I think this is important enough of an event to warrant a second post to sort out my thoughts on this. I'm still very surprised about the whole thing, though I am not surprised to see conspiracy theories abound on the internet. One of the main questions being asked is why did the U.S. dispose of the body so quickly, and why has no photographs of the killing emerged yet - which are fair questions to ask. However, not only do I think it would be impossible to fake his death, but I think it would be political suicide for Obama. Further, what would be the motivation? Obama was under no real pressure to capture Osama, what he did feel, however, was that this was an enormous opportunity for him - and he was right.
There are two ways to fake someone's death - either to lie and say they're dead when they are really alive, or to lie and say you killed them, when they've really been dead all along. I think it's obvious the latter is impossible. We have audio recordings and videos of Osama from recent times which we can unmistakably identify as him - the frequency of such recordings may have decreased, but then again he has been in hiding for the past nine years... every time he releases such a recording he risks capture, so it makes sense that he would be forced to release such messages less and less frequently, which may give the false impression that he had been killed prior to the events of Sunday.
The are two other options, aside from the rational one that he really was killed by a U.S. operation - either he is still alive and in hiding, or he is still alive and in U.S. custody. If the first were true, why wouldn't he simply release a new video and expose the U.S. hoax? And more importantly, if the U.S. wasn't convinced he was dead, or at least within their custody, why would they lie? But even holding Osama in custody to me seems too risky - the whole point, in my opinion, was to boost Obama's 2012 chances - why take the risk of being exposed and ruin your political career? It just doesn't make any sense to believe anything other than that Osama Bin Laden really was killed in Pakistan a few days ago.
But still, it is fair to ask why dispose of the body so hurriedly, and why no hard evidence of his death? To address the second part, it's likely that there is plenty of evidence, and I'm sure both video and pictures exist - however there may be reasons for not wanting to release them. Perhaps the conduct of the Navy Seals was not as appropriate as the government would have liked, perhaps the pictures are simply very gruesome and the U.S. fears inciting some emotional response amongst Muslims. That being said, it's also only been a few days - I'm sure in the future pictures, video, audio and eyewitnesses will surface, but these things generally take time.
So, it seems the final big question is why to dispose the body so quickly. The official answer had something to do with wanting to prevent any burial site from becoming a "terrorist shrine" and wanting to respect Islamic law regarding burial. I personally think this is reasonable, if one looks at it from Obama's perspective.
Really, what good could have come from giving a place for Islamist extremists to congregate and draw large crowds of people together? It's just a massacre waiting to happen. Further, bringing people together, which burying Osama certainly would have, only invites opportunity for those "fast talking Mullahs" to incite a riot or create chaos. The fact that he was buried quickly, in accordance to Islamic law I think was a very smart move. America got what it want, but did so without adding insult to injury for those in the Muslim world who saw Osama as a hero. It was the smart political choice, and perhaps a chance of changing a few minds in the Muslim world.
The alternative to burying him in Pakistan would have been to bring the body back to the U.S. - and that certainly could not have been good. I can only imagine the wild stories and outrage that would have followed, not to mention the media shitstorm that would have occurred here in the U.S. and throngs of people demanding his body be displayed. The whole thing could very easily have turned into a huge disaster - so why go through all of that, when you can just toss him in the ocean and everyone is happy, for the most part? I'm sure in time more and more details will surface regarding the whole event, but I think for once we can be fairly safe in laying down our guard, because I see no reason that Obama should be untruthful in all of this.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden
First things first - I do not expect that this will have a huge impact on Al-Qaeda or terrorism in general. Certainly this is a big blow to the organization, but ultimately I don't think Osama has played as important of a role as he did in the past. In the past, Osama was directly involved with fund raising, planning attacks, and issuing propaganda and rhetoric to inspire volunteers to die for his distorted views of jihad and Islam. Since 2001, I think Osamas involvement in the organization has been severly limited as his sole priority has been to remain hidden and alive - which he managed to do for nine and a half years.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a short-lived rise in attacks as misguided young men are inspired by this "martyrdom", but ultimately these types of movements require a face and voice. Osama's face is certainly one which the world is safer without, but my feeling is that ultimately he will be easily replaced as a new generation of extremism is grown from the harsh, impoverished and desperate lives many in Central Asia and the Middle East live - and that is the real root of terrorism. Still, Osama was an influential man, and he is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of people around the world. His death is a consolation to many, but my suspicion is that ultimately killing him will not do very much to end terrorist attacks throughout the world.
What this event is, more than anything, is an enormous political victory of Barrack Obama, and he may have brilliantly just ensured his re-election. One of the Republicans main points of attack on Obama has been that the implication that he is a Muslim sympathizer and that he is soft on terrorism. I think this is what helped Bush secure re-election in 2004, as 9/11 was fresh in people's minds and the ever present color coded terrorism threat weighed heavily on peoples decision. Obama has just shown that he was able to accomplish in three years what Bush failed to do in eight - kill the most hated terrorist in American history. This is a huge boost to Obamas credibility, both at home and overseas. At the same time, Obama has tactfully reminded the Muslim world that Al-Qaeda has murdered thousands of Muslims, and was clear that they should celebrate this as victory with the U.S. - a smart move.
This may also have implications for Afghanistan. To many Americans, the reason for invading Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden and remove the safe-havens of Al-Qaeda, and now both of those tasks are complete. This could possibly be an "out" for Obama - a way to justify ending the war without looking weak in the process. No one can accuse him of "cutting and running", and at the same time he can bring an increasingly unpopular war to an end. It's win-win for him. Now, as a student of this class I can recognize that there are far more important reasons for being in Afghanistan than getting Osama Bin Laden, but for the sake of Political Expediency, this may very well be the beginning of the end to this war - whether that is a good thing or not.
So, I think while Osama's death has made the world a little bit safer, ultimately the real significance here is not that the war on terror has been won, but the implications this has for Obama's presidential campaign and the U.S. policies in Central Asia in the years to come. I'd like to think this is a positive thing - a possible turning point - but I remain skeptical and as always, nothing is ever simple or easy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Exsanguinate
The logical argument goes that the War in Afghanistan will ultimately come to an end by means of some political settlement with the Taliban, and it seems like they, or at least some fraction of the network of groups which can be called the Taliban, are not close minded to having talks with the U.S. Suppose this changes though, and the Taliban decide it is in their own best interest to simply continue fighting the U.S. for however long it takes - what would this mean for America? Can American win this war if the Taliban refuses to surrender, and how much longer can we continue to pour our military resources into the region?
Since 2001 we've spent $400,000,000,000 in Afghanistan alone, and twice that in Iraq for a total bill of over one trillion dollars. With spending in Afghanistan on the rise, and no end to this war in sight, at what point do these wars begin to seriously affect the American economy, our spending power as a nation, and our influence in the world? Suppose some conflict were to arise somewhere that needed our attention - how weakened would the U.S. military be if they are quagmired in Central Asia? How well could we respond to a threat from, say, North Korea? It seems to me that by dragging out this war, the Taliban have very little to lose, and we have everything to lose. And yet, at this point we may be far too deep into this thing to simply leave like we did in Vietnam. I think the U.S. strategy right now should be to very seriously begin preparations to negotiate with the Taliban so some sensible end to this war can come - otherwise we may have realized we've bitten off far more than we can chew, and there's no hope of spitting it back out.
I see some major issues with simply cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan. The first is that this will probably lead directly to another civil war, one which the Taliban would probably win unless we provided some serious resources to the Karzai government. The cynical and natural next question to ask would be - who cares? Well, I think we should care, for several reasons.
First, it simply makes the U.S. look bad. We've seriously damaged our reputation in the region, killed tens of thousands of people and lost thousands of American lives, spent hundreds of billions, and in the end we are defeated by a bunch of kids from Pakistan wielding AK-47s? I think just up and surrendering would be a big embarrassment for the U.S. military and would hurt our credibility with the rest of the world - especially with our allies who have also invested resources and people in this war. How would we look if we simply gave up and basically wasted ISAF's time for the past ten years?
Secondly, Central Asia is unstable enough as it is - and I think its in our interest to see that that things do not worsen. Another Afghan civil war can not be good for the region, or our interests. Further, a civil war opens the door the countries like China to begin extending their influence over the region - and that can lead to a whole other can of worms for the U.S. The real frightening possibility though, is that India may seek to try and fight some proxy war with Pakistan by supporting the Karzai government while the ISI will almost certainly be supporting the Taliban. This could very seriously lead to a real war with Pakistan - something that is definitely not what we want.
Afghanistan is just too important to let everything go to shit - and that is mostly because of who lives in its neighborhood. Central Asia sits at the crossroads of the main rising powers in the world - Russia, China and India, and Afghanistan is right at the heart of it all. We simply can not afford to pull out of the region, and yet it doesn't seem like we can defeat the Taliban. If, hypothetically speaking, they refuse to negotiate, what does that mean for the U.S.? To me, it means a very long and expensive commitment to re-building Afghanistan, and one which will require a significant increase in the amount of money spent on Nation building - including dramatically increased over-sight on how those funds are used to prevent a large portion of them being squandered by corruption and unscrupulous contractors.
At this point, we are simply too far into this thing in my belief, and there is no easy end in sight. I think Afghanistan will prove to be a wound that the U.S. will not recover from easily, and the worst may be yet to come. The Taliban can continue to bleed the U.S. for years, but how long can the U.S. continue to devote huge amounts of its resources to this small part of the world when there may be very serious conflicts to come in the future?
Since 2001 we've spent $400,000,000,000 in Afghanistan alone, and twice that in Iraq for a total bill of over one trillion dollars. With spending in Afghanistan on the rise, and no end to this war in sight, at what point do these wars begin to seriously affect the American economy, our spending power as a nation, and our influence in the world? Suppose some conflict were to arise somewhere that needed our attention - how weakened would the U.S. military be if they are quagmired in Central Asia? How well could we respond to a threat from, say, North Korea? It seems to me that by dragging out this war, the Taliban have very little to lose, and we have everything to lose. And yet, at this point we may be far too deep into this thing to simply leave like we did in Vietnam. I think the U.S. strategy right now should be to very seriously begin preparations to negotiate with the Taliban so some sensible end to this war can come - otherwise we may have realized we've bitten off far more than we can chew, and there's no hope of spitting it back out.
I see some major issues with simply cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan. The first is that this will probably lead directly to another civil war, one which the Taliban would probably win unless we provided some serious resources to the Karzai government. The cynical and natural next question to ask would be - who cares? Well, I think we should care, for several reasons.
First, it simply makes the U.S. look bad. We've seriously damaged our reputation in the region, killed tens of thousands of people and lost thousands of American lives, spent hundreds of billions, and in the end we are defeated by a bunch of kids from Pakistan wielding AK-47s? I think just up and surrendering would be a big embarrassment for the U.S. military and would hurt our credibility with the rest of the world - especially with our allies who have also invested resources and people in this war. How would we look if we simply gave up and basically wasted ISAF's time for the past ten years?
Secondly, Central Asia is unstable enough as it is - and I think its in our interest to see that that things do not worsen. Another Afghan civil war can not be good for the region, or our interests. Further, a civil war opens the door the countries like China to begin extending their influence over the region - and that can lead to a whole other can of worms for the U.S. The real frightening possibility though, is that India may seek to try and fight some proxy war with Pakistan by supporting the Karzai government while the ISI will almost certainly be supporting the Taliban. This could very seriously lead to a real war with Pakistan - something that is definitely not what we want.
Afghanistan is just too important to let everything go to shit - and that is mostly because of who lives in its neighborhood. Central Asia sits at the crossroads of the main rising powers in the world - Russia, China and India, and Afghanistan is right at the heart of it all. We simply can not afford to pull out of the region, and yet it doesn't seem like we can defeat the Taliban. If, hypothetically speaking, they refuse to negotiate, what does that mean for the U.S.? To me, it means a very long and expensive commitment to re-building Afghanistan, and one which will require a significant increase in the amount of money spent on Nation building - including dramatically increased over-sight on how those funds are used to prevent a large portion of them being squandered by corruption and unscrupulous contractors.
At this point, we are simply too far into this thing in my belief, and there is no easy end in sight. I think Afghanistan will prove to be a wound that the U.S. will not recover from easily, and the worst may be yet to come. The Taliban can continue to bleed the U.S. for years, but how long can the U.S. continue to devote huge amounts of its resources to this small part of the world when there may be very serious conflicts to come in the future?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Torture
As Americans we like to pride ourselves that our country was founded on integrity and a firm set of moral and ethical principles. Principles such as the right to free speech, the right to elect our leaders, and all the other good ole' fundamental American values. People in power, however, often neglect and violate these principles, which isn't too surprising. One issue that came up in class and which has been given some attention in the media in the past is the issue of torture. The very word invokes the image of some kind of Stalinist, dystopian, oppressive government where people live in fear rather than in freedom, but the fact is the United States is a nation which practices torture. Aside from it being a fundamentally un-American concept, I don't think it's possible to ever justify torture nor does it make sense from an intelligence gathering perspective.
Ignoring the dozens of moral objections one could raise about torturing people, I see three major issues with the practice. The first is to me there seems to be a serious contradiction with the presumption of innocence, the second is that it is an unreliable and ineffective means of gathering accurate intelligence, and the third is that it creates a sort of sand-trap where once you begin torturing people you can not simply release them based on their innocence or not. I'll elaborate a bit on each of these.
Firstly, one should establish exactly why presumption of innocence exists. It is not to protect terrorists, or murders or any other species of criminal. The concept is to protect us - the innocent. If we believe in this idea of "innocent until proven guilty", then we must believe in it wholeheartedly, regardless of how severe or revolting the crimes of the accused may be, or how obvious their guilt is. We can not pick and choose when to apply this principle, and to whom, otherwise the entire concept falls apart. No one argues that it is OK to torture innocent people - this is obviously wrong. However, the argument has been made that it is justifiable to torture terrorists and people associated with organizations like Al Qaeda because these are the "worst of the worst", and the idea seems to be that if you're bad enough, then torture is acceptable.
This type of argument is based on the assumption of guilt however, and directly contradicts the concept of presumption of innocence. If one is assumed to be innocent, then how is it justifiable to torture him? Further, if one is only allowed to torture the "bad guys", and we torture people to extract confession of crimes, we are torturing innocent people by definition - because they have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing. This argument goes as far to show that it is illogical and contradictory to torture people in order to extract confessions, so long as we uphold our legal and most fundamental principles and ideals. One may make the case, however, that once someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be a "bad guy", then it is fair to torture him. I think I can provide arguments to show that this too is absurd.
If one is torturing someone to obtain intelligence and information about other people, there is no reason to believe any confession or revelation will be truthful. The person being tortured has but one goal - to say whatever he can to make his tortures stop. This could mean betraying his comrades, or it could mean lying and proving false information - typically either blaming innocent people or inventing stories. There is no motivation for someone being tortured to tell the truth, only to say what he believes will be the quickest route to ending his suffering. This fact makes any information obtained from torture completely suspect and of very little credibility. Essentially torture defeats its own purpose, if that purpose is to obtain information.
The third issue I raise has to do with people who truly are innocent. The American government can never admit it tortures people - not unless it has to. The status quo will always be to deny the use of the torture, especially if they've stated in the past that they no longer torture people. Further, they especially do not want it revealed what methods and means they use to torture people. So what happens when the C.I.A. disappears some innocent Afghan by either mistaken identity or bad intelligence? They subject him to torture, and realize he's not the right guy - then what?
Are they going to just release him so he can run to the nearest media outlet and tell them what he's been through? Are they just going to say "sorry, our mistake"? No, they simply aren't going to release him, despite his innocence. We now have a situation where people - innocent or not - disappear into these black holes and can't ever leave. We are setting up these institutions which essentially are functioning as gulags, and that is a very dangerous thing.
Not only is torture a violation of American principles, the law and of our sense that America is supposed to be better than the rest, but it is an erosion of the rights and freedom of innocent people and it serves no useful purpose, save perhaps to satiate the desire of some to punish their captives - but that is what the legal system is for. There simply is no excuse or justification to be torturing people, even if they "deserve it".
Ignoring the dozens of moral objections one could raise about torturing people, I see three major issues with the practice. The first is to me there seems to be a serious contradiction with the presumption of innocence, the second is that it is an unreliable and ineffective means of gathering accurate intelligence, and the third is that it creates a sort of sand-trap where once you begin torturing people you can not simply release them based on their innocence or not. I'll elaborate a bit on each of these.
Firstly, one should establish exactly why presumption of innocence exists. It is not to protect terrorists, or murders or any other species of criminal. The concept is to protect us - the innocent. If we believe in this idea of "innocent until proven guilty", then we must believe in it wholeheartedly, regardless of how severe or revolting the crimes of the accused may be, or how obvious their guilt is. We can not pick and choose when to apply this principle, and to whom, otherwise the entire concept falls apart. No one argues that it is OK to torture innocent people - this is obviously wrong. However, the argument has been made that it is justifiable to torture terrorists and people associated with organizations like Al Qaeda because these are the "worst of the worst", and the idea seems to be that if you're bad enough, then torture is acceptable.
This type of argument is based on the assumption of guilt however, and directly contradicts the concept of presumption of innocence. If one is assumed to be innocent, then how is it justifiable to torture him? Further, if one is only allowed to torture the "bad guys", and we torture people to extract confession of crimes, we are torturing innocent people by definition - because they have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing. This argument goes as far to show that it is illogical and contradictory to torture people in order to extract confessions, so long as we uphold our legal and most fundamental principles and ideals. One may make the case, however, that once someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be a "bad guy", then it is fair to torture him. I think I can provide arguments to show that this too is absurd.
If one is torturing someone to obtain intelligence and information about other people, there is no reason to believe any confession or revelation will be truthful. The person being tortured has but one goal - to say whatever he can to make his tortures stop. This could mean betraying his comrades, or it could mean lying and proving false information - typically either blaming innocent people or inventing stories. There is no motivation for someone being tortured to tell the truth, only to say what he believes will be the quickest route to ending his suffering. This fact makes any information obtained from torture completely suspect and of very little credibility. Essentially torture defeats its own purpose, if that purpose is to obtain information.
The third issue I raise has to do with people who truly are innocent. The American government can never admit it tortures people - not unless it has to. The status quo will always be to deny the use of the torture, especially if they've stated in the past that they no longer torture people. Further, they especially do not want it revealed what methods and means they use to torture people. So what happens when the C.I.A. disappears some innocent Afghan by either mistaken identity or bad intelligence? They subject him to torture, and realize he's not the right guy - then what?
Are they going to just release him so he can run to the nearest media outlet and tell them what he's been through? Are they just going to say "sorry, our mistake"? No, they simply aren't going to release him, despite his innocence. We now have a situation where people - innocent or not - disappear into these black holes and can't ever leave. We are setting up these institutions which essentially are functioning as gulags, and that is a very dangerous thing.
Not only is torture a violation of American principles, the law and of our sense that America is supposed to be better than the rest, but it is an erosion of the rights and freedom of innocent people and it serves no useful purpose, save perhaps to satiate the desire of some to punish their captives - but that is what the legal system is for. There simply is no excuse or justification to be torturing people, even if they "deserve it".
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Pakistan and Afghanistan's Future
The situation in Pakistan is an interesting one, at least as interesting as it is dangerous. Pakistan is a nation whose military's sole purpose seems to be to prepare and wait for the next confrontation with India, and whose slimy intelligence agency - the ISI - seems to justify anything by always relating it to India.The ISI seems to never tire of playing both sides of the fence, and the military seems completely reluctant to stem the growth of Jihadist movements within its borders... and this is our ally in the region...
The whole situation is a complete mess. On the one hand the stability of Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan - we rely on them for trucking routes, to help provide intelligence and as an important political ally in the region. Yet, they almost seem to undermine every American effort... it seems that we need Pakistan, and it seems that the real enemy is Pakistan.Things might not be so complicated if it weren't for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is controlled by an unstable government which is now facing a rising insurgency of its own... and in the background looms India and the never ending Kashmir dispute, a weak economy and a population who is largely impoverished and prone to radicalism.
I really don't think America can have its cake and eat it too. It seems to me that so long as Pakistan remains a safe haven for the Taliban, one which they can freely cross into and gain access to weapons and a continual supply of recruits, we will never be able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan to be able to leave. And so long as the war continues, there is little hope of economic recovery and development within Afghanistan, which means the Karzai government will remain weak and fragile and completely dependent on America to pay for and manage its armed forces. At the same time, the ISI continues to support the Taliban so as to stamp out any possible influence from India in the country, and the knowledge that the military is unlikely to move against them in Pakistan boosts Taliban moral all the more.We cannot secure the border on our own, and even if Pakistan could, they would never be willing to deploy large resources on their Western border with big bad India to the east.
It seems as time goes on, the Taliban position only gets stronger. The longer the Americans stay, the more civilian casualties will occur and the more hatred for America will exist in Afghanistan. This not only strengthens the Taliban, but it is crippling to the Karzai government who at this point seems hopelessly unable to assert any true authority over the country. It seems at this point, America is simply staving off collapse of the Karzai government and hoping to God that Pakistan remains stable and is willing to accept what meager support they offer. There have been talks of negotiations with the Taliban, but at this point it almost seems like they have the upper hand - which is not good for us.
What America really needs is a stable Pakistan who is willing to fight against the Taliban on its side of the border and one who is willing to actively work to dampen the Islamist movement by providing the things its people expect of it. This doesn't seem like it can ever happen though so long as India remains the sole obsession of the military and the Kashmir remains an issue. I believe that our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan and to see the country rebuild its self is directly dependent on support from Pakistan... support which we are not recieving. If we were to withdraw with things as they are, I have no doubt that the Taliban would quickly defeat the Karzai government and re-gain power, and we'd be back to 2001, or perhaps back to 1992 in the midst of another civil war. In addition, without aid from America there is a real possibility that Pakistan may find its self in a civil war against the Pakistan Taliban, and the stakes are much higher there than in Afghanistan.
I don't think its possible for America to leave this region any time soon. Even if we get Afghanistan sorted out, we are too tangled up with the mess in Pakistan that some American presence is going to be needed for a long time, and many billions more are going to need to be spent. If defeat of the Taliban is the goal, we're never going to leave. If nation building and the solidification of the Karzai government is the goal, we're going to have to work out a deal with the Taliban, and still American presence and money is going to be required. There just aren't any quick ways out...
The whole situation is a complete mess. On the one hand the stability of Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan - we rely on them for trucking routes, to help provide intelligence and as an important political ally in the region. Yet, they almost seem to undermine every American effort... it seems that we need Pakistan, and it seems that the real enemy is Pakistan.Things might not be so complicated if it weren't for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is controlled by an unstable government which is now facing a rising insurgency of its own... and in the background looms India and the never ending Kashmir dispute, a weak economy and a population who is largely impoverished and prone to radicalism.
I really don't think America can have its cake and eat it too. It seems to me that so long as Pakistan remains a safe haven for the Taliban, one which they can freely cross into and gain access to weapons and a continual supply of recruits, we will never be able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan to be able to leave. And so long as the war continues, there is little hope of economic recovery and development within Afghanistan, which means the Karzai government will remain weak and fragile and completely dependent on America to pay for and manage its armed forces. At the same time, the ISI continues to support the Taliban so as to stamp out any possible influence from India in the country, and the knowledge that the military is unlikely to move against them in Pakistan boosts Taliban moral all the more.We cannot secure the border on our own, and even if Pakistan could, they would never be willing to deploy large resources on their Western border with big bad India to the east.
It seems as time goes on, the Taliban position only gets stronger. The longer the Americans stay, the more civilian casualties will occur and the more hatred for America will exist in Afghanistan. This not only strengthens the Taliban, but it is crippling to the Karzai government who at this point seems hopelessly unable to assert any true authority over the country. It seems at this point, America is simply staving off collapse of the Karzai government and hoping to God that Pakistan remains stable and is willing to accept what meager support they offer. There have been talks of negotiations with the Taliban, but at this point it almost seems like they have the upper hand - which is not good for us.
What America really needs is a stable Pakistan who is willing to fight against the Taliban on its side of the border and one who is willing to actively work to dampen the Islamist movement by providing the things its people expect of it. This doesn't seem like it can ever happen though so long as India remains the sole obsession of the military and the Kashmir remains an issue. I believe that our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan and to see the country rebuild its self is directly dependent on support from Pakistan... support which we are not recieving. If we were to withdraw with things as they are, I have no doubt that the Taliban would quickly defeat the Karzai government and re-gain power, and we'd be back to 2001, or perhaps back to 1992 in the midst of another civil war. In addition, without aid from America there is a real possibility that Pakistan may find its self in a civil war against the Pakistan Taliban, and the stakes are much higher there than in Afghanistan.
I don't think its possible for America to leave this region any time soon. Even if we get Afghanistan sorted out, we are too tangled up with the mess in Pakistan that some American presence is going to be needed for a long time, and many billions more are going to need to be spent. If defeat of the Taliban is the goal, we're never going to leave. If nation building and the solidification of the Karzai government is the goal, we're going to have to work out a deal with the Taliban, and still American presence and money is going to be required. There just aren't any quick ways out...
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Zero Accountability
I remember when I was younger, sometime around 2003 when America was gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, hearing about this strange news organization called "Al Jazeera". It sounded suspiciously like "Al Qaeda", and indeed some people, including Donald Rumsfeld, were actually comparing it to some kind of propaganda engine for the terrorist organization. Somehow, no one seemed to correct this flat out lie, and that impression stuck with me until years later when I finally realized that not only was Al Jazeera a credible, world-wide news organization, but that it was less biased and had a far better depth of coverage than any American news outlet. I had forgotten about this act of demonization, but was reminded by it while reading a news story today about the refusal of American cable companies to carry Al Jazeera English on their networks.
This makes me wonder - in this "age of information" where knowledge is freely available to anyone - at least to anyone in America - (if not through the television networks, but through the internet) how is it possible for people like Donald Rumsfeld to go on National T.V. and blatantly lie, and no one seems to hold him accountable? The American public I can understand - most people rely on American broadcast news stations or their local newspapers to get their information (if they are interested in the news at all), and I believe the American media does a horrible job of holding our politicians and government to any kind of scrutiny, but what of the informed people in America? Have they no voice in the mainstream media? It appears they do not. As another example, this one more recent, the story of the so called "Kill Team" that have been accused, and so far at least on person already convicted of, murdering innocent Afghan civilians for sport. It took a German newspaper to break this story, and weeks later and I've seen very little of it mentioned in the American media - but the latest person voted off American Idol is a headline story. Where is the outrage? Why does it seem that no one is demanding the military explain why it took a German Newspaper to reveal these atrocities, and question had this story not been broken would the American public ever had known about these events?
And further, where is the accountability? The accountability of the military, of our government and of our media. It seems to me sometimes, that given enough time when attention spans have waned, there is none. Former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter gave a talk at my school a few years ago, and one of his topics was this very same issue - of holding the government accountable for its actions and failures. I asked him how one is supposed to do so, and his answer I think was both realistic and honest - by simply being informed. Its easy for Donald Rumsfeld to go on T.V. and claim Al Jazeera is a terrorist news station, or point to a map of some amourphous shape which you're told is Iraq, and say "WMDs are here, here and here." if his audience cant even find Iraq on a map. To try the same trick on someone who was informed about Iraq at the time or a reader of Al Jazeera, however, would have been completely absurd. Politicians, the military and the government can never be held accountable if the average person is too ignorant to even realize that they're being taken advantage of.
This is where the American media fails so miserably. Although, I have to question whether "failure" is the correct term, because often I feel the media intentionally neglects to point out when the government lies, or when our troops commit horrific crimes, or when its blatantly obvious that there is more to be said than has been. This is what really baffles me, and its something I don't quite understand. Is it that the American people just dont want to hear about these kinds of stories, and its a ratings issue? Does the government pressure the major news outlets not to cover these stories, or cable companies not to allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast on their networks? Does the media ignore these stories for their own agenda? I really don't have a clue, but it is incredibly frustrating to me at times, and I suspect it is some combination of the three. I've personally give up watching CNN or any other American News station - that's my way of holding them accountable for their lousy reporting - I won't give them any ratings - but it seems that many people don't share my feeling of dissatisfaction as these news channels get huge ratings.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the American public - maybe they are more well informed then I assume, after all my peers are mostly dumb twenty year olds who mainly rely on facebook banter for their source of news (and I will gladly lump myself in with the dumb twenty year olds part), but honestly I don't think I'm all that far off. Of course, a lot of what I am reacting to comes from reading Rashid, and I have the benefit of hindsight and informed sources telling me about how things really happened but still, are people not accountable when they lie and manipulate the American public, regardless of whether they are currently in office or not, and when we learn of past lies and untruths, should we not be wary of our current officials and hold them to an ever higher standard?
This makes me wonder - in this "age of information" where knowledge is freely available to anyone - at least to anyone in America - (if not through the television networks, but through the internet) how is it possible for people like Donald Rumsfeld to go on National T.V. and blatantly lie, and no one seems to hold him accountable? The American public I can understand - most people rely on American broadcast news stations or their local newspapers to get their information (if they are interested in the news at all), and I believe the American media does a horrible job of holding our politicians and government to any kind of scrutiny, but what of the informed people in America? Have they no voice in the mainstream media? It appears they do not. As another example, this one more recent, the story of the so called "Kill Team" that have been accused, and so far at least on person already convicted of, murdering innocent Afghan civilians for sport. It took a German newspaper to break this story, and weeks later and I've seen very little of it mentioned in the American media - but the latest person voted off American Idol is a headline story. Where is the outrage? Why does it seem that no one is demanding the military explain why it took a German Newspaper to reveal these atrocities, and question had this story not been broken would the American public ever had known about these events?
And further, where is the accountability? The accountability of the military, of our government and of our media. It seems to me sometimes, that given enough time when attention spans have waned, there is none. Former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter gave a talk at my school a few years ago, and one of his topics was this very same issue - of holding the government accountable for its actions and failures. I asked him how one is supposed to do so, and his answer I think was both realistic and honest - by simply being informed. Its easy for Donald Rumsfeld to go on T.V. and claim Al Jazeera is a terrorist news station, or point to a map of some amourphous shape which you're told is Iraq, and say "WMDs are here, here and here." if his audience cant even find Iraq on a map. To try the same trick on someone who was informed about Iraq at the time or a reader of Al Jazeera, however, would have been completely absurd. Politicians, the military and the government can never be held accountable if the average person is too ignorant to even realize that they're being taken advantage of.
This is where the American media fails so miserably. Although, I have to question whether "failure" is the correct term, because often I feel the media intentionally neglects to point out when the government lies, or when our troops commit horrific crimes, or when its blatantly obvious that there is more to be said than has been. This is what really baffles me, and its something I don't quite understand. Is it that the American people just dont want to hear about these kinds of stories, and its a ratings issue? Does the government pressure the major news outlets not to cover these stories, or cable companies not to allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast on their networks? Does the media ignore these stories for their own agenda? I really don't have a clue, but it is incredibly frustrating to me at times, and I suspect it is some combination of the three. I've personally give up watching CNN or any other American News station - that's my way of holding them accountable for their lousy reporting - I won't give them any ratings - but it seems that many people don't share my feeling of dissatisfaction as these news channels get huge ratings.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the American public - maybe they are more well informed then I assume, after all my peers are mostly dumb twenty year olds who mainly rely on facebook banter for their source of news (and I will gladly lump myself in with the dumb twenty year olds part), but honestly I don't think I'm all that far off. Of course, a lot of what I am reacting to comes from reading Rashid, and I have the benefit of hindsight and informed sources telling me about how things really happened but still, are people not accountable when they lie and manipulate the American public, regardless of whether they are currently in office or not, and when we learn of past lies and untruths, should we not be wary of our current officials and hold them to an ever higher standard?
Monday, April 4, 2011
Hair-trigger
"Terry Jones says the “Braveheart” film poster in his Florida office gives him spiritual sustenance." - NY Times
This is a caption from a NY Times article about the Floridian pastor whose actions have apparently sparked violent protests in Kandahar which have resulted in at least ten deaths and nearly one hundred people wounded so far. The pastor has apparently "supervised the burning of a Quran", which provoked the wrath of Afghans all over Afghanistan. This seems like a bit of an over-reaction on the part of the Afghan people at first, after all why should they care if some idiot from Florida burns a Quran he likely got from a local Barnes and Nobel? I think it's clear though, that these protests have really very little to do with this particular event, and much more to do with the pent-up anger and frustration the Afghans are feeling following ten years of occupation, and killing by American forces in their country.
This is, so to speak, simply the straw that broke the camels back, although in this case it seems that this camel had its back broken long ago. I think these recent events are a grave indication of just how far we are from "winning" this war. The reports mention people running through the streets waving Taliban flags and shouting anti-American slogans - and this is in Kandahar, the chosen capitol during the Taliban rule. Have people forgotten the brutality and prison of fear they lived in during the time the Taliban were in power, or has America so badly mismanaged this war and its relationship with the Afghan people that they would choose to go back to the Taliban rather than to suffer any further American occupation? My guess is people haven't forgotten.
I think events like this force us to seriously consider the likely hood of ever wining over the "hearts and minds" of these people, who if they have forgotten what life was like under the Taliban, have certainly not forgotten the actions of the U.S. military. Things like these, far more than any opinion poll, really highlight the deep hatred and anger many Afghans have for the U.S., and personally I am doubtful that we can ever repair our image in Afghan eyes. If in the future it turns out that more and more Afghans find themselves in favor of the Taliban, the underdogs of the Afghan civil war and who are Pashtun and more importantly deeply Islamic - how can America ever compete with that? In one hand, I feel as though America owes it to Afghanistan to help rebuild the damage we have done, but on the other hand, and events like this are beginning to sway my opinion in the opposite direction, and perhaps we'd be doing them a bigger favor by just leaving and preventing further harm.
It'd probably be cheaper to simply supply the Afghan government with foreign aid and let them work out a settlement with the Taliban, and let Afghans sort out the problems of Afghanistan. Of course, in the past this has simply led to interference from Pakistan and other neighboring countries and to civil warfare. I suppose my reaction to these recent events is simply this: If there is any possible progress to be made in Afghanistan, it doesn't appear as if we're making it, and I have to seriously question what is going on in the minds of the men whose job it is to manage this war, and what our motivation for continued occupation is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)