Recent debates around a possible and likely military build-up in Afghanistan have created some divisions and tensions within the movement to stop the war in Iraq. Though it is urgent and necessary to debate the pros and cons of exposing the Afghan people to more U.S. militarism, we should, with increasing urgency, worry about exposing ourselves to the effects of continued and increased militarism: budgets broken by war, spikes in global hatred of the U.S. and the possibility of raising children in a future dominated by the anti-democratic dual dictates of perpetual war and "national security."
A recent report on how to best combat "terrorism", "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida," by the hardly-peace-loving Rand Corporation concluded that, "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument." This report and the common sense conclusion that the current approach -- sending hundreds of thousands of troops, deploying massive numbers of ships and conducting thousands of air strikes -- make obvious that big money military-industrial interests have failed to deal with what some national security specialists call "asymmetric threats" (groups organized to conduct decentralized, networked and unconventional military operations). And this failure raises a critical question: why another clunky build-up in Afghanistan to fight another nimble threat?
In addition to the axiomatic great game answer that says having a military presence in a region makes it better for securing oil and other "national interests", another answer seems equally legitimate: that continued big-money militarism in Afghanistan continues to guarantee the that global corporations will rule the economic, political and personal lives of people across the world-including the people in the United States.
By reaching what appears to be another Washington Consensus around a buildup in Afghanistan, candidates Obama and McCain appear to be sending signals not to the voters, but to the Pentagon and Haliburton, Boeing, Blackwater and other military-industrial companies whose stock values depend on the extension and expansion of what Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calls a "3 Trillion Dollar War." Viewed from this perspective, changing military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan is a form of coded communication between those who would govern us politically and the de facto interests that govern us from behind the Oval Office -- global corporations and military industrial interests that "protect" their investments in the name of "the national interest."
Without stopping those who profit handsomely by killing both people and peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we will not have the economic resources required to build a more just society; we will not have a political system in which the sovereignty of real citizens overrules the sovereignty of the inhuman and non-human corporate citizens that now define the meaning of "democracy"; We will not rid ourselves and the world of the interests behind the US's 737 military bases located in 130 countries and inhabiting all the continents where Gallup and other polls tell us we are hated at unprecedented levels. We will not achieve the peace and stability needed to save the planet itself. Any talk of "change" or "hope" must place priority on fighting and defeating the militarism that sucks our economy, polity and culture dry.
For these and many other reasons, we must strike out in powerful opposition to the next excuse for continued militarism, Afghanistan. Whether the face of the next president is black or white matters less than ending the sovereignty of the militarism that paints the world in the black and white, us-versus-them logic that's starving people and democracy.
For more on the discussion about Afghanistan and militarism, check out tommorrow's Meet the Bloggers show at 1 pm EST!
Follow Roberto Lovato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robvato
Yes, according to Nicholas Hodges' Essential Militaria we run a "defense" budget of $334b (cc2003) while Russia is in second place with $60b and China third with $55b. However, our land army is only 475 000 troops largely committed to about a thousand bases around the world (which explains why we deploy 130 000 reservists to Iraq, putting them in an awkward situation and "breaking" the army). China has 1.7 m -- counting conscripts; so, we are a bit closer than it might seem by strict numbers. The US land army numbers also rank behind India, both Koreas and Pakistan. Russia and China both have more combat jets. The US does have the most personnel deployed to the navy.
Perhaps, the US forces are merely the world's most expensive military. Particularly, privatization has proven expensive. Blackwater pays its troops more than we pay our generals.
Such wars serve a certain stupid kind of militarism that wears on our respect for individual human beings.
The Soviets spent money and wasted lives in Afghanistan and finally left. IT COST THEM.
Roberto Lovato is right. My Congressman said to me, two years ago, " The money spent on the Iraq war could have been better spent at home".
I have asked my Congressman and two Senators to " BRING OUR TROOPS HOME ".
How can you be so stupid to think that we can win in Iraq. Also, how can we solve the HUGE financial mess that was created in the US by well-paid corporate executives in the banking industry? The losses in market value of US corporations are in the Trillions.
It was President Eisenhower who warned about the Military/Industrial complex. Do you know what President Eisenhower was talking about?
You need to google these countries: Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel, Iraq and READ. You might learn something.
Another quote... " They have been fighting in this part of the world for centuries". The quote is from Congressman Paul Kanjorski, D., PA.
And.. " We will be in Iraq for 100 years, if necessary ". How about being the world's policeman forever? Wouldn't that be fun?
So you are saying that we should let these fanatics train to attack the rest of the world. Are you one of those that would have us have no military? When Japan bombed pearl harbor we should have just let it pass maybe they will not hurt us. There are countries in the world that would conquer any country that could not defend its self.
Those that are anti military anti any war need to wake up and smell what they are shoveling or they may be living a life they like even less.
-------------------------
make that, 'difficult wars...'
The quickest common sense way to stop terrorism or at least most of it would be for the West to stop funding it.
Perhaps we forget that to create a war culture with the thriving war enterprises, (the main one of which is financing and servicing Government deficits, which greases the wheels of all the other violence industries), we have to have an enemy. Not having a ready enemy, we have to create one. Think missing pentagon money in Iraq, Pakistan, think the money trail that leads to 911.
This article is right, Barack Obama, John McCain, both are reading the same script now as GW Bush. Let's find who's paying that script writer and get to the real cause of all this meaningless war.
Afghanistan is in Europe's backyard let them take the lead in this or we stand down. Let's take off our Policeman's badge and take care of our own problems instead of creating problems in other countries. Maybe we'll find that that the Taliban, the Iraquis and the Iranians wil actually act civilly towards us if we are not occupying their countries or scheming to get their natural resources.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JH02Aa01.html
Enjoy! I did.
The burden of this war mongering should be carried by rich and poor alike.
Until then, until there is a draft, this country is a fraud - exploiting the poor to fight its ugly wars and/o paying mercenaries. What is blackwater doing in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Why are we hiring mercenaries if these wars are justified? Why is the administration not calling on its citizens to enlist and join the fight instead of paying armed mercenaries to fight our battles for us out of sight?
Hence, Obama is playing to the right crowd -
And that's why true anti-war progressives like Dennis Kucinich were practically laughed off the stage. What was his slogan - Power through Peace? A real loser and a vegan to boot. Very un-American. We are meat eating, beer swigging men even when we are women.
The anti-war movement in this country is very small. The majority of Americans are pro-war as long as they are winning. Unfortunately, the Iraq war only became unpopular when America was perceived as losing. That's why democrats did not want to get stuck with the label cut and run.
And that's why true anti-war progressives like Dennis Kucinich didn't stand a chance with the electorate. He was practically laughed off the stage for his slogan Power through Peace (was that it?).
One can only hope that if and when Obama is elected he will ratchet back the rhetoric and pursue diplomacy first and foremost.
Sorry, Roberto, but they attacked us. Killed 3000 innocent people.........Don't you understand, they want the entire world to be muslim. I didn't say all muslims, but the extremeists. They want the world to go back to 14th century thinking. Sorry, Roberto, even though many on this blog want us to 'put our head in the sand like an ostrich', the fact is there are indeed bad people out there who want to harm us.
How are the Afghanis going to forget the memory of all those dead afghani men, women and children killed by our attempts to catch bin laden and squelch al Qaeda? Or don't they count?
An eye for an eye leads to endless warfare as each side is justified in their killing, killing, killing. So brutally futile.
But it sure works for Haliburton and BlackWater.