ROME — Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa insisted that Italy would not withdraw from Afghanistan after a key ally of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi called for a troop pullout, in an interview published Monday.
Umberto Bossi, the reform minister and head of the anti-immigrant Northern League, said at the weekend that he "would bring them all home" after three Italian soldiers were slightly wounded in Afghanistan.
Asked if there was a date for the return of Italian soldiers, La Russa told Corriere della Sera: "I don't know. Not right now. We will come home when the mission is finished: when the Afghan government will be able to control its territory, when the army and police will be able to face off with the rebels."
La Russa downplayed the comments made by Bossi, whose Northern League gives the conservative Berlusconi a clear majority in parliament.
"These last few years, Bossi has become softer, a good family man. And he said this phrase at the end of a party ... in a family atmosphere. But there is no controversy within the government," La Russa said.
But a second minister from the Northern League, Roberto Calderoli, said Italians want the troops to come home. Italy has around 3,250 soldiers in Afghanistan taking part in a NATO-led mission in the war-scarred country.
"The majority of Italians think like Bossi," he told la Repubblica newspaper.
Citing "a problem of financial resources," Calderoli said Italy should review its missions abroad, including in Lebanon and the Balkans.
"If we don't have them (financial resources), let's return home. Lebanon and the Balkans, we drop them, and regarding Afghanistan, let's think about it," he said.
La Russa said he did not expect the Northern League to vote against foreign military missions in the future but admitted that it would be "a problem" if it did so.
"We are members of NATO, which entails rights and duties. Returning (troops to Italy) would have economic and political consequences," he said.
Friday, July 31, 2009
July Worst US Month in Afghanistan, Best in Iraq
By Al Pessin
The Pentagon
31 July 2009
A US Navy member awaits a team to carry transfer case containing remains of a US Navy Airman Darren Ethan Tate in Del., 09 Jul 2009
The month of July had the highest death toll for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago, and the lowest death toll in Iraq since that war began six years ago. In Afghanistan, at least 43 Americans were killed, among 75 coalition troops. In Iraq, the U.S. death toll was seven.
The statistics reflect the changing role of U.S. troops in both war zones.
In Iraq, American combat forces left the populated areas at the end of June. Only U.S. trainers operate with Iraqi units in the cities, while combat troops work in the countryside or wait on their bases in case Iraqi units need help.
In Afghanistan, by contrast, thousands of U.S. troops have been pouring in, part of the near doubling of the American military presence ordered by President Barack Obama. About 4,000 of those troops, along with British and Afghan forces, launched an offensive in southern Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold, and took heavy casualties.
Former State Department official Wayne White, now of the Middle East Institute, says high U.S. casualty rates in Afghanistan will likely continue for some time.
"As we ramp up our presence and we go after these bad guys who are very tough skilled fighters, seemingly much more capable of sustained combat than even the Iraqi insurgents, we will see higher U.S. casualties," he said.
People gather around the wreckage of car destroyed in car bomb explosion near a Shiite mosque in Baghdad, Iraq, 31 Jul 2009
White is also concerned that U.S. casualties in Iraq could rise again, if security deteriorates and the Iraqi military asks for help in some areas. But he says Iraqi leaders will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. The United States is scheduled to sharply reduce its troop presence in Iraq next year, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week that process could start earlier than planned if the security situation remains stable.
In Afghanistan, an opposite move is being contemplated. Civilian advisers to the new U.S. and NATO commander, General Stanley McChrystal said this week they have told him he needs more U.S. troops to put down the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The general's decision on what to ask Secretary Gates and President Obama to provide is expected in about two weeks.
Wayne White says General McChrystal's assessment and possible troop request may not be what the top officials want to hear.
"He's got a big task ahead of him. And I believe that probably the administration will be even more surprised than it has been over how badly the situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan, and may have to send him additional troops, with great reluctance on their part," said White.
That reluctance stems from a concern Secretary Gates has expressed about possibly alienating some Afghans by having a very large U.S. troop presence, and from a desire not to have more months like July with high American casualty figures.
By Al Pessin
The Pentagon
31 July 2009
A US Navy member awaits a team to carry transfer case containing remains of a US Navy Airman Darren Ethan Tate in Del., 09 Jul 2009
The month of July had the highest death toll for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago, and the lowest death toll in Iraq since that war began six years ago. In Afghanistan, at least 43 Americans were killed, among 75 coalition troops. In Iraq, the U.S. death toll was seven.
The statistics reflect the changing role of U.S. troops in both war zones.
In Iraq, American combat forces left the populated areas at the end of June. Only U.S. trainers operate with Iraqi units in the cities, while combat troops work in the countryside or wait on their bases in case Iraqi units need help.
In Afghanistan, by contrast, thousands of U.S. troops have been pouring in, part of the near doubling of the American military presence ordered by President Barack Obama. About 4,000 of those troops, along with British and Afghan forces, launched an offensive in southern Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold, and took heavy casualties.
Former State Department official Wayne White, now of the Middle East Institute, says high U.S. casualty rates in Afghanistan will likely continue for some time.
"As we ramp up our presence and we go after these bad guys who are very tough skilled fighters, seemingly much more capable of sustained combat than even the Iraqi insurgents, we will see higher U.S. casualties," he said.
People gather around the wreckage of car destroyed in car bomb explosion near a Shiite mosque in Baghdad, Iraq, 31 Jul 2009
White is also concerned that U.S. casualties in Iraq could rise again, if security deteriorates and the Iraqi military asks for help in some areas. But he says Iraqi leaders will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. The United States is scheduled to sharply reduce its troop presence in Iraq next year, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week that process could start earlier than planned if the security situation remains stable.
In Afghanistan, an opposite move is being contemplated. Civilian advisers to the new U.S. and NATO commander, General Stanley McChrystal said this week they have told him he needs more U.S. troops to put down the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The general's decision on what to ask Secretary Gates and President Obama to provide is expected in about two weeks.
Wayne White says General McChrystal's assessment and possible troop request may not be what the top officials want to hear.
"He's got a big task ahead of him. And I believe that probably the administration will be even more surprised than it has been over how badly the situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan, and may have to send him additional troops, with great reluctance on their part," said White.
That reluctance stems from a concern Secretary Gates has expressed about possibly alienating some Afghans by having a very large U.S. troop presence, and from a desire not to have more months like July with high American casualty figures.
Israel and Afghanistan are similar in one respect: neither will ever really be a threat because the population is so individualized, and so prone to dissent, that they have never in history stood together in significant masse on any real issue. There is always safe haven for alternative viewpoints. Even the Taliban has been massively contested before, during, and after its rule and inception.
Give them a chance as they say, and they'll get it right.
Give them a chance as they say, and they'll get it right.
Keep tax dollars out of war zones
First published in print: Thursday, July 30, 2009
Most Americans are unaware of how much of their tax dollars have gone to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last eight years.
Congress recently appropriated another $84.8 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of the 2009 fiscal year ending Sept. 30, bringing total war-related spending for Iraq to $687 billion and for Afghanistan to $228 billion, with a total war cost of $915.1 billion.
To put these figures into perspective, the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research organization, calculated spending per congressional district, and looked at what the money would have bought in the form of domestic services. Here's how the Capital Region looks:
Congressional District 20: The district's share comes to $2.8 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided (nationally): 965,992 children with health care for one year or 5.2 million homes with renewable electricity for one year.
Congressional District 21: The district's share of $2.5 billion could have provided 286,188 Head Start places for children for a year, or 48,480 public safety officers for a year.
I am alarmed and disappointed by the lost services because of war funding. The continued funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars into war is unacceptable and wrong, especially when the Capital Region and other communities across the U.S. are suffering the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Our national security and opportunities for a lasting global peace are strengthened and achieved when direct international support enables populations (especially the women and children) to become socially, economically and politically empowered to end tyranny, corruption and violence.
Brian Trautman
Rensselaer
First published in print: Thursday, July 30, 2009
Most Americans are unaware of how much of their tax dollars have gone to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last eight years.
Congress recently appropriated another $84.8 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of the 2009 fiscal year ending Sept. 30, bringing total war-related spending for Iraq to $687 billion and for Afghanistan to $228 billion, with a total war cost of $915.1 billion.
To put these figures into perspective, the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research organization, calculated spending per congressional district, and looked at what the money would have bought in the form of domestic services. Here's how the Capital Region looks:
Congressional District 20: The district's share comes to $2.8 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided (nationally): 965,992 children with health care for one year or 5.2 million homes with renewable electricity for one year.
Congressional District 21: The district's share of $2.5 billion could have provided 286,188 Head Start places for children for a year, or 48,480 public safety officers for a year.
I am alarmed and disappointed by the lost services because of war funding. The continued funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars into war is unacceptable and wrong, especially when the Capital Region and other communities across the U.S. are suffering the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Our national security and opportunities for a lasting global peace are strengthened and achieved when direct international support enables populations (especially the women and children) to become socially, economically and politically empowered to end tyranny, corruption and violence.
Brian Trautman
Rensselaer
Afghanistan
By Doug Stanton
(Scribner; 393 pages; $28)
The Obama administration hopes that Operation Khanjar, or Dagger Strike, will reclaim southern Afghanistan from the Taliban. The surge in fighting in Helmand province, followed by development, is intended to regain momentum in the faltering war effort and to reverse Afghanistan's downward spiral. It comes on the eve of Afghan presidential elections already delayed once because of insecurity.
Across the border, the Pakistani army has launched its own offensive. Punctuated by dramatic U.S. drone strikes, these operations have produced uncertain results against militants in the tribal areas but have unleashed an appalling humanitarian crisis within Pakistan by creating 2.5 million refugees.
While most Americans are focused on the recession, America's two war theaters - one in Iraq, the other stretching across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border - have quietly been transformed by harrowing demographic upheaval. Long the world's largest refugee population, 3 million Afghans remain abroad. Recent fighting has displaced a quarter-million people internally. More than 1.5 million Iraqis have fled their country, and 2.7 million more remain internally displaced. Far from the view of the United States, 10 million men, women and children languish in tent cities and other insecure surroundings with only the dimmest of prospects for returning to stable homes.
Few in Washington could have imagined in 2001 that American efforts to secure the country against terrorism would have shaped a landscape haunted by ghostly flows of millions of homeless and uprooted - migrations of biblical scale, whose consequences may be with us for generations. The question of political imagination is critical.
So what were the architects of the war in Afghanistan thinking? In "The Graveyard of Empires," Seth G. Jones, a political scientist who conducted hundreds of interviews in the United States and Afghanistan, offers a valuable window onto how officials have understood the military campaign. Initially scornful of "nation building," the Bush administration tried to stabilize the country on the cheap. It then shifted resources to Iraq.
In "Horse Soldiers," journalist Doug Stanton paints a colorful, if oversize, portrait of the resourceful warriors who implemented these policies under dicey conditions in northern Afghanistan in 2001. Having hurriedly improvised their supplies by shopping at REI and ordering from Shotgun News, they hit the ground with guns, vodka for the local strongman and feed for the horses that they would ride (the first time in the saddle for most) into battle.
Neither author intended to write an expose, and both are generally fawning toward military authorities in particular. Stanton casts his story as a heroic Western. Jones spares most of the important policymakers from criticism, except then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. Instead, he points the finger for the "squandering" of the American victory implausibly at a tight-fisted bureaucratic agency, the Office of Management and Budget. He also faults corrupt Afghan officials and the Europeans, echoing U.S. soldiers who have given ISAF, NATO's International Security Assistance Force, their own translation: "I Saw Americans Fight" or "I Suck at Fighting."
But each account, in its own way, reveals that American civilian and military elites, abetted by social scientists in think tanks and universities, have a wildly distorted view of their capacity to remake far-flung parts of the world. Stanton quotes a Special Forces operative who likened his team's fight with the Taliban to a battle between "The Jetsons" and "the Flintstones." Another "had the job of getting inside" the head of Abdul Rashid Dostum, the strongman with whom Special Forces collaborated, and "predicting what he would do even before Dostum himself knew" (even if he did not speak any of Dostum's many languages).
Despite disagreements between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rumsfeld, Jones tells us, there was broad agreement, as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage put it, that "Panama was a good model for stabilizing Afghanistan." In one of the most insightful parts of Jones' book, we learn that there was also a consensus, based on a misreading of the Soviet experience, that a "light footprint" would avoid the quagmire that the Soviets faced. (In fact, Jones shows, the Soviets were undermanned. Confined to cities, they left the countryside to the guerrillas, much as the coalition forces have today.)
In short, the United States mistook the Taliban for a movement from the Stone Age that could be easily vanquished by modern technology and technocratic governance. Drawing mechanically on dubious historical examples, policymakers believed that the Latin American interventions that toppled Manuel Noriega in Panama and others could be replicated in Central Asia. In reality, the United States is not sure whom it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Many readers will find "Horse Soldiers" entertaining as a kind of adventure story, and even skeptics will admire the courage of its heroes. Those searching for a more sober account will appreciate "In the Graveyard of Empires" and the author's case for government reform as the most fundamental solution to Afghanistan's problems. Yet both books unwittingly offer other lessons: They expose a staggering myopia on the part of U.S. political elites who imagine that they can reshape the world by force of arms - a misjudgment whose results growing masses of refugees and civilian casualties must bear, far from America's shores.
Robert D. Crews, an assistant professor of history at Stanford, co-edited "The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan" (Harvard University Press, 2008). E-mail him at books@sfchronicle.com.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/31/RV7F18S4JA.DTL#ixzz0Mt8vKPGC
By Doug Stanton
(Scribner; 393 pages; $28)
The Obama administration hopes that Operation Khanjar, or Dagger Strike, will reclaim southern Afghanistan from the Taliban. The surge in fighting in Helmand province, followed by development, is intended to regain momentum in the faltering war effort and to reverse Afghanistan's downward spiral. It comes on the eve of Afghan presidential elections already delayed once because of insecurity.
Across the border, the Pakistani army has launched its own offensive. Punctuated by dramatic U.S. drone strikes, these operations have produced uncertain results against militants in the tribal areas but have unleashed an appalling humanitarian crisis within Pakistan by creating 2.5 million refugees.
While most Americans are focused on the recession, America's two war theaters - one in Iraq, the other stretching across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border - have quietly been transformed by harrowing demographic upheaval. Long the world's largest refugee population, 3 million Afghans remain abroad. Recent fighting has displaced a quarter-million people internally. More than 1.5 million Iraqis have fled their country, and 2.7 million more remain internally displaced. Far from the view of the United States, 10 million men, women and children languish in tent cities and other insecure surroundings with only the dimmest of prospects for returning to stable homes.
Few in Washington could have imagined in 2001 that American efforts to secure the country against terrorism would have shaped a landscape haunted by ghostly flows of millions of homeless and uprooted - migrations of biblical scale, whose consequences may be with us for generations. The question of political imagination is critical.
So what were the architects of the war in Afghanistan thinking? In "The Graveyard of Empires," Seth G. Jones, a political scientist who conducted hundreds of interviews in the United States and Afghanistan, offers a valuable window onto how officials have understood the military campaign. Initially scornful of "nation building," the Bush administration tried to stabilize the country on the cheap. It then shifted resources to Iraq.
In "Horse Soldiers," journalist Doug Stanton paints a colorful, if oversize, portrait of the resourceful warriors who implemented these policies under dicey conditions in northern Afghanistan in 2001. Having hurriedly improvised their supplies by shopping at REI and ordering from Shotgun News, they hit the ground with guns, vodka for the local strongman and feed for the horses that they would ride (the first time in the saddle for most) into battle.
Neither author intended to write an expose, and both are generally fawning toward military authorities in particular. Stanton casts his story as a heroic Western. Jones spares most of the important policymakers from criticism, except then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. Instead, he points the finger for the "squandering" of the American victory implausibly at a tight-fisted bureaucratic agency, the Office of Management and Budget. He also faults corrupt Afghan officials and the Europeans, echoing U.S. soldiers who have given ISAF, NATO's International Security Assistance Force, their own translation: "I Saw Americans Fight" or "I Suck at Fighting."
But each account, in its own way, reveals that American civilian and military elites, abetted by social scientists in think tanks and universities, have a wildly distorted view of their capacity to remake far-flung parts of the world. Stanton quotes a Special Forces operative who likened his team's fight with the Taliban to a battle between "The Jetsons" and "the Flintstones." Another "had the job of getting inside" the head of Abdul Rashid Dostum, the strongman with whom Special Forces collaborated, and "predicting what he would do even before Dostum himself knew" (even if he did not speak any of Dostum's many languages).
Despite disagreements between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rumsfeld, Jones tells us, there was broad agreement, as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage put it, that "Panama was a good model for stabilizing Afghanistan." In one of the most insightful parts of Jones' book, we learn that there was also a consensus, based on a misreading of the Soviet experience, that a "light footprint" would avoid the quagmire that the Soviets faced. (In fact, Jones shows, the Soviets were undermanned. Confined to cities, they left the countryside to the guerrillas, much as the coalition forces have today.)
In short, the United States mistook the Taliban for a movement from the Stone Age that could be easily vanquished by modern technology and technocratic governance. Drawing mechanically on dubious historical examples, policymakers believed that the Latin American interventions that toppled Manuel Noriega in Panama and others could be replicated in Central Asia. In reality, the United States is not sure whom it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Many readers will find "Horse Soldiers" entertaining as a kind of adventure story, and even skeptics will admire the courage of its heroes. Those searching for a more sober account will appreciate "In the Graveyard of Empires" and the author's case for government reform as the most fundamental solution to Afghanistan's problems. Yet both books unwittingly offer other lessons: They expose a staggering myopia on the part of U.S. political elites who imagine that they can reshape the world by force of arms - a misjudgment whose results growing masses of refugees and civilian casualties must bear, far from America's shores.
Robert D. Crews, an assistant professor of history at Stanford, co-edited "The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan" (Harvard University Press, 2008). E-mail him at books@sfchronicle.com.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/31/RV7F18S4JA.DTL#ixzz0Mt8vKPGC
The Ball jar company confirmed this week that sales of canning jars are up thirty percent this year. Hundreds of news stories from around the web discuss how canning has been becoming something of a lost art, and people are delighted to see it making a comeback. Peaches and pears and cherries ole.
More news from today.
As British troops wind down their role in the occupation of Iraq, Colombian troops are on their way to Afghanistan. CBS News is reporting a group of elite Colombian Special Operations forces are set to join the US occupation of Afghanistan as early as next month. Colombia is the top recipient of US aid in the Americas despite having one of its worst human rights records and the world’s second-largest internally displaced population after Sudan. A “top US official” told CBS News, “The more Afghanistan can look like Colombia, the better.”
8 Killed in Afghan Bombing
In other news from Afghanistan, eight people were killed Tuesday in a bombing of a NATO convoy in Helmand province. The victims were all Afghan contract workers hired to escort the convoy.
Afghanistan Offers to Repatriate Gitmo Teen
At Guantanamo Bay, a teenage Afghan prisoner has been transferred to a section reserved for those cleared for release. The prisoner, Mohamed Jawad, was as young as twelve at the time of his capture seven years ago in Afghanistan. Last week, the Obama administration admitted it could no longer hold Jawad as an enemy combatant after a federal judge ruled his confession was obtained through torture, but it had asked to continue imprisoning Jawad until deciding whether to bring him to the US for a criminal trial. On Tuesday, the Afghan government said it’s prepared to send a plane to bring Jawad home.
Rights Group Sues UK for Torture, Rendition of Ex-Gitmo Prisoner
In Britain, the human rights group Reprieve has filed suit against the British government over the rendition and torture of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner. Reprieve says Britain allowed the rendition of Mohammed Madni through the US airbase on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia. Madni spent three months in Egypt, where he was tortured and then sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he was jailed for six years until his 2008 release. Reprieve director Clive Stafford Smith called on the British government to issue an apology.
Clive Stafford Smith: “I think the first thing that the British government needs to say to Mr. Madni are three simple words: ‘We are sorry.’ You know, that’s the most important thing for a victim under these circumstances, and for Mr Madni, he wants to make sure that rules are set in place to make sure no one else is put in this situation in the future. He has suffered already, but he doesn’t want other people to suffer the sort of torture and abuse he’s been through.”
Smith says the case could bring the first official confirmation of British involvement in the rendition of US prisoners across multiple borders.
As British troops wind down their role in the occupation of Iraq, Colombian troops are on their way to Afghanistan. CBS News is reporting a group of elite Colombian Special Operations forces are set to join the US occupation of Afghanistan as early as next month. Colombia is the top recipient of US aid in the Americas despite having one of its worst human rights records and the world’s second-largest internally displaced population after Sudan. A “top US official” told CBS News, “The more Afghanistan can look like Colombia, the better.”
8 Killed in Afghan Bombing
In other news from Afghanistan, eight people were killed Tuesday in a bombing of a NATO convoy in Helmand province. The victims were all Afghan contract workers hired to escort the convoy.
Afghanistan Offers to Repatriate Gitmo Teen
At Guantanamo Bay, a teenage Afghan prisoner has been transferred to a section reserved for those cleared for release. The prisoner, Mohamed Jawad, was as young as twelve at the time of his capture seven years ago in Afghanistan. Last week, the Obama administration admitted it could no longer hold Jawad as an enemy combatant after a federal judge ruled his confession was obtained through torture, but it had asked to continue imprisoning Jawad until deciding whether to bring him to the US for a criminal trial. On Tuesday, the Afghan government said it’s prepared to send a plane to bring Jawad home.
Rights Group Sues UK for Torture, Rendition of Ex-Gitmo Prisoner
In Britain, the human rights group Reprieve has filed suit against the British government over the rendition and torture of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner. Reprieve says Britain allowed the rendition of Mohammed Madni through the US airbase on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia. Madni spent three months in Egypt, where he was tortured and then sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he was jailed for six years until his 2008 release. Reprieve director Clive Stafford Smith called on the British government to issue an apology.
Clive Stafford Smith: “I think the first thing that the British government needs to say to Mr. Madni are three simple words: ‘We are sorry.’ You know, that’s the most important thing for a victim under these circumstances, and for Mr Madni, he wants to make sure that rules are set in place to make sure no one else is put in this situation in the future. He has suffered already, but he doesn’t want other people to suffer the sort of torture and abuse he’s been through.”
Smith says the case could bring the first official confirmation of British involvement in the rendition of US prisoners across multiple borders.
It looks like my husband's tomato dreams are at long last a reality. Hundreds of tomatoes hang heavy on Phil's verdant vines, filling paths in our front yard, back alley and rooftop garden with leaves and ripening fruit. Green tape supports the thick stems that have outgrown metal cages; some are tied to neighbor's trees, some are secured to doorknobs rendering side doors nonoperational for the duration.
I look at those vines and envision rows of wide-mouthed, pint jars filled with crushed tomatoes. Red, juicy fruit, alluringly sweet yet balanced with herbaceous acidity.
Yes, canning is chic, evidenced by the burgeoning sales of canning jars. A sagging economy has fueled frugality. Those thrifty values along with the trend of eating locally grown produce have contributed to the can-at-home revival.
The result: A desk stacked with new canning books filled with great recipes and helpful tips. Here are two of my favorites:
"Well-Preserved: Recipes and Techniques for Putting Up Small Batches of Seasonal Foods" by Eugenia Bone (Clarkson Potter, $29.95)
This book is a jewel because it offers easy-to-follow, low-tech canning formulas and recipes that use each preserved product.
Bone's commonsense words make canning approachable. Her voice is that of a farmers' market devotee putting up produce at home in a small Manhattan kitchen. She says that even for people with busy lifestyles, canning can become part of a regular routine.
"Canning is significantly easier than remembering your pin code for your computer, or figuring out your Blackberry," she says. "It is the same as cooking; you just have to pay attention. If you are sautéing a piece of meat, you can't go and answer the phone and talk. It is the same with canning.
"If I need a pound of asparagus for dinner, I get three pounds. I use one more burner to put up 2 pounds of pickled asparagus. I can do that while I am hanging around the kitchen cooking dinner. I'm cooking anyway, and canning is just another part of that. I wish more people would realize that you can do this. It can become a lifestyle and no more difficult than anything else you do — like making your bed."
She says that her strategy is to buy and can seasonally, producing just enough to last until the next season. She only cans an amount that her family can eat.
"I want to finish out the year, no more than that," she says. "By the time June 20 shows up, I want to have finished all my Cherries in Wine from the previous year."
And as for economic benefits of canning Mr. Wonderful's tomato crop, she says to look at what I won't be buying in February — expensive vine-ripened out-of-season tomatoes.
"The more expensive the product determines the amount of savings," she says. "If your palate is demanding, the savings are greater, because you won't be looking for flavorful, expensive produce come winter.
"Besides, the tomatoes you can are so much better."
Delicious. I can hardly wait to sample my renditions of her Canned Tomatoes, Pickled Asparagus, and Cherries In Wine. And it will be helpful to have her recipes on hand for dishes that use those pantry treats.
"The Complete Book of Pickling: 250 Recipes, From Pickles and Relishes to Chutneys and Salsas" by Jennifer MacKenzie (Robert Rose, $24.95) is another great resource.
Home economist MacKenzie knows that pickled condiments can add gusto to otherwise humdrum meals. She became enamored with pickles as a child.
"I was lucky because my mom made a lot of pickles," MacKenzie says. "My Aunt Thelma's Bread-and-Butter Pickles are my first memory. I love to eat them, and I love to make them. I love them with grilled cheese sandwiches. But ironically, Thelma isn't my aunt. I found out she was a distant relation by marriage."
Most of her recipes offer big-batch yields. Her "aunt's" recipe yields 5 quart jars of pickles, a formula that uses 8 pounds of pickling cucumbers. But if you prefer, MacKenzie says you can make half a batch, warning that you may run out of pickles before the next cucumber season once everyone gets a taste.
For delectable appetizers, her Blueberry, Tart Apple and Onion Chutney is spooned atop small wedges of Brie cheese placed on bite-size slices of rustic nut bread. Made with fruit, vinegar, sugar and spices, it's a sweet-sour chunky concoction that is has the deep mahogany hue. She says it is also tasty on grilled chicken or sandwiches.
"I like to use it on a smoked turkey or ham sandwich," she says. "It adds a whole lot of life, much more than mustard or mayonnaise.
"And the Peach and Sweet Pepper Chutney is delicious, too. When we get peaches in season, they are so wonderful. I like to spoon this chutney on grilled fish or chicken or use it as a bruschetta topping (on thin, toasted slices of French baguette). It's very versatile."
Oh my, I think I'd better roll up my sleeves and clear some space in my pantry.
Recipe: Canned Tomatoes
Author Eugenia Bone says that Pickled Asparagus is often used as a condiment, but she likes to use a handful as a straight up vegetable. She also serves it as a first-course salad accompanied with hard-cooked eggs. She says that Jersey Giants, the purple-topped asparagus are delicious and meaty, but they will stain the vinegar solution. She says that's okay.
Recipe: Pickled Asparagus
Bone says that Cherries In Wine is delicious in both savory and sweet dishes. "I love having them on hand for unexpected company," she says. "All I have to do is dump 1/2 cup into a wineglass and top with whipped cream for an elegant dessert."
I look at those vines and envision rows of wide-mouthed, pint jars filled with crushed tomatoes. Red, juicy fruit, alluringly sweet yet balanced with herbaceous acidity.
Yes, canning is chic, evidenced by the burgeoning sales of canning jars. A sagging economy has fueled frugality. Those thrifty values along with the trend of eating locally grown produce have contributed to the can-at-home revival.
The result: A desk stacked with new canning books filled with great recipes and helpful tips. Here are two of my favorites:
"Well-Preserved: Recipes and Techniques for Putting Up Small Batches of Seasonal Foods" by Eugenia Bone (Clarkson Potter, $29.95)
This book is a jewel because it offers easy-to-follow, low-tech canning formulas and recipes that use each preserved product.
Bone's commonsense words make canning approachable. Her voice is that of a farmers' market devotee putting up produce at home in a small Manhattan kitchen. She says that even for people with busy lifestyles, canning can become part of a regular routine.
"Canning is significantly easier than remembering your pin code for your computer, or figuring out your Blackberry," she says. "It is the same as cooking; you just have to pay attention. If you are sautéing a piece of meat, you can't go and answer the phone and talk. It is the same with canning.
"If I need a pound of asparagus for dinner, I get three pounds. I use one more burner to put up 2 pounds of pickled asparagus. I can do that while I am hanging around the kitchen cooking dinner. I'm cooking anyway, and canning is just another part of that. I wish more people would realize that you can do this. It can become a lifestyle and no more difficult than anything else you do — like making your bed."
She says that her strategy is to buy and can seasonally, producing just enough to last until the next season. She only cans an amount that her family can eat.
"I want to finish out the year, no more than that," she says. "By the time June 20 shows up, I want to have finished all my Cherries in Wine from the previous year."
And as for economic benefits of canning Mr. Wonderful's tomato crop, she says to look at what I won't be buying in February — expensive vine-ripened out-of-season tomatoes.
"The more expensive the product determines the amount of savings," she says. "If your palate is demanding, the savings are greater, because you won't be looking for flavorful, expensive produce come winter.
"Besides, the tomatoes you can are so much better."
Delicious. I can hardly wait to sample my renditions of her Canned Tomatoes, Pickled Asparagus, and Cherries In Wine. And it will be helpful to have her recipes on hand for dishes that use those pantry treats.
"The Complete Book of Pickling: 250 Recipes, From Pickles and Relishes to Chutneys and Salsas" by Jennifer MacKenzie (Robert Rose, $24.95) is another great resource.
Home economist MacKenzie knows that pickled condiments can add gusto to otherwise humdrum meals. She became enamored with pickles as a child.
"I was lucky because my mom made a lot of pickles," MacKenzie says. "My Aunt Thelma's Bread-and-Butter Pickles are my first memory. I love to eat them, and I love to make them. I love them with grilled cheese sandwiches. But ironically, Thelma isn't my aunt. I found out she was a distant relation by marriage."
Most of her recipes offer big-batch yields. Her "aunt's" recipe yields 5 quart jars of pickles, a formula that uses 8 pounds of pickling cucumbers. But if you prefer, MacKenzie says you can make half a batch, warning that you may run out of pickles before the next cucumber season once everyone gets a taste.
For delectable appetizers, her Blueberry, Tart Apple and Onion Chutney is spooned atop small wedges of Brie cheese placed on bite-size slices of rustic nut bread. Made with fruit, vinegar, sugar and spices, it's a sweet-sour chunky concoction that is has the deep mahogany hue. She says it is also tasty on grilled chicken or sandwiches.
"I like to use it on a smoked turkey or ham sandwich," she says. "It adds a whole lot of life, much more than mustard or mayonnaise.
"And the Peach and Sweet Pepper Chutney is delicious, too. When we get peaches in season, they are so wonderful. I like to spoon this chutney on grilled fish or chicken or use it as a bruschetta topping (on thin, toasted slices of French baguette). It's very versatile."
Oh my, I think I'd better roll up my sleeves and clear some space in my pantry.
Recipe: Canned Tomatoes
Author Eugenia Bone says that Pickled Asparagus is often used as a condiment, but she likes to use a handful as a straight up vegetable. She also serves it as a first-course salad accompanied with hard-cooked eggs. She says that Jersey Giants, the purple-topped asparagus are delicious and meaty, but they will stain the vinegar solution. She says that's okay.
Recipe: Pickled Asparagus
Bone says that Cherries In Wine is delicious in both savory and sweet dishes. "I love having them on hand for unexpected company," she says. "All I have to do is dump 1/2 cup into a wineglass and top with whipped cream for an elegant dessert."
Afghanistan — “The Verbiage About ‘Democracy‘s War’”
The latest manifestation of the media monopoly reinforcing a “parliamentary consensus” involves the US-UK war on Afghanistan. In an article entitled, ‘Back our boys — they fight for your lives,’ Sue Carroll asks in the Mirror:
Enjoy your barbecue at the weekend? Sleep easy in your bed last night? Get to work without any problems? I trust you did because this is what liberty is all about. The right to live safely in a civilised community free from the oppression of thugs and fanatics who wouldn’t think twice about crushing our democracy and slaughtering us as we sleep.
It’s hard-earned, this easy living. Millions of men have died for our freedom and more are losing their lives in Afghanistan to protect us. So less of the hand-wringing please about whether we should or should not be fighting a war against the Taliban. It’s a no-brainer.
This is the approved propaganda view, not just of the current conflict, but of every war throughout history. The Telegraph comments:
“The conflict in Afghanistan is complex and difficult but it is, on balance, a war worth fighting to crush the camps which train terrorists for assaults on Western cities.”9
There are problems, in fact absurdities, but conveniently, the Telegraph reminds us, “The Obama surge is addressing all that.”9 Indeed, the Telegraph did a good job of explaining Obama’s utility and popularity right across the political spectrum:
“If this anti-Iraq war disciple of ‘soft power’ feels the need to put 20,000 more American troops in harm’s way, there surely must be good reason for concern.”10
We can be sure Obama knows best. Curiously, the disciple of “soft power” has (“temporarily”) increased the size of the US Army by 22,000 soldiers, raising the total number of active US soldiers from 547,000 to 569,000.
In 2004, an Egyptian academic described how hatred of the US is rooted in its support for “every possible anti-democratic government in the Arab-Islamic world… When we hear American officials speaking of freedom, democracy and such values, they make terms like these sound obscene.”11
The Financial Times reported: “while only might can destroy al-Qaeda, its expanding support base can be eroded only by policies Arabs and Muslims see as just”. Destroying al-Qaeda will therefore have little effect if “the underlying conditions that facilitated the group’s emergence and popularity – political oppression and economic marginalisation – will persist.”12
Two political scientists commented:
“Delicate social and political problems cannot be bombed or ‘missiled’ out of existence… Violence can be likened to a virus; the more you bombard it, the more it spreads.”13
Ami Ayalon, the head of Israel’s General Security Service (Shabak) from 1996 to 2000, has suggested that “those who want victory” against terror without addressing underlying grievances “want an unending war.”14
This appeared to be obvious to the editors of the Guardian in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. On September 15, 2001, a Guardian editorial observed:
“But America’s dilemma, once the verbiage about ‘democracy’s war’ and ‘freedom’s brightest beacon’ is cut away, is that its military options, to the extent that they are currently understood, are largely unsuited to the task in hand.
“Indeed, much of what appears to be under contemplation will just make matters worse. For consider: any major air and/or ground attack mounted against Afghanistan in pursuit of prime suspect Osama bin Laden will certainly produce civilian casualties. It may not produce Bin Laden (who may not even be there). Such an attack would inflame Muslim opinion and hand the terrorists a second triumph: following Manhattan, here would be the ‘holy war’ they have long sought to provoke.“15
Consider how the ideological blinkers had fallen over the Guardian’s eyes by 2006 in relation to “democracy’s war”, when it referred to “the foreigners helping steer this long-suffering country towards stability and democracy.”16
More recently, the Guardian noted that the reality in Afghanistan “is a country where security is getting worse and advances – such as democracy, the return of refugees and universal education – are under threat.”17
Not only had “the verbiage about ‘democracy’s war’” been more than verbiage, it had resulted in actual democracy, which was now under threat.
By striking contrast, the war correspondent Reginald Thompson commented on attempts to bring “democracy” to the Korean peninsula by force of arms in the 1950s. In his superb book, Cry Korea, published in 1951, Thompson wrote:
“What a mockery it was to name this kind of thing democracy! What a Quixotic business – at best – to try to establish it, to imagine it possible to establish an evolutionary result without evolution.”18
Thompson was even able to comprehend Chinese suspicions:
“But would the USA or the UN leave Korea? China might think not – it was already apparent to all observers that democracy is not a saleable commodity but an evolutionary growth in certain circumstances. It might take a long time to take root, even given the circumstances, in a peasant country like Korea, accustomed only to tyranny of one kind of another. So that the US and UN role might be reasonably that of conquerors and colonisers.”19
By contrast, an Independent leader comments:
“We need to be mentally prepared for the duration of this vital mission to secure Afghanistan’s democratic future, as well as the likely human cost.”20
Roger Alton, the pro-Iraq war editor of the Independent, remains onside:
The Western mission in Afghanistan, though overshadowed by the foolish invasion of Iraq and often poorly carried out these past eight years, remains a worthy one… Nato troops, including Britain’s contingent, are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai. And their purpose is to protect civilians from the depredations of the Taliban while the Afghan army builds up the capacity to take over the job.
They are also fighting for the protection of British citizens. Some three-quarters of UK terror plots under surveillance by the authorities have links to militants based on the Afghan/ Pakistan border. The Taliban granted al-Qa’ida a base before 2001. There is no reason to suppose they would not do the same again if they returned to power. Our own security is bound up with the safety of the Afghan people.20
In a rare departure from the propaganda norm, the Guardian published comments by former diplomat and deputy governor in occupied Iraq, Rory Stewart, now Ryan Family professor of the practice of human rights, Harvard University:
Afghanistan’s political and strategic significance has been grossly exaggerated. The idea that we are there so we don’t have to fight terrorists in Britain is absurd. The terrorist cells and training camps are not in Afghanistan. The people the Americans and British are fighting in Afghanistan are mostly local tribesmen resisting foreign forces. Does al-Qaida still require large terrorist training camps to organise attacks?
Could they not plan in Hamburg and train at flight schools in Florida; or meet in Bradford and build morale on an adventure training course in Wales? Those who argue that we have the right strategy provided we have enough troops and equipment were saying not long ago that if we had only had 7,000 troops in Helmand instead of 5,000, we could defeat the Taliban.
Impressively honest, but Stewart’s views on Afghanistan have been mentioned in a total of four articles in the entire UK national press. As ever, opinion that falls outside the parliamentary consensus “has difficulty in finding expression”.
The latest manifestation of the media monopoly reinforcing a “parliamentary consensus” involves the US-UK war on Afghanistan. In an article entitled, ‘Back our boys — they fight for your lives,’ Sue Carroll asks in the Mirror:
Enjoy your barbecue at the weekend? Sleep easy in your bed last night? Get to work without any problems? I trust you did because this is what liberty is all about. The right to live safely in a civilised community free from the oppression of thugs and fanatics who wouldn’t think twice about crushing our democracy and slaughtering us as we sleep.
It’s hard-earned, this easy living. Millions of men have died for our freedom and more are losing their lives in Afghanistan to protect us. So less of the hand-wringing please about whether we should or should not be fighting a war against the Taliban. It’s a no-brainer.
This is the approved propaganda view, not just of the current conflict, but of every war throughout history. The Telegraph comments:
“The conflict in Afghanistan is complex and difficult but it is, on balance, a war worth fighting to crush the camps which train terrorists for assaults on Western cities.”9
There are problems, in fact absurdities, but conveniently, the Telegraph reminds us, “The Obama surge is addressing all that.”9 Indeed, the Telegraph did a good job of explaining Obama’s utility and popularity right across the political spectrum:
“If this anti-Iraq war disciple of ‘soft power’ feels the need to put 20,000 more American troops in harm’s way, there surely must be good reason for concern.”10
We can be sure Obama knows best. Curiously, the disciple of “soft power” has (“temporarily”) increased the size of the US Army by 22,000 soldiers, raising the total number of active US soldiers from 547,000 to 569,000.
In 2004, an Egyptian academic described how hatred of the US is rooted in its support for “every possible anti-democratic government in the Arab-Islamic world… When we hear American officials speaking of freedom, democracy and such values, they make terms like these sound obscene.”11
The Financial Times reported: “while only might can destroy al-Qaeda, its expanding support base can be eroded only by policies Arabs and Muslims see as just”. Destroying al-Qaeda will therefore have little effect if “the underlying conditions that facilitated the group’s emergence and popularity – political oppression and economic marginalisation – will persist.”12
Two political scientists commented:
“Delicate social and political problems cannot be bombed or ‘missiled’ out of existence… Violence can be likened to a virus; the more you bombard it, the more it spreads.”13
Ami Ayalon, the head of Israel’s General Security Service (Shabak) from 1996 to 2000, has suggested that “those who want victory” against terror without addressing underlying grievances “want an unending war.”14
This appeared to be obvious to the editors of the Guardian in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. On September 15, 2001, a Guardian editorial observed:
“But America’s dilemma, once the verbiage about ‘democracy’s war’ and ‘freedom’s brightest beacon’ is cut away, is that its military options, to the extent that they are currently understood, are largely unsuited to the task in hand.
“Indeed, much of what appears to be under contemplation will just make matters worse. For consider: any major air and/or ground attack mounted against Afghanistan in pursuit of prime suspect Osama bin Laden will certainly produce civilian casualties. It may not produce Bin Laden (who may not even be there). Such an attack would inflame Muslim opinion and hand the terrorists a second triumph: following Manhattan, here would be the ‘holy war’ they have long sought to provoke.“15
Consider how the ideological blinkers had fallen over the Guardian’s eyes by 2006 in relation to “democracy’s war”, when it referred to “the foreigners helping steer this long-suffering country towards stability and democracy.”16
More recently, the Guardian noted that the reality in Afghanistan “is a country where security is getting worse and advances – such as democracy, the return of refugees and universal education – are under threat.”17
Not only had “the verbiage about ‘democracy’s war’” been more than verbiage, it had resulted in actual democracy, which was now under threat.
By striking contrast, the war correspondent Reginald Thompson commented on attempts to bring “democracy” to the Korean peninsula by force of arms in the 1950s. In his superb book, Cry Korea, published in 1951, Thompson wrote:
“What a mockery it was to name this kind of thing democracy! What a Quixotic business – at best – to try to establish it, to imagine it possible to establish an evolutionary result without evolution.”18
Thompson was even able to comprehend Chinese suspicions:
“But would the USA or the UN leave Korea? China might think not – it was already apparent to all observers that democracy is not a saleable commodity but an evolutionary growth in certain circumstances. It might take a long time to take root, even given the circumstances, in a peasant country like Korea, accustomed only to tyranny of one kind of another. So that the US and UN role might be reasonably that of conquerors and colonisers.”19
By contrast, an Independent leader comments:
“We need to be mentally prepared for the duration of this vital mission to secure Afghanistan’s democratic future, as well as the likely human cost.”20
Roger Alton, the pro-Iraq war editor of the Independent, remains onside:
The Western mission in Afghanistan, though overshadowed by the foolish invasion of Iraq and often poorly carried out these past eight years, remains a worthy one… Nato troops, including Britain’s contingent, are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai. And their purpose is to protect civilians from the depredations of the Taliban while the Afghan army builds up the capacity to take over the job.
They are also fighting for the protection of British citizens. Some three-quarters of UK terror plots under surveillance by the authorities have links to militants based on the Afghan/ Pakistan border. The Taliban granted al-Qa’ida a base before 2001. There is no reason to suppose they would not do the same again if they returned to power. Our own security is bound up with the safety of the Afghan people.20
In a rare departure from the propaganda norm, the Guardian published comments by former diplomat and deputy governor in occupied Iraq, Rory Stewart, now Ryan Family professor of the practice of human rights, Harvard University:
Afghanistan’s political and strategic significance has been grossly exaggerated. The idea that we are there so we don’t have to fight terrorists in Britain is absurd. The terrorist cells and training camps are not in Afghanistan. The people the Americans and British are fighting in Afghanistan are mostly local tribesmen resisting foreign forces. Does al-Qaida still require large terrorist training camps to organise attacks?
Could they not plan in Hamburg and train at flight schools in Florida; or meet in Bradford and build morale on an adventure training course in Wales? Those who argue that we have the right strategy provided we have enough troops and equipment were saying not long ago that if we had only had 7,000 troops in Helmand instead of 5,000, we could defeat the Taliban.
Impressively honest, but Stewart’s views on Afghanistan have been mentioned in a total of four articles in the entire UK national press. As ever, opinion that falls outside the parliamentary consensus “has difficulty in finding expression”.
Positively weird.
US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years
By DEVLIN BARRETT (AP) – 5 days ago
WASHINGTON — A year after government scientist Bruce Ivins killed himself while under investigation for the lethal anthrax letters of 2001, the Justice Department is on the verge of closing the long, costly and vexing case.
Several law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the department had tentatively planned last week to close the case, but backed away from that decision after government lawyers said they needed more time to review the evidence and determine what further information can be made public without compromising grand jury secrecy or privacy laws.
Officials told the AP the decision to close the case has been put off for what may be weeks, as the FBI and Justice Department continue to wrestle with an investigation that has led many to question the quality of their work and the certainty of their conclusions.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations about the case.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the discussions but said the agency and the FBI continue working to conclude the investigation. "We anticipate closing the case in the near future," Boyd added.
The anthrax letters were sent to lawmakers and news organizations as the nation reeled in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
With childish, blocky handwriting and chilling scientific expertise, the letters spread death through the mail.
The spores killed five people: Two Washington, D.C., postal workers, a New York City hospital worker, a Florida photo editor and a 94-year-old Connecticut woman who had no known contact with any of the poisoned letters. Seventeen other people were sickened.
For years, the FBI chased leads. Authorities tried to build a case against biowarfare expert Steven Hatfill, but ultimately had to pay him a multimillion-dollar settlement.
Then, last year, they announced that the mystery had been solved, but the suspect was dead. Authorities said in the days before the mailings, Ivins had logged unusual hours alone in his lab at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. They also say he threw investigators off his trail by supplying false leads as he ostensibly tried to help them find the killer.
As the FBI closed in on Ivins last summer, the 62-year-old microbiologist took a fatal overdose of Tylenol, dying on July 29, 2008. After Ivins' suicide, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the investigation found Ivins was the culprit, and prosecutors said they were confident he acted alone. Officials insisted they were on the verge of indicting him and could have convicted him.
Skeptics — including prominent lawmakers — pointed to the bureau's long, misguided pursuit of Hatfill, and noted there was no evidence suggesting Ivins was ever in New Jersey when the letters were mailed there.
This week, the National Academy of Sciences is set to begin a formal review of the FBI's scientific methods in tracing the particular strain of anthrax used in the mailings to samples Ivins had at his Fort Detrick lab.
Closing the case, even if some new details are released, seems unlikely to do much to sway those like Rep. Rush Holt, whose New Jersey district is home to some of the stricken postal workers.
"Most people affected — the families, the post office workers — will not feel there's closure in this case, and the people of New Jersey will not be able to be confident that there isn't still a murderer in their midst," said Holt.
Holt said the FBI built an "entirely circumstantial" case against Ivins.
"I watched as they went off on wild goose chases and then conveniently have a suspect who isn't around to defend himself," the New Jersey Democrat said. "Dr. Ivins was an oddball, no question, but you don't build a case on that."
In preparation for an announcement prosecutors had decided to close the "Amerithrax" case, investigators wrote a 110-page summary of their work, laying out the timeline of events over the past eight years, according to the officials speaking on condition of anonymity.
That 110-page review was pared down to about 40 pages, and then a still-shorter version. Now it's unclear if any of those documents will be released.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who was the target of one of the letters, has said he does not believe Ivins acted alone.
Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp, has long maintained that the scientist was innocent and would have been cleared at any trial. Some of Ivins' colleagues also doubt the FBI's conclusions.
Plenty of questions remain unanswered, whenever they close the investigation, Kemp said.
"The case continues to remain an open sore with no conclusive evidence, and it is still devastating to (Ivins') family," said Kemp.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press
US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years
By DEVLIN BARRETT (AP) – 5 days ago
WASHINGTON — A year after government scientist Bruce Ivins killed himself while under investigation for the lethal anthrax letters of 2001, the Justice Department is on the verge of closing the long, costly and vexing case.
Several law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the department had tentatively planned last week to close the case, but backed away from that decision after government lawyers said they needed more time to review the evidence and determine what further information can be made public without compromising grand jury secrecy or privacy laws.
Officials told the AP the decision to close the case has been put off for what may be weeks, as the FBI and Justice Department continue to wrestle with an investigation that has led many to question the quality of their work and the certainty of their conclusions.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations about the case.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the discussions but said the agency and the FBI continue working to conclude the investigation. "We anticipate closing the case in the near future," Boyd added.
The anthrax letters were sent to lawmakers and news organizations as the nation reeled in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
With childish, blocky handwriting and chilling scientific expertise, the letters spread death through the mail.
The spores killed five people: Two Washington, D.C., postal workers, a New York City hospital worker, a Florida photo editor and a 94-year-old Connecticut woman who had no known contact with any of the poisoned letters. Seventeen other people were sickened.
For years, the FBI chased leads. Authorities tried to build a case against biowarfare expert Steven Hatfill, but ultimately had to pay him a multimillion-dollar settlement.
Then, last year, they announced that the mystery had been solved, but the suspect was dead. Authorities said in the days before the mailings, Ivins had logged unusual hours alone in his lab at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. They also say he threw investigators off his trail by supplying false leads as he ostensibly tried to help them find the killer.
As the FBI closed in on Ivins last summer, the 62-year-old microbiologist took a fatal overdose of Tylenol, dying on July 29, 2008. After Ivins' suicide, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the investigation found Ivins was the culprit, and prosecutors said they were confident he acted alone. Officials insisted they were on the verge of indicting him and could have convicted him.
Skeptics — including prominent lawmakers — pointed to the bureau's long, misguided pursuit of Hatfill, and noted there was no evidence suggesting Ivins was ever in New Jersey when the letters were mailed there.
This week, the National Academy of Sciences is set to begin a formal review of the FBI's scientific methods in tracing the particular strain of anthrax used in the mailings to samples Ivins had at his Fort Detrick lab.
Closing the case, even if some new details are released, seems unlikely to do much to sway those like Rep. Rush Holt, whose New Jersey district is home to some of the stricken postal workers.
"Most people affected — the families, the post office workers — will not feel there's closure in this case, and the people of New Jersey will not be able to be confident that there isn't still a murderer in their midst," said Holt.
Holt said the FBI built an "entirely circumstantial" case against Ivins.
"I watched as they went off on wild goose chases and then conveniently have a suspect who isn't around to defend himself," the New Jersey Democrat said. "Dr. Ivins was an oddball, no question, but you don't build a case on that."
In preparation for an announcement prosecutors had decided to close the "Amerithrax" case, investigators wrote a 110-page summary of their work, laying out the timeline of events over the past eight years, according to the officials speaking on condition of anonymity.
That 110-page review was pared down to about 40 pages, and then a still-shorter version. Now it's unclear if any of those documents will be released.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who was the target of one of the letters, has said he does not believe Ivins acted alone.
Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp, has long maintained that the scientist was innocent and would have been cleared at any trial. Some of Ivins' colleagues also doubt the FBI's conclusions.
Plenty of questions remain unanswered, whenever they close the investigation, Kemp said.
"The case continues to remain an open sore with no conclusive evidence, and it is still devastating to (Ivins') family," said Kemp.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press
Citigroup is projecting that unemployment in Spain will rise from its current 17.9% to 22% next year.
Spain's unemployment is largely driven by the bursting of its housing bubble.
As I wrote last December:
Housing bubbles are now bursting in China, France, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, and many other regions.
And the bubble in commercial real estate is also bursting world-wide. See this.
So - unfortunately - unemployment could be a problem globally.
Spain's unemployment is largely driven by the bursting of its housing bubble.
As I wrote last December:
Housing bubbles are now bursting in China, France, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, and many other regions.
And the bubble in commercial real estate is also bursting world-wide. See this.
So - unfortunately - unemployment could be a problem globally.
Several of my favorite, most memorable quotations come to mind these days as I sadly observe what seems to me like abject, deferential genuflection before Washington’s Democratic Party majority by major labor and progressive organizations in this country.
Oddly enough, it is a poet and not a politician that provides the first insight into the problem. It is Oscar Wilde who famously quipped with his brilliant Irish wit that “true friends stab you in the front.” You have to think about that for a moment.
Maybe the much ballyhooed hope in President Obama has in fact stunned into silence the American reform majority that elected him. Maybe getting snubbed by Obama in the front is more disorienting and confusing than getting stabbed directly in the back by Republicans?
Let us consider a few developments since Obama’s election.
Recall that it was only in May that the heroic pro-choice Dr. George Tillman was murdered in cold blood. Not too long ago, such a violent challenge to the rights of women would have unleashed a massive series of public protests exposing the lies and provocations of right-wing anti-abortionists.
Instead, the National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood and other prominent women’s rights organizations followed Obama’s lead and limited themselves to issuing paper condemnations, urging letters to Congress and proposing specific legislation.
Of course these are important initiatives, but only in conjunction with action campaigns. Without broad national mobilizations organized by large independent organizations like NOW, we are left with the deafening silence of the pro-choice majority. This vacuum leaves the two major parties defining terms of the debate.
What are Friends For?
Close acquaintances can get close enough to stab us in the front because we do not expect deception as they approach.
The Mafia has long understood this. Recall the “Godfather’s” Don Corleone explaining to his son Michael that he should anticipate the dirty traitor would be a close member of their own crime family.
But it doesn’t really feel any different being stabbed front or back.
Ask the poor beleaguered people of Afghanistan. The Democratic administration is dramatically escalating US military intervention in that country above what we had during the Bush administration. Where is MoveOn.org? This extremely popular liberal organization gained millions of supporters for its anti-war stance during the 2008 national elections.
Today, their once loud voice for peace is but a whisper.
Then, of course, there is the bankrupt economy supposedly heading towards a “jobless recovery.” A ridiculous oxymoron conjured up by Wall St. sycophants in the administration who steadfastly refuse to support wage increases and a massive federal jobs program as the most effective relief for suffering working class families.
Facing this crisis, or rather backing away from it, the national AFL-CIO kept the midnight oil burning lobbying legislators but it wasn’t enough to keep the lights on at worksites across the country. Millions are laid off and just go home, if they still have one.
There has been not one significant protest.
Not even the United Auto Workers (UAW) with its long proud history asserted itself when they were falsely blamed for driving the industry collapse that was actually steered by the auto barons. Not in one plant, not in one shop was there any resistance organized by national labor leaders even though the dramatic local example in Chicago of the Republic Glass factory workers occupying their plant still lingers in our memory.
The malaise doesn’t stop there. We are witnessing labor’s number one legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, being ripped apart on Capitol Hill like a gazelle carcass on the African savanna and yet labor sits quietly in their tents waiting to be rescued.
Do You Want to Be Lunch?
I’m Mad as Hell!” Peter Finch once shouted from his office window in the 1976 Sidney Lumet film, Network.
Where now is that same spirit of resistance? How much economic and social injustice has to happen before the labor and progressive movement leaders begin shouting "we're not going to take it anymore?"
Just as it doesn’t feel very good being stabbed anywhere, it also doesn’t really make any difference whether you are eaten, as Malcolm X pithily observed, by the “‘liberal’ fox or the ‘conservative’ wolf.’”
Malcolm X himself didn’t want to be anyone’s lunch so he warned against both the stealth Democratic foxes and the unrepentant carnivorous Republican wolves of his day.
Consider the largely unchallenged lies of racist politicians like Senator Sessions and commentators like Pat Buchanan who flagrantly mischaracterize affirmative action during Congressional hearings for Judge Sotomayor. The Democratic majority sidestepped the whole discussion instead of defending affirmative action gains in the last quarter century.
And then there is the painful truth that discussion of a Single-Payer government medical plan has been completely marginalized by both parties in Congress. Grass-roots organizations are doing their best to expose the lies spread by insurance companies but there is no echo in Washington and no prospect for mass street actions proposed by any organization with real clout.
It’s also completely wrong to expect the administration to lead a staunch defense of Medicare, Social Security and the GI Bill as three examples of essential government programs benefitting millions? It won’t happen. The job has to be done by a re-energized social protest movement. Right-wing mouthpieces would stutter and stumble if challenged to explain their opposition to these hugely popular programs as “socialistic.”
Finally, we had to endure the ridiculous spectacle of reactionaries mischaracterizing President Obama’s plan to lapse Bush’s tax largesse for the super rich as “Marxist redistribution of wealth.” Where are the voices from powerful national organizations explaining loud and clear that dramatic and steady redistribution of wealth upward actually began in the early 1980s and, oops, continued under both Democratic and Republican administrations?
Perhaps the truth is too embarrassing for some of President Obama’s liberal allies to admit, but whatever the reason, none of these conservative political blows will be answered effectively unless unions and progressive organizations stop waiting for cues from “friends” in Washington.
That’s why it was so refreshing to see significant opposition briefly emerge to successfully shed a bright light on Obama’s inaction and extreme hypocrisy regarding equal rights for Gays. The White House felt the pressure.
We must honestly admit, however, that overall, recent attacks against working people, women and minorities have gone largely unchallenged. No national demonstrations, rallies or protests. No civil-disobedience sit-ins, nothing.
I Dreamed I saw Joe Hill Last Night
Joe Hill possessed the absolute defiance and determination we need today in our reform movement leaders. Hill was an Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) itinerant labor organizer who was murdered by the mine-owners controlled Utah state government in 1915. Joe’s admonition to his supporters that they “don’t waste any time mourning, organize,” is of course known the world over.
But the lesser-known next sentence in his final testament is also very powerful. Joe asked IWW leader Big Bill Haywood if he “could have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don't want to be found dead in Utah.” 1
That’s taking the lies leveled against him and throwing it right back in the faces of his accusers. Standing up to those in power with his last breath, Joe yelled “Fire” just before execution by firing squad.
I don’t see any of these bold, daring impulses today from leaders of our larger political organizations. As a result, when looking at politics in America, emotions range from anger to disappointment. But there is room for optimism.
The historical record provides ample evidence that people will ultimately act in their class interests. Sooner or later, today’s profoundly depoliticized mass will experience a liberating social awakening just as yesteryears’ slaves, serfs and colonial oppressed have all eventually done.
That’s when modern Joe Hill rebels will emerge and perhaps be capable of assuming the leadership of the unions and other mass organizations of working people.
But why is it taking so damn long?
I’ll throw in one last quote that addresses that issue. This time the concise and insightful nugget comes from an expatriate African-America woman living in Paris. She appears in Michael Moore’s exceptional film “Sicko.”
Moore asked why millions of French people demonstrate on social issues rather often whereas nothing like that happens in America. Paraphrasing this woman, she poignantly responded that “in France, the government is afraid of the people. In the United States, it is the people who are afraid of the government.”
Enough said. This woman’s words of wisdom concisely describe, for me, the basic dilemma in this country.
Until and unless we chickens grow some sharp teeth and learn to bite back when chased by either a wolf or a fox, we will likely be running around with our heads cut off. Now I realize that it goes against the laws of nature for chickens to grow teeth, but we humans already have incisors and two legs to hold us upright enough to get up off our knees.
All that is necessary is the insight to discern when we are being suckered and the will to stand up and bite back against both our foes and those posing as friends.
1. In fact, Joe’s ashes were placed in small envelopes and spread by his comrades to every state in the union, except Utah, with several requests from other countries as well.
Source: The Exception
http://exceptionmag.com
Unless otherwise stated, everything on this blog is current from the same week that it was published.
Oddly enough, it is a poet and not a politician that provides the first insight into the problem. It is Oscar Wilde who famously quipped with his brilliant Irish wit that “true friends stab you in the front.” You have to think about that for a moment.
Maybe the much ballyhooed hope in President Obama has in fact stunned into silence the American reform majority that elected him. Maybe getting snubbed by Obama in the front is more disorienting and confusing than getting stabbed directly in the back by Republicans?
Let us consider a few developments since Obama’s election.
Recall that it was only in May that the heroic pro-choice Dr. George Tillman was murdered in cold blood. Not too long ago, such a violent challenge to the rights of women would have unleashed a massive series of public protests exposing the lies and provocations of right-wing anti-abortionists.
Instead, the National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood and other prominent women’s rights organizations followed Obama’s lead and limited themselves to issuing paper condemnations, urging letters to Congress and proposing specific legislation.
Of course these are important initiatives, but only in conjunction with action campaigns. Without broad national mobilizations organized by large independent organizations like NOW, we are left with the deafening silence of the pro-choice majority. This vacuum leaves the two major parties defining terms of the debate.
What are Friends For?
Close acquaintances can get close enough to stab us in the front because we do not expect deception as they approach.
The Mafia has long understood this. Recall the “Godfather’s” Don Corleone explaining to his son Michael that he should anticipate the dirty traitor would be a close member of their own crime family.
But it doesn’t really feel any different being stabbed front or back.
Ask the poor beleaguered people of Afghanistan. The Democratic administration is dramatically escalating US military intervention in that country above what we had during the Bush administration. Where is MoveOn.org? This extremely popular liberal organization gained millions of supporters for its anti-war stance during the 2008 national elections.
Today, their once loud voice for peace is but a whisper.
Then, of course, there is the bankrupt economy supposedly heading towards a “jobless recovery.” A ridiculous oxymoron conjured up by Wall St. sycophants in the administration who steadfastly refuse to support wage increases and a massive federal jobs program as the most effective relief for suffering working class families.
Facing this crisis, or rather backing away from it, the national AFL-CIO kept the midnight oil burning lobbying legislators but it wasn’t enough to keep the lights on at worksites across the country. Millions are laid off and just go home, if they still have one.
There has been not one significant protest.
Not even the United Auto Workers (UAW) with its long proud history asserted itself when they were falsely blamed for driving the industry collapse that was actually steered by the auto barons. Not in one plant, not in one shop was there any resistance organized by national labor leaders even though the dramatic local example in Chicago of the Republic Glass factory workers occupying their plant still lingers in our memory.
The malaise doesn’t stop there. We are witnessing labor’s number one legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, being ripped apart on Capitol Hill like a gazelle carcass on the African savanna and yet labor sits quietly in their tents waiting to be rescued.
Do You Want to Be Lunch?
I’m Mad as Hell!” Peter Finch once shouted from his office window in the 1976 Sidney Lumet film, Network.
Where now is that same spirit of resistance? How much economic and social injustice has to happen before the labor and progressive movement leaders begin shouting "we're not going to take it anymore?"
Just as it doesn’t feel very good being stabbed anywhere, it also doesn’t really make any difference whether you are eaten, as Malcolm X pithily observed, by the “‘liberal’ fox or the ‘conservative’ wolf.’”
Malcolm X himself didn’t want to be anyone’s lunch so he warned against both the stealth Democratic foxes and the unrepentant carnivorous Republican wolves of his day.
Consider the largely unchallenged lies of racist politicians like Senator Sessions and commentators like Pat Buchanan who flagrantly mischaracterize affirmative action during Congressional hearings for Judge Sotomayor. The Democratic majority sidestepped the whole discussion instead of defending affirmative action gains in the last quarter century.
And then there is the painful truth that discussion of a Single-Payer government medical plan has been completely marginalized by both parties in Congress. Grass-roots organizations are doing their best to expose the lies spread by insurance companies but there is no echo in Washington and no prospect for mass street actions proposed by any organization with real clout.
It’s also completely wrong to expect the administration to lead a staunch defense of Medicare, Social Security and the GI Bill as three examples of essential government programs benefitting millions? It won’t happen. The job has to be done by a re-energized social protest movement. Right-wing mouthpieces would stutter and stumble if challenged to explain their opposition to these hugely popular programs as “socialistic.”
Finally, we had to endure the ridiculous spectacle of reactionaries mischaracterizing President Obama’s plan to lapse Bush’s tax largesse for the super rich as “Marxist redistribution of wealth.” Where are the voices from powerful national organizations explaining loud and clear that dramatic and steady redistribution of wealth upward actually began in the early 1980s and, oops, continued under both Democratic and Republican administrations?
Perhaps the truth is too embarrassing for some of President Obama’s liberal allies to admit, but whatever the reason, none of these conservative political blows will be answered effectively unless unions and progressive organizations stop waiting for cues from “friends” in Washington.
That’s why it was so refreshing to see significant opposition briefly emerge to successfully shed a bright light on Obama’s inaction and extreme hypocrisy regarding equal rights for Gays. The White House felt the pressure.
We must honestly admit, however, that overall, recent attacks against working people, women and minorities have gone largely unchallenged. No national demonstrations, rallies or protests. No civil-disobedience sit-ins, nothing.
I Dreamed I saw Joe Hill Last Night
Joe Hill possessed the absolute defiance and determination we need today in our reform movement leaders. Hill was an Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) itinerant labor organizer who was murdered by the mine-owners controlled Utah state government in 1915. Joe’s admonition to his supporters that they “don’t waste any time mourning, organize,” is of course known the world over.
But the lesser-known next sentence in his final testament is also very powerful. Joe asked IWW leader Big Bill Haywood if he “could have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don't want to be found dead in Utah.” 1
That’s taking the lies leveled against him and throwing it right back in the faces of his accusers. Standing up to those in power with his last breath, Joe yelled “Fire” just before execution by firing squad.
I don’t see any of these bold, daring impulses today from leaders of our larger political organizations. As a result, when looking at politics in America, emotions range from anger to disappointment. But there is room for optimism.
The historical record provides ample evidence that people will ultimately act in their class interests. Sooner or later, today’s profoundly depoliticized mass will experience a liberating social awakening just as yesteryears’ slaves, serfs and colonial oppressed have all eventually done.
That’s when modern Joe Hill rebels will emerge and perhaps be capable of assuming the leadership of the unions and other mass organizations of working people.
But why is it taking so damn long?
I’ll throw in one last quote that addresses that issue. This time the concise and insightful nugget comes from an expatriate African-America woman living in Paris. She appears in Michael Moore’s exceptional film “Sicko.”
Moore asked why millions of French people demonstrate on social issues rather often whereas nothing like that happens in America. Paraphrasing this woman, she poignantly responded that “in France, the government is afraid of the people. In the United States, it is the people who are afraid of the government.”
Enough said. This woman’s words of wisdom concisely describe, for me, the basic dilemma in this country.
Until and unless we chickens grow some sharp teeth and learn to bite back when chased by either a wolf or a fox, we will likely be running around with our heads cut off. Now I realize that it goes against the laws of nature for chickens to grow teeth, but we humans already have incisors and two legs to hold us upright enough to get up off our knees.
All that is necessary is the insight to discern when we are being suckered and the will to stand up and bite back against both our foes and those posing as friends.
1. In fact, Joe’s ashes were placed in small envelopes and spread by his comrades to every state in the union, except Utah, with several requests from other countries as well.
Source: The Exception
http://exceptionmag.com
Unless otherwise stated, everything on this blog is current from the same week that it was published.
Is our moral shtick in the gutter? Well, yah..
Helen Thomas
Secrecy is endemic in all governments. It goes with the turf, especially if their leaders hope to hide illegal or immoral behavior, such as torture of foreign prisoners. Many Americans heaved a sigh of...
U.S. loses moral high ground with torture
U.S. loses moral high ground with torture
Secrecy is endemic in all governments. It goes with the turf, especially if their leaders hope to hide illegal or immoral behavior, such as torture of foreign prisoners.
Many Americans heaved a sigh of relief last January when President Obama banned the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Image-wise, it made the administration look more humane than the Bush-Cheney team. But that is not the whole story.
Obama left unaddressed the possibility of torture in secret foreign prisons under our control as in Abu Ghraib in Iraq or Bagram in Afghanistan, not to mention the "black sites" sponsored by our foreign clients in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Thailand and other countries.
"The United States will not torture," Obama said in his directive. But he has been silent on the question of whether the U.S. would help others do the torturing.
Members of Congress knew a lot about U.S. torture practices. But Republicans loyal to Bush and Democrats, too, played along and kept silent at the horror of it all.
During the Martin Luther King March on Washington in the 1960's, a rabbi who had been in a German concentration camp said: "The greatest sin of all in the Nazi era was silence."
Why did no bells ring for the U.S. lawmakers -- particularly those privy to the brutality -- when briefed on the abusive treatment of the captives?
Did they owe more allegiance to the CIA rather than the honor of our country?
There are hair-raising reports of methods that Americans -- including private contractors -- have used to coerce information from our prisoners.
They include slamming a prisoner against a wall; denying him sleep and food; waterboarding him under so-called enhanced interrogation; and keeping him in a crate filled with insects.
I remember when President Ronald Reagan, marveling at the courage of American soldiers, used to say: "Where do we get such men?" And I have to ask: "Where did we get such people who would inflict so much pain and ruthlessness on others?"
William Rivers Pitt, a best-selling author who wrote "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," recently raised the emotional question of whether U.S. adoption of torture has debased the international standards for treatment of prisoners and that our enemies may now feel that they can torture Americans.
Pitt specifically expressed concern about Army Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan last month.
American military leaders had warned Bush over and over that U.S. torture of prisoners could boomerang against our troops. But he would not listen.
Obama has blocked publication of pictures of the harsh treatment of prisoners from our two ongoing wars -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but the word still gets around.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/category?blogid=14&cat=2592#ixzz0MsPWvSSi
Helen Thomas
Secrecy is endemic in all governments. It goes with the turf, especially if their leaders hope to hide illegal or immoral behavior, such as torture of foreign prisoners. Many Americans heaved a sigh of...
U.S. loses moral high ground with torture
U.S. loses moral high ground with torture
Secrecy is endemic in all governments. It goes with the turf, especially if their leaders hope to hide illegal or immoral behavior, such as torture of foreign prisoners.
Many Americans heaved a sigh of relief last January when President Obama banned the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Image-wise, it made the administration look more humane than the Bush-Cheney team. But that is not the whole story.
Obama left unaddressed the possibility of torture in secret foreign prisons under our control as in Abu Ghraib in Iraq or Bagram in Afghanistan, not to mention the "black sites" sponsored by our foreign clients in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Thailand and other countries.
"The United States will not torture," Obama said in his directive. But he has been silent on the question of whether the U.S. would help others do the torturing.
Members of Congress knew a lot about U.S. torture practices. But Republicans loyal to Bush and Democrats, too, played along and kept silent at the horror of it all.
During the Martin Luther King March on Washington in the 1960's, a rabbi who had been in a German concentration camp said: "The greatest sin of all in the Nazi era was silence."
Why did no bells ring for the U.S. lawmakers -- particularly those privy to the brutality -- when briefed on the abusive treatment of the captives?
Did they owe more allegiance to the CIA rather than the honor of our country?
There are hair-raising reports of methods that Americans -- including private contractors -- have used to coerce information from our prisoners.
They include slamming a prisoner against a wall; denying him sleep and food; waterboarding him under so-called enhanced interrogation; and keeping him in a crate filled with insects.
I remember when President Ronald Reagan, marveling at the courage of American soldiers, used to say: "Where do we get such men?" And I have to ask: "Where did we get such people who would inflict so much pain and ruthlessness on others?"
William Rivers Pitt, a best-selling author who wrote "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," recently raised the emotional question of whether U.S. adoption of torture has debased the international standards for treatment of prisoners and that our enemies may now feel that they can torture Americans.
Pitt specifically expressed concern about Army Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan last month.
American military leaders had warned Bush over and over that U.S. torture of prisoners could boomerang against our troops. But he would not listen.
Obama has blocked publication of pictures of the harsh treatment of prisoners from our two ongoing wars -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but the word still gets around.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/category?blogid=14&cat=2592#ixzz0MsPWvSSi
US drones to target Taliban in Afghan war: report
(AFP) – 15 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US military plans to use more drone aircraft to target Taliban militants in Afghanistan while focusing less on hunting down Al-Qaeda figures, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Although defeating the Al-Qaeda terror network remains an overriding goal for Washington, officials now believe the best way to pursue that objective is to ensure stability in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan instead of Al-Qaeda manhunts, the paper said, citing US government and Defense Department officials.
It was more important to prevent a slide towards violence and anarchy that could be exploited by Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan to stage its attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the officials said.
"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," an official told the Times. "We should probably reassess our priorities."
The shift in priorities for the drone fleet comes despite President Barack Obama's declaration that defeating and dismantling Al-Qaeda is the primary goal of his strategy for the Afghan war.
Eight drones that have been devoted to tracking Al-Qaeda in remote Afghan mountains will be transferred to the fight against insurgents, the paper said.
And the US Central Command plans to send about 12 more drones to the Afghan front, including some aircraft that have been assigned to Iraq -- a move resisted by US commanders there.
The drones are in high demand and the military faces difficult choices in deciding how best to deploy the aircraft which are in short supply.
The armed Predators and Reapers can loiter over targets for hours and are viewed as an invaluable resource for both intelligence and military operations.
The drones are also used to target Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan though the US government does not publicly discuss those operations.
The new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has ordered an elaborate review of how the mission uses surveillance aircraft.
McChrystal favors using the drones in a more concentrated way instead of spreading the aircraft across the country so regional commands can use the plans for short periods each day.
The military also plans to increase the number of flights of U2 spy planes in Afghanistan and all of the Air Force's unmanned Global Hawks -- a much larger plane designed for surveillance -- will be shifted to Afghanistan, officials said.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
(AFP) – 15 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US military plans to use more drone aircraft to target Taliban militants in Afghanistan while focusing less on hunting down Al-Qaeda figures, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Although defeating the Al-Qaeda terror network remains an overriding goal for Washington, officials now believe the best way to pursue that objective is to ensure stability in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan instead of Al-Qaeda manhunts, the paper said, citing US government and Defense Department officials.
It was more important to prevent a slide towards violence and anarchy that could be exploited by Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan to stage its attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the officials said.
"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," an official told the Times. "We should probably reassess our priorities."
The shift in priorities for the drone fleet comes despite President Barack Obama's declaration that defeating and dismantling Al-Qaeda is the primary goal of his strategy for the Afghan war.
Eight drones that have been devoted to tracking Al-Qaeda in remote Afghan mountains will be transferred to the fight against insurgents, the paper said.
And the US Central Command plans to send about 12 more drones to the Afghan front, including some aircraft that have been assigned to Iraq -- a move resisted by US commanders there.
The drones are in high demand and the military faces difficult choices in deciding how best to deploy the aircraft which are in short supply.
The armed Predators and Reapers can loiter over targets for hours and are viewed as an invaluable resource for both intelligence and military operations.
The drones are also used to target Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan though the US government does not publicly discuss those operations.
The new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has ordered an elaborate review of how the mission uses surveillance aircraft.
McChrystal favors using the drones in a more concentrated way instead of spreading the aircraft across the country so regional commands can use the plans for short periods each day.
The military also plans to increase the number of flights of U2 spy planes in Afghanistan and all of the Air Force's unmanned Global Hawks -- a much larger plane designed for surveillance -- will be shifted to Afghanistan, officials said.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
Feminist Majority Foundation and the Afghan Women's Mission are locked in a bitter controversy over what's best for the women of Afghanistan.
The two groups are natural and historical allies. But the Feminist Majority has now endorsed President Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan -- arguing that the administration's new strategy is necessary to prevent the return of the brutal oppression of women by the Taliban regime.
The Afghan Women's Mission, along with an associated Afghan feminist group, contends that more troops and more fighting will only result in further casualties on both sides and fuel the already-flourishing insurgency.
Sonali Kolhatkar, founder of the Afghan Women's Mission (AWM) and Mariam Rawi of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) wrote last month on AlterNet:
[C]oalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace... Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté.
Kolhatkar, in a subsequent interview with the Huffington Post, added that the withdrawal of U.S. troops would actually "take away the rationale of the Taliban: the foreign occupiers."
Feminist Majority founder Ellie Smeal and board member Helen Cho responded in turn, writing that "recently these terrorists have destroyed hundreds of girls schools, killed journalists, local women's leaders and killed women teachers in front of their students."
"If the U.S. was to pull out of Afghanistan," they warned, "the United States would be once again breaking its promise to the Afghan people, and the country would likely fall under Taliban control."
A Long History With Afghanistan
Story continues below The Feminist Majority boasts that they were the first American organization to call attention to the plight of women under the Taliban -- back in 1996 -- when they circulated countless images of burqa-shrouded Afghan women.
Their campaign culminated in pressuring Unocal to withdraw its support for a pipeline, slated to be run through Afghanistan, which would have furnished the Taliban regime with handsome royalties.
The group also sponsored the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), one of the Afghan feminist groups now opposed to troop escalation, to give a speaking tour in the United States.
The View From Afghanistan
When the United States invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the plight of oppressed Afghan women was one of the public justifications. But eight years later, RAWA's Kolhatkar argues, "Women in the vast majority of Afghanistan live in precisely the same conditions" as they did under the Taliban, "with one notable difference: they are surrounded by war." Despite the presence of a few women in public office and the enrollment of some women and girls in schools, many argue that these changes are little more than cosmetic.
RAWA's 2,000 active members live in Afghanistan and in refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. They are "totally underground, they're constantly moving around... they change their names and they don't stay in one place long," explains Kolhatkar. "They are marked women." Those caught even reading their magazine have been locked up by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.
On their website, their main platform, they are very clear, "RAWA believes that freedom and democracy can't be donated; it is the duty of the people of a country to fight and achieve these values."
So far the U.S. has not done much to help their cause.
"[W]e put some of the worst [warlords] back in power. Karzai's law [legalizing marital rape] was not an accident," said Kolhatkar. The drug war only makes things worse. "The drugs are the lifeline for the Taliban and the cash crops of the misogynists... Poor families that have gone into debt with the warlords have had to sell their daughters to pay off their debts."
And despite the Obama administration's refocusing of regional goals, the abysmal 8-year legacy in the region gives little reason to hope that a safer, less militarized day-to-day existence for Afghans with emerge anytime soon.
RAWA and the AWM call for UN peacekeepers, the initiation of a disarmament process, the building up of justice and educational institutions, a war crimes tribunal and an Afghan Human Rights commission
"The UN won't do it," warned the Feminist Majority's Smeal. Though she says that she too would like to see such changes in Afghanistan, "we made this mess and we have an obligation to do something about it."
This past June was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war began.
The two groups are natural and historical allies. But the Feminist Majority has now endorsed President Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan -- arguing that the administration's new strategy is necessary to prevent the return of the brutal oppression of women by the Taliban regime.
The Afghan Women's Mission, along with an associated Afghan feminist group, contends that more troops and more fighting will only result in further casualties on both sides and fuel the already-flourishing insurgency.
Sonali Kolhatkar, founder of the Afghan Women's Mission (AWM) and Mariam Rawi of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) wrote last month on AlterNet:
[C]oalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace... Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté.
Kolhatkar, in a subsequent interview with the Huffington Post, added that the withdrawal of U.S. troops would actually "take away the rationale of the Taliban: the foreign occupiers."
Feminist Majority founder Ellie Smeal and board member Helen Cho responded in turn, writing that "recently these terrorists have destroyed hundreds of girls schools, killed journalists, local women's leaders and killed women teachers in front of their students."
"If the U.S. was to pull out of Afghanistan," they warned, "the United States would be once again breaking its promise to the Afghan people, and the country would likely fall under Taliban control."
A Long History With Afghanistan
Story continues below The Feminist Majority boasts that they were the first American organization to call attention to the plight of women under the Taliban -- back in 1996 -- when they circulated countless images of burqa-shrouded Afghan women.
Their campaign culminated in pressuring Unocal to withdraw its support for a pipeline, slated to be run through Afghanistan, which would have furnished the Taliban regime with handsome royalties.
The group also sponsored the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), one of the Afghan feminist groups now opposed to troop escalation, to give a speaking tour in the United States.
The View From Afghanistan
When the United States invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the plight of oppressed Afghan women was one of the public justifications. But eight years later, RAWA's Kolhatkar argues, "Women in the vast majority of Afghanistan live in precisely the same conditions" as they did under the Taliban, "with one notable difference: they are surrounded by war." Despite the presence of a few women in public office and the enrollment of some women and girls in schools, many argue that these changes are little more than cosmetic.
RAWA's 2,000 active members live in Afghanistan and in refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. They are "totally underground, they're constantly moving around... they change their names and they don't stay in one place long," explains Kolhatkar. "They are marked women." Those caught even reading their magazine have been locked up by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.
On their website, their main platform, they are very clear, "RAWA believes that freedom and democracy can't be donated; it is the duty of the people of a country to fight and achieve these values."
So far the U.S. has not done much to help their cause.
"[W]e put some of the worst [warlords] back in power. Karzai's law [legalizing marital rape] was not an accident," said Kolhatkar. The drug war only makes things worse. "The drugs are the lifeline for the Taliban and the cash crops of the misogynists... Poor families that have gone into debt with the warlords have had to sell their daughters to pay off their debts."
And despite the Obama administration's refocusing of regional goals, the abysmal 8-year legacy in the region gives little reason to hope that a safer, less militarized day-to-day existence for Afghans with emerge anytime soon.
RAWA and the AWM call for UN peacekeepers, the initiation of a disarmament process, the building up of justice and educational institutions, a war crimes tribunal and an Afghan Human Rights commission
"The UN won't do it," warned the Feminist Majority's Smeal. Though she says that she too would like to see such changes in Afghanistan, "we made this mess and we have an obligation to do something about it."
This past June was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war began.
Nor is it true that those on the left who did not support Obama’s campaign are hopeless sectarians who reject any partial struggles that do not directly strike at the heart of capitalist rule. This is clearly not true of Solidarity, the International Socialist Organization, the Greens, or the comrades around Black Agenda Report. While these groups differed about the importance or effectiveness of third party campaigns like that of Cynthia McKinney , none reject struggling for reforms—the end of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for single-payer health care, for amnesty and an easy road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, in defense of affirmative action and social programs. We did not support Obama because neither he nor the pro-corporate, neo-liberal Democratic Party support these struggles.
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief
OTTAWA–In all of Afghanistan's fighting seasons this decade, none has been as deadly as this one.
Even NATO commanders have struggled to find new words to convey their grief as they cope with the worst month on record for casualties among coalition forces that invaded the country in 2001.
News releases announcing the latest deaths arrive almost daily, expressing "great sorrow," "sincere condolences," "heartfelt condolences" and "deepest sympathies" to the families of the slain soldiers.
So far this month, 72 coalition soldiers – including five Canadians – have died, many as a result of offensive operations by British and American forces in southern Afghanistan to seize territory long under Taliban influence.
The previous monthly high was 46 last August, according to the website icasualties.org.
But will the International Security Assistance Force be able to hold these hard-won regions to ensure insurgents don't come back?
The answer will determine the fate of the mission and the future of the troubled nation, experts say. And it's a question sure to prompt new questions about the NATO military alliance and Canada's own pledge to withdraw its troops in 2011.
"We are at an important point in Afghanistan's history and NATO's work there, and a testing point," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said this week.
Britain this week announced the end of Operation Panther's Claw, a five-week offensive to push out insurgents from parts of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in advance of elections on Aug. 20.
Commanders declared the operation a success, but conceded the heavy price – Britain has lost 22 soldiers in July, pushing its death toll in Afghanistan past the losses suffered in Iraq. Britain has now lost 191 soldiers in Afghanistan, compared with 179 in Iraq.
That stiff toll is sparking fresh questions about the quality of equipment provided to front-line British troops and fuelling public doubts in Britain whether the Afghan war is winnable.
But in an address at NATO's Brussels headquarters Monday, Miliband said the coalition must stay.
"NATO needs to show the Afghan people that we will not abandon them to Taliban retribution; that our forces will stay until Afghan communities can protect themselves," he said. "It is only when the cooperation, passive and active, of ordinary Afghans is removed that the insurgency will be fatally undermined."
The offensive push in southern Afghanistan has taken coalition troops into the "belly of the beast," so a rise in violence was expected, said Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan with the Rand Corp., a U.S. think tank.
"You're talking about areas where there is a major Taliban presence that either territory is controlled or ... influenced by Taliban operations," Jones said in an interview.
But Jones questions whether coalition forces have enough troops to ensure a long-term presence in these newly seized territories.
"It's hard to know what the long-term commitment is going to be. I mean the challenge in the south, including with the Canadians in Kandahar, has been holding territory," he said.
"I really don't see the numbers from either NATO or Afghan national security forces for this size territory," said Jones, author of the recently released book In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan.
That's why ISAF will have to develop a strategy to win over local tribes and clans and have them act as the "de facto holding force," said Jones, recently returned from Lashkar Gah in Helmand.
At stake is the loyalty of local Afghans, whose support is vital to ending the insurgency, yet who remain wary of backing the coalition for fear of Taliban retribution should the coalition forces pull up stakes and leave.
"The question is going to be eight months from now what is the situation looking like ... If territory is not held, which has been the big problem, it's a very dangerous message to be signalling to the locals," Jones said.
He conceded that the Canadian plan to withdraw from Kandahar in 2011 doesn't help ease the fears of local Afghans. "I think there are questions about NATO's staying power," he said.
Military historian Jack Granatstein says Canadians likely could have been convinced to keep more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other federal politicians had done more to tell the public about the goals of the mission.
"The government ... has simply not been willing for the last two years to explain to people why we are there, what we are doing," he said. "We should stay, but I think it's very difficult to sustain a commitment to a military operation without public support. And the way you get public support is to have your political leaders tell you why you are there and why it's important."
Defence Minister Peter MacKay linked the spike in violence to the upcoming elections but denied insurgents were getting the upper hand.
"There's no question that this has been a very difficult and active fighting season. With the election on, that is another factor. There's an attempt by the insurgents, the Taliban to destabilize and give people a feeling they are waiting in the wings," MacKay said this week.
He said the surge of U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan – an extra 17,000 soldiers are being deployed – would help bring stability while allowing Canadians to "recalibrate and focus" on development projects and training the Afghan army.
"We're working very closely, collaborating with all the NATO allies, but the American surge of troops is inevitably, in my view, going to make a difference, a positive difference," MacKay said.
Ottawa bureau chief
OTTAWA–In all of Afghanistan's fighting seasons this decade, none has been as deadly as this one.
Even NATO commanders have struggled to find new words to convey their grief as they cope with the worst month on record for casualties among coalition forces that invaded the country in 2001.
News releases announcing the latest deaths arrive almost daily, expressing "great sorrow," "sincere condolences," "heartfelt condolences" and "deepest sympathies" to the families of the slain soldiers.
So far this month, 72 coalition soldiers – including five Canadians – have died, many as a result of offensive operations by British and American forces in southern Afghanistan to seize territory long under Taliban influence.
The previous monthly high was 46 last August, according to the website icasualties.org.
But will the International Security Assistance Force be able to hold these hard-won regions to ensure insurgents don't come back?
The answer will determine the fate of the mission and the future of the troubled nation, experts say. And it's a question sure to prompt new questions about the NATO military alliance and Canada's own pledge to withdraw its troops in 2011.
"We are at an important point in Afghanistan's history and NATO's work there, and a testing point," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said this week.
Britain this week announced the end of Operation Panther's Claw, a five-week offensive to push out insurgents from parts of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in advance of elections on Aug. 20.
Commanders declared the operation a success, but conceded the heavy price – Britain has lost 22 soldiers in July, pushing its death toll in Afghanistan past the losses suffered in Iraq. Britain has now lost 191 soldiers in Afghanistan, compared with 179 in Iraq.
That stiff toll is sparking fresh questions about the quality of equipment provided to front-line British troops and fuelling public doubts in Britain whether the Afghan war is winnable.
But in an address at NATO's Brussels headquarters Monday, Miliband said the coalition must stay.
"NATO needs to show the Afghan people that we will not abandon them to Taliban retribution; that our forces will stay until Afghan communities can protect themselves," he said. "It is only when the cooperation, passive and active, of ordinary Afghans is removed that the insurgency will be fatally undermined."
The offensive push in southern Afghanistan has taken coalition troops into the "belly of the beast," so a rise in violence was expected, said Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan with the Rand Corp., a U.S. think tank.
"You're talking about areas where there is a major Taliban presence that either territory is controlled or ... influenced by Taliban operations," Jones said in an interview.
But Jones questions whether coalition forces have enough troops to ensure a long-term presence in these newly seized territories.
"It's hard to know what the long-term commitment is going to be. I mean the challenge in the south, including with the Canadians in Kandahar, has been holding territory," he said.
"I really don't see the numbers from either NATO or Afghan national security forces for this size territory," said Jones, author of the recently released book In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan.
That's why ISAF will have to develop a strategy to win over local tribes and clans and have them act as the "de facto holding force," said Jones, recently returned from Lashkar Gah in Helmand.
At stake is the loyalty of local Afghans, whose support is vital to ending the insurgency, yet who remain wary of backing the coalition for fear of Taliban retribution should the coalition forces pull up stakes and leave.
"The question is going to be eight months from now what is the situation looking like ... If territory is not held, which has been the big problem, it's a very dangerous message to be signalling to the locals," Jones said.
He conceded that the Canadian plan to withdraw from Kandahar in 2011 doesn't help ease the fears of local Afghans. "I think there are questions about NATO's staying power," he said.
Military historian Jack Granatstein says Canadians likely could have been convinced to keep more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other federal politicians had done more to tell the public about the goals of the mission.
"The government ... has simply not been willing for the last two years to explain to people why we are there, what we are doing," he said. "We should stay, but I think it's very difficult to sustain a commitment to a military operation without public support. And the way you get public support is to have your political leaders tell you why you are there and why it's important."
Defence Minister Peter MacKay linked the spike in violence to the upcoming elections but denied insurgents were getting the upper hand.
"There's no question that this has been a very difficult and active fighting season. With the election on, that is another factor. There's an attempt by the insurgents, the Taliban to destabilize and give people a feeling they are waiting in the wings," MacKay said this week.
He said the surge of U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan – an extra 17,000 soldiers are being deployed – would help bring stability while allowing Canadians to "recalibrate and focus" on development projects and training the Afghan army.
"We're working very closely, collaborating with all the NATO allies, but the American surge of troops is inevitably, in my view, going to make a difference, a positive difference," MacKay said.
Pakistani scientist ruled fit to stand trial in US
(AFP) – 1 day ago
NEW YORK — A US-educated Pakistani scientist who allegedly tried to shoot US officers in Afghanistan last year will stand trial October 19, a US judge has ordered.
Ending months of examinations into the mental state of Aafia Siddiqui, Judge Richard Berman, in the US District Court in Manhattan, ruled that she was competent to be tried on murder charges.
The written ruling issued on Wednesday followed expert testimony that found Siddiqui, 37, was faking insanity to avoid trial.
She was brought to New York a year ago after allegedly trying to shoot US army and FBI officers while in Afghan custody.
She was also on a 2004 US list of people suspected of links to Al-Qaeda, although not charged.
The case has sparked controversy in Pakistan and among human rights advocates who say Siddiqui was abducted by Pakistani security services in 2003 and may have been held in a secret US or allied prison in Afghanistan until her sudden reappearance in 2008.
Siddiqui is from Pakistan and studied neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
(AFP) – 1 day ago
NEW YORK — A US-educated Pakistani scientist who allegedly tried to shoot US officers in Afghanistan last year will stand trial October 19, a US judge has ordered.
Ending months of examinations into the mental state of Aafia Siddiqui, Judge Richard Berman, in the US District Court in Manhattan, ruled that she was competent to be tried on murder charges.
The written ruling issued on Wednesday followed expert testimony that found Siddiqui, 37, was faking insanity to avoid trial.
She was brought to New York a year ago after allegedly trying to shoot US army and FBI officers while in Afghan custody.
She was also on a 2004 US list of people suspected of links to Al-Qaeda, although not charged.
The case has sparked controversy in Pakistan and among human rights advocates who say Siddiqui was abducted by Pakistani security services in 2003 and may have been held in a secret US or allied prison in Afghanistan until her sudden reappearance in 2008.
Siddiqui is from Pakistan and studied neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
From Australia.to:
Saving the Bankers With a Make-Believe War
Written by Peter Chamberlin
Pakistanis and Americans have a common problem, which is also shared by every other country on the planet–corruption in high places. The world is made to fret over the impending loss of the entire capitalist system by the overlords of the Western media, even though, the only loss for the common man will be the chains that bind him. We are all supposed to be grieving deeply for the collapse of the money system which has made so many people rich, people whom the media tells us we all want to be just like.
The media, no matter how hard it keeps from telling the truth and how much it twists and deforms the facts to fit the official spin set by Washington, cannot snuff-out all the tiny lights of awareness that are springing-up all over the world. Washington and Islamabad have both tightly controlled their national media, never allowing the cutting truth, or trouble-making bearers of explosive truth the print space or air time in the “legitimate press.” No one is allowed to rock the looters’ boats as they struggle to transfer their ill-gotten treasures to shore before they too lose everything in the coming collapse.
The Western media leads popular opinion to sympathize with the struggling corporate raiders, in order to help orchestrate the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The media portrays the “war of terror” as a great struggle to save civilization, even though true “civilization” (the liberation of every soul through universal human rights) has not yet evolved. The media’s one purpose it to try to encourage the “free world” to sacrifice its children in a senseless struggle to preserve the destructive forces that have made the destruction of the old order inevitable.
Emergency measures, both economic and military, have been forced upon us, to carry on a war that is destroying both freedom and democracy, while maintaining the fiction that the war defends both. The media whips popular opinion into a frenzy to build patriotic blood-lust within the mob and the desire to kill millions of strangers for crimes that our leaders swear they fully intend to commit. The Western media and the Pakistani media, like the governments which they serve, are pushing the people to a fatal war, seeking to outrun the rising mob that wants the leaders’ heads.
We have glimpsed the truth about our leaders, and our knowledge is frightening them to death. The “good old boy” network that dominates in every country (and cumulatively controls the world) lives on borrowed time, as the power of the people is a building tsunami of change which is barreling down upon them. This is a secret that, for them, must remain hidden from the silent majority. The people are breathing down their necks and they are running scared, head-on into a great wall of their own making.
Pakistan is the great wall. The empire’s dreams, as always, are about to be shattered in Waziristan. It is not that the Army is about to suddenly develop a collective spine and stand-up for the Pakistani people against the American aggression; it is that the people themselves, who are fed-up with the games and lies and are ready to hold the Army responsible for all military attacks in the tribal regions. No matter how much they might complain about American airstrikes in Pakistan, it is all for show. The American attacks are driving Pakistan’s war choices, contrary to the will of the Pakistani people. The Army will eventually fight on America’s terms, if they want to have a seat at America’s “victory” banquet, after seizing everyone’s everything. They have all grown quite wealthy at your expense.
Smiling demonic faces sold us all a bill of goods, as we were drawn into a make-believe battle to “save civilization” from the savages, never bothering to describe the mission, or tell us how they would accomplish it, and at what cost. No one told you that Pakistan’s choice had been made for it, to destroy Pakistan, in order to save it, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Every aspect of this new war has two dimensions—the official media version of events and the buried truth. If the government or the media ever merges the two conflicting dimensions and the paradox is revealed, then the war effort will collapse, as the criminal conspirators will have their cover blown. Somewhere, just below the surface, most people suspect that the truth about the war remains hidden from us. It is the responsibility of the true research journalists to confirm people’s suspicions about the war and the empire, by revealing the hidden truths.
As long as the American and Pakistani people are willing to play-along and pretend that a bunch of “stirred-up Muslims” are capable of destroying the world, or even just one important country, like Pakistan, then the game can go on and the empire builders can continue to lay their foundations for a world united in permanent limited war. The empire of the smiling faces must be brought to an end, by exposing the hollow rhetoric that drives this war.
It is not civilization itself that is in danger of collapsing; it is the parasitic system of international financing, which feeds-off both the civilized world and the developing world, which is in danger of destruction, a danger that the smiling face parasites created by their own greed. We have been tricked into entering into a full-blown world war to save the bankers and the network of cronyism that gives them their ultimate power.
The bankers’ system is not endangered by wild “Islamists” in any way; it is enriched by the expanding resource wars made possible by their destabilizing actions. It is not enough that the bankers and their minions have raped trillions out of the pockets of the American taxpayers, now they must also have the trillions, or quadrillions of energy bucks represented by the vast resources of south-central Asia, Africa and S. America.
America is not in any danger that its leaders have not created themselves, just as Pakistan is not in any danger other than that manufactured by its own military government, while serving America’s will. The only real danger we face is from our own dangerous leaders, just as the only real danger faced by our elitist leaders is that which emanates from the people becoming aware of their plans and beginning to offer stiff resistance to the idea of shipping their sons and daughters away to be abused by the military and then sent-off to kill or die in the latest resource wars.
The funny thing about resources, is that they will always be available to those who want them. Obtaining these resources only requires money, a lot less than that which is currently being spent by our government in its attempt to take the natural resources from others. We are not waging war in the gas and oil regions of the world for the right to purchase their products (we can already do that); we are fighting to own that which is not ours.
Stop your sons and daughters from serving in this bankers’ war. Convince them to serve their own countries, not the evil smiling parasites that have taken over all countries and brought the world to ruin.
It’s time for the world revolution.
peterchamberlin@naharnet.com
Saving the Bankers With a Make-Believe War
Written by Peter Chamberlin
Pakistanis and Americans have a common problem, which is also shared by every other country on the planet–corruption in high places. The world is made to fret over the impending loss of the entire capitalist system by the overlords of the Western media, even though, the only loss for the common man will be the chains that bind him. We are all supposed to be grieving deeply for the collapse of the money system which has made so many people rich, people whom the media tells us we all want to be just like.
The media, no matter how hard it keeps from telling the truth and how much it twists and deforms the facts to fit the official spin set by Washington, cannot snuff-out all the tiny lights of awareness that are springing-up all over the world. Washington and Islamabad have both tightly controlled their national media, never allowing the cutting truth, or trouble-making bearers of explosive truth the print space or air time in the “legitimate press.” No one is allowed to rock the looters’ boats as they struggle to transfer their ill-gotten treasures to shore before they too lose everything in the coming collapse.
The Western media leads popular opinion to sympathize with the struggling corporate raiders, in order to help orchestrate the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The media portrays the “war of terror” as a great struggle to save civilization, even though true “civilization” (the liberation of every soul through universal human rights) has not yet evolved. The media’s one purpose it to try to encourage the “free world” to sacrifice its children in a senseless struggle to preserve the destructive forces that have made the destruction of the old order inevitable.
Emergency measures, both economic and military, have been forced upon us, to carry on a war that is destroying both freedom and democracy, while maintaining the fiction that the war defends both. The media whips popular opinion into a frenzy to build patriotic blood-lust within the mob and the desire to kill millions of strangers for crimes that our leaders swear they fully intend to commit. The Western media and the Pakistani media, like the governments which they serve, are pushing the people to a fatal war, seeking to outrun the rising mob that wants the leaders’ heads.
We have glimpsed the truth about our leaders, and our knowledge is frightening them to death. The “good old boy” network that dominates in every country (and cumulatively controls the world) lives on borrowed time, as the power of the people is a building tsunami of change which is barreling down upon them. This is a secret that, for them, must remain hidden from the silent majority. The people are breathing down their necks and they are running scared, head-on into a great wall of their own making.
Pakistan is the great wall. The empire’s dreams, as always, are about to be shattered in Waziristan. It is not that the Army is about to suddenly develop a collective spine and stand-up for the Pakistani people against the American aggression; it is that the people themselves, who are fed-up with the games and lies and are ready to hold the Army responsible for all military attacks in the tribal regions. No matter how much they might complain about American airstrikes in Pakistan, it is all for show. The American attacks are driving Pakistan’s war choices, contrary to the will of the Pakistani people. The Army will eventually fight on America’s terms, if they want to have a seat at America’s “victory” banquet, after seizing everyone’s everything. They have all grown quite wealthy at your expense.
Smiling demonic faces sold us all a bill of goods, as we were drawn into a make-believe battle to “save civilization” from the savages, never bothering to describe the mission, or tell us how they would accomplish it, and at what cost. No one told you that Pakistan’s choice had been made for it, to destroy Pakistan, in order to save it, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Every aspect of this new war has two dimensions—the official media version of events and the buried truth. If the government or the media ever merges the two conflicting dimensions and the paradox is revealed, then the war effort will collapse, as the criminal conspirators will have their cover blown. Somewhere, just below the surface, most people suspect that the truth about the war remains hidden from us. It is the responsibility of the true research journalists to confirm people’s suspicions about the war and the empire, by revealing the hidden truths.
As long as the American and Pakistani people are willing to play-along and pretend that a bunch of “stirred-up Muslims” are capable of destroying the world, or even just one important country, like Pakistan, then the game can go on and the empire builders can continue to lay their foundations for a world united in permanent limited war. The empire of the smiling faces must be brought to an end, by exposing the hollow rhetoric that drives this war.
It is not civilization itself that is in danger of collapsing; it is the parasitic system of international financing, which feeds-off both the civilized world and the developing world, which is in danger of destruction, a danger that the smiling face parasites created by their own greed. We have been tricked into entering into a full-blown world war to save the bankers and the network of cronyism that gives them their ultimate power.
The bankers’ system is not endangered by wild “Islamists” in any way; it is enriched by the expanding resource wars made possible by their destabilizing actions. It is not enough that the bankers and their minions have raped trillions out of the pockets of the American taxpayers, now they must also have the trillions, or quadrillions of energy bucks represented by the vast resources of south-central Asia, Africa and S. America.
America is not in any danger that its leaders have not created themselves, just as Pakistan is not in any danger other than that manufactured by its own military government, while serving America’s will. The only real danger we face is from our own dangerous leaders, just as the only real danger faced by our elitist leaders is that which emanates from the people becoming aware of their plans and beginning to offer stiff resistance to the idea of shipping their sons and daughters away to be abused by the military and then sent-off to kill or die in the latest resource wars.
The funny thing about resources, is that they will always be available to those who want them. Obtaining these resources only requires money, a lot less than that which is currently being spent by our government in its attempt to take the natural resources from others. We are not waging war in the gas and oil regions of the world for the right to purchase their products (we can already do that); we are fighting to own that which is not ours.
Stop your sons and daughters from serving in this bankers’ war. Convince them to serve their own countries, not the evil smiling parasites that have taken over all countries and brought the world to ruin.
It’s time for the world revolution.
peterchamberlin@naharnet.com
From Australia's OLO (online opinion):
The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and there is little justification for Australia being involved. Rudd has not had the courage to take the Australian people into his confidence, instead allowing the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Houston, to hint that Australian troops would be withdrawn in four or five years time when training of the Afghan Army will be complete, a task the USSR attempted but which collapsed on the withdrawal of the Russian Army from Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and there is little justification for Australia being involved. Rudd has not had the courage to take the Australian people into his confidence, instead allowing the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Houston, to hint that Australian troops would be withdrawn in four or five years time when training of the Afghan Army will be complete, a task the USSR attempted but which collapsed on the withdrawal of the Russian Army from Afghanistan.
In France, a New Generation of Women Says Non to Nude Sunbathing
By Bruce Crumley / Paris Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009A woman sunbathes on the beach during the 62nd International Cannes Film Festival in May 2009
Kristian Dowling / Getty
For decades, the French have relished any opportunity to mock Americans for their supposed childish Yankee puritanism when it comes to matters of sex. These days, though, France is experiencing its own blush of youthful prudishness as an entire generation of younger French women says "Non, merci," to the summer tradition of topless sunbathing.
Since France's summer vacation season kicked off in early July, the French press has repeatedly sounded the alarm over the shrinking number of topless women on the nation's beaches. As eagle-eyed reporters have made quite clear, the prevailing trend among sun-loving women these days is to use both pieces of their bikini. Le Monokini, C'est Fini! , shouted Le Parisien in its report from a Mediterranean beach. "Nude Breasts Are Less Trendy" concurred free daily Metro France. "The practice has become common, and therefore less compelling as a fashion," says sociologist Jean-Claude Kaufmann. "When the local baker takes off her top despite her 60-year age and sagging breasts, the gesture loses its social distinction as one of youthful beauty." Some note that the return to more modest costumes is in part a response to rising concerns about skin cancer.
But the trend is also part of a wider social movement by younger French women who are shunning the less-inhibited habits of previous generations. If burning bras and going topless were the ways French women of the 1970s and '80s demonstrated their freedom, their daughters and grand-daughters seem less comfortable with exposed flesh. "The values of our time are more conservative, traditional and familial," says Kaufmann.
A survey titled "Women and Nudity" by polling agency Ifop captures the mood. It found that younger French women not only have a problem with nudity — but actually consider themselves prudish. Fully 88% of the women questioned qualified themselves as pudique — a term that can mean anything from "modest" or "prim" to "priggish." And they aren't joking. Though 90% said they get naked with their husband or partner, 59% avoid being nude around their children. Sixty-three percent said they refused to undress around female friends; 22% said they considered a woman in her underwear already naked.
(See TIME's France covers.)
With sensitivities like those, it's little wonder the poll found French women had strong opinions about public nakedness. Nearly 50% said they were bothered by total nudity on beaches or naturist camps, and 37% said they were disturbed by publicly exposed breasts or buttocks. Forty-five percent of respondents reported they'd prefer to see a lot less flesh hanging out in full view — male or female.
Those attitudes got even more pronounced with respondents aged 18-24. A quarter of women within that group described themselves as very pudique, and 20% saw any nudity as tantamount to indecency. That, sociologists say, explains the changing scenery on French beaches. Younger women disinclined to baring themselves make up the majority of female sunbathers; those still willing to go topless are usually older French women.
(See pictures of sunbathing in France on LIFE.com.)
"There aren't any rules, but, yeah, it's true when you're at the beach and look around, the only topless women anymore are older," says Elodie, 19, as she visited an artificial beach along the Seine known as Paris Plage recently. Elodie pointed out that a municipal fine — and frequently lousy weather — make going topless at Paris Plage a nonstarter. When asked whether she went topless on vacation beaches — and what factors made her decide when she did and didn't — Elodie's reply was as chilly as it was logical. "All those things," she said, "are personal concerns."
By Bruce Crumley / Paris Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009A woman sunbathes on the beach during the 62nd International Cannes Film Festival in May 2009
Kristian Dowling / Getty
For decades, the French have relished any opportunity to mock Americans for their supposed childish Yankee puritanism when it comes to matters of sex. These days, though, France is experiencing its own blush of youthful prudishness as an entire generation of younger French women says "Non, merci," to the summer tradition of topless sunbathing.
Since France's summer vacation season kicked off in early July, the French press has repeatedly sounded the alarm over the shrinking number of topless women on the nation's beaches. As eagle-eyed reporters have made quite clear, the prevailing trend among sun-loving women these days is to use both pieces of their bikini. Le Monokini, C'est Fini! , shouted Le Parisien in its report from a Mediterranean beach. "Nude Breasts Are Less Trendy" concurred free daily Metro France. "The practice has become common, and therefore less compelling as a fashion," says sociologist Jean-Claude Kaufmann. "When the local baker takes off her top despite her 60-year age and sagging breasts, the gesture loses its social distinction as one of youthful beauty." Some note that the return to more modest costumes is in part a response to rising concerns about skin cancer.
But the trend is also part of a wider social movement by younger French women who are shunning the less-inhibited habits of previous generations. If burning bras and going topless were the ways French women of the 1970s and '80s demonstrated their freedom, their daughters and grand-daughters seem less comfortable with exposed flesh. "The values of our time are more conservative, traditional and familial," says Kaufmann.
A survey titled "Women and Nudity" by polling agency Ifop captures the mood. It found that younger French women not only have a problem with nudity — but actually consider themselves prudish. Fully 88% of the women questioned qualified themselves as pudique — a term that can mean anything from "modest" or "prim" to "priggish." And they aren't joking. Though 90% said they get naked with their husband or partner, 59% avoid being nude around their children. Sixty-three percent said they refused to undress around female friends; 22% said they considered a woman in her underwear already naked.
(See TIME's France covers.)
With sensitivities like those, it's little wonder the poll found French women had strong opinions about public nakedness. Nearly 50% said they were bothered by total nudity on beaches or naturist camps, and 37% said they were disturbed by publicly exposed breasts or buttocks. Forty-five percent of respondents reported they'd prefer to see a lot less flesh hanging out in full view — male or female.
Those attitudes got even more pronounced with respondents aged 18-24. A quarter of women within that group described themselves as very pudique, and 20% saw any nudity as tantamount to indecency. That, sociologists say, explains the changing scenery on French beaches. Younger women disinclined to baring themselves make up the majority of female sunbathers; those still willing to go topless are usually older French women.
(See pictures of sunbathing in France on LIFE.com.)
"There aren't any rules, but, yeah, it's true when you're at the beach and look around, the only topless women anymore are older," says Elodie, 19, as she visited an artificial beach along the Seine known as Paris Plage recently. Elodie pointed out that a municipal fine — and frequently lousy weather — make going topless at Paris Plage a nonstarter. When asked whether she went topless on vacation beaches — and what factors made her decide when she did and didn't — Elodie's reply was as chilly as it was logical. "All those things," she said, "are personal concerns."
Afghan rebuilding, S'pore-style
Fri, Jul 31, 2009
my paper
by Koh Hui Theng
ORCHARD Road - or a version of that famous shopping thoroughfare - could arise in battered Kabul, capital of Afghanistan.
That's the dream that drives World Bank consultant Najla Sabri, and she hopes Singapore know-how can make it real.
She and 33 other Afghans were in Singapore for a weeklong United Nations-organised study trip hosted by the Singapore International Foundation (SIF).
It was an emotional and inspiring outing for the Kabul resident, who is in her early 30s. She looks forward to the day her war-ravaged nation can rebuild itself to world-class standards, 'like Singapore has done'.
As part of the Hiroshima Fellowship for Afghanistan 2009 - a UN Institute for Training and Research programme - the group visited places like the Singapore General Hospital and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to learn about infrastructure and capacity development.
One key moment came when Ms Sabri saw URA's masterplan for Singapore's downtown area.
She told my paper: 'You're very clear about what your building needs are and what the people want. In Kabul, we can't even agree on where a building should be placed.'
Where might a 'Kabul Orchard Road' emerge? Perhaps in Froshga, Kabul's main bazaar.
'Afghan citizens go there (Froshga) to shop and get daily necessities, but we always rush back after running our errands because security is an issue,' said Ms Sabri.
'With (August) presidential elections drawing near, we try to avoid walking or driving near United States convoys too, as they are usually targeted by terrorists.'
She added: 'Singapore is a thousand times smaller than Afghanistan, but you're able to live in harmony and use limited resources to develop (your) infrastructure. We are starting from zero, so we have much to learn from you.'
The Afghans have attended workshops on management and leadership skills. They are leaving tomorrow. SIF has been aiding Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts since 2004.
Said Ms Margaret Thevarakom, deputy director of international volunteerism, 39: 'Giving the Afghans a first-hand understanding of what we do in Singapore means they can apply what they have learnt when they get back home. Where Afghanistan is at now is where we were 44 years ago. In addition, they have suffered a war.'
kohht@sph.com.sg
Fri, Jul 31, 2009
my paper
by Koh Hui Theng
ORCHARD Road - or a version of that famous shopping thoroughfare - could arise in battered Kabul, capital of Afghanistan.
That's the dream that drives World Bank consultant Najla Sabri, and she hopes Singapore know-how can make it real.
She and 33 other Afghans were in Singapore for a weeklong United Nations-organised study trip hosted by the Singapore International Foundation (SIF).
It was an emotional and inspiring outing for the Kabul resident, who is in her early 30s. She looks forward to the day her war-ravaged nation can rebuild itself to world-class standards, 'like Singapore has done'.
As part of the Hiroshima Fellowship for Afghanistan 2009 - a UN Institute for Training and Research programme - the group visited places like the Singapore General Hospital and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to learn about infrastructure and capacity development.
One key moment came when Ms Sabri saw URA's masterplan for Singapore's downtown area.
She told my paper: 'You're very clear about what your building needs are and what the people want. In Kabul, we can't even agree on where a building should be placed.'
Where might a 'Kabul Orchard Road' emerge? Perhaps in Froshga, Kabul's main bazaar.
'Afghan citizens go there (Froshga) to shop and get daily necessities, but we always rush back after running our errands because security is an issue,' said Ms Sabri.
'With (August) presidential elections drawing near, we try to avoid walking or driving near United States convoys too, as they are usually targeted by terrorists.'
She added: 'Singapore is a thousand times smaller than Afghanistan, but you're able to live in harmony and use limited resources to develop (your) infrastructure. We are starting from zero, so we have much to learn from you.'
The Afghans have attended workshops on management and leadership skills. They are leaving tomorrow. SIF has been aiding Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts since 2004.
Said Ms Margaret Thevarakom, deputy director of international volunteerism, 39: 'Giving the Afghans a first-hand understanding of what we do in Singapore means they can apply what they have learnt when they get back home. Where Afghanistan is at now is where we were 44 years ago. In addition, they have suffered a war.'
kohht@sph.com.sg
Army missteps left troops in Afghanistan open to deadly attack, study reveals
A study by an Army historian documents several missteps, including lack of supplies, equipment and aerial surveillance, that led to one of the bloodiest clashes in the Afghanistan war. The battle at the remote mountain outpost of Wanat, where nine American troops were killed and 27 were wounded, is now the subject of an inquiry by the Department of Defense's Inspector General.
By Hal Bernton and Cheryl Phillips
Seattle Times staff reporters
Cpl. Jason Bogar, of Seattle
COURTESY OF CARLENE CROSS
Cpl. Jason Bogar, center, poses with other soldiers from his unit in the Waigal Valley in Afghanistan. Only one of the five soldiers, Spc. Chris McKaig, on the far right, survived the battle at Wanat. Also pictured are Spc. Pruitt Rainey, left, Pfc. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Gunnar Zwilling.
COURTESY OF CARLENE CROSS
In the days leading up to the attack at Wanat, Afghanistan, the soldiers alternated fortifying the camp, although they lacked enough equipment and supplies, with rest periods, which were necessary because the unit was running out of water. Bogar rests at left.
Archive | Cpl. Jason Bogar remembered for heroism in Iraq, Afghanistan
Video: A tribute to Jason Bogar
Archive | U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan told families mission would be dangerous
In the days before one of the fiercest battles in America's eight-year war in Afghanistan, Army Capt. Benjamin Pry argued for more surveillance flights to help his beleaguered unit of fewer than 50 soldiers.
Since moving into a new outpost on July 8, 2008, they had struggled with shortages of water, fuel, food and heavy machinery to help defend against an enemy attack that they believed would eventually come. Lacking excavating equipment, the troops dug fortifications by scraping the rocky soil with spades and bare hands.
Then on July 12, headquarters commanders diverted drones — remotely operated planes outfitted with cameras to spot enemy movements — to another area. Pry argued so hard to undo that decision that he said he breached professional etiquette. Still, he was unsuccessful.
"We had no support from brigade, division or theater level assets at the time," Pry told Army historians in a study obtained by The Seattle Times.
That study, written by historian Douglas Cubbison of the U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., documented missteps that preceded some of the bloodiest combat to date for American troops in the Afghanistan war.
Early in the morning of July 13, the outpost at the village of Wanat came under assault from some 200 enemy troops. The attack claimed the lives of nine Army soldiers — including Cpl. Jason Bogar, 25, of Seattle — and wounded 27 others, precipitating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from a valley in eastern Afghanistan.
The 254-page unreleased study challenges the Army's official battle investigation, which had concluded that leaders displayed "sound military analysis" and that no blame could be placed on commanders.
Cubbison noted suspect decisions by commanders, who allowed an understaffed platoon to plant itself in hostile territory without adequate support.
In the Wanat battle study, Cubbison concluded that:
• No senior commander visited Wanat before establishing it as an outpost, and it was "highly questionable" whether these commanders exercised due diligence when they ordered a platoon to move there.
• The lack of heavy equipment to fortify defenses and the lack of intelligence support directly contributed to the casualties suffered last July 13.
The Army institute is a military think tank that helps evaluate Army capabilities and operations.
Cubbison noted that some soldiers who stepped forward to talk did so at the "risk of being professionally censured."
Army officials say the study is far from finished. They described it as a working paper that is not yet even a draft. They said there would be more interviews and a peer review, and declined to comment on the findings. "It's not done," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, told The Seattle Times on Thursday.
Cubbison could not be reached for comment for this story. A spokesman for the Army institute confirmed that the study was not yet complete.
The extensively footnoted study, based on numerous interviews with soldiers and other sources, also documents the heroism of those who fought that day and prevented the outpost from being overrun.
It also offers a sweeping narrative of the events leading up to the battle, when much of what was going wrong with the war in Afghanistan last summer was going wrong in Wanat.
The study already is raising questions in Washington, D.C.
Sen. James Webb, D-Va., wrote in a July 9 letter to the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General that he believes "more thorough consideration of senior command accountability is warranted."
By then, the Inspector General's office had already opened an inquiry into Wanat in response to a hotline complaint received in November from one of several parents pressing for more information.
"It's been over a year since the nine soldiers were killed, and I just want the truth to come out," said David Brostrom, a retired Army colonel whose son, 1st Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, 24, died in the battle.
Bogar's mother, Carlene Cross, of Issaquah, said, "They need to tell people what happened so they can make changes and it doesn't happen again."
Battling insurgents
They called themselves "Chosen Company," and their informal mascot was a Marvel Comics figure known as The Punisher, a lone soldier who took jobs nobody else would do.
Based out of Italy, C Company was part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Command Team and had earned a reputation as a savvy, combat-hardened unit of paratroopers.
Bogar was a Bothell High School graduate who joined the Washington National Guard in 2000 and then became caught up in military life. He served in Iraq, assisted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and then went to Afghanistan. After returning, he joined the active-duty Army with the belief that the military would send him to film school, according to his mother.
Instead, he ended up in Afghanistan.
In June 2007, the company was sent to the Waigal Valley, a remote, rugged corner of eastern Afghanistan that hosted insurgent groups. The insurgents often recruited young villagers eager for income and a chance to test their warrior skills.
The company had three platoons, but only two of them — fewer than 80 soldiers — were sent to the valley. Cubbison wrote that those two platoons were overextended as they tried to staff Spartan combat outposts.
Early on, they faced tough fighting. Soldiers were involved in hand-to-hand combat in August 2007 as insurgents tried to overrun one of the outposts. Then, in November 2007, six Americans were killed in an ambush.
An incident in January 2008 was a blow to both troop morale and attempts to cooperate with Afghan forces.
Platoon leader Sgt. Matthew Kahler was killed by an Afghan soldier who leaned out of a bunker, fired a shot and then fled. After an investigation, the killing was ruled an accident.
But soldiers in the platoon believed that it was deliberate, according to the study and Bogar's diary entry obtained by The Seattle Times.
"He [Kahler] walked up stating loudly we are Americans," Bogar wrote. "But [he] was still shot in the head.
"It was planned and they all knew exactly what they were doing."
Kahler's death was followed by a period of intense warfare that continued through the summer of 2008. Despite all the fighting, the U.S. was not gaining ground in the valley.
The Army closed one outpost in November, planned to close a second one known as Bella and then open a new outpost in Wanat on a mountain slope at an elevation of about 4,000 feet. Meanwhile, on July 4, a U.S. attack near Bella inflamed the local communities against the Americans, according to the study. A convoy of pickups was speeding away from an area that was the source of hostile fire. U.S. Apache helicopters fired on the trucks, killing 17, including doctors, nurses and staff of a local health clinic.
It was unclear what happened. Capt. Pry, the company intelligence officer, believed insurgents had forced their way onto the convoy. Still, for the enemy it was a propaganda victory.
"I think July 4 was a disaster both for the people of [Waigal] valley and the Coalition forces," said Sami Nurstani, a valley resident, in an interview published in the study.
The anger over the death of civilians, Nurstani said, led to the attack nine days later on Wanat.
Hampered by shortages
On the evening of July 8, 2008, soldiers began arriving at Wanat. By the next morning, there were 47 U.S. military troops, including several Marines, and some 24 Afghan National Army paratroopers at the site.
An Afghan construction company had been hired to build up the defenses with heavy equipment. But that company never showed up, so there were shortages of equipment and supplies for such crucial tasks as constructing overhead cover or bunkers, according to the study.
The company did have a Bobcat, a small excavating machine. But it couldn't reach high enough to stack containers to place mortars at a 7-foot height. Instead, they were placed only at 4-foot level, where they would be less effective. Even the Bobcat was unreliable, breaking down for a day.
The soldiers were also constrained during the next four days by a shortage of drinking water. "I remember on the 10th, 11th we [were] down to less than a liter of water per person and subsequently we did not dig or work to conserve our energy and water supply," said Spc. Michael Santiago, in an interview for the study.
Some of the biggest gaps in defenses were in a key observation post. There were three fighting positions there, but no posts or stakes left to prop up the single strand of concertina wire. So it was just placed on the ground, according to the study.
Bogar urged his buddies to stack up sandbags as high as they could in a fortified position on the south end of the observation post. One of the other soldiers dubbed that encampment "The Alamo," according to Bogar's mother, Cross.
In the four days preceding the attacks, there were numerous troubling signs.
Soldiers noticed small groups of men who had gathered in a village bazaar and had watched development of the fortifications. Women and children were noticeably absent. A group of five men was spotted moving across the mountains in the dead of night.
At a dinner meeting in the village on July 12, a father and son known as staunch pro-Americans warned that the soldiers should shoot anyone they saw in the hills, and even asked if C Company had drone surveillance.
But by that evening, the drone flights had been diverted to help another operation.
"This action, with a platoon deployed at high risk, is on its face incomprehensible," wrote Webb, the U.S. senator, in his letter to the Army.
Last July's attack
The attack began at about 4 a.m., led by a fierce volley of rocket-propelled grenades that targeted key defenses and rendered the unit's mortars ineffective. The gravest situation was at an observation post manned by Bogar and eight other soldiers who came under a withering onslaught.
"This first round of explosions was devastatingly accurate, and everybody in the OP [observation post] was immediately wounded, stunned or both," wrote Cubbison.
Spc. Tyler Stafford suffered searing leg burns and shrapnel wounds to his arms as he was blown out of his machine-gun position. Stafford ended up next to Spc. Matthew Phillips, a Georgian known for his sharpshooting. He watched Phillips throw a grenade and then get knocked back down, mortally wounded.
Stafford then crawled to a hole in the southern part of the post, where Bogar was firing an automatic weapon perched atop a sandbag. Bogar fired hundreds of rounds until the barrel of his weapon became white-hot and jammed. Then he tended to Stafford's wounds.
"He saw how bad my arm was bleeding and he grabbed a tourniquet and put it on my arm," Stafford told The Seattle Times. "He saved a lot of blood from coming out of me."
Sgt. Ryan Pitts also had been wounded, by a rocket-propelled grenade. Bogar tied a tourniquet around Pitts' leg.
Bogar then ventured to another part of the observation post to use another machine gun.
Stafford and Pitts survived the battle. Bogar was eventually killed. His body was recovered on a hillside terrace outside the post, possibly dragged there by an insurgent, according to the study.
At the observation post, insurgents penetrated the concertina wire but never took control. After several hours of fighting, the battle turned as American helicopter gunships strafed enemy positions, bombers dropped their loads and more troops were sent in.
Army medical teams were able to evacuate all the wounded soldiers, flying amid smoke, burning vehicles and ground fire. "Their incredible courage ... is solely responsible for this miracle," Cubbison wrote.
Troops held on
By the end of the battle, 75 percent of the U.S. troops were wounded or dead.
Still, the troops held on to the enclave. Cubbison writes that the successful defense of the Wanat outpost was a "magnificent tactical victory ... as remarkable as any small unit action in American military history."
But the tactical victory, according to the study, was followed by a strategic setback as the valley two days later was ceded to enemy control. Residents who had cooperated with U.S. forces over a three-year period were left vulnerable to retaliation by insurgents.
Col. Charles Preysler, who headed the brigade that included Chosen Company, bristled at any notion that Wanat held any long-term importance in the Army's plans for the valley.
In a July 2008 interview with Stars and Stripes, he downplayed the significance of the withdrawal. He said that Wanat was just a temporary site where solders and vehicles gathered for a few nights. "We do that routinely. We're always doing that when we go out and stay in an area for longer than a few hours, and that's what it is. So there is nothing to abandon," Preysler said.
Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com and Cheryl Phillips: 206-464-2411 or cphillips@seattletimes.com
A study by an Army historian documents several missteps, including lack of supplies, equipment and aerial surveillance, that led to one of the bloodiest clashes in the Afghanistan war. The battle at the remote mountain outpost of Wanat, where nine American troops were killed and 27 were wounded, is now the subject of an inquiry by the Department of Defense's Inspector General.
By Hal Bernton and Cheryl Phillips
Seattle Times staff reporters
Cpl. Jason Bogar, of Seattle
COURTESY OF CARLENE CROSS
Cpl. Jason Bogar, center, poses with other soldiers from his unit in the Waigal Valley in Afghanistan. Only one of the five soldiers, Spc. Chris McKaig, on the far right, survived the battle at Wanat. Also pictured are Spc. Pruitt Rainey, left, Pfc. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Gunnar Zwilling.
COURTESY OF CARLENE CROSS
In the days leading up to the attack at Wanat, Afghanistan, the soldiers alternated fortifying the camp, although they lacked enough equipment and supplies, with rest periods, which were necessary because the unit was running out of water. Bogar rests at left.
Archive | Cpl. Jason Bogar remembered for heroism in Iraq, Afghanistan
Video: A tribute to Jason Bogar
Archive | U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan told families mission would be dangerous
In the days before one of the fiercest battles in America's eight-year war in Afghanistan, Army Capt. Benjamin Pry argued for more surveillance flights to help his beleaguered unit of fewer than 50 soldiers.
Since moving into a new outpost on July 8, 2008, they had struggled with shortages of water, fuel, food and heavy machinery to help defend against an enemy attack that they believed would eventually come. Lacking excavating equipment, the troops dug fortifications by scraping the rocky soil with spades and bare hands.
Then on July 12, headquarters commanders diverted drones — remotely operated planes outfitted with cameras to spot enemy movements — to another area. Pry argued so hard to undo that decision that he said he breached professional etiquette. Still, he was unsuccessful.
"We had no support from brigade, division or theater level assets at the time," Pry told Army historians in a study obtained by The Seattle Times.
That study, written by historian Douglas Cubbison of the U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., documented missteps that preceded some of the bloodiest combat to date for American troops in the Afghanistan war.
Early in the morning of July 13, the outpost at the village of Wanat came under assault from some 200 enemy troops. The attack claimed the lives of nine Army soldiers — including Cpl. Jason Bogar, 25, of Seattle — and wounded 27 others, precipitating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from a valley in eastern Afghanistan.
The 254-page unreleased study challenges the Army's official battle investigation, which had concluded that leaders displayed "sound military analysis" and that no blame could be placed on commanders.
Cubbison noted suspect decisions by commanders, who allowed an understaffed platoon to plant itself in hostile territory without adequate support.
In the Wanat battle study, Cubbison concluded that:
• No senior commander visited Wanat before establishing it as an outpost, and it was "highly questionable" whether these commanders exercised due diligence when they ordered a platoon to move there.
• The lack of heavy equipment to fortify defenses and the lack of intelligence support directly contributed to the casualties suffered last July 13.
The Army institute is a military think tank that helps evaluate Army capabilities and operations.
Cubbison noted that some soldiers who stepped forward to talk did so at the "risk of being professionally censured."
Army officials say the study is far from finished. They described it as a working paper that is not yet even a draft. They said there would be more interviews and a peer review, and declined to comment on the findings. "It's not done," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, told The Seattle Times on Thursday.
Cubbison could not be reached for comment for this story. A spokesman for the Army institute confirmed that the study was not yet complete.
The extensively footnoted study, based on numerous interviews with soldiers and other sources, also documents the heroism of those who fought that day and prevented the outpost from being overrun.
It also offers a sweeping narrative of the events leading up to the battle, when much of what was going wrong with the war in Afghanistan last summer was going wrong in Wanat.
The study already is raising questions in Washington, D.C.
Sen. James Webb, D-Va., wrote in a July 9 letter to the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General that he believes "more thorough consideration of senior command accountability is warranted."
By then, the Inspector General's office had already opened an inquiry into Wanat in response to a hotline complaint received in November from one of several parents pressing for more information.
"It's been over a year since the nine soldiers were killed, and I just want the truth to come out," said David Brostrom, a retired Army colonel whose son, 1st Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, 24, died in the battle.
Bogar's mother, Carlene Cross, of Issaquah, said, "They need to tell people what happened so they can make changes and it doesn't happen again."
Battling insurgents
They called themselves "Chosen Company," and their informal mascot was a Marvel Comics figure known as The Punisher, a lone soldier who took jobs nobody else would do.
Based out of Italy, C Company was part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Command Team and had earned a reputation as a savvy, combat-hardened unit of paratroopers.
Bogar was a Bothell High School graduate who joined the Washington National Guard in 2000 and then became caught up in military life. He served in Iraq, assisted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and then went to Afghanistan. After returning, he joined the active-duty Army with the belief that the military would send him to film school, according to his mother.
Instead, he ended up in Afghanistan.
In June 2007, the company was sent to the Waigal Valley, a remote, rugged corner of eastern Afghanistan that hosted insurgent groups. The insurgents often recruited young villagers eager for income and a chance to test their warrior skills.
The company had three platoons, but only two of them — fewer than 80 soldiers — were sent to the valley. Cubbison wrote that those two platoons were overextended as they tried to staff Spartan combat outposts.
Early on, they faced tough fighting. Soldiers were involved in hand-to-hand combat in August 2007 as insurgents tried to overrun one of the outposts. Then, in November 2007, six Americans were killed in an ambush.
An incident in January 2008 was a blow to both troop morale and attempts to cooperate with Afghan forces.
Platoon leader Sgt. Matthew Kahler was killed by an Afghan soldier who leaned out of a bunker, fired a shot and then fled. After an investigation, the killing was ruled an accident.
But soldiers in the platoon believed that it was deliberate, according to the study and Bogar's diary entry obtained by The Seattle Times.
"He [Kahler] walked up stating loudly we are Americans," Bogar wrote. "But [he] was still shot in the head.
"It was planned and they all knew exactly what they were doing."
Kahler's death was followed by a period of intense warfare that continued through the summer of 2008. Despite all the fighting, the U.S. was not gaining ground in the valley.
The Army closed one outpost in November, planned to close a second one known as Bella and then open a new outpost in Wanat on a mountain slope at an elevation of about 4,000 feet. Meanwhile, on July 4, a U.S. attack near Bella inflamed the local communities against the Americans, according to the study. A convoy of pickups was speeding away from an area that was the source of hostile fire. U.S. Apache helicopters fired on the trucks, killing 17, including doctors, nurses and staff of a local health clinic.
It was unclear what happened. Capt. Pry, the company intelligence officer, believed insurgents had forced their way onto the convoy. Still, for the enemy it was a propaganda victory.
"I think July 4 was a disaster both for the people of [Waigal] valley and the Coalition forces," said Sami Nurstani, a valley resident, in an interview published in the study.
The anger over the death of civilians, Nurstani said, led to the attack nine days later on Wanat.
Hampered by shortages
On the evening of July 8, 2008, soldiers began arriving at Wanat. By the next morning, there were 47 U.S. military troops, including several Marines, and some 24 Afghan National Army paratroopers at the site.
An Afghan construction company had been hired to build up the defenses with heavy equipment. But that company never showed up, so there were shortages of equipment and supplies for such crucial tasks as constructing overhead cover or bunkers, according to the study.
The company did have a Bobcat, a small excavating machine. But it couldn't reach high enough to stack containers to place mortars at a 7-foot height. Instead, they were placed only at 4-foot level, where they would be less effective. Even the Bobcat was unreliable, breaking down for a day.
The soldiers were also constrained during the next four days by a shortage of drinking water. "I remember on the 10th, 11th we [were] down to less than a liter of water per person and subsequently we did not dig or work to conserve our energy and water supply," said Spc. Michael Santiago, in an interview for the study.
Some of the biggest gaps in defenses were in a key observation post. There were three fighting positions there, but no posts or stakes left to prop up the single strand of concertina wire. So it was just placed on the ground, according to the study.
Bogar urged his buddies to stack up sandbags as high as they could in a fortified position on the south end of the observation post. One of the other soldiers dubbed that encampment "The Alamo," according to Bogar's mother, Cross.
In the four days preceding the attacks, there were numerous troubling signs.
Soldiers noticed small groups of men who had gathered in a village bazaar and had watched development of the fortifications. Women and children were noticeably absent. A group of five men was spotted moving across the mountains in the dead of night.
At a dinner meeting in the village on July 12, a father and son known as staunch pro-Americans warned that the soldiers should shoot anyone they saw in the hills, and even asked if C Company had drone surveillance.
But by that evening, the drone flights had been diverted to help another operation.
"This action, with a platoon deployed at high risk, is on its face incomprehensible," wrote Webb, the U.S. senator, in his letter to the Army.
Last July's attack
The attack began at about 4 a.m., led by a fierce volley of rocket-propelled grenades that targeted key defenses and rendered the unit's mortars ineffective. The gravest situation was at an observation post manned by Bogar and eight other soldiers who came under a withering onslaught.
"This first round of explosions was devastatingly accurate, and everybody in the OP [observation post] was immediately wounded, stunned or both," wrote Cubbison.
Spc. Tyler Stafford suffered searing leg burns and shrapnel wounds to his arms as he was blown out of his machine-gun position. Stafford ended up next to Spc. Matthew Phillips, a Georgian known for his sharpshooting. He watched Phillips throw a grenade and then get knocked back down, mortally wounded.
Stafford then crawled to a hole in the southern part of the post, where Bogar was firing an automatic weapon perched atop a sandbag. Bogar fired hundreds of rounds until the barrel of his weapon became white-hot and jammed. Then he tended to Stafford's wounds.
"He saw how bad my arm was bleeding and he grabbed a tourniquet and put it on my arm," Stafford told The Seattle Times. "He saved a lot of blood from coming out of me."
Sgt. Ryan Pitts also had been wounded, by a rocket-propelled grenade. Bogar tied a tourniquet around Pitts' leg.
Bogar then ventured to another part of the observation post to use another machine gun.
Stafford and Pitts survived the battle. Bogar was eventually killed. His body was recovered on a hillside terrace outside the post, possibly dragged there by an insurgent, according to the study.
At the observation post, insurgents penetrated the concertina wire but never took control. After several hours of fighting, the battle turned as American helicopter gunships strafed enemy positions, bombers dropped their loads and more troops were sent in.
Army medical teams were able to evacuate all the wounded soldiers, flying amid smoke, burning vehicles and ground fire. "Their incredible courage ... is solely responsible for this miracle," Cubbison wrote.
Troops held on
By the end of the battle, 75 percent of the U.S. troops were wounded or dead.
Still, the troops held on to the enclave. Cubbison writes that the successful defense of the Wanat outpost was a "magnificent tactical victory ... as remarkable as any small unit action in American military history."
But the tactical victory, according to the study, was followed by a strategic setback as the valley two days later was ceded to enemy control. Residents who had cooperated with U.S. forces over a three-year period were left vulnerable to retaliation by insurgents.
Col. Charles Preysler, who headed the brigade that included Chosen Company, bristled at any notion that Wanat held any long-term importance in the Army's plans for the valley.
In a July 2008 interview with Stars and Stripes, he downplayed the significance of the withdrawal. He said that Wanat was just a temporary site where solders and vehicles gathered for a few nights. "We do that routinely. We're always doing that when we go out and stay in an area for longer than a few hours, and that's what it is. So there is nothing to abandon," Preysler said.
Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com and Cheryl Phillips: 206-464-2411 or cphillips@seattletimes.com
Responding to a Cheerleader for the Afghan War
Posted by Guy Saperstein, News Hoggers at 9:57 PM on July 29, 2009.
Liberal hawk Peter Bergen fails to address core questions about the occupation, such as why the US is fighting the Taliban in the first place. Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
8 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
PEEK RSS Feed
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get PEEK in your
mailbox!
Ed. Note: Recently, Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation had an op-ed published by the Washington Monthly entitled "Winning The Good War." It has been widely and approvingly linked by Democrat interventionists as a bolster to their support for Obama's staying Bush's course in Afghanistan. Co-Founder of the National Security/Foreign Policy New Ideas Fund and civil rights lawyer Guy Saperstein has written a letter in response to Bergen's column (this letter first appeared on News Hoggers):
Liberal Hawks like Peter Bergen are not merely ascendant, they have become dominant, so it is important to look at their arguments and see if they make any sense.
While I am impressed with Bergen's knowledge of Afghanistan, in a long article he fails to address the core questions about Afghanistan: Why are we fighting the Taliban? There are crucial differences between the goals of al Qaeda and the Taliban, so why are we treating them the same? Why do we have 70,000 combat troops, plus private mercenaries there? How many more will be needed? What are the metrics of success or failure? How long will we be there? What will it ultimately cost? What is the exit strategy? Are there alternatives to the military model? And what are the real strategic threats to America and is spending hundreds of millions more in Afghanistan getting in the way of dealing with more important national security issues?
Bergen calls Afghanistan the "Good War," and it might have been that when it was harboring al Qaeda, but everyone, including General Patraeus acknowledges al Qaeda left Afghanistan long ago -- pushed out by our military intervention. In the absence of al Qaeda, we have simply substituted the Taliban as our enemy, without Bergen, or apparently anyone, asking whether this makes any sense. And should we consider it a success that al Qaeda has been pushed from a country with little or no strategic significance into nuclear-armed Pakistan, one of the potentially most dangerous countries on earth? Is it a success that now we are beholden to Pakistan to control al Qaeda, a task they have undertaken with mixed motives and weak results?
Al Qaeda has an international agenda, sees America as a long-term obstacle to its goals, and, of course, attacked the American homeland. But the Taliban never attacked America and no one claims the Taliban has any interest or capacity in attacking the United States homeland. It wants to take power in Afghanistan and it is fighting U.S. soldiers because these soldiers present an impediment to that goal. While the Taliban are not nice people, should America spend another trillion dollars, or more, on top of the $3 trillion cost of the War in Iraq [which Bergen also supported] to prevent the Taliban from taking power in Afghanistan? And while Bergen suggests the U.S. must reform not only the Afghanistan army and government, but also provide long-term "stability and prosperity" so that it "will never again be a launching pad" for terrorism, does this apply as well to the many weak and failed nations around the world which potentially could be launching pads for terrorism? Do we invade and rebuild them all? And with the American economy faltering and falling deeper into debt to its most important strategic rival, China, can we afford the luxury of fighting expensive wars wherever terrorism might arise?
Is negotiation and accommodation possible with the Taliban, or even part of it? Is there a deal to be made with the Taliban which allowed it to pursue its goal of retaking power in Afghanistan, provided that no terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda be allowed to operate in the country? Should we pursue such a deal?
And while I don't wish to argue tactics with Bergen, the Army's operation manual on counter-insurgency recommends one combat soldier for every twenty of population for success: With Afghanistan being a country of 13 million people, the 20:1 ratio would mean 650,000 combat troops. Is that where Bergen thinks we are trending, or should trend? If so, then Afghanistan will start looking like Vietnam.
The problem with Bergen's analysis is the same problem as the Administration's war effort: They both are full of talk of tactics and logistics, founded on unarticulated assumptions and lacking a long-term strategic vision or even consideration of less intensive, and perhaps more effective, alternatives. President Obama promised metrics and an exit strategy, but, to date, none have been forthcoming, either from the President or cheerleaders like Peter Bergen.
Posted by Guy Saperstein, News Hoggers at 9:57 PM on July 29, 2009.
Liberal hawk Peter Bergen fails to address core questions about the occupation, such as why the US is fighting the Taliban in the first place. Post Tools
8 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
PEEK RSS Feed
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get PEEK in your
mailbox!
Ed. Note: Recently, Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation had an op-ed published by the Washington Monthly entitled "Winning The Good War." It has been widely and approvingly linked by Democrat interventionists as a bolster to their support for Obama's staying Bush's course in Afghanistan. Co-Founder of the National Security/Foreign Policy New Ideas Fund and civil rights lawyer Guy Saperstein has written a letter in response to Bergen's column (this letter first appeared on News Hoggers):
Liberal Hawks like Peter Bergen are not merely ascendant, they have become dominant, so it is important to look at their arguments and see if they make any sense.
While I am impressed with Bergen's knowledge of Afghanistan, in a long article he fails to address the core questions about Afghanistan: Why are we fighting the Taliban? There are crucial differences between the goals of al Qaeda and the Taliban, so why are we treating them the same? Why do we have 70,000 combat troops, plus private mercenaries there? How many more will be needed? What are the metrics of success or failure? How long will we be there? What will it ultimately cost? What is the exit strategy? Are there alternatives to the military model? And what are the real strategic threats to America and is spending hundreds of millions more in Afghanistan getting in the way of dealing with more important national security issues?
Bergen calls Afghanistan the "Good War," and it might have been that when it was harboring al Qaeda, but everyone, including General Patraeus acknowledges al Qaeda left Afghanistan long ago -- pushed out by our military intervention. In the absence of al Qaeda, we have simply substituted the Taliban as our enemy, without Bergen, or apparently anyone, asking whether this makes any sense. And should we consider it a success that al Qaeda has been pushed from a country with little or no strategic significance into nuclear-armed Pakistan, one of the potentially most dangerous countries on earth? Is it a success that now we are beholden to Pakistan to control al Qaeda, a task they have undertaken with mixed motives and weak results?
Al Qaeda has an international agenda, sees America as a long-term obstacle to its goals, and, of course, attacked the American homeland. But the Taliban never attacked America and no one claims the Taliban has any interest or capacity in attacking the United States homeland. It wants to take power in Afghanistan and it is fighting U.S. soldiers because these soldiers present an impediment to that goal. While the Taliban are not nice people, should America spend another trillion dollars, or more, on top of the $3 trillion cost of the War in Iraq [which Bergen also supported] to prevent the Taliban from taking power in Afghanistan? And while Bergen suggests the U.S. must reform not only the Afghanistan army and government, but also provide long-term "stability and prosperity" so that it "will never again be a launching pad" for terrorism, does this apply as well to the many weak and failed nations around the world which potentially could be launching pads for terrorism? Do we invade and rebuild them all? And with the American economy faltering and falling deeper into debt to its most important strategic rival, China, can we afford the luxury of fighting expensive wars wherever terrorism might arise?
Is negotiation and accommodation possible with the Taliban, or even part of it? Is there a deal to be made with the Taliban which allowed it to pursue its goal of retaking power in Afghanistan, provided that no terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda be allowed to operate in the country? Should we pursue such a deal?
And while I don't wish to argue tactics with Bergen, the Army's operation manual on counter-insurgency recommends one combat soldier for every twenty of population for success: With Afghanistan being a country of 13 million people, the 20:1 ratio would mean 650,000 combat troops. Is that where Bergen thinks we are trending, or should trend? If so, then Afghanistan will start looking like Vietnam.
The problem with Bergen's analysis is the same problem as the Administration's war effort: They both are full of talk of tactics and logistics, founded on unarticulated assumptions and lacking a long-term strategic vision or even consideration of less intensive, and perhaps more effective, alternatives. President Obama promised metrics and an exit strategy, but, to date, none have been forthcoming, either from the President or cheerleaders like Peter Bergen.
1,000 Afghan civilians killed in deadliest 6 months: UN
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara
Posted 1 hour 34 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 35 minutes ago
The United Nations says more than 1,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict in Afghanistan in the first six months of this year, making the death toll 24 per cent higher than the same period last year.
This has been the deadliest six months for civilians in Afghanistan, since the US led invasion.
The report says insurgents were responsible for most of the deaths but 41 per cent were attributed to government and Coalition forces.
The UN says increased insurgent bombings, and air strikes by international forces are the biggest killers.
Violence has escalated after a surge in foreign troops, especially in the south of the country.
The Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called on foreign forces to do more to reduce civilian casualties.
But the Taliban are urging their supporters to wage a holy war in the lead up to the presidential election on August 20.
source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara
Posted 1 hour 34 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 35 minutes ago
The United Nations says more than 1,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict in Afghanistan in the first six months of this year, making the death toll 24 per cent higher than the same period last year.
This has been the deadliest six months for civilians in Afghanistan, since the US led invasion.
The report says insurgents were responsible for most of the deaths but 41 per cent were attributed to government and Coalition forces.
The UN says increased insurgent bombings, and air strikes by international forces are the biggest killers.
Violence has escalated after a surge in foreign troops, especially in the south of the country.
The Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called on foreign forces to do more to reduce civilian casualties.
But the Taliban are urging their supporters to wage a holy war in the lead up to the presidential election on August 20.
source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Thursday, July 30, 2009
US drones to target Taliban in Afghan war: report
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — The US military plans to use more drone aircraft to target Taliban militants in Afghanistan while focusing less on hunting down Al-Qaeda figures, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.
Although defeating the Al-Qaeda terror network remains an overriding goal for Washington, officials now believe the best way to pursue that objective is to ensure stability in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan instead of Al-Qaeda manhunts, the paper said, citing US government and Defense Department officials.
It was more important to prevent a slide towards violence and anarchy that could be exploited by Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan to stage its attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the officials said.
"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," an official told the Times. "We should probably reassess our priorities."
The shift in priorities for the drone fleet comes despite President Barack Obama's declaration that defeating and dismantling Al-Qaeda is the primary goal of his strategy for the Afghan war.
Eight drones that have been devoted to tracking Al-Qaeda in remote Afghan mountains will be transferred to the fight against insurgents, the paper said.
And the US Central Command plans to send about 12 more drones to the Afghan front, including some aircraft that have been assigned to Iraq -- a move resisted by US commanders there.
The drones are in high demand and the military faces difficult choices in deciding how best to deploy the aircraft which are in short supply.
The armed Predators and Reapers can loiter over targets for hours and are viewed as an invaluable resource for both intelligence and military operations.
The drones are also used to target Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan though the US government does not publicly discuss those operations.
The new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has ordered an elaborate review of how the mission uses surveillance aircraft.
McChrystal favors using the drones in a more concentrated way instead of spreading the aircraft across the country so regional commands can use the plans for short periods each day.
The military also plans to increase the number of flights of U2 spy planes in Afghanistan and all of the Air Force's unmanned Global Hawks -- a much larger plane designed for surveillance -- will be shifted to Afghanistan, officials said.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — The US military plans to use more drone aircraft to target Taliban militants in Afghanistan while focusing less on hunting down Al-Qaeda figures, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.
Although defeating the Al-Qaeda terror network remains an overriding goal for Washington, officials now believe the best way to pursue that objective is to ensure stability in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan instead of Al-Qaeda manhunts, the paper said, citing US government and Defense Department officials.
It was more important to prevent a slide towards violence and anarchy that could be exploited by Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan to stage its attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the officials said.
"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," an official told the Times. "We should probably reassess our priorities."
The shift in priorities for the drone fleet comes despite President Barack Obama's declaration that defeating and dismantling Al-Qaeda is the primary goal of his strategy for the Afghan war.
Eight drones that have been devoted to tracking Al-Qaeda in remote Afghan mountains will be transferred to the fight against insurgents, the paper said.
And the US Central Command plans to send about 12 more drones to the Afghan front, including some aircraft that have been assigned to Iraq -- a move resisted by US commanders there.
The drones are in high demand and the military faces difficult choices in deciding how best to deploy the aircraft which are in short supply.
The armed Predators and Reapers can loiter over targets for hours and are viewed as an invaluable resource for both intelligence and military operations.
The drones are also used to target Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan though the US government does not publicly discuss those operations.
The new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has ordered an elaborate review of how the mission uses surveillance aircraft.
McChrystal favors using the drones in a more concentrated way instead of spreading the aircraft across the country so regional commands can use the plans for short periods each day.
The military also plans to increase the number of flights of U2 spy planes in Afghanistan and all of the Air Force's unmanned Global Hawks -- a much larger plane designed for surveillance -- will be shifted to Afghanistan, officials said.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
Further to the information on Afghan midwives that I posted yesterday, a blog post from someone on the web alerted me to the fact that there was someone who practiced midwifery in Affy who has just been profiled in the NYT.
For those who are interested, here is the article:
By DENISE GRADY
Published: July 27, 2009
Everybody wants Pashtoon Azfar. Her government, American aid groups and her own colleagues, the midwives of Afghanistan, all want her to work for them, lead them, help them rebuild a health system from the rubble of war.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Podcast: Science TimesEnlarge This Image
Chris Maddaloni for The New York Times
Pashtoon Azfar, president of the Afghan Midwives Association.
Ms. Azfar, 51, is trying to oblige. By day she directs Afghanistan’s Institute of Health Sciences, by night she works for a nonprofit group from Johns Hopkins University that focuses on women and children’s health, and somehow she also manages to serve as president of the Afghan Midwives Association.
Visiting from Kabul recently, she was the star at a Capitol Hill briefing titled “Maternal Health in Afghanistan: How Can We Save Women’s Lives?” Her audience included members of the Congressional caucus for women’s issues.
Afghanistan has the world’s second-highest death rate in women during pregnancy and childbirth (only Sierra Leone’s is worse). For every 100,000 births, 1,600 mothers die; in wealthy countries the rates range from 1 to 12. In one remote northeastern province, Badakhshan, 6,507 mothers die for every 100,000 births, according to a 2005 report in the medical journal Lancet. In all, 26,000 Afghan women a year die while pregnant or giving birth.
The main causes of these deaths are hemorrhage and obstructed labor, which can be fatal if a woman cannot obtain a Caesarean section. Even if the mother survives, obstructed labor without a Caesarean usually kills the baby. Most of the maternal deaths — 78 percent, according to the Lancet report — could be prevented. Against this bleak history, Ms. Azfar told her Washington audience, “I would like to share some successes with you.”
An intense woman with short, graying hair, Ms. Azfar rarely smiles. She ran through statistics showing notable increases recently in the country’s number of midwives, their education and the percentage of women who give birth with the help of a “skilled attendant,” usually a midwife. The United States, the World Bank, the European Commission, Unicef, the Hopkins group (known as Jhpiego) and other donors have all helped Afghanistan’s Ministry of Public Health to make improvements.
But there is a long way to go. Most women in Afghanistan, as many as 80 percent, still give birth without skilled help, and only a third receive any medical care at all during pregnancy.
Afghanistan’s problems mirror those of many other poor countries: shortages of personnel, supplies and transportation to clinics or hospitals, especially in remote regions and mountainous areas that are snowbound half the year. The deeper problems are cultural, rooted in the low status of women and the misperception that deaths in childbirth are inevitable — part of the natural order, women’s lot in life.
During her talk in Washington Ms. Azfar quoted Dr. Mahmoud Fathalla, an Egyptian physician and advocate for women’s health: “Women are not dying of diseases we can’t treat. ...They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”
Ms. Azfar works 12 hours a day, seven days a week. She has irked relatives by missing weddings and other family events because of work.
“My children are not happy,” she said in an interview after her speech.
Ms. Azfar grew up in a village about an hour from Kabul.
“Everywhere then, girls went to school,” she said. “Women’s rights before the Taliban were the same as in Western countries. Women had the right to vote.”
Her mother had 10 children, 2 of whom died. She always gave birth alone, behind a closed door. When Ms. Azfar was 9, she began to help, by waiting outside the door to receive the newborn baby and wash and swaddle it, while her mother then delivered her own placenta.
Ms. Azfar never actually saw a birth until she began studying midwifery at age 16, and only then, she said, did she realize how brave her mother had been. She finished the rigorous three-year program at the top of her class in 1976.
“It was a very well-respected profession in my country,” she said.
But decades of war destroyed midwifery and much of health care, she said. Professionals fled the country, and many never went back.
“One day, 100 rockets came into Kabul,” she said. She and her husband, a physician, took their four children and moved to Pakistan, living there from 1992 to 2003. She had a fifth child there.
By the time she returned to Afghanistan, she said, midwifery was in a shambles. Spots in professional schools of all kinds were being filled by people with political connections instead of those with good grades. The midwives who had stayed behind had not received any continuing education. Their skills were outdated, and their attitudes were even worse.
“A culture of war was going on,” Ms. Azfar said. “If a mother came for delivery they didn’t treat her as she deserved or needed to be treated. There was no emotional support.”
Attitude counts in midwifery: if midwives and other health workers seem indifferent or disrespectful, women start to avoid the clinics, and they miss out on the help they urgently need.
Ms. Azfar acknowledged that it was hard to change attitudes, but she insisted that it could be done, by making “interpersonal skills” part of the training and the tests that students must pass to be allowed to practice. In Afghanistan, these things became part of the midwifery curriculum in 2004.
“Does she greet the mother properly?” she asked. “Offer her a chair? A drink of water? Introduce herself? Let the mother ask questions? They are trained. They have to do it.”
She has seen signs of progress, of hope.
“Just five years ago we started the reconstruction of this profession,” Ms. Azfar said. “These midwives, they are champions. Oh, I love them. They are my heart.”
For those who are interested, here is the article:
By DENISE GRADY
Published: July 27, 2009
Everybody wants Pashtoon Azfar. Her government, American aid groups and her own colleagues, the midwives of Afghanistan, all want her to work for them, lead them, help them rebuild a health system from the rubble of war.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Podcast: Science TimesEnlarge This Image
Chris Maddaloni for The New York Times
Pashtoon Azfar, president of the Afghan Midwives Association.
Ms. Azfar, 51, is trying to oblige. By day she directs Afghanistan’s Institute of Health Sciences, by night she works for a nonprofit group from Johns Hopkins University that focuses on women and children’s health, and somehow she also manages to serve as president of the Afghan Midwives Association.
Visiting from Kabul recently, she was the star at a Capitol Hill briefing titled “Maternal Health in Afghanistan: How Can We Save Women’s Lives?” Her audience included members of the Congressional caucus for women’s issues.
Afghanistan has the world’s second-highest death rate in women during pregnancy and childbirth (only Sierra Leone’s is worse). For every 100,000 births, 1,600 mothers die; in wealthy countries the rates range from 1 to 12. In one remote northeastern province, Badakhshan, 6,507 mothers die for every 100,000 births, according to a 2005 report in the medical journal Lancet. In all, 26,000 Afghan women a year die while pregnant or giving birth.
The main causes of these deaths are hemorrhage and obstructed labor, which can be fatal if a woman cannot obtain a Caesarean section. Even if the mother survives, obstructed labor without a Caesarean usually kills the baby. Most of the maternal deaths — 78 percent, according to the Lancet report — could be prevented. Against this bleak history, Ms. Azfar told her Washington audience, “I would like to share some successes with you.”
An intense woman with short, graying hair, Ms. Azfar rarely smiles. She ran through statistics showing notable increases recently in the country’s number of midwives, their education and the percentage of women who give birth with the help of a “skilled attendant,” usually a midwife. The United States, the World Bank, the European Commission, Unicef, the Hopkins group (known as Jhpiego) and other donors have all helped Afghanistan’s Ministry of Public Health to make improvements.
But there is a long way to go. Most women in Afghanistan, as many as 80 percent, still give birth without skilled help, and only a third receive any medical care at all during pregnancy.
Afghanistan’s problems mirror those of many other poor countries: shortages of personnel, supplies and transportation to clinics or hospitals, especially in remote regions and mountainous areas that are snowbound half the year. The deeper problems are cultural, rooted in the low status of women and the misperception that deaths in childbirth are inevitable — part of the natural order, women’s lot in life.
During her talk in Washington Ms. Azfar quoted Dr. Mahmoud Fathalla, an Egyptian physician and advocate for women’s health: “Women are not dying of diseases we can’t treat. ...They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”
Ms. Azfar works 12 hours a day, seven days a week. She has irked relatives by missing weddings and other family events because of work.
“My children are not happy,” she said in an interview after her speech.
Ms. Azfar grew up in a village about an hour from Kabul.
“Everywhere then, girls went to school,” she said. “Women’s rights before the Taliban were the same as in Western countries. Women had the right to vote.”
Her mother had 10 children, 2 of whom died. She always gave birth alone, behind a closed door. When Ms. Azfar was 9, she began to help, by waiting outside the door to receive the newborn baby and wash and swaddle it, while her mother then delivered her own placenta.
Ms. Azfar never actually saw a birth until she began studying midwifery at age 16, and only then, she said, did she realize how brave her mother had been. She finished the rigorous three-year program at the top of her class in 1976.
“It was a very well-respected profession in my country,” she said.
But decades of war destroyed midwifery and much of health care, she said. Professionals fled the country, and many never went back.
“One day, 100 rockets came into Kabul,” she said. She and her husband, a physician, took their four children and moved to Pakistan, living there from 1992 to 2003. She had a fifth child there.
By the time she returned to Afghanistan, she said, midwifery was in a shambles. Spots in professional schools of all kinds were being filled by people with political connections instead of those with good grades. The midwives who had stayed behind had not received any continuing education. Their skills were outdated, and their attitudes were even worse.
“A culture of war was going on,” Ms. Azfar said. “If a mother came for delivery they didn’t treat her as she deserved or needed to be treated. There was no emotional support.”
Attitude counts in midwifery: if midwives and other health workers seem indifferent or disrespectful, women start to avoid the clinics, and they miss out on the help they urgently need.
Ms. Azfar acknowledged that it was hard to change attitudes, but she insisted that it could be done, by making “interpersonal skills” part of the training and the tests that students must pass to be allowed to practice. In Afghanistan, these things became part of the midwifery curriculum in 2004.
“Does she greet the mother properly?” she asked. “Offer her a chair? A drink of water? Introduce herself? Let the mother ask questions? They are trained. They have to do it.”
She has seen signs of progress, of hope.
“Just five years ago we started the reconstruction of this profession,” Ms. Azfar said. “These midwives, they are champions. Oh, I love them. They are my heart.”
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
[Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press.]
On July 23, a debate concerning the Responsibility to Protect took place in front of the General Asssembly of the United Nations. The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a notion agreed to by world leaders in 2005, that holds States responsible for shielding their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity, requiring the international community to step in if this obligation is not met. This last point is suspected to be related to the right of humanitarian intervention » and is the source of many debates.The discussion was initiated by General Assembly President Miguel DEscoto (from Nicaragua) and gathered Noam Chomsky, Gareth Evans, a supporter of R2P, former Foreign Minister of Australia and, until recently, president of the International Crisis Group, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, a prominent African writer and defender of human rights, and myself. Here is the text of my speech.
I would like, in this talk, to challenge the intellectual assumptions underlying the notion and the rhetoric of R2P. In a nutshell, my thesis will be that the main obstacle to the implementation of a genuine R2P are precisely the policies and the attitudes of the countries that are most enthusiastic about this doctrine, namely the Western countries, and in particular the US.
During the past decade, the world has looked on helplessly as innocent civilians were murdered by American bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been a helpless bystander of the murderous Israeli onslaught on Lebanon and Gaza. Previously, we have seen millions of people perish under American firepower in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; and many others have died in American proxy wars in Central America or Southern Africa. In the name of those victims, shall we say: never again! From now on, the world, the international community, will protect you!
Our humanitarian response is yes, we want to protect all victims. But how, and with which forces? How are the weak ever to be protected from the strong? The answer to this question must be sought not just in humanitarian or in legal terms, but first of all in political terms. The protection of the weak always depends on limitations of the power of the strong. The rule of law is such a limitation, so long as it is based on the principle of equality of all before the law. Achieving that requires clear-headed pursuit of idealistic principles accompanied by realistic assessment of the existing relationship of forces.
Before discussing politically the R2P, let me stress that what is at issue are not its diplomatic or preventive aspects, but the military part of the so-called timely and decisive response, and the challenge that it represents for national sovereignty.
R2P is an ambiguous doctrine. On the one hand, it is being sold to the United Nations as something essentially different from the right of humanitarian intervention, a notion that was developed in the West at the end of the 1970's, after the collapse of the colonial empires and the defeat of the United States in Indochina. This ideology has been relying on the human tragedies of the newly decolonized countries to lend a moral justification to the failed policies of intervention and control by the Western powers over the rest of the World.
Awareness of this fact exists in most of the world. The right of humanitarian intervention has been universally rejected by the South, for example at the South Summit in Havana in April 2000 or at the meeting of the Non Aligned Movement in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, shortly before the US attack on Iraq. The R2P is an attempt to fit this rejected right into the framework of the UN charter, so as to make it appear acceptable, by stressing that military actions are to be the last resort, and must be approved by the Security Council. But, then, there is nothing legally new under the sun, and I refer you to the concept note of the Office of the President of the General Assembly for a precise discussion of the legal aspects of the problem.
On the other hand, R2P is being sold to public opinion in the West as a new norm in international relations, one that authorizes military interventions on humanitarian grounds. For example, when President Obama, at the recent G8 meeting, stressed the importance of national sovereignty, the influential French newspaper Le Monde called it a step backwards, since R2P has already been accepted. There is a big difference between R2P as a legal doctrine and its ideological reception in the Western media.
However, in a post-World War II history that includes the Indochina wars, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Panama, even of tiny Grenada, as well as the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and various other countries, it is scarcely credible to maintain that it is international law and respect for national sovereignty that prevent the United States from stopping genocide. If the US had had the means and the desire to intervene in Rwanda, it would have done so and no international law would have prevented that. And if a "new norm" is introduced, within the context of the current relationship of political and military forces, it will not save anyone anywhere, unless the United States sees fit to intervene, from its own perspective.
Moreover, it is beyond belief that the supporters of R2P speak of an obligation to reconstruct (after a military intervention). How much money exactly did the United States pay as reparations for the devastation it inflicted on Indochina or in Iraq, or that was inflicted on Lebanon and Gaza by a power it notoriously arms and subsidizes ? Or to Nicaragua, to which reparations for the Contra activities are still unpaid by the US, despite their condemnation by the World Court of Justice ? Why expect R2P to force the powerful to pay for what they destroy if they do not do so under current legal arrangements?
If it is true that the 21st century needs a new United Nations, it does not need one that legitimizes such interventions by novel arguments, but one that gives at least moral support to those who try to construct a world less dominated by the United States and its allies. The very starting point of the United Nations was to save humankind from the scourge of war, with reference to the two World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great Powers from intervening militarily against weaker ones, regardless of the pretext. The wars waged by the United States and NATO show that, despite some significant accomplishments, the United Nations has not yet fully achieved this primary goal. The United Nations needs to pursue its efforts to achieve its founding purpose before setting a new, supposedly humanitarian priority, which may in reality be used by the Great Powers to justify their own future wars by undermining the principle of national sovereignty.
When NATO exercised its own self-proclaimed right to intervene in Kosovo, where diplomatic efforts were far from having been exhausted, it was praised by the Western media. When Russia exercised what it regarded as its R2P in South Ossetia, it was uniformly condemned in the same Western media. When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, or India in what is now Bangladesh, their actions were also harshly condemned in the West.
This indicates that Western governments, media and NGOs, calling themselves the international community, will judge the responsibility for a human tragedy quite differently, depending on whether it occurs in a country where the West, for whatever reason, is hostile to the government, or in a friendly state. The United States in particular will try to pressure the United Nations into endorsing its own interpretation. The United States may not always choose to intervene, but it may nevertheless use non-intervention to denounce the United Nations as ineffective and to suggest that it should be replaced by NATO as international arbiter.
National sovereignty is sometimes stigmatized by promoters of humanitarian intervention, or of R2P, as a licence to kill. We need to remind ourselves of why national sovereignty should be defended against such stigmatization.
First of all, national sovereignty is a partial protection of weak states against strong ones. Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States to force it to reduce its CO2 emissions because of the catastrophic human consequences that the latter may have on Bangladesh. The interference is always unilateral.
US interference in the internal affairs of other states is multi-faceted but constant and always violates the spirit and often the letter of the UN charter. Despite claims to act on behalf of principles such as freedom and democracy, US intervention has repeatedly had disastrous consequences: not only the millions of deaths caused by direct and indirect wars, but also the lost opportunities, the killing of hope for hundreds of millions of people who might have benefited from progressive social policies initiated by people like Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in the Congo, Mossadegh in Iran, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or President Chavez in Venezuela, who have been systematically subverted, overthrown or killed with full Western support.
But that is not all. Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not less. Bombing civilians whether deliberately or by so-called collateral damage produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less. The possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons. The humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, as well as in Somalia, are mainly due to foreign interventions, not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the R2P, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive secret US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized.
The ideology of humanitarian intervention is part of a long history of Western attitudes towards the rest of the World. When Western colonialists landed on the shores of the Americas, Africa or Eastern Asia, they were shocked by what we would now call violations of human rights, and which they called barbaric mores human sacrifices, cannibalism, women forced to bind their feet. Time and again, such indignation, sincere or calculating, has been used to justify or to cover up the crimes of the Western powers: the slave trade, the extermination of indigenous peoples and the systematic stealing of land and resources. This attitude of righteous indignation continues to this day and is at the root of the claim that the West has a right to intervene and a right to protect, while turning a blind eye to oppressive regimes considered our friends, to endless militarization and wars, and to massive exploitation of labor and resources.
The West should learn from its past history. What would that mean concretely? Well, first of all, guaranteeing the strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, lifting unilateral sanctions, in particular the embargo against Cuba, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of democracy promotion, color revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities. This necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state, whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders.
Next, we could use our overblown military budgets (NATO countries account for 70 per cent of world military expenses) to implement a form of global Keynesianism: instead of demanding " balanced budgets " in the developing world, we should use the resources wasted on our military to finance massive investments in education, health care and development. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than the belief that a stable world will emerge from the way our current war on terror is being carried out.
Defenders of R2P may argue that what I say is besides the point or needlessly politicizes the issue, since, according to them, it is the international community and not the West that will intervene, with, moreover, the approval of the Security Council. But in reality, there is no such thing as a genuine international community. NATOs intervention in Kosovo was not approved by Russia and Russian intervention in South Ossetia was condemned by the West. There would have been no Security Council approval for either intervention. Recently, the African Union rejected the indictment by the International Criminal Court of the President of Sudan. Any system of international justice or police, whether it is R2P or the ICC, needs a relationship of equality and a climate of trust. Today, there is no equality and no trust, between West and East, between North and South, largely as a result of past US policies. If we want some version of R2P to work in the future, we need first to build a relationship of equality and trust and what I said before goes to the heart of the matter. The world can become more secure only if it first becomes more just.
It is important to understand that the critique made here of R2P is not based on an absolutist defense of national sovereingty, but on a reflection on the policies of the most powerful states that forces weaker states to use sovereignty as a shield.
The promoters of R2P present it as the beginning of a new era; but in fact it is the end of an old one. From an interventionist viewpoint, the R2P backtracks with respect to the old right of humanitarian intervention, at least in words, and that old right was itself a step back from traditional colonialism. The major social transformation of the 20th century has been decolonization. It continues today in the elaboration of a genuinely democratic world, one where the sun will have set on the US empire, just as it did on the old European ones. There are some indications that President Obama understands this reality and it is only to be hoped that his actions will match his words.
I want to end with a message for the representatives, and for the populations, of the Global South. The viewpoints expressed here are shared by millions of people in the West. This is unfortunately not reflected in our media. Millions of people, including American citizens, reject war as a means to settle international disputes and strongly oppose the blind support of their country for Israeli Apartheid. They adhere to the goals of the non-aligned movement of international cooperation within the strict respect for national sovereignty and equality of all peoples. They risk being denounced in the media of their own countries as being anti-Western, anti-American or anti-Semitic. Yet, they are the ones who, by opening their minds to the aspirations of the rest of mankind, carry on what is genuinely of value in the Western humanist tradition.
On July 23, a debate concerning the Responsibility to Protect took place in front of the General Asssembly of the United Nations. The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a notion agreed to by world leaders in 2005, that holds States responsible for shielding their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity, requiring the international community to step in if this obligation is not met. This last point is suspected to be related to the right of humanitarian intervention » and is the source of many debates.The discussion was initiated by General Assembly President Miguel DEscoto (from Nicaragua) and gathered Noam Chomsky, Gareth Evans, a supporter of R2P, former Foreign Minister of Australia and, until recently, president of the International Crisis Group, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, a prominent African writer and defender of human rights, and myself. Here is the text of my speech.
I would like, in this talk, to challenge the intellectual assumptions underlying the notion and the rhetoric of R2P. In a nutshell, my thesis will be that the main obstacle to the implementation of a genuine R2P are precisely the policies and the attitudes of the countries that are most enthusiastic about this doctrine, namely the Western countries, and in particular the US.
During the past decade, the world has looked on helplessly as innocent civilians were murdered by American bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been a helpless bystander of the murderous Israeli onslaught on Lebanon and Gaza. Previously, we have seen millions of people perish under American firepower in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; and many others have died in American proxy wars in Central America or Southern Africa. In the name of those victims, shall we say: never again! From now on, the world, the international community, will protect you!
Our humanitarian response is yes, we want to protect all victims. But how, and with which forces? How are the weak ever to be protected from the strong? The answer to this question must be sought not just in humanitarian or in legal terms, but first of all in political terms. The protection of the weak always depends on limitations of the power of the strong. The rule of law is such a limitation, so long as it is based on the principle of equality of all before the law. Achieving that requires clear-headed pursuit of idealistic principles accompanied by realistic assessment of the existing relationship of forces.
Before discussing politically the R2P, let me stress that what is at issue are not its diplomatic or preventive aspects, but the military part of the so-called timely and decisive response, and the challenge that it represents for national sovereignty.
R2P is an ambiguous doctrine. On the one hand, it is being sold to the United Nations as something essentially different from the right of humanitarian intervention, a notion that was developed in the West at the end of the 1970's, after the collapse of the colonial empires and the defeat of the United States in Indochina. This ideology has been relying on the human tragedies of the newly decolonized countries to lend a moral justification to the failed policies of intervention and control by the Western powers over the rest of the World.
Awareness of this fact exists in most of the world. The right of humanitarian intervention has been universally rejected by the South, for example at the South Summit in Havana in April 2000 or at the meeting of the Non Aligned Movement in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, shortly before the US attack on Iraq. The R2P is an attempt to fit this rejected right into the framework of the UN charter, so as to make it appear acceptable, by stressing that military actions are to be the last resort, and must be approved by the Security Council. But, then, there is nothing legally new under the sun, and I refer you to the concept note of the Office of the President of the General Assembly for a precise discussion of the legal aspects of the problem.
On the other hand, R2P is being sold to public opinion in the West as a new norm in international relations, one that authorizes military interventions on humanitarian grounds. For example, when President Obama, at the recent G8 meeting, stressed the importance of national sovereignty, the influential French newspaper Le Monde called it a step backwards, since R2P has already been accepted. There is a big difference between R2P as a legal doctrine and its ideological reception in the Western media.
However, in a post-World War II history that includes the Indochina wars, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Panama, even of tiny Grenada, as well as the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and various other countries, it is scarcely credible to maintain that it is international law and respect for national sovereignty that prevent the United States from stopping genocide. If the US had had the means and the desire to intervene in Rwanda, it would have done so and no international law would have prevented that. And if a "new norm" is introduced, within the context of the current relationship of political and military forces, it will not save anyone anywhere, unless the United States sees fit to intervene, from its own perspective.
Moreover, it is beyond belief that the supporters of R2P speak of an obligation to reconstruct (after a military intervention). How much money exactly did the United States pay as reparations for the devastation it inflicted on Indochina or in Iraq, or that was inflicted on Lebanon and Gaza by a power it notoriously arms and subsidizes ? Or to Nicaragua, to which reparations for the Contra activities are still unpaid by the US, despite their condemnation by the World Court of Justice ? Why expect R2P to force the powerful to pay for what they destroy if they do not do so under current legal arrangements?
If it is true that the 21st century needs a new United Nations, it does not need one that legitimizes such interventions by novel arguments, but one that gives at least moral support to those who try to construct a world less dominated by the United States and its allies. The very starting point of the United Nations was to save humankind from the scourge of war, with reference to the two World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great Powers from intervening militarily against weaker ones, regardless of the pretext. The wars waged by the United States and NATO show that, despite some significant accomplishments, the United Nations has not yet fully achieved this primary goal. The United Nations needs to pursue its efforts to achieve its founding purpose before setting a new, supposedly humanitarian priority, which may in reality be used by the Great Powers to justify their own future wars by undermining the principle of national sovereignty.
When NATO exercised its own self-proclaimed right to intervene in Kosovo, where diplomatic efforts were far from having been exhausted, it was praised by the Western media. When Russia exercised what it regarded as its R2P in South Ossetia, it was uniformly condemned in the same Western media. When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, or India in what is now Bangladesh, their actions were also harshly condemned in the West.
This indicates that Western governments, media and NGOs, calling themselves the international community, will judge the responsibility for a human tragedy quite differently, depending on whether it occurs in a country where the West, for whatever reason, is hostile to the government, or in a friendly state. The United States in particular will try to pressure the United Nations into endorsing its own interpretation. The United States may not always choose to intervene, but it may nevertheless use non-intervention to denounce the United Nations as ineffective and to suggest that it should be replaced by NATO as international arbiter.
National sovereignty is sometimes stigmatized by promoters of humanitarian intervention, or of R2P, as a licence to kill. We need to remind ourselves of why national sovereignty should be defended against such stigmatization.
First of all, national sovereignty is a partial protection of weak states against strong ones. Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States to force it to reduce its CO2 emissions because of the catastrophic human consequences that the latter may have on Bangladesh. The interference is always unilateral.
US interference in the internal affairs of other states is multi-faceted but constant and always violates the spirit and often the letter of the UN charter. Despite claims to act on behalf of principles such as freedom and democracy, US intervention has repeatedly had disastrous consequences: not only the millions of deaths caused by direct and indirect wars, but also the lost opportunities, the killing of hope for hundreds of millions of people who might have benefited from progressive social policies initiated by people like Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in the Congo, Mossadegh in Iran, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or President Chavez in Venezuela, who have been systematically subverted, overthrown or killed with full Western support.
But that is not all. Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not less. Bombing civilians whether deliberately or by so-called collateral damage produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less. The possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons. The humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, as well as in Somalia, are mainly due to foreign interventions, not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the R2P, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive secret US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized.
The ideology of humanitarian intervention is part of a long history of Western attitudes towards the rest of the World. When Western colonialists landed on the shores of the Americas, Africa or Eastern Asia, they were shocked by what we would now call violations of human rights, and which they called barbaric mores human sacrifices, cannibalism, women forced to bind their feet. Time and again, such indignation, sincere or calculating, has been used to justify or to cover up the crimes of the Western powers: the slave trade, the extermination of indigenous peoples and the systematic stealing of land and resources. This attitude of righteous indignation continues to this day and is at the root of the claim that the West has a right to intervene and a right to protect, while turning a blind eye to oppressive regimes considered our friends, to endless militarization and wars, and to massive exploitation of labor and resources.
The West should learn from its past history. What would that mean concretely? Well, first of all, guaranteeing the strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, lifting unilateral sanctions, in particular the embargo against Cuba, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of democracy promotion, color revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities. This necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state, whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders.
Next, we could use our overblown military budgets (NATO countries account for 70 per cent of world military expenses) to implement a form of global Keynesianism: instead of demanding " balanced budgets " in the developing world, we should use the resources wasted on our military to finance massive investments in education, health care and development. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than the belief that a stable world will emerge from the way our current war on terror is being carried out.
Defenders of R2P may argue that what I say is besides the point or needlessly politicizes the issue, since, according to them, it is the international community and not the West that will intervene, with, moreover, the approval of the Security Council. But in reality, there is no such thing as a genuine international community. NATOs intervention in Kosovo was not approved by Russia and Russian intervention in South Ossetia was condemned by the West. There would have been no Security Council approval for either intervention. Recently, the African Union rejected the indictment by the International Criminal Court of the President of Sudan. Any system of international justice or police, whether it is R2P or the ICC, needs a relationship of equality and a climate of trust. Today, there is no equality and no trust, between West and East, between North and South, largely as a result of past US policies. If we want some version of R2P to work in the future, we need first to build a relationship of equality and trust and what I said before goes to the heart of the matter. The world can become more secure only if it first becomes more just.
It is important to understand that the critique made here of R2P is not based on an absolutist defense of national sovereingty, but on a reflection on the policies of the most powerful states that forces weaker states to use sovereignty as a shield.
The promoters of R2P present it as the beginning of a new era; but in fact it is the end of an old one. From an interventionist viewpoint, the R2P backtracks with respect to the old right of humanitarian intervention, at least in words, and that old right was itself a step back from traditional colonialism. The major social transformation of the 20th century has been decolonization. It continues today in the elaboration of a genuinely democratic world, one where the sun will have set on the US empire, just as it did on the old European ones. There are some indications that President Obama understands this reality and it is only to be hoped that his actions will match his words.
I want to end with a message for the representatives, and for the populations, of the Global South. The viewpoints expressed here are shared by millions of people in the West. This is unfortunately not reflected in our media. Millions of people, including American citizens, reject war as a means to settle international disputes and strongly oppose the blind support of their country for Israeli Apartheid. They adhere to the goals of the non-aligned movement of international cooperation within the strict respect for national sovereignty and equality of all peoples. They risk being denounced in the media of their own countries as being anti-Western, anti-American or anti-Semitic. Yet, they are the ones who, by opening their minds to the aspirations of the rest of mankind, carry on what is genuinely of value in the Western humanist tradition.
This should be on Happy News.. although its absolutely none of my business what they post on there :)
'Willing' to leave IraqRod Nordland and Timothy Williams, Baghdad
July 30, 2009
FROM tomorrow there will be no ‘‘multi’’ in Iraq’s multinational force.
As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, the United States is the last of the coalition of the willing the Bush administration brought together six years ago.
Remaining British combat troops are expected to withdraw to Kuwait by tomorrow with the Australians, leaving about 100 soldiers guarding Australian officials in Baghdad. The Romanians left a week ago.
NATO will keep a small training presence in Iraq, but its troops were never considered part of the multinational force because of opposition to the war from many NATO countries.
US military officials have acknowledged the need for a name change: it will officially become US force-Iraq from January 1, the deputy coalition spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Stewart, said.
‘‘This is done to reflect the new bilateral relationship between US forces and our Iraqi hosts,’’ he said.
Even this relationship is on the wane as the American military goes through the complexities of withdrawing 130,000 soldiers in the next two years while shifting much of its attention to Afghanistan. As one marine officer in Anbar province said: ‘‘We’re so out of here.’’
The phrase ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ became widespread after it was used by secretary of state Colin Powell before the American invasion, but it never got much respect. When it became clear that the UN was unwilling to back military action against Iraq, Mr Powell named 30 countries that would pitch in.
Countries contributing troops included Tonga, Mongolia, Nicaragua and Latvia. In all, 38 sent soldiers, typically in groups numbering in the low hundreds, in rotations that were usually brief and sometimes even furtive. Japan sent a force but said it would not fight. Australian and Dutch troops had to be used just to guard it.
Iceland sent the smallest contingent, even before it cut its force in half, which left only one Icelandic soldier in Iraq.
Many coalition contributors
lost soldiers in Iraq. Britain had the most casualties, 179 killed, because its troops were in the restive southern province of Basra. The other 37 contributors lost a total of 139 soldiers. American fatalities have been 13 times those of all the others together, exceeding 4300.
The lower number of coalition casualties reflects their role. Their chief utility was to free American soldiers from routine duties.
Georgia’s contingent manned the checkpoints in the fortified Green Zone of Baghdad, for instance, and brooked no arguments from people trying to enter, especially since few of the soldiers spoke anything but Russian or Georgian.
Its contribution grew to a peak of 2000, until the soldiers were withdrawn in August and rushed home to defend Tbilisi after the Russians invaded.
Britain stayed despite growing criticism at home, but its forces were steadily diminished until only 100 remained this month.
The security agreement with Britain was stalled in the Iraqi Parliament by opposition from the Sadrist bloc, followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Parliament will not reconvene until September 8. A British diplomat suggested the Government might grant an extension, but Iraqi Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said this would not be possible.
In Baghdad this week, armed men broke into a bank, killed eight security guards and stole $6.3 million in Iraqi dinars that the US military fears insurgents might use to recruit members and buy weapons.
NEW YORK TIMES
'Willing' to leave IraqRod Nordland and Timothy Williams, Baghdad
July 30, 2009
FROM tomorrow there will be no ‘‘multi’’ in Iraq’s multinational force.
As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, the United States is the last of the coalition of the willing the Bush administration brought together six years ago.
Remaining British combat troops are expected to withdraw to Kuwait by tomorrow with the Australians, leaving about 100 soldiers guarding Australian officials in Baghdad. The Romanians left a week ago.
NATO will keep a small training presence in Iraq, but its troops were never considered part of the multinational force because of opposition to the war from many NATO countries.
US military officials have acknowledged the need for a name change: it will officially become US force-Iraq from January 1, the deputy coalition spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Stewart, said.
‘‘This is done to reflect the new bilateral relationship between US forces and our Iraqi hosts,’’ he said.
Even this relationship is on the wane as the American military goes through the complexities of withdrawing 130,000 soldiers in the next two years while shifting much of its attention to Afghanistan. As one marine officer in Anbar province said: ‘‘We’re so out of here.’’
The phrase ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ became widespread after it was used by secretary of state Colin Powell before the American invasion, but it never got much respect. When it became clear that the UN was unwilling to back military action against Iraq, Mr Powell named 30 countries that would pitch in.
Countries contributing troops included Tonga, Mongolia, Nicaragua and Latvia. In all, 38 sent soldiers, typically in groups numbering in the low hundreds, in rotations that were usually brief and sometimes even furtive. Japan sent a force but said it would not fight. Australian and Dutch troops had to be used just to guard it.
Iceland sent the smallest contingent, even before it cut its force in half, which left only one Icelandic soldier in Iraq.
Many coalition contributors
lost soldiers in Iraq. Britain had the most casualties, 179 killed, because its troops were in the restive southern province of Basra. The other 37 contributors lost a total of 139 soldiers. American fatalities have been 13 times those of all the others together, exceeding 4300.
The lower number of coalition casualties reflects their role. Their chief utility was to free American soldiers from routine duties.
Georgia’s contingent manned the checkpoints in the fortified Green Zone of Baghdad, for instance, and brooked no arguments from people trying to enter, especially since few of the soldiers spoke anything but Russian or Georgian.
Its contribution grew to a peak of 2000, until the soldiers were withdrawn in August and rushed home to defend Tbilisi after the Russians invaded.
Britain stayed despite growing criticism at home, but its forces were steadily diminished until only 100 remained this month.
The security agreement with Britain was stalled in the Iraqi Parliament by opposition from the Sadrist bloc, followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Parliament will not reconvene until September 8. A British diplomat suggested the Government might grant an extension, but Iraqi Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said this would not be possible.
In Baghdad this week, armed men broke into a bank, killed eight security guards and stole $6.3 million in Iraqi dinars that the US military fears insurgents might use to recruit members and buy weapons.
NEW YORK TIMES
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has failed to rule out the need for additional troops in Afghanistan as he discussed the need for a joint military and political strategy to defeat the Taliban.
In an interview for PBS's Newshour during a two-day visit to the US, Mr Miliband said that there was no long-term military "solution" on its own, adding that coalition forces were not looking to turn the country into a "colony".
Asked if this meant that a reported American request for Britain to send more soldiers to Afghanistan was unlikely to be met, the Foreign Secretary said additional numbers would "depend on the situation on the ground and burden sharing among the allies".
The comments come towards the end of the bloodiest month for British forces in Afghanistan since the mission began in October 2001. To date, 22 soldiers have died in July including the highest-ranking Army officer to be killed in battle since the Falklands.
Earlier this year it was reported that US Army officials including General David Petraeus, who oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, were pressing the UK government to deploy 2,000 more troops in Afghanistan.
In his interview for PBS, Mr Miliband said that he had only seen that figure "in newspapers not Cabinet papers".
He added that British numbers in the country had already risen from around 3,000 to 9,000. Asked if this was set to increase further, the foreign secretary said: "That depends on the situation on the ground and the burden sharing among the allies. This is a 42-country effort and it is important that all countries play their appropriate part."
He added: "Britain has increased its numbers. We are guided by the situation on the ground, the assets we have at our disposal, and the fair sharing of the burden."
Mr Miliband stressed that military actions alone were not sufficient to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan. He said: "We all know that in the end there is no long-term military 'solution'."
The foreign secretary added that there was a need to create the space for sustainable home-grown politics and sustainable governments. "We are not trying to create a colony in Afghanistan," he said.
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
In an interview for PBS's Newshour during a two-day visit to the US, Mr Miliband said that there was no long-term military "solution" on its own, adding that coalition forces were not looking to turn the country into a "colony".
Asked if this meant that a reported American request for Britain to send more soldiers to Afghanistan was unlikely to be met, the Foreign Secretary said additional numbers would "depend on the situation on the ground and burden sharing among the allies".
The comments come towards the end of the bloodiest month for British forces in Afghanistan since the mission began in October 2001. To date, 22 soldiers have died in July including the highest-ranking Army officer to be killed in battle since the Falklands.
Earlier this year it was reported that US Army officials including General David Petraeus, who oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, were pressing the UK government to deploy 2,000 more troops in Afghanistan.
In his interview for PBS, Mr Miliband said that he had only seen that figure "in newspapers not Cabinet papers".
He added that British numbers in the country had already risen from around 3,000 to 9,000. Asked if this was set to increase further, the foreign secretary said: "That depends on the situation on the ground and the burden sharing among the allies. This is a 42-country effort and it is important that all countries play their appropriate part."
He added: "Britain has increased its numbers. We are guided by the situation on the ground, the assets we have at our disposal, and the fair sharing of the burden."
Mr Miliband stressed that military actions alone were not sufficient to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan. He said: "We all know that in the end there is no long-term military 'solution'."
The foreign secretary added that there was a need to create the space for sustainable home-grown politics and sustainable governments. "We are not trying to create a colony in Afghanistan," he said.
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
This sounds like a really interesting movie. It doesn't play everywhere, unfortunately ;)
Explosive material
Kari Skogland recounts the saga of making her IRA thriller, Fifty Dead Men Walking
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 | 4:16 PM ET Comments0Recommend1.
By Martin Morrow, CBC News
Jim Sturgess stars as a young Belfast man who becomes an IRA informer in Kari Skogland's thriller Fifty Dead Men Walking. (Colm Hogan/TVA Films)
Kari Skogland gets full marks for chutzpah. The Canadian filmmaker knew next to nothing about the Troubles in Northern Ireland when she threw herself headlong into a feature film based on IRA informer Martin McGartland’s memoir, Fifty Dead Men Walking. She emerged with a dark, dirty, intense thriller that evokes both the war-zone atmosphere of 1980s Belfast and the chilling risks of playing a spy in the midst of sectarian violence.
'It's not a political movie. It's about a bunch of humans, often with common interests and common stories, that collide on opposite sides of the fence.'
— Director Kari SkoglandSkogland’s film is concerned not with the roots and reasons for the conflict between the Catholic Nationalists and Protestant Unionists, but with the struggle faced by a young man who chooses to betray other members of his community for what he sees as the greater good. (The title refers to the number of potential IRA victims whose lives McGartland likely saved by working undercover as a British agent.)
The movie stars up-and-comer Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe, 21) as Martin, an enterprising Catholic lad who dares to become a reviled “tout,” and the venerable Sir Ben Kingsley as Fergus, the shadowy policeman who recruits him. The cast also includes Natalie Press as Martin’s girlfriend, Canadian Kevin Zegers as the mate who helps him join the IRA and Rose McGowan as the organization’s seductive “Mata Hari.” A Canadian-British-U.S. co-production, the picture was shot on location in Belfast and environs.
Making it was by no means easy. Before filming, Skogland and her actors had to first gain the trust of the Belfast community, still raw after three decades of conflict that cost more than 3,500 lives on both sides. Then there was controversy prior to the premiere at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, when McGartland denounced the movie as inaccurate and threatened to sue. (The producers settled with him after tweaking some scenes and adding a closing-credits disclaimer.)
For Ottawa native Skogland, the film is a significant step in her burgeoning international career. It finds her blending the thriller and action genres she’s familiar with (Men With Guns, Liberty Stands Still) and the more dramatic concerns of her previous movie, the big-screen version of Margaret Laurence’s The Stone Angel. Skogland took time to discuss Fifty Dead Men Walking, from the movie’s relevance post-9/11 to McGartland’s complaints and Sturgess’s funny moustache.
Writer-director Kari Skogland. (Star PR) Q: It seems like a good time to be examining the conflict in Northern Ireland, both because it has recently ended and because it reflects current sectarian clashes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Did you have that in mind when you embarked on this film?
A: It’s not a political movie. It’s not intended to be. It’s intended to walk the line politically, to not present itself as for or against the IRA or the other side, the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary – the Northern Ireland police]. The idea is that it’s a bunch of humans, often with common interests and common stories, that collide on opposite sides of the fence. So what happens when you as an individual must look to your own personal moral and ethical code? You, at the end of the day, have to look at yourself in the mirror. And one day there will be peace and you have to reflect back on how you acted during times of conflict. That to me was really the story that I wanted to tell.
Q: Did you feel a bit presumptuous as an outsider in Belfast, making a film about the Troubles?
A: No question. I had to gain their trust. And I did quite quickly, once they realized my whole mantra was that it needed to be about the truth. I couldn’t afford to be necessarily accurate on all points, because there were legal issues and it wasn’t a documentary on the book. But I did have to make sure the spirit of the truth was in everything I did. And they really hooked on to this. Also, we were right on the heels of when [Sinn Fein leader] Gerry Adams and [Unionist leader] Ian Paisley shook hands for the very first time ever, so we were very much on the cusp of this change that was sweeping through. Finally, truly, peace was declared. So people were ready to tell their stories.
Q: McGartland took exception to some of the changes you made to his story. Was he involved in the film when you were making it?
A: I spoke to him for many, many hours while we were filming, and I’d spoken to him before that. The thing about Martin is that the story kind of morphed a little bit as a result of what had happened since the original book was written in 1999. A lot more information was coming out about what had actually gone down, and who had been involved. So I realized I had a slightly bigger story to tell. As well, I think Martin was more politicized than I wanted to be. He wanted me to make an anti-IRA movie, and that was just not the movie I wanted to make. Having said that, once he saw the film, he then loved it and was terrifically complimentary.
Q: Jim Sturgess is terrific in the role of Martin. He has this vulnerable, weedy quality that makes you really afraid for what will happen to him if he’s found out.
A: I met him and just knew he was absolutely right for the role, in part because he had that vulnerability and likability. Because he was going to have to play someone who, inherently, as a snitch, a rat, an informer, was going to have to do heinous things. So we had to like him and it had to be part of the fabric of who he was. And Burgess is just such a gentleman, such a nice man, that it comes through in his acting. I think he’s a very strong talent that we’re going to hear a lot more from in the future.
Fergus (Ben Kingsley, left) meets with Martin (Sturgess) in a scene from Fifty Dead Men Walking. (TVA Films) Q: I loved that funny little moustache he wears. It makes him look slightly goofy and endearing. Was it his idea?
A: [Laughs] It was his idea. He really wanted his look to be quite different from Across the Universe and 21. It took him a little while to convince me that the reinvention of the ’stache was going to be a good thing. It’s a big commitment to hide your lead actor’s face. But I think it was the right decision — it did change his look enough, it was also period-relevant, but it also gave him the licence to be someone that he hadn’t been before.
Q: Then there’s Sir Ben Kingsley. I understand he was your first choice to play Fergus.
A: A handler has to play his cards very close to his chest. Their whole MO is to control and spin, to push and pull, and ultimately make the informer dance the way they need to. The role needed someone who could do that without fighting for space onscreen. And one of the things that Ben does so fantastically is just that. Think of him in, say, House of Sand and Fog. I knew he had that wonderful nuance. I just couldn’t think of anyone better for the role. And he brought a lot to the party. We had a lot of conversations on who this character was. I have to say he was such a pleasure to work with and such a pleasure to watch. It taught me a lot as a director.
Q: I was struck by the guerrilla way you shot the action sequences, like a combat cameraman caught in the middle of a war zone. It feels as if Belfast was Baghdad during the invasion. Was that a conscious analogy?
A: Absolutely. And Belfast really was like that. As I did all my research I realized how intense the situation was there. You had these small communities that were like encampments, they were walled-in, literally — you couldn’t go out at night. There were helicopters 24/7 overhead. It was a true war zone. And I wanted the action sequences to feel organic and real. I didn’t want them to sniff of Hollywood in any way. So we worked very hard at achieving that kind of irreverent, happenstance style that had a kind of newsreel quality to it.
Q: I imagine things have changed a lot in Belfast since those days. What is the mood like there now?
A: It’s very much one of forward thinking, of putting the past behind. You have a Catholic community that is no longer disenfranchised the way it was. There are doctors and lawyers; many of them have gone away to be educated and then come back there. So you have a power shift that’s economic as much as anything. I have to say this was one of the most challenging projects I’ve done to date, creatively speaking, but also one of the most enjoyable on the social front.
Fifty Dead Men Walking opens in Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver on Friday, July 31
Explosive material
Kari Skogland recounts the saga of making her IRA thriller, Fifty Dead Men Walking
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 | 4:16 PM ET Comments0Recommend1.
By Martin Morrow, CBC News
Jim Sturgess stars as a young Belfast man who becomes an IRA informer in Kari Skogland's thriller Fifty Dead Men Walking. (Colm Hogan/TVA Films)
Kari Skogland gets full marks for chutzpah. The Canadian filmmaker knew next to nothing about the Troubles in Northern Ireland when she threw herself headlong into a feature film based on IRA informer Martin McGartland’s memoir, Fifty Dead Men Walking. She emerged with a dark, dirty, intense thriller that evokes both the war-zone atmosphere of 1980s Belfast and the chilling risks of playing a spy in the midst of sectarian violence.
'It's not a political movie. It's about a bunch of humans, often with common interests and common stories, that collide on opposite sides of the fence.'
— Director Kari SkoglandSkogland’s film is concerned not with the roots and reasons for the conflict between the Catholic Nationalists and Protestant Unionists, but with the struggle faced by a young man who chooses to betray other members of his community for what he sees as the greater good. (The title refers to the number of potential IRA victims whose lives McGartland likely saved by working undercover as a British agent.)
The movie stars up-and-comer Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe, 21) as Martin, an enterprising Catholic lad who dares to become a reviled “tout,” and the venerable Sir Ben Kingsley as Fergus, the shadowy policeman who recruits him. The cast also includes Natalie Press as Martin’s girlfriend, Canadian Kevin Zegers as the mate who helps him join the IRA and Rose McGowan as the organization’s seductive “Mata Hari.” A Canadian-British-U.S. co-production, the picture was shot on location in Belfast and environs.
Making it was by no means easy. Before filming, Skogland and her actors had to first gain the trust of the Belfast community, still raw after three decades of conflict that cost more than 3,500 lives on both sides. Then there was controversy prior to the premiere at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, when McGartland denounced the movie as inaccurate and threatened to sue. (The producers settled with him after tweaking some scenes and adding a closing-credits disclaimer.)
For Ottawa native Skogland, the film is a significant step in her burgeoning international career. It finds her blending the thriller and action genres she’s familiar with (Men With Guns, Liberty Stands Still) and the more dramatic concerns of her previous movie, the big-screen version of Margaret Laurence’s The Stone Angel. Skogland took time to discuss Fifty Dead Men Walking, from the movie’s relevance post-9/11 to McGartland’s complaints and Sturgess’s funny moustache.
Writer-director Kari Skogland. (Star PR) Q: It seems like a good time to be examining the conflict in Northern Ireland, both because it has recently ended and because it reflects current sectarian clashes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Did you have that in mind when you embarked on this film?
A: It’s not a political movie. It’s not intended to be. It’s intended to walk the line politically, to not present itself as for or against the IRA or the other side, the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary – the Northern Ireland police]. The idea is that it’s a bunch of humans, often with common interests and common stories, that collide on opposite sides of the fence. So what happens when you as an individual must look to your own personal moral and ethical code? You, at the end of the day, have to look at yourself in the mirror. And one day there will be peace and you have to reflect back on how you acted during times of conflict. That to me was really the story that I wanted to tell.
Q: Did you feel a bit presumptuous as an outsider in Belfast, making a film about the Troubles?
A: No question. I had to gain their trust. And I did quite quickly, once they realized my whole mantra was that it needed to be about the truth. I couldn’t afford to be necessarily accurate on all points, because there were legal issues and it wasn’t a documentary on the book. But I did have to make sure the spirit of the truth was in everything I did. And they really hooked on to this. Also, we were right on the heels of when [Sinn Fein leader] Gerry Adams and [Unionist leader] Ian Paisley shook hands for the very first time ever, so we were very much on the cusp of this change that was sweeping through. Finally, truly, peace was declared. So people were ready to tell their stories.
Q: McGartland took exception to some of the changes you made to his story. Was he involved in the film when you were making it?
A: I spoke to him for many, many hours while we were filming, and I’d spoken to him before that. The thing about Martin is that the story kind of morphed a little bit as a result of what had happened since the original book was written in 1999. A lot more information was coming out about what had actually gone down, and who had been involved. So I realized I had a slightly bigger story to tell. As well, I think Martin was more politicized than I wanted to be. He wanted me to make an anti-IRA movie, and that was just not the movie I wanted to make. Having said that, once he saw the film, he then loved it and was terrifically complimentary.
Q: Jim Sturgess is terrific in the role of Martin. He has this vulnerable, weedy quality that makes you really afraid for what will happen to him if he’s found out.
A: I met him and just knew he was absolutely right for the role, in part because he had that vulnerability and likability. Because he was going to have to play someone who, inherently, as a snitch, a rat, an informer, was going to have to do heinous things. So we had to like him and it had to be part of the fabric of who he was. And Burgess is just such a gentleman, such a nice man, that it comes through in his acting. I think he’s a very strong talent that we’re going to hear a lot more from in the future.
Fergus (Ben Kingsley, left) meets with Martin (Sturgess) in a scene from Fifty Dead Men Walking. (TVA Films) Q: I loved that funny little moustache he wears. It makes him look slightly goofy and endearing. Was it his idea?
A: [Laughs] It was his idea. He really wanted his look to be quite different from Across the Universe and 21. It took him a little while to convince me that the reinvention of the ’stache was going to be a good thing. It’s a big commitment to hide your lead actor’s face. But I think it was the right decision — it did change his look enough, it was also period-relevant, but it also gave him the licence to be someone that he hadn’t been before.
Q: Then there’s Sir Ben Kingsley. I understand he was your first choice to play Fergus.
A: A handler has to play his cards very close to his chest. Their whole MO is to control and spin, to push and pull, and ultimately make the informer dance the way they need to. The role needed someone who could do that without fighting for space onscreen. And one of the things that Ben does so fantastically is just that. Think of him in, say, House of Sand and Fog. I knew he had that wonderful nuance. I just couldn’t think of anyone better for the role. And he brought a lot to the party. We had a lot of conversations on who this character was. I have to say he was such a pleasure to work with and such a pleasure to watch. It taught me a lot as a director.
Q: I was struck by the guerrilla way you shot the action sequences, like a combat cameraman caught in the middle of a war zone. It feels as if Belfast was Baghdad during the invasion. Was that a conscious analogy?
A: Absolutely. And Belfast really was like that. As I did all my research I realized how intense the situation was there. You had these small communities that were like encampments, they were walled-in, literally — you couldn’t go out at night. There were helicopters 24/7 overhead. It was a true war zone. And I wanted the action sequences to feel organic and real. I didn’t want them to sniff of Hollywood in any way. So we worked very hard at achieving that kind of irreverent, happenstance style that had a kind of newsreel quality to it.
Q: I imagine things have changed a lot in Belfast since those days. What is the mood like there now?
A: It’s very much one of forward thinking, of putting the past behind. You have a Catholic community that is no longer disenfranchised the way it was. There are doctors and lawyers; many of them have gone away to be educated and then come back there. So you have a power shift that’s economic as much as anything. I have to say this was one of the most challenging projects I’ve done to date, creatively speaking, but also one of the most enjoyable on the social front.
Fifty Dead Men Walking opens in Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver on Friday, July 31
The model Emme is one of the most inspiring people that I have ever encountered, so I decided to google her to see what she might have been involved with, recently. What a suprise to see that there was an article about her on Happy News! (http://www.happynews.com) I was SO excited to see what was up that I had to post an article here :)
JULY 28, 2009
Cause Celeb highlights a celebrity’s work on behalf of a specific cause. This week, we speak with model and talk show host Emme about her involvement in a local New York organization for eating disorders, Ophelia’s Place, and the debut of her new show "More to Love".
Question: Could you tell me a little bit about Ophelia’s Place and how it got its name?
Emme: Well, I went to Syracuse University. When I went back for a visit about, I think it’s almost 10 years, my coach told me about this particular woman who had two girls that had eating disorders. She was very, very emblazoned to make a difference in Syracuse. To help young girls and to have a halfway house where somebody who was just getting out of treatment or someone who was just about to go into treatment. A place of resource for individuals and families and to make it comfortable and nice and not threatening and not very clinical. I met her at a fund-raising athletic event and she and I clicked immediately.
And I said, “Mary Ellen, I really believe in acting up locally and thinking globally. And doing what you can on big picture, but you have to start from the hearth and the hometown. I considered Syracuse because I got a full athletic scholarship to Syracuse. I feel very deeply about my roots at Syracuse and everything that I’ve gained from going to school there. I’ve been looking for a charity that I can really attach myself to. And a grassroots one enough, that if there’s an idea, it won’t take a year for implementation from the concept.”
And she said, “Well, I’m your girl.” I think that Mary Ellen was influenced by Mary Pipher who wrote the book "Reviving Ophelia." It was more a reaching-out thing. I have a place, I know where you come from and where you’re going possibly and I just want to be able to help and assist. That’s when she had a little nook in an office building and then she got funding to go into her own building. She’s very, very active in the New York state legislature. She’s up in Albany all the time. This woman from Syracuse! But everyone knows her and knows that her intent is pure and I think she moves mountains that way.
Q: What is your role with the organization?
Emme: My role is I bring my celebrity shine when I come up to Syracuse. I try to go to Ophelia’s Place and meet the individuals. I’ve done that a couple of times. I’ve been their emcee for their big fashion show. I was not able to do it this year, which I was very bummed about, but last year I was able to do that. I’ve done public service announcements numerous times for them. I’ve done conference keynotes.
Q: Like a spokesperson?
Emme: I don’t know if its that official. I just step up. When Mary Ellen calls me, I know it’s serious. I help in any way that I can.
Q: Is there one experience that stands out for you while working with Ophelia’s Place?
Emme: Yes. When Mary Ellen was telling me about their body diversity fashion show, I applauded. I said “Oh that’s great! Not only should you have females with diversified body shape, you should have men out there.” She’s said, “Oh my God, that’s great!” So I said, “It would be just so great if we could see more diversity on the runway because then women in the audience will have either someone with their blue eyes, someone with the dark hair, someone with the darker skin or the lighter skin, or the male or the female, whatever age. It would just be great.”
So when I emceed it last year, I looked out at the audience and had each young lady, or older woman, or portly gentleman, or rounded girl, or curvaceous woman, tall and angular. All of the mix of who we are, walking out on the runway. The response in the audience was raucous, it was joyous, it was boisterous, it was absolutely raising the roof. I think every single person in that auditorium had goose pimples at the end of the day. I’m telling you. They keep on talking about that first show and how it just spread onto this last show. And anybody who gets that ticket, they make it an event. The fashion show, and then different groups of people go to lunch and they carry on and linger trying to hold on to that wonderful feeling that took place. It’s infectious when you do things out of the box and with the right intent.
Q: Is there a national organization similar to Ophelia’s Place that more people can access or it was based on?
Emme: Absolutely. I am the chair ambassador for the National Eating Disorders Association. Their acronym is NEDA. That is the national clearinghouse that Ophelia’s Place works with. That is the national clearinghouse for everyday people trying to figure out what terminology means, where to find certain doctors. All the phone calls are confidential, all the information is up to date and very easy to read. Very user friendly. Quite enlightening for someone who is just learning about an eating disorder to help a friend, learning about body image, self esteem, parental, child, it could be grandparents checking in to see what’s going on with the grandkids. Or parents for the first time saying, “OK, think we have a problem.” It’s a fantastic organization and I’ve been with them since ’92.
Q: Can you tell me a little about your new show and what we can expect?
Emme: Sure. "More To Love" is going to be premiering July 28. It is created by two gentlemen, which really is such a celebration of diversity. One gentleman is much smaller than the other gentleman. Both are very, very powerful in Hollywood. Mike Fliess is the creator of "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" as well as many other reality shows. Sitting back with Mike Darnell from FOX and Mike Fliess, they are very dear friends. They said, “We need a show for the average guy.” We really only see MTV, perfected images and wouldn’t it be great with the popularity of The Biggest Loser as well as other shows that kind of show the average underdog. Wouldn’t that be wonderful to show love there too?
I mean, obviously, that’s what’s going on in America and we need to portray them. The cool thing is, we have two gentlemen that just are like, “This is the bomb. This is awesome.” They hired an incredible female senior executive producer, Sally Sulcano. She has a company called 495 Productions. She is known in the reality genre as a leader in this space. She has been very, very much involved with putting out the right kind of message. When she called me and we talked, I said, “I want to just know if this is really on the up and up.” And she goes, “Absolutely, without a question. This is a dating show for the average guy and that is it. You’ll see all the drama. You’ll see all the curves. You’ll see the celebration of that. And you’re gonna also hear about the issues of how its been hard.”
I said, “Oh my gosh, as long as the rug isn’t pulled from underneath us and there are no jabs.” She said “Oh no. No no no.” I was like “I’m on. I’m on board.” It’s filled with the exotic vacations, filled with the great, cool, dates. I mean, really. The bachelor is very cute and very nice. The contestants are just, very diversified. Individuals that come form all walks of life. You’ll just have to see!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008 msnbc.com
Reproduced with permission of MSNBC, from Emme turns spotlight on eating disorders: Model and talk show host lends cachet to Ophelia's Place by Giacinta Pace, July 22, 2009; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
JULY 28, 2009
Cause Celeb highlights a celebrity’s work on behalf of a specific cause. This week, we speak with model and talk show host Emme about her involvement in a local New York organization for eating disorders, Ophelia’s Place, and the debut of her new show "More to Love".
Question: Could you tell me a little bit about Ophelia’s Place and how it got its name?
Emme: Well, I went to Syracuse University. When I went back for a visit about, I think it’s almost 10 years, my coach told me about this particular woman who had two girls that had eating disorders. She was very, very emblazoned to make a difference in Syracuse. To help young girls and to have a halfway house where somebody who was just getting out of treatment or someone who was just about to go into treatment. A place of resource for individuals and families and to make it comfortable and nice and not threatening and not very clinical. I met her at a fund-raising athletic event and she and I clicked immediately.
And I said, “Mary Ellen, I really believe in acting up locally and thinking globally. And doing what you can on big picture, but you have to start from the hearth and the hometown. I considered Syracuse because I got a full athletic scholarship to Syracuse. I feel very deeply about my roots at Syracuse and everything that I’ve gained from going to school there. I’ve been looking for a charity that I can really attach myself to. And a grassroots one enough, that if there’s an idea, it won’t take a year for implementation from the concept.”
And she said, “Well, I’m your girl.” I think that Mary Ellen was influenced by Mary Pipher who wrote the book "Reviving Ophelia." It was more a reaching-out thing. I have a place, I know where you come from and where you’re going possibly and I just want to be able to help and assist. That’s when she had a little nook in an office building and then she got funding to go into her own building. She’s very, very active in the New York state legislature. She’s up in Albany all the time. This woman from Syracuse! But everyone knows her and knows that her intent is pure and I think she moves mountains that way.
Q: What is your role with the organization?
Emme: My role is I bring my celebrity shine when I come up to Syracuse. I try to go to Ophelia’s Place and meet the individuals. I’ve done that a couple of times. I’ve been their emcee for their big fashion show. I was not able to do it this year, which I was very bummed about, but last year I was able to do that. I’ve done public service announcements numerous times for them. I’ve done conference keynotes.
Q: Like a spokesperson?
Emme: I don’t know if its that official. I just step up. When Mary Ellen calls me, I know it’s serious. I help in any way that I can.
Q: Is there one experience that stands out for you while working with Ophelia’s Place?
Emme: Yes. When Mary Ellen was telling me about their body diversity fashion show, I applauded. I said “Oh that’s great! Not only should you have females with diversified body shape, you should have men out there.” She’s said, “Oh my God, that’s great!” So I said, “It would be just so great if we could see more diversity on the runway because then women in the audience will have either someone with their blue eyes, someone with the dark hair, someone with the darker skin or the lighter skin, or the male or the female, whatever age. It would just be great.”
So when I emceed it last year, I looked out at the audience and had each young lady, or older woman, or portly gentleman, or rounded girl, or curvaceous woman, tall and angular. All of the mix of who we are, walking out on the runway. The response in the audience was raucous, it was joyous, it was boisterous, it was absolutely raising the roof. I think every single person in that auditorium had goose pimples at the end of the day. I’m telling you. They keep on talking about that first show and how it just spread onto this last show. And anybody who gets that ticket, they make it an event. The fashion show, and then different groups of people go to lunch and they carry on and linger trying to hold on to that wonderful feeling that took place. It’s infectious when you do things out of the box and with the right intent.
Q: Is there a national organization similar to Ophelia’s Place that more people can access or it was based on?
Emme: Absolutely. I am the chair ambassador for the National Eating Disorders Association. Their acronym is NEDA. That is the national clearinghouse that Ophelia’s Place works with. That is the national clearinghouse for everyday people trying to figure out what terminology means, where to find certain doctors. All the phone calls are confidential, all the information is up to date and very easy to read. Very user friendly. Quite enlightening for someone who is just learning about an eating disorder to help a friend, learning about body image, self esteem, parental, child, it could be grandparents checking in to see what’s going on with the grandkids. Or parents for the first time saying, “OK, think we have a problem.” It’s a fantastic organization and I’ve been with them since ’92.
Q: Can you tell me a little about your new show and what we can expect?
Emme: Sure. "More To Love" is going to be premiering July 28. It is created by two gentlemen, which really is such a celebration of diversity. One gentleman is much smaller than the other gentleman. Both are very, very powerful in Hollywood. Mike Fliess is the creator of "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" as well as many other reality shows. Sitting back with Mike Darnell from FOX and Mike Fliess, they are very dear friends. They said, “We need a show for the average guy.” We really only see MTV, perfected images and wouldn’t it be great with the popularity of The Biggest Loser as well as other shows that kind of show the average underdog. Wouldn’t that be wonderful to show love there too?
I mean, obviously, that’s what’s going on in America and we need to portray them. The cool thing is, we have two gentlemen that just are like, “This is the bomb. This is awesome.” They hired an incredible female senior executive producer, Sally Sulcano. She has a company called 495 Productions. She is known in the reality genre as a leader in this space. She has been very, very much involved with putting out the right kind of message. When she called me and we talked, I said, “I want to just know if this is really on the up and up.” And she goes, “Absolutely, without a question. This is a dating show for the average guy and that is it. You’ll see all the drama. You’ll see all the curves. You’ll see the celebration of that. And you’re gonna also hear about the issues of how its been hard.”
I said, “Oh my gosh, as long as the rug isn’t pulled from underneath us and there are no jabs.” She said “Oh no. No no no.” I was like “I’m on. I’m on board.” It’s filled with the exotic vacations, filled with the great, cool, dates. I mean, really. The bachelor is very cute and very nice. The contestants are just, very diversified. Individuals that come form all walks of life. You’ll just have to see!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008 msnbc.com
Reproduced with permission of MSNBC, from Emme turns spotlight on eating disorders: Model and talk show host lends cachet to Ophelia's Place by Giacinta Pace, July 22, 2009; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Back when I was planning my grad school thesis, I drew heavily on the home birth movement and the panoply of books on the medicalization of birth for inspiration. This is a voice looking at maternal mortality and options for women in the tough, mountainous, arid back regions of Afghanistan, where people have little and women frequently die trying to bring life into this world.
The author writes: "I received two emails in my inbox today. One was from The Big Push for Midwives, asking for help in advocating for greater access to Certified Professional Midwifery (CPM) nationally. The group is basically petitioning Congress to add CPMs to the Medicaid provider list in order to make midwifery an actual option for more women in the United States. Why?
I’ve written extensively about all of the reasons why access to out-of-hospital birth is critical for women in the United States but if you want the quick run-down, check out this synopsis from The Big Push (and sign the petition if you’re so inclined, while you’re there!).
Why is this an uphill battle? Part of the problem is that professional organizations like the AMA and ACOG, while quite supportive of safe abortion care, are not keen on expanding childbirth options to include out-of-hospital settings and use of CPMs, for healthy, low-risk pregnant women. As well, in this country, we’re still enmeshed in seeing childbirth as a medical condition – a condition that must be treated clinically by a physician – regardless of whether or not there are any “medical conditions” present. Culturally we have strayed (if we were ever there) from women experiencing childbirth as normal and healthy, providing opportunities to bond with other women, and receiving support from a midwife and a community of other women.
This is not to say that CPMs do not care for the health of pregnant and birthing women but more that the medical establishment has succeeded in over-medicalizing birth to the point where, ironically, women’s health and lives (as well as the health and lives of the fetuses’ and newborns’) are placed at greater risk through unnecessary interventions. Jennifer Block has written an entire book on the subject!
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that prenatal care and childbirth care are not critical. As I’ve referenced in the past, the United States’ maternal mortality rates are dismal for an industrialized nation. African American women are four times as likely to die during childbirth as white women are, in this country. This dire situation is precisely why we need to expand options to a range of care for all women – not limit them.
So, I know you’re probably wondering at this point what that other email was? The New York Times has an excellent article on the critical role midwives can play in rebuilding Afghanistan, specifically addressing maternal health. The country is second only to Sierra Leone, in the entire world, in its numbers of women dying directly as a result of pregnancy and childbirth.
Amid war, after suffering for years under the Taliban, Afghan women are truly in trouble:
The main causes of these deaths are hemorrhage and obstructed labor, which can be fatal if a woman cannot obtain a Caesarean section.
Even if the mother survives, obstructed labor without a Caesarean
usually kills the baby. Most of the maternal deaths — 78 percent,
according to the Lancet report — could be prevented. [emphasis mine].
But there is one woman under whose leadership Afghanistan is beginning to rebuild its midwifery battalion, literally saving women’s lives.
Her name is Pashtoon Azfar and she works for Johns Hopkins University but also heads up the Afghan Midwives Association. Her mission? It is to remedy Afghan women’s death rate from pregnancy and childbirth by training and disbursing the next generation of midwives in Afghanistan.
The article notes that there is a long way to go. Apparently 80% of women in Afghanistan birth alone or without the help of a skilled birth attendant. And cultural issues plague Afghan women as well:
Afghanistan’s problems mirror those of many other poor countries:
shortages of personnel, supplies and transportation to clinics or hospitals,
especially in remote regions and mountainous areas that are snowbound
half the year. The deeper problems are cultural, rooted in the low
status of women and the misperception that deaths in childbirth are
inevitable — part of the natural order, women’s lot in life.
As we all know, Afghanistan wasn’t always mired in these battles. Before the Taliban, women enjoyed equality similar to that of women in the West. After years of war, however, it is certainly women and girls who have suffered unimaginably, without choice or options, surrendering their bodies and babies to a militant power.
But Azfar calls the midwives she trains “champions” and has great faith that they will help turn things around.
The link between these two stories? It’s not just that midwives can provide critical assistance, support and care to pregnant and laboring women regardless of where we live. It’s that women around the world must demand the right to life – the right not to “surrender our bodies and babies” to powers that tell us we are not worthy of care; and that whether we’re talking about safe abortion care, access to contraception, HIV protection or bringing new life into this world safely, we’re talking about reproductive and sexual health and rights. "
The author writes: "I received two emails in my inbox today. One was from The Big Push for Midwives, asking for help in advocating for greater access to Certified Professional Midwifery (CPM) nationally. The group is basically petitioning Congress to add CPMs to the Medicaid provider list in order to make midwifery an actual option for more women in the United States. Why?
I’ve written extensively about all of the reasons why access to out-of-hospital birth is critical for women in the United States but if you want the quick run-down, check out this synopsis from The Big Push (and sign the petition if you’re so inclined, while you’re there!).
Why is this an uphill battle? Part of the problem is that professional organizations like the AMA and ACOG, while quite supportive of safe abortion care, are not keen on expanding childbirth options to include out-of-hospital settings and use of CPMs, for healthy, low-risk pregnant women. As well, in this country, we’re still enmeshed in seeing childbirth as a medical condition – a condition that must be treated clinically by a physician – regardless of whether or not there are any “medical conditions” present. Culturally we have strayed (if we were ever there) from women experiencing childbirth as normal and healthy, providing opportunities to bond with other women, and receiving support from a midwife and a community of other women.
This is not to say that CPMs do not care for the health of pregnant and birthing women but more that the medical establishment has succeeded in over-medicalizing birth to the point where, ironically, women’s health and lives (as well as the health and lives of the fetuses’ and newborns’) are placed at greater risk through unnecessary interventions. Jennifer Block has written an entire book on the subject!
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that prenatal care and childbirth care are not critical. As I’ve referenced in the past, the United States’ maternal mortality rates are dismal for an industrialized nation. African American women are four times as likely to die during childbirth as white women are, in this country. This dire situation is precisely why we need to expand options to a range of care for all women – not limit them.
So, I know you’re probably wondering at this point what that other email was? The New York Times has an excellent article on the critical role midwives can play in rebuilding Afghanistan, specifically addressing maternal health. The country is second only to Sierra Leone, in the entire world, in its numbers of women dying directly as a result of pregnancy and childbirth.
Amid war, after suffering for years under the Taliban, Afghan women are truly in trouble:
The main causes of these deaths are hemorrhage and obstructed labor, which can be fatal if a woman cannot obtain a Caesarean section.
Even if the mother survives, obstructed labor without a Caesarean
usually kills the baby. Most of the maternal deaths — 78 percent,
according to the Lancet report — could be prevented. [emphasis mine].
But there is one woman under whose leadership Afghanistan is beginning to rebuild its midwifery battalion, literally saving women’s lives.
Her name is Pashtoon Azfar and she works for Johns Hopkins University but also heads up the Afghan Midwives Association. Her mission? It is to remedy Afghan women’s death rate from pregnancy and childbirth by training and disbursing the next generation of midwives in Afghanistan.
The article notes that there is a long way to go. Apparently 80% of women in Afghanistan birth alone or without the help of a skilled birth attendant. And cultural issues plague Afghan women as well:
Afghanistan’s problems mirror those of many other poor countries:
shortages of personnel, supplies and transportation to clinics or hospitals,
especially in remote regions and mountainous areas that are snowbound
half the year. The deeper problems are cultural, rooted in the low
status of women and the misperception that deaths in childbirth are
inevitable — part of the natural order, women’s lot in life.
As we all know, Afghanistan wasn’t always mired in these battles. Before the Taliban, women enjoyed equality similar to that of women in the West. After years of war, however, it is certainly women and girls who have suffered unimaginably, without choice or options, surrendering their bodies and babies to a militant power.
But Azfar calls the midwives she trains “champions” and has great faith that they will help turn things around.
The link between these two stories? It’s not just that midwives can provide critical assistance, support and care to pregnant and laboring women regardless of where we live. It’s that women around the world must demand the right to life – the right not to “surrender our bodies and babies” to powers that tell us we are not worthy of care; and that whether we’re talking about safe abortion care, access to contraception, HIV protection or bringing new life into this world safely, we’re talking about reproductive and sexual health and rights. "
Kabul: In a dimly lit auditorium in Kabul's French Cultural Center, the audience watches as the camera follows a group of raffish street kids cracking their private jokes. As they break into laughter at the punchline, their giggles are echoed by a group of schoolboys at the back of the auditorium, who have sneaked in for the show. At the Kabul International and Short Film Festival, cinema often has this way of connecting with life.
In its fourth year, the festival brought together the works of filmmakers from across Afghanistan. Taken together, these images talk of a country that is torn yet determined to celebrate its survival and richness.
"People outside see same old images of war and suffering, but Afghanistan has a rich history and folklore. We would like to show that reality to the world as well," says Saeed Mohd Zia, whose film Saaya (ShaIdow) deals with the mental turmoil of a soldier.
The themes at the screenings ranged from a worms eye-view of the power problem of the growing city to more experimental work exploring urban landscapes. "Personally, I don't like to give pictures of war. There is life, there are weddings, there are small stories that deserve to be told," says Barmak Akram, Paris-based Afghan director and member of the jury, whose neo-realist film Kabuli Kid has won acclaim for its kinetic portrait of the city.
"What this festival brings out is that there is new generation of Afghans who are picking up stories from the street," says Marina Ludemann of the Goethe Institute, Munich, one of the international participants in the festival. "The whole world will be interested in hearing them."
These include documentaries like Mohd Ali Hazara's Once Upon a Time, which follows a young Afghan girl who translates folk tales to tell to children across the city.
"Afghanistan has a very young population, and they don't want to be caught in the mistakes of the older people" says Hazara. "My film shows one such attempt to create a new future for the children of Afghanistan."
While the rough edges on many of the films often showed, Samiullah Nabizadah's short fiction chose to capture the haunting beauty of Kabul's snowy streets as well as the rugged mountains around it. "These are symbols that play out in my story about a young man's struggle with a terminal illness, and his swinging between life and death," says Nabizadah. "Winter in Kabul is the most beautiful season, and the contrast with the white snow and the dark streets were essential parts of the character's conflict in my film."
Since its inception in 2006, the festival has grown to include entries from ninecountries, including India, Pakistan and Spain."There is enthusiasm from abroad to participate," says Rita Sachse-Toussaint, director of the Goethe Institute, Kabul, which supports the festival along with the Alliance Francaise. "But I would like to see it remain a small festival with a regional focus."
For many, the festival was a rare opportunity to soak in the responses of audiences to their work. "When people in Afghanistan hear the word 'cinema' they think it means 'bad' things like singing and dancing. At this festival, we can talk with people who understand our passion," says Ibrahim Bamiyani, whose Dream of Light struck a chord with an audience plagued by constant power cuts.
Inevitably, a festival of this kind came with its share of organisational nightmares, butthe security issues that came up were of a different kind. "The biggest problem was finding common ground between our Afghan partners, who often have conflicts of which we are not aware, and trying to get everyone to work together," says Sachse-Toussaint. "Also, it is difficult to get an audience since people are not used to events like this in Kabul yet."Despite these hiccups, points out Ludemann, "It is incredible to have sustained a film festival in a city where everything has been destroyed, and everyday life is a struggle."
For Akram, the screenings and workshops at the festival are part of the process of creating a more original cinema in Afghanistan. "Most filmmakers here are self taught, and don't really know what style they are aiming for. The screenings of foreign films exposes them to ideas beyond Bollywood." The biggest tribute to the festival, however, came from Ali Ghani, one of the schoolboys trickling out with the audience. "Until now, I thought cinema was just heroes and fighting. I didn't know there could be films about people like me."
In its fourth year, the festival brought together the works of filmmakers from across Afghanistan. Taken together, these images talk of a country that is torn yet determined to celebrate its survival and richness.
"People outside see same old images of war and suffering, but Afghanistan has a rich history and folklore. We would like to show that reality to the world as well," says Saeed Mohd Zia, whose film Saaya (ShaIdow) deals with the mental turmoil of a soldier.
The themes at the screenings ranged from a worms eye-view of the power problem of the growing city to more experimental work exploring urban landscapes. "Personally, I don't like to give pictures of war. There is life, there are weddings, there are small stories that deserve to be told," says Barmak Akram, Paris-based Afghan director and member of the jury, whose neo-realist film Kabuli Kid has won acclaim for its kinetic portrait of the city.
"What this festival brings out is that there is new generation of Afghans who are picking up stories from the street," says Marina Ludemann of the Goethe Institute, Munich, one of the international participants in the festival. "The whole world will be interested in hearing them."
These include documentaries like Mohd Ali Hazara's Once Upon a Time, which follows a young Afghan girl who translates folk tales to tell to children across the city.
"Afghanistan has a very young population, and they don't want to be caught in the mistakes of the older people" says Hazara. "My film shows one such attempt to create a new future for the children of Afghanistan."
While the rough edges on many of the films often showed, Samiullah Nabizadah's short fiction chose to capture the haunting beauty of Kabul's snowy streets as well as the rugged mountains around it. "These are symbols that play out in my story about a young man's struggle with a terminal illness, and his swinging between life and death," says Nabizadah. "Winter in Kabul is the most beautiful season, and the contrast with the white snow and the dark streets were essential parts of the character's conflict in my film."
Since its inception in 2006, the festival has grown to include entries from ninecountries, including India, Pakistan and Spain."There is enthusiasm from abroad to participate," says Rita Sachse-Toussaint, director of the Goethe Institute, Kabul, which supports the festival along with the Alliance Francaise. "But I would like to see it remain a small festival with a regional focus."
For many, the festival was a rare opportunity to soak in the responses of audiences to their work. "When people in Afghanistan hear the word 'cinema' they think it means 'bad' things like singing and dancing. At this festival, we can talk with people who understand our passion," says Ibrahim Bamiyani, whose Dream of Light struck a chord with an audience plagued by constant power cuts.
Inevitably, a festival of this kind came with its share of organisational nightmares, butthe security issues that came up were of a different kind. "The biggest problem was finding common ground between our Afghan partners, who often have conflicts of which we are not aware, and trying to get everyone to work together," says Sachse-Toussaint. "Also, it is difficult to get an audience since people are not used to events like this in Kabul yet."Despite these hiccups, points out Ludemann, "It is incredible to have sustained a film festival in a city where everything has been destroyed, and everyday life is a struggle."
For Akram, the screenings and workshops at the festival are part of the process of creating a more original cinema in Afghanistan. "Most filmmakers here are self taught, and don't really know what style they are aiming for. The screenings of foreign films exposes them to ideas beyond Bollywood." The biggest tribute to the festival, however, came from Ali Ghani, one of the schoolboys trickling out with the audience. "Until now, I thought cinema was just heroes and fighting. I didn't know there could be films about people like me."
Here is the video of Grana, the sole survivor of a recent coalition bombing that killed her entire family- except for her uncle, who is taking care of her. She's little, and she is quite injured, so if things like that bother you, please be ready.
Child's Eye in Afghanistan: Afghan children speak
What is daily life like for Afghan children behind the headlines?
Issa works to support his family. Read his story.
Wednesday 29 July 2009
Media headlines about Afghanistan currently focus mainly on the coalition military strategy and casualties. But what is daily life like for children behind the headlines?
“The worst pain is in my knee. When I get tired, it swells and pushes on my nerve. I can’t stand on my feet. I scream with pain.”
Issa Khan spends a lot of time on his feet, walking the streets of Mazar-i-Sharif, selling cups of water or bread. Ever since his father was shot while sleeping on the roof of his house one night, Issa has become the family’s breadwinner. He is also responsible for his brother who has suffered from mental health problems ever since their father’s murder.
We only know about his father’s murder through Issa’s testimony. Stuart Shahid Bamforth, who works for Save the Children and filmed Issa, points out that capturing children’s life stories is key to the Child’s Eye project, produced jointly by the Guardian and Save the Children.
“We want to reflect how children see the world. We might want to put them in a certain political or economic context but really this series is about how the children see themselves.”
Bamforth believes the murder is part of the legacy from decades of war. “With a higher number of guns per head than almost any country in the world, local disputes are often resolved at gunpoint,” Bamforth says.
Issa, who is Pashtun, faces discrimination and abuse on a daily basis, possibly because of a skin condition caused by sand flies, which has left his face pock marked, or because of the menial nature of his job. “[People] beat me and call me dirty, and they laugh at me.”
Issa is one of thousands of working street children in the country. The boys often work in the public sphere as mechanics repairing punctures on bikes and cars or serving tea in roadside cafes. The girls tend to work behind closed doors carrying out sewing, embroidery or stripping peas from their shells, leaving them with stained green fingers.
Save the Children has set up educational centres for working street children. After working for a few hours, they drop by the centres to learn how to read and write. Many of the children are the only breadwinners for their families and have no choice but to work.
Life may not be easy for Issa. But now that he’s learning maths, at least he knows if he’s been short changed or not. Earning around only 30 — 40 Afghanis (40 pence) per day, every bit counts.
See more testimonies of children who are at the sharp end of war, natural disasters and poverty all over the world.
What is daily life like for Afghan children behind the headlines?
Issa works to support his family. Read his story.
Wednesday 29 July 2009
Media headlines about Afghanistan currently focus mainly on the coalition military strategy and casualties. But what is daily life like for children behind the headlines?
“The worst pain is in my knee. When I get tired, it swells and pushes on my nerve. I can’t stand on my feet. I scream with pain.”
Issa Khan spends a lot of time on his feet, walking the streets of Mazar-i-Sharif, selling cups of water or bread. Ever since his father was shot while sleeping on the roof of his house one night, Issa has become the family’s breadwinner. He is also responsible for his brother who has suffered from mental health problems ever since their father’s murder.
We only know about his father’s murder through Issa’s testimony. Stuart Shahid Bamforth, who works for Save the Children and filmed Issa, points out that capturing children’s life stories is key to the Child’s Eye project, produced jointly by the Guardian and Save the Children.
“We want to reflect how children see the world. We might want to put them in a certain political or economic context but really this series is about how the children see themselves.”
Bamforth believes the murder is part of the legacy from decades of war. “With a higher number of guns per head than almost any country in the world, local disputes are often resolved at gunpoint,” Bamforth says.
Issa, who is Pashtun, faces discrimination and abuse on a daily basis, possibly because of a skin condition caused by sand flies, which has left his face pock marked, or because of the menial nature of his job. “[People] beat me and call me dirty, and they laugh at me.”
Issa is one of thousands of working street children in the country. The boys often work in the public sphere as mechanics repairing punctures on bikes and cars or serving tea in roadside cafes. The girls tend to work behind closed doors carrying out sewing, embroidery or stripping peas from their shells, leaving them with stained green fingers.
Save the Children has set up educational centres for working street children. After working for a few hours, they drop by the centres to learn how to read and write. Many of the children are the only breadwinners for their families and have no choice but to work.
Life may not be easy for Issa. But now that he’s learning maths, at least he knows if he’s been short changed or not. Earning around only 30 — 40 Afghanis (40 pence) per day, every bit counts.
See more testimonies of children who are at the sharp end of war, natural disasters and poverty all over the world.
Watch out for donkeys - they could be rigged with bombs.
That's the latest warning when out on the streets of Kabul. Donkeys carting improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are known, hidden in their sidebags.
And for "improvised" don't read amateurish - IEDs are sophisticated and the main killer of international forces in Afghanistan.
Major Olly Te Ua, the New Zealand Army patrol leader, runs through other threats such as a suicide bomber in a grey Toyota Corolla.
This description is of virtually no help in Kabul, where almost every car is a Toyota of some kind. Left or right-hand drive, it doesn't matter, there are thousands of them. It is the only city in the world you will see a BMW with a Toyota sticker on it.
Each roundabout is clogged with cars, every decent vantage point taken up with posters for candidates in next month's elections. One, for a female candidate, is particularly clever - she is ripping off the famous Andy Warhol portrait of Marilyn Monroe.
%3Cbody%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3D%22adDiv%22%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%3E%0D%0Agoogle_ad_client%20%3D%20%22pub-5276995754775409%22%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_slot%20%3D%20%227847355287%22%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_width%20%3D%20300%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_height%20%3D%20250%3B%0D%0Agoogle_page_url%20%3D%20%27http%3A//www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D10587276%27%3B%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%0D%0Asrc%3D%22http%3A//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js%22%3E%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%3C/div%3E
Forget for a moment where you are, and Kabul is just another Asian city. Its hustle even seems more genteel than others.
It is a mass of low-rise, square and flat-topped buildings cocooned by massive mountain ranges. But even these have not been able to hem it in - Major Te Ua points out that its 4 million people are in a city designed for 800,000 - and from the air you can see how Kabul's sprawl has awkwardly squeezed itself out through a gap.
Don't let the sand, heat and dust fool you, at 1800m above sea-level, Kabul would be perched well up the side of Mt Taranaki.
Businesses are trading away on the roadside and it is safe by Afghanistan's standards, which is why so many have come here. The Taleban abandoned the city under heavy American bombing soon after the 2001 invasion, and the Afghan Army and police now provide most of the security.
Any sense of relative normality disappears in the inner-city, a Green Zone-type fortress that itself holds various smaller compounds housing the international forces, President Hamid Karzai's palace and government buildings and embassies.
The streets are lined with mature trees from happier times but these are overshadowed by the Lego-like concrete pillars that make a maze interrupted only by an array of checkpoints. The security here ranges from messy Afghan security guards lugging old Kalashnikovs to high-tech cellphone jammers that will block IEDs from being set off remotely.
Once inside the compounds the environment is calm and men and women wear suits and dress clothes as if they are ordinary workplaces. The signs warning of rocket attacks, a lipstick-wearing woman carrying a Bushmaster rifle or security guard so laden with ammunition it is a wonder he can move soon serve as reminders.
When patrolling outside this zone, Major Te Ua is looking for atmospherics - "anything that makes your hairs stand on end".
Military are of course a target, so like most other forces the New Zealanders drive in relatively low-key - but bullet- and bomb-proof - Toyota four-wheel drives.
Many Westerners are increasingly happy to travel about the city unaided. At times during my visit, security was low - but always bullet-proof. Other times, after visiting targets such as the upcoming election headquarters or police bases, it was extremely high.
One such journey with Americans involved racing through traffic in a convoy manned by a private security detail, the front vehicle clearing the way as discreetly as possible and the rear vehicle sweeping it back with a blaring siren - and at one major intersection enforcing this by a guard popping out the sunroof and training his machine gun on waiting cars.
Major Te Ua is a territorial soldier on a six-month deployment. He is usually the Hamilton City Council's community development manager but is bringing these skills to Kabul, where he is working on improving its governance structures and often dealing with ministers and the Mayor of Kabul, Mir Abdul Ahad Sahibi.
%3Cbody%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3D%22adDiv%22%3E%3Cscript%20language%3D%22JavaScript%22%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%3E%0D%0Avar%20isFF%20%3D%20navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase%28%29.indexOf%28%27firefox%27%29%20%21%3D%20-1%3B%0D%0Aif%28isFF%29%7B%0D%0Adocument.write%28%27%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%3Cimg%20src%3D%22http%3A//spe.atdmt.com/ds/AAAUSEXPNEXN/080329_Cheap_Flights_300x250.gif%3Fver%3D1/direct/01/%22%20border%3D%220%22%20/%3E%3C/a%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7D%0D%0Aelse%7B%0D%0Adocument.write%28%27%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22http%3A//view.atdmt.com/AUS/iview/nwzlnexn0020000025aus/direct/0168457822745%3Fclick%3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer/relocate%3D%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20marginheight%3D%220%22%20marginwidth%3D%220%22%20topmargin%3D%220%22%20leftmargin%3D%220%22%20allowtransparency%3D%22true%22%20width%3D%22300%22%20height%3D%22250%22%20id%3D%22iframe20111%22%3E%3C/iframe%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7D%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%0D%0A%3Cnoscript%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%3Cimg%20border%3D%220%22%20src%3D%22http%3A//spe.atdmt.com/ds/AAAUSEXPNEXN/080329_Cheap_Flights_300x250.gif%3Fver%3D1%22%20/%3E%3C/a%3E%0D%0A%3C/noscript%3E%0D%0A%3C/div%3E
Major Te Ua and a small group of soldiers based in or near Kabul are part of the "niche" contributions outside the main base in Bamiyan recently praised by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Working out of a shipping container dubbed "Te Papa", they slot into various parts of the Nato-led force and are well-known for their ability to get on with the job. The recently departed Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Ramsden just became the first New Zealander to receive Nato's Meritorious Service Medal for his "superior leadership" in the planning unit.
The Kabul patrol's driver, Trooper Nick Hill from Tauranga, is used to the role: his primary job is driving the dangerous route between Kabul and the Bagram military air base. Trooper Hill's description of this route is typically Kiwi: "It has its moments."
The patrol stops for a moment on Swimming Pool Hill - named after the Olympic swimming pool complete with diving boards that sits on its top.
The sun starts to set on Kabul just like it does on any other great city.
But the swimming pool serves as a reminder of its extraordinarily violent recent past. It was built by occupying Soviet forces in the 1980s, while they watched out for the Afghan mujahideen. Then the Taleban used it in the 1990s, throwing alleged criminals and homosexuals off the highest diving board to crash to the concrete floor.
As children play happily with the New Zealand soldiers beside the still-empty pool one can only wonder - and hope - about what Kabul will see next.
* Patrick Gower travelled to Afghanistan and Nato HQ in Brussels with assistance from the US State Department.
That's the latest warning when out on the streets of Kabul. Donkeys carting improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are known, hidden in their sidebags.
And for "improvised" don't read amateurish - IEDs are sophisticated and the main killer of international forces in Afghanistan.
Major Olly Te Ua, the New Zealand Army patrol leader, runs through other threats such as a suicide bomber in a grey Toyota Corolla.
This description is of virtually no help in Kabul, where almost every car is a Toyota of some kind. Left or right-hand drive, it doesn't matter, there are thousands of them. It is the only city in the world you will see a BMW with a Toyota sticker on it.
Each roundabout is clogged with cars, every decent vantage point taken up with posters for candidates in next month's elections. One, for a female candidate, is particularly clever - she is ripping off the famous Andy Warhol portrait of Marilyn Monroe.
%3Cbody%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3D%22adDiv%22%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%3E%0D%0Agoogle_ad_client%20%3D%20%22pub-5276995754775409%22%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_slot%20%3D%20%227847355287%22%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_width%20%3D%20300%3B%0D%0Agoogle_ad_height%20%3D%20250%3B%0D%0Agoogle_page_url%20%3D%20%27http%3A//www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D10587276%27%3B%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%0D%0Asrc%3D%22http%3A//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js%22%3E%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%3C/div%3E
Forget for a moment where you are, and Kabul is just another Asian city. Its hustle even seems more genteel than others.
It is a mass of low-rise, square and flat-topped buildings cocooned by massive mountain ranges. But even these have not been able to hem it in - Major Te Ua points out that its 4 million people are in a city designed for 800,000 - and from the air you can see how Kabul's sprawl has awkwardly squeezed itself out through a gap.
Don't let the sand, heat and dust fool you, at 1800m above sea-level, Kabul would be perched well up the side of Mt Taranaki.
Businesses are trading away on the roadside and it is safe by Afghanistan's standards, which is why so many have come here. The Taleban abandoned the city under heavy American bombing soon after the 2001 invasion, and the Afghan Army and police now provide most of the security.
Any sense of relative normality disappears in the inner-city, a Green Zone-type fortress that itself holds various smaller compounds housing the international forces, President Hamid Karzai's palace and government buildings and embassies.
The streets are lined with mature trees from happier times but these are overshadowed by the Lego-like concrete pillars that make a maze interrupted only by an array of checkpoints. The security here ranges from messy Afghan security guards lugging old Kalashnikovs to high-tech cellphone jammers that will block IEDs from being set off remotely.
Once inside the compounds the environment is calm and men and women wear suits and dress clothes as if they are ordinary workplaces. The signs warning of rocket attacks, a lipstick-wearing woman carrying a Bushmaster rifle or security guard so laden with ammunition it is a wonder he can move soon serve as reminders.
When patrolling outside this zone, Major Te Ua is looking for atmospherics - "anything that makes your hairs stand on end".
Military are of course a target, so like most other forces the New Zealanders drive in relatively low-key - but bullet- and bomb-proof - Toyota four-wheel drives.
Many Westerners are increasingly happy to travel about the city unaided. At times during my visit, security was low - but always bullet-proof. Other times, after visiting targets such as the upcoming election headquarters or police bases, it was extremely high.
One such journey with Americans involved racing through traffic in a convoy manned by a private security detail, the front vehicle clearing the way as discreetly as possible and the rear vehicle sweeping it back with a blaring siren - and at one major intersection enforcing this by a guard popping out the sunroof and training his machine gun on waiting cars.
Major Te Ua is a territorial soldier on a six-month deployment. He is usually the Hamilton City Council's community development manager but is bringing these skills to Kabul, where he is working on improving its governance structures and often dealing with ministers and the Mayor of Kabul, Mir Abdul Ahad Sahibi.
%3Cbody%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3D%22adDiv%22%3E%3Cscript%20language%3D%22JavaScript%22%20type%3D%22text/javascript%22%3E%0D%0Avar%20isFF%20%3D%20navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase%28%29.indexOf%28%27firefox%27%29%20%21%3D%20-1%3B%0D%0Aif%28isFF%29%7B%0D%0Adocument.write%28%27%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%3Cimg%20src%3D%22http%3A//spe.atdmt.com/ds/AAAUSEXPNEXN/080329_Cheap_Flights_300x250.gif%3Fver%3D1/direct/01/%22%20border%3D%220%22%20/%3E%3C/a%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7D%0D%0Aelse%7B%0D%0Adocument.write%28%27%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22http%3A//view.atdmt.com/AUS/iview/nwzlnexn0020000025aus/direct/0168457822745%3Fclick%3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer/relocate%3D%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20marginheight%3D%220%22%20marginwidth%3D%220%22%20topmargin%3D%220%22%20leftmargin%3D%220%22%20allowtransparency%3D%22true%22%20width%3D%22300%22%20height%3D%22250%22%20id%3D%22iframe20111%22%3E%3C/iframe%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7D%0D%0A%3C/script%3E%0D%0A%0D%0A%3Cnoscript%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00004e8f67d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D68457822745/pageid%3D3580310509/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dsuicide%20donkeys%20part%20life%20kabul%20defence%20armed%20forces%20war%20afghanistan%20nz%20government%20diplomacy%20watch%20rigged%20bombs%20latest%20warning%20streets%20carting%20improvised%20explosive%20devices%20ieds%20known%20hidden%20sidebags%20read%20amateurish%20sophisticated%20main%20killer%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%3Cimg%20border%3D%220%22%20src%3D%22http%3A//spe.atdmt.com/ds/AAAUSEXPNEXN/080329_Cheap_Flights_300x250.gif%3Fver%3D1%22%20/%3E%3C/a%3E%0D%0A%3C/noscript%3E%0D%0A%3C/div%3E
Major Te Ua and a small group of soldiers based in or near Kabul are part of the "niche" contributions outside the main base in Bamiyan recently praised by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Working out of a shipping container dubbed "Te Papa", they slot into various parts of the Nato-led force and are well-known for their ability to get on with the job. The recently departed Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Ramsden just became the first New Zealander to receive Nato's Meritorious Service Medal for his "superior leadership" in the planning unit.
The Kabul patrol's driver, Trooper Nick Hill from Tauranga, is used to the role: his primary job is driving the dangerous route between Kabul and the Bagram military air base. Trooper Hill's description of this route is typically Kiwi: "It has its moments."
The patrol stops for a moment on Swimming Pool Hill - named after the Olympic swimming pool complete with diving boards that sits on its top.
The sun starts to set on Kabul just like it does on any other great city.
But the swimming pool serves as a reminder of its extraordinarily violent recent past. It was built by occupying Soviet forces in the 1980s, while they watched out for the Afghan mujahideen. Then the Taleban used it in the 1990s, throwing alleged criminals and homosexuals off the highest diving board to crash to the concrete floor.
As children play happily with the New Zealand soldiers beside the still-empty pool one can only wonder - and hope - about what Kabul will see next.
* Patrick Gower travelled to Afghanistan and Nato HQ in Brussels with assistance from the US State Department.
This is from the NYT. I am reminded of other author explorers, like the early writers of adventure who went to the North Pole and wrote about it, the climbers that climb all sorts of stuff and write about it.. there are, contrary to belief, still a number of these types lurking about in spectacularly written genre fiction, and their friends who don't write all that much but inform their subculture mates/ snoopers. I am reminded of the craziness of the recent climbing in Krgyzstan, in which two climbers thrashed out some epic mountaineering and then were co-opted into a Byzantine abduction in the end- hostages, negotatiators, voyeurs, Americans extrodinaire. No one has ever been able to make sense of climbers really; no one ever will. And that's the beauty of this type of writer. Anyway this sounds like a pretty freaking interesting tome. And there's really not a lot of writing that greatly intrigues these days, so that's saying sumthin'
By CHARLES McGRATH
Published: July 28, 2009
HOLTVILLE, Calif. — William T. Vollmann, legendarily prolific, writes in a studio that used to be a restaurant in Sacramento. The place is surrounded by a big parking lot where he encourages homeless people to camp out. Inside he runs a one-man assembly line. His bibliography so far includes nine novels, including “Europe Central,” which won the National Book Award in 2005; three collections of stories; a seven-volume, 3,000-page history of violence; a book-length essay on poverty; and a travel book about hopping freight trains, a hobby of his even though his balance is so bad that he has to use a plastic bucket as a stepstool.
Excerpt: ‘Imperial’ (July 28, 2009) Mr. Vollmann’s newest book, “Imperial,” which comes out from the Viking Press on Thursday, costs $55 and is 1,300 pages long — so heavy, he observed recently, that if you dropped it, you’d break a toe. A companion volume, to be published next month by powerHouse Books, contains some 200 photographs he took while working on “Imperial,” for which he also wore a spy camera while trying to infiltrate a Mexican factory, and paddled in an inflatable raft down the New River in California, a rancid trench that is probably the most polluted stream in America. The water, he writes, tasted like the Salk polio vaccine.
Mr. Vollmann, who just turned 50, is a loner, a bit of a recluse, despite being married and the father of a daughter, and a throwback: a wandering, try-anything writer-journalist in the tradition of Steinbeck or Jack London. Some people think he’s a little nuts.
To research “The Rifles,” a novel partly about the 1845 Franklin expedition to the Arctic, Mr. Vollmann spent two weeks alone at the magnetic North Pole, where he suffered frostbite and permanently burned off his eyebrows when he accidentally set his sleeping bag on fire. But being eyebrowless has its advantages, he discovered more recently, while experimenting with cross-dressing to research a novel he’s now writing about the transgendered. He didn’t have to pluck his brows when getting made up.
Mr. Vollmann collects pistols and likes to shoot them. He has traveled to Thailand, Bosnia, Somalia, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places, studying war and poverty, and has a way of picking up prostitutes just about wherever he goes. He has spent considerable time with skinheads, winos, crackheads and meth tweakers, and has ingested plenty of illegal substances himself.
“Crack,” he said recently, “is a really great drug — it’s like having three cups of coffee at once.”
“Imperial,” which is about Imperial County in California, the vast, flat and arid region in the southeastern part of the state, bordering Mexico, is an extreme Vollmann production: brilliant in places, practically unreadable in others. There are lyrical passages, and others edging over into magenta (“And change came; just as the urine of dehydrated people is turbid and dark, failing in transparency, so the evening sunlight, as if heated to exhaustion by and with itself, now lost the glaring whiteness which had characterized it since early morning, and it oozed down upon the pavement to stain it with gold”), along with scientific chapters, complete with graphs, on salinization and agricultural productivity, and 175 pages of notes. A page early on has a title warning of “Impending Aridity.”
The more interesting stuff includes chapters on narco-ballads — songs, outlawed in Mexico, celebrating drug lords — on early California history, on the Chinese-dug tunnels in Mexicali and on Mr. Vollmann’s lingering breakup with an old lover.
The book is a little like the Imperial Valley itself: pathless, fascinating, exhausting. Its two great themes are illegal immigration — the struggle of countless thousands of Mexicans to sneak into the United States through the Imperial Valley — and water, which has transformed the valley, or parts of it, from desert to seeming paradise but at great environmental cost.
Mr. Vollmann’s editors urged him to cut, he said, and he resisted: “We always go round and round. They want me to cut, and I argue, so they cut my royalties, and I agree never to write a long book again.” He acknowledged that the length of “Imperial” might cost him readers but said: “I don’t care. It seems like the important thing in life is pleasing ourselves. The world doesn’t owe me a living, and if the world doesn’t want to buy my books, that’s my problem.”
On a cloudless, sun-baked day last week Mr. Vollmann, with a characteristically bad haircut, toured some of the landscapes that had inspired him, traveling from San Diego across the border to the Mexican town of Tecate, down the mountainous, hairpin road to Mexicali and then back across the border into California, through the Imperial Valley to the Salton Sea, an enormous inland lake that is the region’s agricultural sink, so hyper-saline from irrigation runoff that it is almost toxic.
Along the way, some of the secrets of Mr. Vollmann’s method began to reveal themselves. Mr. Vollmann doesn’t drive, and his Spanish is only so-so, so he was driven, as he was for most of the 12 years it took him to write the book, by Terrie Petree, who also served as an interpreter. She learned her Spanish as a Mormon missionary in northern Spain, which also prepared her, she said, for having doors shut in her face. Mr. Vollmann sat in the passenger seat, taking in everything and peppering Ms. Petree with questions. Far from manic, he was preternaturally calm and patient, dosing himself with nothing stronger than bottled water.
Mr. Vollmann is almost excessively polite, and in conversation has a salesman’s habit of using your first name in every other sentence. He seems more innocent than worldly, driven by insatiable curiosity. In Mexicali he turned an annoying and time-consuming visit to a police station, occasioned by what appeared to be a traffic-fine shakedown, into an interview with the station’s chief of information. He also charmed a blushing secretary there and learned the name of the best taco joint in town.
In Tecate, he was so polite to Severa Piñedo Valenzuela, a woman sweeping the street, that she invited him to see her indoor garden. Her house is directly across the road from the iron fence walling off the United States border. She had never seen anyone trying to cross over, she said, and added: “They think that if they cross the border, that’s where the money is. But it’s where death is.”
On the way back to the car, Mr. Vollmann went over to the fence and peered through a gap across to a hill where a white border patrol van was parked. “At night, it looks like the Third Reich out there,” he said. “They light it up so you can see every grain of sand glowing in the dark. When we were over there, it was nothing special, but now that there’s a fence here, it feels different. It’s that crazy human thing we do about delineating things.”
He went on: “I think countries have the right to maintain their borders, but on the other hand, think of the thousands or so who have died just trying to get to the United States so they can clean toilets. It seems horrendous that they shouldn’t have a better life, especially if they’re willing to do work we aren’t.”
Mexicali is a major junction for Mexicans and Central Americans trying to cross over, and also, to judge from billboards, for Americans looking for strippers, cheap prescription drugs, plastic surgery and dental implants. It was here, Mr. Vollmann said, that he had an early insight that inspired his book.
“I used to think the Imperial Valley was hot, flat and boring,” he explained. “But I crossed over here, stayed in a hotel and realized the place was full of secrets. You’d see a building that looked run-down and boarded up, but inside it was a place of coolness, darkness, life. That seemed like such a great metaphor for this place.”
In Calexico, on the American side, Mr. Vollmann inspected the neon-looking New River, which some foolish would-be immigrants have tried to swim and which he, equally foolhardy, tried to navigate in his rubber raft. “Looking pretty good today!” he said not far from a sign warning “Agua Contaminada. No Entre.” “Doesn’t stink too much and there’s almost no foam.”
On through the valley, where the temperature reached 115 degrees, and the sun gave you a headache, Mr. Vollmann remained curious and upbeat, not even flinching at the stench from an endless feed lot. He explained his preoccupation with the marginal and downtrodden matter of factly:
“When I was a young boy, my little sister drowned, and it was essentially my fault. I was 9, and she was 6, and I was supposed to be watching. I’ve always felt guilty. It’s like I have to have sympathy for the little girl who drowned and for the little boy who failed to save her — for all the people who have screwed up.”
In Brawley he stopped for lunch with Stella Altamirano-Mendoza, who is on the board of the Imperial Irrigation District and had been his tutor in the byzantine intricacies of Imperial water politics. The stuff is so valuable, she explained, that some farmers no longer bother to farm but simply sell their water.
Near Slab City, just north of Calipatria, Mr. Vollmann stopped to pay a courtesy call on Leonard Knight, a 77-year-old local eccentric, who since 1985 has been building out of adobe an enormous, religious-theme folk-art monument called Salvation Mountain, which from a distance looks as if it had been sculptured from cake frosting.
“I sometimes think I have more ambition than brains,” Mr. Knight said, but then beamed while mentioning how many people had visited the Salvation Mountain Web site (salvationmountain.us).
As evening drew near, there was a whisper of a breeze, the shadows lengthened, greenery grew greener, and the Salton Sea almost looked beautiful, until you got up close and saw the abandoned motels and all the dead fish. “I love the desert at night,” Mr. Vollmann said. “That’s when it’s most beautiful. It feels soothing and infinite.”
The day ended with a visit to the Terrace Park Cemetery here in Holtville, where unidentified people who have died crossing the border are buried in a bare, grassless potter’s field. A danger sign warns of possible cave-ins. The graves, laid out in long, straight rows, are each marked with a brick bearing a number and the name John Doe. A few are additionally decorated with homemade wooden crosses that say “No identificado” or “No olvidado” (“not forgotten”).
Mr. Vollmann stood there quietly for a while and said, “You wonder how many are never found and never brought here,” and he added, an edge creeping into his voice: “At least they won’t be stealing our tax dollars anymore. That’s very important.”
By CHARLES McGRATH
Published: July 28, 2009
HOLTVILLE, Calif. — William T. Vollmann, legendarily prolific, writes in a studio that used to be a restaurant in Sacramento. The place is surrounded by a big parking lot where he encourages homeless people to camp out. Inside he runs a one-man assembly line. His bibliography so far includes nine novels, including “Europe Central,” which won the National Book Award in 2005; three collections of stories; a seven-volume, 3,000-page history of violence; a book-length essay on poverty; and a travel book about hopping freight trains, a hobby of his even though his balance is so bad that he has to use a plastic bucket as a stepstool.
Excerpt: ‘Imperial’ (July 28, 2009) Mr. Vollmann’s newest book, “Imperial,” which comes out from the Viking Press on Thursday, costs $55 and is 1,300 pages long — so heavy, he observed recently, that if you dropped it, you’d break a toe. A companion volume, to be published next month by powerHouse Books, contains some 200 photographs he took while working on “Imperial,” for which he also wore a spy camera while trying to infiltrate a Mexican factory, and paddled in an inflatable raft down the New River in California, a rancid trench that is probably the most polluted stream in America. The water, he writes, tasted like the Salk polio vaccine.
Mr. Vollmann, who just turned 50, is a loner, a bit of a recluse, despite being married and the father of a daughter, and a throwback: a wandering, try-anything writer-journalist in the tradition of Steinbeck or Jack London. Some people think he’s a little nuts.
To research “The Rifles,” a novel partly about the 1845 Franklin expedition to the Arctic, Mr. Vollmann spent two weeks alone at the magnetic North Pole, where he suffered frostbite and permanently burned off his eyebrows when he accidentally set his sleeping bag on fire. But being eyebrowless has its advantages, he discovered more recently, while experimenting with cross-dressing to research a novel he’s now writing about the transgendered. He didn’t have to pluck his brows when getting made up.
Mr. Vollmann collects pistols and likes to shoot them. He has traveled to Thailand, Bosnia, Somalia, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places, studying war and poverty, and has a way of picking up prostitutes just about wherever he goes. He has spent considerable time with skinheads, winos, crackheads and meth tweakers, and has ingested plenty of illegal substances himself.
“Crack,” he said recently, “is a really great drug — it’s like having three cups of coffee at once.”
“Imperial,” which is about Imperial County in California, the vast, flat and arid region in the southeastern part of the state, bordering Mexico, is an extreme Vollmann production: brilliant in places, practically unreadable in others. There are lyrical passages, and others edging over into magenta (“And change came; just as the urine of dehydrated people is turbid and dark, failing in transparency, so the evening sunlight, as if heated to exhaustion by and with itself, now lost the glaring whiteness which had characterized it since early morning, and it oozed down upon the pavement to stain it with gold”), along with scientific chapters, complete with graphs, on salinization and agricultural productivity, and 175 pages of notes. A page early on has a title warning of “Impending Aridity.”
The more interesting stuff includes chapters on narco-ballads — songs, outlawed in Mexico, celebrating drug lords — on early California history, on the Chinese-dug tunnels in Mexicali and on Mr. Vollmann’s lingering breakup with an old lover.
The book is a little like the Imperial Valley itself: pathless, fascinating, exhausting. Its two great themes are illegal immigration — the struggle of countless thousands of Mexicans to sneak into the United States through the Imperial Valley — and water, which has transformed the valley, or parts of it, from desert to seeming paradise but at great environmental cost.
Mr. Vollmann’s editors urged him to cut, he said, and he resisted: “We always go round and round. They want me to cut, and I argue, so they cut my royalties, and I agree never to write a long book again.” He acknowledged that the length of “Imperial” might cost him readers but said: “I don’t care. It seems like the important thing in life is pleasing ourselves. The world doesn’t owe me a living, and if the world doesn’t want to buy my books, that’s my problem.”
On a cloudless, sun-baked day last week Mr. Vollmann, with a characteristically bad haircut, toured some of the landscapes that had inspired him, traveling from San Diego across the border to the Mexican town of Tecate, down the mountainous, hairpin road to Mexicali and then back across the border into California, through the Imperial Valley to the Salton Sea, an enormous inland lake that is the region’s agricultural sink, so hyper-saline from irrigation runoff that it is almost toxic.
Along the way, some of the secrets of Mr. Vollmann’s method began to reveal themselves. Mr. Vollmann doesn’t drive, and his Spanish is only so-so, so he was driven, as he was for most of the 12 years it took him to write the book, by Terrie Petree, who also served as an interpreter. She learned her Spanish as a Mormon missionary in northern Spain, which also prepared her, she said, for having doors shut in her face. Mr. Vollmann sat in the passenger seat, taking in everything and peppering Ms. Petree with questions. Far from manic, he was preternaturally calm and patient, dosing himself with nothing stronger than bottled water.
Mr. Vollmann is almost excessively polite, and in conversation has a salesman’s habit of using your first name in every other sentence. He seems more innocent than worldly, driven by insatiable curiosity. In Mexicali he turned an annoying and time-consuming visit to a police station, occasioned by what appeared to be a traffic-fine shakedown, into an interview with the station’s chief of information. He also charmed a blushing secretary there and learned the name of the best taco joint in town.
In Tecate, he was so polite to Severa Piñedo Valenzuela, a woman sweeping the street, that she invited him to see her indoor garden. Her house is directly across the road from the iron fence walling off the United States border. She had never seen anyone trying to cross over, she said, and added: “They think that if they cross the border, that’s where the money is. But it’s where death is.”
On the way back to the car, Mr. Vollmann went over to the fence and peered through a gap across to a hill where a white border patrol van was parked. “At night, it looks like the Third Reich out there,” he said. “They light it up so you can see every grain of sand glowing in the dark. When we were over there, it was nothing special, but now that there’s a fence here, it feels different. It’s that crazy human thing we do about delineating things.”
He went on: “I think countries have the right to maintain their borders, but on the other hand, think of the thousands or so who have died just trying to get to the United States so they can clean toilets. It seems horrendous that they shouldn’t have a better life, especially if they’re willing to do work we aren’t.”
Mexicali is a major junction for Mexicans and Central Americans trying to cross over, and also, to judge from billboards, for Americans looking for strippers, cheap prescription drugs, plastic surgery and dental implants. It was here, Mr. Vollmann said, that he had an early insight that inspired his book.
“I used to think the Imperial Valley was hot, flat and boring,” he explained. “But I crossed over here, stayed in a hotel and realized the place was full of secrets. You’d see a building that looked run-down and boarded up, but inside it was a place of coolness, darkness, life. That seemed like such a great metaphor for this place.”
In Calexico, on the American side, Mr. Vollmann inspected the neon-looking New River, which some foolish would-be immigrants have tried to swim and which he, equally foolhardy, tried to navigate in his rubber raft. “Looking pretty good today!” he said not far from a sign warning “Agua Contaminada. No Entre.” “Doesn’t stink too much and there’s almost no foam.”
On through the valley, where the temperature reached 115 degrees, and the sun gave you a headache, Mr. Vollmann remained curious and upbeat, not even flinching at the stench from an endless feed lot. He explained his preoccupation with the marginal and downtrodden matter of factly:
“When I was a young boy, my little sister drowned, and it was essentially my fault. I was 9, and she was 6, and I was supposed to be watching. I’ve always felt guilty. It’s like I have to have sympathy for the little girl who drowned and for the little boy who failed to save her — for all the people who have screwed up.”
In Brawley he stopped for lunch with Stella Altamirano-Mendoza, who is on the board of the Imperial Irrigation District and had been his tutor in the byzantine intricacies of Imperial water politics. The stuff is so valuable, she explained, that some farmers no longer bother to farm but simply sell their water.
Near Slab City, just north of Calipatria, Mr. Vollmann stopped to pay a courtesy call on Leonard Knight, a 77-year-old local eccentric, who since 1985 has been building out of adobe an enormous, religious-theme folk-art monument called Salvation Mountain, which from a distance looks as if it had been sculptured from cake frosting.
“I sometimes think I have more ambition than brains,” Mr. Knight said, but then beamed while mentioning how many people had visited the Salvation Mountain Web site (salvationmountain.us).
As evening drew near, there was a whisper of a breeze, the shadows lengthened, greenery grew greener, and the Salton Sea almost looked beautiful, until you got up close and saw the abandoned motels and all the dead fish. “I love the desert at night,” Mr. Vollmann said. “That’s when it’s most beautiful. It feels soothing and infinite.”
The day ended with a visit to the Terrace Park Cemetery here in Holtville, where unidentified people who have died crossing the border are buried in a bare, grassless potter’s field. A danger sign warns of possible cave-ins. The graves, laid out in long, straight rows, are each marked with a brick bearing a number and the name John Doe. A few are additionally decorated with homemade wooden crosses that say “No identificado” or “No olvidado” (“not forgotten”).
Mr. Vollmann stood there quietly for a while and said, “You wonder how many are never found and never brought here,” and he added, an edge creeping into his voice: “At least they won’t be stealing our tax dollars anymore. That’s very important.”
US repeats its Iraq errors in Afghanistan
Gulf News
Published: July 27, 2009, 23:02
It seems that the US military never learns. After the miserable disasters in employing American private security companies in Iraq to act as though they were soldiers, the military is looking for these same companies to bid for contracts to guard military camps in Afghanistan.
In Iraq the vast amount of money these companies earned, and the casual way that they operated, damaged the US-led operation and raised some significant questions about the companies' ability to follow discipline.
Blackwater security guards failed to observe normal military rules and shot a number of civilians, and a former Halliburton subsidiary overcharged by millions.
It is hard to embarrass a company like Blackwater, but some of its guilt can be imagined by the way Iraq damaged its reputation and forced it to change its name to the much more enigmatic Xe Services.
Such private companies do not operate under military training or discipline. An important aspect of any serious army is that its soldiers are trained in how to use violence, and how to control their violence.
They are well aware that most military operations in today's world happen in areas where civilians, who need to be protected and nurtured, live. This makes the military's job hard, but is an essential part of what they do.
The mercenaries who work for the private companies do not have this training or anything like this ethos.
This is why they are dangerous to employ in such sensitive arenas as Iraq or Afghanistan, where the military is present to achieve a political objective.
They are there to work with their local allies and impart both training and trust, as well as enforce security.
They are not there to make their employers billions of dollars for the US government to talk about as being part of its budget to reconstruct Iraq or Afghanistan.
Gulf News
Published: July 27, 2009, 23:02
It seems that the US military never learns. After the miserable disasters in employing American private security companies in Iraq to act as though they were soldiers, the military is looking for these same companies to bid for contracts to guard military camps in Afghanistan.
In Iraq the vast amount of money these companies earned, and the casual way that they operated, damaged the US-led operation and raised some significant questions about the companies' ability to follow discipline.
Blackwater security guards failed to observe normal military rules and shot a number of civilians, and a former Halliburton subsidiary overcharged by millions.
It is hard to embarrass a company like Blackwater, but some of its guilt can be imagined by the way Iraq damaged its reputation and forced it to change its name to the much more enigmatic Xe Services.
Such private companies do not operate under military training or discipline. An important aspect of any serious army is that its soldiers are trained in how to use violence, and how to control their violence.
They are well aware that most military operations in today's world happen in areas where civilians, who need to be protected and nurtured, live. This makes the military's job hard, but is an essential part of what they do.
The mercenaries who work for the private companies do not have this training or anything like this ethos.
This is why they are dangerous to employ in such sensitive arenas as Iraq or Afghanistan, where the military is present to achieve a political objective.
They are there to work with their local allies and impart both training and trust, as well as enforce security.
They are not there to make their employers billions of dollars for the US government to talk about as being part of its budget to reconstruct Iraq or Afghanistan.
Kabul: More than 3,000 donkeys will be drafted in to help deliver millions of ballot papers to remote regions of Afghanistan for presidential elections on August 20, a UN official said.
Swathes of Afghanistan are inaccessible by road, forcing election authorities to come up with innovative solutions to get voting materials to the masses in time for election day.
Kai Eide, the top UN representative in Afghanistan, toured a hanger at the Independent Election Commission (IEC) headquarters in Kabul where he watched the papers being stuffed into bright blue boxes and loaded onto trucks.
"There will be 3,500 trucks involved altogether in getting the material to the polling centres. And 3,000 donkeys will get the ballot papers to the most remote areas," said Eide, head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
He said the pack animals would be loaded up with the papers and dispatched to polling stations mostly in the north, where the mountains of the Hindu Kush cut off many residents from the outside world.
Eide called the operation "one of the most demanding electoral exercises I have seen" and praised Afghanistan for holding elections in the middle of a war, with Western and local forces battling Taliban insurgents. "What makes it challenging is the infrastructure... and also the fact that the country is a country in conflict," the Norwegian diplomat said. Ahmad Bilal, IEC head of logistics, said helicopters would also be mobilised to reach the more remote areas.
Swathes of Afghanistan are inaccessible by road, forcing election authorities to come up with innovative solutions to get voting materials to the masses in time for election day.
Kai Eide, the top UN representative in Afghanistan, toured a hanger at the Independent Election Commission (IEC) headquarters in Kabul where he watched the papers being stuffed into bright blue boxes and loaded onto trucks.
"There will be 3,500 trucks involved altogether in getting the material to the polling centres. And 3,000 donkeys will get the ballot papers to the most remote areas," said Eide, head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
He said the pack animals would be loaded up with the papers and dispatched to polling stations mostly in the north, where the mountains of the Hindu Kush cut off many residents from the outside world.
Eide called the operation "one of the most demanding electoral exercises I have seen" and praised Afghanistan for holding elections in the middle of a war, with Western and local forces battling Taliban insurgents. "What makes it challenging is the infrastructure... and also the fact that the country is a country in conflict," the Norwegian diplomat said. Ahmad Bilal, IEC head of logistics, said helicopters would also be mobilised to reach the more remote areas.
July so far has been one of the deadliest months for coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, but military officials say that is because an increase in the number of U.S. troops has meant an increase in operations.
U.S. President Barack Obama has shifted his country's military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and the influx of U.S. troops is ushering in a "new phase" in the war, de Kruif said.
The NATO-led force in the south is expected to number some 45,000 troops by the time of the Afghan elections on Aug. 20.
U.S. President Barack Obama has shifted his country's military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and the influx of U.S. troops is ushering in a "new phase" in the war, de Kruif said.
The NATO-led force in the south is expected to number some 45,000 troops by the time of the Afghan elections on Aug. 20.
The soaring cost of Britain’s military campaign in Afghanistan is laid bare today, as a comprehensive analysis reveals that the cost of fighting the Taliban has passed £12bn.An Independent on Sunday assessment of the “hidden costs” of fighting since the Taliban was ousted in 2001 reveals that the bill works out at £190 for every man, woman and child in the UK – and would pay for 23 new hospitals, 60,000 new teachers or 77,000 new nurses.
Cowboys of Kabul’ Allegedly Defrauded Uncle Sam of Millions
By David Axe July 28, 2009 | 2:05 pm | Categories: Af/Pak
A Houston couple, in debt to the tune of $260,000, apparently saw their financial salvation in the lucrative security contracts coming out of the under-manned U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. Now, seven years later, Del and Barbara Spier are set to go on trial for defrauding the government. If convicted on all the charges, they face more than 30 years in prison.
In May 2002, the Spiers founded U.S. Protections and Investigation. Soon, USPI inked an initial $8.4-million deal with the engineering firm Louis Berger Group, which had scored a $214-million contract to rebuild Afghanistan’s war-ravaged infrastructure. “USPI’s job was to provide security for contractors repairing a 300-mile road stretching from Kabul to Kandahar,” Daniel Schulman writes in Mother Jones.
It’s bad enough that the U.S.-led coalition even needed mercenaries to protect road workers. Worse, USPI allegedly forged murky partnerships with Afghan strongmen, stuffed its payroll with phantom employees and skimped on equipment for their few, flesh-and-blood employees, defrauding the U.S. government of some $17 million, in the process. The group that Schulman calls the “cowboys of Kabul” traveled “the same road of incompetence, corruption and graft in Afghanistan that we’ve seen so many times in Iraq over the past several years,” Paul McLeary observes. The gear the Spiers provided to their employees (pictured) was so piss-poor, that one fed-up USPI merc raided a former Taliban weapons depot, in order to supply his men with weapons. “I found a Conex box filled with Russian RPGs still in the plastic,” the man told Schulman.
In one final ironic twist, when USAID finally wised up to the Spiers’ shenanigans in 2007, the team that raided their Kabul office included Blackwater mercenaries, in addition to Afghan cops and FBI and USAID agents. In our lawless war-on-a-shoestring in Afghanistan, we even need mercenaries to help police the mercenaries.
By David Axe July 28, 2009 | 2:05 pm | Categories: Af/Pak
A Houston couple, in debt to the tune of $260,000, apparently saw their financial salvation in the lucrative security contracts coming out of the under-manned U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. Now, seven years later, Del and Barbara Spier are set to go on trial for defrauding the government. If convicted on all the charges, they face more than 30 years in prison.
In May 2002, the Spiers founded U.S. Protections and Investigation. Soon, USPI inked an initial $8.4-million deal with the engineering firm Louis Berger Group, which had scored a $214-million contract to rebuild Afghanistan’s war-ravaged infrastructure. “USPI’s job was to provide security for contractors repairing a 300-mile road stretching from Kabul to Kandahar,” Daniel Schulman writes in Mother Jones.
It’s bad enough that the U.S.-led coalition even needed mercenaries to protect road workers. Worse, USPI allegedly forged murky partnerships with Afghan strongmen, stuffed its payroll with phantom employees and skimped on equipment for their few, flesh-and-blood employees, defrauding the U.S. government of some $17 million, in the process. The group that Schulman calls the “cowboys of Kabul” traveled “the same road of incompetence, corruption and graft in Afghanistan that we’ve seen so many times in Iraq over the past several years,” Paul McLeary observes. The gear the Spiers provided to their employees (pictured) was so piss-poor, that one fed-up USPI merc raided a former Taliban weapons depot, in order to supply his men with weapons. “I found a Conex box filled with Russian RPGs still in the plastic,” the man told Schulman.
In one final ironic twist, when USAID finally wised up to the Spiers’ shenanigans in 2007, the team that raided their Kabul office included Blackwater mercenaries, in addition to Afghan cops and FBI and USAID agents. In our lawless war-on-a-shoestring in Afghanistan, we even need mercenaries to help police the mercenaries.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
What-to-wear colonialism was another type of colonial approach that impacted on indigenous peoples. In the past, the European colonisers, along with the Christian missionaries, got always outraged and offended by the sight of the naked natives in exotic places in America, Africa and Australia. The colonisers banned the natives from going out naked, and compelled them to dress in European style.
What-not-to-wear-colonialism surfaced as what-not-to-wear imperialism during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. In her article Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? (American Anthropologist, 2002, Vol.14, No.3, September), American anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod, well-known for her work on women and gender in the Middle East, points out that the overwhelming support for the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of saving and liberating Afghan women from the oppressive Taliban regime resonated the justification of the colonial rules in Algeria and Eygpt in the previous century with a false concern for Muslim women’s liberation.
Abu-Lughod notes that the Western supporters of the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan was mostly obsessed with the burqa that was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban rather than the urgent needs of these women in a war-torn country such as food, shelter, safety and security.
The proponents of the Afghan war got disappointed by the Afghan women who did not throw off their burqas even after the Taliban was defeated. As Abu-Lughod points out, this reveals the lack of understanding about the realities of the Afghan women’s lives. The burqa that symbolises “women’s modesty and respectability” and that separates public and private space was not invented by the Taliban, but “it was the local form of covering that Pashtun women in one region wore when they went out”.
Furthermore, author Liz Fekete notes that especially after 9-11 a “paternalistic feminist” discourse has arisen in Europe that describe Muslim women as the victims of Islamic patriarchy and dictate to them not to wear the veil (“Enlightened Fundamentalism? Immigration, Feminism and the Right”, Race & Class, 2006, Vol.48, Issue 1).
The right-wing politicians and public commentators who pretend to care for the rights of Muslim women have made use of this paternalistic discourse to promote their Islamophobic, racist and xenophobic agenda that involves anti-immigration policies and state coercion of minorities especially against Muslims in Europe. A similar discourse appeared in Australia during John Howard’s era.
Fekete says, “An assimilationist, monocultural society needs its feminist cheerleaders”, and highlights that various western feminists have become accomplices to these conservative racist government policies.
Wouldn’t it be more productive if we put all our energy into genuine feminist projects to empower women from all backgrounds through education, employment, generating a critical understanding of women’s issues and creating public awareness about women’s rights rather than preaching women what-to-wear or what-not-to-wear?
Maybe our obsession with attacking Islam has blinded us to the fundamental issues that impact on women’s liberation and equality such as education and employment? If we killed all Taliban men in Afghanistan, would this help improve the Afghan women’s rights? Or in fact have the Afghan men ever got the opportunity in a war-torn country for decades to develop a different male worldview that values the equal female participation in Afghan society?
People are the product of their socio-economic circumstances. Even 1,000 years from now the situation of women in Afghanistan and tribal parts of Pakistan would not change without providing and maintaining political stability, security, education and employment opportunities in these countries.
If Muslim women in theocratic Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran are subjected to discrimination, aren’t they themselves also to blame for it? We all know that women in fact have so much power and influence in society and on men, as mothers, wives, sisters. If they really wanted to change such repressive regimes, they can. But they are probably conformists, and accomplices to such patriarchal political and social systems, just like some Australian women who do not seem to advance women’s rights in this country where subtle patriarchy lingers. But at least these days the Iranian women are revolting against their discriminating and repressive Islamic state.
There can be no cultural relativism about the equality between men and women. In western societies, there may be some minority Muslim men who claim that Islam and Koran entitle men to superior rights over women. But well-educated, powerful women would never put up with such dominating and stifling men. If the western states provide Muslim minority women with equal education and employment opportunities as other women, the influence of such men would be only marginal.
Unfortunately in a western context, there’s a patronising, victimising and humiliating discourse on women from Muslim background that denies them any individual identity and self-autonomy and that is never attached to other women, for instance, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu women. Just like a bird seller who cages birds in order to release them in return for money, the western societies over and over again declare Muslim women “the victim” in order to save and liberate them boosting their western superiority.
Advertisement
This attitude is embedded in a worldview based on hectic activism of saving and liberating others that requires a constant supply of victims. And this worldview also reflects a confusion of detraction with iconoclasm that leaves no room for critical thinking and understanding. Lack of generosity, self-righteousness and the age-old identity politics of superior-us and inferior-them are other characteristics of this worldview.
As Lila Abu-Lughod highlights, instead of “seeking to ‘save’ others (with the superiority it implies and the violence it would entail)”, western nations should address global injustice, and work towards eliminating it so that there is no need to “save” others.
Moreover, if it’s pathetic, patronising, paternal and patriarchal to impose a certain Islamic dress code on women in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, French government proposal to ban the burqa is as much pathetic, patronising, paternal and patriarchal. Instead of banning Islamic dress, western governments should show equal respect towards women from all backgrounds and provide them with the same socioeconomic opportunities. In an environment where Muslim-identity is respected as much as other identities, Islamism can’t flourish.
France and other western countries should also provide Afghan women - with or without the burqa - with scholarships to study in these countries if they really care about the rights of Muslim women. But they should also remember that these western-educated Afghan women will in the future hold them accountable for invading Afghanistan and killing Afghan people.
The likes of Kees Bakhuyzen don’t need to worry. No one can hold well-educated, powerful women - Muslim or non-Muslim - back in life. Maybe we need a sea change in western societies: We need to stop exploiting issues about Muslim women for commercial and political interests, and instead should provide a critical public understanding of issues that affect heterogeneous groups of Muslim women from various ethnic, national, linguistic, socioeconomic and other backgrounds. We need to understand that Muslim women don’t need a nanny and they can look after themselves. We just need to give Muslim women a break!
Source: excerpt from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9195&page=1
..this week.
What-not-to-wear-colonialism surfaced as what-not-to-wear imperialism during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. In her article Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? (American Anthropologist, 2002, Vol.14, No.3, September), American anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod, well-known for her work on women and gender in the Middle East, points out that the overwhelming support for the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of saving and liberating Afghan women from the oppressive Taliban regime resonated the justification of the colonial rules in Algeria and Eygpt in the previous century with a false concern for Muslim women’s liberation.
Abu-Lughod notes that the Western supporters of the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan was mostly obsessed with the burqa that was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban rather than the urgent needs of these women in a war-torn country such as food, shelter, safety and security.
The proponents of the Afghan war got disappointed by the Afghan women who did not throw off their burqas even after the Taliban was defeated. As Abu-Lughod points out, this reveals the lack of understanding about the realities of the Afghan women’s lives. The burqa that symbolises “women’s modesty and respectability” and that separates public and private space was not invented by the Taliban, but “it was the local form of covering that Pashtun women in one region wore when they went out”.
Furthermore, author Liz Fekete notes that especially after 9-11 a “paternalistic feminist” discourse has arisen in Europe that describe Muslim women as the victims of Islamic patriarchy and dictate to them not to wear the veil (“Enlightened Fundamentalism? Immigration, Feminism and the Right”, Race & Class, 2006, Vol.48, Issue 1).
The right-wing politicians and public commentators who pretend to care for the rights of Muslim women have made use of this paternalistic discourse to promote their Islamophobic, racist and xenophobic agenda that involves anti-immigration policies and state coercion of minorities especially against Muslims in Europe. A similar discourse appeared in Australia during John Howard’s era.
Fekete says, “An assimilationist, monocultural society needs its feminist cheerleaders”, and highlights that various western feminists have become accomplices to these conservative racist government policies.
Wouldn’t it be more productive if we put all our energy into genuine feminist projects to empower women from all backgrounds through education, employment, generating a critical understanding of women’s issues and creating public awareness about women’s rights rather than preaching women what-to-wear or what-not-to-wear?
Maybe our obsession with attacking Islam has blinded us to the fundamental issues that impact on women’s liberation and equality such as education and employment? If we killed all Taliban men in Afghanistan, would this help improve the Afghan women’s rights? Or in fact have the Afghan men ever got the opportunity in a war-torn country for decades to develop a different male worldview that values the equal female participation in Afghan society?
People are the product of their socio-economic circumstances. Even 1,000 years from now the situation of women in Afghanistan and tribal parts of Pakistan would not change without providing and maintaining political stability, security, education and employment opportunities in these countries.
If Muslim women in theocratic Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran are subjected to discrimination, aren’t they themselves also to blame for it? We all know that women in fact have so much power and influence in society and on men, as mothers, wives, sisters. If they really wanted to change such repressive regimes, they can. But they are probably conformists, and accomplices to such patriarchal political and social systems, just like some Australian women who do not seem to advance women’s rights in this country where subtle patriarchy lingers. But at least these days the Iranian women are revolting against their discriminating and repressive Islamic state.
There can be no cultural relativism about the equality between men and women. In western societies, there may be some minority Muslim men who claim that Islam and Koran entitle men to superior rights over women. But well-educated, powerful women would never put up with such dominating and stifling men. If the western states provide Muslim minority women with equal education and employment opportunities as other women, the influence of such men would be only marginal.
Unfortunately in a western context, there’s a patronising, victimising and humiliating discourse on women from Muslim background that denies them any individual identity and self-autonomy and that is never attached to other women, for instance, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu women. Just like a bird seller who cages birds in order to release them in return for money, the western societies over and over again declare Muslim women “the victim” in order to save and liberate them boosting their western superiority.
Advertisement
This attitude is embedded in a worldview based on hectic activism of saving and liberating others that requires a constant supply of victims. And this worldview also reflects a confusion of detraction with iconoclasm that leaves no room for critical thinking and understanding. Lack of generosity, self-righteousness and the age-old identity politics of superior-us and inferior-them are other characteristics of this worldview.
As Lila Abu-Lughod highlights, instead of “seeking to ‘save’ others (with the superiority it implies and the violence it would entail)”, western nations should address global injustice, and work towards eliminating it so that there is no need to “save” others.
Moreover, if it’s pathetic, patronising, paternal and patriarchal to impose a certain Islamic dress code on women in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, French government proposal to ban the burqa is as much pathetic, patronising, paternal and patriarchal. Instead of banning Islamic dress, western governments should show equal respect towards women from all backgrounds and provide them with the same socioeconomic opportunities. In an environment where Muslim-identity is respected as much as other identities, Islamism can’t flourish.
France and other western countries should also provide Afghan women - with or without the burqa - with scholarships to study in these countries if they really care about the rights of Muslim women. But they should also remember that these western-educated Afghan women will in the future hold them accountable for invading Afghanistan and killing Afghan people.
The likes of Kees Bakhuyzen don’t need to worry. No one can hold well-educated, powerful women - Muslim or non-Muslim - back in life. Maybe we need a sea change in western societies: We need to stop exploiting issues about Muslim women for commercial and political interests, and instead should provide a critical public understanding of issues that affect heterogeneous groups of Muslim women from various ethnic, national, linguistic, socioeconomic and other backgrounds. We need to understand that Muslim women don’t need a nanny and they can look after themselves. We just need to give Muslim women a break!
Source: excerpt from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9195&page=1
..this week.
The Afghan war — unjust and unwinnable
Tony Iltis & Stuart Munckton
25 July 2009
Afghan prisoners of war at the US military-run prison at Bagram, outside Kabul, have refused to wash or leave their cells in protest at their indefinite imprisonment since at least July 1, the Sydney Morning Herald said on July 17.
The protests inside “a jail that is even more closed to the public than the one at Guantanamo Bay” are also against the prisoners’ gross mistreatment, including torture.
As well as housing prisoners of war, Bagram has been a destination for victims of “rendition” (illegal kidnapping and torture organised by the CIA).
The SMH said close to 40 prisoners were not Afghan citizens and many were not captured in Afghanistan. Those captured in Afghanistan are often kidnapped at random by warlords and sold to the US as supposed Taliban fighters.
Many prisoners at the infamous Guantanamo prison camp were originally held at Bagram. Former prisoners of both prisons, including Australian Mamdouh Habib, have said Bagram is worse.
US President Barack Obama, whose administration has increased US troops occupying Afghanistan and spread the war across the border into Pakistan, has pledged to close Guantanamo but keep Bagram open.
The SMH said “the Bagram prison population has ballooned. US officials are building a bigger jail there that will hold about 1000”.
The plight of prisoners at Bagram sums up the US-led war in Afghanistan. It has raged for close to eight years and is being escalated. It is fundamentally unjust and ordinary people are its main victims.
Civilian suffering
A June 12 report at RAWA.org said the rate of civilian killings by occupation forces under Obama was 21% higher than under his predecessor George Bush. This is linked to Obama’s troop number increase. US soldier numbers have increased by 50% to 55,000. A further 15,000 scheduled to be deployed by the end of the year.
Also, the number of US-employed mercenaries (euphemistically called “private security contractors”) rose by 29% in the first quarter of 2009.
The occupation has been justified as being against the brutal Islamic fundamentalist Taliban forces. However, the US-installed government of President Hamid Karzai is made up similarly brutal warlords and fundamentalists. Violence, particularly against women, draconian Islamic law and corruption are more prevalent than ever.
The Karzai government has almost no authority, and what little it does have is limited to the capital, Kabul. Karzai cannot leave Kabul or even travel within Kabul without a large contingent of US bodyguards.
In the rest of the country, civil war reigns.
Famine and epidemics are widespread. Only 23% of the population have access to safe water and 12% to sanitation. Maternal mortality is the second highest in the world, one in four children die before their fifth birthday. Malnutrition results in 54% of children under five suffering stunted growth.
Opium production has increased by 4500% since 2001 and Afghanistan is estimated to supply more than 90% of the world’s illicit opiates.
Unwinnable
The occupying forces are seeking to legitimise the government by holding presidential elections in August. Under the circumstances of foreign occupation and a Taliban insurgency growing in strength, such elections are doomed to be farcical.
On July 25, the SMH said: “Afghanistan’s first televised presidential debate struggled to ignite interest among voters in Kabul after the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, refused to take part and the program moderator refused to let Mr Karzai's rivals attack his record.
“Many diners in the restaurants of the capital paid only scant interest to the television screens on Thursday night during what should have been a historic discussion about the country’s future.”
It is unsurprising that increasing mainstream commentary on the Afghan war has centred on assessments that it is “unwinnable”.
Hugh White, from the Australian National University’s Lowy Institute, said the Australian government, which has around 1500 soldiers in Afghanistan, knew it was fighting a war that could not be won, a July 20 SMH article said.
White also said the government, which has tried to use the need to “fight terrorism” as justification for taking part in the Afghan occupation, knew the outcome of the Afghan war would make little difference to the question of global terrorism.
The war is unwinnable because it is unjust. A foreign occupation that installs a hated and brutal government, massacres civilians and mistreats prisoners who are denied all rights cannot enforce peace. Its very presence provokes violence.
On July 18, this unwinnable and unjust war claimed the life of Private Benjanim Ranaudo, the 11th Australian soldier killed in the conflict.
The following day, at a press conference staged around his weekly church attendance, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used Ranaudo’s death to reaffirm his government’s commitment to the US-led occupation.
Rudd drew a spurious link with the July 17 terrorist bombing of the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta. These bombings killed nine people, including three Australians.
Rudd said: “In the light of these terrible events in Afghanistan yesterday, it’s important for us all to remember here in Australia that Afghanistan has been a training ground for terrorists worldwide, a training ground also for terrorists in South-East Asia, reminding us of the reasons that we are in the field of combat, and reaffirming our resolve to remain committed to that cause.”
The July 22 SMH quoted the head of the Australian military, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, saying: “[The Taliban] not only trained the terrorists who were part of al-Qaeda, they also trained terrorists from around the world.
“I think the net effect of [withdrawal from Afghanistan] will be the terrorists … will conduct their training activities and will do their planning for terrorist attacks around the world.”
Bizarrely, Houston warned: “If we were to all withdraw now we would leave the country in a situation where I think there would be a civil war.”
This is a strange fear to raise in a country already being torn apart by a civil war fuelled by a foreign military occupation.
Houston said he believed that in a post-occupation conflict, “the Taliban would prevail”. However, not only are the forces backed by the occupation not fundamentally different from the Taliban, the crimes of the occupation forces are resulting in the Taliban growing in strength.
Ongoing
Ominously, Houston described the occupation force as being only a third of the way into its mission. He also claimed anti-occupation forces were responsible for 80% of civilian casualties and dismissed Afghan anger over the killing of civilians by occupation forces as Taliban propaganda.
“The Taliban are also increasingly using allegations of civilian casualties to damage our reputation, reduce local support, weaken our resolve, tie up our resources and add to the complexity of the operational environment”, he said.
The falsehoods in Rudd and Houston’s statements are numerous. The terrorists responsible for the July 17 Jakarta bombings, like those who carried out the much deadlier 2002 bombings in Bali, were Indonesian.
The only thing connecting Indonesian Islamist groups to Afghanistan is a degree of ideological affinity based on Islamic fundamentalism. The Indonesian Islamists do not have much support, but what support they do have is fuelled by anger at Western aggression against Muslim countries, including Afghanistan.
The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, itself part of the occupation apparatus, puts the figure of civilian casualties caused by occupation forces at more than 40%. The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan has released a study stating that the UNAMA figures account for only 70% of the civilians killed by occupation forces and its Afghan puppets.
Obama’s surge has also included an increase in attacks on villages in north-west Pakistan carried out by unpiloted drones. The June 12 RAWA report estimated a 40% increase in Pakistani deaths from drone attacks under Obama.
Obama’s troop surge has also created a surge in occupation force casualties. July 2009 had been the deadliest month for occupying troops since the war began, ABC radio’s AM said on July 21.
A July 23 Reuters report said that since 2001, 1266 occupation soldiers have been killed, including 750 Americans, 188 Britons and 125 Canadians.
The occupation is not about liberation for Afghanistan’s long-suffering people, but about strategic geopolitical interests. It is an attempt by US imperialism and its allies to secure another regime representing its interests in a resource-rich region.
To this end, an uncounted number of Afghan people have been, and continue to be, sacrificed, as are growing numbers of rank-and-file soldiers sent to do imperialism’s dirty work.
The starting point to any solution to Afghanistan’s problems must be an end to foreign occupation and reparations for the damage done.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #804 29 July 2009.
Tony Iltis & Stuart Munckton
25 July 2009
Afghan prisoners of war at the US military-run prison at Bagram, outside Kabul, have refused to wash or leave their cells in protest at their indefinite imprisonment since at least July 1, the Sydney Morning Herald said on July 17.
The protests inside “a jail that is even more closed to the public than the one at Guantanamo Bay” are also against the prisoners’ gross mistreatment, including torture.
As well as housing prisoners of war, Bagram has been a destination for victims of “rendition” (illegal kidnapping and torture organised by the CIA).
The SMH said close to 40 prisoners were not Afghan citizens and many were not captured in Afghanistan. Those captured in Afghanistan are often kidnapped at random by warlords and sold to the US as supposed Taliban fighters.
Many prisoners at the infamous Guantanamo prison camp were originally held at Bagram. Former prisoners of both prisons, including Australian Mamdouh Habib, have said Bagram is worse.
US President Barack Obama, whose administration has increased US troops occupying Afghanistan and spread the war across the border into Pakistan, has pledged to close Guantanamo but keep Bagram open.
The SMH said “the Bagram prison population has ballooned. US officials are building a bigger jail there that will hold about 1000”.
The plight of prisoners at Bagram sums up the US-led war in Afghanistan. It has raged for close to eight years and is being escalated. It is fundamentally unjust and ordinary people are its main victims.
Civilian suffering
A June 12 report at RAWA.org said the rate of civilian killings by occupation forces under Obama was 21% higher than under his predecessor George Bush. This is linked to Obama’s troop number increase. US soldier numbers have increased by 50% to 55,000. A further 15,000 scheduled to be deployed by the end of the year.
Also, the number of US-employed mercenaries (euphemistically called “private security contractors”) rose by 29% in the first quarter of 2009.
The occupation has been justified as being against the brutal Islamic fundamentalist Taliban forces. However, the US-installed government of President Hamid Karzai is made up similarly brutal warlords and fundamentalists. Violence, particularly against women, draconian Islamic law and corruption are more prevalent than ever.
The Karzai government has almost no authority, and what little it does have is limited to the capital, Kabul. Karzai cannot leave Kabul or even travel within Kabul without a large contingent of US bodyguards.
In the rest of the country, civil war reigns.
Famine and epidemics are widespread. Only 23% of the population have access to safe water and 12% to sanitation. Maternal mortality is the second highest in the world, one in four children die before their fifth birthday. Malnutrition results in 54% of children under five suffering stunted growth.
Opium production has increased by 4500% since 2001 and Afghanistan is estimated to supply more than 90% of the world’s illicit opiates.
Unwinnable
The occupying forces are seeking to legitimise the government by holding presidential elections in August. Under the circumstances of foreign occupation and a Taliban insurgency growing in strength, such elections are doomed to be farcical.
On July 25, the SMH said: “Afghanistan’s first televised presidential debate struggled to ignite interest among voters in Kabul after the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, refused to take part and the program moderator refused to let Mr Karzai's rivals attack his record.
“Many diners in the restaurants of the capital paid only scant interest to the television screens on Thursday night during what should have been a historic discussion about the country’s future.”
It is unsurprising that increasing mainstream commentary on the Afghan war has centred on assessments that it is “unwinnable”.
Hugh White, from the Australian National University’s Lowy Institute, said the Australian government, which has around 1500 soldiers in Afghanistan, knew it was fighting a war that could not be won, a July 20 SMH article said.
White also said the government, which has tried to use the need to “fight terrorism” as justification for taking part in the Afghan occupation, knew the outcome of the Afghan war would make little difference to the question of global terrorism.
The war is unwinnable because it is unjust. A foreign occupation that installs a hated and brutal government, massacres civilians and mistreats prisoners who are denied all rights cannot enforce peace. Its very presence provokes violence.
On July 18, this unwinnable and unjust war claimed the life of Private Benjanim Ranaudo, the 11th Australian soldier killed in the conflict.
The following day, at a press conference staged around his weekly church attendance, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used Ranaudo’s death to reaffirm his government’s commitment to the US-led occupation.
Rudd drew a spurious link with the July 17 terrorist bombing of the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta. These bombings killed nine people, including three Australians.
Rudd said: “In the light of these terrible events in Afghanistan yesterday, it’s important for us all to remember here in Australia that Afghanistan has been a training ground for terrorists worldwide, a training ground also for terrorists in South-East Asia, reminding us of the reasons that we are in the field of combat, and reaffirming our resolve to remain committed to that cause.”
The July 22 SMH quoted the head of the Australian military, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, saying: “[The Taliban] not only trained the terrorists who were part of al-Qaeda, they also trained terrorists from around the world.
“I think the net effect of [withdrawal from Afghanistan] will be the terrorists … will conduct their training activities and will do their planning for terrorist attacks around the world.”
Bizarrely, Houston warned: “If we were to all withdraw now we would leave the country in a situation where I think there would be a civil war.”
This is a strange fear to raise in a country already being torn apart by a civil war fuelled by a foreign military occupation.
Houston said he believed that in a post-occupation conflict, “the Taliban would prevail”. However, not only are the forces backed by the occupation not fundamentally different from the Taliban, the crimes of the occupation forces are resulting in the Taliban growing in strength.
Ongoing
Ominously, Houston described the occupation force as being only a third of the way into its mission. He also claimed anti-occupation forces were responsible for 80% of civilian casualties and dismissed Afghan anger over the killing of civilians by occupation forces as Taliban propaganda.
“The Taliban are also increasingly using allegations of civilian casualties to damage our reputation, reduce local support, weaken our resolve, tie up our resources and add to the complexity of the operational environment”, he said.
The falsehoods in Rudd and Houston’s statements are numerous. The terrorists responsible for the July 17 Jakarta bombings, like those who carried out the much deadlier 2002 bombings in Bali, were Indonesian.
The only thing connecting Indonesian Islamist groups to Afghanistan is a degree of ideological affinity based on Islamic fundamentalism. The Indonesian Islamists do not have much support, but what support they do have is fuelled by anger at Western aggression against Muslim countries, including Afghanistan.
The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, itself part of the occupation apparatus, puts the figure of civilian casualties caused by occupation forces at more than 40%. The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan has released a study stating that the UNAMA figures account for only 70% of the civilians killed by occupation forces and its Afghan puppets.
Obama’s surge has also included an increase in attacks on villages in north-west Pakistan carried out by unpiloted drones. The June 12 RAWA report estimated a 40% increase in Pakistani deaths from drone attacks under Obama.
Obama’s troop surge has also created a surge in occupation force casualties. July 2009 had been the deadliest month for occupying troops since the war began, ABC radio’s AM said on July 21.
A July 23 Reuters report said that since 2001, 1266 occupation soldiers have been killed, including 750 Americans, 188 Britons and 125 Canadians.
The occupation is not about liberation for Afghanistan’s long-suffering people, but about strategic geopolitical interests. It is an attempt by US imperialism and its allies to secure another regime representing its interests in a resource-rich region.
To this end, an uncounted number of Afghan people have been, and continue to be, sacrificed, as are growing numbers of rank-and-file soldiers sent to do imperialism’s dirty work.
The starting point to any solution to Afghanistan’s problems must be an end to foreign occupation and reparations for the damage done.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #804 29 July 2009.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
AFGHANISTAN: 'Not Only Afghans Want NATO Forces Out'
U.S. Army troops in Kunar province, Afghanistan.
BY BERNHARD SCHELL
BERLIN (IDN) - Most publics in countries around the world believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces out, says a new survey. The poll, spanning 20 nations, finds that on average 53 percent of publics share that view, while 30 percent assume that most Afghans want U.S. and European troops to stay.
What lends a significant dimension to the poll is that the assumptions within every nation about the attitudes of the Afghan public are highly correlated with their attitudes about the need for an early exit strategy or continuing the military operations.
The findings by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) come in the run-up to the presidential elections in Afghanistan, a country positioned in a geostrategic location that connects South and Central Asia and Middle East. The critical importance of the elections on August 20 is underlined by U.S. President Barack Obama's remarks July 14 after an Oval Office meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.
Obama said if the Afghan presidential election comes off successfully, and if the U.S. and its coalition partners continue training Afghan security forces and take a more effective approach to economic development, "then my hope is that we will be able to begin transitioning into a different phase in Afghanistan".
This will be the country's second democratic election. The previous 2004 Afghan election was held on October 9, 2004, in which President Hamid Karzai turned out the winner allowing him to serve a five-year term.
The president made the remarks in the second week of a thrust by an estimated 4,000 troops that are carrying out one of the biggest U.S. military operations in Afghanistan since the Taliban was removed from power in 2001. These Marines reinforce the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces.
The global poll of 19,178 respondents was conducted between April 4 and June 18 this year by Washington-based WPO. The survey was carried out in some of the NATO member states and in most of the world's largest nations -- China, India, USA, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia -- as well as Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea.
The countries polled represent 62 percent of the world population. Publics in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau were also polled. Margins of error range from approximately 3 to 4 percent. Not all questions were asked in all nations.
'NATO FORCES SHOULD LEAVE'
Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave, 76 percent say that NATO forces should leave now. Among those who opine that the Afghan people want NATO forces to stay, 83 percent say NATO forces should stay. Overall, on average, 37 percent think that NATO forces should remain in Afghanistan, while on average 53 percent think the mission should be ended now.
At the same time there is considerable concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power. In 18 of 20 countries polled most think that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power in Afghanistan. An average of 61 percent says that it would be bad and just 21 percent says that it would be good.
In Pakistan, where many Afghan Taliban are based, 61 percent of the public also say that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power.
"Even though there is widespread concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, most people seem to be saying that the Afghan people should decide whether or when NATO forces leave," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Significantly, the belief that most Afghans want NATO forces out is not only widespread in majority-Muslim nations, including Pakistan (86 percent), the Palestinian territories (74 percent), and Egypt (67 percent). This view is also widely held in Russia (63 percent), Germany (55 percent), and Mexico (76 cent).
On the other hand, the belief that the Afghan people want NATO troops to stay is the dominant position only in India (57percent), the US (56 percent), Nigeria (53 percent), Kenya (52 percent), and the majority-Muslim nation of Azerbaijan (44 percent to 36 percent).
Within every nation people's assumptions about the attitudes of the Afghan public are highly correlated with their attitudes about continuing the operation.
But how do the Afghan people feel? As WPO points out, the most recent polling in Afghanistan was conducted by ABC/BBC/ARD in January of this year. At that time a majority of 59 percent of Afghans supported the NATO forces' presence in the country. However, this approval was down from 67 percent in 2007, and majorities also expressed frustration with the way the mission was being conducted.
In the WPO poll, national assumptions about Afghan public attitudes are also reflected in national attitudes about the recent increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. On average, 54 percent disapprove of the increase and 34 percent are opposed.
However, in all of the nations where more people believe that Afghans support the NATO presence, most people support the increase. In nearly all of the nations where more believe that Afghans oppose NATO presence, most people oppose the increase.
The two exceptions to this pattern are Britain and Iraq, says WPO director Kull. Though in both cases a large number of people polled believe that Afghans want NATO to leave, in Britain a diverse group comprising 50 percent of those surveyed approves of the increase. In Iraq views are divided.
DIVIDED ON UN AUTHORIZATION
Views are divided also when asked what they think about the UN-authorized NATO mission to stabilize Afghanistan and defend against the Taliban. While nine nations approve, 10 disapprove. On average 44 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove. Here again, attitudes are highly correlated with assumptions about the attitudes of the Afghan people, WPO survey found.
Last January NATO-led troops in Afghanistan numbered around 55,100 from 26 NATO, 10 partner and 2 non-NATO / non-partner countries, including contributions from Canada, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland and most members of the European Union and NATO also including Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Singapore.
The intensity of the combat faced by contributing nations varies greatly, with the U.S., Britain, and Canada sustaining substantial casualties in intensive combat operations. The United States has approximately 23,300 troops in ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).
ISAF was established in the wake of the Bonn Agreement in December 2001, when a number of prominent Afghans met under UN auspices in Germany. ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by President Karzai.
In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan. Subsequently it expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country. Since 2006, ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan, a tendency which continued in 2007 and 2008. Clashes between the Taliban and ISAF in other parts of Afghanistan are also on the increase. – 25.07.09
-----
RELATED LINK:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org
U.S. Army troops in Kunar province, Afghanistan.
BY BERNHARD SCHELL
BERLIN (IDN) - Most publics in countries around the world believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces out, says a new survey. The poll, spanning 20 nations, finds that on average 53 percent of publics share that view, while 30 percent assume that most Afghans want U.S. and European troops to stay.
What lends a significant dimension to the poll is that the assumptions within every nation about the attitudes of the Afghan public are highly correlated with their attitudes about the need for an early exit strategy or continuing the military operations.
The findings by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) come in the run-up to the presidential elections in Afghanistan, a country positioned in a geostrategic location that connects South and Central Asia and Middle East. The critical importance of the elections on August 20 is underlined by U.S. President Barack Obama's remarks July 14 after an Oval Office meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.
Obama said if the Afghan presidential election comes off successfully, and if the U.S. and its coalition partners continue training Afghan security forces and take a more effective approach to economic development, "then my hope is that we will be able to begin transitioning into a different phase in Afghanistan".
This will be the country's second democratic election. The previous 2004 Afghan election was held on October 9, 2004, in which President Hamid Karzai turned out the winner allowing him to serve a five-year term.
The president made the remarks in the second week of a thrust by an estimated 4,000 troops that are carrying out one of the biggest U.S. military operations in Afghanistan since the Taliban was removed from power in 2001. These Marines reinforce the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces.
The global poll of 19,178 respondents was conducted between April 4 and June 18 this year by Washington-based WPO. The survey was carried out in some of the NATO member states and in most of the world's largest nations -- China, India, USA, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia -- as well as Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea.
The countries polled represent 62 percent of the world population. Publics in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau were also polled. Margins of error range from approximately 3 to 4 percent. Not all questions were asked in all nations.
'NATO FORCES SHOULD LEAVE'
Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave, 76 percent say that NATO forces should leave now. Among those who opine that the Afghan people want NATO forces to stay, 83 percent say NATO forces should stay. Overall, on average, 37 percent think that NATO forces should remain in Afghanistan, while on average 53 percent think the mission should be ended now.
At the same time there is considerable concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power. In 18 of 20 countries polled most think that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power in Afghanistan. An average of 61 percent says that it would be bad and just 21 percent says that it would be good.
In Pakistan, where many Afghan Taliban are based, 61 percent of the public also say that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power.
"Even though there is widespread concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, most people seem to be saying that the Afghan people should decide whether or when NATO forces leave," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Significantly, the belief that most Afghans want NATO forces out is not only widespread in majority-Muslim nations, including Pakistan (86 percent), the Palestinian territories (74 percent), and Egypt (67 percent). This view is also widely held in Russia (63 percent), Germany (55 percent), and Mexico (76 cent).
On the other hand, the belief that the Afghan people want NATO troops to stay is the dominant position only in India (57percent), the US (56 percent), Nigeria (53 percent), Kenya (52 percent), and the majority-Muslim nation of Azerbaijan (44 percent to 36 percent).
Within every nation people's assumptions about the attitudes of the Afghan public are highly correlated with their attitudes about continuing the operation.
But how do the Afghan people feel? As WPO points out, the most recent polling in Afghanistan was conducted by ABC/BBC/ARD in January of this year. At that time a majority of 59 percent of Afghans supported the NATO forces' presence in the country. However, this approval was down from 67 percent in 2007, and majorities also expressed frustration with the way the mission was being conducted.
In the WPO poll, national assumptions about Afghan public attitudes are also reflected in national attitudes about the recent increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. On average, 54 percent disapprove of the increase and 34 percent are opposed.
However, in all of the nations where more people believe that Afghans support the NATO presence, most people support the increase. In nearly all of the nations where more believe that Afghans oppose NATO presence, most people oppose the increase.
The two exceptions to this pattern are Britain and Iraq, says WPO director Kull. Though in both cases a large number of people polled believe that Afghans want NATO to leave, in Britain a diverse group comprising 50 percent of those surveyed approves of the increase. In Iraq views are divided.
DIVIDED ON UN AUTHORIZATION
Views are divided also when asked what they think about the UN-authorized NATO mission to stabilize Afghanistan and defend against the Taliban. While nine nations approve, 10 disapprove. On average 44 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove. Here again, attitudes are highly correlated with assumptions about the attitudes of the Afghan people, WPO survey found.
Last January NATO-led troops in Afghanistan numbered around 55,100 from 26 NATO, 10 partner and 2 non-NATO / non-partner countries, including contributions from Canada, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland and most members of the European Union and NATO also including Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Singapore.
The intensity of the combat faced by contributing nations varies greatly, with the U.S., Britain, and Canada sustaining substantial casualties in intensive combat operations. The United States has approximately 23,300 troops in ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).
ISAF was established in the wake of the Bonn Agreement in December 2001, when a number of prominent Afghans met under UN auspices in Germany. ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by President Karzai.
In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan. Subsequently it expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country. Since 2006, ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan, a tendency which continued in 2007 and 2008. Clashes between the Taliban and ISAF in other parts of Afghanistan are also on the increase. – 25.07.09
-----
RELATED LINK:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org
WASHINGTON: For every militant killed in drone attacks, at least 10 civilians also die, says a report released on Monday by the Brookings Institution.
The Washington-based US think-tank acknowledges that it is difficult to confirm sourcing on civilian deaths in drone attacks, ‘but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.’
The report, however, points out that the strikes have also killed at least 10 Al Qaeda and the Taliban leaders.
‘To reduce casualties, superb intelligence is necessary. Operators must know not only where the terrorists are, but also who is with them and who might be within the blast radius,’ the report adds.
‘This level of surveillance may often be lacking, and terrorists’ deliberate use of children and other civilians as shields make civilian deaths even more likely.’
The report notes that beyond the humanitarian tragedy incurred, civilian deaths create political problems.
‘Pakistan’s new democratic government is already unpopular for its corruption, favouritism, and poor governance. US strikes that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its legitimacy -- and to US efforts to build goodwill there.’
The report quotes counter-terrorism expert David Kilcullen as saying that: ‘When we intervene in people’s countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us.’—Correspondent
The Washington-based US think-tank acknowledges that it is difficult to confirm sourcing on civilian deaths in drone attacks, ‘but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.’
The report, however, points out that the strikes have also killed at least 10 Al Qaeda and the Taliban leaders.
‘To reduce casualties, superb intelligence is necessary. Operators must know not only where the terrorists are, but also who is with them and who might be within the blast radius,’ the report adds.
‘This level of surveillance may often be lacking, and terrorists’ deliberate use of children and other civilians as shields make civilian deaths even more likely.’
The report notes that beyond the humanitarian tragedy incurred, civilian deaths create political problems.
‘Pakistan’s new democratic government is already unpopular for its corruption, favouritism, and poor governance. US strikes that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its legitimacy -- and to US efforts to build goodwill there.’
The report quotes counter-terrorism expert David Kilcullen as saying that: ‘When we intervene in people’s countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us.’—Correspondent
By Sajjad Malik
ISLAMABAD: German Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Bernd Mutzelberg on Friday, strongly opposing US drone attacks in Pakistan, said that such attacks were against the country’s sovereignty.
Addressing a select group of journalists at a dinner hosted by the German ambassador, the special envoy said the attacks were proving counterproductive and were failing to win popular support for the war on terror.
“Drone attacks prove counter-productive in winning the hearts and minds of the people and their support is essential,” Mutzelberg said.
ISLAMABAD: German Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Bernd Mutzelberg on Friday, strongly opposing US drone attacks in Pakistan, said that such attacks were against the country’s sovereignty.
Addressing a select group of journalists at a dinner hosted by the German ambassador, the special envoy said the attacks were proving counterproductive and were failing to win popular support for the war on terror.
“Drone attacks prove counter-productive in winning the hearts and minds of the people and their support is essential,” Mutzelberg said.
“There is barely an important piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” the commander said. “Nevertheless, much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory that we seize.”
He added: “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land, where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.”
They could have been the words of a Nato general in the past few days. In fact they were spoken by Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of Soviet armed forces, to the USSR’s politburo in the Kremlin on November 13, 1986.
The Soviet forces were in the seventh year of their nine-year war in Afghanistan and had lost about 12,000 men. Akhromeyev, a hero of the siege of Leningrad in the second world war, had been summoned to explain why a force of 109,000 troops from the world’s second superpower appeared to be humiliated, year after year, by a band of terrorists.
Akhromeyev explained about the rough terrain, insisted the army needed more resources – including additional helicopters – and warned that without more men and equipment “this war will continue for a very long time”.
He concluded with words that sound uncannily resonant today, in the eighth year of Nato’s war: “About 99% of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in Afghanistan were won by our side. The problem is that the next morning there is the same situation as if there had been no battle. The terrorists are again in the village where they were – or we thought they were – destroyed a day or so before.”
The Soviet campaign in Afghanistan is a largely forgotten war. Few strategists from Russia or the West seem to think anything can be learnt from it. But study Soviet archives and many lessons become clear.
As the world was not watching, the Soviet troops could be brutal, yet massive air raids and the destruction of villages, which killed 800,000 Afghans, did not work. Tactics changed over the years, each time accompanied by a “surge” of new troops that temporarily improved security for the Russian-backed communist government in Kabul.
Much of the fighting was in places that have become familiar to us. Soviet troops were sent on sweeps in the most troublesome areas on the border with Pakistan, through which most of the guerrillas’ weapons flowed, and the southern provinces of the country, such as Helmand. As soon as they left their fortified bases, the troops were in danger of ambush from bands of mujaheddin – the army of God.
That war, like today’s, was characterised by disputes between soldiers and politicians. As newly revealed Russian documents show, the Communist party bosses ordered the invasion against the advice of senior commanders. This caused continual friction in Moscow for many years.
Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, the chief of the Soviet defence staff, and Akhromeyev, his number two, raised doubts shortly before Soviet forces were dispatched on Christmas Day 1979. They suggested to Dmitri Ustinov, the defence minister, that the experiences of the British and tsarist armies in the 19th century should encourage caution.
Ustinov told them to “shut up and obey orders”, according to politburo minutes.
Ogarkov went further up the chain of command to Leonid Brezhnev, the party boss. He warned that an invasion “could mire us in unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic East against us”. He was cut off in mid-sentence.
“Focus on military matters,” he was told. “Leave the policy making to us and to the party.” Not long afterwards the marshal was fired.
The Soviet troops realised soon after they entered Afghanistan that they had blundered, but Kremlin officials felt trapped. When Mikhail Gorbachev became leader in March 1985 he declared privately that ending the war – “our bleeding wound” – was his priority. But he could not do so for fear of losing too much face. Withdrawing the troops took a further four years as they searched for that difficult prize for armies on the run: peace with honour.
It was an agonising process that marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire and eventually the USSR itself. “How to get out of this racks one’s brains,” Gorbachev despaired to his fellow Soviet magnates in the spring of 1986. He told his generals later that year: “After all this time we have not learnt how to wage war there.”
When the last troops left on February 15, 1989, about 15,000 of their comrades had been killed. It was the only war the USSR lost. To Gorbachev, one vital issue was how to “spin” it correctly. As he wrote to his key aides during the last phase of the retreat, presentation was key: “We must say that our people have not given their lives in vain,” he said.
- Victor Sebestyen is the author of Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, to be published on July 30 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson
He added: “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land, where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.”
They could have been the words of a Nato general in the past few days. In fact they were spoken by Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of Soviet armed forces, to the USSR’s politburo in the Kremlin on November 13, 1986.
The Soviet forces were in the seventh year of their nine-year war in Afghanistan and had lost about 12,000 men. Akhromeyev, a hero of the siege of Leningrad in the second world war, had been summoned to explain why a force of 109,000 troops from the world’s second superpower appeared to be humiliated, year after year, by a band of terrorists.
Akhromeyev explained about the rough terrain, insisted the army needed more resources – including additional helicopters – and warned that without more men and equipment “this war will continue for a very long time”.
He concluded with words that sound uncannily resonant today, in the eighth year of Nato’s war: “About 99% of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in Afghanistan were won by our side. The problem is that the next morning there is the same situation as if there had been no battle. The terrorists are again in the village where they were – or we thought they were – destroyed a day or so before.”
The Soviet campaign in Afghanistan is a largely forgotten war. Few strategists from Russia or the West seem to think anything can be learnt from it. But study Soviet archives and many lessons become clear.
As the world was not watching, the Soviet troops could be brutal, yet massive air raids and the destruction of villages, which killed 800,000 Afghans, did not work. Tactics changed over the years, each time accompanied by a “surge” of new troops that temporarily improved security for the Russian-backed communist government in Kabul.
Much of the fighting was in places that have become familiar to us. Soviet troops were sent on sweeps in the most troublesome areas on the border with Pakistan, through which most of the guerrillas’ weapons flowed, and the southern provinces of the country, such as Helmand. As soon as they left their fortified bases, the troops were in danger of ambush from bands of mujaheddin – the army of God.
That war, like today’s, was characterised by disputes between soldiers and politicians. As newly revealed Russian documents show, the Communist party bosses ordered the invasion against the advice of senior commanders. This caused continual friction in Moscow for many years.
Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, the chief of the Soviet defence staff, and Akhromeyev, his number two, raised doubts shortly before Soviet forces were dispatched on Christmas Day 1979. They suggested to Dmitri Ustinov, the defence minister, that the experiences of the British and tsarist armies in the 19th century should encourage caution.
Ustinov told them to “shut up and obey orders”, according to politburo minutes.
Ogarkov went further up the chain of command to Leonid Brezhnev, the party boss. He warned that an invasion “could mire us in unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic East against us”. He was cut off in mid-sentence.
“Focus on military matters,” he was told. “Leave the policy making to us and to the party.” Not long afterwards the marshal was fired.
The Soviet troops realised soon after they entered Afghanistan that they had blundered, but Kremlin officials felt trapped. When Mikhail Gorbachev became leader in March 1985 he declared privately that ending the war – “our bleeding wound” – was his priority. But he could not do so for fear of losing too much face. Withdrawing the troops took a further four years as they searched for that difficult prize for armies on the run: peace with honour.
It was an agonising process that marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire and eventually the USSR itself. “How to get out of this racks one’s brains,” Gorbachev despaired to his fellow Soviet magnates in the spring of 1986. He told his generals later that year: “After all this time we have not learnt how to wage war there.”
When the last troops left on February 15, 1989, about 15,000 of their comrades had been killed. It was the only war the USSR lost. To Gorbachev, one vital issue was how to “spin” it correctly. As he wrote to his key aides during the last phase of the retreat, presentation was key: “We must say that our people have not given their lives in vain,” he said.
- Victor Sebestyen is the author of Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, to be published on July 30 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson
His little girl died, so..
The driver of the motorbike could have been attempting to provoke a response in the hopes of causing civilian casualties to drive a wedge between coalition forces and the Afghan people, Couture said.
Either the Afghan father is insane or the army is becoming so. I don't want to malign anyone, but I think.. I know which.
The driver of the motorbike could have been attempting to provoke a response in the hopes of causing civilian casualties to drive a wedge between coalition forces and the Afghan people, Couture said.
Either the Afghan father is insane or the army is becoming so. I don't want to malign anyone, but I think.. I know which.
More Happy News, although I found this on my own. Its from this week!
Help for the handicapped can be a way of helping everyone
AT THE main international airport for Mexico City, the first thing to notice is that the path from the baggage claim is lined with smiling employees guiding passengers to their taxis or connecting flights. The second is that they are all in wheelchairs. Since the opening of a new terminal in November 2007, the airport has hired some 60 disabled, bilingual workers to serve as Mexico’s face to the world. Their presence delights both passengers, who frequently offer congratulations and ask to take their picture, and their superiors. “They’re professional, attentive, always in a good mood, and never miss work,” says Héctor Velázquez, the airport’s director.
Mr Velázquez says he first thought of seeking out disabled staff after being impressed by the performance of Jazmín Flores Martínez, a young labour lawyer suffering from severe arthritis. He instructed a subcontracting firm to take on 20 graduates of a physical and psychological training programme for the handicapped, and then tripled the programme’s size upon seeing the results. The workers say they are thrilled by the public exposure—and by their respectable $550 a month salaries. “If you don’t have a job, you sit at home all day thinking about what hurts,” says Ms Martínez. “Now, we’re independent, and people can see that our physical condition doesn’t matter. They don’t look at you as some strange creature any more.”
Another beneficiary is the Mexican government, now at the vanguard of the disabled-rights movement in the developing world. In 2005 it established a council to co-ordinate its efforts across state agencies. Since then, the government has launched a number of initiatives, including installing wheelchair ramps in 26,000 schools, and providing subsidised loans for housing for the disabled. According to the council, the proportion of government buildings accessible to the handicapped will increase from 40% to 90% by 2012, and all hospitals will include sign-language interpreters by the same date.
Unhappily, the example set by the airport is rare. Employment among the disabled, who represent nearly 10% of Mexico’s population, is less than half that of the rest of society, and in the public sector just 0.4% of workers are disabled, according to the National Council for People with Disabilities. Perhaps the most promising avenue for progress is the example of the airport employees: Jesús Carbajal Briones, one of javascript:void(0)Terminal 2’s wheelchair battalion, says businessmen passing through routinely ask him about hiring his counterparts.
Help for the handicapped can be a way of helping everyone
AT THE main international airport for Mexico City, the first thing to notice is that the path from the baggage claim is lined with smiling employees guiding passengers to their taxis or connecting flights. The second is that they are all in wheelchairs. Since the opening of a new terminal in November 2007, the airport has hired some 60 disabled, bilingual workers to serve as Mexico’s face to the world. Their presence delights both passengers, who frequently offer congratulations and ask to take their picture, and their superiors. “They’re professional, attentive, always in a good mood, and never miss work,” says Héctor Velázquez, the airport’s director.
Mr Velázquez says he first thought of seeking out disabled staff after being impressed by the performance of Jazmín Flores Martínez, a young labour lawyer suffering from severe arthritis. He instructed a subcontracting firm to take on 20 graduates of a physical and psychological training programme for the handicapped, and then tripled the programme’s size upon seeing the results. The workers say they are thrilled by the public exposure—and by their respectable $550 a month salaries. “If you don’t have a job, you sit at home all day thinking about what hurts,” says Ms Martínez. “Now, we’re independent, and people can see that our physical condition doesn’t matter. They don’t look at you as some strange creature any more.”
Another beneficiary is the Mexican government, now at the vanguard of the disabled-rights movement in the developing world. In 2005 it established a council to co-ordinate its efforts across state agencies. Since then, the government has launched a number of initiatives, including installing wheelchair ramps in 26,000 schools, and providing subsidised loans for housing for the disabled. According to the council, the proportion of government buildings accessible to the handicapped will increase from 40% to 90% by 2012, and all hospitals will include sign-language interpreters by the same date.
Unhappily, the example set by the airport is rare. Employment among the disabled, who represent nearly 10% of Mexico’s population, is less than half that of the rest of society, and in the public sector just 0.4% of workers are disabled, according to the National Council for People with Disabilities. Perhaps the most promising avenue for progress is the example of the airport employees: Jesús Carbajal Briones, one of javascript:void(0)Terminal 2’s wheelchair battalion, says businessmen passing through routinely ask him about hiring his counterparts.
From Gender Across Borders, and I strongly suggest that everyone check these real feminists out.
Rethink Afghanistan – Liberation of Women
2009 July 24
tags: Afghanistan, taliban
by Maria
Lana Slezic Photography
Lana Slezic Photography
“Now, the cases of violence against women are more than the Taliban time…there are twenty-three rape cases in two months in North Afghanistan” (Member of Rawa, The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan).
The false mythology that Afghan women were liberated in the war against the Taliban is confirmed by more than one source in Rethink Afghanistan, including Orzala Ashraf (Afghan Women’s Network), Kavita Ramdas (President & CEO, Global Fund for Women) and Ann Jones (Author, Kabul in Winter).
At the Red Cross orthopedic centre, Lana Slezic (Kabul, 2004)
At the Red Cross orthopedic centre, Lana Slezic (Kabul, 2004)
Over the years, Afghan women have been victimized in one too many ways; rape, abduction of young girls and the use of acid to discourage women from seeking knowledge in schools have become the bread and water of Taliban men, who still lay undefeated. It didn’t come as a surprise, when President Hamid Karzai recently signed a law governing women’s rights, which according to the UN legalized rape in marriage.
Referring to Faisal Ahmad Shinwari (Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Afghanistan), Ann Jones remarks,
“He said women have two equal rights under the constitution, number one every woman has the right to obey her husband and two every woman has the right to pray, though not in the mosque, which is reserved to men”
What has spurred the uprising of these inhumane fundamentalists?
Taliban today are the successors of the fundamentalist extremist men, Mujahideen who gained power during the war against the The Soviet Union during the Cold War in the late 1970s. Reflecting back, Sonali Kolhatkar, Co-Director of Afghan Women’s Mission states in Rethink Afghanistan, “this was the beginning and end of women’s rights in Afghanistan”.
“When they were in power from 1992 to 1996, they abducted women, killed women, raped women, forced marriages…” (Fahima Vorgetts, Director, Afghan Women’s Fund)
Has the situation improved since the Global War on Terror?
“The situation for women today…is actually worse than it was during the Taliban time…today the same situation persists…they are kept in burqas and in their homes away from education and on top of that they are also living in war zones…and women suffer disproportionately effects of war…they actually wish the Taliban were back in power …at least they were kept free from bombs and house raids” (Anand Gopal, Afghanistan Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal)
When war dawned upon Afghanistan, countless Afghan women were forced into prostitution after their husbands were killed. The increased militarization within society has only worsened conditions for women who are now left alone in a war zone.
What are the objectives of the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan?
Women rights are definitely off the list; Afghan women continue to suffer today as they did yesterday.
“If they really want to help our people, we don’t need more soldiers” (Member of Rawa, The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan).
“I don’t believe and I don’t expect anyone outside to come and liberate me, if I cannot liberate myself no one from outside can liberate me” Orzala Ashraf (Afghan Women’s Network)
Rethink Afghanistan – Liberation of Women
2009 July 24
tags: Afghanistan, taliban
by Maria
Lana Slezic Photography
Lana Slezic Photography
“Now, the cases of violence against women are more than the Taliban time…there are twenty-three rape cases in two months in North Afghanistan” (Member of Rawa, The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan).
The false mythology that Afghan women were liberated in the war against the Taliban is confirmed by more than one source in Rethink Afghanistan, including Orzala Ashraf (Afghan Women’s Network), Kavita Ramdas (President & CEO, Global Fund for Women) and Ann Jones (Author, Kabul in Winter).
At the Red Cross orthopedic centre, Lana Slezic (Kabul, 2004)
At the Red Cross orthopedic centre, Lana Slezic (Kabul, 2004)
Over the years, Afghan women have been victimized in one too many ways; rape, abduction of young girls and the use of acid to discourage women from seeking knowledge in schools have become the bread and water of Taliban men, who still lay undefeated. It didn’t come as a surprise, when President Hamid Karzai recently signed a law governing women’s rights, which according to the UN legalized rape in marriage.
Referring to Faisal Ahmad Shinwari (Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Afghanistan), Ann Jones remarks,
“He said women have two equal rights under the constitution, number one every woman has the right to obey her husband and two every woman has the right to pray, though not in the mosque, which is reserved to men”
What has spurred the uprising of these inhumane fundamentalists?
Taliban today are the successors of the fundamentalist extremist men, Mujahideen who gained power during the war against the The Soviet Union during the Cold War in the late 1970s. Reflecting back, Sonali Kolhatkar, Co-Director of Afghan Women’s Mission states in Rethink Afghanistan, “this was the beginning and end of women’s rights in Afghanistan”.
“When they were in power from 1992 to 1996, they abducted women, killed women, raped women, forced marriages…” (Fahima Vorgetts, Director, Afghan Women’s Fund)
Has the situation improved since the Global War on Terror?
“The situation for women today…is actually worse than it was during the Taliban time…today the same situation persists…they are kept in burqas and in their homes away from education and on top of that they are also living in war zones…and women suffer disproportionately effects of war…they actually wish the Taliban were back in power …at least they were kept free from bombs and house raids” (Anand Gopal, Afghanistan Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal)
When war dawned upon Afghanistan, countless Afghan women were forced into prostitution after their husbands were killed. The increased militarization within society has only worsened conditions for women who are now left alone in a war zone.
What are the objectives of the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan?
Women rights are definitely off the list; Afghan women continue to suffer today as they did yesterday.
“If they really want to help our people, we don’t need more soldiers” (Member of Rawa, The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan).
“I don’t believe and I don’t expect anyone outside to come and liberate me, if I cannot liberate myself no one from outside can liberate me” Orzala Ashraf (Afghan Women’s Network)
The following is Co-Director of Afghan Women's Mission Sonali Kolhatkar's statement regarding an ongoing debate among progressives over the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, and appearing below it the transcript of a recent interview by Kolhatkar with independent candidate for Afghan president Ramazan Bashardost.
Recently prominent liberal voices in the United States have expressed the view that the US war in Afghanistan is being waged to help secure the rights of Afghan women. The Feminist Majority, a prominent women's organization in the US responded today to my critique of their pro-war position, co-authored with Mariam Rawi, a member of RAWA. The FM response was originally published under the title, "Why the Feminist Majority Foundation Supports Engagement in Afghanistan," and later changed to "Why Is the Feminist Majority Foundation Refusing to Abandon the Women and Girls of Afghanistan?"
In it, Eleanor Smeal and Helen Cho assert that "As long-time peace activists, we did not support the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11." But the FM also never came out against the war in Afghanistan as they did against the war in Iraq. Instead they called for full inclusion of women in any post-war government. That silence meant tacit support of the war. Today that support for war continues by equating the security craved by all Afghans with the war being waged by US troops. While I fully agree with the FM that the US must stop supporting warlords, and pour resources into development and aid I disagree that dropping bombs, fighting ground offensives, imprisoning Afghans, and all the byproducts of war are somehow making women safer.
Similarly, Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and one-time Presidential candidate on a liberal platform, in an interview on Democracy Now on Friday July 17th, pronounced his support for the US war in Afghanistan based on protecting women's rights. In the interview, Dean repeated the logic that the US is waging war for Afghan women's liberation. And on the flip side, according to Dean, "if we leave, women will experience the most extraordinary depredations of any population on the face of the earth." By this logic, Dean implies that the US has for the past 8 years been a bulwark against a the deterioration of women's rights.
But even cursory examination of the actual situation on the ground reveals that aside from theoretical changes embodied in the constitution, women's rights have actually deteriorated as a direct consequence of deliberate US policy. This policy has included empowering anti-woman warlords who have committed rape and thrown out female members of parliament, appointing a fundamentalist judiciary that has imprisoned women for adultery and being victims of rape, etc. Additionally, the US war has fueled an misogynist insurgency that has only gotten stronger and worsened anti-woman sentiment.
I spoke very recently with independent candidate for president Ramazan Bashardost about his view of the US war. He put it bluntly: "This is not a war for women's rights in Afghanistan. It is not a war for human rights in Afghanistan." He added, "the problem is that the analysis of the Afghan situation by the US is wrong."
The Feminist Majority, Howard Dean, and other American liberals in support of this war need to re-analyze the situation in Afghanistan and examine the real consequences of the US war over the past 8 years that have done more harm than good to women's rights.
Additionally liberals need to honestly assess that whether there has been some sort of about-turn in US policy since January 2009 save for a stated desire to reduce civilian casualties. In fact, the US has not suddenly changed its mandate from war-fighting to providing security under President Obama, and no such policy shift is on the horizon. The Democrats and Republicans, led by President Obama are waging a war, not winning a peace. And war is a force for destruction, not liberation.
****
Recently prominent liberal voices in the United States have expressed the view that the US war in Afghanistan is being waged to help secure the rights of Afghan women. The Feminist Majority, a prominent women's organization in the US responded today to my critique of their pro-war position, co-authored with Mariam Rawi, a member of RAWA. The FM response was originally published under the title, "Why the Feminist Majority Foundation Supports Engagement in Afghanistan," and later changed to "Why Is the Feminist Majority Foundation Refusing to Abandon the Women and Girls of Afghanistan?"
In it, Eleanor Smeal and Helen Cho assert that "As long-time peace activists, we did not support the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11." But the FM also never came out against the war in Afghanistan as they did against the war in Iraq. Instead they called for full inclusion of women in any post-war government. That silence meant tacit support of the war. Today that support for war continues by equating the security craved by all Afghans with the war being waged by US troops. While I fully agree with the FM that the US must stop supporting warlords, and pour resources into development and aid I disagree that dropping bombs, fighting ground offensives, imprisoning Afghans, and all the byproducts of war are somehow making women safer.
Similarly, Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and one-time Presidential candidate on a liberal platform, in an interview on Democracy Now on Friday July 17th, pronounced his support for the US war in Afghanistan based on protecting women's rights. In the interview, Dean repeated the logic that the US is waging war for Afghan women's liberation. And on the flip side, according to Dean, "if we leave, women will experience the most extraordinary depredations of any population on the face of the earth." By this logic, Dean implies that the US has for the past 8 years been a bulwark against a the deterioration of women's rights.
But even cursory examination of the actual situation on the ground reveals that aside from theoretical changes embodied in the constitution, women's rights have actually deteriorated as a direct consequence of deliberate US policy. This policy has included empowering anti-woman warlords who have committed rape and thrown out female members of parliament, appointing a fundamentalist judiciary that has imprisoned women for adultery and being victims of rape, etc. Additionally, the US war has fueled an misogynist insurgency that has only gotten stronger and worsened anti-woman sentiment.
I spoke very recently with independent candidate for president Ramazan Bashardost about his view of the US war. He put it bluntly: "This is not a war for women's rights in Afghanistan. It is not a war for human rights in Afghanistan." He added, "the problem is that the analysis of the Afghan situation by the US is wrong."
The Feminist Majority, Howard Dean, and other American liberals in support of this war need to re-analyze the situation in Afghanistan and examine the real consequences of the US war over the past 8 years that have done more harm than good to women's rights.
Additionally liberals need to honestly assess that whether there has been some sort of about-turn in US policy since January 2009 save for a stated desire to reduce civilian casualties. In fact, the US has not suddenly changed its mandate from war-fighting to providing security under President Obama, and no such policy shift is on the horizon. The Democrats and Republicans, led by President Obama are waging a war, not winning a peace. And war is a force for destruction, not liberation.
****
Brumby to fight protectionism at ALP conferenceFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter
July 25, 2009
Article from: The Australian
JOHN Brumby has slammed a union push for new trade barriers and vowed to join the fight against protectionism at next week's ALP conference, warning that it could invite international retaliation.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, the Victorian Premier took aim at the US, the NSW government and the union movement for lapsing into protectionism.
"If you want more growth opportunities in the future, more job opportunities in the future, the answer to that is not to put up trade barriers around Australia and around other countries," he said.
In an interview to mark two years since he assumed power in Victoria, Mr Brumby criticised the Rees government's move to give local suppliers a 20 per cent price advantage in government tenders. "We strongly oppose that, and it's not something that we have done here in Victoria," he said.
Unions have seized on NSW's move and are pushing for this approach to be rolled out nationally at next week's ALP conference.
Mr Brumby said it was "absolutely right" for federal frontbenchers Kim Carr and Lindsay Tanner to strongly resist that push, and he volunteered to join the fray.
"If necessary I will speak on this issue at the national conference. The more you put up barriers in Australia, blanket across-the-board barriers, the more you invite retaliation from other countries. We are busy opening up markets all over the world," he said.
"I have never been a protectionist. It's not what we have put in place in Victoria and I don't believe it's the way to generate jobs, opportunities and growth in the future."
Mr Brumby's comments are likely to put him on a collision course with both unions and industry in the nation's manufacturing heartland.
But he said trade had been the biggest driver of world growth in the past two decades and it remained a positive influence for Australia.
He took a swipe at the US for recently renewing export subsidies on milk -- a major blow to dairy farmers throughout Australia.
"It has disturbed me greatly to see in the US the Farm Bill recently recommitted for another three years, which is just straight-out fat subsidies paid to American dairy farmers, which damage our dairy farmers here in Victoria," he said.
"It's always been my view that the sooner the world moves away from these subsidies, the better off we will be."
The Premier has introduced his own rules mandating 40 per cent local content on certain projects, but denies they are protectionist, portraying them as aspirational goals rather than hard and fast limits.
Mr Brumby also acknowledged the recent spate of attacks on Indian students had the potential to affect the state's multi-billion-dollar a year foreign student market. He plans to visit India in September on a face-saving mission.
He admitted yesterday that some private colleges were more interested in a "quick buck" than the welfare of students, and promised they would be dealt with.
"I think it's unquestionable there has been some brand damage to Australia and Victoria, and that will take a little while to repair, but I think we can repair that."
"I think there are some issues with some of the private providers -- as you know, they are being reviewed.
"There are some there who are more interested in a quick buck than the quality of the education and the welfare of the student. We need to sort some of that out, but I think we can repair the damage."
July 25, 2009
Article from: The Australian
JOHN Brumby has slammed a union push for new trade barriers and vowed to join the fight against protectionism at next week's ALP conference, warning that it could invite international retaliation.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, the Victorian Premier took aim at the US, the NSW government and the union movement for lapsing into protectionism.
"If you want more growth opportunities in the future, more job opportunities in the future, the answer to that is not to put up trade barriers around Australia and around other countries," he said.
In an interview to mark two years since he assumed power in Victoria, Mr Brumby criticised the Rees government's move to give local suppliers a 20 per cent price advantage in government tenders. "We strongly oppose that, and it's not something that we have done here in Victoria," he said.
Unions have seized on NSW's move and are pushing for this approach to be rolled out nationally at next week's ALP conference.
Mr Brumby said it was "absolutely right" for federal frontbenchers Kim Carr and Lindsay Tanner to strongly resist that push, and he volunteered to join the fray.
"If necessary I will speak on this issue at the national conference. The more you put up barriers in Australia, blanket across-the-board barriers, the more you invite retaliation from other countries. We are busy opening up markets all over the world," he said.
"I have never been a protectionist. It's not what we have put in place in Victoria and I don't believe it's the way to generate jobs, opportunities and growth in the future."
Mr Brumby's comments are likely to put him on a collision course with both unions and industry in the nation's manufacturing heartland.
But he said trade had been the biggest driver of world growth in the past two decades and it remained a positive influence for Australia.
He took a swipe at the US for recently renewing export subsidies on milk -- a major blow to dairy farmers throughout Australia.
"It has disturbed me greatly to see in the US the Farm Bill recently recommitted for another three years, which is just straight-out fat subsidies paid to American dairy farmers, which damage our dairy farmers here in Victoria," he said.
"It's always been my view that the sooner the world moves away from these subsidies, the better off we will be."
The Premier has introduced his own rules mandating 40 per cent local content on certain projects, but denies they are protectionist, portraying them as aspirational goals rather than hard and fast limits.
Mr Brumby also acknowledged the recent spate of attacks on Indian students had the potential to affect the state's multi-billion-dollar a year foreign student market. He plans to visit India in September on a face-saving mission.
He admitted yesterday that some private colleges were more interested in a "quick buck" than the welfare of students, and promised they would be dealt with.
"I think it's unquestionable there has been some brand damage to Australia and Victoria, and that will take a little while to repair, but I think we can repair that."
"I think there are some issues with some of the private providers -- as you know, they are being reviewed.
"There are some there who are more interested in a quick buck than the quality of the education and the welfare of the student. We need to sort some of that out, but I think we can repair the damage."
Aborigines landed in Australia via IndiaJuly 22, 2009
New clues about how the first Aborigines arrived in Australia have been unveiled by Indian scientists.
Based on a series of genetic tests, they believe Aborigines travelled from Africa to Australia via India.
Dr Raghavendra Rao and researchers from the Indian-government backed Anthropological Survey of India project found unique genetic mutations were shared between modern-day Indians and Aborigines, suggesting Australia's indigenous people had once spent time on the sub-continent.
The scientists carried out genetic tests on 966 individuals from 26 of India's "relic populations" and identified seven people from central Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic tribes who shared genetic traits only found in Aborigines.
"We found certain mutations in the DNA sequences of the Indian tribes we sampled that are specific to Australian Aborigines," Rao said.
"This shared ancestry suggests that the Aborigine population migrated to Australia via the so-called southern route."
Scientists believe the first modern humans began spreading around the world from Africa about 50,000 years ago.
However, little is known about which routes they took.
Some studies have suggested they used a single southern route stretching from the Horn of Africa, across the Red Sea into Arabia and southern Asia.
They were then believed to have moved along the coastlines of southern Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia before arriving in Australia about 45,000 years ago.
Rao said the new research, published by online scientific journal BMC Evolutionary Biology on Wednesday, indicated there was now direct DNA evidence about how modern humans spread from Africa 50,000 years ago.
"In this respect, populations in the Indian subcontinent harbour DNA footprints of the earliest expansion out of Africa," he said.
© 2009 AAP
New clues about how the first Aborigines arrived in Australia have been unveiled by Indian scientists.
Based on a series of genetic tests, they believe Aborigines travelled from Africa to Australia via India.
Dr Raghavendra Rao and researchers from the Indian-government backed Anthropological Survey of India project found unique genetic mutations were shared between modern-day Indians and Aborigines, suggesting Australia's indigenous people had once spent time on the sub-continent.
The scientists carried out genetic tests on 966 individuals from 26 of India's "relic populations" and identified seven people from central Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic tribes who shared genetic traits only found in Aborigines.
"We found certain mutations in the DNA sequences of the Indian tribes we sampled that are specific to Australian Aborigines," Rao said.
"This shared ancestry suggests that the Aborigine population migrated to Australia via the so-called southern route."
Scientists believe the first modern humans began spreading around the world from Africa about 50,000 years ago.
However, little is known about which routes they took.
Some studies have suggested they used a single southern route stretching from the Horn of Africa, across the Red Sea into Arabia and southern Asia.
They were then believed to have moved along the coastlines of southern Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia before arriving in Australia about 45,000 years ago.
Rao said the new research, published by online scientific journal BMC Evolutionary Biology on Wednesday, indicated there was now direct DNA evidence about how modern humans spread from Africa 50,000 years ago.
"In this respect, populations in the Indian subcontinent harbour DNA footprints of the earliest expansion out of Africa," he said.
© 2009 AAP
July 22, 2009
The Great Barrier Reef and Uluru have made the final round in a global contest to select the new Seven Wonders of Nature.
The Australian natural landmarks were selected from a shortlist of 77 top spots around the world to be among the 28 finalists in the New7Wonders of Nature competition.
Only 21 finalists were expected to be announced, but the number was higher because of high levels of participation.
There were originally 441 nominees from 222 countries when the campaign began, with the entrants whittled down by public voting.
The contest now proceeds to the final round of voting, with an announcement due in mid-2011.
Uluru in the Northern Territory is the world's largest monolith, while the reef is the world's biggest coral reef comprising more than 3,000 individual reef systems and beaches.
The Aussie icons will be up against natural beauties including Halong Bay in Vietnam, Angel Falls in Venezuela, the Grand Canyon and Jeita Grotto in Lebanon, for a place in the coveted final seven.
Tourism Australia's executive chairman Rick Allert said Australians should be proud.
"A place among the ultimate New7Wonders of Nature would be a stunning achievement for our nations iconic natural wonders," Mr Allert said in a statement on Tuesday.
"And we thank everyone who has played a part in ensuring Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef have made it through to this third and final stage, still in the running for the ultimate accolade."
Tourism Australia has set up a web link to the voting site at www.australia.com.
More than one billion votes are expected to be cast in the contest.
AAP
The Great Barrier Reef and Uluru have made the final round in a global contest to select the new Seven Wonders of Nature.
The Australian natural landmarks were selected from a shortlist of 77 top spots around the world to be among the 28 finalists in the New7Wonders of Nature competition.
Only 21 finalists were expected to be announced, but the number was higher because of high levels of participation.
There were originally 441 nominees from 222 countries when the campaign began, with the entrants whittled down by public voting.
The contest now proceeds to the final round of voting, with an announcement due in mid-2011.
Uluru in the Northern Territory is the world's largest monolith, while the reef is the world's biggest coral reef comprising more than 3,000 individual reef systems and beaches.
The Aussie icons will be up against natural beauties including Halong Bay in Vietnam, Angel Falls in Venezuela, the Grand Canyon and Jeita Grotto in Lebanon, for a place in the coveted final seven.
Tourism Australia's executive chairman Rick Allert said Australians should be proud.
"A place among the ultimate New7Wonders of Nature would be a stunning achievement for our nations iconic natural wonders," Mr Allert said in a statement on Tuesday.
"And we thank everyone who has played a part in ensuring Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef have made it through to this third and final stage, still in the running for the ultimate accolade."
Tourism Australia has set up a web link to the voting site at www.australia.com.
More than one billion votes are expected to be cast in the contest.
AAP
With the completion of a new Tourist Information Center in the isolated Bamiyan Valley, local officials, residents, foreign donors, and a handful of international aid agencies are hoping to attract visitors and their money to the area.
The central province has long been considered one of the safest in Afghanistan, but the eight-hour drive over dirt roads and the land mines — not to mention the fighting currently ravishing the nation — could likely deter all but the most intrepid explorers.
"Afghanistan is definitely a good brand. People will come.... They go to Nepal this year, they go to Chile the next year, they're off to Afghanistan if it's accessible," said Andrew Scanlon, an expert on protected areas who is organizing a half-marathon through the region in September. He explained to the Associated Press that the plan is "providing really really fantastic outdoor experiences in natural landscapes that are somehow managed so it doesn't get out of control."
At the tourism center, about 20 local residents gather every day to learn how to become tour guides. Other locals are training to operate hotels, restaurants and other facilities that will cater to the tourists they hope will arrive someday soon.
As part of a $1.2 million “eco-tourism” program, the efforts in the region are funded in large measure by the Aga Khan Development Network, an Islamic charity based in Geneva. Other big donors in the area include Japan and New Zealand, which has a military unit helping with development there. Currently all initiatives to attract visitors are funded by foreigners, according to the deputy minister for tourism.
According to an Associated Press article entitled “Looking for vacation? Try Afghanistan,” visitors to the area have increased, if only by a few hundred. A representative of the information and culture ministry said hotel and airport records indicate that about 400 foreigners had been there by June of this year, up from 180 at the same time last year. By October the major historical sights are set to be free of the dangerous land mines that have kept many tourists at bay — and it would seem that there is plenty to see in the region.
In 2001, many Americans got a glimpse of the area in a film of the Taliban destroying gigantic ancient Buddha statues carved into the jagged cliff sides. Ancient cities and stunning natural beauty are also expected to lure history aficionados and nature lovers alike. In fact, the region was popular with American hippies on “enlightenment” journeys several decades ago.
Another recent initiative to attract tourists to the war-torn nation was undertaken by some Afghans in the Northeastern province of Badakshan — in the remote Hindu Kush mountain range. According to a July 24 article in the Khaleej Times, an Afghan farmer, a mason, and a teacher decided to become the first Afghans to summit Noshaq, one of the highest peaks in the world. Their mission was to promote peace and encourage tourists and adventure seekers to return once more to the region that used to attract travelers from around the world.
Some adventure-seeking tourists do still visit the country — especially northern areas that are more accessible due to borders with countries like Tajikistan. A 44-year-old German doctor named Peter Schneider who recently visited the region with a tour company told the Associated Press, "It's some sort of adventurous traveling, so it's of course more interesting than going to Thailand. Which is actually quite boring, isn't it?" He also said he hopes to return when safety improves to visit Kabul and other areas of Afghanistan. A quick perusal of Google reveals a myriad of tourism companies that are still operating throughout the country.
Even though it may be possible to visit, many countries warn their citizens to avoid the war-ravished nation. The U.S. travel warning states: "No part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence, and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts, either targeted or random, against American and other Western nationals at any time."
While it would certainly be interesting to visit an area so distinct from everything Americans are accustomed to, it would probably be best to wait until some semblance of security returns. When that might be is anybody’s guess. But for real thrill seekers who don’t mind taking extreme risks, it would certainly be quite an adventure to explore and understand a culture and people so isolated from the modern world.
The central province has long been considered one of the safest in Afghanistan, but the eight-hour drive over dirt roads and the land mines — not to mention the fighting currently ravishing the nation — could likely deter all but the most intrepid explorers.
"Afghanistan is definitely a good brand. People will come.... They go to Nepal this year, they go to Chile the next year, they're off to Afghanistan if it's accessible," said Andrew Scanlon, an expert on protected areas who is organizing a half-marathon through the region in September. He explained to the Associated Press that the plan is "providing really really fantastic outdoor experiences in natural landscapes that are somehow managed so it doesn't get out of control."
At the tourism center, about 20 local residents gather every day to learn how to become tour guides. Other locals are training to operate hotels, restaurants and other facilities that will cater to the tourists they hope will arrive someday soon.
As part of a $1.2 million “eco-tourism” program, the efforts in the region are funded in large measure by the Aga Khan Development Network, an Islamic charity based in Geneva. Other big donors in the area include Japan and New Zealand, which has a military unit helping with development there. Currently all initiatives to attract visitors are funded by foreigners, according to the deputy minister for tourism.
According to an Associated Press article entitled “Looking for vacation? Try Afghanistan,” visitors to the area have increased, if only by a few hundred. A representative of the information and culture ministry said hotel and airport records indicate that about 400 foreigners had been there by June of this year, up from 180 at the same time last year. By October the major historical sights are set to be free of the dangerous land mines that have kept many tourists at bay — and it would seem that there is plenty to see in the region.
In 2001, many Americans got a glimpse of the area in a film of the Taliban destroying gigantic ancient Buddha statues carved into the jagged cliff sides. Ancient cities and stunning natural beauty are also expected to lure history aficionados and nature lovers alike. In fact, the region was popular with American hippies on “enlightenment” journeys several decades ago.
Another recent initiative to attract tourists to the war-torn nation was undertaken by some Afghans in the Northeastern province of Badakshan — in the remote Hindu Kush mountain range. According to a July 24 article in the Khaleej Times, an Afghan farmer, a mason, and a teacher decided to become the first Afghans to summit Noshaq, one of the highest peaks in the world. Their mission was to promote peace and encourage tourists and adventure seekers to return once more to the region that used to attract travelers from around the world.
Some adventure-seeking tourists do still visit the country — especially northern areas that are more accessible due to borders with countries like Tajikistan. A 44-year-old German doctor named Peter Schneider who recently visited the region with a tour company told the Associated Press, "It's some sort of adventurous traveling, so it's of course more interesting than going to Thailand. Which is actually quite boring, isn't it?" He also said he hopes to return when safety improves to visit Kabul and other areas of Afghanistan. A quick perusal of Google reveals a myriad of tourism companies that are still operating throughout the country.
Even though it may be possible to visit, many countries warn their citizens to avoid the war-ravished nation. The U.S. travel warning states: "No part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence, and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts, either targeted or random, against American and other Western nationals at any time."
While it would certainly be interesting to visit an area so distinct from everything Americans are accustomed to, it would probably be best to wait until some semblance of security returns. When that might be is anybody’s guess. But for real thrill seekers who don’t mind taking extreme risks, it would certainly be quite an adventure to explore and understand a culture and people so isolated from the modern world.
So many Australians died in the bush fires, and it is heart rending.
Brumby says we're not in a bad state
Paul Austin
July 25, 2009
JOHN Brumby will go to India in September on a mission to rescue Victoria's good name as a destination for foreign students and tourists.
The Premier has conceded the recent spate of violent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne, and the massive coverage the assaults received in the Indian media, "did some brand damage to our state".
"It's important to visit and it's important to reassure the Indian Government and the Indian community that Victoria is a great place in terms of education and that Victoria is a safe place," Mr Brumby said yesterday.
He will meet senior Indian Government figures, business leaders and key media players during the 10-day visit that will take in Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore.
Mr Brumby revealed details of the mission during a wide-ranging interview with The Age to mark his second anniversary as Premier. He also:
■ Nominated Planning Minister Justin Madden as a potential successor to him as premier.
■ Rejected calls to sack or demote Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky, saying he had no plans to reshuffle cabinet before next year's election.
■ Warned that Melburnians could face tougher water restrictions next summer unless there was good rainfall in the next three months.
■ Conceded the performance of Melbourne's train system was "unacceptable" last summer but said he was confident the worst was over.
■ Gave a ringing endorsement of the performance of Country Fire Authority chiefs on Black Saturday in February, while acknowledging "systems failures" during the firestorms.
Mr Brumby said most of the recent attacks on Indian students were "the random assaults that occur in any big city".
"People need to take care about walking down narrow lanes late at night carrying a mobile phone and a laptop — sometimes that can invite danger," he said.
But there was "no doubt" some of the violence was fuelled by racism.
"To put it in perspective, it's a very small proportion of the crimes that were racially based … But if there's one case of violence or assault or abuse which is racially based in our society, it's one too many."
Mr Brumby said Mr Madden — who is moving from the upper house to the lower house at next year's election and has publicly signalled his ambition to be part of the Labor leadership — had the attributes to become premier.
"I like to think that if John Brumby fell under a bus tomorrow that there'd be a number of people who have the skills and capabilities and understandings to become premier," Mr Brumby said.
He agreed that Mr Madden would be one of them but would not name others.
"I'm not going to go into that, but I've made no secret of the fact that I thought it was a good thing to bring Justin down (to the lower house), to strengthen the overall team."
The Premier said he accepted that the public transport system had "failed Victorians" last summer — when the train network went into meltdown on hot days — and that the buck stopped with the Government.
"Governments have an overriding responsibility to manage the fundamental services well — so that's health and education and transport and community safety," he said.
"It's our responsibility — it's my responsibility — to make sure that the system works well."
But he said he had no plans to move Ms Kosky or any other minister, and that the overhaul of the system — including the $38 billion, 12-year transport plan announced last year — was starting to pay dividends.
"I am confident you will see continuing improvements in the rail system."
Mr Brumby conceded that water supplies would continue to be under extra pressure until the north-south pipeline began bringing water to Melbourne next year and the desalination plant began operating in 2012.
He said the Government would make a decision in November on whether Melbourne would have to tighten water restrictions this summer.
"I can't make a judgment about that now."
Mr Brumby urged Victorians to remember the successes as well as the horrendous losses of Black Saturday.
"I have supported publicly and very strongly our CFA, including its leadership, and I'll continue to do that.
"I think everybody in the CFA did their best to protect the state. In terms of effort and endeavour, I don't think you can fault that," he said.
Nonetheless, some "systems" had failed on the day of the fires. The triple-0 telephone service and the websites of emergency services had been overloaded and did not cope.
The Government was now injecting more money into those areas, and preparations for this fire season would be the most comprehensive in the state's history.
Mr Brumby said people should not forget that the CFA had saved countless lives on Black Saturday by quickly extinguishing a blaze at the foot of the Dandenongs.
"They made the right call and deployed huge resources there," he said.
"Had that fire got away, that would have unquestionably burnt through the whole of the Dandenongs and we would have seen a repeat of Ash Wednesday."
Brumby says we're not in a bad state
Paul Austin
July 25, 2009
JOHN Brumby will go to India in September on a mission to rescue Victoria's good name as a destination for foreign students and tourists.
The Premier has conceded the recent spate of violent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne, and the massive coverage the assaults received in the Indian media, "did some brand damage to our state".
"It's important to visit and it's important to reassure the Indian Government and the Indian community that Victoria is a great place in terms of education and that Victoria is a safe place," Mr Brumby said yesterday.
He will meet senior Indian Government figures, business leaders and key media players during the 10-day visit that will take in Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore.
Mr Brumby revealed details of the mission during a wide-ranging interview with The Age to mark his second anniversary as Premier. He also:
■ Nominated Planning Minister Justin Madden as a potential successor to him as premier.
■ Rejected calls to sack or demote Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky, saying he had no plans to reshuffle cabinet before next year's election.
■ Warned that Melburnians could face tougher water restrictions next summer unless there was good rainfall in the next three months.
■ Conceded the performance of Melbourne's train system was "unacceptable" last summer but said he was confident the worst was over.
■ Gave a ringing endorsement of the performance of Country Fire Authority chiefs on Black Saturday in February, while acknowledging "systems failures" during the firestorms.
Mr Brumby said most of the recent attacks on Indian students were "the random assaults that occur in any big city".
"People need to take care about walking down narrow lanes late at night carrying a mobile phone and a laptop — sometimes that can invite danger," he said.
But there was "no doubt" some of the violence was fuelled by racism.
"To put it in perspective, it's a very small proportion of the crimes that were racially based … But if there's one case of violence or assault or abuse which is racially based in our society, it's one too many."
Mr Brumby said Mr Madden — who is moving from the upper house to the lower house at next year's election and has publicly signalled his ambition to be part of the Labor leadership — had the attributes to become premier.
"I like to think that if John Brumby fell under a bus tomorrow that there'd be a number of people who have the skills and capabilities and understandings to become premier," Mr Brumby said.
He agreed that Mr Madden would be one of them but would not name others.
"I'm not going to go into that, but I've made no secret of the fact that I thought it was a good thing to bring Justin down (to the lower house), to strengthen the overall team."
The Premier said he accepted that the public transport system had "failed Victorians" last summer — when the train network went into meltdown on hot days — and that the buck stopped with the Government.
"Governments have an overriding responsibility to manage the fundamental services well — so that's health and education and transport and community safety," he said.
"It's our responsibility — it's my responsibility — to make sure that the system works well."
But he said he had no plans to move Ms Kosky or any other minister, and that the overhaul of the system — including the $38 billion, 12-year transport plan announced last year — was starting to pay dividends.
"I am confident you will see continuing improvements in the rail system."
Mr Brumby conceded that water supplies would continue to be under extra pressure until the north-south pipeline began bringing water to Melbourne next year and the desalination plant began operating in 2012.
He said the Government would make a decision in November on whether Melbourne would have to tighten water restrictions this summer.
"I can't make a judgment about that now."
Mr Brumby urged Victorians to remember the successes as well as the horrendous losses of Black Saturday.
"I have supported publicly and very strongly our CFA, including its leadership, and I'll continue to do that.
"I think everybody in the CFA did their best to protect the state. In terms of effort and endeavour, I don't think you can fault that," he said.
Nonetheless, some "systems" had failed on the day of the fires. The triple-0 telephone service and the websites of emergency services had been overloaded and did not cope.
The Government was now injecting more money into those areas, and preparations for this fire season would be the most comprehensive in the state's history.
Mr Brumby said people should not forget that the CFA had saved countless lives on Black Saturday by quickly extinguishing a blaze at the foot of the Dandenongs.
"They made the right call and deployed huge resources there," he said.
"Had that fire got away, that would have unquestionably burnt through the whole of the Dandenongs and we would have seen a repeat of Ash Wednesday."
What a bonza..
Baby whale's first breath caught on camera off Australia
(AFP) – 1 day ago
MELBOURNE — Australian scientists have photographed a humpback whale helping a newborn calf take what appears to be its first breath, a rare event described as the "Holy Grail" for whale-watchers.
The marine scientists from Western Australia's Centre for Whale Research said they watched in astonishment as the mother swam beneath the distressed baby and lifted it above the water, clearing its blowhole to take in air.
"We feel awed and privileged to have finally seen this spectacle after over 20 years of research," said scientist Curt Jenner.
The researchers said the water was full of blood, indicating the mother had just given birth on the migration route off Western Australia. They added that the "small and skinny" baby was instantly revived by its first breath.
"It was apparent that the calf was struggling to stay at the surface to breathe and was swimming around in tight, clockwise circles with only the tip of its snout protruding," said Jenner's wife and fellow scientist, Micheline.
"As soon as the cow lowered its newborn back into the water, its little tail flukes began to beat like a wind-up toy being lowered into the bath," she added.
Humpbacks are one of the largest whale species, growing up to 18 metres (60 foot) long. They are a mainstay of the whale-watching industry in Australia, which is worth an estimated 300 million dollars (246 million US) a year.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved
Countries waging unpopular and dubious conflicts engage in social engineering.
Whether that's through manipulating facts and perceptions at the front or at home, governments consider it essential in countering the erosion of public confidence that comes naturally from ill-considered and conceived wars or occupations.
Perhaps I was naive to be surprised at seeing for the first time military hardware at a Calgary Stampede caravan breakfast a few years ago. I recall wondering what the Armed Forces had to do with pancake breakfasts and I don't recall any unloading of syrup from the back of the army-green truck.
On the grounds this year, the military exhibit seemed bigger than ever, with fewer holds barred than before.
The usual weapons were there -- armoured vehicles, small arms and anti-tank rocket launcher.
But now they're showing off the heavier lethal ordnance like evil-nosed and finned air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles.
A lanky, torpedo-like projectile hugging the asphalt was perfect to re-create a suicidal Dr. Strangelovian bareback ride, cowboy hat thrust aloft.
There's something compelling about the hardware that empowers humankind in its extremity and I'm a sucker for it nearly every time. That's precisely the idea: Curious, shiny, happy people clambering over death machines in their summer fun duds is a fine disinfectant. It's part of the normalization when the sight of such equipment becomes increasingly routine.
No headless bodies, burned babies or scattered entrails, just gleaming steel and smiling soldiers.
We're at war and it's all about self-defence is the message, even when it's meddling in a civil war beyond our understanding .
Maybe I'm naive in being surprised by a tour of the grounds and the khaki toy carnival this month by military attaches from nearly two dozen countries.
They were officially pegged as visiting to savour the local "culture," which was cute.
These are people who gather intelligence on the warlike proclivities of allies and drum up support for military activity. Some of those visiting were from countries whose militaries are infamous for their activities -- Indonesia, Algeria, Turkey and oh, yeah, the U.S.
The grounds have become a laundromat for a lot more than cowboy threads caked with infield mud.
Wandering through all the cool gear and sunscreened PR flacks, the brutal absurdities being windowdressed seem all the more distant.
The prisoners tortured and murdered by our allies in Afghanistan aren't on any recruitment brochure.
Neither is the $500 million from the international community -- mainly the U.S. -- being spent to ensure the "re-election" of the president and government Afghans recognize and detest as puppets.
Reports this month of how the Afghan police we're training have so sullied themselves that some villagers have welcomed the Taliban as liberators is tough to square with all the blinding sunbeams.
Given the history of the West's duplicity in backing every side of the Afghan mess at one time or another, is it a stretch we'll be fighting alongside the Taliban a decade from now?
Our men and women serving their country deserve better than that. And they deserve more than their political leaders, soured enough on it all to pull the plug in 18 months while demanding they sacrifice right up until then. At least that's what we're being told for now -- the best case scenario.
It's cynicism as political blood sport. Amid it all, the conditioning not only goes on, it's ratcheted up.
When a government is determined to ignore the majority of its own anti-war citizenry while proclaiming it is spreading democracy through force, it hasn't a choice.
BILL.KAUFMANN@SUNMEDIA.CA
Whether that's through manipulating facts and perceptions at the front or at home, governments consider it essential in countering the erosion of public confidence that comes naturally from ill-considered and conceived wars or occupations.
Perhaps I was naive to be surprised at seeing for the first time military hardware at a Calgary Stampede caravan breakfast a few years ago. I recall wondering what the Armed Forces had to do with pancake breakfasts and I don't recall any unloading of syrup from the back of the army-green truck.
On the grounds this year, the military exhibit seemed bigger than ever, with fewer holds barred than before.
The usual weapons were there -- armoured vehicles, small arms and anti-tank rocket launcher.
But now they're showing off the heavier lethal ordnance like evil-nosed and finned air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles.
A lanky, torpedo-like projectile hugging the asphalt was perfect to re-create a suicidal Dr. Strangelovian bareback ride, cowboy hat thrust aloft.
There's something compelling about the hardware that empowers humankind in its extremity and I'm a sucker for it nearly every time. That's precisely the idea: Curious, shiny, happy people clambering over death machines in their summer fun duds is a fine disinfectant. It's part of the normalization when the sight of such equipment becomes increasingly routine.
No headless bodies, burned babies or scattered entrails, just gleaming steel and smiling soldiers.
We're at war and it's all about self-defence is the message, even when it's meddling in a civil war beyond our understanding .
Maybe I'm naive in being surprised by a tour of the grounds and the khaki toy carnival this month by military attaches from nearly two dozen countries.
They were officially pegged as visiting to savour the local "culture," which was cute.
These are people who gather intelligence on the warlike proclivities of allies and drum up support for military activity. Some of those visiting were from countries whose militaries are infamous for their activities -- Indonesia, Algeria, Turkey and oh, yeah, the U.S.
The grounds have become a laundromat for a lot more than cowboy threads caked with infield mud.
Wandering through all the cool gear and sunscreened PR flacks, the brutal absurdities being windowdressed seem all the more distant.
The prisoners tortured and murdered by our allies in Afghanistan aren't on any recruitment brochure.
Neither is the $500 million from the international community -- mainly the U.S. -- being spent to ensure the "re-election" of the president and government Afghans recognize and detest as puppets.
Reports this month of how the Afghan police we're training have so sullied themselves that some villagers have welcomed the Taliban as liberators is tough to square with all the blinding sunbeams.
Given the history of the West's duplicity in backing every side of the Afghan mess at one time or another, is it a stretch we'll be fighting alongside the Taliban a decade from now?
Our men and women serving their country deserve better than that. And they deserve more than their political leaders, soured enough on it all to pull the plug in 18 months while demanding they sacrifice right up until then. At least that's what we're being told for now -- the best case scenario.
It's cynicism as political blood sport. Amid it all, the conditioning not only goes on, it's ratcheted up.
When a government is determined to ignore the majority of its own anti-war citizenry while proclaiming it is spreading democracy through force, it hasn't a choice.
BILL.KAUFMANN@SUNMEDIA.CA
This is from a blogger at Daily KOS.
Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:08:32 AM PDT
The L.A. Times is running a story on its front page today whose humanity touches my heart -- Afghan kids find skateboards the wheel deal. The story begins
From Kabul, Afghanistan. Oliver Percovich, a lanky Australian in a black T-shirt, emerged from the van with a load of banged-up skateboards. The children grabbed the boards and raced off to skate in the cracked bowl of the dried-up fountain. Skateboarding was unknown to Afghans until Percovich, who followed his social scientist girlfriend to Kabul, starting teaching local children to skate in early 2007. Two years later, their relationship is over and his girlfriend is back in Australia. But Percovich's "Skateistan" nonprofit club has become a magnet for children in Kabul, the capital.
Percovich scrounged donations to start a skateboarding club open to both girls under 12 and boys up to age 17. Soon he will be opening a $1 million indoor skateboarding park, where in addition to learning skateboarding techniques in a safe environment, the children will be offered English and computer classes as well as "life skills" sessions. Amazing!
nirbama's diary :: ::
The "Skateistan" non-profit pays boys and girls who formerly begged in the streets to teach basic skateboard techniques to newbies. Skateistan is managing to bring boys and girls together in one activity, overcoming the rigid segregation that exists in Afghan society, at least for a few hours a day.
Percovich's non-profit has broken ground for a 19,000 foot indoor skatepark in Kabul. It will be Afghanistan's largest indoor sports facility when completed. Skateistan's logo features a skateboard crushing an assault rifle.
"The boards are just our carrots," Percovich said, shouting over the clack-clack-clack of skateboard wheels. "They're a way to connect with kids and build trust."
My two sons each got heavily into skateboarding from ages 10-15. In the U.S. there is a certain "outlaw" and libertarian appeal to skateboarding. Hence the well-known skating bumper sticker, "Skateboarding Is Not a Crime." It is hard to imagine how this will turn out within Afghani culture. It is clear that those Afghani children just want to have some fun, and skateboarding is amazing fun. But the thrill of moving under your own power and then being able to control the board as you become more experienced sends dangerous neurochemical signals to the brain. Yes, it's addictive, and it's also training in controlling your own life. If those Afghani kids are allowed time to grow up in the state of Skateistan, there's going to be some interesting cultural cross-currents leavening Afghani society.
Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:08:32 AM PDT
The L.A. Times is running a story on its front page today whose humanity touches my heart -- Afghan kids find skateboards the wheel deal. The story begins
From Kabul, Afghanistan. Oliver Percovich, a lanky Australian in a black T-shirt, emerged from the van with a load of banged-up skateboards. The children grabbed the boards and raced off to skate in the cracked bowl of the dried-up fountain. Skateboarding was unknown to Afghans until Percovich, who followed his social scientist girlfriend to Kabul, starting teaching local children to skate in early 2007. Two years later, their relationship is over and his girlfriend is back in Australia. But Percovich's "Skateistan" nonprofit club has become a magnet for children in Kabul, the capital.
Percovich scrounged donations to start a skateboarding club open to both girls under 12 and boys up to age 17. Soon he will be opening a $1 million indoor skateboarding park, where in addition to learning skateboarding techniques in a safe environment, the children will be offered English and computer classes as well as "life skills" sessions. Amazing!
nirbama's diary :: ::
The "Skateistan" non-profit pays boys and girls who formerly begged in the streets to teach basic skateboard techniques to newbies. Skateistan is managing to bring boys and girls together in one activity, overcoming the rigid segregation that exists in Afghan society, at least for a few hours a day.
Percovich's non-profit has broken ground for a 19,000 foot indoor skatepark in Kabul. It will be Afghanistan's largest indoor sports facility when completed. Skateistan's logo features a skateboard crushing an assault rifle.
"The boards are just our carrots," Percovich said, shouting over the clack-clack-clack of skateboard wheels. "They're a way to connect with kids and build trust."
My two sons each got heavily into skateboarding from ages 10-15. In the U.S. there is a certain "outlaw" and libertarian appeal to skateboarding. Hence the well-known skating bumper sticker, "Skateboarding Is Not a Crime." It is hard to imagine how this will turn out within Afghani culture. It is clear that those Afghani children just want to have some fun, and skateboarding is amazing fun. But the thrill of moving under your own power and then being able to control the board as you become more experienced sends dangerous neurochemical signals to the brain. Yes, it's addictive, and it's also training in controlling your own life. If those Afghani kids are allowed time to grow up in the state of Skateistan, there's going to be some interesting cultural cross-currents leavening Afghani society.
Activists challenge war games
Peace campaigners protesting against the Talisman Sabre Australian-US military exercises sent a strong message to the Rudd government that they will not tolerate the waste of resources on rehearsals for war. A range of peace and environmental groups came together for the Peace Convergence for three days from July 10 to 13 to resist and disrupt Talisman Sabre.
Peace campaigners blockaded, danced, staged vigils, sang, climbed fences, hung banners, defied police and much more over a weekend of intense activities.
They entered Darumbal land with permission from and a welcome by Indigenous elder and land owner Janette Yow Yeh.
Peace Convergence events included a public meeting in Rockhampton addressed by CPA guest Judith LeBlanc, organising co-ordinator of United for Peace and Justice, the largest anti-war coalition in the USA; Hamish Chitts, co-founder of the military veterans group Stand Fast; and Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.
“Your military and mine are trampling on the will of the people. They are out of control,” Ms LeBlanc said.
“These exercises are rehearsing for the next invasion. This is something the American and Australian people clearly do not want.
“Your country and mine went into that massive war crime in Iraq. We in the peace movement say it is time to call a halt,” she said.
Professor Lynch said: “The purpose of Talisman Sabre is to enhance interoperability between American and Australian forces. That means we are preparing to take US orders in fighting another illegal war.
“My research shows the US has now, as of mid-2009, spent more of the modern era at war than at peace. Training with the Americans means we are rehearsing for the invasion of another country.
“The Australian public never wanted to take part in the invasion of Iraq and two out of three recent polls show we want Australian troops to pull out of Afghanistan. There is no mandate for Defence to collaborate in preparing for more wars alongside the United States”.
“Coming hard on the heels of a Defence White Paper that parroted neo-conservative claims about the ‘threat’ of China, and heralded a major military build-up, these live-fire exercises will raise tensions in our own region, against Australia’s interests,” he said.
“A recent Australian National University poll shows that 70 percent of the Australian people do not support more money being spent on the military,” said Denis Doherty from the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition.
“Despite this, the Rudd government is wasting $50 million on training the ADF to take US orders in the next US-led war.
“The live-fire exercises practice invasions, they make Australia a greater target, they train our forces to take US orders, and they bomb unique and fragile locations on the edge of the irreplaceable Great Barrier Reef.
“We are practicing for the next war, but the government’s 2009 Defence White Paper stated that there is no major military threat to Australia. Talisman Sabre is addressing threats that do not exist, while aggravating those that are rapidly advancing, including climate change, hunger, and crippling poverty.
“War and its preparation make these problems worse. Talisman Sabre should be cancelled,” Denis Doherty concluded.
The main body of campaigners left Rockhampton on July 13, promising to return every second year until the Talisman Sabre war games are cancelled and Australia’s growing militarism is reversed.
A small number of activists will remain until the exercises finish on July 26. Some have been arrested and more will enter the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area to try to further disrupt the live fire component of the war games.
Peace campaigners protesting against the Talisman Sabre Australian-US military exercises sent a strong message to the Rudd government that they will not tolerate the waste of resources on rehearsals for war. A range of peace and environmental groups came together for the Peace Convergence for three days from July 10 to 13 to resist and disrupt Talisman Sabre.
Peace campaigners blockaded, danced, staged vigils, sang, climbed fences, hung banners, defied police and much more over a weekend of intense activities.
They entered Darumbal land with permission from and a welcome by Indigenous elder and land owner Janette Yow Yeh.
Peace Convergence events included a public meeting in Rockhampton addressed by CPA guest Judith LeBlanc, organising co-ordinator of United for Peace and Justice, the largest anti-war coalition in the USA; Hamish Chitts, co-founder of the military veterans group Stand Fast; and Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.
“Your military and mine are trampling on the will of the people. They are out of control,” Ms LeBlanc said.
“These exercises are rehearsing for the next invasion. This is something the American and Australian people clearly do not want.
“Your country and mine went into that massive war crime in Iraq. We in the peace movement say it is time to call a halt,” she said.
Professor Lynch said: “The purpose of Talisman Sabre is to enhance interoperability between American and Australian forces. That means we are preparing to take US orders in fighting another illegal war.
“My research shows the US has now, as of mid-2009, spent more of the modern era at war than at peace. Training with the Americans means we are rehearsing for the invasion of another country.
“The Australian public never wanted to take part in the invasion of Iraq and two out of three recent polls show we want Australian troops to pull out of Afghanistan. There is no mandate for Defence to collaborate in preparing for more wars alongside the United States”.
“Coming hard on the heels of a Defence White Paper that parroted neo-conservative claims about the ‘threat’ of China, and heralded a major military build-up, these live-fire exercises will raise tensions in our own region, against Australia’s interests,” he said.
“A recent Australian National University poll shows that 70 percent of the Australian people do not support more money being spent on the military,” said Denis Doherty from the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition.
“Despite this, the Rudd government is wasting $50 million on training the ADF to take US orders in the next US-led war.
“The live-fire exercises practice invasions, they make Australia a greater target, they train our forces to take US orders, and they bomb unique and fragile locations on the edge of the irreplaceable Great Barrier Reef.
“We are practicing for the next war, but the government’s 2009 Defence White Paper stated that there is no major military threat to Australia. Talisman Sabre is addressing threats that do not exist, while aggravating those that are rapidly advancing, including climate change, hunger, and crippling poverty.
“War and its preparation make these problems worse. Talisman Sabre should be cancelled,” Denis Doherty concluded.
The main body of campaigners left Rockhampton on July 13, promising to return every second year until the Talisman Sabre war games are cancelled and Australia’s growing militarism is reversed.
A small number of activists will remain until the exercises finish on July 26. Some have been arrested and more will enter the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area to try to further disrupt the live fire component of the war games.
.. wishing and hopin'.. love leaves an open door.
Helpless Children Harmed
There is no way to predict the adverse effects on the organs and bodies of children who receive psychiatric drugs filtered through pregnant and nursing mothers.
A study in the February 2004 journal Pediatrics reported abnormal sleep patterns, heart rhythms, and levels of alertness in babies exposed to SSRIs in the womb. The lead author, Dr. Philip Zeskind, told the Sunday Telegraph: “What we’ve found is that SSRIs disrupt the neurological systems of children, and that this is more than just a possibility, and we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of babies being exposed to these drugs during pregnancy.”
“These babies are bathed in serotonin during a key period of their development and we really don’t know what it’s doing to them or what the long-term effects might be,” he warned.
A year and a half later, Christine K sat in a neonatal intensive care unit and watched and waited as her baby lie in an incubator with tubes and needles stuck all over his body for four days.
After a single bout of psychosis following a traumatic event in her life, a psychiatrist labeled Christine schizophrenic and kept her on Paxil, Risperdal and Depakote for five years. When she became pregnant, the shrink told her the drugs were safe for the fetus. In fact, she insisted that Christine keep taking them even when she asked to go off the concoction six months into her pregnancy after reading that Paxil could harm her baby.
After looking up more information on the internet, Christine decided to wean herself off the drugs in her seventh month against doctors’ advice. However, when she tried to explain that she quit taking the medications long before the infant was born, Christine was informed that he would still have to remain in intensive care due to the fact that he had been exposed to the drugs in the womb early on.
For the first two years of life, the baby would not sleep for any length of time — waking up every two or three hours. For the first three months, his whole body would jump at the least little sound even when he was asleep. He could not suck hard enough to nurse and resisted bottles. For the first year, he required hours of feeding attempts each day to make sure he received enough formula.
He was three last October and still has a strong aversion to eating — “including cake, cookies and all the things kids will normally eat even if nothing else,” his mother says.
“He was well over 2-years-old before he started sleeping through the night,” she reports.
In addition to the extra hospital costs for intensive care, “in the first three years of his life, this child has needed more medical care and doctor’s appointments than my other three children combined,” Christine reports.
In this case, the problems were nondescript. Doctors do not know enough about the effects of psychiatric drugs on the developing fetus to know if or how to treat them. “All I can do is watch and wait and hope they resolve on their own,” she says.
Christine is by no means a supporter of the Mother’s Act. She was scared and worried for a year after her son came home from the hospital but not from postpartum depression, she says. “It was mostly guilt and fear over what the drugs may have done to my baby.”
Helpless Children Harmed
There is no way to predict the adverse effects on the organs and bodies of children who receive psychiatric drugs filtered through pregnant and nursing mothers.
A study in the February 2004 journal Pediatrics reported abnormal sleep patterns, heart rhythms, and levels of alertness in babies exposed to SSRIs in the womb. The lead author, Dr. Philip Zeskind, told the Sunday Telegraph: “What we’ve found is that SSRIs disrupt the neurological systems of children, and that this is more than just a possibility, and we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of babies being exposed to these drugs during pregnancy.”
“These babies are bathed in serotonin during a key period of their development and we really don’t know what it’s doing to them or what the long-term effects might be,” he warned.
A year and a half later, Christine K sat in a neonatal intensive care unit and watched and waited as her baby lie in an incubator with tubes and needles stuck all over his body for four days.
After a single bout of psychosis following a traumatic event in her life, a psychiatrist labeled Christine schizophrenic and kept her on Paxil, Risperdal and Depakote for five years. When she became pregnant, the shrink told her the drugs were safe for the fetus. In fact, she insisted that Christine keep taking them even when she asked to go off the concoction six months into her pregnancy after reading that Paxil could harm her baby.
After looking up more information on the internet, Christine decided to wean herself off the drugs in her seventh month against doctors’ advice. However, when she tried to explain that she quit taking the medications long before the infant was born, Christine was informed that he would still have to remain in intensive care due to the fact that he had been exposed to the drugs in the womb early on.
For the first two years of life, the baby would not sleep for any length of time — waking up every two or three hours. For the first three months, his whole body would jump at the least little sound even when he was asleep. He could not suck hard enough to nurse and resisted bottles. For the first year, he required hours of feeding attempts each day to make sure he received enough formula.
He was three last October and still has a strong aversion to eating — “including cake, cookies and all the things kids will normally eat even if nothing else,” his mother says.
“He was well over 2-years-old before he started sleeping through the night,” she reports.
In addition to the extra hospital costs for intensive care, “in the first three years of his life, this child has needed more medical care and doctor’s appointments than my other three children combined,” Christine reports.
In this case, the problems were nondescript. Doctors do not know enough about the effects of psychiatric drugs on the developing fetus to know if or how to treat them. “All I can do is watch and wait and hope they resolve on their own,” she says.
Christine is by no means a supporter of the Mother’s Act. She was scared and worried for a year after her son came home from the hospital but not from postpartum depression, she says. “It was mostly guilt and fear over what the drugs may have done to my baby.”
July 23, 2009
By Abubakar Siddique
With another week still to go, July has already become the deadliest month for international coalition forces since they launched the U.S.-led military offensive in Afghanistan in late 2001.
The number has risen to 62, according to the iCasualties database, as a surge of U.S. troops -- 31 of whom have died in another monthly record -- has ratcheted up the conflict, raising concerns about security and casting a pall over the country's August 20 presidential vote.
Improving security ahead of the vote was one of the stated goals of the so-called surge. But veteran observers suggest that an expanded military operation alone cannot turn the situation around -- it must be complemented by a robust political effort.
Experts argue that such an effort could contribute to driving a wedge between Afghan insurgent groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and thus help restore long-term stability to Afghanistan and avoid squandering achievements of the past eight years.
Thomas Ruttig, who has been involved in Afghanistan for the past 25 years and has worked in various diplomatic positions for the German government, the United Nations, and the European Union, argues that it's still possible to resolve the crisis through political means.
But he says it requires knowing the precise character of the insurgency and talking to and reconciling with more moderate elements of the insurgency driven by domestic factors, such as bad governance, political alienation, and a sense that they have suffered unjust persecution.
Western Focus
Although broadly labeled "Taliban," the insurgency in Afghanistan is organizationally driven by a few major leadership networks. On the ground, local commanders enjoy relative autonomy and exert significant influence. But so far, all previous reconciliation efforts have ignored this critical aspect.
"Mainly what is missing is a joint strategy of the Afghan government and the most important international actors supporting it towards two things -- one I call talks and the second I call reconciliation, which is a much broader and longer process of healing of wounds in a deeply hurt society," Ruttig says. "But talks [are something] less than that. Talks are for achieving political solution for ending the violence, which is the largest concern from my point of view -- [and] at least one of the two three major concerns of Afghans I am talking to."
The prospects of such a process, however, could be inhibited by Western policy makers' intense focus on dealing a military defeat to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington on July 15, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allowed room for negotiation with the Taliban but made clear that the end goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan was "to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country."
"We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects Al-Qaeda and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate Al-Qaeda we must also fight the Taliban," Clinton said. "Now, we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support Al-Qaeda, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power."
She added that "we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces Al-Qaeda, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution."
But the prospect of the current Afghan government-led reconciliation effort succeeding in peeling away large parts of the insurgency appears remote, considering the lack of success in dealing with "foot soldiers" to this point.
Missed Opportunity?
In a recent article in "Foreign Affairs," veteran Afghanistan observer Michael Semple argues that the four-year-old Afghanistan National Independent Peace and Reconciliation Commission has been a lackluster effort because it lacks the resources to reintegrate former fighters into society. It also crucially failed to make considerable dents into the insurgency by attracting influential commanders away.
Semple now works as an independent consultant but has a wealth of experience in negotiating with the Taliban as an adviser to the United Nations and European Union in Afghanistan over the past two decades. He argues that reconciliation is possible in Afghanistan, citing the successful integration of some senior Taliban figures into the new political system before the Taliban insurgency gained momentum in 2006.
The successes were short-lived, however, largely because the detention of key Taliban leaders who voluntarily surrendered deterred others from joining the political process.
Semple, too, suggests that Washington and its allies now must support their military surge with a political surge if it hopes to draw large numbers of fighters from the insurgency. This will do more to stabilize Afghanistan in the end than military operations, he argues, because Afghan battles are often won by securing defections, rather than just fighting.
He says the current effort to peel away foot soldiers from their hardcore leaders is unlikely to work.
"The idea of bringing foot soldiers across will never end the insurgency," Semple argues. "The key point is that those people who are political in that they have got their hundreds of followers, they have got people who follow them and trust them -- only when there is a way to engaging with them will it be possible to make some inroads into the insurgency."
Possible Endgame
Semple suggests that thrust of the Western debate about Afghanistan is to look at the endgame scenarios. In his calculation, a renewed political process focusing on reconciliation with key Afghan elements of the insurgency is a plausible winning strategy.
"There is now an overlap in aspiration between some of the key parties to the conflict," Semple says. "If you think, 'What is something which is in common between Hamid Karzai and the leaders of the insurgency and also the Western leaders?'... that is a stated commitment to ensure that there is no long-term Western combat presence in Afghanistan."
Semple is quick to add that "they have all got different takes on it -- how they would like to achieve that and what kind of guarantees would have to be in place."
Semple argues that his study of the insurgency reveals various important tendencies. Many Taliban have Afghan specific objectives and grievances, and a reconciliation process focusing on them could help realize the key objective of denying Al-Qaeda an Afghan sanctuary.
"It would be a very big mistake to associate the Afghan insurgency exclusively with Al-Qaeda as an organization or as a politic," Semper says. "I think that the way forward in the Afghan insurgency towards peace in Afghanistan will be through an exclusion of Al-Qaeda rather than a defeat of Al-Qaeda. No doubt Al-Qaeda will find other ways of popping up elsewhere."
By Abubakar Siddique
With another week still to go, July has already become the deadliest month for international coalition forces since they launched the U.S.-led military offensive in Afghanistan in late 2001.
The number has risen to 62, according to the iCasualties database, as a surge of U.S. troops -- 31 of whom have died in another monthly record -- has ratcheted up the conflict, raising concerns about security and casting a pall over the country's August 20 presidential vote.
Improving security ahead of the vote was one of the stated goals of the so-called surge. But veteran observers suggest that an expanded military operation alone cannot turn the situation around -- it must be complemented by a robust political effort.
Experts argue that such an effort could contribute to driving a wedge between Afghan insurgent groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and thus help restore long-term stability to Afghanistan and avoid squandering achievements of the past eight years.
Thomas Ruttig, who has been involved in Afghanistan for the past 25 years and has worked in various diplomatic positions for the German government, the United Nations, and the European Union, argues that it's still possible to resolve the crisis through political means.
But he says it requires knowing the precise character of the insurgency and talking to and reconciling with more moderate elements of the insurgency driven by domestic factors, such as bad governance, political alienation, and a sense that they have suffered unjust persecution.
Western Focus
Although broadly labeled "Taliban," the insurgency in Afghanistan is organizationally driven by a few major leadership networks. On the ground, local commanders enjoy relative autonomy and exert significant influence. But so far, all previous reconciliation efforts have ignored this critical aspect.
"Mainly what is missing is a joint strategy of the Afghan government and the most important international actors supporting it towards two things -- one I call talks and the second I call reconciliation, which is a much broader and longer process of healing of wounds in a deeply hurt society," Ruttig says. "But talks [are something] less than that. Talks are for achieving political solution for ending the violence, which is the largest concern from my point of view -- [and] at least one of the two three major concerns of Afghans I am talking to."
The prospects of such a process, however, could be inhibited by Western policy makers' intense focus on dealing a military defeat to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington on July 15, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allowed room for negotiation with the Taliban but made clear that the end goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan was "to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country."
"We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects Al-Qaeda and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate Al-Qaeda we must also fight the Taliban," Clinton said. "Now, we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support Al-Qaeda, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power."
She added that "we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces Al-Qaeda, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution."
But the prospect of the current Afghan government-led reconciliation effort succeeding in peeling away large parts of the insurgency appears remote, considering the lack of success in dealing with "foot soldiers" to this point.
Missed Opportunity?
In a recent article in "Foreign Affairs," veteran Afghanistan observer Michael Semple argues that the four-year-old Afghanistan National Independent Peace and Reconciliation Commission has been a lackluster effort because it lacks the resources to reintegrate former fighters into society. It also crucially failed to make considerable dents into the insurgency by attracting influential commanders away.
Semple now works as an independent consultant but has a wealth of experience in negotiating with the Taliban as an adviser to the United Nations and European Union in Afghanistan over the past two decades. He argues that reconciliation is possible in Afghanistan, citing the successful integration of some senior Taliban figures into the new political system before the Taliban insurgency gained momentum in 2006.
The successes were short-lived, however, largely because the detention of key Taliban leaders who voluntarily surrendered deterred others from joining the political process.
Semple, too, suggests that Washington and its allies now must support their military surge with a political surge if it hopes to draw large numbers of fighters from the insurgency. This will do more to stabilize Afghanistan in the end than military operations, he argues, because Afghan battles are often won by securing defections, rather than just fighting.
He says the current effort to peel away foot soldiers from their hardcore leaders is unlikely to work.
"The idea of bringing foot soldiers across will never end the insurgency," Semple argues. "The key point is that those people who are political in that they have got their hundreds of followers, they have got people who follow them and trust them -- only when there is a way to engaging with them will it be possible to make some inroads into the insurgency."
Possible Endgame
Semple suggests that thrust of the Western debate about Afghanistan is to look at the endgame scenarios. In his calculation, a renewed political process focusing on reconciliation with key Afghan elements of the insurgency is a plausible winning strategy.
"There is now an overlap in aspiration between some of the key parties to the conflict," Semple says. "If you think, 'What is something which is in common between Hamid Karzai and the leaders of the insurgency and also the Western leaders?'... that is a stated commitment to ensure that there is no long-term Western combat presence in Afghanistan."
Semple is quick to add that "they have all got different takes on it -- how they would like to achieve that and what kind of guarantees would have to be in place."
Semple argues that his study of the insurgency reveals various important tendencies. Many Taliban have Afghan specific objectives and grievances, and a reconciliation process focusing on them could help realize the key objective of denying Al-Qaeda an Afghan sanctuary.
"It would be a very big mistake to associate the Afghan insurgency exclusively with Al-Qaeda as an organization or as a politic," Semper says. "I think that the way forward in the Afghan insurgency towards peace in Afghanistan will be through an exclusion of Al-Qaeda rather than a defeat of Al-Qaeda. No doubt Al-Qaeda will find other ways of popping up elsewhere."
Torture allegations dog Guantánamo trials
July 22nd, 2009 2:58 AM
Andy Worthington
From the moment that the Toronto Star unleashed a gruesome, and previously unpublished photo of the chest wounds sustained by 15-year old Omar Khadr, after a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002, it was clear that the resumption of Khadr’s pre-trial hearing at Guantánamo last week would once more raise murky issues of torture and untrustworthy intelligence that the administration — desperate to secure a “clean” conviction in its much-reviled Military Commission process — hoped would remain buried.
The photo preceded excerpts from Star reporter Michelle Shephard’s long-awaited biography of Omar Khadr, Guantánamo’s Child, which does the most thorough job to date of humanizing the second youngest son of the generally unsympathetic Khadr family, whose late patriarch, Ahmed Khadr, was close to Osama bin Laden.
While serving as a terrifying trailer for the book, however, the photo’s publication also heightened tensions that had surfaced in pre-trial hearings in November, when, after five years of claims, on the administration’s part, that Khadr had been the last enemy soldier alive after the firefight, and had therefore thrown the grenade that killed a US soldier, it was revealed that the grenade could, in fact, have been thrown by one of his companions, who was alive at the time, but whose survival at that point had not previously been disclosed.
Omar Khadr and the fog of war
The day before Khadr’s pre-trial hearings resumed last Friday, his tenacious military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, duly raised these issues, telling journalists that the report of the circumstances that led to Khadr’s capture, written by an officer identified only as “Lt. Col. W.,” had been altered after the event to implicate the Canadian teenager. As Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler described it, the report initially said that the assailant who threw the grenade had been killed, but was then revised, about two months later, to say that the grenade thrower had been “engaged” (a change that clearly implicated Khadr). “We now know that story was false,” Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler told the reporters, adding, “It’s consistent with the proposition that the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
On Friday, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler asked the judge, Col. Peter Brownback, to allow the defense team to question “Lt. Col. W.” Col. Brownback not only agreed to this request; he also ordered prosecutors to give Khadr’s lawyers a list of all US personnel who had interrogated Khadr in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, and to provide them with access to their notes, postponed the trial’s start date (scheduled for May 5) to allow more time for discussions of acceptable evidence, and rebuffed the government-appointed prosecutors, who claimed, as the Miami Herald described it, “that they had already searched available records and interviewed potential witnesses, and had found nothing more to provide in the discovery phase to defense lawyers.” As the Herald report continued, “Brownback was not persuaded,” and “sent prosecutors back to search US State Department communications with Canada, battlefield dispatches and messages around the time of the 2002 firefight and other records.” “We can’t try the case until we get the discovery done,” Col. Brownback insisted. “So if I have to come down here every week, I’ll do it, what the heck.”
Khadr alleges torture
Capping another difficult week in the administration’s attempts to prosecute Khadr, his lawyers released an eight-page affidavit, in which Khadr himself described his treatment at the hands of both the Americans — in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo — and the Canadian agents who also visited him at Guantánamo. Partly redacted by US censors, the document nevertheless reveals extensive allegations of abuse that, in some cases, seem to amount to torture.
In addition to Khadr’s previously documented claims that he was threatened with rape and was used as a human mop at Guantánamo to wipe up his own urine after he had been held for hours in a stress position and had soiled himself, he reported that he “told a Canadian delegation in 2003 that the Americans ‘would torture’ him — so he told them whatever they wanted’ to hear, but that “The Canadians called me a liar, and I began to sob. They screamed at me and told me they could not do anything for me.” In other sections, he described how, after he embarked on a hunger strike at Guantánamo, “Guards would grab me by pressure points behind my ears, under the jaw and on my neck. On a scale of one to 10, I would say the pain was an 11.”
Khadr also described abuse that took place in the days after his capture, in particular at the hands of a Hispanic MP, who “would often [redacted]. He would tell nurses not to [redacted] since he said that I had killed an American soldier. He would also [redacted] me quite often.” He also reported that something was done to his eyes — “Sometimes they would [redacted] particularly since both my eyes were badly injured” — and described being kneed “repeatedly in the thighs,” a brutal technique, known as the common peroneal strike, whose overuse in Bagram led to the murder of two prisoners, Mullah Habibullah, and a taxi driver named Dilawar, in December 2002.
This comment adds to the suspicion that Khadr was the victim of torture in Bagram, as it was also revealed last week that one of his interrogators was Sgt. Joshua Claus, who was later charged, along with 14 others, of various crimes, including assault and “maltreatment of a detainee” in connection with the murder of the two men, and was sentenced to five months in jail in 2006.
Mohamed Jawad
Omar Khadr was not the only defendant last week to raise the spectre of torture to haunt the Military Commissions. On Wednesday, Mohamed Jawad, an Afghan who, according to his own account, was only 16 when he was seized after allegedly throwing a grenade that wounded two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter, said, as Carol Williams described it in the Los Angeles Times, “that he had been tortured while in US custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan after his arrest, and that he had been mistreated in Guantánamo as well.” “The American government said the Taliban has been very cruel in Afghanistan, that they killed people without any trial and imprisoned people without trial,” Jawad told the judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “When I was in detention at Bagram, Americans killed three people. They beat people and arrested us without trial. We’re not given any rights.”
This was a departure in some ways. As I reported in a detailed article when he was first charged last October, Jawad had not alleged that he had been tortured by US forces during his tribunal and his military reviews at Guantánamo, which were convened, in the first instance, to assess whether he had been correctly designated as an “enemy combatant” when he was captured, and subsequently to assess whether he still constituted a threat to the US or its interests. He had, however, claimed that a false confession had been forced out of him by the Afghan police who first captured him. “[T]hey tortured me,” he said in 2005. “They beat me. They beat me a lot. One person told me, ‘If you don’t confess, they are going to kill you’. So, I told them anything they wanted to hear.”
Although he explicitly stated in his review, “I have never seen or endured any torture in Bagram or here in Cuba by the Americans,” it’s possible that he had previously failed to mention being tortured by US forces because he had concluded that it was wiser not to raise the topic in front of the US military officers who appeared to offer him a chance — however slim — of escaping from Guantánamo for good. It certainly seems unlikely that Jawad was not subjected to abuse while at Bagram, as the period that he was there — from mid-December 2002, two months after Omar Khadr left for Guantánamo — is during that same period, from summer 2002 until sometime in 2003, at the earliest, that the prison was the venue for particularly savage and routine violence that led to the murders mentioned above, and, it should be noted, to an apparent third homicide mentioned not only by Mohamed Jawad, but also by the released British prisoners Moazzam Begg, Richard Belmar and Jamal Kiyemba, as I discuss in my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison.
This alone would make his trial problematical, but Jawad himself raised further hurdles to what the Pentagon clearly hoped would be a straightforward process by declaring the proceedings illegal and refusing to accept representation by his military lawyer, Col. Mike Sawyers. Apparently dragged from his cell to attend the hearing, and wearing the infamous orange garb that, for many years, has been reserved for those ruled “non-compliant,” he told Col. Kohlmann, “My right has not been given to me. I have not violated any international law. There are many accusations against me … they don’t make any sense … I am a human being.” He added, as Steven Edwards described it for the Canwest News Service, that he “continued to be treated unjustly and interrogated, and that he wanted the ‘whole world’ to know it.”
Despite being spurned by his client, Col. Sawyers was vigorous in his defense outside the courtroom, explaining to reporters that western concepts of justice were “completely foreign” to Jawad, and making a statement on his behalf that also resonates with the case of Omar Khadr. “I believe this is the direct result of taking a 16- or 17-year-old boy and putting him in confinement … with no contact with the outside world,” Col. Sawyers said. “He has been in a three-by-seven-(foot) cell … I do not believe he understands the proceedings … I don’t know if I were given ten years I could explain it to him.”
With Jawad’s refusal to engage with the Commissions (asked to enter a plea, he had, by that point, “slumped onto the defense table and refused to respond to Kohlmann’s questions”) and with Col. Sawyers’ active duty about to run out, the case is unlikely to resume in the near future. As Col. Steve David, the Commissions’ chief defense lawyer, explained, he will not be able to assign Jawad a new lawyer for some time, because, unlike the prosecution, which has a full roster of 30 lawyers, he has only nine lawyers on duty, who are already struggling to cope with their caseload.
Ahmed al-Darbi
The last of the cases considered last week — that of Ahmed Mohammed al-Darbi, a 33-year old Saudi — also failed to advance the process. Apparently the brother-in-law of one of the 9/11 hijackers, al-Darbi, described as “polite and responsive” during his arraignment, also refused to enter a plea, and was undecided about whether or not to accept the services of his military lawyer. The administration can, perhaps, count itself lucky that al-Darbi did not wish to speak out, although this is probably only a matter of putting off the inevitable.
Seized in Azerbaijan, al-Darbi was rendered to Afghanistan, and also ended up in Bagram, where, he later alleged, an interrogator named Damien Corsetti, known as “Monster” or “The King of Torture,” abused prisoners by poking them in the face with his naked penis and threatening them with sexual assault. Corsetti was later charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, assault and performing an indecent act with another person, but although he was cleared of all the charges in June 2006, al-Darbi’s presence at Bagram during the period that both Omar Khadr and Mohamed Jawad were there suggests that the well-chronicled torture at the prison during that period — which Corsetti discussed, with refreshing frankness, in a recent interview — will also surface in his trial.
If, as Carol Williams suggested, Mohamed Jawad’s case had been pushed forward before those of the six men (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) who were charged last month in connection with the 9/11 attacks, because the process of finding lawyers for those men has only just begun, and because Jawad’s case — and, by extension, that of Ahmed al-Darbi — were presumed to be easier to win, last weeks’ events have served only to rock the Commissions’ legitimacy once more, highlighting allegations of torture in Bagram as a counter-point to the well-chronicled torture of those charged in connection with 9/11 in secret prisons run by the CIA (in five of the cases) and in Guantánamo in the case of the sixth, Mohammed al-Qahtani.
Ibrahim al-Qosi and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul
Ali Hamza al-Bahlul. A sketch made during his first appearance
before the Military Commissions in 2004. Image from AP.
Nor, it seems, is it likely that torture will be sidestepped in the cases of the other prisoners awaiting arraignment. The Sudanese prisoner Ibrahim al-Qosi and the Yemeni Ali Hamza al-Bahlul (both charged last month for their alleged connections with al-Qaeda) are well-known to those who have been following the Commissions since they first spluttered into life in the summer of 2003. Both were previously charged in the first round of the trials, which were struck down as illegal by the Supreme Court in June 2006, without either man having had the opportunity to discuss the details of their treatment, but in a hearing in 2004 al-Bahlul’s military defense lawyer, Maj. Tom Fleener, told the judge, Col. Peter Brownback, “I believe Mr. al-Bahlul was tortured,” adding that it was “going to be an issue” in any trial faced by his client.
A sketch of Ibrahim al-Qosi, made
during his first appearance before
the Military Commissions in 2004.
Image: Art Lien/Getty Images.Similar territory was covered by Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, who was assigned to represent al-Qosi. According to a report in the Nation in December 2005, she “characterized his treatment as possibly torture but certainly inhumane treatment; he was held in stress positions for protracted periods, subjected to military dogs and sexually humiliated.”
If there is a “clean” case that can be presented to the Commissions without ensnaring the administration in ever more lengthy and damaging allegations relating to the use of torture by US forces, it has yet to be found. Just possibly, however, the Pentagon’s announcement, during the fallout from Mohamed Jawad’s boycott of his arraignment, that another Afghan — Mohammed Kamin — would also face a trial by Military Commission was intended to fulfil the administration’s elusive dream: the successful prosecution of a prisoner who will not claim that he was tortured.
Mohammed Kamin
On the surface, Mohammed Kamin fulfils this criterion, although he also seems, like many before him, to be an unworthy candidate for any kind of war crimes trial at all. In his charge sheet (PDF), he is accused of “providing material support for terrorism,” specifically by receiving training at “an al-Qaeda training camp,” conducting surveillance on US and coalition military bases and activities, planting two mines under a bridge, and launching missiles at the city of Khost while it was occupied by US and coalition forces. He is not charged with harming, let along killing US forces, and were it not for his supposed al-Qaeda connection — he apparently stated in interrogation that he was “recruited by an al-Qaeda cell leader” — it would, I think, be impossible to make the case that he was involved in “terrorism” at all. As it is, I’m prepared to state that his case seems to me to demonstrate how hopelessly blurred the distinctions between military resistance (aka insurgency) and terrorism have become, so that anyone caught fighting US occupation is not engaged in a war (with its own well-established laws) but is automatically part of a global terrorist movement.
In a courtroom, of course, it may well emerge that, like all the others mentioned above, Mohammed Kamin will reveal — or at least allege — that he too was tortured, adding to the increasing suspicion that there is no corner of the post-9/11 prison system that is beyond the cold hand of the torturer, whose actions were sanctioned at the highest levels of the government. In the full glare of the world’s media, the Military Commissions continue to expose the very torture and abuse that the administration has strived so hard to conceal, and I cannot see how they can ever result in a prosecution that will be recognized as valid. As the Bush administration counts down its last months in office, the only solution, it seems to me, is to maintain the pressure on the next administration to move the trials to federal courts on the US mainland.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed, and see here for my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, published in March 2009.
July 22nd, 2009 2:58 AM
Andy Worthington
From the moment that the Toronto Star unleashed a gruesome, and previously unpublished photo of the chest wounds sustained by 15-year old Omar Khadr, after a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002, it was clear that the resumption of Khadr’s pre-trial hearing at Guantánamo last week would once more raise murky issues of torture and untrustworthy intelligence that the administration — desperate to secure a “clean” conviction in its much-reviled Military Commission process — hoped would remain buried.
The photo preceded excerpts from Star reporter Michelle Shephard’s long-awaited biography of Omar Khadr, Guantánamo’s Child, which does the most thorough job to date of humanizing the second youngest son of the generally unsympathetic Khadr family, whose late patriarch, Ahmed Khadr, was close to Osama bin Laden.
While serving as a terrifying trailer for the book, however, the photo’s publication also heightened tensions that had surfaced in pre-trial hearings in November, when, after five years of claims, on the administration’s part, that Khadr had been the last enemy soldier alive after the firefight, and had therefore thrown the grenade that killed a US soldier, it was revealed that the grenade could, in fact, have been thrown by one of his companions, who was alive at the time, but whose survival at that point had not previously been disclosed.
Omar Khadr and the fog of war
The day before Khadr’s pre-trial hearings resumed last Friday, his tenacious military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, duly raised these issues, telling journalists that the report of the circumstances that led to Khadr’s capture, written by an officer identified only as “Lt. Col. W.,” had been altered after the event to implicate the Canadian teenager. As Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler described it, the report initially said that the assailant who threw the grenade had been killed, but was then revised, about two months later, to say that the grenade thrower had been “engaged” (a change that clearly implicated Khadr). “We now know that story was false,” Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler told the reporters, adding, “It’s consistent with the proposition that the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
On Friday, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler asked the judge, Col. Peter Brownback, to allow the defense team to question “Lt. Col. W.” Col. Brownback not only agreed to this request; he also ordered prosecutors to give Khadr’s lawyers a list of all US personnel who had interrogated Khadr in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, and to provide them with access to their notes, postponed the trial’s start date (scheduled for May 5) to allow more time for discussions of acceptable evidence, and rebuffed the government-appointed prosecutors, who claimed, as the Miami Herald described it, “that they had already searched available records and interviewed potential witnesses, and had found nothing more to provide in the discovery phase to defense lawyers.” As the Herald report continued, “Brownback was not persuaded,” and “sent prosecutors back to search US State Department communications with Canada, battlefield dispatches and messages around the time of the 2002 firefight and other records.” “We can’t try the case until we get the discovery done,” Col. Brownback insisted. “So if I have to come down here every week, I’ll do it, what the heck.”
Khadr alleges torture
Capping another difficult week in the administration’s attempts to prosecute Khadr, his lawyers released an eight-page affidavit, in which Khadr himself described his treatment at the hands of both the Americans — in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo — and the Canadian agents who also visited him at Guantánamo. Partly redacted by US censors, the document nevertheless reveals extensive allegations of abuse that, in some cases, seem to amount to torture.
In addition to Khadr’s previously documented claims that he was threatened with rape and was used as a human mop at Guantánamo to wipe up his own urine after he had been held for hours in a stress position and had soiled himself, he reported that he “told a Canadian delegation in 2003 that the Americans ‘would torture’ him — so he told them whatever they wanted’ to hear, but that “The Canadians called me a liar, and I began to sob. They screamed at me and told me they could not do anything for me.” In other sections, he described how, after he embarked on a hunger strike at Guantánamo, “Guards would grab me by pressure points behind my ears, under the jaw and on my neck. On a scale of one to 10, I would say the pain was an 11.”
Khadr also described abuse that took place in the days after his capture, in particular at the hands of a Hispanic MP, who “would often [redacted]. He would tell nurses not to [redacted] since he said that I had killed an American soldier. He would also [redacted] me quite often.” He also reported that something was done to his eyes — “Sometimes they would [redacted] particularly since both my eyes were badly injured” — and described being kneed “repeatedly in the thighs,” a brutal technique, known as the common peroneal strike, whose overuse in Bagram led to the murder of two prisoners, Mullah Habibullah, and a taxi driver named Dilawar, in December 2002.
This comment adds to the suspicion that Khadr was the victim of torture in Bagram, as it was also revealed last week that one of his interrogators was Sgt. Joshua Claus, who was later charged, along with 14 others, of various crimes, including assault and “maltreatment of a detainee” in connection with the murder of the two men, and was sentenced to five months in jail in 2006.
Mohamed Jawad
Omar Khadr was not the only defendant last week to raise the spectre of torture to haunt the Military Commissions. On Wednesday, Mohamed Jawad, an Afghan who, according to his own account, was only 16 when he was seized after allegedly throwing a grenade that wounded two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter, said, as Carol Williams described it in the Los Angeles Times, “that he had been tortured while in US custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan after his arrest, and that he had been mistreated in Guantánamo as well.” “The American government said the Taliban has been very cruel in Afghanistan, that they killed people without any trial and imprisoned people without trial,” Jawad told the judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “When I was in detention at Bagram, Americans killed three people. They beat people and arrested us without trial. We’re not given any rights.”
This was a departure in some ways. As I reported in a detailed article when he was first charged last October, Jawad had not alleged that he had been tortured by US forces during his tribunal and his military reviews at Guantánamo, which were convened, in the first instance, to assess whether he had been correctly designated as an “enemy combatant” when he was captured, and subsequently to assess whether he still constituted a threat to the US or its interests. He had, however, claimed that a false confession had been forced out of him by the Afghan police who first captured him. “[T]hey tortured me,” he said in 2005. “They beat me. They beat me a lot. One person told me, ‘If you don’t confess, they are going to kill you’. So, I told them anything they wanted to hear.”
Although he explicitly stated in his review, “I have never seen or endured any torture in Bagram or here in Cuba by the Americans,” it’s possible that he had previously failed to mention being tortured by US forces because he had concluded that it was wiser not to raise the topic in front of the US military officers who appeared to offer him a chance — however slim — of escaping from Guantánamo for good. It certainly seems unlikely that Jawad was not subjected to abuse while at Bagram, as the period that he was there — from mid-December 2002, two months after Omar Khadr left for Guantánamo — is during that same period, from summer 2002 until sometime in 2003, at the earliest, that the prison was the venue for particularly savage and routine violence that led to the murders mentioned above, and, it should be noted, to an apparent third homicide mentioned not only by Mohamed Jawad, but also by the released British prisoners Moazzam Begg, Richard Belmar and Jamal Kiyemba, as I discuss in my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison.
This alone would make his trial problematical, but Jawad himself raised further hurdles to what the Pentagon clearly hoped would be a straightforward process by declaring the proceedings illegal and refusing to accept representation by his military lawyer, Col. Mike Sawyers. Apparently dragged from his cell to attend the hearing, and wearing the infamous orange garb that, for many years, has been reserved for those ruled “non-compliant,” he told Col. Kohlmann, “My right has not been given to me. I have not violated any international law. There are many accusations against me … they don’t make any sense … I am a human being.” He added, as Steven Edwards described it for the Canwest News Service, that he “continued to be treated unjustly and interrogated, and that he wanted the ‘whole world’ to know it.”
Despite being spurned by his client, Col. Sawyers was vigorous in his defense outside the courtroom, explaining to reporters that western concepts of justice were “completely foreign” to Jawad, and making a statement on his behalf that also resonates with the case of Omar Khadr. “I believe this is the direct result of taking a 16- or 17-year-old boy and putting him in confinement … with no contact with the outside world,” Col. Sawyers said. “He has been in a three-by-seven-(foot) cell … I do not believe he understands the proceedings … I don’t know if I were given ten years I could explain it to him.”
With Jawad’s refusal to engage with the Commissions (asked to enter a plea, he had, by that point, “slumped onto the defense table and refused to respond to Kohlmann’s questions”) and with Col. Sawyers’ active duty about to run out, the case is unlikely to resume in the near future. As Col. Steve David, the Commissions’ chief defense lawyer, explained, he will not be able to assign Jawad a new lawyer for some time, because, unlike the prosecution, which has a full roster of 30 lawyers, he has only nine lawyers on duty, who are already struggling to cope with their caseload.
Ahmed al-Darbi
The last of the cases considered last week — that of Ahmed Mohammed al-Darbi, a 33-year old Saudi — also failed to advance the process. Apparently the brother-in-law of one of the 9/11 hijackers, al-Darbi, described as “polite and responsive” during his arraignment, also refused to enter a plea, and was undecided about whether or not to accept the services of his military lawyer. The administration can, perhaps, count itself lucky that al-Darbi did not wish to speak out, although this is probably only a matter of putting off the inevitable.
Seized in Azerbaijan, al-Darbi was rendered to Afghanistan, and also ended up in Bagram, where, he later alleged, an interrogator named Damien Corsetti, known as “Monster” or “The King of Torture,” abused prisoners by poking them in the face with his naked penis and threatening them with sexual assault. Corsetti was later charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, assault and performing an indecent act with another person, but although he was cleared of all the charges in June 2006, al-Darbi’s presence at Bagram during the period that both Omar Khadr and Mohamed Jawad were there suggests that the well-chronicled torture at the prison during that period — which Corsetti discussed, with refreshing frankness, in a recent interview — will also surface in his trial.
If, as Carol Williams suggested, Mohamed Jawad’s case had been pushed forward before those of the six men (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) who were charged last month in connection with the 9/11 attacks, because the process of finding lawyers for those men has only just begun, and because Jawad’s case — and, by extension, that of Ahmed al-Darbi — were presumed to be easier to win, last weeks’ events have served only to rock the Commissions’ legitimacy once more, highlighting allegations of torture in Bagram as a counter-point to the well-chronicled torture of those charged in connection with 9/11 in secret prisons run by the CIA (in five of the cases) and in Guantánamo in the case of the sixth, Mohammed al-Qahtani.
Ibrahim al-Qosi and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul
Ali Hamza al-Bahlul. A sketch made during his first appearance
before the Military Commissions in 2004. Image from AP.
Nor, it seems, is it likely that torture will be sidestepped in the cases of the other prisoners awaiting arraignment. The Sudanese prisoner Ibrahim al-Qosi and the Yemeni Ali Hamza al-Bahlul (both charged last month for their alleged connections with al-Qaeda) are well-known to those who have been following the Commissions since they first spluttered into life in the summer of 2003. Both were previously charged in the first round of the trials, which were struck down as illegal by the Supreme Court in June 2006, without either man having had the opportunity to discuss the details of their treatment, but in a hearing in 2004 al-Bahlul’s military defense lawyer, Maj. Tom Fleener, told the judge, Col. Peter Brownback, “I believe Mr. al-Bahlul was tortured,” adding that it was “going to be an issue” in any trial faced by his client.
A sketch of Ibrahim al-Qosi, made
during his first appearance before
the Military Commissions in 2004.
Image: Art Lien/Getty Images.Similar territory was covered by Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, who was assigned to represent al-Qosi. According to a report in the Nation in December 2005, she “characterized his treatment as possibly torture but certainly inhumane treatment; he was held in stress positions for protracted periods, subjected to military dogs and sexually humiliated.”
If there is a “clean” case that can be presented to the Commissions without ensnaring the administration in ever more lengthy and damaging allegations relating to the use of torture by US forces, it has yet to be found. Just possibly, however, the Pentagon’s announcement, during the fallout from Mohamed Jawad’s boycott of his arraignment, that another Afghan — Mohammed Kamin — would also face a trial by Military Commission was intended to fulfil the administration’s elusive dream: the successful prosecution of a prisoner who will not claim that he was tortured.
Mohammed Kamin
On the surface, Mohammed Kamin fulfils this criterion, although he also seems, like many before him, to be an unworthy candidate for any kind of war crimes trial at all. In his charge sheet (PDF), he is accused of “providing material support for terrorism,” specifically by receiving training at “an al-Qaeda training camp,” conducting surveillance on US and coalition military bases and activities, planting two mines under a bridge, and launching missiles at the city of Khost while it was occupied by US and coalition forces. He is not charged with harming, let along killing US forces, and were it not for his supposed al-Qaeda connection — he apparently stated in interrogation that he was “recruited by an al-Qaeda cell leader” — it would, I think, be impossible to make the case that he was involved in “terrorism” at all. As it is, I’m prepared to state that his case seems to me to demonstrate how hopelessly blurred the distinctions between military resistance (aka insurgency) and terrorism have become, so that anyone caught fighting US occupation is not engaged in a war (with its own well-established laws) but is automatically part of a global terrorist movement.
In a courtroom, of course, it may well emerge that, like all the others mentioned above, Mohammed Kamin will reveal — or at least allege — that he too was tortured, adding to the increasing suspicion that there is no corner of the post-9/11 prison system that is beyond the cold hand of the torturer, whose actions were sanctioned at the highest levels of the government. In the full glare of the world’s media, the Military Commissions continue to expose the very torture and abuse that the administration has strived so hard to conceal, and I cannot see how they can ever result in a prosecution that will be recognized as valid. As the Bush administration counts down its last months in office, the only solution, it seems to me, is to maintain the pressure on the next administration to move the trials to federal courts on the US mainland.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed, and see here for my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, published in March 2009.
Friday, July 24, 2009
And here's another photo, this one from India, of another wee babe whose parents have tied him into a swaddle under a truck. Its ingenious and incredibly darling at the same time.
This is a vrai cool photograph, of this amazing tradition- someone dresses up as the Devil (I always think of him as Shaitan) and jumps over babies to protect them from harm, in a town in Spain. This took place a week or two ago. I adored the serious expressions on everyone's faces.
This was today's opinion on Affy in Time magazine.
Time was kind to the U.S. over its invasion of Iraq: the Bush Administration was able to waste four years pursuing misguided strategies there before finally getting things right last year and turning the situation around. But the new U.S. military approach to winning the war in Afghanistan is likely to take years, if not decades, to bear fruit, and there are growing signs that America's patience is fraying. On July 23, Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that a lot more sacrifice would be required of Americans, but he insisted that it was worth the price to "straighten out" the Afghan-Pakistan border region because of the terrorism threat it potentially represents to Europe and the U.S. Still, American officials are lowering expectations after nearly eight years of fighting in Afghanistan, insisting that progress rather than victory is the best that can be achieved over the coming year.
"We've seen the security for the Afghan people deteriorate over the last three years," Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told troops during a visit to southern Afghanistan on July 17. "We have to start to turn that tide over the next 12 to 18 months." Even as Mullen was hoping for a year and a half to turn things around, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged on the same day that the U.S. public is war-weary and that progress must come quickly. "After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway," Gates told the Los Angeles Times. "The troops are tired; the American people are pretty tired."
(See pictures from the front lines of the battle in Afghanistan.)
Gates and Mullen face a raft of festering problems in Afghanistan: the Taliban and its allies are growing stronger, and they have killed 35 U.S. troops in the first three weeks of July — more than in any month since the U.S. invaded in October 2001. The Afghan government is salted with corruption, while its prisons are hellholes that turn citizens against their government. Pakistan remains a safe haven for launching attacks against U.S. and NATO troops in eastern Afghanistan, and despite the Obama Administration's strenuous efforts at persuasion, Islamabad shows little interest in extending its campaign against domestic extremism into a fight against the Afghan insurgency.
To grapple with the war he inherited, President Obama has made several important changes. He and Gates fired the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan in May, replacing him with General Stanley McChrystal, who is currently in the middle of a 60-day assessment of how to turn the Afghan war around. Obama is dispatching an additional 21,000 U.S. troops there this year, bringing the total to 68,000 by 2010. His commanders recently ordered 4,000 Marines into Helmand province to begin the long process of "clear, hold and build" — driving the Taliban out of its strongholds, staying there to make sure the insurgents don't return and rebuilding civil institutions crushed by 30 years of war.
(Read "A New General, and a New War, in Afghanistan.")
While Americans might believe these latest moves are helping put the Afghan war back on track, a report released on July 22 by the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies says much more needs to be done. This Washington-based think tank is no bunch of liberal do-gooders; it's run by John Hamre, a former Pentagon deputy secretary who also serves as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which advises Gates on national-security issues.
The author of the report, military expert Anthony Cordesman, pulls no punches. "It's very clear we haven't put the money in to win, we haven't put the troops in to win, and we haven't given the Afghan security forces the resources to win," Cordesman told TIME on July 22. His 28-page study, titled "The Afghanistan Campaign: Can We Win?," raises strong doubts about Washington's willingness to do what he thinks is needed to prevail. Its conclusion is bleak: "The odds of success are not yet good, and failure is all too real a possibility." And Cordesman isn't some ivory-tower critic — he recently returned from a month in Afghanistan, where he served as a member of McChrystal's strategic-assessment group.
(Read "Can Afghanistan Support a Beefed-Up Military?")
The war, Cordesman writes, has been bungled since the U.S. launched it after the 9/11 attacks to punish the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden. "Americans need to understand that the war has been critically under-resourced for seven years, almost totally because of U.S. decisions and mistakes," the report says. "This has been the key reason the insurgents have taken the initiative." He says the Pentagon should be ready to dispatch between three and six brigade combat teams (10,000 to 25,000 additional U.S. troops) over the coming year. "This is an American-led war, and large increases in U.S. military forces will be needed to win it," he writes. Yet such troop hikes will only further unnerve those in Congress — especially Democrats — who fear that Afghanistan could become Obama's Vietnam.
The Afghan army — now 86,000 strong with a goal of fielding 134,000 — actually needs 240,000 troopsk, and the 82,000-strong Afghan national police force needs to grow to 160,000, Cordesman says. And time is running out. "The situation has deteriorated into a crisis where the Taliban and other jihadist movements are now winning," he writes. "The steady deterioration of security has now reached the crisis level."
Gates and other Americans eager to see rapid progress in Afghanistan need to know that turning the situation around — even with added troops and money — will require "lasting strategic patience," says Cordesman. Even then, they may want to recalibrate their expectations. "Many aspects of the progress required can only move at an Afghan pace," Cordesman writes, "and must be achieved on Afghan terms." But the question of whether America has the patience to maintain its commitment on such an extended time frame is precisely what has Gates worried.
Time was kind to the U.S. over its invasion of Iraq: the Bush Administration was able to waste four years pursuing misguided strategies there before finally getting things right last year and turning the situation around. But the new U.S. military approach to winning the war in Afghanistan is likely to take years, if not decades, to bear fruit, and there are growing signs that America's patience is fraying. On July 23, Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that a lot more sacrifice would be required of Americans, but he insisted that it was worth the price to "straighten out" the Afghan-Pakistan border region because of the terrorism threat it potentially represents to Europe and the U.S. Still, American officials are lowering expectations after nearly eight years of fighting in Afghanistan, insisting that progress rather than victory is the best that can be achieved over the coming year.
"We've seen the security for the Afghan people deteriorate over the last three years," Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told troops during a visit to southern Afghanistan on July 17. "We have to start to turn that tide over the next 12 to 18 months." Even as Mullen was hoping for a year and a half to turn things around, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged on the same day that the U.S. public is war-weary and that progress must come quickly. "After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway," Gates told the Los Angeles Times. "The troops are tired; the American people are pretty tired."
(See pictures from the front lines of the battle in Afghanistan.)
Gates and Mullen face a raft of festering problems in Afghanistan: the Taliban and its allies are growing stronger, and they have killed 35 U.S. troops in the first three weeks of July — more than in any month since the U.S. invaded in October 2001. The Afghan government is salted with corruption, while its prisons are hellholes that turn citizens against their government. Pakistan remains a safe haven for launching attacks against U.S. and NATO troops in eastern Afghanistan, and despite the Obama Administration's strenuous efforts at persuasion, Islamabad shows little interest in extending its campaign against domestic extremism into a fight against the Afghan insurgency.
To grapple with the war he inherited, President Obama has made several important changes. He and Gates fired the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan in May, replacing him with General Stanley McChrystal, who is currently in the middle of a 60-day assessment of how to turn the Afghan war around. Obama is dispatching an additional 21,000 U.S. troops there this year, bringing the total to 68,000 by 2010. His commanders recently ordered 4,000 Marines into Helmand province to begin the long process of "clear, hold and build" — driving the Taliban out of its strongholds, staying there to make sure the insurgents don't return and rebuilding civil institutions crushed by 30 years of war.
(Read "A New General, and a New War, in Afghanistan.")
While Americans might believe these latest moves are helping put the Afghan war back on track, a report released on July 22 by the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies says much more needs to be done. This Washington-based think tank is no bunch of liberal do-gooders; it's run by John Hamre, a former Pentagon deputy secretary who also serves as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which advises Gates on national-security issues.
The author of the report, military expert Anthony Cordesman, pulls no punches. "It's very clear we haven't put the money in to win, we haven't put the troops in to win, and we haven't given the Afghan security forces the resources to win," Cordesman told TIME on July 22. His 28-page study, titled "The Afghanistan Campaign: Can We Win?," raises strong doubts about Washington's willingness to do what he thinks is needed to prevail. Its conclusion is bleak: "The odds of success are not yet good, and failure is all too real a possibility." And Cordesman isn't some ivory-tower critic — he recently returned from a month in Afghanistan, where he served as a member of McChrystal's strategic-assessment group.
(Read "Can Afghanistan Support a Beefed-Up Military?")
The war, Cordesman writes, has been bungled since the U.S. launched it after the 9/11 attacks to punish the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden. "Americans need to understand that the war has been critically under-resourced for seven years, almost totally because of U.S. decisions and mistakes," the report says. "This has been the key reason the insurgents have taken the initiative." He says the Pentagon should be ready to dispatch between three and six brigade combat teams (10,000 to 25,000 additional U.S. troops) over the coming year. "This is an American-led war, and large increases in U.S. military forces will be needed to win it," he writes. Yet such troop hikes will only further unnerve those in Congress — especially Democrats — who fear that Afghanistan could become Obama's Vietnam.
The Afghan army — now 86,000 strong with a goal of fielding 134,000 — actually needs 240,000 troopsk, and the 82,000-strong Afghan national police force needs to grow to 160,000, Cordesman says. And time is running out. "The situation has deteriorated into a crisis where the Taliban and other jihadist movements are now winning," he writes. "The steady deterioration of security has now reached the crisis level."
Gates and other Americans eager to see rapid progress in Afghanistan need to know that turning the situation around — even with added troops and money — will require "lasting strategic patience," says Cordesman. Even then, they may want to recalibrate their expectations. "Many aspects of the progress required can only move at an Afghan pace," Cordesman writes, "and must be achieved on Afghan terms." But the question of whether America has the patience to maintain its commitment on such an extended time frame is precisely what has Gates worried.
I couldn't find out what happened to John M. Russell- this troubled soul is likely abandoned inside the military borg- but I did find this incredibly astute commentary about WHY he went psycho(- as if the dire threat of ending up in the mental health gulag wouldn't make anyone, already stressed beyond belief, at least a little crazy). As I said a couple of months ago, his life is totally wrecked as a result of what happened, and it was of course well nigh preventable. His difficulties ought to be a flashpoint for debate- his father gave a pretty good rendition of a man in hell, and someone who recognized that his son had been placed in a completely extraordinary and increasingly desperate situation as the war ramps on, in regard to typical societal norms.
War's other victims
With an exhausted and stressed U.S. military, is it any wonder horrific incidents occur?
By Lawrence J. Korb
July 13, 2009
Now that the U.S. has for all practical purposes ended its combat role in Iraq by withdrawing from its cities and towns, we should pause to honor those brave men and women who have sacrificed so much these past 75 months. But we should also think about two veterans of that war whose crimes shocked the Army and the nation. In many ways, they were also victims of this war.
On May 7, Private Steven Dale Green, 24, was convicted of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killing her and three members of her family on March 11, 2006, in Iraq, when he was 21 years old. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On May 11, - between Private Green's conviction and his sentencing - Sgt. John M. Russell, 44, was charged with gunning down five American service members at a counseling center on an American military base in Baghdad.
While Private Green and Sergeant Russell (if he is found guilty) should receive appropriate punishment for their crimes, they are not the only ones who should be held responsible for these terrible acts. The military and civilian officials who did not speak up about allowing the all-volunteer Army to fight long wars, for which it was not constituted, should also be held accountable, as should the politicians who tried to fight the war on the cheap - and the American people who originally supported the war but refused to make any sacrifices to support it. Had these people acted responsibly, Private Green would never have been allowed to join the Army and Sergeant Russell would not have done three one-year tours in Iraq over the past six years.
When this country transitioned to the all-volunteer force in 1973, it was decided that the peacetime Army would be comparatively small. Without the hidden tax of conscription, manpower costs would double. And because it does not have as many skills that can be transferred to the private sector and because it needs to recruit more people than the other services, the Army has the most difficult time attracting high quality recruits. But if the nation became involved in a "long war," the Guard and Reserves would serve as a bridge to conscription. This is why young men still must register with the selective service when they turn 18.
By the summer of 2003, it became clear that the war in Iraq would require maintaining a large number of troops on the ground for a prolonged period. Moreover, as the war become increasingly unpopular, it became more and more difficult for the Army to attract qualified people to its ranks. If there was ever a time to reconstitute the draft, it was in late 2003, and certainly by early 2004. But since our political leaders lacked the stomach to take such action, and because the American people refused to support it, they forced our military leaders to resort to stopgap measures that violated their own policies and caused irreparable harm to their troops and the nation.
To attract a sufficient number of volunteers, the Army greatly lowered its educational, aptitude, moral and psychological standards. By 2005, the Army began to take in more and more non-high school graduates with low aptitudes and criminal convictions by granting them waivers. One of the people receiving a "moral character" waiver in January 2005 was Steven Green, a high school dropout with three criminal convictions and psychological problems.
Within nine months after joining the Army, Mr. Green was deployed to Iraq. Two months into his deployment he began to show signs of acute stress disorder, and four months later he committed the atrocities. In May 2006, a month after his return from Iraq, the Army discharged Mr. Green due to an antisocial personality disorder, but the damage had already been done.
Similarly, because the Army did not have enough soldiers, it could not allow the troops sufficient time between deployments. According to Army policy, a soldier should have a minimum of two months at home for every month spent in a combat zone. But given the demand for troops in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, soldiers were lucky to receive one year at home between yearlong deployments. In fact, after the surge of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates extended the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months and allowed them only 12 months at home. That same year, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have mandated that troops could not be sent back to a combat zone without spending a minimum of one month at home for every month spent in a combat zone.
Sergeant Russell spent about 35 months in Iraq. A Defense Business Board report in January 2009 concluded that anyone who has spent 25 months in Iraq is over-stressed. Had the Army followed its own policy, Mr. Russell would not have done more than two tours in Iraq. As a result of these back-to-back deployments, some 350,000 troops who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from anxiety, stress or other emotional problems. Many also suffer from depression, and last year 140 soldiers committed suicide.
At the time of the incident that led to the five counts of murder against him, Mr. Russell had been ordered to seek counseling for his mental problems. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the incident speaks to the issue of multiple deployments as well as the need for increasing time at home between deployments. But why did our highest-ranking military officers not speak out publicly and tell the politicians they needed to have a draft if they wanted to conduct the war in Iraq responsibly?
Had Mr. Mullen or other senior military and civilian officials stood up and refused to lower the standards for new recruits, or refused to send soldiers back into combat without sufficient time at home, these horrible incidents might not have occurred. Instead, they pretended that all the problems were manageable. Let us hope the military, and nation, will learn from these tragic mistakes.
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. His e-mail is lkorb@americanprogress.org. Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun
War's other victims
With an exhausted and stressed U.S. military, is it any wonder horrific incidents occur?
By Lawrence J. Korb
July 13, 2009
Now that the U.S. has for all practical purposes ended its combat role in Iraq by withdrawing from its cities and towns, we should pause to honor those brave men and women who have sacrificed so much these past 75 months. But we should also think about two veterans of that war whose crimes shocked the Army and the nation. In many ways, they were also victims of this war.
On May 7, Private Steven Dale Green, 24, was convicted of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killing her and three members of her family on March 11, 2006, in Iraq, when he was 21 years old. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On May 11, - between Private Green's conviction and his sentencing - Sgt. John M. Russell, 44, was charged with gunning down five American service members at a counseling center on an American military base in Baghdad.
While Private Green and Sergeant Russell (if he is found guilty) should receive appropriate punishment for their crimes, they are not the only ones who should be held responsible for these terrible acts. The military and civilian officials who did not speak up about allowing the all-volunteer Army to fight long wars, for which it was not constituted, should also be held accountable, as should the politicians who tried to fight the war on the cheap - and the American people who originally supported the war but refused to make any sacrifices to support it. Had these people acted responsibly, Private Green would never have been allowed to join the Army and Sergeant Russell would not have done three one-year tours in Iraq over the past six years.
When this country transitioned to the all-volunteer force in 1973, it was decided that the peacetime Army would be comparatively small. Without the hidden tax of conscription, manpower costs would double. And because it does not have as many skills that can be transferred to the private sector and because it needs to recruit more people than the other services, the Army has the most difficult time attracting high quality recruits. But if the nation became involved in a "long war," the Guard and Reserves would serve as a bridge to conscription. This is why young men still must register with the selective service when they turn 18.
By the summer of 2003, it became clear that the war in Iraq would require maintaining a large number of troops on the ground for a prolonged period. Moreover, as the war become increasingly unpopular, it became more and more difficult for the Army to attract qualified people to its ranks. If there was ever a time to reconstitute the draft, it was in late 2003, and certainly by early 2004. But since our political leaders lacked the stomach to take such action, and because the American people refused to support it, they forced our military leaders to resort to stopgap measures that violated their own policies and caused irreparable harm to their troops and the nation.
To attract a sufficient number of volunteers, the Army greatly lowered its educational, aptitude, moral and psychological standards. By 2005, the Army began to take in more and more non-high school graduates with low aptitudes and criminal convictions by granting them waivers. One of the people receiving a "moral character" waiver in January 2005 was Steven Green, a high school dropout with three criminal convictions and psychological problems.
Within nine months after joining the Army, Mr. Green was deployed to Iraq. Two months into his deployment he began to show signs of acute stress disorder, and four months later he committed the atrocities. In May 2006, a month after his return from Iraq, the Army discharged Mr. Green due to an antisocial personality disorder, but the damage had already been done.
Similarly, because the Army did not have enough soldiers, it could not allow the troops sufficient time between deployments. According to Army policy, a soldier should have a minimum of two months at home for every month spent in a combat zone. But given the demand for troops in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, soldiers were lucky to receive one year at home between yearlong deployments. In fact, after the surge of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates extended the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months and allowed them only 12 months at home. That same year, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have mandated that troops could not be sent back to a combat zone without spending a minimum of one month at home for every month spent in a combat zone.
Sergeant Russell spent about 35 months in Iraq. A Defense Business Board report in January 2009 concluded that anyone who has spent 25 months in Iraq is over-stressed. Had the Army followed its own policy, Mr. Russell would not have done more than two tours in Iraq. As a result of these back-to-back deployments, some 350,000 troops who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from anxiety, stress or other emotional problems. Many also suffer from depression, and last year 140 soldiers committed suicide.
At the time of the incident that led to the five counts of murder against him, Mr. Russell had been ordered to seek counseling for his mental problems. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the incident speaks to the issue of multiple deployments as well as the need for increasing time at home between deployments. But why did our highest-ranking military officers not speak out publicly and tell the politicians they needed to have a draft if they wanted to conduct the war in Iraq responsibly?
Had Mr. Mullen or other senior military and civilian officials stood up and refused to lower the standards for new recruits, or refused to send soldiers back into combat without sufficient time at home, these horrible incidents might not have occurred. Instead, they pretended that all the problems were manageable. Let us hope the military, and nation, will learn from these tragic mistakes.
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. His e-mail is lkorb@americanprogress.org. Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun
This story is from the Happy News website, which I love, and often check when I need a break from all the craziness. Happy News is at http://www.happynews.com and you're always guaranteed to come away from it feeling much better than when you arrived. Its a totally brilliant idea.
A couple of weeks ago, I watched people participate in this sport while I was watching some climbing videos. I love climbing and watching people perform all of these amazing feats, and these other videos that I saw were just intense! Now I finally have a full explanation of what I was watching, thanks to MSNBC. Exciting, to say the least.
With Parkour, the Whole World’s a Playground
Jacqueline Stenson, MSNBC
JULY 21, 2009
Chad Bowers didn’t learn about his favorite new workout at the gym or by reading an article about it. He watched videos on YouTube, where people have posted thousands of clips of themselves jumping over benches and railings, leaping down flights of stairs, climbing up walls and fences, and swinging from playground equipment and tree branches.
They’re practicing parkour, an extreme sport rooted in French military training that has been spreading to cities across America. Parkour fans are typically people like Bowers who discover it on the Internet and then start up local parkour clubs that get together for “jams.”
Bowers, 20, a junior at Drury University in Springfield, Mo., started practicing parkour almost a year ago. He met with more experienced practitioners – known as “traceurs” (males) or “traceuses” (females) — in Kansas City and St. Louis, and he and a friend created a group called Springfield Parkour.
The group is organized on Facebook and gathers on Saturdays at a local park where activities include warming up, performing calisthenics and practicing moves such as landing and rolling. Then they go “run around downtown Springfield,” says Bowers, jumping and climbing on benches, fountains and parking garages.
Essentially, the world is one big playground for them.
Running, jumping and rolling on cement or vaulting over walls — usually without protective gear — might not seem all that appealing or smart to the average person. But parkour and a related activity called freerunning have been glamorized in videos, TV commercials and movies such as “Casino Royale,” attracting young people — mostly guys, though more women and girls are getting involved — who are seeking out new adventure and alternative ways to get in shape.
“I like that it is a great workout, a total body workout,” says Bowers. “It’s a great way to challenge yourself, to test what your mind can do, and it’s also a lot of fun.”
Sometime later this year, MTV is planning to air a special titled “Ultimate Parkour Challenge,” which will feature eight top parkour athletes competing and performing stunts such as jumping between buildings. Victor Bevine, one of the show’s co-executive producers and a co-founder of the World Freerunning and Parkour Federation, of which the eight athletes belong, says the show is “very much not ‘Jackass.’” The athletes have prepared extensively for their stunts, he says.
Parkour is often defined as getting from “point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible using only the human body,” says Mark Toorock, a parkour trainer who owns the gym Primal Fitness in Washington, D.C., and runs americanparkour.com.
But that definition isn’t entirely accurate, Toorock says. For example, the quickest and most efficient way to travel three city blocks would be to run straight, not climb and jump over nearly every object along the way. “We do it for training purposes because walking up the stairs doesn’t challenge us,” he says.
Freerunning is an offshoot of parkour that refers to creative moves such as flips and spins and other gymnastic-style stunts.
Risks for the overly daring
Nobody knows how many people practice parkour, but Bevine estimates the number is in the “tens of thousands” worldwide. “It is the fastest growing extreme sport in the world,” he claims.
Toorock agrees that the sport, which he says was introduced to America around 2004, is “definitely growing,” particularly in urban areas such as Miami, Chicago, Denver, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.
While parkour fans enjoy the thrills and freedom of the sport, it can carry risks, particularly for the untrained and the overly daring.
Some of the top parkour athletes, such as parkour originator and French actor David Belle and the competitors in the MTV show, might jump from one rooftop to another, but that’s not what average parkour practitioners do, Toorock says.
“Our message is very clear — you have to practice safely,” he says. At his gym, people practice their moves indoors with trainers, learning how to land and roll safely before heading outdoors. Participants are advised to take things slowly, hone their techniques and get in strong physical shape.
While there are no statistics on injuries from parkour, Jeffrey Ross, a spokesperson for the American College of Sports Medicine and an associate clinical professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, suspects there could be a significant number.
Never a dull moment
With all the jumps and falls, participants risk stress fractures, ankle and knee sprains, and ligament injuries, among other potential problems, says Ross, a foot and ankle specialist. And the sport could be quite dangerous if participants attempted over-the-top stunts such as jumping from one building to another, he says.
It would be a huge mistake for beginners fascinated by the performances of elite parkour athletes on a TV show or Web video to take the sport too far too fast, cautions Jessica Matthews, a personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise in San Diego.
“I fear that individuals won’t realize the amount of work and groundwork that these [top parkour athletes] have gone through to get to that point,” she says.
Above all, she advises, “Don’t just view a video and go out and try to recreate that.”
And while parkour practitioners relish the unfettered freedom of the sport, Matthews strongly recommends protective gear such as a helmet and elbow and knee pads, at the very least for beginners.
“The thrill is being out there and being free and being creative,” she says. “But the No. 1 concern for us is that it’s done safely.”
On the plus side, Matthews says, parkour may encourage physical fitness because it’s “outside of the box.” In particular, it may appeal to people who would otherwise not stay active because they don’t like exercising in “the confines of a gym.”
That was a big draw for Phil Howe, 24, who trains at Primal Fitness in Washington, D.C., and goes to local parkour jams.
“I wanted to do something that wasn’t so rules-based, or going to a gym and staying in a gym,” he says.
And with parkour, there’s never a dull moment, says Howe. “My biggest goal is to keep things interesting and definitely there’s no lack of that.”
A couple of weeks ago, I watched people participate in this sport while I was watching some climbing videos. I love climbing and watching people perform all of these amazing feats, and these other videos that I saw were just intense! Now I finally have a full explanation of what I was watching, thanks to MSNBC. Exciting, to say the least.
With Parkour, the Whole World’s a Playground
Jacqueline Stenson, MSNBC
JULY 21, 2009
Chad Bowers didn’t learn about his favorite new workout at the gym or by reading an article about it. He watched videos on YouTube, where people have posted thousands of clips of themselves jumping over benches and railings, leaping down flights of stairs, climbing up walls and fences, and swinging from playground equipment and tree branches.
They’re practicing parkour, an extreme sport rooted in French military training that has been spreading to cities across America. Parkour fans are typically people like Bowers who discover it on the Internet and then start up local parkour clubs that get together for “jams.”
Bowers, 20, a junior at Drury University in Springfield, Mo., started practicing parkour almost a year ago. He met with more experienced practitioners – known as “traceurs” (males) or “traceuses” (females) — in Kansas City and St. Louis, and he and a friend created a group called Springfield Parkour.
The group is organized on Facebook and gathers on Saturdays at a local park where activities include warming up, performing calisthenics and practicing moves such as landing and rolling. Then they go “run around downtown Springfield,” says Bowers, jumping and climbing on benches, fountains and parking garages.
Essentially, the world is one big playground for them.
Running, jumping and rolling on cement or vaulting over walls — usually without protective gear — might not seem all that appealing or smart to the average person. But parkour and a related activity called freerunning have been glamorized in videos, TV commercials and movies such as “Casino Royale,” attracting young people — mostly guys, though more women and girls are getting involved — who are seeking out new adventure and alternative ways to get in shape.
“I like that it is a great workout, a total body workout,” says Bowers. “It’s a great way to challenge yourself, to test what your mind can do, and it’s also a lot of fun.”
Sometime later this year, MTV is planning to air a special titled “Ultimate Parkour Challenge,” which will feature eight top parkour athletes competing and performing stunts such as jumping between buildings. Victor Bevine, one of the show’s co-executive producers and a co-founder of the World Freerunning and Parkour Federation, of which the eight athletes belong, says the show is “very much not ‘Jackass.’” The athletes have prepared extensively for their stunts, he says.
Parkour is often defined as getting from “point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible using only the human body,” says Mark Toorock, a parkour trainer who owns the gym Primal Fitness in Washington, D.C., and runs americanparkour.com.
But that definition isn’t entirely accurate, Toorock says. For example, the quickest and most efficient way to travel three city blocks would be to run straight, not climb and jump over nearly every object along the way. “We do it for training purposes because walking up the stairs doesn’t challenge us,” he says.
Freerunning is an offshoot of parkour that refers to creative moves such as flips and spins and other gymnastic-style stunts.
Risks for the overly daring
Nobody knows how many people practice parkour, but Bevine estimates the number is in the “tens of thousands” worldwide. “It is the fastest growing extreme sport in the world,” he claims.
Toorock agrees that the sport, which he says was introduced to America around 2004, is “definitely growing,” particularly in urban areas such as Miami, Chicago, Denver, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.
While parkour fans enjoy the thrills and freedom of the sport, it can carry risks, particularly for the untrained and the overly daring.
Some of the top parkour athletes, such as parkour originator and French actor David Belle and the competitors in the MTV show, might jump from one rooftop to another, but that’s not what average parkour practitioners do, Toorock says.
“Our message is very clear — you have to practice safely,” he says. At his gym, people practice their moves indoors with trainers, learning how to land and roll safely before heading outdoors. Participants are advised to take things slowly, hone their techniques and get in strong physical shape.
While there are no statistics on injuries from parkour, Jeffrey Ross, a spokesperson for the American College of Sports Medicine and an associate clinical professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, suspects there could be a significant number.
Never a dull moment
With all the jumps and falls, participants risk stress fractures, ankle and knee sprains, and ligament injuries, among other potential problems, says Ross, a foot and ankle specialist. And the sport could be quite dangerous if participants attempted over-the-top stunts such as jumping from one building to another, he says.
It would be a huge mistake for beginners fascinated by the performances of elite parkour athletes on a TV show or Web video to take the sport too far too fast, cautions Jessica Matthews, a personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise in San Diego.
“I fear that individuals won’t realize the amount of work and groundwork that these [top parkour athletes] have gone through to get to that point,” she says.
Above all, she advises, “Don’t just view a video and go out and try to recreate that.”
And while parkour practitioners relish the unfettered freedom of the sport, Matthews strongly recommends protective gear such as a helmet and elbow and knee pads, at the very least for beginners.
“The thrill is being out there and being free and being creative,” she says. “But the No. 1 concern for us is that it’s done safely.”
On the plus side, Matthews says, parkour may encourage physical fitness because it’s “outside of the box.” In particular, it may appeal to people who would otherwise not stay active because they don’t like exercising in “the confines of a gym.”
That was a big draw for Phil Howe, 24, who trains at Primal Fitness in Washington, D.C., and goes to local parkour jams.
“I wanted to do something that wasn’t so rules-based, or going to a gym and staying in a gym,” he says.
And with parkour, there’s never a dull moment, says Howe. “My biggest goal is to keep things interesting and definitely there’s no lack of that.”
This is from a post today at the DailyKOS, encapsulating the very real scenario that the left is really not the sole preserve of antiwar ideology, and indeed that a strong site of dissent is in fact on the right. I've always felt that the left right paradigmn was a very artificial reification, and now it seems that it is busting apart altogether. I've noticed this in Canada, too, with rightist pro-Harperites criticizing the (obstensibly) left Liberal party for being pro-torture and increased militarization, although from a perusal of Libblogs during the Gaza fiasco I would argue that there are a number of anti-agressionistas still closeted in the Liberal party, whereas I don't necessarily get that sense in Harper's cabinet- well maybe with some people, but I'm too smart to name names.
So what is to be done when the Democrats and the Republicans present a united pro war front, and seek to marginalize those of us who continue to point out the insanity of America's ongoing wars and the war crimes being committed in the process? As right wing opposition gradually grows stronger as more and more right wingers take on the anti war position as a way to criticize Obama and the Democrats, will the marginalized left wing anti war forces stand by and let the movement be redefined as a conservative opposition movement in the vein of conservative opposition to FDR's bringing the US into the Second World War? Or can an apolitical ant war movement transcend the fairly arbitrary American political dualism (for the life of me I can't tell the centrists apart - though the bomb throwers on both sides do come off different even if they both throw their bombs in the service of the same regime and the bombs seem to always land on brown people in the Third World who happen to be sitting on some natural resources).
The same dynamic, incidentally, is in play also in the domestic counterpart to America’s militarism abroad, the internal police state. There are those on both the left and the right who stand against the increasingly militarized police forces, in their zero tolerance rampage, packing our prisons with millions of our countrymen. Those on the right oppose it because they think it’s the prelude to a coming totalitarian regime, and those on the left oppose it because of civil rights considerations and the obvious racism and classism of the police state. Those on the left think the right wing opponents are paranoid militia wackos, and those on the right think the left wing opponents are bleeding hearts or reverse racists or some such thing. As a result, both sides of the opposition remain marginalized, as the center continues to expand the police forces, pass more draconian sentencing laws, and build more prisons.
I know that for the people here, the political divisions are very significant, and an alliance with libertarian forces is out of the question, in contradiction to Barack Obama’s own favored approach of seeking out such areas of agreement in order to come together as a nation. Bipartisanship is acceptable on war funding bills, but not on war opposition, it appears. But at what point do our duty to humanity and the absolute moral imperative to oppose butchers as they systematically cleave their way across the globe transcend American domestic politics and link all of the people opposed to war together, regardless of their other political positions? Is the construct of the American two party system so strong as to override such moral concerns? Are the psychological barriers created within us by systematic indoctrination dividing the people into warring camps too great to overcome, even while the actual disagreements between the camps largely come down to symbolic issues and 93-1 votes to expand the wars? Because if they are, the anti war movement in American will remain impotent and marginal, as the militarists intend it to be, and the world will continue to tremble under the boot of the American "liberators."
So what is to be done when the Democrats and the Republicans present a united pro war front, and seek to marginalize those of us who continue to point out the insanity of America's ongoing wars and the war crimes being committed in the process? As right wing opposition gradually grows stronger as more and more right wingers take on the anti war position as a way to criticize Obama and the Democrats, will the marginalized left wing anti war forces stand by and let the movement be redefined as a conservative opposition movement in the vein of conservative opposition to FDR's bringing the US into the Second World War? Or can an apolitical ant war movement transcend the fairly arbitrary American political dualism (for the life of me I can't tell the centrists apart - though the bomb throwers on both sides do come off different even if they both throw their bombs in the service of the same regime and the bombs seem to always land on brown people in the Third World who happen to be sitting on some natural resources).
The same dynamic, incidentally, is in play also in the domestic counterpart to America’s militarism abroad, the internal police state. There are those on both the left and the right who stand against the increasingly militarized police forces, in their zero tolerance rampage, packing our prisons with millions of our countrymen. Those on the right oppose it because they think it’s the prelude to a coming totalitarian regime, and those on the left oppose it because of civil rights considerations and the obvious racism and classism of the police state. Those on the left think the right wing opponents are paranoid militia wackos, and those on the right think the left wing opponents are bleeding hearts or reverse racists or some such thing. As a result, both sides of the opposition remain marginalized, as the center continues to expand the police forces, pass more draconian sentencing laws, and build more prisons.
I know that for the people here, the political divisions are very significant, and an alliance with libertarian forces is out of the question, in contradiction to Barack Obama’s own favored approach of seeking out such areas of agreement in order to come together as a nation. Bipartisanship is acceptable on war funding bills, but not on war opposition, it appears. But at what point do our duty to humanity and the absolute moral imperative to oppose butchers as they systematically cleave their way across the globe transcend American domestic politics and link all of the people opposed to war together, regardless of their other political positions? Is the construct of the American two party system so strong as to override such moral concerns? Are the psychological barriers created within us by systematic indoctrination dividing the people into warring camps too great to overcome, even while the actual disagreements between the camps largely come down to symbolic issues and 93-1 votes to expand the wars? Because if they are, the anti war movement in American will remain impotent and marginal, as the militarists intend it to be, and the world will continue to tremble under the boot of the American "liberators."
US stops giving militant death tolls in Afghanistan
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US military in Afghanistan has stopped releasing figures showing how many militants have been killed in fighting with US-led forces, officials said Friday.
"Indicating the number of insurgents killed has little relevance to impacting the lives of Afghans," Rear Admiral Gregory Smith said in an email to AFP.
"In fact, if that were the only purpose and metric, you would likely only extend the time it takes to bring about an end to the insurgency."
Smith sent an order last month to NATO and US forces blocking the military from releasing details on militant death tolls and providing estimates instead.
"The goal of security operations in an insurgency is to separate the people from the insurgents. Without access to the people, the insurgents lose their main center of gravity," he said.
Smith, who is revamping communications for the US military and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, stressed US-led military operations were not aimed at killing insurgents.
The objective was to "clear areas of insurgency and give the people a chance to reconnect with official forms of governance and to rebuild their lives, socially and economically."
The move comes as President Barack Obama's administration is shifting the US war strategy in Afghanistan toward enhancing the safety of civilians, seeking to stem support for the deadly Taliban insurgency.
Colonel Greg Julian, the outgoing spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan, said he had previously released militant death tolls in order to counter propaganda by the Taliban and its Al-Qaeda allies.
"In the past, I gave specific details of what took place during engagements to counter insurgent lies and exaggerations," he said in an email.
"The insurgent lying tactic is now widely understood and it is far better to focus on the improvements to security and quality of life improvements for Afghans than the number of insurgents killed."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday the US military and its allies must show progress in Afghanistan by mid-2010 to avoid public perception that the conflict has become unwinnable.
Victory was a "long-term prospect" under any scenario and the United States would not win the war within a year, Gates told the Los Angeles Times.
Obama has dispatched 21,000 fresh troop reinforcements to Afghanistan as international forces battle a mounting Taliban insurgency. By year's end, some 68,000 US forces are set to operate in Afghanistan.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US military in Afghanistan has stopped releasing figures showing how many militants have been killed in fighting with US-led forces, officials said Friday.
"Indicating the number of insurgents killed has little relevance to impacting the lives of Afghans," Rear Admiral Gregory Smith said in an email to AFP.
"In fact, if that were the only purpose and metric, you would likely only extend the time it takes to bring about an end to the insurgency."
Smith sent an order last month to NATO and US forces blocking the military from releasing details on militant death tolls and providing estimates instead.
"The goal of security operations in an insurgency is to separate the people from the insurgents. Without access to the people, the insurgents lose their main center of gravity," he said.
Smith, who is revamping communications for the US military and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, stressed US-led military operations were not aimed at killing insurgents.
The objective was to "clear areas of insurgency and give the people a chance to reconnect with official forms of governance and to rebuild their lives, socially and economically."
The move comes as President Barack Obama's administration is shifting the US war strategy in Afghanistan toward enhancing the safety of civilians, seeking to stem support for the deadly Taliban insurgency.
Colonel Greg Julian, the outgoing spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan, said he had previously released militant death tolls in order to counter propaganda by the Taliban and its Al-Qaeda allies.
"In the past, I gave specific details of what took place during engagements to counter insurgent lies and exaggerations," he said in an email.
"The insurgent lying tactic is now widely understood and it is far better to focus on the improvements to security and quality of life improvements for Afghans than the number of insurgents killed."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday the US military and its allies must show progress in Afghanistan by mid-2010 to avoid public perception that the conflict has become unwinnable.
Victory was a "long-term prospect" under any scenario and the United States would not win the war within a year, Gates told the Los Angeles Times.
Obama has dispatched 21,000 fresh troop reinforcements to Afghanistan as international forces battle a mounting Taliban insurgency. By year's end, some 68,000 US forces are set to operate in Afghanistan.
Copyright © 2009 AFP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard By Jeremy Scahill
July 24, 2009
EmailPrintShare
Buzz up!Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
What is this?
Take ActionWrite a LetterSubscribe NowText SizeAAA.In 2001 Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold famously and courageously stood up as the lone senator to vote against the Patriot Act. On July 21 he did it again, casting the lone vote opposing Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization bill that immediately authorizes an expansion of the military by 30,000 troops. In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Feingold says he "did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security." The measure passed 93-1.
Share this article
..RelatedAlso By.Women of Afghanistan Tell Their Stories Afghanistan War
Brave New Films : American military escalation will not liberate the women of Afghanistan. Instead, the hardships of war take a disproportionate toll on women and their families.
.Are Afghan Lives Worth Anything? Afghanistan War
Tom Engelhardt: The mainstream media would rather focus on the death of Michael Jackson than cover the barbaric slaughter of innocent Afghan civilians by American planes.
.» More
.Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard Russell Feingold
Jeremy Scahill: In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Sen. Russ Feingold defends his lone vote to oppose the latest amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
.Blackwater Seeks Gag Order Blackwater
Jeremy Scahill: The private security company, facing charges in a US court for killing and injuring Iraqis, is attempting to silence its victims and their lawyers.
.KBR Got Bonuses for Work that Killed Soldiers Iraq War
Jeremy Scahill: Former Halliburton subsidy KBR was paid $83 million in bonuses for work that electrocuted US soldiers, former employees testified today.
.."Well, it's never easy," Feingold says of his solo stance opposing the measure. "People might try to distort what you're doing and suggest you don't think the troops should be supported, which I do--I feel very strongly. But I don't think putting more and more of our troops into a situation that may not make sense is a way to support the troops or protect our country. It's a tough role to play. It's a role that I feel I'm obligated to play."
Feingold said he is increasingly disturbed by the war in Afghanistan, where troop levels are escalating by the month, US casualties are mounting and the insurgency is expanding. "It appears that no one even asked the president about [Afghanistan] at his [July 22] press conference after apparently thirty or thirty-one Americans were killed in Afghanistan last month. How is that possible?" Feingold asks. "People have to wake up to what's going on in Afghanistan, and my vote is a request that people wake up to what's happening, which is we are getting deeper and deeper into this situation in a way that I don't think necessarily makes sense at all and may actually be counterproductive."
On July 23 Vice President Joe Biden told the BBC that "in terms of national interest of Great Britain, the US and Europe, [the war in Afghanistan] is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt.... And more will come." Feingold said Biden's statement and requests from Defense Secretary Robert Gates for more US troops in Afghanistan are making him "very worried that this is heading into a free fall of support for something that may not make sense."
Feingold believes "the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country." He is particularly concerned with what he calls the "balloon effect:" resistance fighters in Afghanistan being pushed into Pakistan, where "they may be safer."
As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, Feingold has grilled both civilian and military officials. In May he asked Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, "Are we sure that when we...get up to a level of 70,000 troops, are we sure that that isn't making the situation in Pakistan potentially worse?" Holbrooke replied that the troop buildup "could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability."
"Are you sure that the troop buildup in Afghanistan will not be counterproductive vis-à-vis Pakistan?" Feingold asked. "No," Holbrooke replied. "I'm only sure that we are aware of the problem."
Feingold received a similar answer from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, in May. "Can I [be] 100 percent certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that," Mullen said.
"This is something I've been trying to hammer away at," Feingold tells The Nation. "They admitted that it's a problem, but where's the follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on this issue." Feingold added, "How is it that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our special envoy to this region both agree that this could be a problem and that it is not talked about as a serious mistake if we're going to keep increasing troops and increase that effect? This is, in my view, the central flaw in what is otherwise a policy that is better than the Bush administration's. This is the central flaw in the thinking of the administration on this issue, and it needs to be pursued."
In the halls of Congress, Afghanistan remains the "good war," though little by little, legislators are speaking out and a handful are standing up. In June thirty House Democrats voted against continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a rare moment when the collective votes of the small number of antiwar legislators mattered--indeed, the bill almost failed. That was due in large part to the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the bill because a massive bailout for the International Monetary Fund was attached to the spending measure. Consequently, the White House needed to persuade some of the antiwar Democrats to vote with the president instead of with their conscience or their constituents. The White House feverishly lobbied the Hill and threatened some freshmen representatives with not campaigning for them in 2010 if they did not switch their votes in favor of the war-funding bill, which narrowly passed. The Senate, however, is a much bleaker landscape when it comes to opposing the expansion of the war in Afghanistan--as Feingold's lonely dissent underscores. In May Feingold was one of just three senators--and the only Democrat--to vote against a $91 billion war spending bill.
On a wide range of issues that Feingold has hammered away at for years, the senator finds himself confronting a Democratic president for whom he campaigned. Some of the Bush-era policies that Feingold passionately opposed are now Obama's policies. To Feingold's credit, the change in administrations has clearly not altered his core principles. Since January 20 Feingold has pressed the Obama administration on Bush-era policies that are either being continued or expanded under Obama.
In a May 22 letter to Obama, Feingold expressed concern over the president's suggestion that the United States can engage in indefinite detentions, saying such a practice "violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional." In the same letter, Feingold said Obama's policy could set "the stage for future Guantánamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere." While the Obama administration has continued to defend the warrantless wiretapping program in various court cases, Feingold has hounded the president to "formally" oppose the program, which Obama has thus far refused to do. In a June letter to Obama, Feingold suggested that by not "renounc[ing] the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping," Obama may be sending a message that the Bush-era "justifications were and remain valid."
Recently, in a sharp break from many Democrats, Feingold wrote Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, calling for a prosecutor to investigate the torture program. Feingold said the investigation should target officials at "the highest levels of government, which is where the need for accountability is most acute. Those who developed, authorized and provided legal justification for the interrogations should be held responsible."
In some cases, the policies are getting worse, as Feingold has pointed out. "It's both an easier and a lonelier role," he says. "It's easier because this president understands these issues and cares about them deeply. He wants to support the side of the law and civil liberties, but he's getting counterpressures from, obviously, elements of his administration that are not wanting him to give any ground in this area at all."
"But it's lonelier," Feingold adds, "because when I do have to disagree, yes, it's disagreeing not only with all the Republicans but even a Democratic president and some Democratic senators. That's a role I still have to play. I'm here to defend the Constitution and try to protect this country. That's why I'm here. And if it means sometimes I'm going to disagree with my president, I will."
Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard By Jeremy Scahill
July 24, 2009
EmailPrintShare
Buzz up!Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Mixx it!
What is this?
Take ActionWrite a LetterSubscribe NowText SizeAAA.In 2001 Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold famously and courageously stood up as the lone senator to vote against the Patriot Act. On July 21 he did it again, casting the lone vote opposing Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization bill that immediately authorizes an expansion of the military by 30,000 troops. In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Feingold says he "did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security." The measure passed 93-1.
Share this article
..RelatedAlso By.Women of Afghanistan Tell Their Stories Afghanistan War
Brave New Films : American military escalation will not liberate the women of Afghanistan. Instead, the hardships of war take a disproportionate toll on women and their families.
.Are Afghan Lives Worth Anything? Afghanistan War
Tom Engelhardt: The mainstream media would rather focus on the death of Michael Jackson than cover the barbaric slaughter of innocent Afghan civilians by American planes.
.» More
.Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard Russell Feingold
Jeremy Scahill: In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Sen. Russ Feingold defends his lone vote to oppose the latest amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
.Blackwater Seeks Gag Order Blackwater
Jeremy Scahill: The private security company, facing charges in a US court for killing and injuring Iraqis, is attempting to silence its victims and their lawyers.
.KBR Got Bonuses for Work that Killed Soldiers Iraq War
Jeremy Scahill: Former Halliburton subsidy KBR was paid $83 million in bonuses for work that electrocuted US soldiers, former employees testified today.
.."Well, it's never easy," Feingold says of his solo stance opposing the measure. "People might try to distort what you're doing and suggest you don't think the troops should be supported, which I do--I feel very strongly. But I don't think putting more and more of our troops into a situation that may not make sense is a way to support the troops or protect our country. It's a tough role to play. It's a role that I feel I'm obligated to play."
Feingold said he is increasingly disturbed by the war in Afghanistan, where troop levels are escalating by the month, US casualties are mounting and the insurgency is expanding. "It appears that no one even asked the president about [Afghanistan] at his [July 22] press conference after apparently thirty or thirty-one Americans were killed in Afghanistan last month. How is that possible?" Feingold asks. "People have to wake up to what's going on in Afghanistan, and my vote is a request that people wake up to what's happening, which is we are getting deeper and deeper into this situation in a way that I don't think necessarily makes sense at all and may actually be counterproductive."
On July 23 Vice President Joe Biden told the BBC that "in terms of national interest of Great Britain, the US and Europe, [the war in Afghanistan] is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt.... And more will come." Feingold said Biden's statement and requests from Defense Secretary Robert Gates for more US troops in Afghanistan are making him "very worried that this is heading into a free fall of support for something that may not make sense."
Feingold believes "the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country." He is particularly concerned with what he calls the "balloon effect:" resistance fighters in Afghanistan being pushed into Pakistan, where "they may be safer."
As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, Feingold has grilled both civilian and military officials. In May he asked Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, "Are we sure that when we...get up to a level of 70,000 troops, are we sure that that isn't making the situation in Pakistan potentially worse?" Holbrooke replied that the troop buildup "could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability."
"Are you sure that the troop buildup in Afghanistan will not be counterproductive vis-à-vis Pakistan?" Feingold asked. "No," Holbrooke replied. "I'm only sure that we are aware of the problem."
Feingold received a similar answer from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, in May. "Can I [be] 100 percent certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that," Mullen said.
"This is something I've been trying to hammer away at," Feingold tells The Nation. "They admitted that it's a problem, but where's the follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on this issue." Feingold added, "How is it that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our special envoy to this region both agree that this could be a problem and that it is not talked about as a serious mistake if we're going to keep increasing troops and increase that effect? This is, in my view, the central flaw in what is otherwise a policy that is better than the Bush administration's. This is the central flaw in the thinking of the administration on this issue, and it needs to be pursued."
In the halls of Congress, Afghanistan remains the "good war," though little by little, legislators are speaking out and a handful are standing up. In June thirty House Democrats voted against continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a rare moment when the collective votes of the small number of antiwar legislators mattered--indeed, the bill almost failed. That was due in large part to the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the bill because a massive bailout for the International Monetary Fund was attached to the spending measure. Consequently, the White House needed to persuade some of the antiwar Democrats to vote with the president instead of with their conscience or their constituents. The White House feverishly lobbied the Hill and threatened some freshmen representatives with not campaigning for them in 2010 if they did not switch their votes in favor of the war-funding bill, which narrowly passed. The Senate, however, is a much bleaker landscape when it comes to opposing the expansion of the war in Afghanistan--as Feingold's lonely dissent underscores. In May Feingold was one of just three senators--and the only Democrat--to vote against a $91 billion war spending bill.
On a wide range of issues that Feingold has hammered away at for years, the senator finds himself confronting a Democratic president for whom he campaigned. Some of the Bush-era policies that Feingold passionately opposed are now Obama's policies. To Feingold's credit, the change in administrations has clearly not altered his core principles. Since January 20 Feingold has pressed the Obama administration on Bush-era policies that are either being continued or expanded under Obama.
In a May 22 letter to Obama, Feingold expressed concern over the president's suggestion that the United States can engage in indefinite detentions, saying such a practice "violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional." In the same letter, Feingold said Obama's policy could set "the stage for future Guantánamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere." While the Obama administration has continued to defend the warrantless wiretapping program in various court cases, Feingold has hounded the president to "formally" oppose the program, which Obama has thus far refused to do. In a June letter to Obama, Feingold suggested that by not "renounc[ing] the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping," Obama may be sending a message that the Bush-era "justifications were and remain valid."
Recently, in a sharp break from many Democrats, Feingold wrote Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, calling for a prosecutor to investigate the torture program. Feingold said the investigation should target officials at "the highest levels of government, which is where the need for accountability is most acute. Those who developed, authorized and provided legal justification for the interrogations should be held responsible."
In some cases, the policies are getting worse, as Feingold has pointed out. "It's both an easier and a lonelier role," he says. "It's easier because this president understands these issues and cares about them deeply. He wants to support the side of the law and civil liberties, but he's getting counterpressures from, obviously, elements of his administration that are not wanting him to give any ground in this area at all."
"But it's lonelier," Feingold adds, "because when I do have to disagree, yes, it's disagreeing not only with all the Republicans but even a Democratic president and some Democratic senators. That's a role I still have to play. I'm here to defend the Constitution and try to protect this country. That's why I'm here. And if it means sometimes I'm going to disagree with my president, I will."
I just wanted to make mention of the fact that the protest at Bagram is very much continuing, and there IS coverage of it. However, its all in European languages- mainly French and Spanish, so I can't actually read it ;) I can't believe that it will not be covered at all domestically in the future, so its wise to keep checking back.
This is today's editorial from an influential paper of record in Inverness, in the Scotch Highlands:
OF all the wars one might consider "justified", Afghanistan is high on the list.
Under previous Taliban governments and in local areas where the Taliban have been in control the treatment of women and of female children in particular has been dreadful beyond words.
The growing of opium poppies supplies the West's illegal drug markets with some of its nastiest wares, destroying countless lives in the process.
More recently Afghanistan has been a centre for training terrorists in their own particular black arts. It has been described as a "crucible" and an "incubator" for terrorism.
But the question is this: can any of these evils be ended by military action of the sort we have spent the last few years prosecuting?
The Taliban government has been overturned, that is true. In many areas girls can now go to school, and the treatment of women has probably improved to some extent. Opium poppy production declined for a while but is rising again. The terrorist training camps are mostly out of action.
So, it is all good: yes?
But how permanent are these changes? Once the troops have left, as they must eventually do, will women become increasingly emancipated, or will the Taliban again take up the reins and enforce their own, peculiar, fundamentalist Islamic view of the world?
And as far as terrorist training camps are concerned, have they closed or simply moved elsewhere?
Different parts of the world have evolved at different speeds. Afghanistan today holds a lot of parallels with Scotland in medieval times.
Our traditional interpretations of religion also led to dreadful treatment of women. It is not that long since we stopped tying women firmly to stakes, piling combustibles around and lighting the whole assembly. Entire communities would gather to watch the woman being burned alive.
All this because neighbours suggested she might be a witch.
Our own education system did not, by and large, educate women or the lower orders until relatively recently.
Women were prohibited from voting until after the First World War and, in legal terms, were long considered the property of men.
Our evolution into a reasonably civilised democracy took many years. Many fought and died along the way. But what emerged seems to be a robust system where women, despite the best efforts of some fundamentalist voices within our own indigenous religions, have real rights within society.
The march of the Taliban and of religious fervour can be compared to England during the Crusades. It is strange that, even today, the Crusades are viewed by the English as heroic.
The power of religion is no longer what it once was. We live in a predominantly secular society.
But it has taken hundreds of years for us to evolve away from the cruel and intolerant society we had been while our religious leaders held sway.
The war in Afghanistan has had the effect of driving the Taliban underground for the time being, but — bizarrely — increasing their popularity with the general population. For the Western troops, with their unmanned drone bombers, their tanks and guns, are seen, not as saviours, but as oppressors.
Peasant farmers are having their livelihoods destroyed in bids to wipe out opium production. Ordinary people with no allegiance to the Taliban have been bombed in their own houses or at community gatherings — weddings and funerals — which military intelligence (now there is an oxymoron for you) have wrongly identified as terrorist gatherings. Many more have lost relatives in incidents of "collateral damage" during attacks on genuine Taliban strongholds.
Ask yourself this: if this was happening here, to your family, your neighbours, your community, who would you blame? Who would you see as evil oppressors, and who would you see as protectors?
The Taliban used to maintain their power in Afghanistan by fear. Now, thanks to us, they are gaining the genuine respect of large numbers of Afghans.
The way we have prosecuted our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has meant that the fundamentalists and militants, once small and isolated groups, have now become mass movements: forces to be reckoned with.
If Afghanistan was not a crucible for terrorism before the war, it is now. We have made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.
OF all the wars one might consider "justified", Afghanistan is high on the list.
Under previous Taliban governments and in local areas where the Taliban have been in control the treatment of women and of female children in particular has been dreadful beyond words.
The growing of opium poppies supplies the West's illegal drug markets with some of its nastiest wares, destroying countless lives in the process.
More recently Afghanistan has been a centre for training terrorists in their own particular black arts. It has been described as a "crucible" and an "incubator" for terrorism.
But the question is this: can any of these evils be ended by military action of the sort we have spent the last few years prosecuting?
The Taliban government has been overturned, that is true. In many areas girls can now go to school, and the treatment of women has probably improved to some extent. Opium poppy production declined for a while but is rising again. The terrorist training camps are mostly out of action.
So, it is all good: yes?
But how permanent are these changes? Once the troops have left, as they must eventually do, will women become increasingly emancipated, or will the Taliban again take up the reins and enforce their own, peculiar, fundamentalist Islamic view of the world?
And as far as terrorist training camps are concerned, have they closed or simply moved elsewhere?
Different parts of the world have evolved at different speeds. Afghanistan today holds a lot of parallels with Scotland in medieval times.
Our traditional interpretations of religion also led to dreadful treatment of women. It is not that long since we stopped tying women firmly to stakes, piling combustibles around and lighting the whole assembly. Entire communities would gather to watch the woman being burned alive.
All this because neighbours suggested she might be a witch.
Our own education system did not, by and large, educate women or the lower orders until relatively recently.
Women were prohibited from voting until after the First World War and, in legal terms, were long considered the property of men.
Our evolution into a reasonably civilised democracy took many years. Many fought and died along the way. But what emerged seems to be a robust system where women, despite the best efforts of some fundamentalist voices within our own indigenous religions, have real rights within society.
The march of the Taliban and of religious fervour can be compared to England during the Crusades. It is strange that, even today, the Crusades are viewed by the English as heroic.
The power of religion is no longer what it once was. We live in a predominantly secular society.
But it has taken hundreds of years for us to evolve away from the cruel and intolerant society we had been while our religious leaders held sway.
The war in Afghanistan has had the effect of driving the Taliban underground for the time being, but — bizarrely — increasing their popularity with the general population. For the Western troops, with their unmanned drone bombers, their tanks and guns, are seen, not as saviours, but as oppressors.
Peasant farmers are having their livelihoods destroyed in bids to wipe out opium production. Ordinary people with no allegiance to the Taliban have been bombed in their own houses or at community gatherings — weddings and funerals — which military intelligence (now there is an oxymoron for you) have wrongly identified as terrorist gatherings. Many more have lost relatives in incidents of "collateral damage" during attacks on genuine Taliban strongholds.
Ask yourself this: if this was happening here, to your family, your neighbours, your community, who would you blame? Who would you see as evil oppressors, and who would you see as protectors?
The Taliban used to maintain their power in Afghanistan by fear. Now, thanks to us, they are gaining the genuine respect of large numbers of Afghans.
The way we have prosecuted our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has meant that the fundamentalists and militants, once small and isolated groups, have now become mass movements: forces to be reckoned with.
If Afghanistan was not a crucible for terrorism before the war, it is now. We have made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Aafia
Notes from questions put to Pakistani politicians, today:
To a question about release of Aafia Siddiqui from US prison and future of five Pakistanis imprisoned in Guantanamo bay prison facility in Cuba he told "we are in contact with Obama administration and want Pakistani prisoners therein return to their homes as soon as possible".
Regarding Aafia Siddiqui case Pakistan ambassador in US Hussain Haqqani contacted her on telephone and all out assistance was being provided to her by embassy of Pakistan, he told. Aafia Siddiqui was fully cooperating with her counsel so that she could be defended in the court, he maintained. Efforts are underway at diplomatic and political level to secure release of Aafia Siddiqui on humanitarian grounds, he indicated. "We will soon inform the people about positive outcome in this respect, he added.
To a question about release of Aafia Siddiqui from US prison and future of five Pakistanis imprisoned in Guantanamo bay prison facility in Cuba he told "we are in contact with Obama administration and want Pakistani prisoners therein return to their homes as soon as possible".
Regarding Aafia Siddiqui case Pakistan ambassador in US Hussain Haqqani contacted her on telephone and all out assistance was being provided to her by embassy of Pakistan, he told. Aafia Siddiqui was fully cooperating with her counsel so that she could be defended in the court, he maintained. Efforts are underway at diplomatic and political level to secure release of Aafia Siddiqui on humanitarian grounds, he indicated. "We will soon inform the people about positive outcome in this respect, he added.
This was an extremely interesting article. It skirted a couple of things; poll numbers for Australia and France, but I found it very interesting and encouraging. We shall see what happens.
Rising casualties raise doubts abroad on war
By ELAINE GANLEY and MATT MOORE (AP) – 1 hour ago
BERLIN — Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban.
Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers' bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.
Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as President Barack Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.
The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops currently in the country.
The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries.
The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election.
They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give al-Qaida more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.
It is clear that in European countries "there is a fatigue with the mission," said Etienne de Durand, an Afghanistan expert at the French Institute for International Relations.
The surge in casualties has set off a heated debate in Britain about troop levels and the conduct of the war.
This week, Foreign Office minister Mark Malloch Brown said British troops in Afghanistan had too few helicopters, becoming the first government minister to publicly challenge Prime Minister Gordon Brown's contention that troops have the equipment they need.
Still, a 24-nation poll on global attitudes to Obama's policies by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that only about half of the British respondents favored withdrawing from Afghanistan altogether. Forty-six percent wanted to keep British troops deployed while 48 percent said they should pull out.
The poll of nearly 27,000 people was conducted May 18 to June 16, with a margin of error in most countries of 3 to 4 percentage points.
Stronger still is Canadian opposition to their deployment of 2,500 soldiers in Kandahar province, the Taliban heartland. Forty-three percent of Canadians favored remaining in Afghanistan while 50 percent supported withdrawing.
In Germany, virtually all mainstream politicians still support the deployment of 4,000 troops in Afghanistan's relatively quiet northern regions. But government officials have frequently found themselves on the defensive in the face of polls finding that a majority of Germans oppose their involvement in combat missions.
Since they deployed in 2002, 35 Germans have been killed, including three men who died June 23 when their armored vehicle crashed into a stream near Kunduz after being attacked by insurgents.
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said at their funeral this month that the deaths "confront us all with the question of the sense of this mission in Afghanistan."
Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing general elections in September, said afterward that "there is no sensible alternative" to the NATO deployment and that "we will not run away from this task."
In addition to pouring thousands more troops into Afghanistan, the Obama administration is in the midst of a strategy reassessment, trying to shift more work to civilian authorities and protect Afghan civilians.
Vice President Joe Biden warned in an interview broadcast Thursday that international casualties can be expected to climb, but "in terms of national interest of Great Britain, the U.S. and Europe, (the war) is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt."
But Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged that the new strategy must show results in 18 months to two years or the administration will risk losing public support.
The Pew poll showed that 57 percent of American respondents favored keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan while 38 percent said they should be withdrawn. An AP-GfK poll found very different results, however, with 44 percent favoring the war and 53 percent opposed; the survey was conducted July 16-20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Christopher Langton, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said he saw an "underlying resilience level of support" for the war among voters in U.S. allies with troops in Afghanistan but that may not include backing for a high level of combat operations.
The Netherlands plans to pull out its 1,650 troops next year. And there are signs that noncombat missions look increasingly appealing for American's allies.
With 27 dead including 10 killed in an ambush last August, France has turned down Obama's request to add to its 2,900 troops in central Afghanistan and is emphasizing reconstruction aid, police training and other humanitarian elements of its efforts there.
Italy pledged to keep its 2,800 soldiers in Afghanistan after one was killed and three wounded by a roadside bomb last week. Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa visited the troops stationed in the western region of Herat on Tuesday, promising to increase security for soldiers by deploying more unmanned aircraft and sturdier vehicles.
Australia, with about 1,550 troops in Afghanistan, lost its 11th soldier last week. Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston said Tuesday that a multilateral withdrawal would lead to civil war with "a very strong possibility the Taliban would prevail."
Ganley reported from Paris. Associated Press writers Geir Moulson in Berlin, Jill Lawless in London, Ariel David in Rome, Karel Janicek in Prague, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto, Tanalee Smith in Sydney, Toby Sterling in Amsterdam, Jan Olsen in Copenhagen, Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm and Ian MacDougall in Oslo contributed to this report.
Rising casualties raise doubts abroad on war
By ELAINE GANLEY and MATT MOORE (AP) – 1 hour ago
BERLIN — Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban.
Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers' bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.
Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as President Barack Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.
The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops currently in the country.
The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries.
The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election.
They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give al-Qaida more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.
It is clear that in European countries "there is a fatigue with the mission," said Etienne de Durand, an Afghanistan expert at the French Institute for International Relations.
The surge in casualties has set off a heated debate in Britain about troop levels and the conduct of the war.
This week, Foreign Office minister Mark Malloch Brown said British troops in Afghanistan had too few helicopters, becoming the first government minister to publicly challenge Prime Minister Gordon Brown's contention that troops have the equipment they need.
Still, a 24-nation poll on global attitudes to Obama's policies by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that only about half of the British respondents favored withdrawing from Afghanistan altogether. Forty-six percent wanted to keep British troops deployed while 48 percent said they should pull out.
The poll of nearly 27,000 people was conducted May 18 to June 16, with a margin of error in most countries of 3 to 4 percentage points.
Stronger still is Canadian opposition to their deployment of 2,500 soldiers in Kandahar province, the Taliban heartland. Forty-three percent of Canadians favored remaining in Afghanistan while 50 percent supported withdrawing.
In Germany, virtually all mainstream politicians still support the deployment of 4,000 troops in Afghanistan's relatively quiet northern regions. But government officials have frequently found themselves on the defensive in the face of polls finding that a majority of Germans oppose their involvement in combat missions.
Since they deployed in 2002, 35 Germans have been killed, including three men who died June 23 when their armored vehicle crashed into a stream near Kunduz after being attacked by insurgents.
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said at their funeral this month that the deaths "confront us all with the question of the sense of this mission in Afghanistan."
Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing general elections in September, said afterward that "there is no sensible alternative" to the NATO deployment and that "we will not run away from this task."
In addition to pouring thousands more troops into Afghanistan, the Obama administration is in the midst of a strategy reassessment, trying to shift more work to civilian authorities and protect Afghan civilians.
Vice President Joe Biden warned in an interview broadcast Thursday that international casualties can be expected to climb, but "in terms of national interest of Great Britain, the U.S. and Europe, (the war) is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt."
But Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged that the new strategy must show results in 18 months to two years or the administration will risk losing public support.
The Pew poll showed that 57 percent of American respondents favored keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan while 38 percent said they should be withdrawn. An AP-GfK poll found very different results, however, with 44 percent favoring the war and 53 percent opposed; the survey was conducted July 16-20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Christopher Langton, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said he saw an "underlying resilience level of support" for the war among voters in U.S. allies with troops in Afghanistan but that may not include backing for a high level of combat operations.
The Netherlands plans to pull out its 1,650 troops next year. And there are signs that noncombat missions look increasingly appealing for American's allies.
With 27 dead including 10 killed in an ambush last August, France has turned down Obama's request to add to its 2,900 troops in central Afghanistan and is emphasizing reconstruction aid, police training and other humanitarian elements of its efforts there.
Italy pledged to keep its 2,800 soldiers in Afghanistan after one was killed and three wounded by a roadside bomb last week. Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa visited the troops stationed in the western region of Herat on Tuesday, promising to increase security for soldiers by deploying more unmanned aircraft and sturdier vehicles.
Australia, with about 1,550 troops in Afghanistan, lost its 11th soldier last week. Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston said Tuesday that a multilateral withdrawal would lead to civil war with "a very strong possibility the Taliban would prevail."
Ganley reported from Paris. Associated Press writers Geir Moulson in Berlin, Jill Lawless in London, Ariel David in Rome, Karel Janicek in Prague, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto, Tanalee Smith in Sydney, Toby Sterling in Amsterdam, Jan Olsen in Copenhagen, Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm and Ian MacDougall in Oslo contributed to this report.
This is from one of the Toronto Star's columnists.
The past couple of weeks have proven to be the most deadly ever for NATO troops.
Canada has already taken a disproportionate hit, both in "blood and treasure" as the military types like to say. This month alone, the number of our dead climbed from 120 to 125. As for the treasure, we're somewhere around $9 billion, including projections for the next two years.
Our troops are stretched, our equipment is tired, and polls show that Canadians want out in 2011 – if not sooner – as Parliament has resolved.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is stepping it up, as perhaps it should have before then-U.S. President George W. Bush decided he wanted Iraq's Saddam Hussein deader or less alive than Osama Bin Laden.
If you recall, among the other slogans used to sell us on Afghanistan was "women's rights." That despite how women such as Canada's intrepid Sally Armstrong and, in the U.S., Mavis Leno (Mrs. Jay), had been attempting to focus attention on the plight of women under the Taliban for years.
But Western leaders did not care, not until it came in handy as a casus belli.
Then those burqa-bound women became part of the propaganda, a sign of progress, a reason to keep on fighting.
"The U.S. military may have removed the Taliban, but it installed warlords who are as anti-woman and as criminal as the Taliban," write Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, and Mariam Rawi, a pseudonymous Afghan feminist.
"Misogynistic, patriarchal views are now embodied by the Afghan cabinet, they are expressed in the courts, and they are embodied by President Hamid Karzai."
Yes, there has been lots of good news about girls going to school and women in Parliament – although the latter are mostly pro-warlord and keep silent.
But really, these things mean nothing if they are immolating themselves rather than being married off to old men, if they are attacked with acid on their way to class, if they are imprisoned for being raped only to be raped by their jailers, if they are killed for being outspoken.
All these things are happening now, aggravated by relentless war that displaces and impoverishes people. There's no clean water, no sanitation. Children are diseased and hungry.
Widows, with no marketable skills and less literacy, are forced into prostitution. (And how many NATO soldiers are their customers?) A woman is lucky to make it to 40.
Or not so lucky.
A UN report released this month shows that women face more violence than ever.
And yet there's still legislation in the works that will force the minority Shia women to have sex with their husbands or else starve, a bill that the ever-smiling Karzai approved in order to win the coming election.
The occupation has only managed to make Afghanistan more fundamentalist.
In the new documentary Rethinking Afghanistan, human rights activist Ann Jones, author of Kabul in Winter, recalls Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, the chief justice from 2001 to 2006, declaring that women have two rights.
"One, every woman has the right to obey her husband," she quotes him as saying. "Two, every woman has the right to pray, though not in the mosque. That is reserved for men."
This is what we have supported?
Estimates are, we will be spending $3 billion over this year and next. That's assuming, if experience is any indication, that costs don't spiral.
What a waste.
The only way to bring security is protect the women and children, not with bombs and bullets, armour and airplanes, but with secure schools, clean wells, steady supplies of food and legislation that punishes men, not women.
That's how you change a country.
Canada can do much better.
The past couple of weeks have proven to be the most deadly ever for NATO troops.
Canada has already taken a disproportionate hit, both in "blood and treasure" as the military types like to say. This month alone, the number of our dead climbed from 120 to 125. As for the treasure, we're somewhere around $9 billion, including projections for the next two years.
Our troops are stretched, our equipment is tired, and polls show that Canadians want out in 2011 – if not sooner – as Parliament has resolved.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is stepping it up, as perhaps it should have before then-U.S. President George W. Bush decided he wanted Iraq's Saddam Hussein deader or less alive than Osama Bin Laden.
If you recall, among the other slogans used to sell us on Afghanistan was "women's rights." That despite how women such as Canada's intrepid Sally Armstrong and, in the U.S., Mavis Leno (Mrs. Jay), had been attempting to focus attention on the plight of women under the Taliban for years.
But Western leaders did not care, not until it came in handy as a casus belli.
Then those burqa-bound women became part of the propaganda, a sign of progress, a reason to keep on fighting.
"The U.S. military may have removed the Taliban, but it installed warlords who are as anti-woman and as criminal as the Taliban," write Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, and Mariam Rawi, a pseudonymous Afghan feminist.
"Misogynistic, patriarchal views are now embodied by the Afghan cabinet, they are expressed in the courts, and they are embodied by President Hamid Karzai."
Yes, there has been lots of good news about girls going to school and women in Parliament – although the latter are mostly pro-warlord and keep silent.
But really, these things mean nothing if they are immolating themselves rather than being married off to old men, if they are attacked with acid on their way to class, if they are imprisoned for being raped only to be raped by their jailers, if they are killed for being outspoken.
All these things are happening now, aggravated by relentless war that displaces and impoverishes people. There's no clean water, no sanitation. Children are diseased and hungry.
Widows, with no marketable skills and less literacy, are forced into prostitution. (And how many NATO soldiers are their customers?) A woman is lucky to make it to 40.
Or not so lucky.
A UN report released this month shows that women face more violence than ever.
And yet there's still legislation in the works that will force the minority Shia women to have sex with their husbands or else starve, a bill that the ever-smiling Karzai approved in order to win the coming election.
The occupation has only managed to make Afghanistan more fundamentalist.
In the new documentary Rethinking Afghanistan, human rights activist Ann Jones, author of Kabul in Winter, recalls Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, the chief justice from 2001 to 2006, declaring that women have two rights.
"One, every woman has the right to obey her husband," she quotes him as saying. "Two, every woman has the right to pray, though not in the mosque. That is reserved for men."
This is what we have supported?
Estimates are, we will be spending $3 billion over this year and next. That's assuming, if experience is any indication, that costs don't spiral.
What a waste.
The only way to bring security is protect the women and children, not with bombs and bullets, armour and airplanes, but with secure schools, clean wells, steady supplies of food and legislation that punishes men, not women.
That's how you change a country.
Canada can do much better.
There are thirteen thousand signatures to this petition collected already. Trust me, once something like this is passed into law, it will not be repealed easily. This is the window.
Don't do for me, obviously. Do it for each other.
STOP THE DANGEROUS AND INVASIVE MOTHERS ACT
Target:All Americans.
Sponsored by: CHAADA, UNITE, COPES Foundation, ICFDA.
****The advertisements appearing on this petition website when you click on submit to confirm your signature are in no way associated with our effort or organizations. When you get to the "confirm your signature" page, you can uncheck the boxes for receiving alerts from those organizations in your email inbox if you so desire.********
The MOTHERS ACT is a bill before Congress, already passed by the 110th House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes, which sets up a nation-wide "education" campaign to encourage "antidepressant" drugs and other psychiatric drugs to women who are expecting or have recently given birth.
Click on Letter to the left under the video to read more, or scroll down...
Over 9,000 individuals across the United States and around the world have signed this petition to stop The MOTHERS Act, a screening and treatment bill which will increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.
Organizations currently trying to stop The MOTHERS Act include:
ICFDA: International Coalition For Drug Awareness; The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights; ICSPP: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy; AHRP: The Alliance for Human Research Protection; COPES: Coalition Of Parents Enduring Suicide; The Elizabeth Torlakson Foundation; CHAADA: Children and Adults Against Drugging America; MADNAP: Mothers Against Drugging the Nursing And Pregnant; Consumer Wellness Center; Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education; Texans for a Safe Education; Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation; WoodyMatters; www.wildestcolts.com Supporters; www.adhdfraud.com Supporters; AbleChild; Green Body and Mind; LifeDynamics; Global Suckling Initiative; babywhys.org Supporters; The Wellness Institute
Please consider the following four points of contention with regard to this bill:
1) The MOTHERS Act will assuredly increase prescriptions for antidepressants for both postpartum and pregnant mothers. Based on the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting System data, over the past four years the estimated number of antidepressant-caused infant deaths and injuries was as follows:
4,360 babies born with serious or life-threatening birth defects4,160 babies born with potentially fatal heart defects or heart disease2,900 spontaneous abortions3,000 premature births
2) New Jersey's 2006 Postpartum Depression law requires medical providers to screen women for mental disorders. Under the impetus of this new law, some New Jersey women were forcibly taken to hospitals in police cars from their homes or doctor's offices for simply mentioning depressed feelings or calling the state's PPD hotline (See full text of the Star-Ledger article at http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm).
3) The namesake of the bill is Melanie Blocker Stokes, a mother who jumped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel at 3 � months postpartum, following months of treatment including four hospitalizations, at least four different drug cocktails, and electroshock therapy. Only after she was treated with drugs documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation did she jump out of that window.
4) Numerous victims have spoken out against this bill, including many who currently have pending lawsuits against drug companies for deaths and birth defects. In addition, there are literally thousands of antidepressant birth defects and suicide lawsuits pending. States are suing drug manufacturers for illegal marketing of psychotropic drugs, and the State of Alaska is being sued for drugging children in state care. If the Federal Government sponsors another drugging program, it is simply asking for lawsuits to be filed, as more mothers are injured and more babies killed.
What could possibly justify the risks that The MOTHERS Act poses to unborn babies and their mothers? Please speak out and ask the 111th Congress not to be the group to pass this bill to increase infant deaths via fatal birth defects and unwanted, drug-induced spontaneous abortions. Considering the many lives of helpless unborn babies at stake, we must all UNITE to kill this legislation.
http://www.uniteforlife.org/
=====
Petition text (what you are signing):
We the undersigned protest any passage of any bill in the U.S. Congress to screen and promote psychiatric drugs to pregnant and new mothers, and particularly to H.R. 20 and S. 324, The MOTHERS Act. This bill endangers mothers and children and puts the public at risk.
For more information we urge you to read current research concerning the dangers of drugs for all people, especially unborn and newborn babies at http://uniteforlife.org/. There you can learn more about the FDA-confirmed doubling of suicides on antidepressant drugs as well as the tremendous risks for unborn children, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, serious and often fatal heart and lung disorders in newborns, SIDS, and numerous other effects including inducing violence against others.
Furthermore we urge you to conduct an investigation into antidepressant drugs and consider passing a ban on any future government-endorsed mental health screening or psychiatric drug promotion efforts, as well as banning government funding for development of new antidepressant drugs.
Thank you for putting the well being and safety of the American people above all else.
****The advertisements appearing on this petition website when you click on submit to confirm your signature are in no way associated with our effort or organizations. When you get to the "confirm your signature" page, you can uncheck the boxes for receiving alerts from those organizations in your email inbox if you so desire.********
The MOTHERS ACT is a bill before Congress, already passed by the 110th House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes, which sets up a nation-wide "education" campaign to encourage "antidepressant" drugs and other psychiatric drugs to women who are expecting or have recently given birth.
Click on Letter to the left under the video to read more, or scroll down...
Over 9,000 individuals across the United States and around the world have signed this petition to stop The MOTHERS Act, a screening and treatment bill which will increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.
Organizations currently trying to stop The MOTHERS Act include:
ICFDA: International Coalition For Drug Awareness; The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights; ICSPP: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy; AHRP: The Alliance for Human Research Protection; COPES: Coalition Of Parents Enduring Suicide; The Elizabeth Torlakson Foundation; CHAADA: Children and Adults Against Drugging America; MADNAP: Mothers Against Drugging the Nursing And Pregnant; Consumer Wellness Center; Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education; Texans for a Safe Education; Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation; WoodyMatters; www.wildestcolts.com Supporters; www.adhdfraud.com Supporters; AbleChild; Green Body and Mind; LifeDynamics; Global Suckling Initiative; babywhys.org Supporters; The Wellness Institute
Please consider the following four points of contention with regard to this bill:
1) The MOTHERS Act will assuredly increase prescriptions for antidepressants for both postpartum and pregnant mothers. Based on the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting System data, over the past four years the estimated number of antidepressant-caused infant deaths and injuries was as follows:
4,360 babies born with serious or life-threatening birth defects
4,160 babies born with potentially fatal heart defects or heart disease
2,900 spontaneous abortions
3,000 premature births
2) New Jersey's 2006 Postpartum Depression law requires medical providers to screen women for mental disorders. Under the impetus of this new law, some New Jersey women were forcibly taken to hospitals in police cars from their homes or doctor's offices for simply mentioning depressed feelings or calling the state's PPD hotline (See full text of the Star-Ledger article at http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm).
3) The namesake of the bill is Melanie Blocker Stokes, a mother who jumped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel at 3 � months postpartum, following months of treatment including four hospitalizations, at least four different drug cocktails, and electroshock therapy. Only after she was treated with drugs documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation did she jump out of that window.
4) Numerous victims have spoken out against this bill, including many who currently have pending lawsuits against drug companies for deaths and birth defects. In addition, there are literally thousands of antidepressant birth defects and suicide lawsuits pending. States are suing drug manufacturers for illegal marketing of psychotropic drugs, and the State of Alaska is being sued for drugging children in state care. If the Federal Government sponsors another drugging program, it is simply asking for lawsuits to be filed, as more mothers are injured and more babies killed.
What could possibly justify the risks that The MOTHERS Act poses to unborn babies and their mothers? Please speak out and ask the 111th Congress not to be the group to pass this bill to increase infant deaths via fatal birth defects and unwanted, drug-induced spontaneous abortions. Considering the many lives of helpless unborn babies at stake, we must all UNITE to kill this legislation.
http://www.uniteforlife.org/
=====
Petition text (what you are signing):
We the undersigned protest any passage of any bill in the U.S. Congress to screen and promote psychiatric drugs to pregnant and new mothers, and particularly to H.R. 20 and S. 324, The MOTHERS Act. This bill endangers mothers and children and puts the public at risk.
For more information we urge you to read current research concerning the dangers of drugs for all people, especially unborn and newborn babies at http://uniteforlife.org/. There you can learn more about the FDA-confirmed doubling of suicides on antidepressant drugs as well as the tremendous risks for unborn children, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, serious and often fatal heart and lung disorders in newborns, SIDS, and numerous other effects including inducing violence against others.
Furthermore we urge you to conduct an investigation into antidepressant drugs and consider passing a ban on any future government-endorsed mental health screening or psychiatric drug promotion efforts, as well as banning government funding for development of new antidepressant drugs.
Thank you for putting the well being and safety of the American people above all else.
Don't do for me, obviously. Do it for each other.
STOP THE DANGEROUS AND INVASIVE MOTHERS ACT
Target:All Americans.
Sponsored by: CHAADA, UNITE, COPES Foundation, ICFDA.
****The advertisements appearing on this petition website when you click on submit to confirm your signature are in no way associated with our effort or organizations. When you get to the "confirm your signature" page, you can uncheck the boxes for receiving alerts from those organizations in your email inbox if you so desire.********
The MOTHERS ACT is a bill before Congress, already passed by the 110th House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes, which sets up a nation-wide "education" campaign to encourage "antidepressant" drugs and other psychiatric drugs to women who are expecting or have recently given birth.
Click on Letter to the left under the video to read more, or scroll down...
Over 9,000 individuals across the United States and around the world have signed this petition to stop The MOTHERS Act, a screening and treatment bill which will increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.
Organizations currently trying to stop The MOTHERS Act include:
ICFDA: International Coalition For Drug Awareness; The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights; ICSPP: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy; AHRP: The Alliance for Human Research Protection; COPES: Coalition Of Parents Enduring Suicide; The Elizabeth Torlakson Foundation; CHAADA: Children and Adults Against Drugging America; MADNAP: Mothers Against Drugging the Nursing And Pregnant; Consumer Wellness Center; Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education; Texans for a Safe Education; Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation; WoodyMatters; www.wildestcolts.com Supporters; www.adhdfraud.com Supporters; AbleChild; Green Body and Mind; LifeDynamics; Global Suckling Initiative; babywhys.org Supporters; The Wellness Institute
Please consider the following four points of contention with regard to this bill:
1) The MOTHERS Act will assuredly increase prescriptions for antidepressants for both postpartum and pregnant mothers. Based on the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting System data, over the past four years the estimated number of antidepressant-caused infant deaths and injuries was as follows:
4,360 babies born with serious or life-threatening birth defects4,160 babies born with potentially fatal heart defects or heart disease2,900 spontaneous abortions3,000 premature births
2) New Jersey's 2006 Postpartum Depression law requires medical providers to screen women for mental disorders. Under the impetus of this new law, some New Jersey women were forcibly taken to hospitals in police cars from their homes or doctor's offices for simply mentioning depressed feelings or calling the state's PPD hotline (See full text of the Star-Ledger article at http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm).
3) The namesake of the bill is Melanie Blocker Stokes, a mother who jumped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel at 3 � months postpartum, following months of treatment including four hospitalizations, at least four different drug cocktails, and electroshock therapy. Only after she was treated with drugs documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation did she jump out of that window.
4) Numerous victims have spoken out against this bill, including many who currently have pending lawsuits against drug companies for deaths and birth defects. In addition, there are literally thousands of antidepressant birth defects and suicide lawsuits pending. States are suing drug manufacturers for illegal marketing of psychotropic drugs, and the State of Alaska is being sued for drugging children in state care. If the Federal Government sponsors another drugging program, it is simply asking for lawsuits to be filed, as more mothers are injured and more babies killed.
What could possibly justify the risks that The MOTHERS Act poses to unborn babies and their mothers? Please speak out and ask the 111th Congress not to be the group to pass this bill to increase infant deaths via fatal birth defects and unwanted, drug-induced spontaneous abortions. Considering the many lives of helpless unborn babies at stake, we must all UNITE to kill this legislation.
http://www.uniteforlife.org/
=====
Petition text (what you are signing):
We the undersigned protest any passage of any bill in the U.S. Congress to screen and promote psychiatric drugs to pregnant and new mothers, and particularly to H.R. 20 and S. 324, The MOTHERS Act. This bill endangers mothers and children and puts the public at risk.
For more information we urge you to read current research concerning the dangers of drugs for all people, especially unborn and newborn babies at http://uniteforlife.org/. There you can learn more about the FDA-confirmed doubling of suicides on antidepressant drugs as well as the tremendous risks for unborn children, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, serious and often fatal heart and lung disorders in newborns, SIDS, and numerous other effects including inducing violence against others.
Furthermore we urge you to conduct an investigation into antidepressant drugs and consider passing a ban on any future government-endorsed mental health screening or psychiatric drug promotion efforts, as well as banning government funding for development of new antidepressant drugs.
Thank you for putting the well being and safety of the American people above all else.
****The advertisements appearing on this petition website when you click on submit to confirm your signature are in no way associated with our effort or organizations. When you get to the "confirm your signature" page, you can uncheck the boxes for receiving alerts from those organizations in your email inbox if you so desire.********
The MOTHERS ACT is a bill before Congress, already passed by the 110th House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes, which sets up a nation-wide "education" campaign to encourage "antidepressant" drugs and other psychiatric drugs to women who are expecting or have recently given birth.
Click on Letter to the left under the video to read more, or scroll down...
Over 9,000 individuals across the United States and around the world have signed this petition to stop The MOTHERS Act, a screening and treatment bill which will increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.
Organizations currently trying to stop The MOTHERS Act include:
ICFDA: International Coalition For Drug Awareness; The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights; ICSPP: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy; AHRP: The Alliance for Human Research Protection; COPES: Coalition Of Parents Enduring Suicide; The Elizabeth Torlakson Foundation; CHAADA: Children and Adults Against Drugging America; MADNAP: Mothers Against Drugging the Nursing And Pregnant; Consumer Wellness Center; Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education; Texans for a Safe Education; Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation; WoodyMatters; www.wildestcolts.com Supporters; www.adhdfraud.com Supporters; AbleChild; Green Body and Mind; LifeDynamics; Global Suckling Initiative; babywhys.org Supporters; The Wellness Institute
Please consider the following four points of contention with regard to this bill:
1) The MOTHERS Act will assuredly increase prescriptions for antidepressants for both postpartum and pregnant mothers. Based on the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting System data, over the past four years the estimated number of antidepressant-caused infant deaths and injuries was as follows:
4,360 babies born with serious or life-threatening birth defects
4,160 babies born with potentially fatal heart defects or heart disease
2,900 spontaneous abortions
3,000 premature births
2) New Jersey's 2006 Postpartum Depression law requires medical providers to screen women for mental disorders. Under the impetus of this new law, some New Jersey women were forcibly taken to hospitals in police cars from their homes or doctor's offices for simply mentioning depressed feelings or calling the state's PPD hotline (See full text of the Star-Ledger article at http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm).
3) The namesake of the bill is Melanie Blocker Stokes, a mother who jumped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel at 3 � months postpartum, following months of treatment including four hospitalizations, at least four different drug cocktails, and electroshock therapy. Only after she was treated with drugs documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation did she jump out of that window.
4) Numerous victims have spoken out against this bill, including many who currently have pending lawsuits against drug companies for deaths and birth defects. In addition, there are literally thousands of antidepressant birth defects and suicide lawsuits pending. States are suing drug manufacturers for illegal marketing of psychotropic drugs, and the State of Alaska is being sued for drugging children in state care. If the Federal Government sponsors another drugging program, it is simply asking for lawsuits to be filed, as more mothers are injured and more babies killed.
What could possibly justify the risks that The MOTHERS Act poses to unborn babies and their mothers? Please speak out and ask the 111th Congress not to be the group to pass this bill to increase infant deaths via fatal birth defects and unwanted, drug-induced spontaneous abortions. Considering the many lives of helpless unborn babies at stake, we must all UNITE to kill this legislation.
http://www.uniteforlife.org/
=====
Petition text (what you are signing):
We the undersigned protest any passage of any bill in the U.S. Congress to screen and promote psychiatric drugs to pregnant and new mothers, and particularly to H.R. 20 and S. 324, The MOTHERS Act. This bill endangers mothers and children and puts the public at risk.
For more information we urge you to read current research concerning the dangers of drugs for all people, especially unborn and newborn babies at http://uniteforlife.org/. There you can learn more about the FDA-confirmed doubling of suicides on antidepressant drugs as well as the tremendous risks for unborn children, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, serious and often fatal heart and lung disorders in newborns, SIDS, and numerous other effects including inducing violence against others.
Furthermore we urge you to conduct an investigation into antidepressant drugs and consider passing a ban on any future government-endorsed mental health screening or psychiatric drug promotion efforts, as well as banning government funding for development of new antidepressant drugs.
Thank you for putting the well being and safety of the American people above all else.
Sounds of the Aussie nation taking on John Yoo, torturitecht extrodinaire.
And of course no human being should ever be tortured, or innocent person killed. What are we, animals?
But no one says it better than John Ippolito.
And of course no human being should ever be tortured, or innocent person killed. What are we, animals?
But no one says it better than John Ippolito.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Since I have never been, nor am likely to ever be, pregnant, why do I care so much about new mothers? I guess I'm just nice that way.
A month after Melanie Blocker-Stokes gave birth, she stopped eating and sleeping. She had convinced herself that she was a terrible mother, and she was paranoid that the neighbors thought so too. Over two months, Blocker-Stokes was repeatedly hospitalized for postpartum psychosis; prescribed a cocktail of antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant drugs; and treated with electroconvulsive therapy. Despite her family's efforts to help, Blocker-Stokes leaped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel in 2001, when her daughter was 3½ months old.
Now the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, familiarly known as the Mothers Act, has passed the House and is headed for the Senate. If it becomes law, it will mandate the funding of research, education and public-service announcements about postpartum depression (PPD) along with services for women who have it.
The legislation has sparked surprisingly heated debate, dividing psychologists and spurring a war of petition drives aimed at either bolstering the bill or blocking its passage. "I just can't understand it," says Carol Blocker, Blocker-Stokes' mother. "It breaks my heart that women would be against a bill that would help mothers."
But not everyone agrees that the Mothers Act is destined to help. At the root of the dissent is the issue of screening: Does PPD screening identify cases of real depression or simply contribute to the potentially dangerous medicalization of motherhood?
Although the current version of the Mothers Act does not specifically include funding for PPD testing, an earlier one did (it was based on a New Jersey law that mandates universal PPD screening), and critics say the new act will naturally lead to greater use of screening if it passes. Opponents of the bill contend that mental-health screens are notoriously prone to giving false positives — research suggests that as few as one-third of women flagged by a PPD screen actually have the condition — and say testing is a gambit by pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs.
But clinicians and researchers say screening is intended not as a diagnostic tool but as a way to identify patients who need further evaluation. Studies suggest that PPD affects as many as 1 out of 7 mothers and that failing to treat it exposes women and their babies to unwarranted risk. "Postpartum depression is not a benign, uncommon thing. We screen all infants for [the genetic disorder] phenylketonuria, which is extremely rare. Why don't we screen women for this?" asks University of Pittsburgh Medical Center psychiatrist Katherine Wisner.
Why? Because increased screening could lead to an increase in mothers being prescribed psychiatric medication unnecessarily. That concern lies close to the heart of Amy Philo, 31, of Texas, who has become a leader of the anti–Mothers Act movement. In 2004, shortly after her first son was born, he choked on his vomit and needed emergency treatment. Her son recovered, but after the incident, Philo became preoccupied with his safety and felt severe anxiety about protecting him — a common symptom of PPD. "After a one-minute conversation with my doctor, he gave me Zoloft and said it would make me and my baby happy," she recalls. But Philo says she started having suicidal and homicidal thoughts, which got stronger when another doctor raised her dosage. Eventually, Philo says, she weaned herself off the drug, and her violent feelings disappeared. (Zoloft, like other antidepressant drugs in its class, carries a black-box warning that it can increase suicidal ideation in patients ages 24 and under but not in adults of Philo's age.)
Some psychologists argue that universal PPD screening misses the point because the greatest risk factor for postpartum depression is not giving birth, in fact, but previous depression. Women develop depression at the same rate whether or not they have given birth, according to Stony Brook University psychology professor Marci Lobel. "Women who have been healthy all their lives, who haven't suffered lots of anxiety and depressive symptoms, are unlikely to have problems in the postpartum period — not even close to likely," says Michael O'Hara, a University of Iowa professor of psychology. Further, say experts, while pregnancy hormones may impact a small subgroup of vulnerable women, they have little to do with PPD in most cases. In a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2000, researchers used drugs to mimic the postpartum decline of pregnancy hormones in 16 women, eight with histories of PPD and eight without. Five of the eight women who had previously experienced PPD developed mood symptoms. But none of the women who had never been depressed postpartum were affected.
(Read "The Risks — and Rewards — of Pills and Pregnancy.")
Still, there's no denying that the postpartum period is a difficult one for many women. Some new mothers contend with clinical depression, but many more experience the normal feelings of "baby blues," the short-lived postpartum sadness that affects at least half of all mothers. "[We] should be addressing the social factors causing women to be upset after they give birth, not locating the problem within the women," says Paula Caplan, a clinical and research psychologist.
On either side of the screening debate, experts agree that mothers need help, says Ingrid Johnston-Robledo, director of women's studies at the State University of New York at Fredonia. She adds that opposing arguments over PPD screening need not be mutually exclusive. "The problem with women's reproductive-health issues is that they tend to be ignored or exaggerated," she says. "We need to find a way to come down in the middle: acknowledge women's depression but not assume that all women who struggle with the transition to motherhood are depressed." Ensuring the proper support of mothers, however — whether that means treating depression or caring for women in their new roles — would require an effort much more ambitious than a single law.
A month after Melanie Blocker-Stokes gave birth, she stopped eating and sleeping. She had convinced herself that she was a terrible mother, and she was paranoid that the neighbors thought so too. Over two months, Blocker-Stokes was repeatedly hospitalized for postpartum psychosis; prescribed a cocktail of antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant drugs; and treated with electroconvulsive therapy. Despite her family's efforts to help, Blocker-Stokes leaped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel in 2001, when her daughter was 3½ months old.
Now the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, familiarly known as the Mothers Act, has passed the House and is headed for the Senate. If it becomes law, it will mandate the funding of research, education and public-service announcements about postpartum depression (PPD) along with services for women who have it.
The legislation has sparked surprisingly heated debate, dividing psychologists and spurring a war of petition drives aimed at either bolstering the bill or blocking its passage. "I just can't understand it," says Carol Blocker, Blocker-Stokes' mother. "It breaks my heart that women would be against a bill that would help mothers."
But not everyone agrees that the Mothers Act is destined to help. At the root of the dissent is the issue of screening: Does PPD screening identify cases of real depression or simply contribute to the potentially dangerous medicalization of motherhood?
Although the current version of the Mothers Act does not specifically include funding for PPD testing, an earlier one did (it was based on a New Jersey law that mandates universal PPD screening), and critics say the new act will naturally lead to greater use of screening if it passes. Opponents of the bill contend that mental-health screens are notoriously prone to giving false positives — research suggests that as few as one-third of women flagged by a PPD screen actually have the condition — and say testing is a gambit by pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs.
But clinicians and researchers say screening is intended not as a diagnostic tool but as a way to identify patients who need further evaluation. Studies suggest that PPD affects as many as 1 out of 7 mothers and that failing to treat it exposes women and their babies to unwarranted risk. "Postpartum depression is not a benign, uncommon thing. We screen all infants for [the genetic disorder] phenylketonuria, which is extremely rare. Why don't we screen women for this?" asks University of Pittsburgh Medical Center psychiatrist Katherine Wisner.
Why? Because increased screening could lead to an increase in mothers being prescribed psychiatric medication unnecessarily. That concern lies close to the heart of Amy Philo, 31, of Texas, who has become a leader of the anti–Mothers Act movement. In 2004, shortly after her first son was born, he choked on his vomit and needed emergency treatment. Her son recovered, but after the incident, Philo became preoccupied with his safety and felt severe anxiety about protecting him — a common symptom of PPD. "After a one-minute conversation with my doctor, he gave me Zoloft and said it would make me and my baby happy," she recalls. But Philo says she started having suicidal and homicidal thoughts, which got stronger when another doctor raised her dosage. Eventually, Philo says, she weaned herself off the drug, and her violent feelings disappeared. (Zoloft, like other antidepressant drugs in its class, carries a black-box warning that it can increase suicidal ideation in patients ages 24 and under but not in adults of Philo's age.)
Some psychologists argue that universal PPD screening misses the point because the greatest risk factor for postpartum depression is not giving birth, in fact, but previous depression. Women develop depression at the same rate whether or not they have given birth, according to Stony Brook University psychology professor Marci Lobel. "Women who have been healthy all their lives, who haven't suffered lots of anxiety and depressive symptoms, are unlikely to have problems in the postpartum period — not even close to likely," says Michael O'Hara, a University of Iowa professor of psychology. Further, say experts, while pregnancy hormones may impact a small subgroup of vulnerable women, they have little to do with PPD in most cases. In a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2000, researchers used drugs to mimic the postpartum decline of pregnancy hormones in 16 women, eight with histories of PPD and eight without. Five of the eight women who had previously experienced PPD developed mood symptoms. But none of the women who had never been depressed postpartum were affected.
(Read "The Risks — and Rewards — of Pills and Pregnancy.")
Still, there's no denying that the postpartum period is a difficult one for many women. Some new mothers contend with clinical depression, but many more experience the normal feelings of "baby blues," the short-lived postpartum sadness that affects at least half of all mothers. "[We] should be addressing the social factors causing women to be upset after they give birth, not locating the problem within the women," says Paula Caplan, a clinical and research psychologist.
On either side of the screening debate, experts agree that mothers need help, says Ingrid Johnston-Robledo, director of women's studies at the State University of New York at Fredonia. She adds that opposing arguments over PPD screening need not be mutually exclusive. "The problem with women's reproductive-health issues is that they tend to be ignored or exaggerated," she says. "We need to find a way to come down in the middle: acknowledge women's depression but not assume that all women who struggle with the transition to motherhood are depressed." Ensuring the proper support of mothers, however — whether that means treating depression or caring for women in their new roles — would require an effort much more ambitious than a single law.
The cost of the Afghan misadventurings, coupled with global meltdown, mean that Canadians will be running deficits until 2019, according to one prediction bandied about by the Winnipeg Sun (haven't read the story, just chowing down on the headline). That's a long time to be in relative recession.
James Travers
OTTAWA
Just last fall, fooling enough of the people, enough of the time was pretty easy. With an assist from political rivals, Stephen Harper kept economic reality at bay until after federal ballots were counted.
Now the Prime Minister is engaged in the much more difficult project of persuading history to repeat. He wants voters in the next election to believe the ballooning deficit, the one a recession-proof Canadian economy was so certain to evade, will fix itself.
Fantasy is the free lunch of politics. Eventually, this generation or another will have to pay the price of feasting at the groaning board of stimulus spending.
Worse still, that tab, tallied in more taxes, fewer programs or both, will land on the public table at a most inconvenient moment. About the time Ottawa forecasts its budget will be back into the black, the first swollen cohorts of baby boomers will flee the office for the golf course and medical clinic.
To play loosely with demographer David Foot's memorable metaphor, the pig is making its way through the python and will soon hit the federal fan. Pension and health-care demands will rise just when a government that spent wildly through good times and bad is promising to cut smaller cheques.
After doing his sums, the Prime Minister, who doubles as chief faux economist, forecasts only blue skies, even if they arrive later than first promised. Forget the damage to the manufacturing sector, threatened federal revenues and the staggering debt of its sustaining trading partner, Canada will surge from bust to boom and back to surplus with no structural deficit.
Much to Harper's annoyance, Parliament's independent budget officer Kevin Page, along with real McCoy economist Dale Orr, beg to differ. Infuriating the Prime Minister once again, Page's latest report predicts that come 2014, Ottawa's optimistic turnaround year, the federal government will still be $17 billion in the red. Supporting Page, Orr predicts it will take to 2019-20 to balance the books if Conservatives refuse, as Harper insists, to raise taxes or cut programs.
Even if that status quo scheme doesn't add up to economists, the bottom line is self-evident to politicians. Jump-starting the next campaign, Conservatives are already accusing rivals, most notably Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, of planning to raise taxes. That's only one of the options the Official Opposition is thinking about but it's the one Orr and others consider most likely if the next government, no matter which party forms it, concludes that five years is long enough to carry a deficit.
"If the current economic forecast prevails, Orr says, "raising taxes is the only realistic option to balance the budget by 2013-14."
Realism wasn't central to Conservative strategy in the last election; it's apparently not what they have in mind for the next. Hoping voters will suspend their disbelief a second time, the ruling party is again dangling the prospect of a pain-free future.
Splendid if true, the Conservative chiaroscuro rings false. Along with begging Canadians to forgive being misled last autumn, it asks a lot by murmuring "just trust us" to better manage the economy.
In effect, Harper and friends want to wipe clean the slate listing the compound errors that were pushing the federal government toward deficit even before the recession: successive GST cuts and profligate spending. They want enough voters to believe for just long enough that a prime minister and a party that got it wrong so often now have it right.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday
James Travers
OTTAWA
Just last fall, fooling enough of the people, enough of the time was pretty easy. With an assist from political rivals, Stephen Harper kept economic reality at bay until after federal ballots were counted.
Now the Prime Minister is engaged in the much more difficult project of persuading history to repeat. He wants voters in the next election to believe the ballooning deficit, the one a recession-proof Canadian economy was so certain to evade, will fix itself.
Fantasy is the free lunch of politics. Eventually, this generation or another will have to pay the price of feasting at the groaning board of stimulus spending.
Worse still, that tab, tallied in more taxes, fewer programs or both, will land on the public table at a most inconvenient moment. About the time Ottawa forecasts its budget will be back into the black, the first swollen cohorts of baby boomers will flee the office for the golf course and medical clinic.
To play loosely with demographer David Foot's memorable metaphor, the pig is making its way through the python and will soon hit the federal fan. Pension and health-care demands will rise just when a government that spent wildly through good times and bad is promising to cut smaller cheques.
After doing his sums, the Prime Minister, who doubles as chief faux economist, forecasts only blue skies, even if they arrive later than first promised. Forget the damage to the manufacturing sector, threatened federal revenues and the staggering debt of its sustaining trading partner, Canada will surge from bust to boom and back to surplus with no structural deficit.
Much to Harper's annoyance, Parliament's independent budget officer Kevin Page, along with real McCoy economist Dale Orr, beg to differ. Infuriating the Prime Minister once again, Page's latest report predicts that come 2014, Ottawa's optimistic turnaround year, the federal government will still be $17 billion in the red. Supporting Page, Orr predicts it will take to 2019-20 to balance the books if Conservatives refuse, as Harper insists, to raise taxes or cut programs.
Even if that status quo scheme doesn't add up to economists, the bottom line is self-evident to politicians. Jump-starting the next campaign, Conservatives are already accusing rivals, most notably Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, of planning to raise taxes. That's only one of the options the Official Opposition is thinking about but it's the one Orr and others consider most likely if the next government, no matter which party forms it, concludes that five years is long enough to carry a deficit.
"If the current economic forecast prevails, Orr says, "raising taxes is the only realistic option to balance the budget by 2013-14."
Realism wasn't central to Conservative strategy in the last election; it's apparently not what they have in mind for the next. Hoping voters will suspend their disbelief a second time, the ruling party is again dangling the prospect of a pain-free future.
Splendid if true, the Conservative chiaroscuro rings false. Along with begging Canadians to forgive being misled last autumn, it asks a lot by murmuring "just trust us" to better manage the economy.
In effect, Harper and friends want to wipe clean the slate listing the compound errors that were pushing the federal government toward deficit even before the recession: successive GST cuts and profligate spending. They want enough voters to believe for just long enough that a prime minister and a party that got it wrong so often now have it right.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday
I know how I would feel if my little girl went missing, so some time ago I decided to put missing children on my blog at intervals so that there is more publicity about them. This is a follow up to the story of Cedrika Provencher, which appeared a month or so ago in the Northern Witch news stream. You can call Guy Bertrand with any information or tips at 1-418-687-2862. If you call from outside Quebec, he will accept the charges for your call. Cedrika's family have also established a website, www.cedrika.com
Almost two years before Tori Stafford was abducted in Woodstock, Ont., another young girl went missing near her home in Quebec. Here is a look at the disappearance of Cedrika Provencher.
July 31, 2007: Nine-year-old Cedrika Provencher disappears in Trois-Rivières, Que., after telling a woman she was helping a man look for a lost dog,
August 1, 2007: Quebec provincial police find Cedrika’s grey and white bicycle behind a garbage dumpster, two kilometers from where the girl was last seen.
Police look for a man whom they believed approached Cedrika, and several other young girls, claiming he needed help looking for his dog.
Aug. 13, 2007: Businesses, organizations and individuals chip in to offer $80,000 as a reward for information leading to the girl’s whereabouts. By November, that number climbs to $100,000.
Aug. 23, 2007: Quebec provincial police say a girl matching the description of Cedrika Provencher is spotted with a man in a restaurant in Chandler, Que., more than 900 kilometres east of Montreal. Roadblocks are set up but authorities don’t find any trace of the man or the girl.
Sept. 6, 2007: Quebec police release descriptions of a car and man they believe are connected to the disappearance Cedrika. Police tell the public to be on the lookout for a white man with brown hair who has access to a red four-door Acura, proba
Almost two years before Tori Stafford was abducted in Woodstock, Ont., another young girl went missing near her home in Quebec. Here is a look at the disappearance of Cedrika Provencher.
July 31, 2007: Nine-year-old Cedrika Provencher disappears in Trois-Rivières, Que., after telling a woman she was helping a man look for a lost dog,
August 1, 2007: Quebec provincial police find Cedrika’s grey and white bicycle behind a garbage dumpster, two kilometers from where the girl was last seen.
Police look for a man whom they believed approached Cedrika, and several other young girls, claiming he needed help looking for his dog.
Aug. 13, 2007: Businesses, organizations and individuals chip in to offer $80,000 as a reward for information leading to the girl’s whereabouts. By November, that number climbs to $100,000.
Aug. 23, 2007: Quebec provincial police say a girl matching the description of Cedrika Provencher is spotted with a man in a restaurant in Chandler, Que., more than 900 kilometres east of Montreal. Roadblocks are set up but authorities don’t find any trace of the man or the girl.
Sept. 6, 2007: Quebec police release descriptions of a car and man they believe are connected to the disappearance Cedrika. Police tell the public to be on the lookout for a white man with brown hair who has access to a red four-door Acura, proba