Everything Southern Humboldt and more
Although one wonders why we need 50,000 troops to stay behind now that it’s over.
Heard on the radio this morning that the month of July was the bloodiest month in over two years in terms of Iraqi deaths in excess of 500. The US military is disputing the numbers, but I”m not sure what the motive would be for the Iraqi government to inflate them.
Obama says that 90 thousand troops are being “brought home,” which is good news; but are they coming home or being redeployed to Afghanistan?
 | Mitch on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| moviedad on Priorities |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
 | suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Anonymous on Priorities |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on March against Monsanto this… |
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 2, 2010 at 9:44 am
Noble
Ah, the rhetorical bliss of terms like “re-missioning.” It’s a special day in a person’s life when they get to graduate from “soldier” to “peacekeeper” or whatever other bullshit term the president/generals comes up with that no longer fits under the formal definition of warfare, as determined by DoD.
The war is over, long live the war.
August 2, 2010 at 11:58 am
Jendocino
This war will be “over” in the same way Gitmo has been “closed.” Mission “accomplished.” Sigh.
August 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Dave
Yep…it’s over… like Korea’s over.
Don’t you love semantics in politics?
August 2, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Joel Mielke
Gosh, who could have imagined that Obama could be so cynical?
August 3, 2010 at 8:13 pm
ED Denson
In retrospect perhaps we should not have destroyed the government in Iraq and the very buildings the government worked from. Since “de-Baathification” we have just had these ineffectual puppet governments to pretend represent some aspect of a sovereign nation. Same problem in Afghanistan. We set up a “Loya Jurga” and it picked a “government” which amounted to a bunch of thieves enriching themselves instead of running the county. We are not only funding our army, and the Taliban, we are also funding the “government” there. Meanwhile what’s the future hold for women in either of these countries we have fought to “free”? Worse and worse. We should get out, let the Taliban take over, then attack them when they are out in the open and have some fixed assets.
August 4, 2010 at 10:52 am
the reasonable anonymous
“We should get out, let the Taliban take over, then attack them when they are out in the open and have some fixed assets.”
Not sure you’ve really thought this through, Ed. Once the Taliban takes over and then we attack them, we’ll be right back where we started. What do we do then…make sure they stay in power so we can keep attacking their “fixed assets?” Drive them from power and be right back to where we are today?
What to do (or not do) in Afghanistan is quite a conundrum, and there don’t appear to be any easy answers. That being said, the approach you offer above seems to be particularly nonsensical.
August 4, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Eric Kirk
There are progressives throughout Afghanistan who do not want us to leave. I covered this previously, and even though the Code Pink representatives desperately tried to walk it all back once they were hit by the doctrine purists back home, they were initially moved by what they heard in the country itself (and made the mistake of talking about it before they had the opportunity to feed it through their ideological filters). While I do not know whether we can make a positive difference in Afghanistan, preventing teenage girls from having acid thrown in their faces because they learned how to read is really a progressive cause – hopeless or not.
August 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Joel Mielke
“There are progressives throughout Afghanistan who do not want us to leave”
Yeah, right.
Imperial powers have always pointed to the benefits they bestow upon the occupied. We’ve done enough damage there to satisfy even the most rigorous demands for revenge. Our occupation and meddling never has and never will help the people of Afghanistan.
August 5, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Eric Kirk
But they aren’t “imperial powers.” They’re women begging for help.
August 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Obviously, Joel’s point is that WE are the “imperial power,” and are pointing to the benefits to the “women begging for help” to justify our continued involvement.
Which is a fair point, so far as it goes. But that doesn’t mean that the “women begging for help” are not deserving of help, nor does it prove that our involvement there does not provide some benefits that may weigh into the question of whether we should stay involved in security in Afghanistan, either under the current strategy, or some different one.
I really do have mixed feelings about this. Occupation of a foreign country — no matter how “justified” the initial invasion was, and no matter how “well-meaning” the ongoing occupation is — always has major moral and practical drawbacks. But considering the circumstances existing in that country both before our invasion, and now, withdrawing our forces at this time seems like it would also have major moral and practical drawbacks. Staying causes harm to innocent civilians, leaving will also cause harm to innocent civilians.
Which will cause the least harm? I truly do not know. Complicating things further, staying will cause harm to, at least in large part, a different set of people than leaving will cause harm to…so we’re not just talking about how much harm, we’re talking about who will be harmed. I really do not know how anyone is supposed to sort all this out and come out with a clear answer of what is the morally correct thing to do.
I guess one approach is to consider harm done “directly” by U.S. troops (by staying) as in a different moral category than harm done “indirectly” by others, as a result of the U.S. withdrawing its military forces. I can understand that argument, and it has some real appeal…but to the people receiving the harm, the difference may not be very comforting.
August 5, 2010 at 2:16 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Now that I’ve read over that last paragraph in my last comment, I’m thinking that this anaylsis may, at least in part, explain why some intelligent, well-informed, humanitarian-minded friends of mine seem to be absolutely convinced that withdrawl is the only morally correct choice, whereas other intelligent, well-informed, humanitarian-minded friends of mine are convinced that withdrawing now and leaving the Afghans to their own devices (especially after stirring up all kinds of ethnic and cultural strife during our occupation) would be dead wrong…and also why many of us have such mixed feelings on the subject and are genuinely undecided on the question. If you take the view that “we” should stop doing harm, and don’t consider the harm likely to be done by others in “our” absence, then the idea that we should withdraw our troops seems like a pretty easy decision. But if you consider the harm likely to be done by others after our withdraw, and give that “indirect” harm equal weight to the direct harm caused by our forces, then the picture becomes a whole lot more complex.
And then there’s the fact that at least some of the direct harm we’ve done up to this point is quantifiable (number of innocent civilians killed, number displaced, number orphaned, number injured, etc.) whereas the amount of harm we may do directly in the future (by staying and continuing under the current counter-insurgency strategy, or under some other strategy) is somewhat less certain, and the indirect harm that may occur as a result of a withdrawl of all our forces now or in the near future is even less predictable. It shouldn’t be surprising that intelligent, informed, well-meaning people may not be able to reach consensus on what is the “right” way to proceed.
August 6, 2010 at 5:34 am
Joel Mielke
Eric is being deliberately obtuse for some reason, I hope.
August 6, 2010 at 8:40 am
Eric Kirk
I was trying to make a point about the framing of the issue in political abstractions and focus on the human side. Until we invaded, the women’s organizations put out mailers about their treatment and while the conservative half ignored them the left was at least willing to sign the useless petitions to the UN. Now it’s considerably less convenient to the left narrative. My point is that imperial powers may very well tout the benefits of their occupations. But the women on the ground, in this case, are also doing so. If they were calling for immediate withdrawal, I don’t think the left would have such a hard time hearing them. But by bringing up the claims of imperial power, it’s almost as if the women themselves don’t exist.
All I’m saying is that it bears discussion. Imperial claims are not false simply because they are made in self-interest.
August 6, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Joel Mielke
Goddammit Erik, what does “now it’s considerably less convenient to the left narrative” mean? You sound like an inarticulate version of Christopher Hitchens.
Anybody who has paid attention to Afghanistan since the victory of Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters” is aware of the horrible treatment of women there. What the does our imperial adventure have to do with that?
If women’s rights were our concern, we’d invade gynophobic strongholds like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but that’s not going to happen.
August 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s simple Joel. We helped bring to power a regime which kills women for wanting to be treated like human beings. Many of the women are asking us for protection from those people we brought to power. I think we should listen to them.
We didn’t put the Saudi’s in power. We put the Taliban in power.
August 6, 2010 at 4:42 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Oh if only it WAS that simple, Eric (did you read my 2:00 and 2:16 comments from yesterday?) The thing is, there are also lots of Afghani women who want us to pull our military out of there so that we stop the “collaterally” killing and maiming them, and their husbands, daughters, sons, friends, and extended family members. It seems to me that the “right” not to be killed or maimed, or have your friends killed or maimed, by a foreign military occupying force, well, that’s a pretty fundamental “right,” too. Isn’t it?
As I said at 2:00 yesterday, I find it very hard to weigh these various wrongs and harms against one another. And I’m pretty suspicious of anyone who thinks that either staying, or leaving, is a very simple “slam dunk” decision from either a moral or practical point of view.
August 6, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s certainly not “slam dunk.” But I think we owe it to Afghan women to listen to them.
August 6, 2010 at 5:39 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Oh, I agree. The challenge is that we would have to listen to ALL Afghan women, not just those who are on one side or the other of the question of occupation or withdrawl.
August 7, 2010 at 7:36 am
Joel Mielke
“… I think we owe it to Afghan women to listen to them.”
I’m sure that Afghan women would appreciate Eric’s sensitivity. Surely it would be a comfort to them if they had better listeners bombing them.
August 7, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Anonymous
Afghanistan world leader in hash production (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime)
3500 tons of hash bricks annually. Farm-gate value of $91,000,000.
Damn that’s $29 a kilo.
I’m sure women are safer now that the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan and killing men off.
August 7, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m sure that Afghan women would appreciate Eric’s sensitivity. Surely it would be a comfort to them if they had better listeners bombing them.
The anti-war movement isn’t bombing them. The anti-war movement simply doesn’t want to hear them, unless they specify the right type of victimization. As long as American soldiers are killing them, we’re apparently willing to hear about it. The acid throwers – not our concern, even though we (the US) helped the acid throwers to power.
August 7, 2010 at 9:41 pm
mresquan
“The anti-war movement simply doesn’t want to hear them,”
Disagreed for the most part.The anti-war movement perhaps just realizes that Afghan women have been through a lot of shit that we could never imagine going through,and they have no idea how to begin to even trust that they can rely on that antiiwar group to bring them out of their situation.Maybe that comes from repeats of history where other antiwar peace groups from invading countries had not been able to adequately assist them with necessary tools to combat the eventual regaining of control by the warlords.
August 7, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Okay, so then what do you say to the women, many of them feminists, who are asking us to stay? Do we tell them that we know more than them what is in their best interests?
August 7, 2010 at 10:56 pm
the reasonable anonymous
It’s a compelling question, Eric…I sure don’t have the answer.
Here’s another question I can’t answer:
What do you say to the women (feminists or not) who are begging us to LEAVE? Do we tell them that we know more than them what is in their best interests?
We’re right back to the 4th paragraph of my 2:00 pm comment on the 5th:
“Which will cause the least harm [staying or leaving]? I truly do not know. Complicating things further, staying will cause harm to, at least in large part, a different set of people than leaving will cause harm to…so we’re not just talking about how much harm, we’re talking about who will be harmed. I really do not know how anyone is supposed to sort all this out and come out with a clear answer of what is the morally correct thing to do.”
August 8, 2010 at 7:04 am
Joel Mielke
“The anti-war movement simply doesn’t want to hear them…”
Jesus, Eric. How do you come up with such crap? I’d ask for some data to back up your statement, but you are obviously happy producing definitive statements based upon idle speculation. It appears that you are unaware that the anti-war movement is not in the driver’s seat, so what we think (as if it were unanimous) is a moot point.
“…we (the US) helped the acid throwers to power.”
Indeed we did, and we incapable of removing them.
“what do you say to the women … who are asking us to stay?”
I’m assuming (which I must do, since you communicate so poorly) that you are talking about Afghan women? I’d say, “I’m sorry that we invaded your country.”
“Do we tell them that we know more than them what is in their best interests?”
Aren’t we already telling them “that we know more than them what is in their best interests” by invading and attempting to occupy their country?
Before you start typing Eric, could I impose upon you to put a smattering of thought into whatever response you conjure up?
August 8, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Eric Kirk
Joel – I’ve got decades of direct involvement with the anti-war movement, and I was raised in it, I’ve been to literally hundreds of meetings and forums, and probably had thousands of discussions and opportunities to observe since I was four years old. I don’t know that I could come up with data other than a slew of examples.
The point is that there are Afghan feminist women – I’ve linked to stories about them and a couple of them you can follow from this post – who would respond to your apology about the invasion by saying “thank you for doing so.” Many of them want the occupation. I know it’s something that’s hard for you and others who oppose the war for all the right reasons to accept, and it doesn’t necessarily make the occupation right or even prudent, but there are progressives in Afghanistan, and for that matter Iraq, who are happy we invaded. They may be critical of certain aspects of it, they are well-aware of those who pushed the invasion really don’t give a fuck about them. But they are happy to be free of the Taliban and Hussein. Iraqi communists. Afghan feminists. Anti-imperialists.
So my question again, what do you say to them? What do you say when they laugh at your apology and tell you, “if you leave, I will be killed and so will my daughter, and everyone I have worked with.”
Again, this doesn’t mean the war is right or prudent. Medea Benjamin and her fellow Code Pinkers got an earful when they were in Afghanistan, and they still don’t know how to process it.
As for the data about the doctrinaire aspects of the peace movement which won’t let them hear these women, well, I have stories. If you have a week or two, I can sit with you and tell them, one by one. There were many of us in the 1980s who really tried to encourage critical thinking within the movement. Most of us gave up, and the peace movement is but a shadow of what it was.
August 9, 2010 at 7:13 am
Joel Mielke
I asked you to muster some thoughts, but I guess that you’re a busy man.
“I’ve got decades of direct involvement with the anti-war movement, and I was raised in it…”
That doesn’t confer credibility upon you, and it certainly doesn’t strengthen your arguments.
“I’ve been to literally hundreds of meetings and forums…”
I’m happy that you spent your youth so productively. Must I keep pointing out your lack of logic?
“The point is that there are Afghan feminist women…Many of them want the occupation.”
That not much off an argument for the occupation.
“So my question again, what do you say to them?”
I already answered the question.
“Most of us gave up, and the peace movement is but a shadow of what it was.”
So, the saintly Eric is disappointed by the anti-war movement. I can’t say that I’m sorry we let you down, because I can’t speak for the millions of people who oppose this occupation, as you do.
August 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, we were discussing the disconnect between the anti-war movement and many of the people they claim they want to protect. I”ll type up some very concrete examples later tonight.