Escalation a liability for Obama

Barack Obama has been consistent in one thing: his policy in Afghanistan. While Obama promised change from Bush-era policies for a lot of things, he was always a hawk on Afghanistan. Swayed by Barack's charisma, many of his followers wrongly assumed that change meant reason in Afghanistan.

Obama did promise a departure from Iraq. If his hawkish position on Afghanistan is a constant, we can hope he'll be equally consistent on Iraq.

Without change, the outcome is clear: more devastation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is occupied by a rapidly growing American military force while Iraq's appears to be gradually declining, without an exit though. Thanks to the Bush-era SOFA agreement with Iraq, the US military has basing rights and plans to keep 50,000 troops there indefinitely. (The constitutionality of SOFAs in general is questionable as they're de facto treaties with other countries, which must be approved by the Senate-Iraq's wasn't...)

The base where a battle a few months ago in a remote base that took 10 American lives has been abandoned. If they died protecting it, why abandon it? A hallmark of our Vietnam experience was taking then giving up territory. Look at the movie Hamburger Hill for an idea of the impact on morale that kind of fighting strategy made.

Killing from afar is far easier than confronting the enemy up close. Starting in the Gulf war, our military was criticized for fielding a Nintendo-type force, using high-tech weapons far from their targets.

We've expanded the 9/11 retort to include Pakistan, who's ravaged by drone attacks by anonymous triggermen, presumably American operatives in some faraway location. These strikes are said to target terrorists but we have no way of knowing just how many civilian deaths are caused. In this sense, anonymous drone attacks are a convenient accountability-dodging method, one the CIA probably would have loved to have during Vietnam.

Vietnam was marked by low morale, and led to fragging: intentional friendly fire. I can think of no more visible sign of distress within a military than when they start killing each other.

We had the modern equivalent of a fragging occur down at Fort Hood the other day. The alleged shooter Hasan can't be justified in murder, except perhaps in some twisted sense that he was protecting Muslims. Many of the casualties were coming back, not going out, so I don't think he can claim to be protecting Muslims. There have been numerous incidents of Afghan soldiers murdering American and NATO troops in cold blood. Similarly, in VIetnam, many in the South Vietnamese army harbored sympathies for the enemy and contributed to many lost American lives.

Obama's been sold on the mistaken belief that more troops will mean a different result. Obama has raised "N-strength"--Pentagon jargon for the number of troops. Does the equation of N times firepower multiplier equal a number capable of winning the war? And what is the impact of time? How does extending the time frame increase the likelihood of "winning"? I think Vietnam, our longest war prior to Afghanistan, showed that the longer a force occupies a country, the less it's tolerated, and the more nationalistic and pan-Muslim support builds in opposition. Israel's ongoing animosities with its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians may give an indication of kind of deep-seated animosity we'll have to contend with, being infidels in a Muslim land.

Discussing the Afghan war with a supporter recently proved a touchy subject. When I said we were losing, he refuted me, saying we were winning. Next, when I asked why we there, my ideological opposite came short of any reason, plan, or goal. How then can the military achieve its goal--to win--if it doesn't have coherent goals?

I'm not going to pigeonhole supporters of the war, saying they're neo-liberals even if they are. Nor will I say that Obama is a pure hawk. Instead I'll say that supporters of escalation in Afghanistan suffer from a lack of good reasons for the actions of their commander-in-chief. Why escalate?

If we'd seen more progress with time, I guess extending our presence would be a positive. But the escalation hints at the inability to achieve our goals, not success, which would encourage a draw-down.

In time the reasons will come, floating to the surface out of stream of sewage regurgitated by the lamestream media. If nothing else, the Washington establishment stage-manages wars, albeit to an audience that appears majority antiwar both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consummate media master, Obama, Axelrod, and his crew of showmeisters will try to repackage the Lie that escalation will help us.

Politically, the escalation is a gamble. The tradeoff for escalating might be swaying Republican voters and Democratic conservatives, who've made their visceral anti-abortion positions known in the recent Health Care Bill.

The Reagan Democrats may be easily convinced that escalation is necessary. But I doubt the Democratic base will rally behind Obama, even if he keeps his promises about Iraq.

Obama thinks he can gain some Republican votes by escalating, but this is true only if the Republican candidate is to the left of Obama on other issues. A socially moderate candidate like a McCain might lose the conservative Democrats to Obama based on the militarist/expansionary position in Afghanistan. A conservative's conservative need not fear Obama's hawkishness, he can always pander ever farther to the right on foreign policy, militarism, and ultranationalism.

Any Republican candidate will endorse militarism/escalation in a rush to grab votes on the Right. The Republicans will try to appear even more hawkish than Obama, no matter how far right he strays.

Closet militarists, DINOs (Democrats-in-Name-Only) will support the escalation. Bothered by Big Government, Reagan Democrats will secretly vote against Obama anyway, based on their predilection to support Republicans in matters of national security.

Limited to a duopoly, the net result of the status quo is a persistent absence of a candidate opposed to escalation. In this regard, the establishment wins--it continues to impose its consensus favoring escalation no matter which of the two candidates are elected. It's kind of like Goldman Sachs--they win no matter who wins.

The protest vote might make a huge impact in 2012 based on disillusion based on Obama's rightward turn after his election. Take out 3-4% for a Nader/McKinney/Paul and perhaps a number of betrayed-feeling liberals sitting out the election and Obama's second term is out. Yet if the Republican candidate is ultranationalist, anti-environment, etc., a Bush, maybe the lesser of evils thing will work in Obama's favor. Personally, from what I know about the Far Left and hardcore libertarians, the protest movement will oppose Obama.

The political winds may have already shifted. Two governorship and a House seat were at stake in recent elections, Republicans won in Virginia and New Jersey. The media played down the significance of the losses but I'm guessing the DNC is worried. The health care bill has provided the Republicans with a lot of ammunition.

Three Democratic Congressmen in Indiana were going to vote against the measure, concerned about the possibility of Federally-funded abortions; an amendment to the bill persuaded Baron Hill (D-In) to vote in favor.

Ellsworth, in the western part of the State, is seeking over a billion dollars for a new terrain I-69 through the southwestern portion of the state. Funding might be jeopardized by the imminent budget shortfall we have, considering the $1.4 trillion deficit we're running. Then again, what another billion of top of that?

I don't expect Obama to win in 2012, and I think the midterms are shaping up into a catastrophe for Democrats. The Democrats' lack of conviction and leadership in foreign policy sends a double message. Unfortunately, a lack of a real antiwar candidate will steer the military industrial complex onward, depleting further our national treasure and sacrificing ever more American lives.

Eventually, we'll have to change our policy in Afghanistan, and downsize or even get out. But we're there because of ignorance and apathy among Americans, and their willingness to surrender our foreign policy to well-established foreign policy lobbies like that of Israel.

Obama's been too Bush-like in the lack of prosecutions on practices like extraordinary rendition. Even if our Courts don't hold participants responsible for the illegal practices like harsh interrogations, other nations can. An Italian court just found 23 American former CIA employees guilty, making them fugitives from justice.

Obama's defended warrant-less eavesdropping, the practice of spying on Americans. We're building massive data warehousing facilities that will track and store communications between Americans, and few people seem to care. If we continue to lose our civil liberties, it'll be because we've offered them up, in exchange for promises of security.


I can understand why many people might support an escalation, but I'll never agree with them. The reasons for disagreeing really don't matter any more. We'll simply have more war, no matter who's in charge. The Washington establishment is too firmly rooted, and the depth of American ignorance and apathy legend.

It's only when things get bad enough that Americans will understand that their government works not for them but for corporations, many of which who thrive off the ongoing death machine that our out-of-control Pentagon has become. Results of these wars will be years in coming and probably financial depravity will be the outcome.

Like all wars before it, the government's overspending will force inflation onto the public, a stealth tax. With inflation, lenders will lose while borrowers--cheif among them the government itself--will be able to repay good money with bad.

Energy prices are headed straight up, thanks to the Carbon Tax and Trade policies that are heading through Congress. Americans will have to use energy more efficiently, or face higher taxes on their consumption of carbon-based energy.

The overspending will eventually manifest into hyperinflation--flooding the world with dollars. Already the dollar has dropped to a multi-year low against other currencies. Spending their dollar reserves, India just bought tons of gold from the IMF. China is awash in dollars. For the first time, they publicly scolded the US on our spending (Reuters). A danger faced by any inter-government lender, the Chinese are rightfully concerned that we'll just print up we owe and send it to them.

Producing far less than we import, our nation is unable to export our way back into prosperity. So we're left to push piles of money around, or work at reduced wages in what's sold as a "service economy." No wonder we're experiencing so much unemployment--by allowing free but unfair trade, foreign competition has gutted our manufacturing sector.

How best to restore the economy? Recently, I saw an idea that we should fully nationalize the banks. Government could loan out at reduced rates directly to the public.

It's been said that for the amount of the TARP loans, we could have bought outright most of our nations' banks. With a staggering amount of derivatives still on the banks' books, nationalization will be a likely solution offered in the event of another collapse. It's doubtful Bernanke/Geithner and whoever might be President could weather a storm like that they had over TARP a second time. The American people wouldn't accept it.

Right now, the banks aren't lending. They're content to sit on billions in Federal debt. Why take the risk of lending if they can make a virtually risk-free 3% or so?

The Federal Reserve has either two ways to go: raise rate or lower them. Raising interest rates gives even more reason to sit on cash and earn more risk-free return. With interest rates near zero, we can't do option #2--lowering them. Maybe we'll end up like Japan, where deposits earn negative interest.

As a consumer economy, we're dependent on lending. Until loans expand, growth can't come except through government spending, which if paid off represents a future transfer of wealth from private control to the public sector, through taxation.

Money gets more expensive in response to scarcity. When more is spent, each dollar buys less. To limit overspending, interest rates need to be higher. That's why the economy is so slow to recover--consumer spending remains down.

To keep a lid on inflation and overspending, money needs a value. An interest rate gives it that. When interest rates are low, there's little incentive to save, so people spend. By increasing interest rates, the opportunity cost for not investing grows. When the opportunity cost of not saving grows, people are less likely to spend.

Savers are rewarded with higher rates but spending has dried up, even with rates near zero. It appears that huge amount of capital in home and stock equity have simply disappeared. And the lack of employment has also minimized the impact of so many billions of dollars flowing into the economy. If the bankers opened their checkbooks, or unemployment were to drop radically, we'd be staring inflation right in the face.

Nationalization might ease the pain, but only momentarily. In time, the banks would become bloated entities, with limited appeal to investors. Look no farther than bankrupt Freddie Mac, which just posted a $5 billion quarterly loss (link). Absent competition, nationalized banks will grow increasingly inefficient, like Amtrak, and require ever more money.

Removing the private bankers won't help long-term, appealing as their demise might sound. Not long after nationalization, Congress would be doling out benefits to various industry groups with the most influence in the capitol. Favorable loans would be extended to politically influential industries.

It's a certainty that Obama's economic policy team--Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers--have determined an acceptable level of unemployment. In business school, the jargon "full employment" is used. Most conservative economist/ free marketeers choose a rate of full employment higher than their more liberal counterparts, so politics plays a role in how economic contractions are defined.

The political goal to gain reelection will affect economic policy, particularly as we approach the elections.

The misery index, a combination of inflation and unemployment, shows just how bad things really are. Whatever Washington might try to spin, the hard economic numbers dictate reality, and it's not pretty.

Sources

Paul Craig Roberts' "Evil Empire."

See the post by Keith Fitz-gerald, "Four Reasons Hyperinflation Hasn't Hit the US...Yet", here.

Antifascist-calling: "Obama Regime: toss NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit", here.

Full blast here from Bob Chapman's International Forecaster, "A New System for the Privileged is Not A Remedy for the Economy."

///

Emotions, ignorance drive 9/11 wars

Americans' knowledge of international politics is dismal. Ambrose Bierce once said the only good purpose served by war was to teach Americans geography.

Failing to understand international affairs makes Americans vulnerable to the selling of myth, especially one wrapped in the flag. Our leaders, not above manipulating 9/11, used that event as a shock device to instill fear, offering as its sole antidote militarism mixed with patriotism.

Our ignorance makes us prone to the telling of lies by those in positions we trust like ministers and presidents. Blind obedience to government is bound to invite an abuse of power. Our gullibility makes possible the Lie. For that we, the American public, must assume responsibility. We accept what our leaders tell us because we don't know better. Our trust becomes a weapon those we trust use against us.

Part of our gullibility rises from being overworked, part from the exercise of hyper-consumption and -capitalism, which elevate greed into our reason for existing. We work so we have more, not so others have more, though Americans are generous.

In an age of "me," the needs of the nation are easily forgotten. So self-centered we're prone to be that periodic events need to remind us that we have something in common with one another: sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, all of which have precipitated wars, which is the perennial method by which Americans come together and by necessity, not choice, learn about the world beyond their borders.

When you have what you want at home, I guess it's easy to get comfortable, and comfortable we've become. Sensing the natural tendency to be indifferent to threats originating outside our borders, Newt Gingrich last year said that we should have reminder attacks: "it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."

The suspicious timing behind changes to the color-coded terror threat levels is indicative of how tempted incumbent administrations are to jerk the terror boogeyman. Making matter worse is the willingness of so many to abandon non-partisanship in our foreign policy; before Obama even touched down abroad, his mission has been pilloried many times over by his domestic critics.

Bias and partisanship have marred virtually every policy we now have, especially our foreign policy. Whereas it was considered unpatriotic to question the Bush administration's motives after 9/11, every decision Obama makes is now plagued by internal bickering. Where criticism suits their purposes, the domestic political opposition is willing to undermine the President's overseas agenda.

Whatever I may think about the policies our President endorses, I do understand the need to keep my complaints within the family. Of course anyone who watches America knows we're a melting pots of different opinions--that aspect of our character may in fact make our society stronger and more open to debate, rather than weaker, though some abroad might perceive tolerance that way.

Perhaps we're not so tolerant of each other any more. We've dumbed down politically and know less, and trust our leaders to tell us the truth. Worse, we take differences of political opinion personally, and let them divide us.

Unfortunately all too often Americans are afraid to make their viewpoints know. Rather than discuss our different opinions, we tend to confuse intensity and passion with violence and shy away, or get more aggressive. We can't resolve our differences or work through them. Instead we get into an us vs. them mentality, a problem made especially bad when we need to decide what is best for us all in an international context, in matters like wars and foreign policy. We need to agree to disagree, then keep the debate in the family while we give full support to the President as he goes abroad, even if we don't agree.

Consuming media or being consumed by it

In our media-centric society, celebrities speak for millions who lack the courage and confidence to make their voices heard. We consume news without really digesting it. News has become a matter of convenience, a choice of entertainment options on the media platter. Real news is so much more, knowing the truth a matter of necessity in an age of deceit.

Americans are more likely to believe what they read in the mass media than many other societies. Even the Russians during the communist period were less likely than we are to believe what their government told them. I guess people who've been routinely lied to by their governments grow skeptical in proportion to the gap between what they're told and what they see. During Vietnam this was the Credibility Gap, where reports from the US military about body counts and progress were easily disproved out in the battlefield.

Not all change in the infowars is negative. The Internet, and the prevalence of video recording devices, have made disseminating lies made by governments that much harder. In 1999, for instance, during the infamous WTO riots in Seattle, while authorities claimed no rubber bullets were being used, video was being uploaded in real-time to the Web showing spent rubber bullets lying in a street just outside.

Here's a little quib I found in a MIT report on the Seattle protests:
"Indymedia provided elaborate coverage of the WTO protests.  They did this by disseminating thousands of activists’ videos, photos, recorded interviews and print stories...

"We relied on Indymedia reports and videos as one source among many for our data. While some critics viewed Indymedia as reflecting the point of view of protestors, the conventional media sources reflect the perspective of the dominant order. Indymedia’s critique of mainstream media builds on the ideas of Chomsky (1989) and Habermas (1975) who claim that corporate media’s “truth” corresponds with the interests of corporate sponsors, and that a privatized media cannot serve as a free press.  Without a free press, there is truly no genuine public sphere."

Some of you may have looked to Indymedia.org for footage of the recent protests at the G-20 in Pittsburgh, which involved for the first time use of a Long Range Acoustic Device, more commonly known as a noise gun. See the annotated video here; this site, called G-Infinity, is a production of Indymedia's Pittsburgh site.

Like the Seattle protests, an information war was occurring beyond the reach of cameras. Photographers and videographers are targetted during these protests, as stemming the flow of real-time information is a major goal for the authorities.

Perhaps you saw coverage of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in 2008 (blogged it here.) During that event, people who dared film the events were pepper sprayed and subjected to police harassment. In the more recent Pittsburgh event, many University of Pittsburgh students were caught up in mass arrests. These police actions are designed to funnel protestors and bystanders alike into cordons from which they can't escape. Then, when told to disperse, they're choked by chemical agents for "failing to comply."

Most of Middle America probably doesn't care. They don't attend protests, and are quite content to be docile, at least until their jobs or health are threatened. I guess I'm particularly focused on demonstrations simply because I know the mass media won't cover the stories. The conglomerates don't want to reveal anything that might expose the myth that our wars are vital to our security.

While mainstream media did show miniscule clips of the events in Pittsburgh, becoming aware of what was really happening is only possible through alternative media. Unlike all the marketing-laced banter that fills our mainstreams and attention, the real stories like Pittsburgh aren't delivered to the viewer. You have to work to find them on the Web.

No corporation has a vested interest pinning their name to such coverage--potential advertizers might bolt. Improving the quality of coverage doesn't do much to boost sales. American viewerships are based on celebrity worship, not grim realities. So real stories are relegated to limited viewership on some obscure websites like mine.

If Americans don't make an effort to get informed, chances are they won't understand what's really happening to their society and world. As busy as they are, many are hard-pressed to make a healthy meal, much less scour the Web for some story that may not affect them personally. Same with our endless wars of occupation in southwestern Asia--unless you've got a love one in harm's way, you don't have to care; flip the channel and let someone else worry about it.

Some Americans are almost militant in their observance of ignorance; anti-intellectualism is rife. They'd prefer to live in a bubble insulated from ugly realities--I guess we all would. Discovering the Bug Lie entails leaving your comfort zone, and reconciling patriotism and duty with fact and necessity.

Somehow to make our democracy work, we need informed Americans. That commitment simply isn't there, largely because Americans are too busy working to see the big picture. Failing their responsibilities, Americans put their trust in their leaders whose populist rhetoric comforts them. The remedy for Americans too busy to care, or become informed, has been Barack Obama.

Obama the savior

The President just won the Nobel Peace Prize for diplomacy, a curious achievement considering the scale of wars he oversees as the nominal commander of our military forces. (I say nominal because the Pentagon seems to have differing views on escalation in Afghanistan. In London, General McChrystal spoke out on the need for escalation. The White House has been backpedaling since then, and internal policy discussions have supposedly been going on for weeks.)

The young turned out in droves for Obama, soaking up his spiel that he would bring change. Obama's candidacy was often expressed as a sign that American politics had moved beyond race; a black candidate could be accepted. Even bringing up the subject of Obama's race was considered racist by many of his supporters. Now in office, many of his supporters are eager to reach for the ubiquitous "race card" when the President is criticized.

Part of the Obama mistake has emerged from the idea that the President is and should be at the center of our politics. Maybe the President should be less involved in the day-to-day issues in our society. Perhaps Americans no longer see much benefit in getting disconnected, but rather value hyperconnectivity 24/7, 365 days a year. Look no farther than endless cell calls, about things that really aren't worth the time, about media-generated hype meant to sell some product or point of view. We're surrounded by it-can we escape it?

Now we wouldn't want our President to be out-of-touch, but sometimes that can help the human brain sort things out, a sort of mental vacation that allows time for the brain to catch up with the speed and sheer volume of information we receive.

Obama may be too in touch. He's intelligent enough, for sure, but no man can possibly be our guide, or substitute for our lack of time and meditative capacity. Americans are on the whole a shallow people, whose collective psyche is more built around the illusion on our TVs than any sense of shared values.

The real question as our society matures is if we can elevate individuality beyond the needs of the group. We know Americans embrace all the pleasures that come with being free, but can they handle the heavy responsibilities required to preserve a higher standard of living?

There's this notion of sacrifice. Obama even brought the word up, referencing the "sacrifice" made by terror victims on 9/11. The quote made on the anniversary of 9/11 did raise eyebrows, and references to it on the Web have since been stricken. It's like he never said it at all, jettisoned to the Memory Hole courtesy broken links and the infamous Http:404 Not Found error, the end-all for any story in cyberspace if it hasn't been archived.

Making sacrifices is different from being a sacrifice. Sure, we all understand the need for heroes--another loaded term--to give up their lives and freedom for us Americans, so we can have a better world. But when it comes time to make a sacrifice, most Americans think about giving up eating out, or some other mundane inconvenience.

The idea that people are routinely sacrificed is actually Mayan. Obviously the 9/11 victims weren't consenting, so in this respect they've been mislabeled as heroes and patriots.

The idea of their passing for something better than consoles the living, who must bear some sense of survivor guilt. If the 9/11 victims gave their lives for nothing, then I guess the terrorists "win."

I guess the idea of an all-seeing Supreme Leader comforts us in times of trouble. As I've written here over the years, Bush set the dangerous precedent as "The Decider" and emperor upon whose judgment we were led to believe we could depend. The Washington establishment went along, deluded by the false patriotism and militarism spawned by the reaction to 9/11. Rather than thinking about 9/11 objectively, we were encouraged to believe that it was bin Laden and the Arabs. We blamed the Taliban in Afghanistan exclusively, despite evidence that the Saudi government was involved in helping the hijackers.

The government had foreknowledge of the pending attacks, judging from Atta coming up on the Army's radar through Able Danger and the title of Bush's August 2001 briefing "bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.." Yet Americans don't see what they don't want to see. If studying the attacks means entertaining that notion that the government was lying, then a good proportion of Americans would simply not believe in the possibility of 9/11 truth being anything other than what the government tells them.

People weren't the only thing sacrificed in the attacks. Facts, scientific truth, and reason itself were sacrificed in the hate-filled rage that consumed the public reaction. We really haven't had our wits since the attack. We're running a financial deficit largely because of wars that were rationalized by the attacks. It's worth remember that Osama Bin Laden, not wanted by the FBI for the attacks, sought to destroy America economically and they've done a good job of it, assisted of course by our own thirst for vengeance in an unfilled, endless quest for emotional release.

Our leaders urged action. Emotions, particularly fear, became marketing tools. It was easier to sanctify violence against the alleged perpetrator than it was to investigate.

A rational explanation for fires raging for months below the ruined tower, without oxygen, suggesting nano-thermite, was suppressed. Never mind that the Taliban offered bin Laden after 9/11, or that the CIA shut down the bin Laden unit. Disregard WTC 7's free-fall speed, anything else that might not jibe with the idea the culprits were unassisted and the attacks planned in Afghanistan, a justification still used today to continue the occupation there. This disregards what we know: Atta's cell planned the attacks in Hamburg, Germany and they were trained not in some cave in Afghanistan but in Florida.

Ignore also the huge natural resources that lie under Afghanistan, or the fact Karzai and RIce were on Unocal's board, and actively pursued a pipeline deal through the country. None of the facts mattered. Instead revenge took the place of reason, and base instincts ruled the day--and still do, despite the pleas of some of the 9/11 victims' survivors like Amber Amundson. Instead of forgiving, we've chosen to stretch our initial reaction into an open-ended occupation.

Failing to find al Qaeda--not a surprise if they didn't coordinate 9/11--we opted to go after those that reputedly gave them safe harbor, the Taliban. Denied their rights in a system of military tribunals designed to produce convictions, few Gitmo "enemy combatants" have been successfully prosecuted--the majority have been released. The lack of successful prosecutions suggests not only a lack of evidence--derived from coerced testimony or not--but also al Qaeda's limited size, raising doubts as to their ability to pull off 9/11 independent of any outside help.

Trying to justify continued incarceration regardless of guilt or innocence, Congress has passed a law that would keep Gitmo inmates out of the US, where they could make public all the egregious acts committed against them in America's gulag system. Instead, batches are quietly sent home, or to nations where they won't be tortured (it turns out many were enemies of their home regimes and given over to us for that reason, not any involvement in al Qaeda, "the toilet" in Arabic.)

The failure to grasp the truth that our government knew--that 9/11 was allowed to happen--has produced unconditional acceptance of whatever our government tells us, in the name of our security. It's as if Americans are like children who believe what their parents tell them. In that Alice in Wonderland existence we may find some temporary relief, wrapped in a bubble of presumed safety, but the grasp of an ever-growing State will eventually feel like that of a wraith, seizing more power and taking more of what we have through taxes and inflation. As long as we're dependent on the State, we'll never really find a way out of our current predicament, which depends more on interdependence and coexistence than trying to impose our will overseas or increase State power.

It's no wonder that we now find ourselves stuck in ground wars in Asia, a folly military scientists told us to avoid after the experience of Vietnam. Obama debates, and the generals preen on, demanding more boots, which we knows aren't boots at all, but souls. How many more must we sacrifice before Americans realize they've been misled by the government, given a false pretext? 3000 of us have been sacrificed, but do we do all this to honor them, or to placate our burning desire for vengeance? How many more Afghans and Pakistanis and Iraqis have to die?

Ghandi said an eye for eye would leave the world blind. Martin Luther King lamented the cycle of violence, recognizing the futility of trying to end hate by creating more hate. As many peoples have discovered firsthand throughout the previous wars, violence doesn't solve anything. Yes, anger might be temporarily mollified, but at what cost? We will likely be forced to react to yet another terror strike in the future, one likely generated by our forceful occupation. And contrary to what our government tells us, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are plenty of so-called Taliban who have nothing against the American people but simply want us to leave. What if we were occupied by a foreign power--wouldn't you resist, too?

In leaving them alone, we might be left alone. In asking for forgiveness and going home, we'll be performing an act construed as weakness by some (who hate us anyway), but an act of strength by others, those we need to win over.

Accepting the need to change is a harder exercise than continuing to do what's wrong. Until we Americans can come to grips with the truth, that 9/11 no longer justifies what we're doing over there, and that we need to launch a full investigation to find the real culprits, this travesty of justice will go on, and our country will suffer economically and depreciate morally.

///

Waist deep in the Big Muddy

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy,
and the big fool said to push on."

In Pete Seeger song, the Captain leads his soldiers into deeper and deeper water. Eventually the Captain drowns and his men turn back, led by their sergeant back to the safety of dry land.

The Captain is convinced they can cross the river despite not knowing its depth. As it turns out, a stream joined the river upstream, one that the Captain didn't know about when he crossed the river before.

In the Vietnam era, Seeger's popular folk song became a touchstone for those who opposed that war. The inclination to charge ahead despite not knowing what we were getting into was the big mistake.

The Captain's dogged determination keeps his troops going forward, even as the water rose to their necks. Without really knowing where he goes, or how dangerous the crossing, the Captain led his men on toward their deaths, an inevitable outcome avoided only by his death.

The parallel to VIetnam is striking, and the metaphor about pushing blindly into the unknown suits American overconfidence.

It's what we don't know about our ongoing occupation of Vietnam that hurt us. If we could see how badly the escalation would go--or how deep the water was--we'd surely have turned back.

Afghanistan is the new "Muddy." We don't know how deep the proverbial water is, yet the Captain--Barack Obama--urges us forward, calling for more men and escalation. These circumstances are virtually identical to Vietnam, with one possible exception: the Taliban's resurgence could theoretically set up a recurrence of 9/11.

Now if you buy into the Official Explanation that no governments other than the Taliban were involved, then I guess a future terror attack could come from al Qaeda if the Taliban return to power. Then again, I think it's equally possible an al Qaeda attack could come from anywhere, not just a cave in Afghanistan if that's where the attacks were devised. (Actually, the hijackers planned their attacks in Hamburg, Germany and Florida--not exactly governments friendly to their cause.)

So war proponents could argue we need to "win"and "get'r'done" but I don't know how possible it will be to eliminate the Taliban. Actually, rather than fight an endless counterinsurgency, it might actually be easier to encourage the Taliban to become a political force, allow them to win seats in the Afghan government, then have them govern.

And if any terrorists then happen to show up on our radar--like Atta did during the Army's Able Danger operation, only to be dropped--somewhere like flight schools in Florida, we can simply go arrest them if we know who they are.

If the Taliban's control of Afghanistan enabled the terrorist strikes, indirectly, then no Taliban should mean no terrorists? Not exactly. As it turns out, the Taliban had nothing directly to do with 9/11 so their control over Afghanistan, or existence as a insurgency, won't matter much to anti-terror efforts in the future.

Like Vietnam, we're caught supporting a puppet regime in Karzai, a former Unocal executive. EU monitors at the Afghan's most recent election found evidence of massive vote fraud.

Rather than take issues with inconsistencies in the Afghan's version of democracy's most fundamental right, to vote, we've chosen to stay quiet. Clearly, if we raise the issue with Karzai, we risk meddling with internal Afghan politics or, more significantly, we'd risk alienating Karzai, our man in Kabul.

Taking sides does reduce military effectiveness because the occupiers identify with the despotic regime by virtue of sharing a common enemy in the Taliban (and the will of the majority as expressed in the suppressed vote count.)

Investigating the fraud would make the Karzai regime harder for the US to manage. Karzai could likely make the US presence more of an issue if he chose to. So we cling on to "our guy" in Afghanistan, even if siding with Karzai means denying the democratic process which our liberation sought to bring--a gift from the West thought to be a panacea for many of the region's woes.

Just like Vietnam, we're in a no-win situation. We can meddle with internal politics, and risk alienating the incumbent regime, upon whose cooperation we depend to execute a war plan.

Typically our generals seek to be as independent of Afghan internal politics as possible but we do have ulterior motives and limits to obeying the popular will of the Afghan people. We do want the regime not to fail of course. Rather than see their role as an intermediary to building an independent Afghanistan, our military seeks to create a client state for American arms, one that will be dependent on US aid for decades.

In Vietnam, our military caught itself siding with corrupt regimes, who became such an embassment that we had no choice but to help arrange their defeat by military coup. Removing the corrupt Diem, President of South Vietnam, in 1963 led to an equally corrupt replacement.

Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's competitor who's claiming foul of the elections, may not be the friend that we want in Kabul. Yet the more we appear to side with the incumbent Karzai, the less popular we are among Karzai's domestic political rivals, which makes legitimizing the occupation much harder should a new regime come to power, one that would likely be far less friendly to our interests.

The incumbent regime is likely to take on increasingly undemocratic characteristics as the occupation wears on and resistance builds. Collateral damage from bloodshed by US occupational forces translates into political fallout for the incumbents, who tend to turn increasingly towards authoritarian measures to repress the population, which of course amplifies resistance to the regime and bolsters support for the insurgency.

The movie Good Morning Vietnam depicts the growing disaffection of a young Vietnamese named Tran, who sees friends eliminated by the regime. So even if US soldiers are as pacifistic as a Robin Williams, and their hands squeaky clean, they become targets for the insurgency.

The decision crafted by the Washington establishment in the wake of 9/11 to invade Afghanistan has created an expanding war with no end in sight.

The escalation in Afghanistan means we'll spend a lot on our military, at precisely a time when we need the money at home, which creates a vivid contrast of interests. The Right Wing talk about keeping the nation secure through ongoing occupations abroad, and "winning" seems to have its fringe audience here in the U.S.. Still, the recent election victories show the American public has grown weary-recent polls on support for the war in Afghanistan have well over 50% opposed, a dramatic reversal from this spring.

The idea of fighting a counterinsurgency to stop terror is a twist logic that defies common sense as well as international protocols in dealing with terror. Yet while strong opinions are vociferously voiced, most Americans are ignorant about how to fight terrorism.

Political Hangover

With such short memories, Americans tend to forget recent past events, particularly in matters of foreign policy. This amnesia, coupled with militaristic fervor raised from 9/11, amplified by yellow journalism from the mass media, creates a political climate intolerant of weakness in the face of any threat.

The threat of another terror event also makes resistance to war more difficult within the political system. Should a strike occur after de-escalation, stopping the Afghan War will likely be given as a reason for the resurgent terrorism in the post-strike blame game.

We'll never be able to remove the possibility of a strike--whatever the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan. Politicians have therefore consigned themselves to the ugly spectre of endless war against The Others, this time in southwestern Asia, rather than appear to have been doing nothing to stop the "threat" should it materialize into a strike against the Homeland.

Easier it is for a Washington politician to simply tow the War Party line, to go along with the the notion that continuing the occupation is the best way to reduce the risk of terror strikes against us.

Unfortunately, a terror strike could come from anywhere. As a mostly open society ( I don't think we'll ever be capable of shutting our borders, nor want to), we can't take comfort in the idea that if we get rid of so-and-so, that we'll be forever freed of the terror menace.

Now just because we don't know who specifically will strike us (just that sooner or later, it will happen), this isn't to say we shouldn't be going after certain people who hate us and would like to do us harm. Clearly we need to conduct extensive intelligence-gathering and monitoring of threats, and take steps to neutralize threats. I guess that role involves tasks beyond traditional law-enforcement or even counter-terrorism, into a realm considered a grey area under international law.

If for instance, someone in Somalia is planning to strike against a soft target in a friendly country, I don't think the Somali government can complain when we take the threat out (similar to an event that recently occurred, see link.)

First off, the Somali government lacks the resources to identify the terror threats within its borders. Secondly, their governemnt might be sufficiently compromised by radical Islamic forces as to make any interdiction impossible, at least without tipping off the target.

There's a legitimate reason to intervene when in the past what happened in Third World backwaters didn't seem to matter. Then again, it's suspicious how we seem so selective in deciding where to intervene: Afghanistan happens to sit on a much-coveted pipeline route and Iraq the world's second largest reserves of oil.

As much as our War on Terror might call for new strategies, the old game of overseas adventurism and colonialism has emerged as its prime methodology. If indeed terror poses a threat, a big argument could be made that we don't need to fight it conventionally, with thousands of troops trying to win hearts and minds.

Surely we can develop a rapid response capability that can find and destroy real terrorist, whether or not they happen to be plotting in some cave over there, or some apartment down the street. I don't know if we can achieve that by Predator drone hits directed from above, like those inflicted on people in Pakistan.

Lastly, there's a huge economic impact to running a major occupation or worse, trying to expand it. These effects don't show up overnight, but rather gradually start to drain vital cash from worthy expenditures.

Perhaps you've recently seen the closure of a family services agency, school group, or termination of help for the needy in your locality.

Here in Indiana, we just saw the closure of a crisis group that helps with abused children in Indianapolis, consigning those individuals to already overworked social workers. Vital expenses that must be paid like healthcare for veterans or Medicare will in time be reduced by the amount of money we're pumping into the Pentagon and its corporate benefactors.

How bad could it get? The decision to escalate in Afghanistan might even lead to the economic collapse of our country. How can I be so sure? Look at the economic facts.

Look at our debt: we've borrowed our way into poverty. I don't care if our debt belongs to us collectively, or that we might be able to print up dollars. In the end, we'll pay a price for borrowing so much.

If we print up the money to pay for the war, inflation will surely come. Too much spending on aircraft carriers and weapons systems creates illusory demand, as well as a contracting system loaded with bloat and inefficiencies.

Now if we don't just print up what we owe, taxes will have to go up. Recently, I've seen talk of a tax on uninsured as part of health care "reform," a tracking for vehicles designed to tax per mile travelled, and proposals for carbon taxes that will inflate household energy bills.

Assuming we don't inflate, we'll have to cut back, even in defense. Every year, we spend more than the rest of the world combined. A good chunk of military spending is therefore unsustainable, so whatever benefits increased spending brings will be transient.

Much of the response to our economic problems requires the capacity for acknowledging fault and making the prerequisite changes. Clearly, an approach that embraces change requires leaving the comfort zone behind, accepting the need for change, not unlike the process needed to confront addiction.

It's easier to ignore the reality when the ramifications of realizing the truth are so devastating. Easier it is to push on in our daily routines, consigned to our fate of permanent debt servitude--collectively and oftentimes personally.

Facing the economic truth is hard enough to do when credit is plentiful, and the consequences of borrowing now are so far-off. Perhaps one big benefit of the credit crisis is that many of us now know we've been living beyond our means and have started to save. Unfortunately, the way our monetary system works, we've become dependent on borrowing, so we're in a Catch-22: the less we spend and borrow, the slower we grow, and the less we have to spend and borrow.

The roots of our problems are clearly systemic--we've built a giant Ponzi scheme where the only way we can grow our economy is to burden ourselves with more debt, either borrowed from banks who exist by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, or from overseas.

And the status quo doesn't like being told it's wrong. The Establishment reacts to any facts that might contradict the Washington consensus--like the idea that the Taliban willfully hosted al Qaeda--are forcibly excluded from the media dialogue.

There's great risk in any change, a fact Obama now must see quite clearly from inside the White House, an institution at the heart of the system/Establishment/status quo. At some point it won't be enough to simply claim change in speeches and celebratory campaign appearances--something will need to be achieved.

///