Stopping Military Build-up In Afghanistan Key to Real "Change" and "Hope"

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!

Comments

[billw8017]

Let me propose a radical notion: The United States is not the world's paramount military power.

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.

[vote4kucinich]

Perhaps we were supposed to have learned something from WWII, Vietnam, etc. Perhaps other countries were also meant to learn the same thing, that war is not in the interest of those who must fight them, those who must fund them, those who must suffer from them, and those who lose them. In fact, as this post tells us, it is only the money grubbers who win when there is a war. We are so propagandized about the necessity for wars, for our right to interfere in other countries because of 'American interests' that we no longer even question what those interests are. We are close to realizing 'success' in Iraq which will consist of maintaining a large armed force in someone else's country in order to secure the privatization of Iraq's oil. Who wins? The military-industrial complex and private oil corporations. What do regular Americans get? Incredible debt, the grief of continued deaths, the guilt of having destroyed a country, the anger of the rest of the world. And it is useless to argue that this war has reduced the probability of terrorism. It is sickening to realize how off the mark we are.

[SACVET]

More troops to Afghanistan? Looks like an Obama ploy to prove something doesn't it? Remember how the Brits made out there back in Victoria's day? More recently do Americans remember how the Soviets made out there in the late Seventies and early Eighties? Oh, shucks guess I forgot about those American males having historical amnesia brought on by testosterone poisoning. Didn't the folly of the 'Nam quagmire and presently the one in Iraq teach these knee jerk rush to war types anything? Am I missing something here? Gee whiz history repeating itself - my, my, imagine that.

[billw8017]

The Brits did reasonably well when Roberts constrained himself to a raiding expedition. An earlier attempt at occupation ended in a startling massacre of the British forces, one of the signal triumphs of a local resistance against the forces of empire. Perhaps there is a lesson in this for us, that the Afghans are neither so well organized nor worth the effort to sustain a real occupation. The Taliban leaders attempted to negotiate their surrender early on but the NATO/American forces "don't negotiate with terrorists." Now, we are in perpetual war while alQuaida, not altogether the friend either of the native Afghsni nor -- despite originating as a CIA surrogate -- of us, camps out in Pakistan laughing at us both.

Such wars serve a certain stupid kind of militarism that wears on our respect for individual human beings.

[pauldrake33]

He reports that the Rand Corporation says "...that in most cases, military intervention is not the best way to stop terrorism". Just what would he suggest, sitting around a campfire, holding hands, and singing kumbaya? Pacafist dork.

[JXJASON]

pauldrake, You are wrong. Can your brain digest what the cost of One Trillion Dollars has bought for us in Iraq? The money spent in Iraq and the 4,000+ lives lost have produced no value for me or for our country.

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?

[alvedge]

The grand long term vision argument against a military surge in Afghanistamn is splendid. Let me make a more short term, pragmatic agrument toward the same end. For my bona fides, I was the Peace Corps Acting Representative in Afghanistan 1974-77 and I have followed that fascinating country ever since. Had we swarmed out troops into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 - rather than holding them back to attack Iraq -- we might well have got bin Laden and had a quick in and out expedition there. Too late now. Sending more troops in now, or even keeping the present level , Is more likely to over time expand the small scale of what we call the 'Taliban' into a nationalist insurgency against foreign infidel occupiers and local quislings - a surge into another quagmire. Look at history and the propensity of Afghans, however fractured by tribal loyalties, to respond to alien affronts with violence. There is no easy, politically workable answer now. Maybe the best we can do is strike deals with local power wielders to help us and Pakistan get bin Laden, for what that is worth for American emotional satisfaction, since that will do little to end - anmd may exacerbate - terrorism. A realistic exit will take some hard situational thinking.

[AzRealProgressive]

As a PCAR you should know that the Taliban had several years after the Soviets left to consolidate power. Their fighters are mostly from somewhere else besides Afghanistan. The "students' no longer seem to be the ones calling the shots. The Taliban was a nationalist movement until 2001. And it was not well accepted by the Afghan people. And the Afghan people do not accept it now for the most part.

[Larry Buchite]

I have read this post and some of the comments and I'm amazed at what I have read. To suggest that we should not have went into Afghanistan were training was being done to terrorize most of the world. They do this to make every one convert to their warped view of religion.

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.

[nippersdad]

We are not against wars, just stupid wars. It would appear that you need to learn more about Afghanistan in order to make that distinction.

[meanguy]

"We are not against wars, just stupid wars'
-------------------------

make that, 'difficult wars...'

[billw8017]

I do not believe there are just some countries that would conquer any country that could not defend itself. Any country would want to conquer any country that could not defend itself. Pacifism tends to appear among a defeated or subordinated people. There is a second thing, however. Once militarism becomes part of a country's culture, it is a vested interest that seeks out wars. Just so, in just the past seven years, we have invaded Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. While we have nothing to show for it as a nation, people with commercial interests in war have secured huge profits.

[57basque]

Its been clear to me for some time that we must switch at last 50% of our guns and bombs budget over to the electric car we can plug into our solar powered roofs. Which would put generations to work on something peaceful. Along with getting our troops out of Muslim Land. How may birds that would kill with one stone is not yet known, but I sure would like to find out.

[hosshoss777]

Americans aren't against the War In Iraq only because we are losing, it's because it's obvious we're deliberately losing if not just deliberately not winning. Give Americans a little credit, or maybe you can't see we're deliberately losing.
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.

[rick390]

Why are we in essence fighting the war on terror alone? If this is indeed a war that endangers the rest of the world why aren't they helping. Answer: they know that we will carry their water for them. We will bleed ourselves dry before we admit that we can't do it alone. The other nations will let us wreck our economy and destroy ourselves. China and Russia dont have to do anything but stay out of our way.
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.

[AzRealProgressive]

Ask the fanatics who started it. How you came up with this logic is amazing.

[nippersdad]

That might have been possible had we ever seriously elected to engage them. Instead we invaded the country that harbored them and gave them a prime opportunity to export their fanaticism elsewhere. Our strategy has been like trying to eliminate kudzu with a truckload of miracle gro.

[harbinger53]

Neither Iran or Afghanistan are threats. Iran has passed 9 surprise inspections by the iAEA, and our own intelligence community states it is not working on a nuke weapons program. Iran further has signed the non-proliferation treaty (where Israel refuses to). Afghanistan is simply a wasteland that the Soviet Union spent 10 years trying to conquer and tame. It is of no value to anyone except the native inhabitants.

[AzRealProgressive]

Think what you just said through. If it is of no value why did the soviets expend 100K men to take it and occupy it? There is a value.

[Mogamboguru]

Read THIS one - and finally understand the utter nonsense, which lies in denouncing Afghanistan and Iran as the greatest perils the USA have on Earth:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JH02Aa01.html

Enjoy! I did.

[mosh]

If we are going to be a 'militaristic' country fighting numerous wars and saber rattling we should bring back the draft and share the military burden equally among the citizenry regardless of class.

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?

[Mogamboguru]

Very, very, very good comment.

[Larry Buchite]

In WWII many well to do families sent their sons to fight. The Kennedy's sons went to war as did many others. Now the rich and famous would never put their children at risk. A draft is the best way to make sure we have the military to defend our country and share the sacrifice among all Americans. I hate to date myself but I believe that every young man has a duty to serve his country. I know now that women share this task but I'm just old enough to believe that women should not be in the fight.

[AzRealProgressive]

The poor have always died in any war, much more than the rich. The volunteer army is unequal. Posters here should have the chance to serve their country in uniform via the draft. Good suggestion.

[meanguy]

and NO college deferments

[mosh]

As a people, Americans are not anti-war, they are anti-losing. I read an article in the Nation that said the anti-war movement in this country is very, very small, that most Americans are actually quite comfortable with the idea of war as a national policy so long as we win.

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.

[nomorebombs]

and the overall most shallow,selfish lot of stupid white men on this planet

[mosh]

I read an article a while back, I think it was in the Nation, contending that Americans didn't approve of the war in Iraq, not because the war was wrongheaded, but because we were losing!

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.

[mollyjackson]

The singular national security issue of our time, that we are winning in spectacular fashion in Iraq is killing Obama and the Democrats, so the best way to address those issues (since Obama will not open up the Outer Continental Shelf in ANWR to drilling, since you will not respond to the American people Obama accuses McCain of running a racist campaign because he knows that those in the media will just eat that up because they are obsessed with race. So they'll pick it up and they'll run with the fact that McCain's is being mean and McCain's is changing his tactics. "Why is McCain doing this? What's happened to McCain?" When in fact what's happening to Obama is nothing! No bounce out of Germany. His world tour, summer intern camp, apparently was a big bomb. There is more Gallup poll information, after that little bounce he got, which was not much of one, the race is tightening up

[wayoutleft]

the single national security issue of our time is global resource management. i think you're aware of that. the problem is that we are occupying iraq at great expense. forget winning. a few guys with car batteries and gunpowder are tying down the whole us military. YOU HAVE WON WHEN THE ENEMY SURRENDERS WEAPONS AND SOVEREIGNTY IN A DOCUMENT RECOGNIZABLE BY GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD. THAT'S A WIN. GOT IT? YOU FREAKIN' PRODUCE- YOU DON'T LEAVE AT HALFTIME. YOU HAVEN'T WON ANYTHING. i can't figure out if you need more john wayne movies- or fewer.

[SZM]

I'm so tired of hearing about this stupid oil drilling. THE FACT IS THAT THE OIL COMPANIES ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DRILL FOR OIL IN OVER 30 MILLION ACRES OF OFF-SHORE SITES THEY HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. Turn off your idiotic FOX "news" do some reading for crying out loud. Every single one of your statements above are completely false.

[AzRealProgressive]

AP story tonight says Obama now favors limited drilling. And that ain't FAUX news.Came from his own lips.

[steamboat]

Roberto, you live in a dream world...............Matter of fact, its Obama who intends to put 2 more brigades in Afghanistan. And do search & destroy missions into Pakistan..And I agree with him on that.

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.

[wayoutleft]

sorry, steamboat. you're in the dreamworld. there have always been people who want to harm us and there always will be. just like there always have been- and always will be- people that we want to harm. muslims and christians both have world domination fantasies. this also has been true for 1500 years or so. things are NORMAL steamboat- not critical. they are normal. this is a far safer time for us than during the cold war, which stayed cold despite hysterics and warmongers. don't obsess about 9/11. you've already slaughtered thousands of innocent people because of it. j ust keep an eye out for osama types and forget about it... better to worry about the bad people here who want to harm us.

[RealityCheck101]

Name me a time in history when over 3000 civilians were intentionally killed on a single day besides 9-11? Yeah thats real normal. You got to be kidding me wayoutleft. During the Cold War we had a policy of mutual destruction that doesn't exist with these nuts. And we haven't SLAUGHTERED thousands of innocent people! Civilian casualties are inevitable in war. Its not like we are doing it on purpose!

[greginwva]

If you can wipe the memory out of my mind of those people who decided to jump to their death on 9-11, apparantly preferring that to being burnt or crushed,than Im with you.If they strike us on our soil they must be taught that there is no place to hide.Just because the Bush administration failed to do that doesnt mean Obama should.

[mosh]

So it's an 'eye for an eye' philosophy?

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.

[NicholeWebb]

I was under the impression that the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? I agree with Roberto but hold no illusions. Anyone we are presented with to vote for as a legitimate candidate is just another side of the same coin...

[MagisterLudi]

"Anyone we are presented with to vote for as a legitimate candidate is just another side of the same coin..."
Bingo

[RealityCheck101]

The Saudi royal government wasn't harboring or training those terrorist. They have been at odds with Bin Laden just like us.

[mosh]

No, haven't you heard - they were Iranian. That's why we have to bomb the heck out of 'em.

[nippersdad]

The Taliban in Afghanistan were not the ones who attacked us; it was Al Qaeda. The Taliban actually offered to let us come in and get Bin Laden prior to the invasion. We are fighting the Taliban not because they caused 0/11, but because we invaded a country that they nominally ruled.

Read your history, Afghanistan has always repelled invaders successfully. It might perhaps be an idea to go after those who attacked us rather than further destabilizing the countries in which they (might) have a presence. We are creating precisely the type of environment in which extremist elements thrive. This is a recipe for permanent war.

[AzRealProgressive]

Wrong. You must have missed 1996 through 2001. Cinton aimed a cruise missle at binLaden. And yes the Taliban and AlQaeda are one in the same. They just don't wear labels. By the way the Taliban were kicked out and the war one in 2001, 7 years ago.