Afghanistan War on The Huffington Post

Gates: Financial Woes No Excuse To Avoid Funding Afghanistan War

2008-11-22T10:51:39Z

CORNWALLIS, Nova Scotia — Even in a global financial crisis, the world cannot afford to skimp on its obligations to Afghanistan, which wants to double the size of its army but will never be able to pay for it, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says.

Gates said some characterizations of backsliding in the 7-year-old Afghan war are too dire, but he said violence is up. Nations with fighting forces in Afghanistan and those without must respond, Gates said Friday after a day of strategy talks with British, Canadian and other defense ministers with troops fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan's closely contested south.

Gates: More US Forces To Afghanistan

2008-11-21T15:31:03Z

CORNWALLIS, Nova Scotia — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday he would like to add significant U.S. forces to the war in Afghanistan before national elections scheduled for next year, and that grim depictions of backsliding in the seven-year-old war are "far too pessimistic."

Gates said the additional forces would give greater security for fall elections in Afghanistan, and predicted that security conditions will "be under enough control to allow the elections to take place." Secure successful elections are probably the most important goal for Afghanistan next year, Gates said.

Eric Margolis: The Hidden Cost of the Gulf War

2008-11-19T16:32:13Z

The ugly truth about "Gulf War Illness" is finally out, and it makes shocking reading.

A Congressional report just released this week has concluded that one out of four U.S. soldiers who served in the 1991 war against Iraq suffered serious, long-lasting, or even permanent neurotoxic damage from exposure to drugs and chemicals.

That means 175,000 American GI's out of the 697,000 deployed to the Gulf in 1990-91 were permanently injured in the so-called `bloodless' war that was hailed as a great military triumph.

Until the 20th century, sickness caused by diseases like typhoid and small pox, filthy conditions, cold, and stress usually killed far more soldiers in wartime than combat operations. During the 15th and 16th centuries, the ratio was often five or eight to one. The advent of antibiotics in the 20th century and proper sanitation ended this heavy toll on soldiers in the field.

The U.S. government strongly denied for the past 17 years that there was any such thing as "Gulf War Illness' in spite of mounting medical evidence and angry claims by ailing veterans. Now, Washington has finally admitted "Gulf War Illness" is indeed a specific condition that includes memory loss, lack of concentration, severe headaches, fatigue, and pains in different parts of the body, digestive and respiratory problems and skin eruptions.

The government study also concludes that 'Gulf War Illness' was primarily caused by an anti-nerve gas medication, pyridostigmine bromide, give to all troops in the Gulf Theater, and use of powerful pesticides and insect-repellents like highly concentrated DEET.

Other long-suspect agents, like anthrax vaccines, and exposure of 100,000 U.S. troops to Iraqi poison gas dumps blown up by the U.S. Army, may also have played a role. The study found no link to another suspected culprit, depleted uranium. That is another scandal waiting to be revealed.

A quarter of a million permanently disabled or semi-disabled American veterans from what was supposed to have been a jolly little war in the Gulf is a horrifying figure, both in terms of human suffering and the costs of veteran's care. But this shocking report should also make us reflect on the true costs of supposedly 'low-cost' foreign military adventures.

President George H.W. Bush ordered an unnecessary war against Saddam's occupation of Kuwait. The Iraqi leader, hitherto a close U.S. ally in the joint war against Iran, had rashly invaded Kuwait in a rage after being insulted by the Kuwaiti Crown Prince. As a U.S.-led coalition massed against him in Saudi Arabia, Saddam desperately sought a face-saving way out of the trap.

Shortly before the U.S. attack began, Saddam agreed to a French-Russian deal to withdraw his troops. But President Bush was determined to cut Saddam down to size by destroying most of his armed forces. 'Our' SOB had become too big for his britches.

So Bush Sr. ignored pleas from Paris and Moscow and launched his devastating attack on the doomed, totally outgunned Iraqi Army. Just enough Iraqi Republican Guard troops were allowed to escape from the Kuwait pocket to ensure that a gelded Saddam stayed in power and Iraq's pro-Iranian Shias did not take over.

The U.S. lost a paltry 358 dead and 776 wounded. Over 20,000 Iraqis died. Not since British troops had mowed down some 22,000 sword-wielding Dervishes at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 had a Western army so dramatically shown its lethal technological might over the armed mobs that passed for Third World armies.

But what seemed like a bloodless triumph produced a long chain of unintended consequences. Iraq was placed under Draconian U.S. sanctions that, according to the UN, caused the death of 500,000 civilians, mostly children. The leading cause of death was water-borne diseases such as cholera and typhoid that spread after Iraq's water purification stations and sewage treatment facilities were targeted and destroyed by the U.S. bombing. After the war, Washington turned down Iraq's pleas for chlorine to purify contaminated water.

No one knows how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the 2003 invasion ordered by President George W. Bush. Estimates run from 100,000 to one million. But it is likely that some, or even many, of the 160,000 US troops garrisoned in Iraq have contracted other serious illness in that nation's exceptionally unhealthy environment. Iraq's swamps, rivers, filthy cities, searing heat and clouds of dust are an ideal breeding ground for insects, rats, and all sorts of gastric, eye, and skin disorders.

Once again, while US casualties in Iraq appear relatively low -- around 4,100 dead and 35,000 wounded -- the real health costs of garrisoning Iraq will, as in the case of the First Gulf War, not be known for years. Many wounded US troops have suffered grave head wounds from roadside bombs. The splendid victory of the First Gulf War does not look so cheery when the true number of American casualties is computed: 358 dead and 175,776 wounded. Injuries from toxic agents are often worse and more persistent than those from shells and bullets. A 25% casualty rate in any battle is considered extremely high.

These casualties could have been avoided had President George H.W. Bush chosen diplomacy over vaunting his machismo as a war leader. He did the same thing in tiny Panama after pipsqueak dictator Manuel Noriega mocked the U.S. president. An equally swaggering Bush Jr. chose to plunge the U.S. into the growing morass in Afghanistan and a $1 trillion war in Iraq that is one of the great disasters of American history.

So far, we do not even have a grasp on the sicknesses and mental problems that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are encountering. But if the Soviet occupation is any historic guide, the Red Army's troops suffered widespread physical and mental ailments during their ten-year occupation that many continue to experience to this day. The Afghan occupation also infected Soviet troops with addiction to heroin, a scourge they brought home with them after the war's end.

These are things president-elect Barack Obama should ponder as he considers expanding what he called a "good war" in Afghanistan.

Loretta Napoleoni: Bush Legacy

2008-11-19T14:52:03Z

America has elected Barack Obama president and the entire planet is jubilant. People's hopes are high because this man promises change, a major departure from the policies of Bush neo-conservatives. Will Obama succeed in turning the clock back, will he bring America and the world back to the euphoric time of early globalization? The roaring 1990s? This is not the caption of a new PBS documentary, these are the questions that many ask themselves today. Good intention is not enough to achieve change, rhetoric is not sufficient to reverse policies, and this new president has been elected on promises not on experience. Until he proves himself, the world will hold its breath. What Obama needs is a radical plan of action - and the financial muscle to implement it.

At the moment Obama does not have either, and the risk is that he will be imprisoned by the legacy of his predecessor. The financial debt may be too great to be repaid or even renegotiated and the ideological damage too deep to be healed without a drastic departure from what America has stood for since the dissolution of communism: the centre of the post Cold War empire. The seeds of the economic and ideological chaos that plagues this country were sown in the early 1990s, while the cement dust of the Berlin Wall was still in the air.
Obama is just beginning to build his administration and the signs are that he will draw from Clinton old guard, people who in the 1990s promoted financial deregulation -- a process, we now know, that prepared the ground for the current credit crunch. The new president seems very conservative about what to do in Iraq, postponing any decision until after he sits down with the generals in January. Chances are that troops will not be heading home shortly. His strange relationship with former secretary of state, Colin Powell, a man who endorsed his candidacy, is also at odds with Obama's initial rejection of the war when it began. This is a world in which politicians have no shame, but let's not forget that if there is a war in Iraq, it is in part because Mr. Powell stood in front of the Security Council - and the entire world - showing false information about Al Zarqawi's role in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Will Obama, as many believe, bring back such a man into the limelight of politics? Finally Obama's commitment in Afghanistan and Iran is well known, he has spoken frequently of his desire to send more troops in Afghanistan and to use force, if diplomacy does not work, with Iran.

In August 2008, the US Congress approved without any major discussion the Pentagon budget for the following 12 months a budget totaling $700 billion. US joint expenditure for Iraq and Afghanistan amount to about $12 billion per month. A month later, in September, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury succeeded in committing another $700 billion of taxpayers' money to save Wall Street from a financial meltdown. The new president will take office with $1.5 trillion already committed by his predecessor. This is money he does not control, money that will be insufficient to win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and save the world economy. These budgets will have to be increased.

The war will take priority over social reforms, because money is scarce and the US is running a $10 trillion deficit, which means that 70% of what will be produced in 2009 has already been spent. Obama has a few choices; 1) increase the debt hoping that the world in recession will continue to subscribe to US treasury bonds that have virtually no yield and 2) print money, worrying about inflation later; 3) drastically reduce social programs and 4) fail to meet expectations a la Clinton "sorry providing health care to everybody is a dream, so we carry on as usual," a move which will make him very unpopular. At the time of Clinton the economy was expanding and his excuse was expected, now it is contracting. Or President Obama could drastically cut military expenditure, bring the troops back home and focus on healing the country from the social holocaust of the Bush years.

Change will come only if this last option is be embraced. Change for a politician can mean many things, big changes, small changes, cosmetic changes. The change Obama promised is the real thing, a great transformation. Let's hope he has the courage to transform his magic words into facts.

Murray Fromson: Restore the Voice

2008-11-19T00:21:00Z

Until November 4th, the prospect of recovering America's battered image around the world seemed dismal at best. The prospect of recovering it seemed unlikely until the day that millions of citizens went to the polls freely to elect an articulate and charismatic black man as their next president.

The election was not only historic, it was a validation of a real democracy. We no longer have to preach its virtues. Tens of millions of Americans showed the world how it worked. There were no troops or cops, dogs or water cannons in sight to force voters to go to the polls. Nobody was denied heating, water or other necessities if they did not vote. Moreover, tens of thousands of us went to places like Nevada to register voters for the chance to cast ballots for whomever they wanted. The challenge in the years ahead is to seize the high ground; to restore the reputation that once attracted universal respect for the United States.

Barack Obama has the capacity to overcome the recent image of a global bully by restoring America's reputation as a peace-loving, progressive nation. But he faces far greater priorities during his first weeks and months in office as president than say the future of the Voice of America. An entire generation may well be perplexed by just what the VOA means. But the international buzz caused by President-elect Obama earlier in the month offers him an opportunity to revive what had been a valuable American resource for so many years. In short, the reputation of the Voice needs to be revived and treasured -- not squandered as it has been by the Bush Administration the past eight years.

What the VOA did for so long, particularly during the days of the Cold War, was to give listeners hope. So many of them lived behind the Iron Curtain, they had no access to the truth or a menu of opinions. Was it propaganda? Perhaps. But more importantly, it provided a different point of view. Tens of millions of people around the world gathered their most positive impressions of the United States from the reporting, the interviews and the music transmitted by the Voice of America.

Today, the opportunity exists to erase the images of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, of American troops engaged in the streets of Baghdad, of kicking down doors of innocent Iraqi villagers, of waging war against tribal Afghans, of being occupiers not liberators. And in countries on several continents where populations of color are in the majority, the VOA can subtly project the image of a black president who has been chosen freely by the American people for the first time in our history.

For decades, the Voice broadcast in dozens of foreign languages, but its English-language programming made the VOA a valuable asset to audiences abroad who not only were friendly and curious about the United States. They were people who aspired to visit or study in America. It was not only the news reporting that the VOA transmitted or the features of every day life in America that always intrigued people from abroad.

It was the regularly scheduled broadcasts of Willis Conover, the music maestro who spread the love of American jazz around the world. During the worst of times in the Soviet Union I remember Russian musicians taping Conover's daily programs and then transcribing the music to sheet music for jam sessions of their own. There also were often countless days when Soviet Jews and other political dissidents who had heard VOA programming, would thank me for telling their stories to the outside world in my CBS News radio broadcasts from Moscow that were repeated by the Voice of America.

The curiosity and excitement that followed VOA's opening music theme of "Yankee Doodle Dandy" almost vanished during the past eight years. From my frequent travels around the world, I have been shocked by how negative the image of the United States has become. Largely because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the threats the Bush White House has made toward other countries it disapproved of, the United States created the impression of a global bully.

The Bush Administration never articulated American values in a manner that could be clearly understood around the world. As a consequence, from Africa and part of South Asia to the Arab world, to Latin America, the former Soviet Union and most of Europe, the Voice of America's English language broadcasts virtually vanished. By claiming budgetary shortages, the Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington two years ago eliminated most of VOA's quality programming in the Arab world by substituting it with a half billion dollar investment in less successful Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa.

From his own travels and life abroad, President-elect Obama knows full well the significance of the Voice of America. What's important is that his support can not only restore its reputation. He can also revive the dignity and image of the nation that he will lead in the years ahead.

Khaled Hosseini: A Renewed Global Commitment to Afghan Refugees

2008-11-18T18:07:49Z

This week, donor nations will convene in Kabul for the Return and Reintegration conference. The objective is to enhance efforts to reintegrate Afghan refugees in their homeland. The conference is a good reminder that the Afghan refugee situation, among the longest running and most complex in the world, is far from over.

The mass exodus of Afghans began during the war against the Soviet Union. Since then, for more than two decades and largely without sufficient international assistance, Iran and Pakistan have generously hosted millions of Afghan refugees who fled the violence back home.

Recently, however, both countries have shown signs of fatigue over the long presence of Afghan refugees on their territory and have increased pressure for Afghans to return. Since 2002, over five million Afghans have voluntarily returned home, the majority with assistance from UNHCR (the U.N. Refugee Agency). This year alone, UNHCR has helped some 270,000 refugees return home from Pakistan.

But repatriation patterns are changing. Increasingly, decisions to return are driven not by expectation of a better life in Afghanistan but by rising prices and insecurity of life in exile. Many of the repatriating refugees have encountered harsh realities as the earlier hopes of durable peace, reconstruction and development in Afghanistan have faltered. Upon returning, they end up in makeshift shelters in barren deserts where the elements are unforgiving and the resources few.

In northern Afghanistan last year, I met families of refugees who had spent the previous winter in underground shelters dug with their own hands. One village elder told me that that his community routinely expects to lose 10 to 15 children to exposure every winter. Clean, potable water is a luxury, a prized resource for which refugees must compete with the local population. Schools with trained teachers are either not available or too distant. The same is true of health clinics, meaning a routine, treatable illness can often prove fatal. Jobs are scarce, and when available, pay less than a dollar a day.

Some returning refugees gather their families and move to overpopulated urban centers like Kabul, where they live in squalor and face severe shortages in food, work, shelter and sanitation. High cost of living, starvation, disease and droughts drive some to cross the border back into Iran or Pakistan, where they are unwelcome and increasingly perceived as a burden. Many have become displaced internally as the Taliban insurgency has spread and the violence spiraled to a record pace.

With the widespread failure of harvests and rising food prices, a humanitarian crisis looms in Afghanistan this winter. There is no quick fix to this crisis. Whatever the solution, the Afghan government must be part of it. For the time being, however, the central government in Kabul and provincial authorities are overwhelmed with meeting the needs of a poor and war-weary population. The Afghan government lacks the capacity to effectively absorb the returning millions and has struggled greatly to provide refugees with security, livelihood and even basic services. The hopes of the refugees, therefore, rest largely on assistance from donor nations in the international community.

This past June in Paris, donors pledged nearly $21 billion to support the Afghan National Development Strategy. U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to bring global focus back on Afghanistan. That is an important first step and an encouraging development for Afghanistan. However, I hope that this apparent renewed commitment extends far beyond the mere bolstering of coalition forces.

What the Afghan people -- and most urgently the returning refugees -- need is international attention to long-neglected and serious failures in the civil sector: addressing widespread unemployment and poverty, providing access to health and educational facilities, rebuilding infrastructure, meeting food and clean water shortages, curbing corruption, building a competent and legitimate police force that will provide security and protect its people, and investing in long-term social programs.

Today, roughly three million Afghan refugees live in Iran and Pakistan, almost half of them born in exile. They remain reluctant and fearful to return home. The challenge at hand, however, lies not in sending the refugees home but in keeping them there. Existing conditions in Afghanistan must be remedied to ensure a safe, sustained and durable return for the refugees. This will take time. As a good friend from UNHCR recently told me, "It will not be a hundred-meter dash, but a marathon."

The plight of Afghan refugees will continue to test the will and commitment of donor countries. It is a test that, I hope, they are willing to take on.

Afghanistan: Taliban Reject Offer For Peace Talks With President

2008-11-17T13:08:02Z

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Taliban militants rejected an offer of peace talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, saying Monday there would be no negotiations until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar if he enters negotiations and said the U.S. and other Western nations could leave Afghanistan or oust him if they disagree.

Nushin Arbabzadah: How Obama's Win Went Down in Kabul

2008-11-14T11:13:19Z

He didn't look pleased, said a local paper about Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reaction to Obama's election victory. The KabulPress website went even further, saying the whole presidential palace in Kabul is mourning the Republicans' defeat in Washington. If I were Karzai, I too would be upset. No more happy rides in the Bush mobile under the blue Texan sky. No more bragging about special friends in the White House. No more "I was on the phone to President Bush last night and we talked about the Konar River", blah, blah, blah. The local papers say now that the Republicans in the US have been told to clear off, it's time for their Afghan stooges to quit too, for Afghanistan is in dire need of change.

The fact is that Afghans had their own moment of hope seven years ago with the fall of the Taliban, but thanks to US neocons and their Afghan allies that hope died rapidly. In the words of Bahlol Lodhi, a contributing writer for the Anti-War website, "The shibboleth that Afghanistan is a democracy with a constitution, an elected president, and an elected parliament must be consigned to the dustbin of bad jokes. The Afghan people certainly don't believe it, nor do those foreign professionals whose careers have not depended on inventing and perpetuating the myth."

Still, with Obama's victory hope has returned to Afghanistan. Not the jubilant, teary-eyed hope of the Americans, but the cautious hope of a people who had three decades of exposure to US foreign policy and hence know Washington far too well to get all emotional. I will not go into details of US "mistakes" in Afghanistan, such as unlawful arrests or civilian air strike casualties, because Cif readers often volunteer to list them in their comments, but suffice it to say that if we lived in a truly fair world, the US would offer an apology to the Afghan people. That day may come yet, but for now, here's how the local press reacted to Obama's victory.

"Many politicians and observers are optimistic that Barack Obama's presence in the White House will lead to an untying of the twisted strategic knot in Afghanistan," said an article on the KabulPress news website. A poster responded to this optimistic view with a note of caution. He said that some warlords have already started trying to endear themselves to the US president-elect, presumably in the hope of gaining Obama's support -- much-needed if any of them were to try and become Afghanistan's president in the 2009 election. Take the example of Borhanuddin Rabbani, the man who was the Afghan president during the civil war years of the early 1990s. He "has sent a message of congratulation to Obama, presenting himself as a symbol of democracy and human rights". Rabbani a symbol of human rights and democracy? But wait, it gets even better. Apparently, Rabbani's message finishes with a cute little pun: "Obamas", meaning "he is with us" in Dari.

The fear that Afghan warlords might have misunderstood Obama's message of "Yes we can," interpreting it as a message of empowerment for war-criminals rather than the people, also echoed in an editorial by the daily newspaper Arman-e Melli. The editorial said a number of opportunists who, for eight years, have been willingly dancing to George Bush's drum have now begun to sing Obama's praise: "They hit their chests with their fists shouting slogans of Obama-worship. But they are ignorant of the fact that the people of Afghanistan know exactly who supported the school of extremist thought led by George Bush." The paper added that this time, the public is not going to be fooled by beautiful political slogans formulated in election times.

"Obama must also strive for change in Afghanistan," said a headline on the Salam Watandar news website. The article said in a recent press conference, Afghan MPs told reporters that the people of Afghanistan also desire change. Watandar quoted Ahmad Behzad, an MP from Herat province, as saying that the new US administration should only lend its support to the people of Afghanistan and try not to back any particular candidate in next year's presidential election. This is to make sure that "the future president of Afghanistan is not elected from within the confines of a foreign embassy in Kabul".

"By electing Obama, Americans have opted for the path of negotiation and communication," said Payam-e Mujahid. The paper said that in view of the present crisis in the US, change is not going to happen overnight. But still, by making the right choice, Americans have made their first step in the right direction. As elsewhere in the world, Obama's victory received much praise and admiration in independent local media outlets, but two parties stood out for keeping their cool and remaining aloof. One was the Afghan government and the other, its current arch-enemy, the Taliban. Hence, state-run newspapers refrained from making a fuss about Obama's victory, while the Taliban spokesman, Qari Yusuf Ahmadi, said that the Taliban felt neither joy nor sorrow over Obama's election.

That's the reaction by the independent press and the official line, then, but what about Kabul's rumour market? It was bustling as usual. Word has it that as soon as the election was decided in the US, secret meetings started to take place behind closed doors in Kabul and Dubai. In Dubai, the official cover was a gathering of the business community, though in reality, key political figures had come together, feverishly absorbed in political bargaining in an effort to come up with an acceptable candidate for the 2009 presidential election. The energetic to-ing and fro-ing was driven by the suspicion that the US has already chosen its own favorite Afghan candidate, who will be kept in reserve for now but revealed come election time.

The UK, another rumour goes, also has its own plans. That's why over the recent weeks the British envoy has been seen going back and forth between the embassy and the presidential palace where private meetings were held with President Karzai. True or not, the Afghan rumour bazaar is right about one thing -- the new US administration is determined to see Republican supporters in Afghanistan pack up their belongings and quit the scene.

The article originally appeared in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/12/afghanistan-us-election/print

Shirin Sadeghi: Top Ten Heroes of the George W. Bush Era

2008-11-12T05:38:26Z

As the W. Bush regime comes to an end it seems appropriate to pay tribute to the countless individuals and groups who have spent the last nearly 8 years exposing the atrocities of this government that shamelessly hijacked the electoral system of the United States in its mission to pilfer, divide, and conquer the world. Here is my list of:

The Top Ten Heroes of the George W. Bush Era

10. Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson
...and all the Whistleblowers

The Plame case was the first high profile example of a participant in the Bush administration taking a stand and exposing their superiors as criminals. What followed were the Teresa Chambers, Jack Spadaros, and Scott McClellans of the W. Bush administration, not to mention the former and current generals and Pentagon staff who somehow found the courage to speak up and admit the truth about their boss and his pals. Even as millions of individual Americans and world citizens provided well supported accusations against these individuals of the W. Bush administration, it took the admissions of these insiders to make it clear to the American public that there was something very wrong in their government.

9. Naomi Klein
...and the other authors who exposed the hideous truths of the W. regime and its allies with well-researched facts and information

Klein is the undisputed leader of the general readership sociopolitical dissertation. Starting with No Logo and moving toward the latest Shock Doctrine she has led a movement of well-researched, focused, and easy-to-read political theses that address the core problems of our contemporary sociopolitical systems. In the last 8 years, countless best-selling books have been written about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, political oppression in the United States, the curtailing of civil and human rights in the United States and the world, and the true histories of members of George W. Bush's administration and alliance leaders worldwide. An exceptionally high number of members of the public made these books bestsellers and were better off for having read them.

8. The grass roots progressive political movement in the US and worldwide

Starting with the 2003 American and international protests against the upcoming pre-emptive strike against Iraq, political demonstrations were revived during the W. Bush era because the public worldwide had no choice but to stand up and march for democratic values, human rights and basic decencies. The millions of marchers then and since revived the protest culture of the 1960s and welcomed a whole new generation of Americans to the idea that it is patriotic to speak up and march to save your country from itself.

7. Cindy Sheehan
...and other veteran families who stood up and made their opposition heard

This woman - much maligned by the mainstream American press - is a leader and a hero. An everyday mom whose fury at the loss of her soldier son in the Iraq War and the subsequent disregard for his service and his family's rights, Sheehan did what few have the energy and strength to do: she fought back. Her Crawford protests outside W. Bush's vacation ranch gained deserved international notice and exposed George W. Bush as such a careless and insensitive commander-in-chief that he couldn't make time to meet with those so hurt by his war. Her demand for dignity for the veterans and their families did not stop there - she fought on and even when it looked like she had given up, she took it upon herself to draw national attention to the democratic leadership in Washington that kept promising change and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but never delivered. While she lost her bid to replace Nancy Pelosi in Congress, she drew massive attention to the power of the individual.

6. The Iraqi and Afghani People

They are silent heroes - those who have suffered the pre-emptive war and current occupation of Iraq and those who have suffered both at the hand of the Taliban and the US-backed government in Kabul. Both are people who have seen little but war in the last 30-odd years. Both have suffered inexplicable and mostly unknown atrocities. Both continue to survive despite all indications otherwise.

5. Democracy Now!
...and the massive independent media movement, including Bill Moyers and the extremely few mainstream journalists who used their anger to better inform the American public

Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez's Democracy Now! media organization has turned a grass roots media effort into an independent media revolution, proving that the public will follow independent news when given the opportunity to do so. Their alternative view of the daily news provided and continues to provide Americans a contrast to the corporate mainstream media that has rarely demonstrated independence and has overlooked the importance of in-depth news coverage and expert analysis that is not tied to special interests either in Washington or the corporate world. It seems likely that Democracy Now! played no small part in opening the door to the bravery of some mainstream journalists like Bill Moyers who didn't shy from their anger against the W. administration and its policies. Moyers's exposes on government corruption, veteran mistreatment, and the crimes of war gave Americans an important view into the realities of their government and its policies at home and abroad.

4. Winter Soldier
...and Veterans Against the War

It's one thing for members of the public to decry the illegal basis for the Iraq war and the failures of the Afghanistan war - it is quite another thing to hear these things directly from the horse's mouth. Winter Soldier and the various other anti-war veteran organizations that have gained membership and attention during the W. Bush era have given weighty credence to the realities of these wars and the manifest culture of violence, aggression and anti-human behavior that they have bred in members of the military. Many of these soldiers have shouldered great losses as a result of their fearless admissions about the graphic and brutal reality of these two wars. But all of them have boldly proclaimed their pride in finally unburdening themselves of the guilt of knowing truths but not admitting them.

3. Michael Moore

Bush-backers tried to make him out as a treasonous instigator over the last 8 years, but he is arguably the greatest American hero of our generation because he achieved the one thing that no one else had: he politicized the American public. His movies, his books, his website, his personal fearlessness and great effort to not only inform the public of the politics that affect their everyday lives but to actively encourage them to participate in politics cannot be overstated. Before Michael Moore, if you travelled the world and discussed politics with people from other nations you found them to be informed and engaged on a level that most Americans simply were not. Since Michael Moore this political knowledge gap has vastly decreased in Americans. It's noticeable and it's good. Moore, in his immense capacity to use the media as a political tool also started the imperial movement of sociopolitical documentaries that are now a staple of film viewing and dvd rentals in the United States and the world. Many people may hate him, but most people have benefitted from his efforts.

2. The Internet
...and all the YouTubers and bloggers who tirelessly and voluntarily contributed to more informed coverage of the W. regime's atrocities in the US and worldwide

It is the most powerful tool for informing, engaging and including the public in the sociopolitical discourse of its life. People are no longer passive observers of the events that govern their lives, they are active participants in assessing these events, informing each other of these events, and interacting with each other to analyze and improve the world. The Internet has enormously ameliorated the process of human communication and information exchange. As an added bonus, the Internet has meant that corporate news and government lies are not an endpoint but a starting point for learning about the facts of our world. The anonymous bloggers and YouTubers who spend countless hours voicing their knowledge and views have brought a new level of democratic practice to news dissemination.

1. Every American who voted for Barack Obama

Republicans, Democrats, minorities, "rednecks", and Bush brownnosers of all ilks landslided Obama into the presidency, not with a request but a demand for change. Enough said.

Andrew Bacevich: On Killing the Right People

2008-11-11T12:33:43Z

Reports in The New York Times have revealed the existence of a hitherto secret counterterrorism campaign conducted by U. S. troops in Pakistan, Syria, and other countries. The campaign reputedly dates from 2004 and has included nearly a dozen raids conducted by special operations forces that swoop into a target area, wield death and destruction, and then as quickly make their escape.

We can safely assume that the governments of Syria and Pakistan, not to mention the organizations targeted by these attacks, have known about these activities for some time. In other words, "secret" in this context means keeping the American people in the dark about actions taken in their name. We can only speculate about various sources, whether acting independently or at the behest of high authorities, have chosen at this juncture to spill the beans.

In truth, the existence of such a program, fully consistent with the Bush administration's penchant for using force and for defining executive authority in the widest terms, hardly qualifies as surprising. True, these raids, which have regularly trampled on the principle of national sovereignty, makes all the more laughable the Bush administration's condemnation of Russia for violating the sacred sovereignty of Georgia. Yet at this point no one pays much attention when the United States claims to stand on principle.

More germane is the question of who exactly we are killing. Having learned about this secret war being conducted on their behalf, Americans now have an obligation to find out more. That obligation is both moral and political. The moral obligation is to ascertain whether or not the people we are killing are in fact terrorists, that is, members of organizations engaged in actively plotting attacks against the United States. If we are killing people who are not terrorists, then these special operations attacks are profoundly wrong. Indeed, in that case, they amount to little more than state-sponsored terrorism of the sort that Washington quickly and rightly condemns in others.

The political obligation is of a different sort. The issue here becomes one of effectiveness: even if these operations are actually netting some bad guys, are we in fact reducing the overall terrorist threat as a consequence? Or are the attacks merely creating propaganda opportunities that Islamists exploit to promote anti-Americanism, while recruiting new jihadists to replace those just eliminated? Can we be certain, in other words, that we are not simply engaging in an endless game of whack-a-mole?

In this regard, recent U.S. operations not directly related to this program of secret raids should set off alarm bells. In Afghanistan, site of an overt war that has taken a turn for the worse of late, U.S. and NATO forces have been involved in a series of incidents in which they have killed not Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters, but innocent civilians. No reasonable observer is accusing coalition forces of intentionally targeting non-combatants. Yet whether attributable to incompetence or negligence or simply the fog and friction of war, the evidence that we are routinely killing the wrong people in Afghanistan is becoming difficult to refute. In the most recent example, earlier this week a U.S. combat aircraft assaulted what turned out to be an Afghan wedding party, killing nearly forty civilians.

In Pakistan, site of a semi-covert war conducted mostly by remotely-controlled, missile-firing drones, U. S. officials insist that we are indeed killing terrorists even as Pakistani officials tell another story. Who is telling the truth -- whether the truth is even fully knowable -- is anyone's guess. What cannot be disputed is that the chief observable result of these Predator attacks has been to bring Pakistan perceptibly closer to the brink of internal collapse. In short, even if every accusation of killing innocent Pakistanis is false, the attacks are producing results that are the inverse of what they are intended to do.

Americans should not rush to render an adverse judgment of this program of secret attacks. Yet neither should they accept at face value official U. S. explanations or what they get from leakers offering a partial and selective version of the story. There is a need here for sober stock-taking, which must begin with a thorough-going, no-holds-barred investigation. There are two key questions. Are we doing the right thing? Are we doing the smart thing? Alas, don't look for the Pentagon, the Congress, or the media to provide answers to these questions.

Instead, add another item to President-elect Obama's already crowded agenda.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.

Sean Gilfillan: The Sound of Veterans Day

2008-11-11T09:08:00Z

For most of the world's record companies, even though it is Veterans Day, Tuesday, November 11th is just another day. Major labels release albums on Tuesdays, so they'll be busy trying to make sure the big holiday releases that are coming out that day are "moving units", as is parlance. However, as an Iraq War veteran and the co-founder of the world's only military record label, every day we exist is a day in which we pay homage to those who serve their country.

And this Veterans Day is no different.

Today, To the Fallen Records is announcing a Veterans Day partnership with Veterans For America, where sales of our music will contribute to their work.

Veterans for America is a non-partisan group founded in 1980 by Vietnam veteran Bobby Muller. VFA's primary mission is to ensure that our country meets the needs of servicemembers and veterans who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). VFA focuses specifically on the signature wounds of these conflicts: psychological traumas and traumatic brain injuries. You can find out more about VFA here.

Our entire purpose is to bridge the gap between those that serve and their counterparts in the civilian world. We are at a time in our nation's history where only 9% of the population is serving or has ever served, but more and more of these veterans are returning home with psychological and physical wounds that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Through music, we offer the listener a rare glimpse into the military lifestyle, war and the camaraderie that exists between servicemembers. Through our company, we hope to chip in to help returning soldiers with the difficult transition to life at home and to help protect them from the strain of multiple deployments with inadequate dwell time, two of VFA's signature areas.

Just as our artists have given us great music to listen to and share since we started the label upon my return from Iraq, we are now using this music to help the hundreds of thousands of returning troops who face a host of struggles upon returning home.

So, I invite you to check out what we do and honor our veterans by listening to a few of them sing or rap about their experiences and perhaps contribute to an easier adjustment for thousands of others.

Either way, please join me in taking a second to note that Veterans Day isn't just a day some people get off work or have a day off from school. Our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have the day off and those facing a difficult readjustment don't get the day off from the mental and physical wounds of war.

While we will always remember the fallen on this day, we must never forget those that still remain among us.

Today please call up every veteran you know to thank them for their service.

Afghanistan: US Missile Strike Kills 37 Civilians

2008-11-07T10:39:16Z

KABUL, Afghanistan — Taliban fighters held a wedding party captive and fired on U.S. forces in an attack designed to draw U.S. airstrikes on civilians and stoke anti-American sentiment, a U.S. official said Friday citing "firsthand" reports.

The official declined to give further details of the reported events leading to the U.S. bombing Monday in the southern Afghan village Wech Baghtu, where dozens of civilians and insurgents were killed.

Michael DeJong: Daylight Savings

2008-11-04T13:09:29Z

"Daylight" can mean many different things. It can refer to a particular quality of light. It can also mean daybreak or daytime. More abstractly it can describe how facts are brought to the surface, an insight into obscure understanding or an almost indistinguishable bit of light between two things. But many of us think about it when it's tied to Daylight Savings.

What started as a lucky break for farmers, the clock "falling back" went on to enable many to have an early breakfast and then be off to industrialized work in the newly granted hour of daylight. And conversely, when the clocks "spring ahead," it offers children the safety of daylight while on their way home from school.

One of the added benefits that hadn't been considered at its inception is that Daylight Savings is also connected to energy-efficiency. Twenty-five percent of the electricity we use goes to operating the modern conveniences and all the high tech "stuff" in our lives as well as for the lighting necessary to see what we're doing. So by the mere fact of twice yearly adjusting the time forward or back an hour, we actually minimize the tons of electricity we gobble up in those hours.

In a perfect world, when we're cutting zzz's...most of us would shut off all unused energy zappers--unplug computers, TVs, cell phone chargers, etc. But not every individual or household has the same energy needs, or, for that matter, the same comfort level with limiting their energy usage.

For instance, I usually wander off to bed at 10:00-ish and my partner stays up watching anything political including the presidential debates, the "blah-blah-blah" pundit coverage before and after, and then reruns of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. We both use energy differently, as do probably most households with more than one person, and although the electricity not used because of Daylight Saving might seem miniscule, added up, household upon household, office upon office, street light upon streetlight...collectively it can add up to energy savings and carbon emissions depletion. While hardly enough to undo all the environmental damage already done, it is, however another tool in the arsenal of personal action steps for individuals who want to make a contribution to saving our planet.

What most people aren't aware of, however, is that among his many other brilliant achievements, the same person who wrote "Fart Proudly," Founding Father Benjamin Franklin was actually the first person to recommend daylight savings back in 1784. It wasn't, however, until much-much later, during WWI in fact, that it was finally mandated. But it was indeed Franklin who first saw the practical aspects of just one hour vanishing here and yet another hour materializing there.

Who knows...falling on the weekend before election day, it might even affect the daylight left to shine some light on the Obama or McCain campaigns. To paraphrase a clever remark by Barack Obama:

"Like George Bush, John McCain wants to keep giving tax breaks to oil companies, CEOs and companies that ship our jobs overseas; tax health care benefits allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people who need health care the most; privatize Social Security; and further reduce government regulation of business...when it comes to the policies that matter for middle class families, there's not an inch of daylight between George Bush and John McCain."

And much like Bush, McCain has absolutely no plan for how to get our military out of Iraq and into Afghanistan where they are needed most. (If the Bee-Gees had to write a campaign song for McCain/Palin it would sound like "Ah, ah, ah, ah...Stay in Iraq, Stay in Iraq.") It was Franklin who also said, "A penny saved is a penny earned," and the price of staying in Iraq saves nothing - not daylight, not our brave soldiers' lives, not our moral standing in the world...nothing.

In springtime, Daylight Savings means we move our clocks ahead. In the autumn we move them back.... some call it falling back. If John McCain wins on November 4th, it'll feel more like being held back!

Gayle Tzemach: On The Ground In Afghanistan: Waiting For November 4

2008-10-27T15:51:02Z

Afghanistan's next generation is avidly watching to see what the US electorate decides come November 4. Voters 7,000 miles away are an object of keen curiosity among Kabul's young and educated.

Seven years after the US invasion, citizens speak of the international community's push to rebuild their country in tones ranging from disappointment to disdain to disgust. As they see it, Afghanistan's problems are widely reported and scarcely addressed.

Corruption infects government at all levels, leaving struggling Afghans with even fewer resources. No one knows for certain what the thousands of NGOs do here; waste and duplications hog precious resources while coordination with the Afghan government is nearly nil.

Infrastructure remains in shreds: even Kabul, the dusty and bustling capital, gets only a smattering of electricity each week. Most distressing and hardest to ignore: security is disintegrating at a fast enough pace to concern even the most stoic of Afghans. Kabul has seen three kidnappings and two morning murders of foreign workers in the last week alone.

Violence is swelling nationwide while NATO countries squabble over who will send how many troops when. Not even Kabulis hardened by three decades of war know what will come next, but signs point in the familiar directions of violence, upheaval and instability. Attracting foreign dollars to build a bright future for the country is far harder than it was three years ago; foreign investment has plunged 50 percent in 2008. Rising kidnapping threats menacing the country's business elite will sink this figure even further.

Amid this bleak and uncertain backdrop, some young Afghans look to the coming White House hand-off for a shot at change for the better. Having never known peace, they are eager for another try at a fresh start for their broken country. Heartened by the many mentions of their nation in the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain, they say the candidates' discussion of more troops and better resources can only help fragile Afghanistan, which desperately needs a lifeline.

Obama is the candidate of choice, not only for the squadron of Democrat-friendly internationals calling Kabul home, but also for many young and educated Afghans who say the Illinois senator's energy and fresh approach to their country's problems is just what Afghanistan needs. His television-friendly July stop-over in Kabul clearly boosted the telegenic young politician among this crowd.

Afghans cite three primary reasons for supporting Obama: firstly, Obama highlighted Pakistan's role in supplying soldiers and support for the resurgent Taliban now laying claim to ever larger-swathes of the country - forcing aid workers back to Kabul and shuttering development projects in the provinces. Afghans have long complained of their neighbors' malicious meddling, a reality they believe the Americans have ignored for far too long.

Others applaud Obama for seconding their own view that Iraq was an ill-advised, nearly disastrous diversion from the war in Afghanistan which may yet prove their country's undoing. And while a few admit McCain's Afghanistan policy differs little from Obama's, they say that they like the idea of a new generation in the driver's seat. In their view, Afghans should follow the Americans' lead when they go to their own polls next year and pick a next-generation president committed to breaking with the country's failed past.

"I am optimistic that Obama might bring some change, not only in Afghanistan but across the world," says one leading Afghan human rights advocate from her offices near a refugee camp whose only shelter is a blue tarp from the UN. Dirt-covered children play in the mud nearby. "Enough is enough, we are thirsty for peace."

Just how a President Obama would bring peace to this devastated country plagued by poverty, insecurity, and insurgency remains unanswered. But a fragile heap of hopes here are pinned on his victory.

Eric Margolis: The Sick Man of the North Atlantic

2008-10-27T12:44:58Z

Money, observed the witty British thinker Malcolm Muggeridge, is the homogenized form of power. No more money, no more power.

The great imperialist Winston Churchill led his nation into World War II vowing "never to preside over the fall of the British Empire." Yet he ended up doing just that in 1945 after Great Britain emerged from the conflict bankrupt and demoralized. The British Empire, which in 1939 had controlled one quarter of the earth's land surface, quickly disintegrated and ended on the trash heap of history.

Six decades later, the United States has also gone bankrupt thanks to a national orgy of borrowing, and the sharp decline of manufacturing and its replacement by the non-productive, business of parasitic finance as America's leading industry. Add two ruinous, $1 trillion foreign wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a government whose stunning incompetence and brazen ignorance was exceeded only by its reckless imperial arrogance.

The financial panic that has gripped the globe, and the ignominious collapse of once mighty Wall Street, proved the American colossus had feet of clay, as arch foe Osama bin Laden had predicted in the 1990's.

Washington's furious printing of untold billions of new dollars to prop up its sinking economy, finance this year's staggering $1 trillion deficit, and pay gargantuan foreign debts looks very likely to unleash a storm of dangerous inflation that will infect the world's financial system.

Recall the great economist John Maynard Keynes warned that the quickest way to destroy a nation was by wrecking its currency through inflation. Germany in the 1930's offers one of the most horrible examples of a great nation laid low by inflation and then thrown into the arms of political extremists.

The world balance of power is already shifting. For one example, Pakistan's new president, Asif Zardari, went cap in hand to China last week, seeking $4 to 6 billion in emergency loans. Pakistan is on the verge of bankruptcy and may shortly default on its debt, risking economic, social and political chaos.

Normally, Washington would have been counted on to come and bail out its rented Pakistani politicians. But the United States, which has been paying that nation's politicians and army $1.2 billion per annum to support the occupation of Afghanistan and fight tribal opponents, has no cash to spare for Islamabad. So Pakistan is turning to China, which has $19 billion in foreign exchange reserves -- the world's largest.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have been vying with one another to promise more troops for Afghanistan. But now, it seems likely the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan will be adversely affected by Washington's new status and pauper and the world's biggest debtor nation -- the Sick man of the North Atlantic.

Bankrupt people, companies, and nations have to sell assets to meet their debt obligations. China and Japan alone hold over $1.5 trillion of U.S. government securities in the form of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds (which are really just fancy IOU's from Uncle Sam).

Nervous Chinese and Japanese central bankers now want real assets rather than more paper. They have their own mounting problems. So there is talk of America's Asian creditors demanding their IOU's be converted into shares in U.S. corporations and property.

Sovereign wealth funds from the Arab oil states and Singapore may soon demand chunks of premier U.S. corporations and property.

In the 19th century, European imperial powers forced loans on China, Egypt, the Gulf, Iran, and Latin America. When the locals could not pay off these debts, parts of their territory were seized, or their ports bombarded. Russia was forced to sell Alaska to the U.S. for next to nothing when it could not repay its debts.

China's coast was carved up by the British, French, Germans, Russians, Americans and Japanese. These imperial foreclosures created the trading "concessions" of Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, Tianjin, and Port Arthur.

Now, it's payback time for China. How ironic that the Chinese Communists have ended up with a sound financial system while the Wall Street bandit capitalists have gone bust and have gone to Washington with their begging bowls.

To help pay its monster debts, I suggest Washington consider selling Louisiana back to France. Canada, whose banking system, once sneered at by Americans as "boring and stodgy," remains solid, ought to pick up Florida for a song. Switzerland would do well to spend some of its gold horde and buy Vermont and New Hampshire.

Mexico will want to buy Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. Russia, of course, will buy back Alaska and Washington State. China will purchase California. San Francisco will become `New Shanghai' and Los Angeles, "New Beijing."

Japan will buy up Washington state, Oregon, Montana, and Hawaii. Holland will repossess New York State, and Germany will buy German-settled Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The German Central Bank will quickly restore order there.

Pakistan's move into China's financial embrace is a harbinger of things to come. Unless the U.S. quickly repairs its economy, its world power could slip away as quickly as post-war Britain's, leaving China, Japan, Russia, the EU, the Arab oil states, and India as the world's new super-powers.

This may not be so awful. All power, as Briton's Lord Acton famously said, corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As the world's sole super-power, the U.S. under the Bush administration became totally corrupted by imperial hubris, financial fraud, lust for resources, and greed.

A world with more balanced, diffused power may be preferable. But such profound historical change is always dangerous and unpredictable. Right now, China looks like top dog. Chairman Mao will be smiling.

Meanwhile, Americans are now paying the price of imperial hubris and national financial fraud. Pity the next president who will inherit the Augean Stables filled by George Bush and the Congress over the past eight years.

Jon Soltz: On al Qaeda Supporting McCain

2008-10-22T11:10:29Z

Back in April, the seeds of the smear campaign against Senator Obama were being planted. What now has become "palling around with terrorists" began in April, when John McCain and his campaign started dropping the talking points that Barack Obama was the choice of Hamas, as if Obama had sought that statement of support.

In response to reporters' questions as to whether McCain stood by a fundraising letter which made the point, McCain said, "All I can tell you... is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

Right wing blogs went nuts. RightWingNews blared the headline, "Hamas Endorses Obama? Can Hizbollah And Al-Qaeda Be Far Behind?"

Well, yes, al Qaeda wasn't far behind. Today, they expressed a preference for Senator McCain. To revise what Senator McCain said above, "If Senator McCain is favored by al Qaeda, I think people can make judgments accordingly..."

In a message on an al Qaeda website, terrorists wrote of continuing the war in Iraq, "This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

There's no question that continuing the war in Iraq would prolong the strain that our military is facing, trying to fight a two-front war, and that continuing in Iraq saps resources in the fight against al Qaeda, where they are based - the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would be much worse off if the U.S. shifted priority from Iraq to going on the offense in Afghanistan, as Senator Obama has proposed.

But there's something else at play, here. The war in Iraq, as well as saber rattling against Iran by McCain and those who surround him, like Joe Lieberman, are an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda. That's not a new notion. The International Institute for Strategic Studies reported back in 2004 that the war in Iraq was pretty helpful to al Qaeda's efforts to gain new recruits, as it sought to rebuild its strength after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

Of course, this "endorsement" shouldn't itself influence voters, as Hamas' statement on Obama shouldn't. The American people shouldn't base their votes on the basis of what maniacs say.

But it once again underscores the question of who would be stronger in the fight against al Qaeda, which candidate is proposing a stronger plan to go after those who attacked us on 9/11, and which is for continuing the policy that has allowed al Qaeda to gain recruits and regain strength.

Crossposted at vetvoice.com

Stephen Zunes: Obama's Missed Opportunity

2008-10-21T12:19:54Z

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama missed a number of key opportunities during the presidential foreign policy debate on September 26 to challenge the dangerous and reckless foreign policies of Republican nominee John McCain.

Obama did remind viewers that he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. He pointed out that the invasion created a tragic situation in that country that McCain — who vociferously supported the invasion and defends his decision to this day — now claims he’s better qualified to redress. Yet, in what was perhaps his most stunning failure of the evening, the Democratic nominee effectively conceded McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s "troop surge" in Iraq — long advocated by the Republican nominee and opposed by Obama — brought about the dramatic reduction of violence in that country in recent months.

In reality, a shift in the alignment of internal Iraqi forces and the tragic de facto partitioning of Baghdad into sectarian enclaves contributed more to lowering the death toll, and the current relative equilibrium is probably temporary. The decision by certain Sunni tribal militias that had battled U.S. forces to turn their weapons against al-Qaeda-related extremists took place before the announcement of the surge, and militant opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s unilateral ceasefire resulted from internal Shia politics rather than any U.S. actions.

Nor did Obama raise questions over McCain’s assertion that Iraq, as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation, was well on its way to becoming a "stable ally." McCain’s claims of stability are questionable. There’s an ongoing conflict between the two groups that the United States depends on to maintain stability — the Shia-led government and the Sunni militias of the Awakening Council. In addition, there are ongoing attacks by Sunni extremists and a continuing risk that the radical Shia Mahdi Army will once again end its ceasefire.

Nor should the United States consider the Iraqi government an "ally," given that the two largest parties in the ruling coalition have historically allied themselves with Iran. During Saddam’s rule, Iran recognized the largest party now in government, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (then known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), as Iraq’s government-in-exile, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard organized and trained the Council’s militia — known as the Badr Corps — which fought on Iran’s side during the Iran-Iraq War. The Iraqi government identifies far more with the ruling Iranian clerics and other Shia movements than with the United States or with America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies. For example, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki strongly sided with Hezbollah in the 2006 conflict with Israel.

Falsehoods Unchallenged

A glaring failure of Obama’s during the debate was his unwillingness to counter some of McCain’s demonstrably false statements. On no less than three occasions during the debate, for instance, the Republican nominee claimed that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." In reality, Ahmadinejad never said that.That idiom does not even exist in the Persian language. The Iranian president was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini from more than 20 years earlier when, in a statement largely ignored at the time, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time." While certainly an extreme and deplorable statement, the actual quote’s emphasis on the Israeli "regime" rather than the country itself and its use of an intransitive makes the statement far less threatening than McCain made it sound.

McCain even claimed that Ahmadinejad "is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the state of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map." In reality, in response to a reporter’s question while in New York to attend the opening of this year’s UN General Assembly session, Ahmadinejad used the analogy of the Soviet Union disappearing from the map. In other words, as with his previous clarifications that McCain deliberately ignored, the Iranian president was calling for Israel’s dissolution as a state, not the country’s physical destruction. McCain, however, unchallenged by Obama, was trying to make Iran appear to be a greater and more imminent threat than it actually is.

When McCain criticized Obama for his refusal to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which urged the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a "terrorist organization," Obama conceded that he indeed believed they were "a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so." Ironically, even the Bush administration has been unwilling to designate the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which they correctly recognized as an irresponsibly sweeping characterization of the largest branch of Iran’s armed forces. Despite congressional pressure, the Bush administration only designated the al-Quds Force — a sub-unit of the Revolutionary Guards that has indeed engaged in terrorist operations, but doesn’t always operate with the full knowledge and consent of the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards or even Iran’s central government — as a terrorist group.

In another falsehood during the debate, McCain defended his support for Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship in Pakistan by insisting that "there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there and knew about it, knew that it was a failed state." While the democratically elected civilian government of Nawaz Sharif was certainly corrupt and inept in many respects at the time Musharraf staged his 1999 coup, Pakistan didn’t fit the usual definition of a "failed state." This term is generally reserved for countries experiencing a near-total collapse of order and central authority, such as Somalia, Afghanistan, and such West African countries as Liberia and Sierra Leone during the 1990s. Again, Obama failed to call McCain on this rewriting of history.

Other Misleading Statements Unchallenged

Obama even failed to challenge McCain’s statement that "the Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council" against Iran’s ongoing refusal to abide my edicts of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, the Russian government agreed to support a U.S.-sponsored resolution that very day, which included the toughest language to date, to force Iran to abide by legally binding Security Council edicts.

McCain then launched into his proposal for the formation of what he referred to as a "league of democracies" to bypass the UN system due to the alleged failure of the Security Council to enforce its resolutions, such as those targeting Iran’s nuclear program. In response, Obama could have pointed out that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to eliminate their nuclear arsenals and their long-range missiles. Or that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Or that the United States has blocked the Security Council from adopting a resolution calling for a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East. Or that, over the past 40 years, the United States has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than Russia and all other members of the UN Security Council combined. But Obama failed to do so.

Obama also failed to challenge McCain’s dubious statement that "Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans" and that "there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran." Despite repeated claims to this effect by both McCain and the Bush administration, they haven’t put forward any credible evidence to support them. Obama also failed to point out that the vast majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq have come from attacks by anti-Iranian Sunni groups, and that the political movements in Iraq most closely allied with Iran are part of the U.S.-backed government. Nor did he remind listeners that McCain had earlier made the ludicrous claim that the Iranians were bringing al-Qaeda forces into Iran for training and sending them back into Iraq to kill Americans, something that McCain himself eventually acknowledged was false.

When the Republican nominee characterized Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili as a "great young president," Obama could have pointed out that Saakashvili’s disastrous decision to launch a massive assault against South Ossetia prompted the devastating Russian attacks on his country. Doing so would have enabled Obama to defend himself from McCain’s criticism during the debate that Obama was wrong to have initially appealed to both sides "to show restraint" and that he should have instead placed all the blame on the Russian side for their illegitimate and disproportionate counter-attack. Obama could also have noted that Saakashvili responded to antigovernment protests within the Georgian capital of Tbilisi late last year with severe repression, shutting down independent media and detaining opposition leaders. Human Rights Watch criticized Saakashvili’s government for using "excessive" force against protesters and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Obama might have then been able to ask McCain what makes Saakashvili so "great" in his eyes and why McCain retains as his chief foreign policy advisor someone who served as the leading paid lobbyist for Saakashvili’s government.

Hawkishness Unchallenged

The hawkish approach of both Obama in particular and the Democratic party overall hampered his ability to more effectively challenge McCain during the debate on several key issues. For example, Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s calls for increasing Bush’s already bloated military budget since Obama and the Democratic platform also calls for increasing the military budget. Most Americans are unaware that the United States, at less than 4% of the world’s population, accounts for approximately half of the world’s military spending. Military-related spending already accounts for a full 54% of the discretionary U.S. federal budget. Indeed, the only criticism during the debate regarding excessive Pentagon spending came from McCain, who challenged the waste caused by the cost-plus formula regularly awarded to military contractors.

When McCain insisted that the United States pursue a highly provocative policy of bringing Georgia into NATO, thereby risking embroiling the United States in the complex armed ethnic conflicts of the volatile Caucasus region, Obama largely agreed with the Republican nominee. He said that the United States should insist that Georgia be able to join NATO and that NATO "should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in."

Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s call to send more troops to Afghanistan because Obama himself has called for increasing U.S. troop strength in that country. To his credit, Obama has called for holding the Afghan government to greater accountability, curbing the poppy trade, and dealing more forcefully with Pakistan, which has provided support and sanctuary for Taliban fighters. Yet the reality on the ground in Afghanistan contradicts the shared assumption of the two candidates that additional forces would stabilize that country. The U.S.-led war has worsened the security situation and the American bombing of civilian areas has led to a popular backlash that has strengthened the Taliban.

Flawed Logic Unchallenged

Obama also failed to fully challenge McCain’s flawed logic on several points, such as his claim that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. While nuclear weapons controlled by any state can theoretically be an existential threat to anybody, the Iranians surely recognize that, given Israel’s massive nuclear deterrent capability, any such attack would be suicidal. If Iran indeed does have ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, they would most likely be designed to deter threatened Israeli and American attacks. It’s also noteworthy that, while both expressed alarm at a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel, neither expressed any concern about a far more plausible Israeli attack on Iran.

Similarly, Obama didn’t challenge McCain’s claim that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would lead other countries in the region to "feel [a] compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well." Obama could have pointed out that Israel’s procurement of nuclear weapons nearly 40 years ago had not led to any other Middle Eastern countries acquiring nuclear weapons, nor had Pakistan’s procurement of nuclear weapons in the 1990s — after India already joined the nuclear club — led additional countries in the region to develop nuclear weapons either. Instead, Obama conceded the point, claiming that a nuclear Iran would indeed "create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

Obama also gave a surprisingly weak retort to McCain’s preposterous claims that meeting with a foreign leader would be "saying they’ve probably been doing the right thing" and it would "legitimize their illegal behavior." Obama could have pointed out that Bush and other U.S. presidents — as well as McCain himself — have met with foreign leaders who have also engaged in severe repression against their citizens and engaged in illegal behavior.

If Obama expects to defeat John McCain, who indeed has more foreign policy experience, he must be more willing to challenge his opponent’s record. McCain is in fact extremely vulnerable in the foreign policy realm. Obama, however, must be more rigorous in pointing out their differences and more effective in challenging McCain’s weaknesses.

Simon Jenkins: The Costs of War

2008-10-20T10:09:59Z

Will the war on credit out-spend the war on terror? Or will one crash bring
an end to another? Washington, London, Baghdad and Kabul last week saw
concerted moves by the western powers to disengage from their seven-year
war on militant islam. When it comes to truly stupefying public spending,
even super-policemen cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

So far the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars still far out-strips that
of the credit crunch rescues of the past fortnight. The international
economist, Joseph Stiglitz, last year put the cost of Iraq alone at three
trillion dollars, though he did impute the value of lives lost and other
investment opportunities foregone. But even official figures are now
running close to a trillion dollars. Such money might seem tolerable when
it was "skim" from the west's unprecedented two decades of wealth. With
national budgets collapsing into debt on all sides, they are simply
unaffordable.

Hence the onrush of realism. Last Wednesday, America reached a
draft agreement with the Baghdad government of Nouri al-Maliki, to bring
American troops under Iraqi sovereignty at the end of this year and to
leave Iraq, on some shape or form, by 2011. Two days earlier the British
government agreed with Maliki's statement that its 4,100 troops in the
country were "not necessary" and should also leave soon, possibly next
year.

As so often before, an invading power sucked into the vortex of
occupation is now crafting a way of declaring victory and departing. The
American election campaign offers a crucial rite of passage, with John
McCain declaring Iraq a "success" and the recent "surge" a triumph.
American voters overwhelmingly want to get out. They have even found a
general, David Petraeus, whom they believe can deliver that outcome.

Petraeus's surge, a delicate mix of high-intensity policing,
tactical alliances with enemies and cool diplomacy with Shia politicians,
has capitalised on a cruder syndrome, sheer exhaustion.

Talking to Petraeus in London last month, I found him not just intelligent
but extraordinarily hesitant for a soldier. His answer to any question
about how he intended to progress the conflict with a crisp "by agreement."
Yet his current standing down of 80 per cent of the Sunni "awakening"
militias is highly risky. The movement of insurgents north to Mosul and the
Kurdistan border is full of foreboding.

Iraq is still the world's most violent and precarious nation (after
Somalia), and its infrastructure is not back to pre-invasion levels. There
could hardly be a more damning indictment of the west's incompetence at
nation-building. But America's voters and half-hearted coalition partners
have had enough. Iraqis too have had enough. It is a matter of how to
retreat in reasonably good order.

Most tragic is that the painful lessons of Iraq have yet to be learned by
Nato and American commanders in Afghanistan. Even the otherwise sane Barack
Obama campaign team is in denial over that war, where the same belligerence
against the insurgents and reckless use of air power fuels rebellion and
acts as a magnet for terrorists from all over the globe.

Briefings in 2006 by the gung-ho Nato commander, Sir David Richards (now
head of the British army), seem a distant fantasy. His talk was all of
Malaya and winning hearts and minds, as if any mention of Iraq was beneath
his dignity. Now Vietnam is a better parallel, with talk of needing ever
more troops to establish security. As in Vietnam there is the daily use of
kill-rates and assassinations of enemy leaders to imply impending victory.

That said, the reassessments pouring out of Kabul are devastating. A leaked
presidential report talks of a "downward spiral" in the war against the
Taliban. The head of the American joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike
Mullen, told Congress much America was not winning, echoing similar phrases
from the CIA. The British ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles,
reportedly gave the Foreign Office the gloomiest possible account of "the
worsening security situation," and the corrupt state of the Kabul
government.

The reckless use of force along the border alienates the Pakistan
government, without whom any curtailment of the uprising is impossible.
Westerner policy fails to understand what is apparent to any visitor to
Islamabad, that Pakistan has a massive vested interest in not alienating
the semi-autonomous tribes along the Afghan border.

The Afghan insurgency is widespread, tribal and conducted by the world's
toughest guerrillas of both mountain and plain, the Pashtun. They will
never be beaten. They would prefer to hold sway only over their own
uplands, but the war has drawn them into a wider, and to them nobler,
conflict with the hated west, making them easy prey for the ideological
warlords of al-Qaeda.

Policy in Afghanistan has gone haywire since the heady days of 2001, when
it was to be a template for liberal interventionism. As a result, with
painful slowness, Nato is sketching the scenario of withdrawal, even behind
a smokescreen of force enhancement.

The code is that we must "talk to the Taliban." Thus accorded the status of
world power, this murky entity is in reality a roaming coalition of clans
and opium traders along the length of the Pakistan border. Its
once-horrific image is being carefully softened by western spokesmen, as
purportedly ready to bring order to the south and east of the country. The
Taliban are suddenly not the problem but the solution.

Waging war in Afghanistan ranks with marching on Moscow in the canon of
military folly. Yet such was the bombast of the Bush/Blair alliance that
this folly was widely supported by liberal opinion in Britain and
elsewhere. Now others must end it, and end the killing of tens of thousands
of Britons, Americans and Afghans, a slaughter now spreading over the
territory of the world's most unstable nuclear power.

It is obscene to justify this carnage and this danger by citing a few
rebuilt Afghan schools and roads, as British ministers persistently do.
This country will never be at peace, and Pakistan never safe, until the
west withdraws its troops, and probably not even then. We shall leave
another nation in ruins.