The simultaneous conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond are all connected to the Pentagon strategy of "the Long War" projected to last fifty years in "the arc of crisis" that just happens to stretch across Muslim lands where there are oil reserves and plans for Western-dominated pipelines. The term "Long War" was introduced by Gen. John Abizaid in the 1990s and is the perspective of counterinsurgency experts around the Pentagon and think tanks led by the Center for New American Security.
The Long War will require a long peace movement, and a different one.
Many veterans of the movement against the Iraq War, impacted by the multiple wars, the financial and budget crises, and confused about the Obama era, are pondering the question of what to think and do. The following are brief notes outlining a possible strategy:
Counterinsurgency goes back to Malaysia and Algeria. It has never "worked", except in Malaysia where conditions were unique.
Counterinsurgency is aimed at the home front, to keep American casualties low and, as Kagan writes, "off camera, so to speak."
In Iraq, it's hardly "victory" when the client government is bragging about the American withdrawal and the future is totally uncertain. The "surge" delivered as CNAS and Gen. Petraeus wished, by keeping the war out of the election [their words, not mine]. Now counterinsurgency can't help them. They are pledged to withdrawal without having won the war, without having secured Western oil contracts, and without having reliable Iraqi client allies.
In Afghanistan, counterinsurgency is at cross-purposes with the drone attacks which kill the civilians who are supposed to be protected [which is why David Kilcullen writes against the continued use of Predators]. 21,000 more American troops mean more visible American casualties. The US is at fundamental odds with Karzhai, who represents the growing mainstream Afgan distrust of the US. American troops can never "protect" Afghanistan civilians from American troops! The contradictions between the US versus Europe, NATO versus the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, will increase and cannot be bridged.
In Pakistan, the US has succeeded in forcing Pakistan troops into fighting the domestic Taliban, partly because of the Taliban's relative unpopularity. But in the process, 2-3 million refugees have been generated in the past few weeks alone, the greatest refugee crisis since Pakistan's bloody origins. There will be more upheaval soon in South Waziristan. How on earth is this "protecting the civilian population"? Again it is the contradiction at the heart of counterinsurgency.
I would keep a focus on the need for an exit strategy, because the Pentagon and CNAS don't believe in an exit strategy short of "victory", which is most likely unachievable. Even the Center for American Progress [CAP] proposes a 10-12 year occupation, speaking only of Afghanistan. Add up and project the casualties and budget costs, and you have a trillion dollar war with several thousand American casualties. You will antagonize more Muslims and drive them into anti-US nationalism and extremism. You will be running a gulag of barbaric detention camps in these countries, multiplying the Guantanamo and Bagram crises. You will add to the collapsing dream of funding for health care, education and stimulus spending here at home. Obama will be burdened with wars and occupations during his entire presidency. We will not be safer.
My advice:
The CNAS is the new "best and brightest" group, and we should remember what happened to them in Vietnam.
The Long War will fail because the US is overextended militarily and economically, and the world is more multi-polar than uni-polar. The world does not share the US Long War agenda. This overextension will cause worsening problems at home, become a threat to the open society, and lead to serious political challenges down the road. The choice is always empire versus democracy.
Our own government continues to chose war over the health of the citizens.
War only begets more war. War has never ended war and there will always be wars if we continue to fight wars. War is not a solution, it is not the answer, and it does not make us more safe.
if you are scared today you will be scared tomorrow. There is always some new "threat" which can be construed to be an enemy which must be destroyed. It's a bunch of BS.
Everyone supporting the renewable energy effort and health care reform will go much farther fixing the world's problems than all the wars put together.
A point of advice I would like to make is:
End your individual dependency to oil. If we bankrupt the oil companies, we steal the funding for their wars.
-Build a Garden. Buy local food/goods. "If all 431 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic: the equivalent of 158,177,000 cars would be taken off the road (over half of the national total) and 1.98 trillion car miles not driven." http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_31
-Don't buy new: Car, appliances, electronics. They are made and transported using oil. Buy used or make due without whenever possible.
-Don't create new plastic. Stop consuming bottled water, plastic bags, plastic toys, etc. Again, all of these are made and transported using oil.
-Organize your community. It will take all of us. We need each others support. How can we expect peace in the world if we haven't found it in our own neighborhoods.
If we remove our demand of oil from the world, we reduce to need to fight wars over it.
Jesse James
WHY can't we hold Cheney's latest marienetee to his own, lone word: enough?
Um, the right to life to those who have endured on behalf of our wanton?
Their families' ??
Anit-(")US(") overeach may NOT be terrorism, but secondary survival. Mankind all are "anti" Scalia's poker games. They are the reason, if not target, rather the source of an america. Defend the notion of one.
Is not one an infection which tyranny heals?
Balochistan is the ultimate prize
By Pepe Escobar
It's a classic case of calm before the storm. The AfPak chapter of Obama's brand new OCO ("Overseas Contingency Operations"), formerly GWOT ("global war on terror") does not imply only a surge in the Pashtun Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). A surge in Balochistan as well may be virtually inevitable.
Balochistan is totally under the radar of Western corporate media. But not the Pentagon's. An immense desert comprising almost 48% of Pakistan's area, rich in uranium and copper, potentially very rich in oil, and producing more than one-third of Pakistan's natural gas, it accounts for less than 4% of Pakistan's 173 million citizens. Balochs are the majority, followed by Pashtuns. Strategically, Balochistan is mouth-watering: east of Iran, south of Afghanistan, and boasting three Arabian sea ports, including Gwadar, practically at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz.
Gwadar - a port built by China - is the absolute key. It is the essential node in the crucial, ongoing, and still virtual Pipelineistan war between IPI and TAPI. IPI is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the "peace pipeline", which is planned to cross from Iranian to Pakistani Balochistan - an anathema to Washington. TAPI is the perennially troubled, US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline
Washington's dream scenario is Gwadar as the new Dubai
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE09Df03.html
He seems to want to make the most of being a ''War President''
while using his charm & charisma to assure the anti-war voters
that he is for peace. . .
more double speak, spin and deception
from the Oval Office
whether Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat
different day, same old s***
VOTE THIRD PARTY, NOW & FOREVER