanis, The NATO allies, the Taliban. And precisely because of that he can blame them anytime it becomes politically expedient, declare victory an leave.

Third the July 2011 timetable, almost a year and a half away from his re-election allows him to play to all political affiliations. To the Republicans he will say “I did not cut and run. I stayed the course and took the fight to the terrorists!”. Even if they complain about the very presence of an exit date (as they are currently doing), they will commend him for fighting on. To the hardcore anti-war Liberals he will say: “I have an exit date. I only decided to stay because we had to win this thing. I am ending it soon as promised and sending our boys home.” He could even order a few brigades home during the year of the election campaign as a show of sincerity.

Finally, he will remind Independents and all voters that he opposed the war in Iraq and is in the process of bringing it to a close along with the Afghan one. But he cannot run from the battle and that’s why, he will say, there are still some American troops occupying two Mid-East countries.

 After the election of course, if he is re-elected, he would then do whatever he wants written in the history books about the Obama Presidency . That’s politics. And for better but mostly for worse, Presidents are politicians first.

In the real world of war and occupation in Afghanistan, people will continue to die and the stupididty of Wednesday’s decision will ring true.

War is awful. Wars of choice are also awful but blatantly wasteful. Years from now, when the NATO armies have gone home and the Afghans are still grappling with their misery and the Al Qaeda terrorists are still terrorizing from some new cave in Namibia or Yemen or from a five-star hotel in a Western capital, we will wonder what all the dying was for. The idea of invading a single country and transforming it as a way of forever preventing a band of supposedly religious maniacs from ever commiting mischief anywhere else in the world was always silly. 30,000 more troops will not change that.

If you happen to have a few minutes, please follow the link below to watch PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal showcasing another President, Lyndon Baines Johnson grappling with the escalation of another war a few decades ago.

 The similarities are eerie.  

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/profile.html

By Alisha Reed

War President Obama: 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

Obama: “We Did Not Ask for This Fight”
Bush: “We Did Not Seek This Conflict”
Obama: “New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak”
Bush: “At This Moment … Terrorists are Planning New Attacks”
Obama: “Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering”
Bush: “Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined”
Obama: “This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat”
Bush: “The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle”
Obama: “We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country”
Bush: “I Wouldn’t Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either”

The war in Afghanistan turned 8 years old on October 7^th, 2009. The War in Afghanistan has carried on longer than the Second World War…
Longer than the First World War…
Longer than the American Civil War …

When you talk to a person in the United States or Canada about the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, many are unaware that the conflict persists to this day (in fact, it is escalating). Despite the recent escalations in Afghanistan, most pay the conflict absolutely no mind in their day-to-day affairs. Why would they? But the Afghan resistance continues, in the face of a foe that is better armed, funded and supplied than the insurgency. In the face of this resistance, successive administrations of NATO commanders continue to give the same message on Afghanistan: “We cannot win”.

So, how is it that the some of the poorest people on the planet earth are holding their own, and continuing to give NATO forces in Afghanistan an ongoing fight and mounting casualties? More importantly why do the people of Afghanistan continue to resist?

Afghanistan: A Brief History
Afghanistan is, if nothing else, a historical example of iron resistance to invasion.
Alexander the Great, the Mongol Khans, the Persians, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…no great power has been able to conclusively conquer Afghanistan or hold it indefinitely, no matter what the brutality towards the Afghan peoples inhabiting the region or the cost in human life. Every empire that has ever invaded Afghanistan has subsequently collapsed.

The following account could have just as easily been written after the American conquest of Afghanistan in 2001, but it is an analysis of the British conquest of Afghanistan in 1839 (my emphasis added):
“The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished, and a considerable portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were noways content to be ruled by the Feringhee Kaffirs (European infidels), and during the whole of 1840 and ’41, insurrection followed on insurrection in every part of the country. The Anglo-Indian troops had to be constantly on the move. Yet, McNaghten declared this to be the normal state of Afghan society, and wrote home that every thing went on well, and Shah Soojah’s power was taking root. In vain were the warnings of the military officers and the other political agents….every insurrection during the summer of ’41 was successfully repressed, and toward October, McNaghten, nominated governor of Bombay, intended leaving with another body of troops for India. But then the storm broke out. The occupation of Afghanistan cost the Indian treasury £1,250,000 per annum: 16,000 troops, Anglo-Indian, and Shah Soojah’s, had to be paid in Afghanistan; 3,000 more lay in Sinde, and the Bolan Pass; Shah Soojah’s regal splendours, the salaries of his functionaries, and all expenses of his court and government, were paid by the Indian treasury, and finally, the Afghan chiefs were subsidized, or rather bribed, from the same source, in order to keep them out of mischief. McNaghten was informed of the impossibility of going on at this rate of spending money. He attempted retrenchment, but the only possible way to enforce it was to cut down the allowances of the chiefs. The very day he attempted this, the chiefs formed a conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain, too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the Afghans had reached the highest point.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

While the British occupiers grew complacent in their conquest of Afghanistan, resistance erupted. Engels continues:

“ Nov. 2, 1841, the insurrection broke out. The house of Alexander Burnes, in the city, was attacked and he himself murdered. The British general did nothing, and the insurrection grew strong by impunity…. A few companies were sent against the thousands of insurgents, and of course were beaten. This still more emboldened the Afghans. Nov. 3, the forts close to the camp were occupied. On the 9th, the commissariat fort (garrisoned by only 80 men) was taken by the Afghans, and the British were thus reduced to starvation…In fact, by the middle of November, his irresolution and incapacity had so demoralised the troops that neither Europeans nor Sepoys were any longer fit to meet the Afghans in the open field. Then the negotiations began. During these, McNaghten was murdered in a conference with Afghan chiefs. Snow began to cover the ground, provisions were scarce. At last, Jan. 1, a capitulation was concluded. All the money, £190,000, was to be handed over to the Afghans, and bills signed for £140,000 more. All the artillery and ammunition, except 6 six-pounders and 3 mountain guns, were to remain. All Afghanistan was to be evacuated. The chiefs, on the other hand, promised a safe conduct, provisions, and baggage cattle.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

The British adventure in Afghanistan ended with the withdrawal of British troops and thousands of British soldiers dead with a disproportionately larger amount of the people of Afghanistan killed in the process. The later Soviet adventure in Afghanistan ended under similar terms. The mass resistance to occupation was enough to drive out even the most technologically superior foe. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the period of Taliban rule began, which leads us to the current occupation which began in 2001.

“Cartoon” Muslims and Chauvinistic Orientalism

“These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”
- Canadian Chief of Defense staff, General Rick Hillier.

The ongoing resistance in Afghanistan is written off by Western audiences as savage and the ongoing resistance to occupation is seen as a malevolent force that would just as surely wage a military strike on the United States itself, as well as allied countries, if ever given the chance.
The fighters in Afghanistan are seen literally by many Western observers as being in league with the infamous 9/11 hijackers. Of course, none of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Afghanistan (15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab emirates, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon), but nonetheless the parallel is drawn.
For this reason, as with resistance/national liberation fighters all over the Middle East, the Afghan resistance fighters are portrayed as two-dimensional cartoon villains, motivated purely by irrational religious fundamentalism. Of course, it is true to an extent that all political movements in contemporary Afghanistan (including the Karzai puppet regime) claim allegiance to Islam, as the majority of the population does.

The dehumanizing portrayal of all Afghan resistance fighters as bloodthirsty religious zealots—note that in most narratives, it is the occupied people of Afghanistan who are portrayed as the aggressors—coupled with “War on Terror” pop-Islamic theology, where the smug premise is given that the unwashed Muslim peoples of the world want nothing more than to end their own life and others in order to receive a celestial gift of paradise and virgins in the afterlife, has given rise to massive national-chauvinism and racism.

While Islam does perhaps have cases of condoning martyrdom, one must also remember that so do Christianity and Judaism, the other major Abrahamic faiths. The allegations of Islamic scriptural basis for the war in Afghanistan are flimsy, as it contrasts sharply with not only the long history of coexistence (including intermarriage) among Muslims and non-Muslim neighboring peoples around the world, but also contrasts with some of the teachings of Islam itself.
From the Quran:
“Be good to . . . the neighbor belonging to your people and the alien neighbor.” (4:36)
“Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly.. . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them.” (60: 8,9)
“And you will always find treachery in them, except a few of them. So pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (5:13)

These are words of peace and coexistence, taken from the same scriptures as those alleged to incite suicide bombings. It becomes clear at this war being waged in Afghanistan, and other wars waged in other parts of the Middle East against occupation, while they may assume Islam as their vehicle just as most Western conflicts acquired a basis in Christianity, it is not the Islamic faith that is the driving force behind their armed defiance. The actual reasons for their armed resistance are very worldly, very material and tangible—the continuation of capitalism and imperialism.

Escalation of war

Tuesday was a great day for Oil company executives, Private military contractors, war enthusiasts, Imperialists and boot camps sergeants alike. US President Obama announced in a speech at West Point Military Academy, to an audience of soldiers and not regular members of the working class, that he was formally issuing an order to send at least 30,000 more troops to further occupy Afghanistan. The new surge comes after an escalation of already 21,000 troops at the beginning of his term. Now, The US will have a force of 100,000 in Afghanistan, a move extremely unpopular to the majority of us who have no vested interest in their senseless war and were “hoping” for a withdrawal.

But, withdrawal is not an option for the war party. It never was. Only further escalation to prove a point: Nobody fucks with their plans and gets away with it. They do not want another Vietnam but only in the sense that the US didn’t win. The war itself is fine for them. Wars create jobs and get some people very wealthy. War is a time where our leaders encourage us to shop and keep the economy moving and to forget what they are doing. Even if you oppose the war you have to support the soldiers fighting for your freedom! Even if the word freedom now only means the freedom to take over a country to get it to be more US friendly and to respect our National Interests(oil, strategic military positions). Support for our soldiers would be to bring them home from a situation where they are told to senselessly murder or be senselessly murdered. Support is not siding with the capitalist parties, democrat or republican, who would gladly send troops to their death to further their plans for expanding the market(or freedom as they call it).

We can not be led down the road of hope alone. We hoped the democrats sweep of congress would at the very least change some of the corruption of Bush while he was still in office. This did not happen. We hoped Obama would “change how washington does business”. We were let down almost all across the board. More war. More state rule. Continuing of torture and occupation. Secret funding of private and illegal operations in foreign countries. With all of the lies and broken promises, can we really trust the alleged 2011 withdrawal?

What is withdrawal anyway? The dictionary says it means to draw back or remove but we know from history that the US never really withdrawals from anywhere. They have bases in every country they liberated or intervened or occupied or whatever term they want to use. A withdrawal from Afghanistan would be only to further an assault into Pakistan anyway. We can see the trend. It’s not hard to see. Blackwater/Xe is already in use in Pakistan with drone attacks and special ops. The first step is always with the private companies and the CIA. Is this what we want to be done in our name?

What does the working class, the poor, or even the middle class and wealthy have to gain from this continuation of war? The answer is nothing. Nothing but worsening foreign relations and a hyper inflated military budget. This policy of aggression and imperialism will only hurt the people. We already know this but what do we do to stop it? What can we do? Well, the first thing we can do is educate ourselves about the actual situation. Don’t just skim one article but read many from many sources. We can study the words of past revolutionaries. There are lots we can do but the most vital at this point is that we talk about these issues to others. Keep them in the foreground. Debate them with everyone. Talk to strangers. Create awareness. Start public discussion groups. Form local political groups and factions. No longer can a passive liberal attitude dampen our struggle. The movement needs motion.

A single person cannot change history alone. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a strong force for peace on his own, was backed by an organized group of Black Panthers and other revolutionaries. No one person can do this alone. This is the flaw in past revolutionary movements. Putting all of the pressure of the movement on a few when this is supposed to be a movement of the masses. Mass action, physical support, awareness, and solidarity are the tools to fighting for an end to the further escalation of war.

edit: spoke too soon.  Obama administration backtracks on 2011 Afghan troop withdrawal.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/obam-d03.shtml

by matttbastard

Stephen M. Walt, commenting on Obama’s recent AfPak escalation and the incongruity of domestic spending initatives vs expensive foreign military endeavours on the part of the US:

As I’ve said before, Americans have come to believe that spending government revenues on U.S. citizens here at home is usually a bad thing and should be viewed with suspicion, but spending billions on vast social engineering projects overseas is the hallmark of patriotism and should never be questioned. This position makes no sense, but it is hard to think of a prominent U.S. leader who is making an explicit case for doing somewhat less abroad so that we can afford to build a better future here at home. Debates about foreign policy, grand strategy, and military engagement — including the current debate over Obama’s decision to add another30,000-plus troops in Afghanistan — tend to occur in isolation from a discussion of other priorities, as if there were no tradeoffs between what we do for others and what we are able to do for Americans here at home.

Thankfully, E-Mart has proposed a modest solution to one particularly contentious domestic issue currently mired in the US Senate:

Maybe we can set up an efficient health insurance delivery system in Iraq or Afghanistan and then import it to the States. Call it a part of our COIN strategy, get Petraeus to endorse it and then ship it home under cover of night.

Wow. That’s so crazy, it just might work.

Le sigh.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan last night, and I remain unconvinced.  Yes, there were definitely some things that represent a positive change in policy — more Congressional oversight, no more “no-bid” contracts come to mind immediately, as does the reality of whether we can afford the financial drain an open-ended commitment implies.  But I remain unconvinced that sending in another 30,000 troops will contribute to any long-term solution, regardless of the length of the surge.

The President spoke of the situation in Afghanistan as vital to our national security interest.  To be sure, Al Qaeda still wants to harm us, and the Taliban once gave them safe haven.  Yet, Al Qaeda has moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan.  So, given that Pakistan possesses something like 65 nuclear weapons, isn’t that the logical focus of our efforts?  And given that Pakistan is officially an ally, how do we best work with them to ensure both the safety of their arsenal and their active commitment to root out Al Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist elements while preventing their relocation back across the border into Afghanistan?  That seems to be the military objective.

What confounds me is why we still seem to put so much emphasis on the military option, despite frequently asserting that the situation doesn’t have a military solution.   We are told that one of the two primary military goals is to train up the local security forces.  But when the desertion rate for the Afghan national police force approaches 1 in 4, one must wonder if training Afghans to take over their own security is a viable solution, despite the assertion that several thousand Afghans, plus another 5,000 or so NATO troops will be added to reach the 40,000 that were requested.

In the lead up to the speech, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that our mission in Afghanistan is not nation-building.  For heaven’s sake, in my mind that is exactly our mission there!  That unfortunate country needs schools over and above almost everything else.  Every time we bomb a wedding party or rack up another set of civilian casualties, we create more reasons for people to turn to the Taliban.

A national literacy rate of only 10% is very telling.  Teaching Afghans to read and offering them an alternative to poppy cultivation would be powerful tools against the Taliban.  We need many more Greg Mortensons working in Afghanistan.  If you’re unfamiliar with Mr. Mortenson, I urge you to read “Three Cups of Tea.”  Then, in the spirit of the holidays, make as big a contribution as you can afford to his Central Asia Institute.  The money goes to build schools in rural villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Schools that are required to be open to girls as well as to boys.

Then, lobby Congress to use our aid money in the form of micro-loans.  The model there is Mohammad Yunus.  Mr. Yunus has discovered that small loans, often only a few hundred dollars each, allow people to begin small, local, culturally and technologically realistic businesses that will improve their standard of living.  In most cases, the repayment rate would be a US banker’s delight.

Literacy and self-empowered economic development are powerful tools against extremism.  Unfortunately, the history of USAID tends to be reflected too often in warehouses filled with American goods that benefit mostly the American expatriate community there.

I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt.  He’s truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I was hoping to hear an explanation of a wider strategy.  What I heard was a speech by a very reluctant warrior that focused on the military option.

Whether you like it or not, if you voted for President Obama last year, you are partly responsible for this strategy. That’s not entirely a bad thing depending on your position on the war, but it’s worth repeating that the president never spoke of drawing down our forces in the Af-Pak region during the campaign, nor did he mention such a thing during his first 10 months in office.

So last night’s announcement shouldn’t come as a shocker.

Admittedly, during the campaign, he never specifically said that he would drop 30,000 additional soldiers into the war. And while he never specified the exact “30,000″ number, he also never said anything about a July, 2011 date for beginning the withdrawal either. In other words, and unlike the Bushies, he’s making adjustments to his strategy based upon what’s happening on the ground rather than holding himself to a firm “smoke ‘em out” meets “bring ‘em on” endless and unchanging war policy. And, suffice to say, this underscores his considerably non-Bushie penchant for thought, rationality and informed deliberation.

Nevertheless, this thing is painfully confounding.

Yes, I obviously voted for President Obama. Yes, I understand how this strategy is, in fact, a vast departure from the Bush administration’s conduct and strategic planning (insofar as the Bushies “planned” anything — all gut). Yes, I understood the president’s hawkish language about “the good war.”

But I’m very reluctant to support this decision, because history has proved that similar plans have too easily gone horribly awry. Be that as it may, I just don’t see how the president’s solution can be avoided.

The war in Afghanistan is like a terrible form of cancer. No one wants it, but I don’t know how we can avoid dealing with it without facing serious consequences. I don’t want an escalation. I don’t want more casualties. I don’t want more spending when Congress is being miserly on domestic programs. I want the thing to end. I didn’t even want it to start in the first place.

Regardless, it seems as though the president’s announcement is a prescription for radical chemotherapy, complete with a start date and an end date. Vomiting, pain and ugliness ensue, but with light — and perhaps a cure — on the horizon. I think.

The diagnosis was reiterated and clarified by the president last night.

How did the cancer metastasize? We’re all too familiar with how the Bushies made a series of historic blunders over there. They let Bin Laden escape. They failed to crush the Taliban. They rushed to abandon the mission in lieu of invading and occupying Iraq. They further destabilized an already unstable region — a region in which there are several nuclear powers, one of which being Pakistan. The Taliban and others want those nukes and they shouldn’t be allowed to attain them.

The impossible conundrum is whether we, as a nation, are willing to allow eight years of mistakes and mismanagement to go unmitigated knowing the long-term risks of an immediate withdrawal, or whether we risk more lives trying to at least clean up some of the mess before we bug out. Clearly, the president has opted for the latter with an eye on the former. And while I despise this war, I can’t wrap my head around any other more reasonable solution.

There are historical lessons from Vietnam (more on this presently), but, likewise, there are lessons in the story of Charlie Wilson and our intervention during and following the Soviet occupation. But the added layer of several nuclear powers in the region, including Pakistan, raise the stakes and augment the risks in leaving without some kind of reconstruction as we go.

Our failure in the 1980s to provide the civilian population with even the most rudimentary infrastructure following the Soviet withdrawal eventually helped to create al-Qaeda and this current FUBAR crisis. If we don’t withdraw smartly, we risk decades of blowback — or, I should say, additional blowback beyond that which has already been sowed. Yet if we leave behind some stability, as opposed to abandoning the region in its present state of chaos, we might actually ameliorate some of the anti-Western piss and vinegar that’s been stirred up over the years. Then again, occupation is occupation — a choice between “awful if we get out” or “awful if we stay.”

And then there’s Pakistan’s nukes. Outside of the purview of the American national security apparatus, the rest of us probably won’t know for sure how close the Taliban is to absconding off with a nuclear weapon, and we probably don’t entirely know how unstable Pakistan’s government is. One way or another, I can’t imagine a better sales pitch for Republican slash-and-burn foreign policy than a Democratic administration summarily withdrawing and consequently allowing a hostile Islamic regime to acquire a nuclear device from a destabilized Pakistan and to use it. This doesn’t seem acceptable to me, but what will it cost to prevent it? I have no idea.

Again, this is the cancer. This is a big steaming bucket of crap. It’s not a Truman A-bomb choice, but it’s not too far down the list.

No matter what the cable news people suggest, though, this will never be “Obama’s War.” However, it will be “Obama’s Chore” to repair the, pardon the language, impossibly fucked. And so I reluctantly support this plan with many, many concerns and caveats.

Mainly, this has to remain a clean-up and not evolve into a reboot. If it becomes a reboot of the war, it will fail. If the situation cascades out of hand, we could very well have the Vietnam that the president seemed to dismiss last night. (I disagree with the president’s “it’s not Vietnam” argument. While the specifics are different, the broadstroke similarities remain: escalation is escalation, endless war is endless war. If he loses control of the plan, Vietnam is what could very well happen.)

Ultimately, this is the policy we voted for last year. We voted for a pragmatic president who would carefully deliberate the war, a president who would make decisions based upon reason and reality — a president who has been unwavering in his determination to repair the Bushie mistakes in Afghanistan and, once this was accomplished, to withdraw. This is precisely who and what we heard last night.

Hang the chemo bag and let’s get it over with. Here’s to hoping the road to July, 2011 is speedy and the casualties are minimal.

BobCesca.com

The press is getting it wrong regarding the president’s announcement of the newest of his escalations in Afghanistan, which said:

I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home…Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

The headline for The New York Times’ article on the speech reads “Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan.”

Keep in mind, this president told you back in March 2009, after he decided to send the first big troop increase to Afghanistan, that:

We now have resourced, properly, this strategy. It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources…Just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly under-resourced levels that we had, doesn’t automatically mean that if this strategy doesn’t work that what’s needed is even more troops.

The way out of Afghanistan for the U.S. begins by refusing to add more troops. Despite any number of headlines to the contrary, this is not an exit strategy nor a withdrawal timeline. It is, at best, an intention, and one which is undermined by adding 30,000 troops. Here’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a hearing today:

After several back-and-forth exchanges, Gates concedes that there will be a “thorough review” in December 2010 and that if the strategy is not working, “we will take a long look” at the July 2011 date. This seems an important concession, and McCain declares that is this is the case.

…Graham then bores in hard on the July, 2011 date. He asks if the president has locked himself into that date, and Gates and Mullen try hard to say that as commander in chief, Obama obviously retains all options to change his mind. But, Gates argues, the date Obama offered Tuesday night as the starting point for withdrawing troops is a “clear statement of strong intent.”

Gates only got to this point in the hearing after getting kicked around like a soccer ball between senators who got him to first say the withdrawal starting in 2011 would not be tied to conditions on the ground, and then got him to retract and revise that statement.

This is also, by the way, the same Defense Secretary who said he’d be “very skeptical of any additional force levels” back in January 2009.

If the president has an exit strategy, he didn’t tell you about it last night. He painted a picture of intentions after telling you he was sending 30,000 more troops to kill and die in Afghanistan. And you know what they say about the road to Hell.

Note: Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal. Say no to escalation in Afghanistan by signing our CREDO petition at http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/saynotoescalation/. For each signature, CREDO will donate a dollar to support Crowe’s work. You can also join Brave New Foundation’s #NoWar candlelight vigil on Facebook and Twitter to show your opposition to the war. But make these your first steps as an activist to end this war, not your last.

Last night, President Obama delivered his much-awaited speech announcing his strategy for the war in Afghanistan moving forward. I covered it, and my reaction to it, over at Care2 so if you have a sec I hope you will check it out — as well as the already very lively debate in the comments section.

In short: I think we shouldn’t be escalating. Our total troop level in Afghanistan will be at 100,000 and although the timeframe for withdrawal is tentatively set at 2011, there’s no guaranteeing that we’ll stick to that timeline. In the meantime, we’re continuing to lose dollars and human lives — two things we can’t afford to lose anymore of.

Feel free to check out my whole post here.

Also, for additional coverage I’d recommend reading other perspectives on the speech from some great writers:

The Washington Independent

David Corn at Mother Jones

And one of the smartest foreign policy bloggers around, Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy mag

Photo courtesy of the New York Times

We have known for some time that President Obama was likely to escalate the war in Afghanistan, with rampant speculation about the details. While there were not many surprises in his general justification for sending an additional 30,000 troops, the speech was long on the eloquence we expect from President Obama and short on substance.  President Obama failed to lay out a comprehensive strategy, a vision for success and a clear explanation for how an increase in troops will get us to a clearly defined end point. Some of the key problems in President Obama’s proposed plan:

30,000 troops will not address the threat from Al Qaeda. Throughout the speech, the main justification President Obama offered for his decision to send additional troops was the threat from Al Qaeda, and he fell back on some typical fear mongering rhetoric to make what amounted to a weak case. President Obama’s own staff acknowledge that there are approximately 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. Do we need 1,000 American troops for each terrorist to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” Al Qaeda? Obama relied heavily on the idea of preventing a safe haven for Al Qaeda, a myth that has been debunked by many experts, including former deputy chief of the CIA counterterrorist center Paul Pillar, who noted in The Washington Post that “In the past couple of decades, international terrorist groups have thrived by exploiting globalization and information technology, which has lessened their dependence on physical havens.” We are dealing with 21^st century threats by non-state actors, and we can’t continue to rely on 20^th century solutions.

History has proven that military force is highly ineffective when it comes to dealing with terrorist groups. The RAND Corporation reviewed all terrorist groups that ended in the last 40 years, and determined that only 7% were defeated by military force. Policing and intelligence and political reconciliation were far more useful, and they extrapolate from this information that the US should have a light military footprint in Afghanistan if any.

Escalation will backfire. Not only is sending additional troops unlikely to improve the situation on the ground, it could easily exacerbate the situation. Afghanistan expert Gilles Dorronsoro noted that the presence of foreign troops is the top factor in the resurgence of the Taliban, and recommended that “the best way to weaken, and perhaps divide, the armed opposition is to reduce military confrontations.” Rather than reducing the moment of the Taliban, the stated goal of President Obama’s policy, escalation will light a fire under a growing insurgency.

President Obama is correct in noting that the Taliban is not popular with the Afghan people, but the United States’ popularity is on the wane. In a poll in early 2009, just 18% of Afghans said the number of foreign forces should be increased. US intelligence reports this year noted that only about 10% of the insurgency is ideologically motivated Taliban; the majority are people fighting to repel foreign invaders or for economic gain. The US is adding fuel to the fire by aggressively pursuing insurgents who have no international agenda with an escalation of troops.

The date to begin withdrawal is a step in the right direction, but not far enough. I was pleasantly surprised that President Obama offered a specific date to begin withdrawal of US troops. However, there is a lot of wiggle room. The key phrase, one that we are too familiar with from the Bush years, is “conditions on the ground.” There was no indication of the vision of what Afghanistan would need to look like in order for the US to begin withdrawing troops. With that loose criteria, it is far too easy to delay a withdrawal based on the circumstances that are sure to be less than ideal. There was also no mention of the pace of withdrawal; a start date is only one small piece of the puzzle.

The bottom line is that this is a 50 percent increase in the number of troops on the ground. This increased commitment is sinking the US deeper into Afghanistan and making it even harder to extricate ourselves, even with the conditional date to begin withdrawal.

The civilian approach is being neglected. President Obama paid lip service to a civilian surge in Afghanistan, but there was little detail in what that will look like and what percentage of resources will be focused there. Counterinsurgency experts have argued that the ratio should include 80 percent political and 20 percent military. Thus far, we have seen approximately 90 percent of the resources focused on the military. Of the nonmilitary assistance, 56 percent of it has been funneled through the Department of Defense. We have not yet had an accounting of how many millions have been wasted through irresponsible contracting rather than investment in effective programs like the National Solidarity Program.

In a recent poll by Oxfam, seven out of ten Afghans said poverty and unemployment are to blame for war and conflict, the top choice coming out ahead of corruption and ineffectiveness of the government and the Taliban. If the US seriously wants to stabilize Afghanistan and build an “enduring partnership” with the Afghan people, our commitment to development needs to extend beyond rhetoric.

It’s unrealistic to base a strategy on a partnership with a reliable, non-corrupt Afghan government. President Obama acknowledged that the Afghan election was marred by fraud, but settled for the idea that Karzai’s presidency conforms to the laws of Afghanistan (other than whatever ones he might have broken in the course of electoral fraud?). General McChrystal’s leaked report contended that the strategy was contingent upon being seen as a guest of the Afghan government and its people. If the US plans to only work with agencies that effectively combat corruption, they might as well pack up and go home now. The election was widely considered a joke inside and outside of Afghanistan.

No one in the administration has laid out a clear plan for combating corruption in Afghanistan and building buy-in with the current government. Can we really send more soldiers to die and spend more tax dollars on behalf of an illegitimate and incompetent regime?

An escalation will be far too costly in money and lives without a real path to success. President Obama noted that the escalation in Afghanistan is slated to cost $30 billion dollars per year, on top of more than $200 billion that has already been spent. This occurs in the midst of the worst financial crisis we have seen in years, and a battle to get Congress to shell out money to insure millions of Americans who don’t have access to health care. Cost estimates tend to be left in the dust by reality, and President Obama is likely to renege on his pledge to avoid funding the war through supplementals that lack the accountability of the regular budget process. Some members of Congress have attempted to address this through proposing a surtax to fund the war, but you don’t achieve fiscal responsibility by raising taxes to pay for an irresponsible foreign policy.

Addressing cadets at West Point, Obama acknowledged the burden that the war in Afghanistan put on them, but despite that he is willing to risk their lives for a strategy that I can’t believe he truly thinks will work. Since his initial “surge” earlier this year, 2009 has become the deadliest year of the war for US troops, with a month still to go. As Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) pointed out in a recent piece, 1,000 US troops have been wounded in the last 3 months, one quarter of US casualties in the Afghanistan war: “Think about it. The war has been going on for 97 months in Afghanistan, and one-fourth of all the casualties have been suffered in just the past three months.” The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked President Obama to only send troops to Afghanistan that had had one year of leave between deployments because of the record-high suicide rate in the active duty military.

The UN also reported a rise in civilian casualties in 2009 compared to the previous year. Thousands of Afghans have been plunged further into poverty and despair because of the effects of occupation, and Pakistanis face increased danger since President Obama has ramped up the drone strikes in the Pakistani border region. These costs will only rise with the addition of troops, and the Obama administration has not offered a sufficient justification for these costs.

There are alternatives that were not a part of the review process. Like many people, I was glad to see President Obama take his time on the Afghanistan decision and entertain a variety of approaches. However, there was nothing in any reports on the process that indicated the administration considered any plans to put nonmilitary tools at the forefront and fully vetted them. In his speech, Obama engaged in a straw man argument, characterizing people who oppose the war as parroting the sound bite that Afghanistan equals Vietnam and thus we must pull out immediately. There are ample, well-considered alternatives that are based on a realistic assessment on the ground and a more efficient investment of our tax dollars. The Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined elements of a new plan in their recent letter to Obama. In our policy agenda Strategic Cooperation, we laid out key aspects of an alternative approach including policing and intelligence; regional diplomacy, internal political reconciliation; and effective Afghan-led development.

After eight years of failure, it’s clear we need a new approach in Afghanistan. The Obama administration owes the American people a comprehensive plan that takes into account the realities on the ground and the limitations of military force.

It is easy to feel disheartened at this point, especially for those of us who have been actively opposing the war or who helped get Barack Obama elected with the hope that he would chart a new course in our foreign policy. Despite this setback, I feel we have reasons to believe we are having an impact and there is momentum behind us. The mere fact that President Obama mentioned an exit strategy and defended the idea from critics is a testament to the power of the political pressure we have exerted on the administration and Congress. We have put our government on notice, and we need to keep fighting. The voices of dissent in Congress are getting louder, largely because of pressure from their constituents, and the opposition has spread far beyond the usual suspects.

I am humbled and inspired by the commitment of activists around this country who are steadfastly working to build a brighter future and promote a new vision for our foreign policy. We have to show that we will not go away; now we must redouble our efforts. Please take a moment to call your representative today at 1-800-427-8619 and urge him or her to speak out forcefully for a new approach.

I’ll be liveblogging the President’s speech tonight at The Seminal. Hope you’ll stop in.

Tonight President Barack Obama will announce a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan, authorizing deployment of an additional 30,000 members of the armed forces to the war-ravaged country. In a reversal of the usual state of Washington politics Republicans are supporting the President while members of his own party are threatening to actively oppose the new policy.

Obama has been in talks on Afghanistan policy with his staff and military leaders for weeks, prompting accusations of “dithering” and “indecisiveness”. Now that Obama has announced not only the troop increases but a plan to leave Afghanistan in three years, the criticism has turned toward the actual decision. The question whether or not the three-year figure includes some kind of explicit exit strategy is still unanswered – hopefully the President will offer some specifics in his address tonight.

The announced goals of the troop deployment are eerily familiar: a “strategy aimed at wiping out al Qaeda elements and stabilizing the country while training Afghan forces”, according to CNN.

Those goals weren’t accomplished in Iraq in six years. How they will be accomplished in a country like Afghanistan, where there is no real infrastructure and no real tradition of centralized government, is difficult to imagine.

Of course the ghost of Vietnam has already been raised by opponents of the escalation, and while  The Recent Future definitely does not support the Obama plan, it’s time for America to get out from under the aura of failure that Vietnam conjures. Yes this new policy comes as too little too late. Yes the original goal in Afghanistan of eradicating al Qaeda has long since become a lost opportunity. Yes we are now going to war for “regime change” – possibly the very worst reason for any nation to go to war.

But we’re there. Comparisons with Vietnam are now counter-productive: now the goal of the loyal opposition should be to cut the losses to the minimum, to change policy and direct it into more rational directions. Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam isn’t doing our troops on the ground any good, nor is it doing the political landscape at home any good. This isn’t Vietnam, it’s Afghanistan. This isn’t 1966, it’s 2009. We need to do everything possible to make the word “Afghanistan” a symbol of rational, reasoned change from military action to civilian diplomatic solutions. Forty years from now, when someone compares a President’s policy to “Afghanistan”, we want it to mean success via the application of peace, rather than failure through the application of war.

The orders have been given. All that’s left is to give the speech before a bunch of strapping young cadets and install the procurator Augusti. Thirty-six thousand more troopsThirty thousand more troops, $1 million a piece, per year. More IEDs in response. More bombs. More night searches. More economic damage. Hope. Change.

We’ve seen planes in the windows of buildings crumbled in
We’ve seen flames send the chills through London
And we’ve sent planes to kill them
But some of them were children
And still we crumbling the building
–Flobots, “Stand Up”

This evening, the Austin Peace and Justice Center organized a vigil to mourn the escalation outside of the offices of Senator John Cornyn. I decided to attend the vigil, even though I’d have to be late because of work. I drove down to 6th and Lavaca. I didn’t have a sign, but if they had candles, I’d gladly join in. No luck. When I drove past, I saw between a half-dozen and a dozen participants, some in costume, most with signs, but no candles. At most, I could stand there with them and hope not to be mistaken for a pedestrian waiting for a light. Maybe it was a cop-out, but I decided I could do more here at my kitchen table on my laptop to voice my opposition to the war than by standing without a sign on a street corner.

From Lavaca, I turned right on 7th to make my way to I-35, which would take me home. As I rounded the corner, a flock of black birds swooped and circled above. This is that strange time of the migratory birds in Austin, when thousands upon thousands of dark, screeching shapes fill the air, swarm the telephone poles, perch on the the power lines. I’ve never lived anywhere that was such a gathering place for this many birds in the fall. Tonight at dusk they were particularly agitated, diving and jerking in mad formations, the air thick with them. They thinned enough as I drove toward I-35 that I could pay more attention to my surroundings. That’s when I saw the intersection of 7th and Neches.

The Austin Resource Center for the Homeless, ARCH, sits on that street corner. Tonight, the homeless were as thick as the birds, crowding all the way around the block. The sound of the crowd’s chatter temporarily blocked that of the birds as I drove by with my window cracked. Some talked, some shouted, some sang, all while they waited for help to get through a chilly, rainy night. One million dollars per troop, per year, I thought. Guns or butter.

Then, I thought, We’re all going to Hell for this.

We shall not be moved
Except by a child with no socks and shoes
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
–Flobots,  “Stand Up”

I left D.C. when I could no longer tolerate the dissonance between my claim to be a Christian and the Democratic Party’s choice to call for escalation in Afghanistan over against Bush’s plans for continued war in Iraq. But what the fuck have I done in the year-and-a-half since to end this war? Written a few blog posts? Provided nonviolence training to a whole four people? Is that it?

Dark shapes wheeled and screeched in the sky overhead.

Underfunded but we still don’t understand
Under God but we kill like the son of Sam
But if you feel like I feel like about the son of man
We will overcome
–Flobots, “Stand Up”

We’ll hear a lot of the same blood-soaked concern for Afghans in the next 24 hours: how what we’re doing there is really for their own good, how we’ll protect the virtue of the Afghan women with our lances and horses drones and machine guns, how this is all really love for neighbor in the end. The truth is that the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with love and compassion. Nothing. It has to do with fear: fear of terrorism and fear of death, fear of looking “weak on defense,” fear of losing face. I’ll be shocked if we don’t see footage of towers falling this week on the news. We’ll rationalize this fear response (relentlessly overstimulated by politicians and news corporations manipulating it for power and profit over the past 8 years) by covering it in the gold-leaf of just war theory and chivalry, but it remains an ugly overreaction to fear.

Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States. It never was. Islamic terrorism has managed to kill as many Americans in 40 years as car crashes kill every month in the United States. Car crashes spread out all over the place, though, don’t sell papers or advertising. You can’t get “the picture” for it. You can’t put an image of 3,500 car crashes on the front of the website or the paper or in the B-roll for your TV news story. But knock a couple of buildings down and put up pictures of big scary brown people in funny hats, and you’ve got yourself tens of millions of high-intensity fear responses that keep people coming back for more. Remind me to take a breath and count to ten next time I hear the “we can’t just leave!!!” line from someone who drove to work that day. I might need to regain control of myself.

President Obama declared himself a Christian before and after the campaign. He said the Sermon on the Mount was central to his faith.You don’t need six policy reviews and a circle of policy advisers to know what Jesus taught about violence. Jesus’ rejection of violence is as cut and dry as it comes in Scripture, what John L. MacKenzie calls “the clearest of teachings,” so clear, in fact, that if we cannot say that Jesus taught absolute nonviolence, then we can know nothing of him. But just for the record:

“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” [Matthew 5:44]

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’” [Matthew 26:52]

“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also…” [Luke 6:27]

“But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” [Luke 6:35]

Seems to me that, as the President once said, “folks haven’t been readin’ their Bibles, now.”

We shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
Except by a woman dying from a loss of food
Except by a freedom fighter bleeding on a cross for you
–Flobots, “Stand Up”

We are picking up speed on the slippery slope of escalation. During the campaign, President Obama led the public to believe that he would consider sending “two, maybe three” additional brigades to Afghanistan. That’s about 12,000 troops, or about 5,000 fewer than he ordered in his first escalation. For his second escalation, he’s sending roughly three times the total troop increase on which he campaigned. Gone are the “he said he was going to do it before we elected him” defenses. Please point me to the moment in the campaign where we were debating 50,000 more troops.

The way out of Afghanistan is not to go further in. The president’s decision to add more troops is a mistake that will result in deep costs which we cannot afford; increased U.S. casualties; and increased civilian casualties as our troop increase further raises the temperature in the conflict. Reports indicate he’ll discuss the “off ramps” in his speech. Contemplating an exit from Afghanistan is notable and necessary. However, “exit strategy” remains only rhetoric as long as our troop levels continue to rise in that country. The president should immediately begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

It’s time for us to realize that the official processes for conveying dissent on this issue have failed.

So if you’ve got a dream and a lot to do
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
–Flobots, “Stand Up”

It’s cold and it’s rainy, but it’s time to get off the computer and get out in the street. Here’s a prayer to help keep you warm:

One:  Let us pray – You have learned how it is said
All:  Love your neighbor and hate your enemy
One:  But I say this to you who are listening
All:  Love your enemies
One:  Do good to those who hate you
All:  Bless those who curse you
One:  Be compassionate
All:  Judge not
One:  Do not condemn
All:  Grant pardon
One:  Because the amount you measure out
All:  Is the amount you will be given back
One:  Let everything you do
All:  Be done in love
One:  Blessed are the poor
All:  For theirs is the kingdom of God
One:  Blessed are they who mourn now
All:  For they will be comforted
One:  Blessed are the meek
All:  For they will inherit the earth
One:  Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice
All:  For they will be satisfied
One:  Blessed are the merciful
All:  For they will be shown mercy
One:  Blessed are the pure in heart
All:  For they will see God
One:  Blessed are the peacemakers
All:  For they will be called the daughters and sons of God
One:  Blessed are they who are persecuted because of righteousness
All:  For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

One:  Deliver us, O God
All:  Guide our feet in the ways of your peace.
One:  In humility, we ask
All:  Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.
One:  In humility, we ask
All:  Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.
One:  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All:  Have mercy on us
One:  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All:  Free us from the bondage of sin and death
One:  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All:  Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.

One:  For the victims of war
All:  Have mercy
One: Women, men and children
All:  Have mercy
One:  The maimed and the crippled
All:  Have mercy
One:  The abandoned and the homeless
All:  Have mercy
One:  The imprisoned and the tortured
All:  Have mercy
One:  The widowed and the orphaned
All:  Have mercy
One:  The bleeding and the dying
All:  Have mercy
One:  The weary and the desperate
All:  Have mercy
One:  The lost and the forsaken
All:  Have mercy
One:  For those fleeing in terror
All:  Have mercy

One:  For our scorched and blackened earth
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For the scandal of billions wasted in war
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For our leaders who wage war in our name
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For our Caesars and our Herods
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For our generals and tacticians
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For the men and women in battle
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For the men and women training for war
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For the scientists and researchers
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For the arms dealers and the merchants of death
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  For our taxes that fund the evil of war
All:  Forgive us for we know not what we do
One:  Deliver us, O God
All:  Guide our feet into the ways of peace
One:  In humility, we ask
All:  Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.

One:  From the arrogance of power
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the poverty of violence
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the tyranny of greed
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the ugliness of racism
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the politics of hypocrisy
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the hysteria of nationalism
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the cancer of hatred
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the seduction of wealth
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the addiction of control
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the avarice of imperialism
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the idolatry of national security
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the despair of fatalism
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the violence of apathy
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the filth of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the profanity of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the necessity of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the madness of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the blasphemy of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the brutality of war
All:  Deliver us
One:  From the demonic waste of war and of preparation for war
All:  Deliver us
One:  Deliver us, O God
All:  Guide our feet into the ways of peace
One:  In humility, we ask
All:  Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.

One:  Obedience to God comes before obedience to human authority
All:  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s
One:  Let your will be done, not mine
All:  With the help of God’s grace
One:  Let us resist and confront evil everywhere we find it
All:  With the help of God’s grace
One:  With the waging of war
All:  We will not comply
One:  With all preparation and training for war
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the forces of fear
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the legalization of murder
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the legalization of genocide
All:  We will not comply
One:  With laws that betray human life
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the bombing of civilians
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the bombing of cities
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the violating of our earth
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the destruction of peoples
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the raping of women
All:  We will not comply
One:  With governments that are blind to the sanctity of life
All:  We will not comply
One:  With economic structures that impoverish and dehumanize
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the manipulation and control of public information
All:  We will not comply
One:  With economics that manufacture instruments of death
All:  We will not comply
One:  With economics that practice the use of instruments of death
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the perpetuation of violence
All:  We will not comply
One:  With structures that divide rich from poor
All:  We will not comply
One:  With the hypocrisy of political maneuvering
All:  We will not comply

One:  With the help of God’s grace
All:  We will struggle for justice
One:  With the compassion of Christ
All:  We will stand for what is true
One:  With God’s abiding kindness
All:  We will love even our enemies
One:  With the love of Christ
All:  We will resist all evil
One:  With God’s unending faithfulness
All:  We will work to build the beloved community
One:  With Christ’s passionate love
All:  We will carry the cross
One:  With God’s overwhelming goodness
All:  We will walk as pilgrims of peace
One:  With Christ’s fervent conviction
All:  We will labour for truth
One:  With God’s infinite mercy
All:  We will live in solidarity with all people
One:  In the end there are three things that last
All:  Faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love
One:  Let us abide in God’s love
All:  Thanks be to God.
–The Litany of Resistance

Note: Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal. Say no to escalation in Afghanistan by signing our CREDO petition at http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/saynotoescalation/. For each signature, CREDO will donate a dollar to support Crowe’s work. You can also join Brave New Foundation’s #NoWar candlelight vigil on Facebook and Twitter to show your opposition to the war. But make these your first steps as an activist to end this war, not your last.

I just got the following error message in my Dynamics AX Workflow history. It appears that the original context record for this workflow instance (purch req) was deleted, and when workflow tried to escalate the work item it failed as the PurchReq no longer existed. One needs to add the relevant checks to ensure that the original context records cannot be deleted while it is in workflow.

Stopped (error): Error in call of method EventContextInformation.unpack

Full Error log:

Exception thrown in     :
 Workflow work item escalation failed: 
   Error in call of method EventContextInformation.unpack

There have been many important events over the past few months that were in no way coincidental: President Obama traveled to Europe and Asia; the announcement of yet another “incentive” deal to quiet North Korea; the visit to China to attempt to stabilize relations; Obama has been holding high-level meetings on Afghanistan policy; and this week the state visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. All of these events point to a massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

It is actually Manmohan Singh’s visit that is the most telling. India and Pakistan have been at odds with each other for half a century, and both now have nuclear weapons. It is in India’s interest that Pakistan is governed by a stable democratic regime, and in particular that Pakistan does not gain control of Afghanistan under a fundamentalist regime. India has already contributed over one billion dollars to the Afghan War effort, and will most certainly contribute more. Solidarity between the U.S. and India is a key element of any Afghan policy that involves ramping-up the war effort.

Obama has been mending international relations that were severely damaged by the Bush administration’s arrogant attitude toward our overseas allies. He is attempting to put foreign policy distractions like North Korea on the back burner as well as trying to strengthen our economic ties to China – Obama knows the struggle to turn the economy around is key to the struggle to turn Afghanistan around. While party partisans and professional critics have been accusing him of dithering on Afghan policy, Obama has been laying the groundwork for a concerted effort to fight and win in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately both history and his fellow politicians are against him. Afghanistan is a particularly tough region to get a handle on. Because of its strategic location between East and West Asia the area has changed hands regularly throughout its history, first taken by one empire, then another, then another. As with many mid-Eastern nations the modern version of Afghanistan came into being as a result of World War One, when it was created from whole cloth at the 1919 Paris meetings between France, Britain, and America. The British couldn’t hold on to it, nor the Russians, and there is little reason to think we can do any better. It is a hard, mountainous, difficult country populated by a hard, difficult people who seem to insist on independence from well-meaning foreign invaders.

On the political side, Obama will need Congressional cooperation to implement any large-scale Afghan operations. But Congress cares little for presidents or policies when surfing the oscillating waves of public opinion. Congress has two priorities: keep raising money, and stay in office. They can no more think in terms long-range strategy than American CEOs can.

But it seems certain that President Obama is about to announce a major new war effort in a country that has seen little else for the past 2,000 years. The question is how well has he laid the groundwork, and how many of our allies will be on-board. Expect him to have good reasons for the effort, and to offer a clear strategy for getting in, winning, and getting out. But also expect reality to make all of that moot, as it always does in war. Very few wars have ever gone as planned, and almost all have become larger than anticipated, and difficult or impossible to control. War breeds war.

posted by GeoT
“Not Open Ended…” (9 years later)

President Barack Obama has issued orders for the implementation of his Afghanistan strategy to military officials and cabinet members, spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Monday.

“The Commander in Chief delivered the orders,” said Gibbs, adding that the calls went out from the Oval Office between 5 and 6 p.m on Sunday afternoon, communicating his strategy to allied world leaders. Obama is slated to meet with roughly 30 select members of Congress to discuss his plans on Tuesday. And the president is set to meet on Monday with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in addition to hosting phone conversations with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

Obama’s strategy is believed to include an escalation of approximately 30,000 troops in the nine-year-long war. Gibbs added that in Obama’s Tuesday night speech detailing the Afghanistan strategy to the American public, the president will stress that America’s commitment to the war is not open-ended.

source:

LiveStream: The White House

November 30, 2009 1:00 PM EST
November 30, 2009 1:15 PM EST

An Open Letter To President Obama From Michael Moore

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night ( and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.

read more: www.michaelmoore.com