Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Afghanistan for Dummies

By Ray McGovern
September 2, 2009

I’m going to ask for my money back. I’ve seen this Afghanistan movie before. The first time, Vietnam was in the title.

Read on.


acomfort said...

Why the Afghanistan War?
The more I see of the reasons/excuses to be in Afghanistan the more It looks like the overriding reason is to support the US military industrial complex.

It needs a war or the immediate threat of war to keep it's funding increasing. It is a funder of our politicians, it has its own secret service, it provides generals and such to the media for its PR campaign and it puts it spends money in every state.

The other reasons to be there range from feeble to nonsense. . . . Are we really promoting civil rights for women? I doubt it. . . . Are we there to promote a democratic government? Never, they are too hard to control. . . . Are we there for oil/gas/pipelines? For security reasons those are not feasible in any foreseeable future. . . . Are we there to catch Osama? From a statement by Benazir Bhutto, she claimed Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Wikipedia
or Youtube 6:10 min in,

For me the most compelling reason for the war in Afghanistan is to support the Military industrial complex and I expect that this is a big reason we have one war after another under every administration.


Dean Taylor said...

William Kristol: “it would be better to base a MAJOR CHANGE in our national security strategy on [logical] arguments” [stress added].

How about some consistency Bill--i.e., instead of the usual DC bogus tapdance?

It would be better to base our national security strategy ITSELF on [logical] arguments--full stop.

And regarding the "movie" we are currently re-viewing, Bill Moyers is still attempting to shore-up Empire's rationale--quote-unquote--for two decades in Viet Nam, to wit:

"I was there when Kennedy chose to send advisers to Vietnam--and was there when LBJ escalated--they both acted from NOBLE INTENTIONS-- actually they did--they wanted to stop Communism in Asia and spread democracy--but the advisers soon became bombers and the bombers became grounds troops and pretty soon, it became a regional crusade--and 12 years later, billions of dollars, and millions of lives later, including 60,000 American troops--we lost--BECAUSE THE US IS NOT GOOD AT THAT SORT OF THING" [stress added; Maher interview].

We may not have been good at that sort of thing back then, but, Bill, practice makes perfect. Ask Forwardlooking.

Empire has no intentions of "spreading" that which it has disallowed to its own rank and file. Quite the contrary: one of Empire's fears is that a true democracy might come to the fore in full view, not only of its own electorate but the world at large, thus demonstrating what this elusive thing actually looks like--in addition to pointing up the very real possibility of its enactment.

Empire's stomach-turning hypocrisy, its failure to provide even a modicum of decent living for ALL of its citizens is more widely apparent to the "outside world" than to its own collective.

Dean Taylor said...

WE, the Sheeple have been seduced by what amounts to a huge Ponzi scheme, i.e., a corrupt, racist, two-hundred-thirty-three year-old scam that "works" provided new players are drawn into the game, and as long as those players do not look too hard at the murderous inequity of it all.

The argument is set forth that the reason there is not a massive show of collective will descending upon the Mall in DC demanding civility, rule-of-law, disclosure, economic equity, etc., is because, in fact, "we" have been found out, i.e., ALL of us. We profess to be shocked--SHOCKED--at the unfolding of events in this, only the most current manifestation of our malaise.

"THAT one is BAD!" "Yeah? But, THIS one is REALLY bad!" "And what about what so-and-so did? I'm shocked! SHOCKED!"

Is that so? And, while we're pointing the finger, let's make sure we take a good look at ourselves as a collective--our utter willingess TO BELIEVE in the myth of American exceptionalism, to look the other way, e.g., when three to four million "gooks" are being napalmed and bombed, in the Name of the Good Lordy Lordy. This goes well beyond merely being gullible--which we most certainly are.

This is what is termed "culpable ignorance." That is, we didn't know because we didn't want to know, i.e., why rock the Ponzi boat when we may yet be beneficiaries of the State/corporate sector as Mommy-and-Daddy? We didn't know, but we had no business not knowing.

All of this prescinds from America's real heroes, who have names like John Brown, Thoreau, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Joe Hill, Dr. King and the Freedom Riders, the students at Cal-Berkeley in the sixties, the Berrigan brothers, Daniel Ellsberg.

They argued, in effect, for not letting ourselves be seduced by the Ponzi-promise, i.e., "YOU stand to be the next winner!" They argued instead that to let ourselves be seduced by a corrupt State-as-confidence-artist is to, in effect, forfeit everything of real value, and possibly even your soul.

The Ponzi con says--in hushed, conspiratorial tones: "I'll tell ya what I'm gonna do. You look like a right guy--I'm gonna set you up with the Big Prize you've been desperate for. All you have to do is not look to hard at where I got the loot and land from. Agreed? You're a winner!"

And, as every one knows, all America loves a winner! So now you're "loved" to boot! What a deal! Who did you say that I needed to screw? Blacks? Native Americans? The American worker?

Meanwhile,, the screams and cries of blacks crucified throughout the Southland, the Native Americans murderously cheated out of their lands, American labor cheated out of a living wage--this is the provenance of Ponzi's largesse. Don't look too hard now. Don't ask too many questions now.

Those that really did not mind jumping into bed with the Ponzi whore, i.e., those that did not "see a pay day," have been "found out."

We got what we deserved. Hard to swallow? I repeat: We got what we deserved as a collective. I hesitate to use the term "nation," as that would seem to imply a certain cohesion, whereas with Empire/Ponzi, it's every man for himself.

Dean Taylor said...

One issue we are facing now--i.e., now that we seem poised on the edge of an abyss, and with fewer diversions--is whether we can gather ourselves as a community, writ large, acknowledge our collective lapses--both prevenient and current--and, in a show of "community" resolve, become the participants in that democracy we imagine might be.

Yet, as finance capital--i.e., Wall Street, the Fortune 500 CEOs, the Federal Reserve, etc., are calling the shots, and as there stands to be a King's ransom to be gained at any hour on Wall Street, "they" are not going to let us rock the boat without direct action--versus, e.g., direct commentary.

Participation, then, may begin with commentary on the web, but with fortunes to be gotten with the next roll of the dice on Wall Street, a larger gesture would seem to be the better "cure."

But, and owing to a period of prolonged inactivity, indifference, deception, etc., we may not be up to that larger gesture. At any rate, hopefully we won't be satisfied with being placated, and then return to square one. QED.

Joan said...

"Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul" Bob Dylan