Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Truthdig Radio: Keep McChrystal Retired

Posted on Apr 13, 2011
Photo illustration from an image by Colin Grey

(Page 3)

Sandra Postel: Yes, that’s a very good point. There are two … you can think of this scarcity issue in two different forms. One is where we’re overtapping water, and so we’re using more than is sustainable. The second is what you might call economic scarcity, where we haven’t put the infrastructure in place to meet everybody’s basic needs for water. And so much of sub-Saharan Africa, [and] poor parts of South Asia, are in this economic scarcity situation where people don’t have access to safe drinking water, something we take for granted every day. And there’s more than a billion people in that category now. Something like 2.7 billion without adequate sanitation. So this is a leading cause of disease and death in poor parts of the world, and it’s a solvable problem; it’s not about technology; the technology, of course is there; the water is there. We’re not talking about there not being enough water; there is; it’s access to it. It’s being able to access safe drinking water. And so it’s putting in the pipes, and the wells, and the treatment to get safe drinking water to everybody, to meet basic needs. And that’s, as I say, a doable, solvable, problem; we just haven’t had the political will and the, put the financial resources there to get that basic need met.

Josh Scheer: Just in the last few days, the Indians are announcing they have a new water policy, and I heard that the Chinese are going to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years to kind of make themselves have clean drinking water. Until they have this kind of water issue solved, will they be able to be, consider themselves first-world countries, if we still use that term, or do they still need to deal with their water problem?

Sandra Postel: You mean China itself?

Josh Scheer: In China and India, yeah.


Square, Site wide
Sandra Postel: Well I think, you know, I think meeting basic needs of one’s people, basic—having clean drinking water and adequate sanitation is basic security. So I think until any country provides for the basic security of their population, there’s a question there as to whether they, what category of economic status they belong to. And of course you could say that about health care, and other things; I don’t know that water is—I mean, water is special in that obviously if you don’t have safe drinking water, you’re taking a risk every day by the water you drink.

Josh Scheer: Peter, I want to jump on this point, because about security, because—well no, because the U.S. Congress is talking about water being security when we’re going to have wars for water, possibly, right? I mean, that’s what a lot of scientists have said, that we’re going to have an issue in years to come with war. So this is a security issue, not just for China or India, but also the U.S. and everybody else. Right?

Sandra Postel: Yeah, I think water is a source of conflict when it’s not divided up fairly and when people’s needs aren’t getting met, whether that’s their food needs, or their drinking-water needs, or what have you. So absolutely, if we don’t figure out how to share the water we have, and meet everyone’s basic needs, there will be tension and conflict over water. I’m not so worried about there being outright wars over water. I’m more worried about the sort of social destabilization that will occur as you have lack of water, rising food prices; I mean this is one of the pressures we saw that led to the situation in North Africa that we’re experiencing now. The fact that two years ago, food prices skyrocketed, and there were riots in a dozen or more countries, because people now couldn’t afford bread. And this is partly a water-stress factor; it’s partly oil prices; it’s all connected. And so water stress and climate change on top of that is going to, I think, manifest through rising food prices and food shortages and water shortages on top of it. So this will be very destabilizing unless we get a handle on it and begin to prepare and adapt to this new future that’s coming.

Peter Scheer: Would you—I mean, would you compare it to oil in terms of—in that sense? In terms of destabilizing, and …

Sandra Postel: Absolutely, I would. Yeah, and I think in some ways it’s more a concern, because water has no substitute. We have the option right now to shift away from oil and coal and the fossil fuels that are driving climate change; we have the option to shift to renewable energy sources, to solar and wind and other renewable sources. We don’t have any option to shift away, to transition away, from water. We have the options to use it more productively, share it more equitably, make sure the environment gets what it needs to stay healthy; we can make those choices, but we can’t shift away from water. It’s how we use it and manage it and value it that’s going to make all the difference.

Peter Scheer: Do you see a future where, you know, Canada becomes a great world power because of its water resources? Other countries like that?

Sandra Postel: Well, the thing with water is it’s very different from oil in the sense that we can’t ship it around the world in large quantities. It’s way too bulky, it’s way too expensive, to move it in large quantities around the world. What we do do, and how we do trade water, is to ship it indirectly in the form of grain. This is the way—in a sense you can think of grain as the currency by which we trade water in large volumes around the world. It takes a thousand tons of water to make one ton of grain. So when Egypt is importing half of its wheat, it’s doing that because it doesn’t have the water to grow the wheat. So for every ton of wheat, it’s importing a thousand tons of somebody else’s water. So I think North America, especially the United States and Canada, will be looked to more and more in the future as suppliers of food, and therefore indirectly as suppliers of water, because we are very fortunate to have an abundance of water, both to grow crops and to meet other needs. And much of it isn’t even irrigation water. You know, if you look at the United States, most of our food production is produced using rainfall. So managing our agricultural lands well, and preserving them for the future, is really, really, important. So I think, yes, other parts of the world will look toward Western Europe, North America, Canada and the U.S. to be major suppliers of food in the future. That said, I do think that a lot of effort has to go into food self-sufficiency at the grass roots—you know, basically in the villages where the food is needed. There’s a lot more investment that can happen in affordable irrigation and agricultural practices that improve the productivity of these low-productivity lands, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which are going to be hit hard, unfortunately, by climate change.

Peter Scheer: Maybe you can clear this up for me, because you were saying that water is a finite resource, it’s irreplaceable, but that there’s a lot we can do; it’s a solvable problem, there’s a lot we can do to get it out and address these concerns. What are those things that we can do to address this problem? And I guess my concern is, do we ever end up in a situation where we’ve so polluted our resources, or we’ve so exploited them for luxury items, that we run out?

Sandra Postel: Just to be clear about the water cycle, it’s—you know, water is renewable. It’s a renewable resource, but it’s finite. You know, there’s only so much that’s made available by the water cycle in any given place.

Peter Scheer: I see.

Sandra Postel: So we can expect, you know, the water cycle to speed up as climate change comes along; we’re already beginning to notice this, and that’s partly what’s going on with the likelihood of more floods and droughts. So it’s a renewable supply; it’s going to rain every year. Not the same every year, but on balance, it’s going to rain every year, in about the same amount. But it’s only in a finite quantity. And so these signs of unsustainability, that we’re overtapping groundwater, the calculations that I and others have made, suggest we have a bubble in the food economy right now, because we’re overpumping groundwater. So as much as 10 percent of the world’s current food supply depends on the overpumping of groundwater, the unsustainable use of groundwater. And if we’ve learned anything in the last 10 years, it’s that bubbles pop. You know, the dot-com bubble popped; the housing bubble popped; we’ll see a pop in the food economy as groundwater depletion proceeds, and wells go dry, and farmers take that land out of production. It won’t be one big pop all at the same time; it’ll happen gradually in different places; but this is something we have to reckon with. So it’s that sense that water is renewable, but finite, and we’ve got to figure out how to live more sustainably within it. The keys to doing that really are looking at how to use water more productively. Actually, two things: the important thing, in my view, is that we allocate enough water to ecosystems, to the rivers, to the wetlands, to maintain the important services we get from them. Because right now, they’re taking the hit. We’re overextracting water, and ecosystems are dying around the world, from the Aral Sea to the Colorado Delta to the many, many rivers in the western United States that are now basically depleted for periods of time, to the Yellow River in China. So there’s an enormous amount of harm being done to ecosystems we benefit from. And so that’s the first piece, is to make sure we give the water that ecosystems need to be healthy. And then that begins to unleash a whole set of ways of improving water productivity. You know, drip irrigation in agriculture, soil- and water-conserving agricultural methods, reducing the amount of water that’s used to make our products, internal recycling within factories. We have so much slack in the water system, because we haven’t been giving the users of water, whether it’s farmers or factories or homeowners, the right incentive to use water efficiently, to conserve it and use it more productively. And as we get those signals right, and as we begin to dedicate water to the environment and realize—ah! we only have this much to use for ourselves, we’ll get a whole lot more efficient and productive with it. We just haven’t sent those signals out right.

Josh Scheer: Well, thank you very much, Sandra, and again, next time we’ll have to talk about desalination, because I know that’s a big part of it too [Laughs] …

Peter Scheer: That’s Josh’s—that’s Josh’s pet project.

Josh Scheer: No, no—I’m a big water fan, and I’m glad you came out and talked to us about it.

Sandra Postel: OK, my pleasure.

Peter Scheer: Sandra Postel is one of the world’s leading authorities on fresh water. She is the founder of the Global Water Policy project and the author of “Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity,” among other books. Take care.

Sandra Postel: OK, take care.

Peter Scheer: Sandra Postel is head of National Geographic’s freshwater initiative. Learn more at

* * *

Kasia Anderson: Welcome back to Truthdig Radio. I’m Kasia Anderson, associate editor at Truthdig. And I’m here with James Harris, who is host of many a Truthdig podcast, and, I must say, possessor of an excellent radio voice. And we’re talking with Daniel Denvir; he’s a Philadelphia-based journalist and a regular contributor to Salon, AlterNet and The Guardian.

So why don’t you just set up the scene for us a little bit with your Salon article? It’s “The 10 Most Segregated Urban Areas In America.” What kind of sparked you to this project, and what were your major findings?

Daniel Denvir: First of all, the census numbers that are released every 10 years are sort of a gold mine to look at where we are as a country, in terms of issues like race. And race is an issue that, when it’s discussed in the U.S., is often not discussed in a very coherent or productive fashion. So the census allows us to sort of look at the situation with some objective aid and say, you know, there’s still a lot of problems; notably, Americans still tend to live in very different neighborhoods that are segregated by race.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Guy Montag, April 17, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

In her paperback edition of “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” (at Mary Tillman wrote:

“McChrystal’s actions should have been grounds for firing.  That is why it was so disturbing to us when President Obama instead promoted McChrystal to the position of top commander in Afghanistan last year.  I had sent the President an email and a letter reminding him of McChrystal’s involvement in the cover-up of Pat’s death.”

“I also contacted the staffs of Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator James Webb and expressed my concerns.  I had several conversations with members of the staffs of both senators, but it was clear that neither senator wanted to get involved.” … [Senator]McCain was already publicly endorsing the McChrystal appointment before the hearing even began. … Sadly, McChrystal’s promotion had been sanctioned long before the hearing.  None of the congressmen pressed McChrysal about Pat’s case … or detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama …”

“Over the last five years, the Pentagon and Congress have had numerous opportunities to hold accountable those responsible for the cover-up of Pat’s death.  Each time they’ve failed. … The Tillman Story illustrates the corruption, deception, and indifference that is systemic in our government. …

The cover-up of Pat’s death was orchestrated at the very highest levels of the Pentagon, and elsewhere in our government … the government didn’t just   lie to us; it lied to a nation.”
. . .

Mary Tillman was critical of President Obama’s 2009 nomination of Gen. McChrystal and the bipartisan Congressional failure to hold him accountable for his central role in the Army’s cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly fire death.

Over the next five years, the ensuing Army & Congressional “investigations” were part of the bi-partisan whitewash which “exonerated” Gen. McChrystal and others involved of wrong-doing.

Besides the Bush Administration, some of the more prominent figures involved in the whitewash include:  Senator McCain, Senator Webb, Senator Levin, Congressman Waxman, President Obama, NYT reporter Thom Shanker, Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and CNAS’s Andrew Exum.

For details, see “The [Untold] Tillman Story” at

And, Jon Krakauer whitewashed Obama’s and the Democratic Congress’s role in his book, but I’m not finished writing up that story yet.

Report this

By Guy Montag, April 17, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Here are some excerpts from interviews with Amir Bar-Lev, the director of the documentary “The Tillman Story”:

“General McChrystal is just one of several high-ranking figures who’s never been called to account for his role, and the story continues to this very moment. He gets up there at his swearing-in [Senate confirmation hearing June 2, 2009] and basically says what has been said all along, which is, “I know what it looks like. I know that it looks like we deliberately covered it up, but believe us that it was this Rube Goldberg-esque chain of mistakes, blunders, and errors that look like a cover-up.” 

“The only f—-ing idiots who buy that, the only fools who believe that, are the mainstream press. It’s just so clear to everyone else, and it’s the equivalent of saying, “Honey, I know that it looks like I’m f—-ing your sister, but actually I dropped my wallet, and then my belt fell down, and she happened to be there.” That’s what the military has done in the Pat Tillman case.”

“The public perception is that (the Tillmans) have been apologized to over and over again ... it’s ludicrous,” Bar-Lev said. “The idea there was a mistake is itself a lie. It’s a Rube Goldberg explanation. They (the military officials) say there was never any deliberate attempt to deceive anybody.” … “How somebody can get away with a lie that’s worse than ‘the dog ate my homework’ and that he would be put in charge of the war effort is ridiculous.”

” Listen, it’s not a complicated answer. No one in the government has ever admitted that there was a cover-up, and to watch the contortions that these public figures go to in order to publicly flagellate themselves without admitting what’s pretty obvious to everybody — that they tried to cover up Pat Tillman’s death — is absurd.” 

For links to interviews and more extensive excerpts, see

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 16, 2011 at 11:35 pm Link to this comment

Obama has proven to be just another puppet of the Right.

Report this

By Guy Montag, April 14, 2011 at 3:09 am Link to this comment

Just a couple weeks before the 7th anniversary of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death on April 22, 2004, I’d guess the Tillman family isn’t happy with yet another slap in their face by President Obama’s appointment of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as advisor of the new program “Joining Forces.”

Mary Tillman was critical of President Obama’s 2009 nomination of Gen. McChrystal and the bipartisan Congressional failure to hold him accountable for his central role in the Army’s cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly fire death.

In May 2004, Gen. McChrystal supervised the writing of Pat Tillman’s fraudulent Silver Star and the cover-up of his friendly-fire death by the Ranger RGT officers. 

Over the next five years, the ensuing Army & Congressional “investigations” were part of the bi-partisan whitewash which “exonerated” Gen. McChrystal and others involved of wrong-doing.
For more details, I’d suggest Mary Tillman’s book “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” (revised paperback edition with a new forward at, Jon Krakauer’s paperback edition “Where Men Win Glory” (although a flawed bio, it has details on McChrystal’s role in the Army’s cover-up), the fine documentary “The Tillman Story,” and my Feral Firefighter blog at

Last June, I posted “The Emperor’s General” which discussed President Obama’s role in the whitewash of Gen. McChrystal.  Last August, I posted “The [Untold] Tillman Story” which discussed how a bi-partisan Congressional effort shielded McChrystal from accountability (and also the role of NYT reporter Thom Shanker and CNAS’s Andrew Exum).  Another post described Senator James Webb’s role in the Senate’s whitewash of McChrystal.  These posts present much of the source material and/or provide links if you want to “truth dig” a bit deeper.

Ironically, although Center for a New American Security (CNAS) will run the “Joining Forces” program, their Fellow Andrew Exum contributed to McChrystal’s whitewash with his biased book review of Jon Krakauer’s book for the Washington Post (he failed to fully disclose his professional and personal conflicts of interests with McChrystal).

Considering their past betrayal of the Tillman family, it appears that Gen. McChrystal and CNAS are a poor choice to run the “Joining Forces” program to take care of our military veterans and their families.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide