Image via Wikipedia

On Friday, October 7, the United States reached  grim milestone. This date marked the ten year anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.  During this period of time over 1,700 American service men and women have been killed,  thousands more have been wounded and maimed, and the cost to the taxpayers has exceeded one trillion dollars.  In addition to American losses, tens of thousands of Afghan men, women and children have met their demise.  U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has now exceeded the ten year involvement in the War in Viet Nam, and it’s not over yet.  At best, the Obama Administration has indicated  the  military will be in Afghanistan for at least another three years, or three hundred billion dollars worth.  From just about any possible viewpoint, the conflict has been a huge waste of American lives and money, has done nothing to reduce the power and influence of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and has further destabilized a  very volatile region of the world.

There are many lessons that can be learned from America’s ill-conceived involvement in Afghanistan.  The first, and most important lesson is to allow regional powers to resolve problems within their own regions. Although terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, can cause damage and destruction throughout the world, it is impossible to  fight against them with boots on the ground in their own home territories.  It is inevitable that local warlords or tribal elders will  view the American military as foreign invaders.  In some cases, such as the ISI in Pakistan, terrorist organizations will be actively supported by local governments.  The key to avoiding long and costly military engagements is to stay out of regions where we have no strategic interest and to avoid conflicts in areas where we don’t belong.

The second lesson to be learned from the protracted war in Afghanistan is to have a well-defined exit strategy before embarking on a military campaign.  If the power and might of the U.S. military forces cannot be used to bring a quick end to the conflict, then the military should not be used. We should have learned this lesson from the Viet Nam War, but sadly we did not.  The American government knew early on that a disastrous end to the Viet Nam War was inevitable, yet the conflict went on for many more years than it should have.  The same is true for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Once American military forces leave Afghanistan, there is little doubt that Iran will slowly but surely bring them under its powerful sphere of influence.  The presence of the Taliban and of al Qaeda will matter very little to the Iranian government, since their objective will not be “the spread of democracy”, but exploitation and domination.  Such is the fate of Afghanistan, and there’s nothing much  the U.S. can  do to change this inevitability from happening.

Rich

Republicans: The Dems won’t have their day Tonight

Democrats:The GOP won’t have their way Tonight

Republicans: The Democrats they grumble, “Fair fight”

But if they start a rumble, We’ll rumble ‘em Right

Democrats: We’re gonna hand ‘em a surprise Tonight

Republicans: We’re gonna cut ‘em down to size Tonight

Democrats: We said “Okay no rumpus, No tricks.” But just in case they jump us, We’re ready to mix Tonight!

Republicans: Well, they began it! Democrats: Well, they began it- Both: And we’re the ones to stop ‘em once and for all, Tonight!

Image by Omer Wazir via Flickr

Over a decade ago the U.S. government realized that the  “fight against terrorism”  would not only require boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but would also require military and political co-operation with Afghanistan’s neighbor to the East, Pakistan.   At that time, the U.S. State Department was well aware that Pakistan was controlled by a military dictatorship, was corrupt to its core, and that its people harbored long-standing anti-American attitudes dating back to its inception in 1949.  Over sixty years ago, when the British colonial government was forced to approve the partition of the Indian sub-continent in two separate nations, it was clear that American sympathies lie with India, and not with Pakistan.  Over the long period of time since its inception America’s relationship with Pakistan has languished, while the economic, political, and cultural relationship with India has continued to grow and prosper.   Since Pakistan has always viewed India as its mortal enemy, it is no wonder that America’s long-standing support of India has caused most Pakistanis to see the United States as its enemy also.

Frankly, the U.S. State Department  never cared much about Pakistani public opinion until two specific events occurred.  The first event was the development and deployment of nuclear weapons on Pakistani soil, and the second was the need to use Pakistani territory to wage a war against various factions in Afghanistan.  Of the two events, the development of nuclear weapons capabilities was by far the most important.  It allowed Pakistan to claim the dubious distinction of being the only Muslim country in the world to have such potentially lethal weapons, and it acted to “even the playing field” with the giant military powers in its neighborhood, such as India, China and Iran.  Both Pakistan and its neighbors realized that its sovereignty could never again be threatened without dire consequences.

When the U.S. government made the decision to invade Afghanistan,  U.S. intelligence  assessments that al Qaeda and Taliban operatives would use Pakistan as a safe haven were well understood.  What also was understood was that it would take a lot of U.S. foreign aid (call it bribery or facility fees) to convince corrupt Pakistani government officials to go against the Pakistani peoples‘ basic hatred  for America, and allow the U.S. military access to its territory.   With the continuation of U.S. drone attacks, which have oftentimes killed Pakistani civilians, and with the embarrassment of the Special Ops raid to kill Osama Bin laden, the Pakistani government has finally had enough.  The U.S. has cut off $800 million in “foreign aid”, and the Pakistanis have ousted thousands of U.S. military personnel from its territory.  At this point, it is fair to ask; could things possibly get any worse?  The answer is a resounding Yes.

On Saturday, Pakistani President Zardari traveled to Iran to conduct high level meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss how to deal with Afghanistan, which is sandwiched between both nations;  however, the talks will also include developing closer military and economic ties between the two countries.   If U.S. military forces could be expelled entirely from Pakistan, and if U.S. economic aid could be replaced by funds from Iran, then the Pakistani could strike a strategic alliance with its brother Muslim nation, while at the same time forcing U.S. military forces to leave the region entirely.  The key to winning any kind of lasting U.S. victory in Afghanistan, if possible at all, will be continued access to Afghanistan through Pakistani territory.  To be denied that access is to lose all possibility of victory.   It appears that the Pakistani  government has finally gotten off the political fence,  and landed in Iran’s back yard.   The ultimate fate of Afghanistan will rest in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, and there’s not much America can do about it.

Rich

During the last part of the eighteenth century, the residents of the thirteen American colonies waged a war of revolution against the British government in order to resolve their long-standing grievances.  The revolution was fought so that American residents could find uniquely American solutions to the problems inherent in living in a free society, and under the rule of law established by a democratically elected central government.  In the days of its infancy, and in the decades that followed, the people of this new nation worked together to find solutions to common problems, and to amicably resolve grievances that arose among them.  The American Revolution was successful because the people of this country were able to find solutions to the many problems that arose over time.

Unlike the revolutionary days of yore, Americans today seem to have lost the ability to resolve their differences and to arrive at solutions for the common good.  In a sense, the early years of the twenty-first century could be characterized as the (Un)solution Revolution.  Although America’s freedom  is not really threatened by a foreign power, we have become a nation that oftentimes regards its own citizens as the enemy, resulting in social and political gridlock.  Currently, the greatest threat to the prosperity of America, since its founding, is the (un)solution to the  U.S. debt crisis.   Each side of the debt crisis debate is unwilling to compromise its deeply entrenched position, and neither side is willing to put the good of the country above its own partisan interests.  The (un)solution Revolution that is going on in America seemed to have touched every aspect of our lives.  The (un)solution to America’s endless and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been to open up a new front in Libya.  The (un)solution to the problems of environmental pollution and global warming has been to continue importing $700 billion of foreign-sourced oil.  The (un)solution to poor school performance has been to cut education budgets.  The (un)solution to reducing America’s unemployment problem has been to cut off extended unemployment benefits to the unemployed, and to suggest further tax cuts for the wealthy individuals and corporations.  In fact, just about every issue of national importance, and the merits of just about every political appointee  has been discussed and debated, and finally filibustered by Congress until an (un)solution has been  all but assured.

There is no doubt that the passage of time will ultimately lead to a solution to all of the problems that America faces today.  We will all re-live the worst days of the Great Depression, or we will find a solution to our budget problems; doing nothing will ensure the former.  The same is true for all of the (un)solutions that threaten our future of peace and prosperity.  We must do better; much better!

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

After almost ten years of  U.S.  involvement in Afghanistan,  the American people have almost nothing to show for their spent treasure,  spilled blood, and thousands of disabled sons and daughters.  Not only is the war against  the Taliban insurgents going badly, but the entire Afghan economy has become totally dependent on the billions of dollars of military spending, combined with billions more in civilian economic assistance.   In fact, The World Bank has estimated that 97 percent of Afghanistan’s anemic economic output is from spending related to the international military and civilian presence.  If that’s not the very definition of co-dependency, then I don’t know what is.

Over two years ago the Obama Administration conducted a review of the multi-billion dollar aid program to Afghanistan,  and concluded it was a “heartbreaking” failure.   Although the Administration promised to make significant changes in the way it doled out American taxpayer’s money to corrupt Afghani government officials, it actually poured even larger sums of money into projects that will be  impossible for the Afghani people to maintain over the long term.   Things are so bad that the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting in Afghanistan said in a report this month that “overly ambitious proposals, incomplete analysis, poor planning, weak coordination and inadequate follow-through by federal officials” risked wasting billions more.  The sad fact is that Afghanistan’s mostly uneducated and poverty-stricken  population is scattered across a lawless, tribal landscape, and have no way to benefit directly from American aid.   The Obama Administration soon learned that the only way to maintain “friendly” relations with the corrupt Afghanistan government (i.e. Hamid Karzai) was to pump billions of dollars into the pockets of officials, and hope that some small amounts would actually provide grass root improvements for the people.   In essence, American economic aid to Afghanistan is nothing more than bribery money paid for the “privilege” of using the country as a battleground to fight the specter of “global terrorism.

By almost any measuring stick the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has been a costly failure for everyone other than the corrupt politicians surrounding Hamid Karzai in his  fortress city of Kabul.  To make matters even worse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry concluded that the Afghanistan economy is so dependent on military-related spending that it will almost certainly fall into a deep economic depression when U.S. forces leave in 2014.  I suppose that Senator Kerry is referring to the elite few in the Karzai government, since most of the population of Afghanistan have been in a deep depression for the last 500 years.  This is not likely to change any time soon.

As the American Congress struggles to find ways to save the country from financial collapse due to decades of irresponsible deficit spending, it is inconceivable that billions of American tax dollars continue to flow into Afghanistan.   It is equally inconceivable that Congressional Republicans are more willing to cut off the flow of Medicare dollars to American senior citizens, rather than cut off the flow of foreign aid dollars to the government of Hamid Karzai.   Over the the next seventeen months, leading up to the 2012 elections, the American people will spend a lot of time trying to get their priorities straightened out.  Let’s hope that continued involvement in Afghanistan isn’t one of them.

Rich

Once again, the weird and wacky world of  Afghanistan politics has taken center stage.  The issue this time, like many other times in the past, is Afghanistan’s bumper crop of illegal heroin.  As the world’s leading supplier of heroin for decades, if not centuries, the population of this impoverished and war-torn nation know full well the importance of their country’s only, real cash crop.  The fact that illegal Afghanistan heroin has made its way into every major crime syndicate in the world, and the fact that this highly dangerous and addictive drug has ruined millions of lives across the globe seems to be of little concern to the government of Hamid Karzai and the al-Qaeda-supported war-lords that control most of the country.  The highly lucrative heroin business has always been a major source of profit for corrupt government officials (Karsai included), and an important source of funding for both al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  This is unlikely to change any time soon.

Although the heroin business has been good for the corruption-ridden government of Afghanistan, it hasn’t been so good for neighboring Russia, nor for the countries of Western Europe and North America, whose drug addicted populations have pumped billions of dollars into the country year after year.   Being between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”, the Karsai government has paid lip service to the “problem” of Afghanistan’s  heroin exports by supporting a limited crop eradication program, but has at the same time has protested loudly when concrete actions have been taken.   President Karsai knows full well that heroin revenues are supplying weapons to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but he also understands that all Afghanis (including himself) have a “right” to a share of the profits.  A share of the heroin revenues seems to be looked upon as a birthright for most Afghani citizens, and an outright  necessity for government bureaucrats.

The Karsai government’s cozy relationship with the drug producers, and its very lucrative share of the action, was dealt a blow last week when a joint U.S. – Russian raid was carried out against major drug labs in Eastern Afghanistan.  The highly unusual cooperation between U.S. and Russian drug agencies succeeded in seizing over 932 kilograms of heroin from four labs in Nangarhar Province.  Russia has long complained that NATO forces were not doing enough to battle the heroin traffic that flows directly across its borders through the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Although the Afghan Interior Ministry was involved in the raid, and although the Afghan security forces were in the thick of things, President Karsai went into a rage when he found out the raids had occurred.  The illustrious President was quoted as saying, “The Afghan government condemns this NATO action and declares that such arbitrary action is a blatant violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. . .”   In other words, keep your hands off our opium crops, but don’t stop sending your soldiers here to die for our right to keep your populations addicted. For this, and many other reasons, the U.S. foray into Afghanistan has lasted long enough.  Eventually the Karsai government will fall and the Taliban will most likely regain power.  Thereafter, the Afghanis will continue doing what they do best; produce heroin for the wretched millions who are looking for a fix.

Rich

For those of us asking if things could possibly get any worse (or more expensive) for the U.S. in Afghanistan, the answer is a resounding “yes”.  The owners of  Kabul Bank, many of whom are related to Afghan president Hamid Karsai, announced yesterday that the bank would almost certainly collapse as result of millions of dollars of investment & loan losses, combined with millions more stolen by the banks’ directors.  The news of Kabul Bank’s financial problems has, predictably, brought about  a panic among depositors, anxious to withdraw their money before its too late.  Unlike  U.S. financial institutions, the banks in Afghanistan offer no  insurance for their depositors, and no real chance for recovering their money once the bank has gone under.  It is probably for this reason that most Afghanis do not keep their money in the banking system.  In reaction to the mounting crisis in confidence in Afghanistan’s banking system, President Karsai promised the government would guarantee deposits, and that the two men who presided over Kabul Bank in a “reckless and free-wheeling manner” would be fired.

Like almost everything in Afghanistan, economics and politics are inextricably intertwined.  Politicians from Karsai on down the line were most likely well aware of Kabul Bank’s “irregularities”, but shielded it from scrutiny for as long as they received personal, financial gain.  In typical Karsai fashion, the Afghan president told Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that the crisis had been invented by the Western media for the purpose of raising baseless fear among Afghans.  Time and again Karsai has been criticized for tolerating rampant corruption, and time and again he has blamed outside forces (usually the U.S.) for all of Afghanistan’s ills.

When Kabul Bank finally does collapse, there is little doubt that Karsai will call upon the beleaguered taxpayers of the U.S.A. to bail it out; and why not?  The American government has overlooked the excesses of corruption-riddled  government for almost ten years in its futile and relentless campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda.  Karsai knows full well that the American government will not risk the total collapse of the Afghan financial system  (such as it is) if it would imperil the military mission.  After all, what’s a few billion dollars in bailout money compared to the almost $10 billion a month it takes to keep the military operation going?

The collapse of Kabul Bank, and the high level of  corruption at all levels of government in Afghanistan, should be yet another warning shot across the bow of the Obama Administration.  Afghanistan is a lost cause, and always will be a lost cause.   It is time to accelerate the time schedule for pulling out of this backward, mountainous and tribal country, before Hamid Karsai asks the American taxpayers to bail out Afghanistan’s auto industry (if they had one).

Rich

Representative Patrick Kennedy unleashed his righteous indignation yesterday about our failed policy in Afghanistan. It is important to note that Rep. Kennedy is not seeking re-election so he has no political dog in this fight. He espoused what many of us believe, and he had the courage to send a strong message to Congress. Kennedy reminds us that Afghanistan is “a loose collection of 121 different sovereign tribes, none of (whom) get along.” In response to a statement made by another Republican lawmaker about not being able to tell the parents of a soldier who died last year in Afghanistan that he couldn’t “…go to a funeral and tell the parents…that they lost their child in vain,” Kennedy stated, ” Somewhere I heard that during the Vietnam War. So what is it we got to do? We got to double down on a bad policy to protect the honor of those who have already died? I don’t think so.”

Rep. Kennedy also unleashed a well-deserved diatribe against the press for lack of coverage on this issue. He was talking about the interests of national security and how the media is too busy covering other stories rather than the thorny and most critical issue of our failed and failing policy in Afghanistan. How many times have we heard that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan? Think of the innocent medical aid workers who were killed just days ago in attempting to serve Afghan people in out-lying regions. That got about 24 hours worth of coverage in the media. Not a “sexy” enough issue to pursue?

I applaud Representative Patrick Kennedy for his forthright statements and hope that those with the power to change this horrific situation will know that Kennedy’s thoughts reflect the thoughts of many, not the few.

—-cher

The latest embarrassment for the Obama Administration was the WikiLeaks release of classified documents related to America’s faltering policy in Afghanistan.  Fortunately,  the U.S. government tends to “over-classify” documents, therefore much of the “sensitive” information was of dubious strategic value to America’s enemies.  However, the released documents did put the national spotlight on just how convoluted the U.S. policy in the region really is, and just how difficult (if not impossible) it will be to accomplish America’s  strategic objectives.  Thomas Friedman, from the The York Times, summed it up well when he reported ” . . . although the terrorist attack of 911 was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis, we responded by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.  Why?  Because Pakistan has nukes that we fear and Saudi Arabia has oil that we crave”.  The thought was that building a democracy in Iraq would somehow influence reform in Saudi Arabia, and eliminating al Qaida in Afghanistan would somehow make Pakistan, and its nuclear arsenal, less of a target for take-over by radical Islamic factions.  In point of fact, both strategies have failed miserably.

In the cases of Pakistan and Afghanistan, both countries have leaders that support America’s objectives in public, gladly accept billions of dollars of American aid, yet make side bargains with America’s enemies.  While American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, President Karzai is making huge mining deals with the Chinese government, and negotiating peace deals with the Taliban to cut them in on the Chinese mining revenue.  Pakistan, on the other hand, is obsessed with its perceived threat from India, and uses its military resources only sparingly to fight Taliban and al Qaida insurgents.  Neither country has the slightest interest in bringing about democratic reforms for the betterment of their people, and neither country  has a population that is the least bit sympathetic to America, or to American interests in the region.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the ruling monarchy and the wealthy elite are tolerated by the highly radicalized Wahhabi fundamentalist establishment.  In essence, the Wahhabis are allowed to impose a puritanical form of Islam on the rest of society, and to export their fundamentalism to the rest of the Muslim world.  This arrangement is not likely to change any time soon.  Much of the money used to fund terrorist activities come from Saudi Arabian oil sales to (yes, you guessed it) the United States of America.

The fact that the U.S. needs both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to remain strategic “friends” puts America between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”, because neither country has a population that is in any way interested in friendship with the U.S.  It is time for the United States to realize that its dependence on imported oil has forced it to make a “pact with the devil”.  The development of alternative energy sources is very rapidly becoming a high priority if the U.S. is to maintain its independence in dealing with the real threats to world peace; Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Rich

Alright, I’ll admit it!  There are times when reading the news (on-line and off-line) and listening to the TV  and radio broadcasts can be downright depressing.  It’s not that I spend the entire day totally immersed in learning more and more about the ills of this troubled world.  I mean, I do have plenty of other things to keep myself occupied.  It’s just seems to me, on occasion, that things over which I have no control just keep getting worse.  Some people would say that “ignorance is bliss”, but I don’t  think that being uninformed is necessarily “blissful”; especially when the world around us seems to be hell-bent on destroying itself.

This morning’s headlines are a good case-in-point.  After twenty-five years of research and educational campaigns, the number of HIV cases are reaching epidemic proportions in many poor, mostly urban areas in America.  Free needles for drug users,  free condoms for high school kids,  and free educational programs for everyone else don’t seem to be worth “squat” when it comes to stopping the spread of HIV.  How could so many people care so little about contracting an incurable disease?

The daily terrorist bombings continue in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and now Uganda.  Hundreds of innocent civilians are being murdered “en masse”  every single day, as the world powers fight over oil and minerals and land and religion and all the same things they have been fighting over for the last three thousand years.  In the meantime, the U.S. troops remain in Iraq to provide advice and lots of weapons, and they also remain in Afghanistan to provide plenty of “boots on the ground” to blow holes in any Taliban operative who is unwise enough to challenge their authority and “right” to be there.

The situation in Mexico gets worse by the day, as drug-lords with armies of loyal followers and tons of sophisticated weapons (including plenty of grenades) do battle with the police and the Mexican political establishment.  The death toll this year, after only seven months, has exceeded 26,000; many of which are women and children who just so happened to be in the line of fire.  The Mexican government says that the blame for the carnage rests squarely on the backs of the Americans, whose insatiable appetite for illegal drugs makes almost any risk worth while.  In the meantime, the U.S. government has done little to nothing to secure the porous border, and done equally little to stem the tide of high-powered weapons (legal in all fifty states) from flowing into the hands of drug-lords.

On the domestic political front, America is tearing apart at the seams with partisan bickering, name-calling and legislative gridlock.  The stock market is faltering, unemployment benefits are being slashed, municipalities are going bankrupt, and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico are being fouled by 100 million gallons of crude oil.

As they say in the Army, everything is SNAFU (situation normal, all fouled up).  Well, I guess I’m through complaining for today.  Oh yeah, there’s one more thing;  I’m leaving the house in about an hour to go to the Dentist and get a root canal.  Have a nice day!

Rich

There is a current of dissonance among Liberals these days, with a seeming penchant to believe that as President, Obama can solve all problems with a flourish of anger and attitude. This is the Obama who promised change and hope to believe in. And this is the same Obama who was ascribed the term “Messiah” by Conservatives with pluck during the presidential campaign. Now dissonance rises even within the ranks of Liberals who seem to have lost perspective and have adopted a penchant for that old canard: instant gratification.

Within the first eighteen months of his presidency, Obama shepherded in health care against a recalcitrant Congress. This is the Obama who prevented our nation from crashing headlong into an economic depression. Now there is a gushing oil well and many believe that it could just be fixed if only, if only Obama were more angry and more bold. Pundits from the Left such as Rachel Maddow, suggested last week that Obama should just dictate  energy legislation through a submissive Congress that does not exist in an unparalleled universe.

Some Democrats go so far as to suggest that the President has not been ambitious enough about deficit spending. They posture that he should have pushed last year’s recovery act over a trillion dollars, the result of which would the have kept the economy stuck in a stalled gear. They clamor for a second major stimulus which would have us reeling for decades. They do this without realizing how much risk was taken on the first stimulus package, given the military budget and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A New Deal! A Great Society! These are chants from history past, not politics present. There is a saying that the man does not make the Office; the Office makes the man. Washington has happened to Obama, and the up-shot is that a balance must be struck. There must be a lurch toward conservative spending without the loss of social ideology. Only a true Messiah could pull that off.

—cher

The words to an old 1960′s song goes something like this;  “One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?  Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is  (Afghanistan).”  Well, actually the words to song said “Viet Nam”,  but the sentiment still applies.   The United States is  building up military forces and equipment in Afghanistan at a feverish pitch, even while  relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai continue to rapidly worsen.   Apparently, Mr. Karzai felt that President Obama’s  recent trip to Kabul for meetings was an effort to manipulate him, and to scold him as an ineffectual leader.  The hot-headed and somewhat erratic Karzai decided to show his defiance by making two anti-American speeches over the course of three days.   In his remarks to parliament on Saturday, Mr. Karzai said that  if  foreign interference  in his government continues (i.e. the United States), the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance; one that he might even join.  He went on to publicly rebuke the U.S. government by saying ” Our most important ally is constantly criticizing us: you are corrupt.  You need to do this and that.  You cannot talk down to the Afghans like they are children or they don’t understand”.  Karzai’s recent remarks have send further shock waves through the State Department, where mistrust for the Afghan leader is already at a high level due to the wildly corrupt election that propelled him to a second term as president.

It would seem that the American government’s Afghanistan  policy  is being put between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.   Mr. Karzai, who owes his position and probably his very existence, to the overthrow of the Taliban government in a 2001 invasion, has become emboldened by the corrupt election that kept him in power.  Under the protection of the U.S.  military in Afghanistan , Mr. Karzai has been able to hold secretive meetings with the Iranians, the Pakistanis, and the Taliban itself.  While American soldiers die on the battlefields of Southern Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai has been negotiating a separate deal with the Taliban that would allow for a cozy power-sharing arrangement.  In his own words, Mr. Karzai suggested the Taliban was  a “legitimate” resistance movement, which had the equally “legitimate” goal of getting rid of all foreign interference, including the United States of America.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was a bad idea to begin with, and has now lasted almost ten years with no determinable results.  There is no legitimate government, and no credible election process.  The country’s administration is totally corrupt at all levels, the Afghan army controls no territory outside of Kabul, and the Taliban is stronger than ever.  The only chance that the U.S. government has for an “honorable” withdrawal of forces would be to actively support a power-sharing arrangement between the Karzai Administration and the Taliban.  Although this would amount to a “defeat” for American policy in the region, at least it would stop the senseless loss of American lives and the expenditure of $100 billion every year in taxpayer money.  If something is not done very soon to stop the escalation in U.S. troop levels, and to begin a complete withdrawal, America may find itself fighting against a formidable coalition of  Karzai supporters and  the Taliban, all armed to the teeth with Iranian-made weapons.

Rich

If you have not already done so, please subscribe and use the RSS button. We welcome your thoughts and opinions, here and on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Karzai: ‘I swear that I am going to join the Taliban’ (americablog.com)
• Karzai Slams the West Again (online.wsj.com)
• If I Can’t Control The Election Watchdog, I’ll Join The Taliban (attackerman.firedoglake.com)

As America sends more troops to Afghanistan and the timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq looks dubious, the growth of homegrown terrorists is beginning to look like a bumper crop for concern upon which Homeland Security must focus.  Last week two Americans who are allegedly sympathetic to the Islamic cause were arrested.

One of these was 26 year old Sharif Mobley who grew up in South Jersey. He was arrested in a sweep of al-Qaida members in Yemen last week. Reports have stated that Mobley had worked at five different nuclear plants in New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania, including Three Mile Island near Harrisburg. Let me repeat: Mobley is 26 years old. He had full clearance to go anywhere he wanted at all of the nuclear plants in which he was employed in America, yet he was found in Yemen, a haven for terrorists.

According to the New York Dailey News, “Before Mobley moved to Yemen two years ago, ostensibly to learn Arabic and study the Koran, he worked for several contractors at three nuclear power plants in New Jersey from 2002 to 2008, PSE&G Nuclear spokesman Joe Delmar said.Mobley carried supplies and did maintenance work at the plants on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek and worked at other plants in the region as well, Delmar said. He satisfied federal background checks as recently as 2008, Delmar said.”

Does anyone else see red flags here? Mobley had federal clearance from 2002 to 2008. How much information could he have submitted to subversives both here and in Yemen? There had to have been warnings about this guy. If he wanted to study the Koran and learn Arabic with no ulterior motives, he could have done so here.

Shockingly we also have Colleen R. Rose, aka Jihad Jane, aka Fatima Rose, who was plotting along with others to recruit Islamic fighters and was plotting to kill a Swedish cartoonist who made fun of prophet Mohammad, according to a federal indictment. Jihad Jane with her blonde hair and blue eyes is from Montgomery County, PA. She is charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft. Of course her primary contact leading up to these events was through the Internet and emails. And lest we forget, there was the case of the massacre at Fort Hood in Texas last year in which an Army psychiatrist killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. The attack was carried out by Nidal Malik-Hassan, who was born in Virginia. Reports have stated that he had been communicating with terrorists via the Internet.

While we are sending more troops to Afghanistan and trying to determine when we can pull out of Iraq, there is a growing number of American Muslim extremists which constitute domestic terrorist threats right here on our soil. And it is not only Muslim extremists, but other extremist groups such as The Army of God, the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacists, anti-abortion bombers and violent militiamen. These groups are ticking time bombs. They are the misfits and miscreants of American society and make no mistake; they reside in pockets throughout this country. The enemy now lies within. It is time to make certain that our focus of Intelligence must be at least as strong in this country as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can comb the caves there, but it may be too late. Our best chance of preventing terrorist strikes is to concentrate our efforts here.

—cher

Related articles by Zemanta

• Al-Qaida suspect from US tricked his Yemeni guard (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• American AQ agent in Yemen worked at nuclear plants (hotair.com)
• Friend: Suspected US Al-Qaida Member Grew Radical (abcnews.go.com)

At the same time that  U.S. troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line  fighting Taliban and al Qaida insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Kabul.  As could be expected, Ahmadinejad has taken this opportunity to sharply criticize the U.S. for its military presence in Afghanistan, and to emphasize that Americans will never be able to bring peace to Afghanistan through military means.  The Iranian President further stated that the presence of  U.S. troops in Afghanistan is only escalating tensions and creating a higher level of instability.  In response to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks,  Secretary of  Defense, Robert Gates, accused the Iranian leader of playing a “double game”  in Afghanistan by professing support for the Afghan government while undermining U.S.-led efforts to improve the government and stabilize the country.  As accusations fly back and forth between Washington and Tehran, the real truth of the matter is that Hamid Karzai is the one playing the “double game”.

The Karzai government has received billions of dollars of  foreign assistance by playing off  Iran against the United States, and all the while enjoying protection from his enemies by the U.S. military.  Out of one side of his mouth, Karzai thanked Ahmadinejad for his long-time assistance, and called the Islamic state a “real friend”.  Out of the other side of his mouth he thanked Secretary Gates for American help in fighting off insurgents, and called America a friend of Afghanistan.  Even as U.S. troops are engaging in deadly battles in the southern provinces, Mr. Karzai is discussing with Ahmadinejad the possibility of building a railroad linking Iran and Tajikistan through Afghanistan.

It should come as no surprise that the Afghan government is interested in building a stronger alliance with their Muslim brothers in Iran.  Not only do both countries share a thousand mile border, but Iran, being the dominant power in the region, is clearly in a position to influence internal policy in Afghanistan when the time is right.  At the present time, Tehran  is content to let American blood be spilled battling the insurgents, knowing full well that when the battle is over, and American troops leave the region,  the Afghans will elect a pro-Iranian government.   For the Iranians, what cannot be reasonably obtained on the battlefield will be eventually be  obtained through the ballot box.

-Rich

The cost of war

With all the turmoil in our world from Haiti to Iraq to Afghanistan and within our own respective borders, can we find inner peace? This was a question posed to me recently by someone I greatly admire. I pondered this and the various tangents which shoot like tentacles to the core of our character. “What is the right thing for us to do?”, he asked.

War, there is that. The Bible tells us in the New Living Translation, “Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world.” If one believes that all this must come to pass, shall we blame God? Shall we simply accept this as part of the script of our daily living, shrug our shoulders and say pass the coffee, please? I quote here from the Bible since that is the framework of my spiritual upbringing. Other religions, I am certain, have their own structured beliefs and I do not seek to diminish their importance. Still, it begs the question, “What is the right thing for us to do?”

The current cost of wars in which the U.S. has been or is involved with since 2001 can be seen on our sidebar. Could we have used a better portion of this effort in feeding the world’s starving children, educating our global children, helping underdeveloped nations with infrastructure for water and farming, or arming Third World nations with methods to stave off AIDS and other infectious diseases? War is a costly business, and lest there be any doubt, it is a business. One nation seeks dominance for oil, other nations may seek nuclear arms, and yet more nations are built on opium trade. And other nations seek to destroy the country of Israel because it exists. So truly, what can we as individuals do?

Perhaps the most we can do, given the facts of war, is to create harmony within our own lives. In spite of all the issues swirling around us, we need to find an inner peace. That may be through faith in a higher power. It may entail expecting less from government and reaching out as individuals within our own families and communities. It may mean that when a country such as Haiti gets smashed to smithereens, we give what we can for as long as we can, knowing that this recovery will take years. In being proactive, even to a small degree, we may find an inner peace. To do less exacerbates global problems. We become complicit by our apathy. And turmoil gains momentum.

—cher

Once again, a line seems to be drawn in the sand between Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  This time the issue is what to do about U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, and when to do it.  Things were certainly not made any better by former Vice-President Cheney’s accusation that Obama was “dithering” in making a decision.  To their credit, Republican leaders Orrin Hatch and John McCain were quick to distance themselves from Cheney’s remarks.  Most foreign policy experts within the Obama Administration and outside of government generally agree that the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has escalated considerably in terms of size and complexity.  The changing situation in Afghanistan, combined with the role being played by the Pakistani government have left the Obama Administration with few good options.

One of the central issues to be considered is the future of the corrupt and generally despised government of Hamid Karsai.  Recent elections showing Karsai being re-elected by wide margins have been proven to be fraudulent, therefore the Karsai Administration is not regarded as legitimate by the majority of Afghanis.  Rather than helping to promote democratic principles, the election has only strengthened the position of the Taliban.  A significant increase in U.S. troop levels in support of Karsai’s regime could have the undesired effect of boosting the strength and resolve of the Taliban even more.  Once the U.S. forces are widely perceived as foreign invaders, all of the Afghanistan tribes and factions will turn against them.  When that happens, no amount of U.S. troops will be successful in overcoming the Taliban.

I agree with General McChrystal that the troop levels in Afghanistan are too small to get the job done, if the job is defined as imposing the will of the Karsai government and the U.S. government on the majority. However, an addition of forty thousand soldiers, or even a hundred thousand soldiers will not change the situation over the long run so long as Afghanistan lacks a legitimate government.  The Obama Administration is right in being cautious under the present circumstances.

—Rich

Sometimes it seems as if the  whole world is spinning madly out of control.  The omnipresent media outlets, such as CNN and Fox News, along with the constant drone of talk radio shows, are always there to remind us of every twist and turn in every news story across the globe.  Every nuance of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been covered in great detail; every word of the proposed health care bill has been parsed and re-parsed for the slightest tinge of meaning; every economic statistic has been interpreted and re-interpreted a thousand times over to discover some hidden agenda or unknown consequence; in fact every single story that has been covered by the media has been spun a hundred different ways, and every story has been colored according to the bias of that particular media source.  Somewhere, I’m quite sure, within the whirling dervish created by the never-ending parade of  “talking heads” lies the real truth of the matter (i.e. of all matters).

In the nineteenth century a French philosopher named Rene Descartes came up with a scheme for figuring out how to know the difference between truth and deception.  He called his philosophy “the method of the doubt”.  He started off by asking how any of us could be sure that our whole lives were nothing but a series of deceptions?  How do we know that everything in our lives have not been orchestrated by some omnipotent, perhaps malevolent,  power to deceive us and keep us from the truth?  Through a long and somewhat convoluted series of arguments, Descartes came to the conclusion that the very act of him being able to question his own existence proved that he existed; that he could think (i.e. I think therefore I am).  Because we are able to think, we have the ability to tell the truth from lies.

Although it has been a long time since Descartes walked among the living, perhaps it would still be a good idea if the media in America remembered his conclusion; that we humans do have the ability to think on our own, and we do have the ability (although not always) to tell the truth from lies.  In the realm of American politics we have never been so divided along  ideological lines, and the media, along with its deep-seated biases, has a lot to do with it.  Sometimes I long for the “good old days” when a news story was presented, and readers/listeners were left to arrive at their own conclusions based on the facts of the story.  Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?

—Rich

On October first I alluded to my shock that General Stanley McChrystal appeared on 60 Minutes and postured about the future direction of the U.S. in Afghanistan. Having worked for a government agency for a number of years, I am well-aware of the importance of following “the chain of command.” Watching McChrystal on 60 Minutes I had two thoughts. One thought was that he was going rogue. The second thought was that he was set up to do this in order to get the pulse of public reaction. I have settled on the notion that McChrystal has gone rogue.

In further delving into this I have read that in late August General McChrystal submitted a 66 page confidential report to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates which was somehow leaked to The Washington Post three weeks later. In General McChrystal’s appearance before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies in London,  McChrystal, much as he stated on 60 Minutes, said that the American and Allied forces need “to respect the people” and “change our mindset.”  He also has been lobbying for 40,000 additional troops at a time when many in this country are beginning to see Afghanistan as another Vietnam. Add to this the fact that General McChrystal,  in addressing the IISS in London, referred to Vice President Biden’s plan of scaling back in Afghanistan as “Chaos-istan.” That was neither the time nor the place to express such views about the Vice President’s stance.

McChrystal has been provocative and high-profile in expressing his views. His actions are reminiscent of General Douglas MacArthur who in effect commandeered the power of President Truman to make foreign policy by proposing an escalation of the conflict in Korea. Truman dismissed him due to insubordination.

I do not believe that the public determination of strategic policy in Afghanistan is in General McChrystal’s job description. While he is an adviser to President Obama it is unseemly for him to go public, or rogue if you will, in stating his own objectives for Afghanistan. He should be reminded that while his troops are required to follow the chain of command, he is required to do no less.

—cher

One of the few things that is predictable about Osama Bin Laden is that he will deliver an address to the “American People” every year, right around September 11.  This year is no exception.  On Sunday, two days after the eighth anniversary of al-Qaeda’s infamous attacks on The World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon, Bin Laden reminded Americans that the attacks were the result of U.S. support of Israel and the “occupation of Palestine”.  In this year’s address, he taunted the Obama Administration by claiming the new President was blindly following the strategies of George W. Bush, and that he was “powerless” to end the war.  Bin Laden further promised that the war in Afghanistan would be a “war of attrition” for whatever length of time was necessary to ensure an al-Qaeda victory.

Bin Laden’s eleven minute address contained, for the most part, the usual sabre rattling and Islamo-fascist propaganda.  Nothing new was proposed, nor was there any hint that al-Qaeda was  prepared to compromise its stated goal of destroying Israel and punishing anyone who comes to her assistance.  There is little doubt that Bin Laden has been emboldened by the failure of NATO forces to find and kill him, and by the growth of al-Qaeda’s strength throughout the region.

Bin Laden is clearly a terrorist of the highest caliber, and his al-Qaeda Organization has spread pain and suffering over the world for a very long time.  Unfortunately, his goals of eliminating the State of Israel and restoring Palestine resound very favorably with most of the Middle Eastern nations.  It is for this reason that the U.S. and other NATO countries will never be able to garner the cooperation of Middle Eastern nations in either capturing Bin Laden or destroying al-Qaeda.  Without the cooperation of these populations, the mission of the U.S. in Afghanistan is doomed to failure.  In a very real sense, the U.S. military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been about a “war of terrorism”, but about the protection and survival of Israel.  And both sides know it!

—Rich

The city of Chicago is under siege. In the first six months of this year there have been over 200 shootings, many of which resulted in fatalities. Hospitals are running low on blood supplies to treat the wounded and residents are living in constant fear. Am I talking about Afghanistan? Sure sounds like it—but worse. The numbers of wounded and killed are higher. What are the solutions?

Gun control would be like closing the proverbial barn door. Guns and assault weapons are everywhere. Dealers are slick and fake the license forms or just file off the serial numbers. These guns are as easy to obtain as candy, but they rot more than teeth. They kill the spirit, body and soul. It is absolute carnage.

How about this: take some of those troops out of Iraq where they can’t do any good anyhow and send them to the streets of Chicago. At least attempt to keep the decent citizens there safe. There are those who cannot get out of Dodge. They have a right to be safe and not live in fear.

Talk about the Middle East goes on and on. Let’s talk about the violence in our own Midwest. Perhaps instead of sending Hillary globetrotting, the President should send her to his very own Chicago, that toppling town, and let her try a peace accord. We are talking about crisis intervention here. Someone, somewhere needs to help.

—cher