LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Truthdig Trek with Chris Hedges
March 21, 2010
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Kucinich Predicts Health Care Will Pass by One Vote

The Heircut

Why Democrats Are Fighting for a Republican Health Plan

General Points Finger at Gays in Bosnian Massacre

'Daily Show': Progressives Are Out to Get Us All

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Breaking the Sound Barrier

Breaking the Sound Barrier

By Amy Goodman
$10.80

more items

 
Reports

How Many Villages Must We Bomb Before We Find bin Laden?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Share
Posted on Nov 13, 2008

By William Pfaff

Barack Obama has said that he is not against war, only against stupid wars. One might then reasonably ask if the present war in Afghanistan is not a stupid war?

During the election campaign, the president-elect said it was the “right war” (instead of the one in Iraq), and that he would even support opportunistic illegal raids into Pakistan to seize Osama bin Laden, in emulation of that contempt for international law that when displayed by the George W. Bush administration won the United States so much admiration.

What is this war for? To seize bin Laden and his associates. The American government believes that he and his headquarters are in Pakistan, and presumably has intelligence to support that conclusion—although it has not been good enough for many months of American air attacks and special forces operations into the badlands of the Pakistani-Afghan frontier to succeed.

What level of confidence do American officials have that he still is there, despite all the effort to find him? If he is still in Pakistan’s tribal region, and given that he is an intelligent man, why should he stay there, waiting to be bombed or captured? During the Vietnam War, according to Stanley Karnow’s comprehensive history of the war, the American command insisted that there was a large Communist headquarters, the “Central Office for South Vietnam”—COSVN—located in the so-called Fishhook district of Cambodia.

That was one reason for the Nixon-Kissinger invasion of Cambodia. The combined South Vietnamese and American operation was in part motivated by the goal of finding and destroying this headquarters. When they found it, according to Karnow, instead of being “the miniature Pentagon imagined by official U.S. spokesmen,” American troops found “a scattering of empty huts, their occupants having fled weeks before.”

Advertisement

What reason is there to think that bin Laden is less prudent than the Vietnamese? Given six years of warnings that Washington believes he is in the Pakistan tribal territories, and is trying to find him there, would it not be reasonable for him to make other arrangements? Is it not possible that he and his headquarters would be gone by the time Americans or their auxiliaries, the reluctant Pakistani army and frontier police, finally arrive? Assuming that they do.

We are incessantly reminded that this is a world of instant communications. Bin Laden and his staff, for all that we know, might long ago have set themselves up in a comfortable resort hotel somewhere in the Gulf Emirates, or in the South American highlands, or the South Seas. Perhaps they have trimmed their beards, visited fashionable tailors, and now live in comfortable apartments in Paris or London, meeting in restaurants, and communicating with their collaborators through e-mails sent through constantly shifting networks of e-mail cafes. Or perhaps he uses the ordinary post office. His agents may also regularly disseminate heartless rumors in Pakistan about villages where he can be found, timed to invite American air raids to kill the maximum number of civilians.

The second objective of the American and NATO war is to prevent a Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan, the country it ruled from 1994 until 2001, when the U.S. organized anti-Taliban regional forces to retake the country, supported by U.S. B-52s. This was to punish the Taliban for having given pre-2001 hospitality to bin Laden, possessing a similar Islamic fundamentalist religious program. However, the Taliban itself were then concerned only with Afghanistan and had no foreign activities, terrorist or otherwise.

The Taliban today simply wants back what it considers its country, since its tribal and ethnic group is not only the largest in Afghanistan but in the entire region, totaling an estimated 40 million people.

Many in Pakistan, including part of the army’s intelligence apparatus, agree, so the American and NATO war against the Taliban is slowly, and one fears inexorably, merging with a struggle inside Pakistan between Islamic integrists and the new Pakistan government, which is identified with the increasingly hated Americans who keep bombing villages inside Pakistan.

The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a war against a fanatical religious group that is backed by many of the 40-million-member Pathan ethnic group; the U.S.-NATO effort supports a weak, and by general acknowledgment corrupt, American-sponsored government in Kabul. Moreover, again according to general agreement, they are losing this war, a prospect that will not be changed by the two U.S. brigades scheduled to reinforce the troops there.

Washington has until now resisted initiatives, apparently coming from both sides in the war, to find compromises and a settlement.

Washington’s purpose in attacking what historically has been the most stubbornly impenetrable region of Asia is to lay hands on a man who might not be there and even if he is will undoubtedly leave before American troops arrive—if they arrive.

Does this sound like a stupid war? It is one of George Bush’s two stupid wars. Obama might announce just that, say that Washington will support whatever settlement of the fighting its Asian participants can agree upon, and has a secret plan to deal with Osama bin Laden in its own time and its own way, which no longer will be by fighting cruel and irrelevant wars in small countries.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Space Peeple, February 8, 2009 at 12:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

On September 10, 2001, the day before 911, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield held a press conference to disclose that over Two Trillion Dollars in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfield stated: “According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion in transactions.” According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for twenty percent of what it spends.  The timing of this admission just one day before 911 kept this story from even making the news at the time. Even when it was finally reported months later, this revelation received scant coverage. Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried… I think that 911 was an inside jobs, an Operation NorthWoods to make way for Project Of A New American Century. Peace to the world.

Report this

By Nozferatu, November 20, 2008 at 9:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Last I checked, the Afghans and Al Queada weren’t demolition experts and didn’t have access to huge high rise buildings in downtown NY days at a time to plant charges of thermite explosive.

Let’s get one thing clear…anyone with half a brain and understanding of physics really isn’t that stupid to think the two tallest buildings in the world would collapse into their own footprint nicely and neatly…would they?

And people do realize that reinforced, hardened steel allow doesn’t crumble into dust right? 

Look up pyroclastic flow…and understand when such flows of soot, ash, and debris occur.

Al Quaeda…what a laugh.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm #

The Bushites are not imcompetent, INhert, they’re crazy.  They have conducted a political counterrevolution in the US power system tht is largely unrecognized by the American population.  Successfully locking it in so it will be carried on by Obama.

The reason they appear to be incompetent, aside from Bush pretending to be stupid because he is trying to be a ‘regular guy’ as opposed to Elite progressives,
is because his stated objectives conflict sharply with his opeative objectives.  He his actually promoting goals of the neolibs, Zionist and militaristic while pretending to promote the interests of the American population and American power system.  The long term interests of American power are opposed to his short term interests.

His operatiave objectives, however, proposed by PNAC and Brzezinski, are insame.  What Hobsbawm called the standard megalomania of imperialisms.  The US as a Superpower does not have the power to do what they propose.  This obvious failure has drastically curtailed US world power in a few short years. 
But there is no competant way to pursue insanity, as Obama, and his adherants, will find out.  It winds up the way Hitler’s Germany did or militarized Japan.
And as Israel will.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

Gee, ITW—I just dont see any of the accusations that you made here—you know people saying that the “Taliban is a popular party”, etc. Perhaps if you didnt exaggerate so much, ...

I think you cant get another thread out of your mind.

Tony—I would agree with this.

ITW—Of course the planes hit the WTC. How does that PROVE that it was Al Qaeda??I think they were involved…but, wtf??? Why do you think that Afghanistan woudl “now be at peace”? All of your assertions are just conjecture. What is more, I dont belive that we (or many other countries) want peace in Afghanistan (I mean the govt), at least not until we get a pipeline through.

The people of Afghanistan may hate the Taliban—but I can guarantee you that they hate us more! This should have been handled as an intl criminal matter—9/11. The fact that it was not makes our actions in Afghanistan, criminal and, probably irrepairable.

Bush et al (who is Cheney’s ass puppet—he even moves his lips) is NOT stupid, IS incompetent, but, achieved much of what the neo-cons intended! (Shock Doctrine) LOOK at how it “ends” for them! They have alot more money and, what do most of them care about?

Who said (on this thread) that Israel was behind it? I fear that you are joining the “trollers” ranks—people who troll, on a specific issue—Obama, Israel, Hillary (not makin’ friends here, am I?)—-just looking for anything “anti their cause”. It leads to silly assertions…

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 19, 2008 at 2:54 am #

ITW,

On 9-11, nobody I know says the planes didn’t hit the towers. I think bin Laden was very much involved. It’s just that I think there were ongoing contacts between some elements of the CIA and bin Laden that go back to the days when the U.S. was arming the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union, and that bin Laden had inside help from these elements which saw the attack as a pretext for invasion of the Middle East and the establishment of a full military dictatorship at home.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 19, 2008 at 2:39 am #

Obama says we need to be there to “stamp out Al Qaeda”, but I suspect the more important reason is to be able to secure or pacify the country enough to be able to put oil pipelines through from central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 19, 2008 at 1:26 am #

Let’s start with something we all agree on: Bush screwed up the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let’s go on to something ELSE we all agree on: the war in Iraq was TOTALLY unjustified, illegal and criminal.

Now let’s go to where we disagree: On the war in Afghanistan.

IF the WTC and Pentagon attacks WERE engineered by Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and integrated with the repulsive Taliban, then our attack and driving out of power of both was totally justified.  However, had we NOT pulled our resources out of Afghanistan to start and fight the illegal war in Iraq, Afghanistan would be at peace, and we would have been the first nation to do that.  Why? Because most of the people DETEST the Taliban and are terrified of them.  But now it’s almost as much of a mess as Iraq because the same incompetents were in charge of both.  What to do now? I don’t really know, and I don’t think Obama knows, but I DAMN well know McCain didn’t have a clue.

But SO many hear believe that Al Qaeda was not behind 9/11 (despite my having friends who SAW the planes hit), and have bought into a) the immediate slander by Islamic fanatics that somehow the Israelis were behind it (????) or the equally nutty idea that Bush&Co;was behind it (the same ones who couldn’t figure out how to finish Afghanistan OR Iraq) (???)

Now we see Pfaff try to tell us that the vile evil Taliban regime is no more than the most popular party in Afghanistan.  I guess it’s OK with these folks that the Taliban will stone to death an “adulteress” even if she’s a rape victim.

I do not understand people here.  Bush is evil and vile: granted.  But this incompetent muttonhead hasn’t SUCCESSFULLY gotten ANYTHING to work—how could he and his fellow imbeciles have pulled off 9/11?  It just doesn’t parse.

Well, I guess the flaming will begin…Kill a man and you’re a murderer.  Kill an article of faith an you’re a HERETIC!!!.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 18, 2008 at 11:46 pm #

problemsolver—Can you be more specific, or, is it just too difficult? What sort of “stronger military response” shall we launch? Against whom? Anyone and everyone?This will not create more jihadists , how? Should we just kill all Afghanis? All Muslims?

NATO did not “ignore” the Taliban before 9/11—you said it yourself—we trained and armed them…

It is true that we promoted the Taliban…how shall we now “combat it”? When will we decide that they are an ally again?

How will it not become Vietnam with sand? Who should go? Just working class Guard and Reserve? Your kids? Grandkids? Great grandkids?

This is the only place they have…when would they be likely to “give up”?

When should we stop paying people to not kill us? Before or after we sell them the arms to do it with?

A “strong military response” is what we always do—it doesnt seem to work. What, more troops? More bombs? A draft? Mercenaries? What??? Because, just carpet bombing doesnt seem to be having the desored effect.

Report this

By problemsolver, November 18, 2008 at 6:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to be easy to lump the Iraqi misadventure with the Afghanistan campaign, but this should be resisted.  Iraq was a modern, secular state, where minority religions and cultures were protected.  The Bush-Cheney neocon stupidity ultimately destroyed this relatively stable country.  The problem with Afghanistan, as with Somalia, is that what had been fractured multi-factional Islamic states were consolidated by virulently militant Islamic factions.  It would be a serious mistake to treat these countries as places where hurts inflicted by non-Islamic forces are responsible for the insurgencies.  Recall that the extraordinary virulence of the Afghan variety of Islam led to the attempted destruction of all non-Islamic art, to the complete repression of women, and, in order to carry jihad to the West, to the terrorist training camps.  This movement, though, is not new: Islam began as fanatical mauraders sweeping across first the Arabian peninsula, then the Near East, and then deep into Africa and the Middle East all the way to the Indian subcontinent, and into Europe.  True, traders carried it to Southeast Asia, and there, by overwhelming and isolating other religions, Islam gained effective control of the Indonesian archipelago. Currently they are hiving away increasing areas of the Phillipines, Thailand, the Former Soviet Union (e.g., Chechnya), former Jugoslavia (Kosovo), and many places in Africa.  All of these hot spots have their own local colorings, but the underlying jihadist agenda is common.  It may be true that the creation of Israel and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs invigorated the movement over the past few decades, but it has always been around, at various degrees of virulence at different times.  Yet this has not been widely understood by the non-Islamic world.  NATO got involved in Afghanistan only after 9/11 and the expectation of more wide-spread attacks against western “crusaders” and non-militant Moslems who sought to accommodate the West.  Where the jihadist variety of Islam is dominant it will be impossible to find a solution; they must be repudiated, and from within the cultures, but this will not be easy.
Leaving the Afghans to their own devices any time soon will result in a blood bath that will make Pol Pot’s genocidal treatment of Cambodians look like a picnic.  It simply cannot be done.  The moronic negative attitude (prior to 9/11) of GW toward `nation building’ helped to create the situation in Somalia and certainly did not help in dealing with the Afghan threat (in fact previous US administrations promoted, armed, and trained the Taliban to fight against the USSR, and subsequently allowed them to fight against the Serbs).  Somalia is another place where jihadists were on the edge of taking over before the Ethopian army intervened.  Encouraging the Ethiopian intervention is one of the rare instances where the Bush administration did something right.
The Jihadists in these places must be combatted and repudiated while populations are encouraged along different cultural lines.  A major world-wide educational campaign must be mounted to counter militant Islam, otherwise it will continue to advance and drive out all other religions and cultures and stifle free thought and individualism.  No simple-minded solution will be found until this problem is confronted fully; until it is, for the foreseeable future, strong military responses will be required.

Report this

By Steve, November 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive, and quite a lot to the contrary, such as obituaries and announcements from people who ought to know.  He has become the Emmanual Goldstein of our own 1984.  Just how long do you suppose a cave-dwelling dialysis patient with end-stage kidney disease is supposed to live?  We are supposed to rally around the President to defend us against the unseen evil, while the economy is looted by those in power.  If you let it happen, you deserve your fate.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm #

Tony—I would agree. International rule of law.

I think we need to back off of the militarism in general. We are not (never were, really) in a position to decide, on our own, what is “just”. The entire world would probaly agree with thzt now, unfortunately.

HOw about a Dept of Peace?(As Kucinich proposed)

I wish I could believe that Bush et al would be brought to justice…

If PE Obama does not want to pursue it, a Congress that wouldnt stand up to Bush, will certainly be more careful about standing up to Obama.

I think some EU Intl courts have already held a “trial” for Rummy, although , of course, he didnt show! lol..There was also talk of Cheney not going overseas, as he could be arrested by criminal courts, in Italy, I think—extraordinary rendition stuff…maybe they should use it on him..just a thought..

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 17, 2008 at 5:29 pm #

By KDelphi, November 17 at 11:32 am
——————————————————————————-K,

I don’t think we have any disagreement. Strict pacifism regards all violence including self-defense as morally wrong. This is a position that may make sense to some people from a religious standpoint. Also, non-violent resistance to power has been used most effectively by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. But that is a political strategy that does not apply in every case. True self-defense is a valid justification for war, but the problem is that no warring country admits to being the aggressor; they all claim to be acting in “self-defense”. What is self-defense, what is aggression and where both countries are to blame for a conflict (which is usually the case) should be up to judges in the World Court to determine. The U.S. attack on Iraq is a clear case of aggression, the World Court should try those responsible (Bush-Cheney) and I hope this will happen. 

The only valid reason I can think of for sending an army to war other than self-defense is the defense of the human rights of others. Here also, the judgment ought to be made by an impartial judge on the World Court, not by any individual country. We cannot have countries acting as vigilantes on the world stage. We need international rule of law.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 17, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

Tony Wicher—I suspect I would have little quarrel with you, but, are you saying that pacifism allows for self defense? Because, historically it does not (You know, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Quakers/AFSC—who have enraged me at times, when I have marched with them—they wil not defend themselves!)

Self defense is in reaction to a direct threat to one’s life and limb. I would suggest that what we are doing , well,everywhere, right now, is not self defense.

Further, to me, it appears to be WORSE than useless. It is creating MORE rage towards the US.

Maybe I am just not being clear, or contradicting myself…dont know.Point it out to me, please.

Report this

By diamond, November 17, 2008 at 1:10 am #

God, with a father like Emmanuel Senior who needs enemies? And bin Laden might be dead but on the other hand the CIA gave him and his fighters so much laundered crime money in the 90’s that he could also be living in luxury somewhere. He can also afford plastic surgery, unlike many Americans (burns victims and the like) with no health care who actually need it.

Report this
sam brown's avatar

By sam brown, November 17, 2008 at 1:07 am #

Hulk2008,

``The US needs to develop air, wind, solar, natural gas, vanilla extract, whatever ... then extricate itself from that briarpatch ASAP so the locals can go back to their self-inflicted 1000-year wars. 

Let ‘em choke on their filthy oil.”

Oh but Kissinger and Cheney and the Bushes would never allow that, not till the very last filthy drop is expropriated wink

Just started reading this book titled “The True Story of The Bilderberg Group” by Daniel Estulin, who they didn’t waste time in attempting to do away with (by removing the floor of an elevator that he was awaiting way up in a Toronto office block hoping to be transported to the ground floor in a swoosh, but which almost ended in a spectacular splosh, at the shaft’s distant bottom).

Anyway this is rather interesting. On page 29 Estulin points out that ``Bilderberg meetings are always frank,” but don’t always end harmoniously [with consensus]. Apparently in recent times French, British and American attendees have practically come to blows—over Iraq’s rich oil and natural gas reserves. Figures. In 2003 Dominique de Villepin, then France’s Foreign Minister, confronted Kissinger with “if only [you] Americans had told [us] the truth about Iraq,” the French “would not have vetoed [your] UN resolutions. The rest of the world is not stupid, Henry.” According to sources, gloomily Hank walked away, [muttering to himself, “Damn! How did they ever discover what we were up to? Sometimes life just isn’t fair…”]

Naturally the only problem with mentioning the Bilderbergers is that they’ll go even deeper underground… perhaps meet on the moon or Mars next, well away from prying eyes and ears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3fzi-9D5Y&feature=related

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 16, 2008 at 10:20 pm #

Re Robert, November 14 at 10:32 am #


Reuters Nov. 13 reports

Top Obama aide apologizes for father’s remarks

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4AC99K20081113

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to an Arab-American group on Thursday for comments disparaging Arabs made by his father.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent a letter to Emanuel calling on him to distance himself from remarks made by the elder Emanuel in an interview with an Israeli newspaper following his son’s appointment last week.

In the interview, Benjamin Emanuel was reported as saying: “Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

While some political analysts have said Rahm Emanuel, a veteran Democratic congressman, should not be held responsible for the actions of his father, there was also a sense that an apology was unavoidable.

“Today, Rep. Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, apologized on behalf of his family and offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future,” a statement from his office said.

The committee, in a statement on its website, said Emanuel told Oakar it was unacceptable to make such remarks against any ethnic or religious group.

“From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family,” the group quoted him as saying.

Oakar welcomed the apology, saying: “We cannot allow Arabs and Muslims to be portrayed in these unacceptable terms.”

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 16, 2008 at 10:01 pm #

By KDelphi, November 15 at 2:41 pm #


Tony—I did not say I was a Pacifist—look. I said defensive war. I believe in defending oneself. There is nothing that we are doing now that can be considered “defensive”.

9/11 shouldve been treated as an intl criminal matter.
——————————————————————————-
K,

Sorry, you did say that self-defense was a just reason for war. I would only add that there are other possible reasons. For example, it would not have been defensive but would have been justified if Clinton had intervened in Rwanda to prevent genocide. In general, however, I agree with you that terrorists should be viewed as international criminals and the right way to deal with them is via an international police force (a beefed-up INTERPOL) under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and not by unilateral action by the United States or any other one country. The strengthening of international law is the only answer, and the only way to do this is for the United States to join the ICC and announce that it will fully comply with its decisions.

Report this

By johndoraemi, November 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

This war was NOT to defeat “Al Qaeda” and only to provide the appearance of doing so.  Defeating their wet dream enemy is the last thing Washington wants.  That would end the open-ended, all purpose cassus belli, the “war on terrorism.”

As should be plainly clear, this “war” was not conceived (treasonously no less) to be simply ended.  Much more broad and lucrative goals remain in place. 

The Al Qaeda network has been protected and tolerated by US allies (particularly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) for a long time.  This is clearly seen in the 9/11 attacks, and is shown to be treason right here:

”...The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States.
(3) The Administration’s decision to classify this
information prevents the American people from having access to information about the involvement of certain foreign governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.”
-US Senate, October 28, 2003
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

The Bush regime and their Democrat enablers have been openly treasonous since the 9/11 attacks, and since the evidence linking “foreign governments” to the attacks surfaced.  Protecting enemy “foreign governments” meets the Constitutional definition of treason, particulary “aid and comfort.”

Is this going to be prosecuted under the new regime?  Highly doubtful.  Expect more cover up.  More obfuscation.  More crimes.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, November 16, 2008 at 5:02 pm #

Justified war? No justified stupidity. Idiotic talk about smart wars almost prevented me for voting for Barry. As Louis Michel has said: “Poverty is the most urgent crisis facing the world.”
Anyone who advocates for greater militarism is in fact promoting poverty, economically, ecologically, and yes, spiritually.
For those who claim otherwise, they are lying to themselves. The actual reality in existence can be discovered, but few take the trouble to do so. The advocacy for extending violence can be a very clever argument, but it does not change the fact that is an ethical deceit.
Safety and security are always brandished about to justify increasing military expenditures. The fear of death is always used, when in fact the reality is that I am going to die eventually, and so is everybody else.
For those who accept the pro-military con job, just consider all the resources wasted in your devotion to increasing death: from fire pits, to cluster fragments, to water, land and people destroyed, and for what? So you can feel superior? By inflicting unforeseen damage on someone you never met?
Again, Louis Michel: “It is not the impossible that gives cause for despair, but the failure to achieve the possible.”

Report this

By Paul_GA, November 16, 2008 at 9:09 am #

Arius, there may not be much we can do about the wars of the past, but we can sure do something about the wars of the present, as well as try to prevent wars of the future—mainly by changing this country’s entire foreign policy. I suspect that if we don’t change it ourselves, of our own free will, outside circustances (like a possible new Great Depression, for instance) will force a change against our will.

Report this
Arius's avatar

By Arius, November 16, 2008 at 3:51 am #

By Paul_GA, November 15 at 8:32 pm #

So you don’t think we should have gotten involved in WWII?

Interesting…

Report this
Arius's avatar

By Arius, November 16, 2008 at 3:49 am #

“How Many Villages Must We Bomb Before We Find bin Laden?”


ummmm… I’m gonna guess a whole helluva lot since he’s likely hiding out in some mountains (or dead) and not in any villages in the first place.

(is there a prize for the correct answer ?)

Report this

By KDelphi, November 16, 2008 at 2:59 am #

Paul-GA—Yes. But, needing a social safety net as I do now, I would prefer to be a British subject! Unfight the Revolutionary War!

; )

Report this

By Paul_GA, November 16, 2008 at 1:32 am #

KDelphi, perhaps the last just war the USA ever fought was the Revolution. All this country’s other wars were, if not outright unjust, at least questionable in their justification.

Report this

By A Khokar, November 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm #

Diminishing Horizon –page 2

U.S. seems to have eight major goals assigned to CIA to make sure that Pakistan Government in Islamabad performs:-

•  That Pakistan gives a full support to U.S on war against Terror and that Zardari government only takes pro-US. Decision thus indicating that Zardari is the weak and corrupt leader leading to his zero sum governance.

•  The power cuts, food shortages and prevalent miserable life to create a justification for the severe economic down turn in Pakistan reaching its bottom low in order to bring Pakistan under IMF regime.

•  Coerce Pakistan to improve her relations with India despite perpetual violence in Kashmir and water blockade of rivers flowing from Indian held Kashmir area to create a draught like situation in Pakistan to destroy its main staple food crops.

•  Fomenting an evasive settlement of Kashmir to compel and dictate Pakistan to cut its defence budgets and reduce it large standing Army deployed in Kashmir and thus make Pakistan a most vulnerable state; easy to be over run by any invading force.

•  To Support sub-nationalists groups like Awami National party (ANP)leading to a dismemberment of Pakistan. Although ANP is in governance in the NWFP province (near by FATA area also comes in its jurisdiction). CIA has very successfully infiltrated ANP lines. ANP is being helped to move toward its old dream of greater Pashtunistan; that to say dismemberment of NWFP. Map of greater Pashtunistan are already in distribution and Mega bill boards are on display on NWFP main roads.


•  Use of pliant and supportive media to create chaos and confusion and to aerate an atmosphere of despondency among masses.

•  CIA to directly control the war against Pakistan in tribal areas to create chaos and instigate terrorism.

•  To make case that Pakistan is compelled to recognise Israel as a sovereign state for which plans are underway. 


•  In view of the prevalent chaos in the country and with its economy ditching; justify the case of vulnerability of Pakistan’s nuke weapons and missile program in order to neutralized and taken them out.

All of the above strategy points are being addressed simultaneously.  There is no doubt that Obama is not going to change the Bush policies towards Pakistan but is only going to accelerate the unfinished agenda. Kashmir remains a major stumbling block to justify reduction of Pakistan army, hence even before he won; Obama was loud and clear on his future moves. U.S. strategy is obvious – Pakistan should only have a glorified police force to fight the Taliban militants and does not need a large standing army.
————————
Love for all, Hatred for none

Report this

By A Khokar, November 15, 2008 at 8:02 pm #

Diminishing Horizon

“I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.” Said William Marcy Tweed - (1823-1878).  Tweed was head of Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in the politics of 19th century New York.
In Pakistan also, it did not matter who voted in the latest ‘elections’ held in February 2008. It was the CIA which did the nominating which brought about PPP government and Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Miss Benazir Bhutto as President.

      In the ongoing U.S. war against terror; reportedly the ‘intelligence sharing plan’ of ISI of Pakistan with CIA has met a colossal failure. Invariably CIA has been successful in launching an anti-Pakistan movement in Pakistan in Federal Administered Area to destabilize the country; a shadow like organisation depicting the original Afghani Taliban. This movement is named as; Tehrik e Taliban of Pakistan (TTP). With all the available technologies and amount of intelligence; not to reach Osama bin laden is very strange; because to get hold of Osama was never a CIA plan; nor it is now. Osama myth of his being at large is just an enabling tool; to justify and prolong U.S. forces stay in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, CIA backed TTP has since brought havoc in the society through covert operations like bomb blast, kidnapping for ransom, beheading of innocent personals, torching of girls schools and other suicidal incident inside Pakistan. Marriott Hotel bombing is one of the many incidents. Pakistan was forced to move its Armed forces to crush this insurgency where lot of killing and collateral damage and loss of lives is happening. Reportedly there is a mark success on this front.

But CIA has now declared an aggressive covert war against Pakistan. In a desperate attempt to counter the successes of Pakistan army against CIA as well as RAW (Indian agency) backed terrorist groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan; various voices full of panic are being echoed from the CIA head office at Langley, USA over the success of Pakistani strategy in tribal areas. The CIA’s game is falling apart and they are getting more and more ruthless and sinister. Seeing that CIA plan is about to collapse; with a vengeance CIA has since sprung up extensive remotely controlled Drones attacks (CNN says attacks are being controlled from some seven thousand miles away at Creech Drone air base, Nevada, USA.) Rather then assisting Pak Army in Bajur Swat area in her operation, Drone are only targeting those militants who have signed peace deals with Pakistan or have joined hands with Pakistan army to isolate and hunt the anti Pakistan terrorist TTP gangs. These provocative actions are jeopardising the whole situation and is creating anarchy with a view to instigate the victims to rabble-rouse and under mine the ruling government in Islamabad. It is most sinister, ruthless and criminal betrayals by the CIA and U.S against its major ally as well as the front state—-Pakistan in the ‘U.S. war against terror’. It is the dirtiest and sickest part of US foreign policy.

On the whole to describe the real and wider U.S. game against Pakistan, for which the recent elections in Pakistan were engineered and a regime change was brought about can be best summarized in the following paragraph.

(Continued; please see the next post)

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 7:41 pm #

Tony—I did not say I was a Pacifist—look. I said defensive war. I believe in defending oneself. There is nothing that we are doing now that can be considered “defensive”.

9/11 shouldve been treated as an intl criminal matter.

It is not “politically” tenable? Who ever said politics was moral?

There are things we should do to help Afghanistan. But, I think, the best we coudl do right now, is to GTF out and cut them a check (although I have no idea where we would get it—probably just rob the working classes again! )We obviosuly have no idea how to “fix” their country. Maybe they do.

PS Sorry—will have to check out HuffPO link later—my browser is unstable.

Report this
boredwell's avatar

By boredwell, November 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

I agree with your assessment in the purview that is currently our debacle in Afghanistan. While I agree with most of your posits, I disagree with that statement regarding “by general acknowledgment corrupt, American sponsors a weak government in Kabul.” Ok weak, for sure. Corrupt, what government isn’t? But it is the denotation/connotation of corruption to which I must take exception.

The Taliban, translated “religious students” in Pastun, were recruited in their madrassas by the CIA to fight an anti-Russian counter-insurgency during the daze of the soviet invasion. We essentially encouraged their rabid fundamentalist Islam (anti-atheist soviet infidel hatred), armed them and set them loose.

It’s inarguable that during their reign as overlords of Afghanistan, the Taliban were less corrupt than then Karzai’s government. Gross corruption was endemic; its scale massive in that it pervaded all aspects of life. Education for women was outlawed; approximately 45-60 teachers accused of operating cladestine schools executed, some in the most inhuman ways (disemboweled, limbs tied to trucks and pulled apart); adulterers were publically stoned on Sundays in the soccer stadium (all sports had been outlawed). Music was forbidden; photography (Islam forbids depiction of humans)was a crime punishable by death; there were no courts of justice-sharia, the traditional Islamic system was eschewed-relatives of anyone accused of a crime would bribe officials who, in turn,arrested them for suborning(while keeping the money). Clean-shaven men were forced to grow beards, were fined if they didn’t and imprisoned.

The Taliban was quintessentially governed by an secretive, mysterious absentee Khandahari religious leader, the Amir Mullah Omar, who dispensed money from foreign contributors-most notably the tyranical and extremist Saudi Arabian Wahhabi,a militant form of Sunni Islam considered apostacy by most other Sunni traditionalists which is the only form of Islam practiced in SA- to run the government which was essentially the military. Only Pastun-speaking tribesmen could be in-charge although 50% of the Afghanis spoke Persian. No representation of other ethnic groups were allowed. The Hazaris, declared “non-muslim” were singled out for ethnic cleansing pograms which eventually escalated into genocide.

To compare the Taliban’s corruption, devoid of every core value held sacred by civilized societies, to Karzai’s adminstration is, as far as I’m concerned, moot. I would venture that America and NATO are the corrupting influences by way of their indiscrimate militarism. Though I can’t imagine they are worse than the former Taliban governors they remain foreign infidels in a country of firm believers. Our invasion has accomplished nothing as certifiable as victory. Instead our noisome impact on Afghanistan has been cultural: we’ve neglected to understand the potent force of a shared religion that operates as nationalism in the absence of law and order, continuing poverty, lack of social services, and most importantly, education.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, November 15, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

Re KDelphi, November 15 at 10:20 am

I disagree. Pacifism is not a politically tenable position. There is such a thing as a good, just and necessary war; WW II remains the prime example. The problem is that the great majority of wars are neither good, just or necessary but stupid. Iraq is a prime example. I do agree with you that an intelligent foreign policy is one which does not lead to war. At a certain point, WW II became necessary, but if there had been intelligent foreign policy going back to the end of WW I and the Treaty of Versailles (“The peace to end all peace”) there would never have been a Hitler or a WW II.

As to Afghanistan, after 9-11 I originally supported going after bin Laden as a just and necessary act of self-defense. But the initial U.S. military action was botched and failed to achieve its objective (getting bin Laden). At this point, seven years later, I am inclined to agree with you that futher military adventures in Afghanistan would be stupid, especially since I now think the Bush Administration was involved, which did not occur to me at that time. I think we should still try to do something to help the Afghan people and dry up sources of funding for narcoterrorists, such as buying up the opium crop and helping to build infrastructure.

The most sensible statements about Afghanistan I have seen coming from the Obama team have come from Zbigniew Brzezinski. See, for example, this article from Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/brzezinski-warns-against_n_114999.html?page=4&show_comment_id=14354439#comment_14354439

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm #

The very concept of a “good” war, is immoral.

The “just war” concept, would have to be a DEFENSIVE war—-when is the last time the US did that?

Report this

By TAO Walker, November 15, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

With Afghanistan/Pakistan apparently about to succeed Iraq as the “Indian Country” du jour for the U.S. military, the answer to the lead question will likely turn out to be:  As many villages as there are.  There are no effective controls on the allamerican war-machine, given its own ruling “role” in the allamericanpipedream. 

No doubt theamericanpeople sense instinctively that if their armed forces aren’t kept occupied abroad they will certainly find something to do in “the homeland.”  Hell, they may well have the “homefront” as just one in a two- or three-front “war,” in-any-case.

Having “sown the wind,” americans themselves are doomed to become the ultimate bumped-off “crop.”  Now things’ve gone so far even some last-minute Native Guidance has only the slimmest chance of ameliorating that fate to any extent at all.  Anyhow, there’s no sign your lost “leaders” are anywhere near asking us surviving Savages for the help you all really need.

Still, the Tiyoshpaye Way remains open to those who can see there is no other, for Human Beings here on Turtle Island.  We’ll be keeping a look-out for you.

HokaHey!

Report this

By coloradokarl, November 15, 2008 at 11:56 am #

The Bush-Cheney end of term “Pardons” will tell the tale. ANYONE who believes this whole 911>Bin Ladin>Iraqistan>Bailout thing, deserves our impending doom and gloom. NO, I take that back…...Americans are good trusting people and NOBODY deserves the slow and painful economic slog that is in our collective future. This is Fascism folks and it sucks!!

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 3:01 am #

I do not know if bin Laden is alive, but I’ve always had this feeling….

With the Bush fanily being so invested/divested in teh Bin Laden/Saudi Group (Carlysle Group), and their families being friends for so many years, (Uncle Abdullah used to come for Xmas!);

the Reagans and Bush’s had the Taliban to the White House; Reagan, when asked why he would “work with” bin Laden agasint the USSR because bin Laden “was a terrorist”—Reagan replied, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

and then , after 9/11, the Bin Laden family is given a free plane ride out of the country, and are said to have “totally disowned Osama..”.I just dont believe it. He has a mother. Well, I think that , no matter how angry she may have been at Osama for “going fundamentalist” (if she was, in fact, angry at all!), he is still her son (and his father’s and related to teh Saudis).

I think that there was/is an agreement between the two families. I think that thhat is why we “pulled out of Tora Bora” when you could hear Osama bin Laden on his radio.(If, indeed, they ever could)

Or, the military made it all up.

Or the Pentagon made it all up.

Or, Bush knows that bin Laden had little or nothing to do with it, but, he also knew he woudl claim it anyway….

What does anyone else think?

I think that I do not trust “our” govt at all!

I also think we need to close all of our military bases, withdraw from all “wars” and start taking care of our own people.

Report this

By Paul_GA, November 15, 2008 at 2:19 am #

There may not be “smart” wars, LostHills, but there are *just* wars—and I define them as follows:

(1) a war of national defense against a foreign invader; and

(2) a war of national liberation against either a foreign occupier, or a home-grown despot.

Any other war is unjust. If this country accepted criteria like these, it wouldn’t waste so much blood and treasure on war (and preparation for war).

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, November 15, 2008 at 1:05 am #

There are no “smart wars.” If Obama chooses to take ownership of Bush’s wars and try to win them, then he is likely to meet the same fate as LBJ and go down as a failed one term president. That he tries to separate the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the “war on terror” into three separate entities presages his likely failure as a president. Cut and run, brother, or be prepared to go down in flames. It’s all one war, it’s Bush’s war, and it’s unwinnable.

Report this

By Big B, November 15, 2008 at 12:29 am #

Perhaps pres Barry will surprise us and end the US involvement in Afghanistan forth-with.

But then again, he will more than likely continue america’s final dying wish, the resource war for any and all oil in the middle east. That plan will make all the lunatic fringe groups in the US, from the neocons and neoliberals, to AIPAC and the wacko right, filled with joy since all of these unlikely allies will be getting something they want. Thye neos get there war of global domination, AIPAC gets a constant flow of military aid to their homeland(and a continued blind US eye to jewish attrocities) and the wacko right gets their religious war to lead them up to their anticipated end of days rapture party.

And while all this goes on, the earth is still getting warmer, the population is exploding, fresh water becomes scarce, and surfing may be possible in Harrisburg PA.

Yup, Barry sure has been left a huge shit sandwich! And nobody is there to cut off the crusts.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, November 14, 2008 at 9:24 pm #

By Fadel Abdallah, November 14 at 2:28 pm #

In the secret manual of the twentieth century crusaders against Islam, dubbed conveniently “war on terror,” ...”
==================
In a previous comment I erroneously wrote the “twentieth century” when fact it should have been the “twenty-first century.”

I guess that what dates in reality just since the beginning of Bush’s administration, it seems to me as it has been an eternity. However, in real time this crusade has been long in the planning during the twentieth century!

Report this

By Super Lou, November 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Ditto to Mr. Cornelius and Folktruther.  Here’s some food for thought: All of these phony, tough guy politicians, including POSTUS-elect Obama who “want to follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell,”  be careful what your dumb ass asks for, for you to (and the US of A) will end up in Hell chasing this clown who’s probably dead anyway.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, November 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

In the secret manual of the twentieth century crusaders against Islam, dubbed conveniently “war on terror,” the real terrorists of the world will not be satisfied till every village with a “madrasa” (i.e.) school for children, where they learn the rudiments of reading, writing and the Qur’an, is terrorized and destroyed. After all these are the places where some desperate hopeless youth might pup up as freedom fighters (i.e. terrorists according to the civilized West)and this is the place where the so-called president-elect Obama wants to intensify this terrorist-false war on terror!

Report this

By Rogelio, November 14, 2008 at 6:17 pm #

Bombing weddings and killing innocent civilians is not the way to find bin Laden or fight the war against terrorism. When we bomb innocent victims, we are creating future terrorists. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are losing propositions. The people do not want us there, and we should not be there.

President Obama needs slowly find a way out of those places and bring our military back home. We tried to fight a “western” style war in Vietnam and failed. What has supperior weaponary done for the war on terror and the capture of bin Laden? Please, please, President Obama, find a way out of this quagmire.

Report this

By peloquin, November 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchmann would argue that all wars are stupid wars in her book “March of Folly” the Epistle of James chapter five agrees with this argument as well.

Report this

By lichen, November 14, 2008 at 5:21 pm #

Yes, exactly, godistwaddle; why are the cuban exile right wing terrorists allowed to live luxuriously in Miami?  The arrogance, the putrid, disgusting fucking arrogance of so many people in this country who think that there is simply a right to murder millions of people and bring up this ghost as an excuse! When are albright, clinton, rice, the bushes, kissinger, and so many more going to be brought to justice?

Something like 70% of afghan citizens support negotiations with the taliban; another 55% or so would support a coalition government with the taliban.  Let them have their damn country already, and stop pretending that there is some great difference between the karzai’s warlord party and the taliban.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, November 14, 2008 at 5:11 pm #

in 2000 Ben Laden was extremely ill & in need of dialasis; you REALLY THINK he is running around with a full hospital etc from cave to cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan where THEY told us that the Americans were not even looking for him. PERCEPTION MANANGEMENT folks: how our Gov wants YOU to believe what is said. What do YOU believe happened when Pearl Harbor was bombed? That just “out of the blue” (as we have been told) repeatedly, that they just “attacked” the USA? Might I suggest strongly you read “day of deceit” one of many books telling how the USA deliberately set it up & provocted the attack? The bombing of the twin towers: why not study how these particular 2 towers fell when being hit by airplanes when NO OTHER BUILDING IN HISTORY has ever gone down when hit by airplanes? Our country was NOT looking for him (big surprize) because he is NOT running around the “caves”; and isn’t it just incredibly amazing that “laura Bush’s” heroic trip to a “war torn” country meeting with a “woman in a tent” said to be Afghanistan, where she was told how “wonderful wonderful wonderful” the USA was for helping to save “abused women”. (The good ol’ woman in distress syndrome!) used again with success by the press to make the PUBLICS PERCEPTION be something OTHER than what was really going on as http://www.democracynow.org reported within a week of it that “we the public” are being given FALSE PICTURES by the Pakistanian who wrote the book “desent into Chaos”; and within less than a month, what HE said was going on, was then reported by the “press” if you call them that: the propaganda machine fed info by the political & Corp & Pentagon machine to the “public”.

Report this

By Ann, November 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

One commenter talked about what “we would face” if we withdrew from Afghanistan.  I don’t think we’d face anything except more money to deal with problems here. Afghanistan is a lot closer to Europe and they’re not throwing money at it.

Of course there’s the dress-up formal reasons for the war, and the naked reasons for the war. The naked, behind the screen reasons probably include the pressure of the massive war industry, the cocktail party culture of war, oil, scaring China, the thrill and tension and false courage that political leaders feel when they make the grim and singular decision to wage war.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, November 14, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

Bin Laden’s spectral presence in the American imagination is like a ghost clanking boxcutters in our collective attic. The strident tones of this article and many of the comments tells me that he haunts us still.

By concentrating on the doppelganger of terrorism, this article underestimates the problems and complexities of Afghanistan by half. If you are looking for a more cogent assessment of the situation I suggest having a look at Frontline’s recent piece on the subject.

Whatever the hazards in Afghanistan, and there are many, we should ask ourselves if we truly want the Taliban controlling that region again, because that is what we will be facing if we pull up stumps. While Saddam Hussein’s role as a totalitarian bogeyman was undoubtedly trumped up to sell us on a war we didn’t want or need, the Taliban are the real thing.

With Pakistan’s future also in the balance, what to do in Afghanistan is a genuine dilemma. To suggest that there are easy answers to the problem is irresponsible, or just plain ignorant.

Report this

By psickmind fraud, November 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

Robert, one of the first things Obama did upon becoming the Democrats nominee was to buddy up to AIPAC.  What’s that tell you?

Report this

By Robert, November 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm #

November 13, 2008

Rahm’s father’s words

“Rahm Emanuel’s father, asked about whether his hire signaled closer ties to Israel, said: “Obviously he’ll influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”

Now, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee is demanding (.pdf) Rahm repudiate the remark:

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) views this characterization of an Arab as an unacceptable smear. One can readily imagine the justifiable outcry if someone made a similar remark about African-Americans, Jews, or Hispanics, concerning cleaning the floors of the White House. Do the normal standards of decency and civility not apply when talking about Arabs? ADC asks you to disavow and repudiate these remarks publicly. We sincerely hope you will distance yourself from any demeaning characterization of any ethnic, religious, or racial group. President-Elect Obama pledged a respect for the diversity of this Nation, and Arab Americans certainly add, in a positive way, to our Country’s diversity.

No immediate response from Emanuel.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, Rham Emanual’s father lives in Israel.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Rahms_fathers_words.html?showall

Report this

By LTJ, November 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

‘prole’ earlier today writes
  “...it’s really hard to figure from where his [Obama’s] great reputation for superior intelligence derives. It’s apparently another one of those campaign myths…”

Hardly a myth!
Among other things, it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that Obama ranked near the very top of his class at HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, graduating with a Juris Doctor, Magna Cum Laude.  And, based on his grades and overall performance he was selected as President of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious position at the most prestigious Law Review in the United States.  He supervised over 80 Law Review writers starting in his 2nd year at the Law School.

Also, he managed one of the most innovative and successful (not to mention longest) Presidential campaigns in American history.  Oh, but they say Sarah Palin has more “executive” experience!

On the other hand (while giving full appreciation to John McCain for his valor and service in Vietnam), I believe that John McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy ranked 953rd out of 957 graduates.  He bested only 4, out of nearly 1,000 classmates.

Report this

By Allan Krueger, November 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

Psst, Bin Laden is dead! Spread the word.

Report this

By Hulk2008, November 14, 2008 at 2:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

So ya wanna know where Bin Laden is and ya wanna nail him?  Just ask John “I know how to get him” McCain.  Obviously the neocons and evangelicals have had him in their sights all along.  The whole shebang was a ruse to get a foothold in the oilfields - all that claptrap about spreading democracy was just a diversion - and as long as Osama is on the lam, they have him as their Fear Card in the hole ..... er, cave.  Biden was right all along - let the locals split up their own sandbox along ethnic “borders” and get the heck outta Dodge.  The US needs to develop air, wind, solar, natural gas, vanilla extract, whatever ... then extricate itself from that briarpatch ASAP so the locals can go back to their self-inflicted 1000-year wars.  Let ‘em choke on their filthy oil.

Report this
sam brown's avatar

By sam brown, November 14, 2008 at 2:10 pm #

Mr Pfaff, what I’d really like to know is why pressure was brought to bear on YouTube to take down that excellent Prof Jim Fetzer video clip titled:

“911 TRUTH: FACTS FOXED”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjli_cwkPrw&NR=1

You know the one? It’s where Prof Fetzer takes to task those Fox anchor clowns who refuse to acknowledge Nelson Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission when he said to Lee Hamilton somethin’ to the effect as the “hijacked” aeroplane was coming in towards the Pentagon and some young communications dude would come in and report to Cheney, “The plane’s fifty miles out, sir!” Then as it got closer, “The plane’s thirty miles out, chief!” But then curiously the young guy had the compunction to ask Dick, “Do the orders still stand, Cap’n?” whereby Vice swung around so violently he almost broke his silly neck, but throwing his hand up quickly to brace it, snapped: “‘Course the orders still stand! Yer heard anythin’ to the contrary yer dumb young useless punk?!”

Anyway they’ve taken it down, even though it was so damned educational it deserved an Oscar or three, but there’s still this clip to wile away our time with:

HOW TO CREATE AN ANGRY AMERICAN [even though there are still far too few, and Obama’s bound to lose the plot ninety days into the job]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Report this

By prole, November 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

Given Obama’s penchant for saying stupid things it’s really hard to figure from where his great reputation for superior intelligence derives. It’s apparently another one of those campaign myths that credulous “illiterate” ‘progressives’ have eagerly lapped up at face value as an integral part of their new political messiah’s larger-than-life image. Like Ronnie Ray-gun before him, for whom Obama has expressed great admiration, he is fond of glib phrases devoid of any real substance. Hope and change platitudes are his tiresome stock-in-trade of course, but rhetorical redundancies like “stupid war” readily roll off his trite tongue, as well. Aren’t all wars stupid after all? Or just the ones carried on by one’s political opponents? If Obama puts “more boots on the ground” in Afghanistan, as he has indicated he will, or follows through on suggestive hints about attacking elements inside Pakistan, will this then become an “intelligent”, ‘progressive’ war simply because the new commander-in-chief is so deemed to be? No doubt many pious ‘progressives’ who would be outraged if a McCain or a Bush were to carry out such initiatives will dociley go along with such aggression if it’s undertaken by St. Barack, trusting to their pre-conceived belief in their hero’s ‘best and brightest’ aura, just as a previous generation of liberals did with the ‘whiz kids’ of the Kennedy/Johnson years.With Obama’s vaunted reputation for ‘reaching across the aisle’ he can perhaps build a new consensus among hawks and so-called ‘progressives’ for further American aggression along the lines he’s already sketched out.  After all, he’s voted in favor of every funding bill for George Bush’s other stupid war in Iraq since he’s been in the Senate, so either he’s not as intelligent as he’s touted to be or the Bush’s savage war isn’t as stupid as it’s claimed to be. Either way, don’t look for Obama to announce it. It’s much more likely that Washington will go right on “fighting cruel and irrelevant wars in small countries” over the next four years, as well as making similar kinds of secret plans” such as those of thirty years ago that led to the current situation in Afghanistan. And we’ll have a lot of stupid progressives to thank for it.

Report this

By godistwaddle, November 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

Like the Taliban had the ways or means to find bin Laden even assuming they wanted to “turn him over.”

The U.S. is harboring a terrorist who bombed a Cuban airliner.  On that basis, Cuba has, at least, a moral right to invade and pulverize the U.S.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, November 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

Binny is nothing more than another shit head Cheney corp used to move their “new World Order’ Corp agenda forward faster. Binny’s a Dime a dozen.
How is it the Worlds greatest Intell and military force can not locate a 6 ft Dialysis patient??? Becasue they aren’t really looking for him. Oh the missions says they are, the troops think they are..But the VP’s office and his minions Know Where NOT to send them.
Please Binny is living very comfortabley in Saudi Arabia or On a Palm island aptly named Hell (Bet mac would have removed his shoes at the ‘Gate’ When he followed Binny there for a drink)
To end attacks against US we must prosecute those who have built our reputation as Oppressors. Those who have flown our Flag, allowed US to be used as Scape goats for their Oil ‘Royals’ oppressive regimes and left neon Signs pointing at our Financial, Military and Policy centers to target. Those were Military industrial Complex symbols (buildings) with Americans working in them to act as Human shields.
Binny doesn’t hate these assholes- It was through them he gained Funding and a ‘glory Story ’ for Recruitment. I have no doubt most of the recruits have no idea how they are being used as pawns TOO!
There has been a concerted effort to land grab for the Saudis (Dubia, Kuwait…)for decades. Reason they need no real Military to speak of..WE are it! Reason nobody even blinked an eye the Saudi’s way after 9/11, even though the majority of the attackers were Saudi nationals, Including Bin laden?There are a number of people still in Washington who can take credit for providing Aid & Comfort to that fledgling group of ‘Afghani freedom fighters’ (ah Mac?)Basically supplying the ways & means to pull of 9/11 only a few short years later.And even after 9/11 a number still hold no regrets (Bzerzinski).
Bin laden was created and empowered, just like Saddam by those in Politcal and Industrial sects in High places in This country.
We don’t need to find a cave with a dialysis machine, we just need to go to the office with the Man size Security Safes…where ALL the bodies are buried (and WHY there are Real ones in the Ground Now).
I don’t give a shit about Bin Laden, he’s just another puppet in a long playing game, I want the King and his Court! I want to end the reign of Multinational conglomerate machine rule. I am of the Species who built you, keep you afloat and whom YOU are to serve as a tool for OUR Stewardship.These Corps were ‘brought into this world by me and can be taken out by me’ to paraphrase Bill Cosby.Through much blessing comes more responsiblities and with such responsiblities it is your DUTY to help the other stewards live up to the potential our species solely possess. These people have committed the graves of Crimes against Humanity, they have intentional enslaved Us to tools of our our creation.
This is an Abomination and an Atrocity matched by none. It has undermine our very reason for existence,and innate design.
Yes 9/11 was a horrendous act,But what lead up to it and what has happened since it the real act of Terrorism to US and the Global community. We must Demand Justice.

Report this

By Paul_GA, November 14, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

Well, if the stupid wars and rumors of more wars are not ended, this country risks going bankrupt, trying to do everything—like fighting these futile wars plus do something about the economy.

To paraphrase the Lord (compare Luke 9:25), “How is a country advantaged if it wins all its wars, and yet loses its economic prosperity?”

And for those of you who don’t believe in God, consider the best line Yoda had (In STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK)—“Wars not make one great!”

Report this

By greenferret, November 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

The Green Party of the United States is the only national party that has consistently taken clear stands against both wars of aggression in the Middle East.

Now the Greens have a chance to elect their first member of Congress in New Orleans community organizer Malik Rahim. Rahim is running against Rep. William Jefferson, who is facing trial on 16 counts of corruption. Find out more at http://tinyurl.com/5686o2

Report this

By Jeremiah Cornelius, November 14, 2008 at 12:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Osama Bin Laden is certainly dead.  His kidney dialysis would not be possible living in bivouac.

The thin fiction of Bin Laden as nemesis give the lie to the entire enterprise of GWOT.  It is pretty much as blunt, simple and coercive as Orwell described it.

Just this morning - CIA Director Hayden stated ‘Al Qaeda’ “remains the most serious threat to the United States”.  This is a political lie.  There has never been an ‘Al Qaeda’ worth mentioning.  The principle members of this pseudo-threat were all at their most influential and dangerous when they were on the CIA payroll.

I am sure you all know the grim joke about being ‘former CIA’ like being ‘former Mafia’.

Apply the tools of scientific inquiry to the existence of Al Qaeda, and the vitality of Bin Laden - and don’t accept political substitutes.  Rational examination of fact demolishes official hearsay.

The most reasonable conclusion is that elements of the US government are in an information war. A war against the American people.

Report this

By psickmind fraud, November 14, 2008 at 11:24 am #

Right, hippy pam, in this economy the wars won’t be ended, no jobs for the returning military and Blackwaterites.  Plus they’re not about to cut spending on our Offense Industry.

Report this

By hippy pam, November 14, 2008 at 11:17 am #

BIN LADEN has-most likely-been dead for awhile….But his symbol lives on.This gives “the bullshit bunch” a reason for continuing this “scam”!!!Because if “they” can keep US SCARED-we will keep sending our young people to DIE…..And-By the way-WHERE ARE THE JOBS FOR OUR SOLDIERS TO DO WHEN THEY COME HOME ?????

Report this

By psickmind fraud, November 14, 2008 at 10:55 am #

If we’d wanted to catch a guy who’s supposedly nomadic, moving about often, would we have warned him for days that we were coming after him in Afghanistan, where we supposedly knew he was?

Report this

By Folktruther, November 14, 2008 at 5:51 am #

The public relations deceit that the Afghan war is about killing bin Laden is wearing very thin.  the killing is being expanded to Pakistan by Bush and Obama only and entirely to avoid losing the war on their watches.

As everyone knows who is at all familiar with Afghan history, the war can’t be won.  The Afghans have been successfully fighting off invaders for centuries.

But the problem is that the US is leading Nato in Afghanistan, and a defeat there would further expose the US as a paper superpower. This is very dangerous power-wise.  The Soviet counterrevolution was partially initiated by a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.  And the American people are not happy with the American power structure now.  If it saw it weakening…

So the US will continue to bomb weddings and send drones into Pakistan villages (the latter publically approved by both McCain and Biden) to kill families abd keep the war going. The US now has nothing whatever to gain geo-strategically, since the “Stans” have long since fallen into the Russian-Chinese orbit and are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an economic-defense organization.

This is the leftover slaughter of Brzezinski’s successful recruiting of Muslim fighters from all over the world to fight the Soviets.  And his counterpart plan to PNAC in the GRAND CHESSBOARD.  For him it may be a Great Game, but these chess pieces exude real blood.

Report this

By Jenintina, November 14, 2008 at 5:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Bin Laden is responsible for murdering thousands. Bush is responsible for murdering more than a million if you include Iraqi and Afghan civilians and the negligent homicide committed in the aftermath of Katrina. We know where Bush is (living high on the hog) but don’t have the moral integrity to even impeach this guy (which would be a slap on the wrist compared to the death penality that Saddam and al qaida operatives have received).

Where is the justice in this? In the aferglow of Obama’s victory (yes I still feel it) I am almost reluctant to “ruin the mood” by contemplating the ugliness of these facts.

This supposed hunt for Bin Laden is nothing more than a means of manipulating the public - all too many of whom view capture of this bogeyman as just revenge and a “blow” against terror. Problem is terrorism against the US is grounded in our own oppressive and imperialistic foreign policy. Cut off one head and hundreds more will sprout up to take its place.

Why do so many Americans feel ENTITLTED to invade, bomb, and kills innocents all in the name of a “manhunt”? I really don’t get it.

Report this
samosamo's avatar

By samosamo, November 14, 2008 at 2:05 am #

Dear me, Mr. Pfaff, dear me, what ever on earth makes you think anyone in the current administration would want bin laden caught? In fact, if anything, if they know where he is, he will be killed before w & dick give up power, if they give it up. And considering the paranoia that our country has instilled in the world with our ‘shock and awe’ military controlled by a bunch of mentally derranged meglamaniacs, what good would it do. Would it stop the people who have no hope anymore to stop and become peaceful? Would it stop what appears to be the perpetual wars that even our new president elect seems bound and determined to continue for no other reason than to give the mighty and righteous corporations of america(if they can still be considered american)a continuous flow of corporate welfare of staggering amounts just under the pretext of catching bin laden? If they caught him, just like the iron curtain being torn down in 1989 or so, what other ‘ghost’ would we persue to keep our remaining manufacturing base functioning.
I would bet that if we did what we need to do to help rebuild the america that w & his dick destroyed so much of and we just simply packed up and shipped out of Iraq and Afghanistan then it would be easier to catch this bin laden if he is so important to catch. Hell, just by leaving Iraq, it would seem to be a sure thing that if there are any al quada left that the Iraqis would kill or drive them out, but no, we have been conditioned to believe that they are everywhere and that at any minute now we will be attacted.
No, I really don’t look at it as important to catch this bin laden, because w & his dick, rumsfeld, rice and the rest of that cabal have followed through on that neoconservative agenda of stirring things up so much, totally fucked other people’s countries up so much and now they are so organized now that they do not need a bin laden to foment their hate. And only good, calm and precise investigation will be all it takes to keep a deterrence of another attack unless our neocons manage to get a new one carried out.

Report this

By les wood, November 14, 2008 at 1:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

When will the US government come clean?  Bin Laden is long dead and he is simply a bogeyman used by warmongers as an excuse to ratchet up the fighting.  If bin Laden was alive he would be regularly releasing videos - not audio tapes.  He is dead and there is no reason to keep ‘looking for him’.

Report this

By Bboy56, November 14, 2008 at 12:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes , one might ask that. But then Leno’s wife would probobly go on and on about the anti-west Taliban. Guess what, IT’S NOT THE WEST! They are different and they don’t want to live like (Leno’s wife) the west! Even if the west over there is Israel. And you know how everyone feels about them over there in that part of the world!
So maybe this is more about Israel’s security as an American national security interest. I’m sure all the taxpayers are down for losing more revenue into the middle Eastern PIT. Especially now in these hard economic times.
The reality of the wars in the Middle East are that we should now head out while we have somewhat of a good standing with the Iraqi regime and we haven’t totaly alienated Pakistan yet. Oil is starting to flow freely from Iraq and that was a major concern after the ouster of Sadaam Hussein. That’s a victory that our troops can be proud of. If Democracy takes hold more FROM WITHIN Iraq, it’s a total win over there, but it has to come from what has been established there. Then thet can put some pressure on Iran and Afghanistan to follow their lead or become more isolated yet.
Lastly, this just in - get bin Ladden and there are now 100x worse characters to take his place. There is no getting bin Laden, nor should we. He’s Pakistans problem, among many in that NW provence. All we need to do is keep that lot out of Afghanistan! That’s it. Let Afghanni’s deal with the Taliban, not Leno’s wife.

Report this

By lichen, November 13, 2008 at 9:56 pm #

Murdering those millions of civilians means the us no longer has a moral right to ‘find bin laden.’  Bin Laden should find Bush and bring him to hague, as the latter is the worse criminal.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.