Blackwater Said to Approve $1 Million in Iraqi Bribes After Shootings - NYTimes.com:
"WASHINGTON — Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials that were intended to silence their criticism and buy their support after a September 2007 episode in which Blackwater security guards fatally shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, according to former company officials.
Blackwater approved the cash payments in December 2007, the officials said, as protests over the deadly shootings in Nisour Square stoked long-simmering anger inside Iraq about reckless practices by the security company’s employees. American and Iraqi investigators had already concluded that the shootings were unjustified, top Iraqi officials were calling for Blackwater’s ouster from the country, and company officials feared that Blackwater might be refused an operating license it would need to retain its contracts with the State Department and private clients, worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Four former executives said in interviews that Gary Jackson, who was then Blackwater’s president, had approved the bribes and that the money was sent from Amman, Jordan, where the company maintains an operations hub, to a top manager in Iraq. The executives, though, said they did not know whether the cash was delivered to Iraqi officials or the identities of the potential recipients."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Cost of War: Blackwater Said to Approve $1 Million in Iraqi Bribes After Shootings - And remember that our taxes!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Military Spending comes in last in job creation Right Behind Tax Cuts. Education is #1 followed by Health Care and Infrastructure Rebuilding
McCamy Taylor's Journal - Books, Not Bombs: How Military Spending Hurts the Economy and Education Spending Helps: "In their 2007 paper, The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier study the effects of war spending versus other types of federal spending on the economy, particularly on jobs. They compare spending on education, health care, mass transit, home improvement construction, tax cuts and the military to see how they rate in terms of job production and overall economic benefit using the input-output method of Leontief. Their conclusions may surprise you.
Of the six types of spending considered, only tax cuts do a worse job of creating jobs than military spending. Education spending is the best bet for your money if you want to increase the number of people making a real living wage. Spend more on health care, mass transit and home improvement and you will create jobs that do not pay as well as in the education sector----but they still generate more money for the economy than the relatively small number of high paying defense jobs and the service industry minimum wage jobs that you get with tax cuts.
Here is the study cited:
Quotes in support of these ideas include Thomas Paine and Alan Greenspan
Tom Paine
Speaking about patriots and military spending, once upon a time, back when the Founders of Our Country were battling King George and Great Britain, they understood the real use of war spending. Rather than protecting the people, it was meant to enslave them. In The Rights of Man Thomas Paine asks why the nations of Europe did not follow through with a proposal to end war made by Henry IV of France. He concludes:
Alan Greenspan
"Alan Greenspan understands the importance of education spending to help the economy grow. Here is his speech to the Federal Reserve Board in 2000.
Of the six types of spending considered, only tax cuts do a worse job of creating jobs than military spending. Education spending is the best bet for your money if you want to increase the number of people making a real living wage. Spend more on health care, mass transit and home improvement and you will create jobs that do not pay as well as in the education sector----but they still generate more money for the economy than the relatively small number of high paying defense jobs and the service industry minimum wage jobs that you get with tax cuts.
Here is the study cited:
Quotes in support of these ideas include Thomas Paine and Alan Greenspan
Tom Paine
Speaking about patriots and military spending, once upon a time, back when the Founders of Our Country were battling King George and Great Britain, they understood the real use of war spending. Rather than protecting the people, it was meant to enslave them. In The Rights of Man Thomas Paine asks why the nations of Europe did not follow through with a proposal to end war made by Henry IV of France. He concludes:
"Whatever is the cause of taxes to a Nation, becomes also the means of revenue to Government. Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretence of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches. The frivolous matters upon which war is made, show the disposition and avidity of Governments to uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon which they act."
Alan Greenspan
"Alan Greenspan understands the importance of education spending to help the economy grow. Here is his speech to the Federal Reserve Board in 2000.
Certainly, if we are to remain preeminent in transforming knowledge into economic value, the U.S. system of higher education must remain the world's leader in generating scientific and technological breakthroughs and in preparing workers to meet the evolving demands for skilled labor. With two-thirds of our high school graduates now enrolling in college and an increasing proportion of adult workers seeking opportunities for retooling, our institutions of higher learning increasingly bear an important responsibility for ensuring that our society is prepared for the demands of rapid economic change. Equally critical to our investment in human capital is the quality of education in our elementary and secondary schools. As you know, the results of international comparisons of student achievement in mathematics and science, which indicated that performance of U.S. twelfth-grade students fell short of their peers in other countries, heightened the debate about the quality of education below the college level. To be sure, substantial reforms in math and science education have been under way for some time, and I am encouraged that policymakers, educators, and the business community recognize the significant contribution that a stronger elementary and secondary education system will make in boosting the potential productivity of new generations of workers. I hope that we will see that the efforts to date have paid off in raising the achievement of U.S. students when the results of the 1998-99 international comparisons for eighth graders are published."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma Holding up Veterans benefits Bill
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/military_veteransbill_coburnhold_110309w/
Here is the Senators contact information in case you want to write or call:
Washington, D.C. Office:
172 Russell Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-3602
Phone: (202) 224-5754
Fax: (202) 224-6008
Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.
Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill.
Coburn’s staff did not respond to questions, but Senate aides said the first-term senator has expressed concern about creating new and unfunded benefits and wants the opportunity to amend the measure.
One of Coburn’s suggestions is to divert money from unspent economic and job stimulus programs to cover costs of new benefits for veterans and their families, according to sources who have discussed the issue with Coburn’s staff.
So far, at least, Senate leaders don’t want to let Coburn offer any amendments because of the precedent that would set to delay other legislation. Actual funding for benefits traditionally is handled separately from the bills that authorize the benefits, Senate aides said.
Earlier this fall, Coburn placed holds on S 252, the Veterans Health Care Authorization Act of 2009, and S 728, the Veterans’ Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009, which led to the introduction of S 1963, which combines key provisions of the two earlier bills in an effort to get around Coburn’s opposition.
In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.
“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”
The letter says passing the bill by Veterans Day would be a “fitting way” to honor veterans.
Those signing the letter include the nation’s major veterans groups — The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AmVets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Blinded Veterans Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Jewish War Veterans, plus the Military Officers Association of America, National Military Family Association and Wounded Warrior Project.
Steve Robertson, legislative director for The American Legion, said delaying the bill hurts families caring for severely wounded combat veterans who would benefit from the stipends, health care, counseling and respite care that would be provided to caregivers in the bill.
“For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” he said.
Robertson said he has spoken to Coburn’s staff about the earlier holds on S 252 and S. 728, but the conversation was fairly one-sided, with Coburn’s aides trying to get Robertson to dissuade veterans from flooding the senator’s office with calls.
“They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill, and that he was not doing anything illegal or wrong,” Robertson said. “I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate assistant majority leader, mentioned Coburn’s hold in a Tuesday floor speech without citing Coburn by name, saying that the bill was being held up by one senator over cost.
“How much is a veteran’s life worth?” Durbin asked, adding that he hopes the hold is lifted.
PrintPrintEmailEmail
Bookmark and Share
Here is the Senators contact information in case you want to write or call:
Washington, D.C. Office:
172 Russell Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-3602
Phone: (202) 224-5754
Fax: (202) 224-6008
Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.
Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill.
Coburn’s staff did not respond to questions, but Senate aides said the first-term senator has expressed concern about creating new and unfunded benefits and wants the opportunity to amend the measure.
One of Coburn’s suggestions is to divert money from unspent economic and job stimulus programs to cover costs of new benefits for veterans and their families, according to sources who have discussed the issue with Coburn’s staff.
So far, at least, Senate leaders don’t want to let Coburn offer any amendments because of the precedent that would set to delay other legislation. Actual funding for benefits traditionally is handled separately from the bills that authorize the benefits, Senate aides said.
Earlier this fall, Coburn placed holds on S 252, the Veterans Health Care Authorization Act of 2009, and S 728, the Veterans’ Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009, which led to the introduction of S 1963, which combines key provisions of the two earlier bills in an effort to get around Coburn’s opposition.
In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.
“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”
The letter says passing the bill by Veterans Day would be a “fitting way” to honor veterans.
Those signing the letter include the nation’s major veterans groups — The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AmVets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Blinded Veterans Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Jewish War Veterans, plus the Military Officers Association of America, National Military Family Association and Wounded Warrior Project.
Steve Robertson, legislative director for The American Legion, said delaying the bill hurts families caring for severely wounded combat veterans who would benefit from the stipends, health care, counseling and respite care that would be provided to caregivers in the bill.
“For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” he said.
Robertson said he has spoken to Coburn’s staff about the earlier holds on S 252 and S. 728, but the conversation was fairly one-sided, with Coburn’s aides trying to get Robertson to dissuade veterans from flooding the senator’s office with calls.
“They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill, and that he was not doing anything illegal or wrong,” Robertson said. “I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate assistant majority leader, mentioned Coburn’s hold in a Tuesday floor speech without citing Coburn by name, saying that the bill was being held up by one senator over cost.
“How much is a veteran’s life worth?” Durbin asked, adding that he hopes the hold is lifted.
PrintPrintEmailEmail
Bookmark and Share
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Jon Stewart Hosts Nonviolent Palestinian, Jewish Partners for Peace: Video
Unedited Video posted below . The on air video was edited to eliminate the criticism of US media silence on this issue. Are we seeing a crack in our own Media Iron Curtain? Thanks to Jon and his producers are in order. There was pressure on the show to not air this at all.
interview pt 1
interview-pt 2
these comments from an eyewitness MOndweiss: "The interview ran nearly 15 minutes and it was clear it would have to be edited down to air it. The full interview is posted above, and it is well worth watching the whole thing. Right off the bat it was clear this would be a historic moment:
Baltzer: "We’re part of a large movement of Palestinian and Jews working together. This is not new or novel."
Barghouti: "Jewish Americans have been in the avant garde struggling for justice, in this country at least, and for democracy and in this particular case it is just normal that people like Anna are with us because we are struggling for liberty, we’re struggling for freedom, we’re struggling for justice."
Then, as Dr. Barghouti said that Palestinians have been subjected to a system of segregation, the man with slicked back hair sitting directly in front of me pulled a Joe Wilson and yelled "Liar!" (it’s at 1:49 of the first part of the interview).
Dr. Barghouti was unfazed and explained his reason for working with Anna – "It’s just natural to have an alliance of people who believe in the same values." He returned to this theme of values several times and applause grew every time. He finally made it clear what the Palestinians are calling for – equal rights.
Over the next few minutes he mentioned the names of leaders in whose footsteps he’s following – Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. With each passing mention the trio in front of me squirmed in their seats, and most of the rest of the audience grew more excited.
I think Stewart did a reasonable job with the interview. Although the version that ran on air made it look like he dominated the conversation, in fact he gave the speakers plenty of time to make their points. When he gave them the obligatory question on Israel’s security, Baltzer hit it out of the park:
There is nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There is nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So many of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore. Building a wall between Palestinians and Palestinians?
This was too much for "Slick" in front of me to take, and he burst out again. You can hear him in the background at 7:47 of the first clip. He was escorted from the studio at 8:11 where he was belittled by Stewart ("Bye sir, you can, uh, certainly visit our sedar"). The crowd laughed and cheered as he was led away, and his faux fur clad friend was truly perplexed both by what Baltzer was saying ("Why is she saying that? What is she saying?"), as well as the crowd’s overwhelming support for the speakers.
I don’t want to recount the whole interview, you can watch it. I have to say, I was blown away. Although I was laughing out loud for the first two segments, I was on the verge of tears throughout the interview. Here was a Palestinian leader demanding equal rights and an anti-Zionist Jew calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel towards peace on The Daily Show and they were being applauded, while the traditional pro-Israel hasbara was being shown the door.
Palestinian equal rights was placed directly next to health care and the economy on The Daily Show’s progressive agenda and the audience was totally along for the ride. I could hardly believe my eyes, and yet it made perfect sense at the same time. Who can argue that it is necessary to deny people water? Who can argue against equal rights? The answer is increasingly no one, and if The Daily Show’s audience is any indication, the next generation will be leading this fight in a much different direction."
Unedited Video posted below these comments form an eyewitness. The on air video was edited to eliminate the criticism of US media silence on this issue. Are we seeing a crackin our own Media Iron Curtain? Thanks to Jon are in order. There was pressure on the show to not air this at all.
Eyewitness MOndweiss: "The interview ran nearly 15 minutes and it was clear it would have to be edited down to air it. The full interview is posted above, and it is well worth watching the whole thing. Right off the bat it was clear this would be a historic moment:
Baltzer: "We’re part of a large movement of Palestinian and Jews working together. This is not new or novel."
Barghouti: "Jewish Americans have been in the avant garde struggling for justice, in this country at least, and for democracy and in this particular case it is just normal that people like Anna are with us because we are struggling for liberty, we’re struggling for freedom, we’re struggling for justice."
Then, as Dr. Barghouti said that Palestinians have been subjected to a system of segregation, the man with slicked back hair sitting directly in front of me pulled a Joe Wilson and yelled "Liar!" (it’s at 1:49 of the first part of the interview).
Dr. Barghouti was unfazed and explained his reason for working with Anna – "It’s just natural to have an alliance of people who believe in the same values." He returned to this theme of values several times and applause grew every time. He finally made it clear what the Palestinians are calling for – equal rights.
Over the next few minutes he mentioned the names of leaders in whose footsteps he’s following – Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. With each passing mention the trio in front of me squirmed in their seats, and most of the rest of the audience grew more excited.
I think Stewart did a reasonable job with the interview. Although the version that ran on air made it look like he dominated the conversation, in fact he gave the speakers plenty of time to make their points. When he gave them the obligatory question on Israel’s security, Baltzer hit it out of the park:
There is nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There is nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So many of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore. Building a wall between Palestinians and Palestinians?
This was too much for "Slick" in front of me to take, and he burst out again. You can hear him in the background at 7:47 of the first clip. He was escorted from the studio at 8:11 where he was belittled by Stewart ("Bye sir, you can, uh, certainly visit our sedar"). The crowd laughed and cheered as he was led away, and his faux fur clad friend was truly perplexed both by what Baltzer was saying ("Why is she saying that? What is she saying?"), as well as the crowd’s overwhelming support for the speakers.
I don’t want to recount the whole interview, you can watch it. I have to say, I was blown away. Although I was laughing out loud for the first two segments, I was on the verge of tears throughout the interview. Here was a Palestinian leader demanding equal rights and an anti-Zionist Jew calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel towards peace on The Daily Show and they were being applauded, while the traditional pro-Israel hasbara was being shown the door.
Palestinian equal rights was placed directly next to health care and the economy on The Daily Show’s progressive agenda and the audience was totally along for the ride. I could hardly believe my eyes, and yet it made perfect sense at the same time. Who can argue that it is necessary to deny people water? Who can argue against equal rights? The answer is increasingly no one, and if The Daily Show’s audience is any indication, the next generation will be leading this fight in a much different direction."
interview pt 1
interview-pt 2
these comments from an eyewitness MOndweiss: "The interview ran nearly 15 minutes and it was clear it would have to be edited down to air it. The full interview is posted above, and it is well worth watching the whole thing. Right off the bat it was clear this would be a historic moment:
Baltzer: "We’re part of a large movement of Palestinian and Jews working together. This is not new or novel."
Barghouti: "Jewish Americans have been in the avant garde struggling for justice, in this country at least, and for democracy and in this particular case it is just normal that people like Anna are with us because we are struggling for liberty, we’re struggling for freedom, we’re struggling for justice."
Then, as Dr. Barghouti said that Palestinians have been subjected to a system of segregation, the man with slicked back hair sitting directly in front of me pulled a Joe Wilson and yelled "Liar!" (it’s at 1:49 of the first part of the interview).
Dr. Barghouti was unfazed and explained his reason for working with Anna – "It’s just natural to have an alliance of people who believe in the same values." He returned to this theme of values several times and applause grew every time. He finally made it clear what the Palestinians are calling for – equal rights.
Over the next few minutes he mentioned the names of leaders in whose footsteps he’s following – Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. With each passing mention the trio in front of me squirmed in their seats, and most of the rest of the audience grew more excited.
I think Stewart did a reasonable job with the interview. Although the version that ran on air made it look like he dominated the conversation, in fact he gave the speakers plenty of time to make their points. When he gave them the obligatory question on Israel’s security, Baltzer hit it out of the park:
There is nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There is nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So many of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore. Building a wall between Palestinians and Palestinians?
This was too much for "Slick" in front of me to take, and he burst out again. You can hear him in the background at 7:47 of the first clip. He was escorted from the studio at 8:11 where he was belittled by Stewart ("Bye sir, you can, uh, certainly visit our sedar"). The crowd laughed and cheered as he was led away, and his faux fur clad friend was truly perplexed both by what Baltzer was saying ("Why is she saying that? What is she saying?"), as well as the crowd’s overwhelming support for the speakers.
I don’t want to recount the whole interview, you can watch it. I have to say, I was blown away. Although I was laughing out loud for the first two segments, I was on the verge of tears throughout the interview. Here was a Palestinian leader demanding equal rights and an anti-Zionist Jew calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel towards peace on The Daily Show and they were being applauded, while the traditional pro-Israel hasbara was being shown the door.
Palestinian equal rights was placed directly next to health care and the economy on The Daily Show’s progressive agenda and the audience was totally along for the ride. I could hardly believe my eyes, and yet it made perfect sense at the same time. Who can argue that it is necessary to deny people water? Who can argue against equal rights? The answer is increasingly no one, and if The Daily Show’s audience is any indication, the next generation will be leading this fight in a much different direction."
Unedited Video posted below these comments form an eyewitness. The on air video was edited to eliminate the criticism of US media silence on this issue. Are we seeing a crackin our own Media Iron Curtain? Thanks to Jon are in order. There was pressure on the show to not air this at all.
Eyewitness MOndweiss: "The interview ran nearly 15 minutes and it was clear it would have to be edited down to air it. The full interview is posted above, and it is well worth watching the whole thing. Right off the bat it was clear this would be a historic moment:
Baltzer: "We’re part of a large movement of Palestinian and Jews working together. This is not new or novel."
Barghouti: "Jewish Americans have been in the avant garde struggling for justice, in this country at least, and for democracy and in this particular case it is just normal that people like Anna are with us because we are struggling for liberty, we’re struggling for freedom, we’re struggling for justice."
Then, as Dr. Barghouti said that Palestinians have been subjected to a system of segregation, the man with slicked back hair sitting directly in front of me pulled a Joe Wilson and yelled "Liar!" (it’s at 1:49 of the first part of the interview).
Dr. Barghouti was unfazed and explained his reason for working with Anna – "It’s just natural to have an alliance of people who believe in the same values." He returned to this theme of values several times and applause grew every time. He finally made it clear what the Palestinians are calling for – equal rights.
Over the next few minutes he mentioned the names of leaders in whose footsteps he’s following – Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. With each passing mention the trio in front of me squirmed in their seats, and most of the rest of the audience grew more excited.
I think Stewart did a reasonable job with the interview. Although the version that ran on air made it look like he dominated the conversation, in fact he gave the speakers plenty of time to make their points. When he gave them the obligatory question on Israel’s security, Baltzer hit it out of the park:
There is nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There is nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So many of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore. Building a wall between Palestinians and Palestinians?
This was too much for "Slick" in front of me to take, and he burst out again. You can hear him in the background at 7:47 of the first clip. He was escorted from the studio at 8:11 where he was belittled by Stewart ("Bye sir, you can, uh, certainly visit our sedar"). The crowd laughed and cheered as he was led away, and his faux fur clad friend was truly perplexed both by what Baltzer was saying ("Why is she saying that? What is she saying?"), as well as the crowd’s overwhelming support for the speakers.
I don’t want to recount the whole interview, you can watch it. I have to say, I was blown away. Although I was laughing out loud for the first two segments, I was on the verge of tears throughout the interview. Here was a Palestinian leader demanding equal rights and an anti-Zionist Jew calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel towards peace on The Daily Show and they were being applauded, while the traditional pro-Israel hasbara was being shown the door.
Palestinian equal rights was placed directly next to health care and the economy on The Daily Show’s progressive agenda and the audience was totally along for the ride. I could hardly believe my eyes, and yet it made perfect sense at the same time. Who can argue that it is necessary to deny people water? Who can argue against equal rights? The answer is increasingly no one, and if The Daily Show’s audience is any indication, the next generation will be leading this fight in a much different direction."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Former Marine Resigns from State Department to protest Afghan occupation
First US Official Resigns Over Afghan War; Says "It's Not Worth The Fight" | Crooks and Liars
While I don't appreciate the adoption of Cheney's framing--Obama isn't dithering, he's considering carefully his options--James Joyner has a point. Obama pushed Afghanistan as the "good war" and the reverberations of Hoh's resignation do appear to have leadership scrambling.
I'm so glad someone who has been there has finally said it:
(I)n a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, (former Marine Corps Captain Matthew) Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay.
U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview. "We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him."
While he did not share Hoh's view that the war "wasn't worth the fight," Holbrooke said, "I agreed with much of his analysis." He asked Hoh to join his team in Washington, saying that "if he really wanted to affect policy and help reduce the cost of the war on lives and treasure," why not be "inside the building, rather than outside, where you can get a lot of attention but you won't have the same political impact?"
Hoh is quick to say he's not some hippie peace-nik. Sigh. Why does he make that sound like a bad thing? But Hoh does feel that our presence does nothing but escalate violence and turmoil with the Afghans.
(M)any Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.
As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right.' "
"I realize what I'm getting into . . . what people are going to say about me," he said. "I never thought I would be doing this."
The New Atlanticist, a foreign policy blog, looks at it from a different POV: While Obama Dithers...
Now, as it happens, I think Hoh's analysis of the situation is spot-on:
Hoh's doubts increased with Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election, marked by low turnout and widespread fraud. He concluded, he said in his resignation letter, that the war "has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency."
With "multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups," he wrote, the insurgency "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."
American families, he said at the end of the letter, "must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can be made any more.While I don't appreciate the adoption of Cheney's framing--Obama isn't dithering, he's considering carefully his options--James Joyner has a point. Obama pushed Afghanistan as the "good war" and the reverberations of Hoh's resignation do appear to have leadership scrambling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)