Of course no one can predict with any assurance the
outcome of Mr. O's decision to up the ante and step
up the violence in Afghanistan. What we know for
sure is that more people (of all kinds) will be dying.
As Jon Meacham wrote in the Sept. 14 Newsweek:
"Local Afghans, of course, quickly resent our widening
footprint, as it leads to frequent Taliban attacks and
the planting of mines and IEDs everywhere, not to
mention the insurgents' use of indiscriminate suicide
bombings. The U. S. gets blamed for these, not the
Taliban. The logic: if the U. S. weren't there, the
Taliban wouldn't be attacking. So if the Afghans can't
step up, and so far they haven't and won't, then what's
the point?"
So it's a poker game: "we'll raise 30,000." "We'll see
that raise and re raise you whatever it takes -- after
all, there are only 1.3 billion Muslims we can draw on."
And "the more of our Muslim people you kill, the more
are motivated to replace them. The math is against you,
as is the logic."
They have a point: how can you fight al Qaeda in Afghan.
if al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan? (In more than token
numbers). The Pres., in his speech, spoke as if the Taliban
and al Qaeda are all the same "enemy." He does this
because he is going back to 9/11 as the whole reason for
our action there. But the Taliban was not involved in
9/11, and probably didn't know anything about it before
the fact. So his rationale is faulty, and he is fundamentally
mistaken in lumping the groups together. Qaeda can
strike us from anywhere. They don't need Afghan. They
are Arab led and mostly Arab manned. The Taliban are
Pashtuns. There are 41 million Pashtuns, most of whom
live in Pakistan. That's part of the reason why Pakistan
is the key to any success in Afghan. But 15 million Pashtuns
live in Afghan. and make up the ethnic majority there. No
outsider has ever ruled them, and Pakistan doesn't even
try to rule theirs. They are ruled by warlords, as is the
rest of Afghan.
The Pashtuns are great fighters, and we aren't going to
whip them in 18 mo.s (or 18 yrs.), but we may drive
enough of them into Pakistan next door to destabilize
that already shaky government. Then the fat is really
in the fire! People in Pakistan already dislike us. That's
an understatement: in spite of $bns. in aid to them, we
are more hated there than anywhere else in the Muslim
world. That's partly because we back India in its
brutal occupation of 80% Muslim Kashmir, and refusal
to obey the U. N.'s long-standing order to hold a plebiscite
there.
In addition to our refusal to back democracy for Kashmir,
we are terrorizing Pakistan's population via CIA drones.
To assassinate one Qaeda kingpin hiding in Pakistan took
16 separate strikes over 14 mo.s. The first 15 strikes
missed him, but killed bystanders. By the time he was
liquidated, a reported 538 other folks had been killed in
"collateral damage." As far as Pakistanis are concerned,
this is simply terrorism on our part. They see no moral
difference between what we do, and the suicide bombings
by Muslim radicals. (If you want more information about
CIA activities in Pakistan, see a recent article about that
by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.)
David Bromwich writes about these drone attacks (and
holes in the logic of Obama's speech) in an article ("The
Afghanistan Parenthesis") in The Huffington Post (12/2/09).
In the article he observes: ". . . from the president's West
Point speech, one would not guess that he has reflected
what our mere presence in West Asia does to increase the
enchantment of violent resistance and to heat the anger
that turns into terrorists people who have lost parents,
children, cousins, clansmen, and friends to the Americans.
The total number of Muslims killed by Americans in re-
venge for the attacks of September 11th now numbers in
the hundreds of thousands. Of those, few were members
of Al Qaeda, and few harbored any intention, for good or
ill, toward the United States before we crossed the ocean
as an occupying power."
So no, we probably won't be getting a lot of help and
genuine cooperation from Pakistan. And as Fareed
Zakaria wrote recently in Newsweek: "If the problem
with Pakistan cannot be solved, the war in Afghanistan
cannot be won." To recap the president's speech: On the
one hand, our very survival depends on defeating the
Taliban and wiping out al Qaeda. On the other hand,
we'll give Afghanistan 18 mo.s to cure corruption and
get their army up and running; then we'll start leaving!
It's highly unlikely that any of the good stuff is doable.
There is not now and never has been a strong central
government in Afghanistan capable of doing these things.
The country has always been run by powerful warlords.
Mr. Karzai serves only with their consent and backing.
They have the security contracts from our government
to protect our truck convoys supplying our troops. They
do so by paying the Taliban to lay off our convoys. (See
a recent issue of The Nation for details.) Between the $
the Taliban gets from us for not attacking our trucks, and
the money they (and the warlords) get from poppy sales,
and other rackets, they are able to pay their fighters and
bide their time. They live there, and aren't going anywhere.
Our patience is running out.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
COMPOUNDING FAILURE
This from the Charleston, WV Gazette (10/29/09):
Quagmire: Afghan war futility
"Fourteen U. S. troops were killed in Afghanistan
Monday, followed by eight more Tuesday, bringing
the October toll to 55, the worst monthly loss. This
painful tally is doubly tragic because most Americans
now realize that the costly U. S. sacrifices in the wild
mountain land accomplishes little. . ."
"Today the Afghan struggle is futile, according to a
gung ho U. S. officer who worked hard in a combat
region, then decided it was pointless. Former Marine
Capt. Mathew Ho, who fought in Iraq, went to sou-
thern Afghanistan as a State Dept. operative against
Taliban insurgents. Now he has quit, submitting a
damning letter of resignation, which was leaked in
Tuesday's Washington Post."
Capt. Ho wrote that primitive fundamentalist Afghan
tribes are fighting simply because they consider U. S.
soldiers to be foreign intruders in their country --
just as they previously considered Russian occupiers
in the 1980s.
"Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster
a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and
system of government unknown and unwanted by
its people," his letter said.
Afghanistan is a feudal patchwork of "tribes, valleys,
clans, villages and families," he wrote. Recurring
conflict "has violently and savagely pitted the urban
educated, secular and modern of Afghanistan against
the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional," he said.
The latter segment of backward people drove out
Russians two decades ago, and now they fight to
expel Americans.
"I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency
fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but
rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and
taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in
Kabul," Capt. Ho wrote.
The departing State Dept. agent said Washington
misunderstood the Afghan enemy -- and sent young
Americans to die for bungled reasons. If Washing-
ton really intends to attack places where al-Qaida
breeds, he wrote, it "would require us additionally to
invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan,
Yemen, etc." -- as well as Western Europe, where
Muslim fanatic cells proliferate. (Remember that
9/11 was planned in Hamburg, Germany.)
The ex-Marine captain likened the U. S. role in Af-
ghanistan to that of King Sisyphus, who was con-
demned to push a boulder up a hill, from whence it
endlessly rolled back down and had to be pushed up
again. "We are mortgaging our nation's economy on
a war which, even with increased commitment, will
remain a draw for years to come," he said.
Following is my response to a letter to the editor of
the local paper, who wrote that Obama is stupid for
not just listening to his military, and giving them
anything they want:
WHY IT'S A FOOL'S ERRAND
Soviet generals looking back on that war regret not
taking into account the following demographics and
history. Obama was a law professor for eight years
and is certainly bright enough to understand this.
But campaign rhetoric has painted him into the
same corner LBJ was in on Vietnam, and he can't
figure out how to change direction now.
We are trying to do what the Soviets failed to do:
install a viable central government. It can't be done
by any number of troops because: Afghanistan is
not now and never has been a "nation." It has never
ever had an effective central government. There is
no Afghan language. What it is and always has been is
a territory peopled by diverse, warring and culturally
separate ethnic groups. They are governed by war-
lords, if at all. Each group has their own language
and ethnic loyalties: the Uzbeks to the 25 million
Uzbeks to their north, the Tajiks to Tajikistan, and so
on.
The largest ethnic group, and historically the dominant
one, is the Pashtuns. There are 41 million of them,
and they have never been ruled by anyone outside
that group, going back to Alexander the Great! While
most of them live next door in Pakistan, about 12
million or so live (mostly) in southern Afghanistan.
As you have just heard from Capt. Ho, they just want
to be left alone. They speak their own language, Pashto.
From their membership comes the Taliban, but they
not all support or agree with the Taliban, tho many do
to varying degrees. If we send more troops, many more
of them will join or help the Taliban. It's like a deadly
poker game that we can't win because they hold the
best cards.
There are 14 or 15 million Tajiks in the region. Half of
them live in Afganistan. They are traditional enemies
of the Pashtuns, and particularly hate the Taliban.
They lead the Northern Alliance, a loose association
of neighboring ethnic groups that used to be rivals but
our CIA (with lots of $ for their warlords) got them to
join in fighting the Soviets. They now back the U. S.
and the Karzai government in Kabul, which includes
corrupt warlords in their cabinet. That government
has made no effort to reconcile with the Pashtuns.
Until that comes about (which isn't likely as long as
the U. S. discourages it), it's really a civil war with
little chance of anyone winning, particularly the
brutal, corrupt, and ineffective central government
we are backing. That part is a replay of Vietnam.
We already know how it comes out. For a fuller
insight on that, see Google News on Capt. Mathew
Ho. He lived with those people, and knows them
well.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.netl
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
COSTS OF THE FUTURE
As Noam Chomsky has eloquently shown, this country,
like most, often places profits ahead of people. But profits,
examined closely, turn out to be illusory, in fact nonexistent.
So wrote Peter Drucker, the management guru, in Post
Capitalist Society: "There is no such thing as 'profit.'
There are only costs: costs of the past (which the accoun-
tant records) and costs of an uncertain future. And the
minimum financial return from the operations of the past
that is adequate to the costs of the future is the cost of
capital."
What are some of the future costs that we face? We'll take
a longer look at future environmental costs, but first I'll
mention briefly some of the others: 1) neglected and crum-
bling infrastructure desperately needs at least $1.6 trill.
in repairs, for starters. That estimate is from the Amer.
Society of Civil Engineers.
2) Our federal debt is close to $12 trillion and growing at
one trillion plus per year. Total debt, private and public
of all kinds in the U.S. exceeds $57 trillion! Interest we pay
on all types of federal debt will run $383 billion this year.
It was $451 last year, and $430 billion the year before.
And so on. That's money down the toilet.
3) Our neglected and ailing education system is costly in
undeveloped potential. In a global labor market, many
European and Asian countries are ahead of us in training
young people for high tech careers. But those are and will
be the bulk of well-paying jobs. Young people without high
quality education are permanently handicapped, and tend
to fall through the cracks.
4) Military waste and redundancy in planes, ships and
other hardware continue to cost multi-billions. Also, we
have spent over a trillion dollars on Iraq, and will spend
another $165 billion there this year. We are due to be there
another year. Afghanistan is warming up. We've spent
$65 billion there so far this year, and it's growing.
5)Environmental destruction over the past years is truly
incalculable as is the cost. I'll skip the damage from logging,
over-fishing, chemical, factory-farming and other kinds of
pollution, and just focus on environmental damage from
mining: There we find acid mine drainage formation, wide-
pread erosion and sedimentation, cyanide and other chemi-
cal releases, fugitive dust emissions, habitat modification,
surface and ground water contamination, mountain top
removal in Appalachia, environmental problems created
by abandoned mines in the West, and on and on. Mining
creates 96% of arsenic omissions. Other toxins released
are mercury, cyanide, selenium and lead. On site tailing
dams often fail dumping stored toxins. There are 79 tons
of mine waste for every ounce of gold extracted.
1872 mining law allows companies to extract $ billions
worth of precious metals from public-owned lands, pay no
royalties, and frequently avoid liability for environmental
damage and lost federal revenue. Congress refuses to end
the giveaways, even when we are running $ trillion deficits,
and can't afford truly universal health care, quality educa-
tion or repair of our infrastructure. Instead, congress re-
wards them with substantial tax subsidies. I guess we get
the government we deserve!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
like most, often places profits ahead of people. But profits,
examined closely, turn out to be illusory, in fact nonexistent.
So wrote Peter Drucker, the management guru, in Post
Capitalist Society: "There is no such thing as 'profit.'
There are only costs: costs of the past (which the accoun-
tant records) and costs of an uncertain future. And the
minimum financial return from the operations of the past
that is adequate to the costs of the future is the cost of
capital."
What are some of the future costs that we face? We'll take
a longer look at future environmental costs, but first I'll
mention briefly some of the others: 1) neglected and crum-
bling infrastructure desperately needs at least $1.6 trill.
in repairs, for starters. That estimate is from the Amer.
Society of Civil Engineers.
2) Our federal debt is close to $12 trillion and growing at
one trillion plus per year. Total debt, private and public
of all kinds in the U.S. exceeds $57 trillion! Interest we pay
on all types of federal debt will run $383 billion this year.
It was $451 last year, and $430 billion the year before.
And so on. That's money down the toilet.
3) Our neglected and ailing education system is costly in
undeveloped potential. In a global labor market, many
European and Asian countries are ahead of us in training
young people for high tech careers. But those are and will
be the bulk of well-paying jobs. Young people without high
quality education are permanently handicapped, and tend
to fall through the cracks.
4) Military waste and redundancy in planes, ships and
other hardware continue to cost multi-billions. Also, we
have spent over a trillion dollars on Iraq, and will spend
another $165 billion there this year. We are due to be there
another year. Afghanistan is warming up. We've spent
$65 billion there so far this year, and it's growing.
5)Environmental destruction over the past years is truly
incalculable as is the cost. I'll skip the damage from logging,
over-fishing, chemical, factory-farming and other kinds of
pollution, and just focus on environmental damage from
mining: There we find acid mine drainage formation, wide-
pread erosion and sedimentation, cyanide and other chemi-
cal releases, fugitive dust emissions, habitat modification,
surface and ground water contamination, mountain top
removal in Appalachia, environmental problems created
by abandoned mines in the West, and on and on. Mining
creates 96% of arsenic omissions. Other toxins released
are mercury, cyanide, selenium and lead. On site tailing
dams often fail dumping stored toxins. There are 79 tons
of mine waste for every ounce of gold extracted.
1872 mining law allows companies to extract $ billions
worth of precious metals from public-owned lands, pay no
royalties, and frequently avoid liability for environmental
damage and lost federal revenue. Congress refuses to end
the giveaways, even when we are running $ trillion deficits,
and can't afford truly universal health care, quality educa-
tion or repair of our infrastructure. Instead, congress re-
wards them with substantial tax subsidies. I guess we get
the government we deserve!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, October 10, 2009
PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE" IN AFGHANISTAN (Cont'd)
In the last blog I talked about some of the history and
demographics of Afghanistan (Af.). I will turn now to
current U. S. policy there. In the latest Newsweek
(10/12/09), Jonathan Alter wrote about "Six lessons
of Vietnam." After reviewing the lessons, he went on
to say "Vietnam analogies can be treacherous." If that
is so, why is he using them? Of course, any analogies
can be misused, as he goes on to demonstrate: "Unlike
the Viet Cong, the much-despised Taliban aren't au-
thentic Afghan nationalists." That's true: they are
Pashtuns first and foremost. The same for the Tajiks,
the Uzbeks, and so on. What the Taliban are, that the
others aren't, is fanatical Islamists. They are as dedi-
cated to Islamic fundamentalism as the Viet Cong were
to nationalism! Where's the difference? A difference
that makes no difference is no difference (Wm. James).
He goes on to add: "And unlike Vietnam, where U. S.
national security was not at stake, safe haven for Al
Qaeda could lead to another attack." This too is com-
plete nonsense: al Qaeda won't attack us again unless
and until they have a "safe haven" in Afghanistan?
Aren't they (unlike the Taliban) international? Don't
they have strong groups in Yemen and Somalia, to name
a few? This is the false premise, pushed by Gen. Petra-
eus, and bought hook, line, and sinker, by Obama, that
Af. is somehow crucial to our security from Qaeda. Pet-
raeous likes to point out that "the origins of 9/11 were in
Kandahar." So as long as we keep them out of Kandahar,
we're good? They can't do plotting anywhere else? And
this passes for strategic thinking, endorsed by pundits?
(And parroted by the neo-cons?) God help us!
Henry Kissenger (HK) wrote a more informative and bet-
ter reasoned review of our situation in the same (10/12/09)
issue of Newsweek. He wants us to give Gen. McCrystal
the additional troops he is requesting. And he has no pro-
lem using analogies from Vietnam. He says "the prevailing
strategy . . . is based on the classic anti-insurrection doc-
trine: to build a central government, commit it to the im-
rovement of the lives of its people, and then protect the
population until the government's own forces are able."
But then HK has to admit we are pouring our water into an
extremely leaky bucket, with a long, long ways to go! Af.
is not now and never has been a nation, except in maps
drawn by the Brits in 1893. Never, ever. "Afghanistan has
been governed, if at all," says HK, "by a coalition of local
feudal or semi-feudal rulers." (They're called "war lords",
Henry.) "In the past," he continues, "any attempt to endow
the central government with overriding authority has been
resisted by established local rulers. Now here's the clincher
from HK that spells doom for the current strategy (which,
remember) he himself supports: "That (the resistance by
local rulers) is likely to be the fate of any central govern-
ment in Kabul, regardless of its ideological colorization,
and perhaps even its efficiency . . . Can a civil society be
built on a national basis in a country which is neither a
nation nor a state? (emphasis mine.)
Here HK ably explains the flaw in the strategy he supports!
He supports it, he says, because all other options are equally
bad. He doesn't mention the endemic corruption in the
country, or the opium money feeding it and the Taliban and
the war lords, or that the people being trained in the national
army, when push comes to shove, will remain loyal and obedi-
ent to family, tribe, ethnic group and war lord over a national
government they regard as weak and corrupt and dependent
on foreign powers that keep blowing up wedding parties from
drones overhead.
In short, as numerous experts have opined, the Taliban pro-
bably can't be defeated by any number of foreign troops.
They are natives. They know the language, the culture, the
terrain, the people, and they have a safe haven across the
border in Pakistan. As Fareed Zakaria has said, "Unless
the problem with Pakistan is solved, the war in Afghanistan
can't be won." Don't hold your breath!
Let me hear what you think!
Jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
demographics of Afghanistan (Af.). I will turn now to
current U. S. policy there. In the latest Newsweek
(10/12/09), Jonathan Alter wrote about "Six lessons
of Vietnam." After reviewing the lessons, he went on
to say "Vietnam analogies can be treacherous." If that
is so, why is he using them? Of course, any analogies
can be misused, as he goes on to demonstrate: "Unlike
the Viet Cong, the much-despised Taliban aren't au-
thentic Afghan nationalists." That's true: they are
Pashtuns first and foremost. The same for the Tajiks,
the Uzbeks, and so on. What the Taliban are, that the
others aren't, is fanatical Islamists. They are as dedi-
cated to Islamic fundamentalism as the Viet Cong were
to nationalism! Where's the difference? A difference
that makes no difference is no difference (Wm. James).
He goes on to add: "And unlike Vietnam, where U. S.
national security was not at stake, safe haven for Al
Qaeda could lead to another attack." This too is com-
plete nonsense: al Qaeda won't attack us again unless
and until they have a "safe haven" in Afghanistan?
Aren't they (unlike the Taliban) international? Don't
they have strong groups in Yemen and Somalia, to name
a few? This is the false premise, pushed by Gen. Petra-
eus, and bought hook, line, and sinker, by Obama, that
Af. is somehow crucial to our security from Qaeda. Pet-
raeous likes to point out that "the origins of 9/11 were in
Kandahar." So as long as we keep them out of Kandahar,
we're good? They can't do plotting anywhere else? And
this passes for strategic thinking, endorsed by pundits?
(And parroted by the neo-cons?) God help us!
Henry Kissenger (HK) wrote a more informative and bet-
ter reasoned review of our situation in the same (10/12/09)
issue of Newsweek. He wants us to give Gen. McCrystal
the additional troops he is requesting. And he has no pro-
lem using analogies from Vietnam. He says "the prevailing
strategy . . . is based on the classic anti-insurrection doc-
trine: to build a central government, commit it to the im-
rovement of the lives of its people, and then protect the
population until the government's own forces are able."
But then HK has to admit we are pouring our water into an
extremely leaky bucket, with a long, long ways to go! Af.
is not now and never has been a nation, except in maps
drawn by the Brits in 1893. Never, ever. "Afghanistan has
been governed, if at all," says HK, "by a coalition of local
feudal or semi-feudal rulers." (They're called "war lords",
Henry.) "In the past," he continues, "any attempt to endow
the central government with overriding authority has been
resisted by established local rulers. Now here's the clincher
from HK that spells doom for the current strategy (which,
remember) he himself supports: "That (the resistance by
local rulers) is likely to be the fate of any central govern-
ment in Kabul, regardless of its ideological colorization,
and perhaps even its efficiency . . . Can a civil society be
built on a national basis in a country which is neither a
nation nor a state? (emphasis mine.)
Here HK ably explains the flaw in the strategy he supports!
He supports it, he says, because all other options are equally
bad. He doesn't mention the endemic corruption in the
country, or the opium money feeding it and the Taliban and
the war lords, or that the people being trained in the national
army, when push comes to shove, will remain loyal and obedi-
ent to family, tribe, ethnic group and war lord over a national
government they regard as weak and corrupt and dependent
on foreign powers that keep blowing up wedding parties from
drones overhead.
In short, as numerous experts have opined, the Taliban pro-
bably can't be defeated by any number of foreign troops.
They are natives. They know the language, the culture, the
terrain, the people, and they have a safe haven across the
border in Pakistan. As Fareed Zakaria has said, "Unless
the problem with Pakistan is solved, the war in Afghanistan
can't be won." Don't hold your breath!
Let me hear what you think!
Jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Friday, October 9, 2009
PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE IN AFGHANISTAN
"I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars."
--- Candidate Obama
"We are going to lose the war in Afghanistan, and it will
bankrupt us." --- Chalmers Johnson
This is a dumb war, unwinnable, and hence the question
of whether it is necessary or not, is moot. You can't carry
water very far in a leaky bucket. Afghan. is an extremely
leaky bucket, and the journey will be long indeed. I will
attempt here to show some of the reasons why.
The Durand Line between Afghan. and Pakistan was es-
tablished by the Brits in 1893 by the foreign secretary at
the time, Lord Durand. It has never been accepted by the
natives there, the Pashtuns, who are not governed by
anyone, and live on both sides of the Durand Line, but
most of the 41 million Pashtuns live in Pakistan. About
12 or 13 million of them live in Afghan. and control their
section in the south of that country. They are legendary
warriors, and have successfully resisted any and all tries
to conquer them, going back to Alexander the Great, and
including Genghis Khan, the British (3 times), the Soviets,
and Pakistan, who has learned to leave them alone. That's
a lesson we will learn in time, but the question is when?
Tuition for that lesson is costly, as the Brits and Soviets
finally learned.
Most of the Taliban (practically 100%) are Pashtuns who
were trained and armed by Pakistan (with U. S. $) to fight
the Soviets. It cost us about $3 bn., and now we are conv-
inced that we have to fight them! The tragedy is that the
Soviets were doing nation building, the job we are trying to
do now under heavy attack from the Taliban that we armed.
Yes, what is not well known here is that the Soviets were
building schools, roads, health facilities and infrastructure in
a fairly peaceful setting until our CIA (under the Carter
admin.) started paying warlords to fight the Ruskies. The
CIA was able to unite the tribes in the north into the North-
ern Alliance. Those tribes had been enemies, historically,
and bitter enemies of the Pashtun. (They still are.) They
will not be beaten by the Taliban as long as we help them
by paying their armies for them.
The Taliban, of course, can keep fighting us as long as they
have refuges in Pak. with their fellow Pashtuns. Elements
of the Pak. intelligence service (ISI) that trained the Taliban
initially still maintain close ties with them. That is one rea-
son why the T. can't be defeated by us: the ISI doesn't
want them defeated. The Northern Alliance maintains
close ties with India, and the Pakistani army is much more
worried about India than it is Afghan. The U. S., by way
of its new aid bill for Pak. (Kerry-Lugar) is trying to curtail
or "guide" Pakistan army relations with the Taliban. Of
course the P. army is not having a bit of that, as they see it
as an attack on P. sovereignty. Google Pak. newspapers if
you're interested in the debate. The Pak. gov't wants the
moola ($7.5 bn.) but their army (the real power in the
country) says no, no, no.
Now understand: the Pak. army is fighting against the
Taliban in Pakistan, and suppressing it there, while their
ISI is helping the Afghan. Taliban, which is a whole different
outfit. Our CIA, likewise, does things our army would
oppose if they knew about it, but they don't.
The (mostly secret) cooperation between Pak.'s ISI and
and the Afghan. Taliban is one reason that Taliban can't
be defeated by us or anyone else. Pak. doesn't want them
defeated. Another is the forbidding terrain which they
use so effectively. Another is the family and tribal ties
with fellow Pashtuns, who may not want Taliban rule,
but also do not want them wiped out. Pashtuns are the
largest ethnic group in Afghan. by far, and have always
been the dominant force in a perennial struggle with other
groups such as the Tagiks, the largest ( 7 million) part of
the Northern Alliance. The enmity for centuries between
Pashtuns and Tagiks rivals that of the Sunnis and Shia in
Iraq. The Tagiks speak Farsi, not Pashtoon. Karzai, a
Pashtun, was opposed in the recent election by a Tajik.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
--- Candidate Obama
"We are going to lose the war in Afghanistan, and it will
bankrupt us." --- Chalmers Johnson
This is a dumb war, unwinnable, and hence the question
of whether it is necessary or not, is moot. You can't carry
water very far in a leaky bucket. Afghan. is an extremely
leaky bucket, and the journey will be long indeed. I will
attempt here to show some of the reasons why.
The Durand Line between Afghan. and Pakistan was es-
tablished by the Brits in 1893 by the foreign secretary at
the time, Lord Durand. It has never been accepted by the
natives there, the Pashtuns, who are not governed by
anyone, and live on both sides of the Durand Line, but
most of the 41 million Pashtuns live in Pakistan. About
12 or 13 million of them live in Afghan. and control their
section in the south of that country. They are legendary
warriors, and have successfully resisted any and all tries
to conquer them, going back to Alexander the Great, and
including Genghis Khan, the British (3 times), the Soviets,
and Pakistan, who has learned to leave them alone. That's
a lesson we will learn in time, but the question is when?
Tuition for that lesson is costly, as the Brits and Soviets
finally learned.
Most of the Taliban (practically 100%) are Pashtuns who
were trained and armed by Pakistan (with U. S. $) to fight
the Soviets. It cost us about $3 bn., and now we are conv-
inced that we have to fight them! The tragedy is that the
Soviets were doing nation building, the job we are trying to
do now under heavy attack from the Taliban that we armed.
Yes, what is not well known here is that the Soviets were
building schools, roads, health facilities and infrastructure in
a fairly peaceful setting until our CIA (under the Carter
admin.) started paying warlords to fight the Ruskies. The
CIA was able to unite the tribes in the north into the North-
ern Alliance. Those tribes had been enemies, historically,
and bitter enemies of the Pashtun. (They still are.) They
will not be beaten by the Taliban as long as we help them
by paying their armies for them.
The Taliban, of course, can keep fighting us as long as they
have refuges in Pak. with their fellow Pashtuns. Elements
of the Pak. intelligence service (ISI) that trained the Taliban
initially still maintain close ties with them. That is one rea-
son why the T. can't be defeated by us: the ISI doesn't
want them defeated. The Northern Alliance maintains
close ties with India, and the Pakistani army is much more
worried about India than it is Afghan. The U. S., by way
of its new aid bill for Pak. (Kerry-Lugar) is trying to curtail
or "guide" Pakistan army relations with the Taliban. Of
course the P. army is not having a bit of that, as they see it
as an attack on P. sovereignty. Google Pak. newspapers if
you're interested in the debate. The Pak. gov't wants the
moola ($7.5 bn.) but their army (the real power in the
country) says no, no, no.
Now understand: the Pak. army is fighting against the
Taliban in Pakistan, and suppressing it there, while their
ISI is helping the Afghan. Taliban, which is a whole different
outfit. Our CIA, likewise, does things our army would
oppose if they knew about it, but they don't.
The (mostly secret) cooperation between Pak.'s ISI and
and the Afghan. Taliban is one reason that Taliban can't
be defeated by us or anyone else. Pak. doesn't want them
defeated. Another is the forbidding terrain which they
use so effectively. Another is the family and tribal ties
with fellow Pashtuns, who may not want Taliban rule,
but also do not want them wiped out. Pashtuns are the
largest ethnic group in Afghan. by far, and have always
been the dominant force in a perennial struggle with other
groups such as the Tagiks, the largest ( 7 million) part of
the Northern Alliance. The enmity for centuries between
Pashtuns and Tagiks rivals that of the Sunnis and Shia in
Iraq. The Tagiks speak Farsi, not Pashtoon. Karzai, a
Pashtun, was opposed in the recent election by a Tajik.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
SOCIALISM MISREPRESENTED
Parents are easily frightened these days. Some of them
pulled their kids from school when the president spoke
there, lest their tender ears be seduced by "socialism"!
What there is in hard work, self respect, goal setting and
pride of accomplishment that is socialistic remains a mys-
tery. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Has Obama
ever said anything in favor of socialism? Please tell me
me what and where. I've missed it.
He has rejected out of hand single payer health insurance.
But even Canada's single payer plan isn't socialism. It
works with private doctors and private hospitals. In
socialism, the government owns and operates the hospi-
tals and employs doctors and nurses. That's not advo-
cated by anyone here for our general population.
Our VA hospitals are government run and highly rated
for cost efficiency and medical excellence. That, of course,
is socialism, as is our mail service, military establishment,
government run schools, fire departments, police and so on.
All of them work O. K. when properly funded and managed.
Medicare isn't socialism, but it is single-payer health care,
well run and well liked. It needs some re-working and better
funding.
If Obama was for socialism, he wouldn't have saved the big
banks. He would have nationalized them like Paul Krugman,
Joe Stiglitz and other top economists urged him to do. Ditto
for GM.
Obama is a communitarian, as are most Democrats. People
are confusing that with socialism. It's a confusion aided and
abetted by Obama haters like Rush, Beck and Hannity. They
equate liberals with everything vile and un-American they
can dream up. Actually, half our population is liberal when
it comes to government help for the needy. Does that make
half the country socialists? No, it makes them communitarians
that believe the common good (general welfare) as a political
goal must take precedence over private gain and advantage.
Most Republicans are economic libertarians. They are not all
social conservatives. Barry Goldwater, who got the libertarian
movement rolling politically, was for choice on abortion, and
for gays in the military. Libertarians are social Darwinists (SDs).
They believe it's a jungle out there, and the fittest will survive
and prosper. Losers must serve the winners on the latters'
terms. That's just the way it is!
Communitarians prize what nurtures and promotes communi-
ty well being for all. It applauds individual success insofar as
as that benefits the community. It usually does. That results
in the common good.
Social Darwinists (SDs) prize freedom to excel and enjoy the
rewards of that success above concern for the less privileged.
It's "survival of the fittest." The big fish eat the little fish. SDs
usually deny there is inherent conflict between the common
good and individual success. "A rising tide lifts all boats," they
claim. Look around you! Is that happening? The stock mar-
ket is recovering. Are the homeless? The jobless? They don't
have boats. They're drowning. Communitarians say "that's
wrong." SDs say, "that's life." And "life isn't fair, so why
should we try to be?"
So there you have it: Obama is a communitarian (liberal).
His detractors are confusing that with socialism because
they don't know the difference, but are sure it's anti-
American. That's why they depict him as a foreigner,
Marxist, Muslim, whatever vile they can think of.
They also don't know that all the great religions, including
Secular Humanism, are communitarian. They all teach
that we have a primary responsibility for the welfare and
concerns of our fellow human beings. They all tell us, in
fact command us to do unto (for) others as we would have
them do for us. Religious people who are not communi-
tarians, and support social darwinism instead are not
properly instructed in the basic teachings of their faith.
To understand this, the writings of the current Pope and
the Dalai Lama are good places to start.
Let me hear what you think!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
pulled their kids from school when the president spoke
there, lest their tender ears be seduced by "socialism"!
What there is in hard work, self respect, goal setting and
pride of accomplishment that is socialistic remains a mys-
tery. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Has Obama
ever said anything in favor of socialism? Please tell me
me what and where. I've missed it.
He has rejected out of hand single payer health insurance.
But even Canada's single payer plan isn't socialism. It
works with private doctors and private hospitals. In
socialism, the government owns and operates the hospi-
tals and employs doctors and nurses. That's not advo-
cated by anyone here for our general population.
Our VA hospitals are government run and highly rated
for cost efficiency and medical excellence. That, of course,
is socialism, as is our mail service, military establishment,
government run schools, fire departments, police and so on.
All of them work O. K. when properly funded and managed.
Medicare isn't socialism, but it is single-payer health care,
well run and well liked. It needs some re-working and better
funding.
If Obama was for socialism, he wouldn't have saved the big
banks. He would have nationalized them like Paul Krugman,
Joe Stiglitz and other top economists urged him to do. Ditto
for GM.
Obama is a communitarian, as are most Democrats. People
are confusing that with socialism. It's a confusion aided and
abetted by Obama haters like Rush, Beck and Hannity. They
equate liberals with everything vile and un-American they
can dream up. Actually, half our population is liberal when
it comes to government help for the needy. Does that make
half the country socialists? No, it makes them communitarians
that believe the common good (general welfare) as a political
goal must take precedence over private gain and advantage.
Most Republicans are economic libertarians. They are not all
social conservatives. Barry Goldwater, who got the libertarian
movement rolling politically, was for choice on abortion, and
for gays in the military. Libertarians are social Darwinists (SDs).
They believe it's a jungle out there, and the fittest will survive
and prosper. Losers must serve the winners on the latters'
terms. That's just the way it is!
Communitarians prize what nurtures and promotes communi-
ty well being for all. It applauds individual success insofar as
as that benefits the community. It usually does. That results
in the common good.
Social Darwinists (SDs) prize freedom to excel and enjoy the
rewards of that success above concern for the less privileged.
It's "survival of the fittest." The big fish eat the little fish. SDs
usually deny there is inherent conflict between the common
good and individual success. "A rising tide lifts all boats," they
claim. Look around you! Is that happening? The stock mar-
ket is recovering. Are the homeless? The jobless? They don't
have boats. They're drowning. Communitarians say "that's
wrong." SDs say, "that's life." And "life isn't fair, so why
should we try to be?"
So there you have it: Obama is a communitarian (liberal).
His detractors are confusing that with socialism because
they don't know the difference, but are sure it's anti-
American. That's why they depict him as a foreigner,
Marxist, Muslim, whatever vile they can think of.
They also don't know that all the great religions, including
Secular Humanism, are communitarian. They all teach
that we have a primary responsibility for the welfare and
concerns of our fellow human beings. They all tell us, in
fact command us to do unto (for) others as we would have
them do for us. Religious people who are not communi-
tarians, and support social darwinism instead are not
properly instructed in the basic teachings of their faith.
To understand this, the writings of the current Pope and
the Dalai Lama are good places to start.
Let me hear what you think!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, September 5, 2009
UNNECESSARY TRAGEDY
"Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global
strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically,
strategically and politically unsustainable and will result
in unnecessary tragedy -- especially for the men and
women, and their families, who serve our country"
---former Sen. Chuck Hagel
Since my last blog (Aug. 25) several prominent colum-
nists and political leaders have come out strongly against
escalating our military efforts in Afghanistan. Among
the most persuasive articles I have seen are those by Geo.
Will (in WaPo), Bob Herbert (NYT) and Malou Innocent
of the Cato Inst., writing in the Huffington Post. That, of
course includes the article quoted above from former
Sen. Hagel (in WaPo).along the same lines. Vice Pres.
Biden is known to be making similar arguments within
the inner councils of the administration.
All of the above reject the "war of necessity" argument
being put forward by the Obama administration. Mathew
Yglesias ( whom I'll always read, on any subject) quotes
Helene Cooper, who wrote: "Administration officials say
privately that they believe that they have 12 months to
show significant progress in Afghanistan before they totally
lose public support." Yglesias says of Cooper's report: "I
wish one of our crackerjack reporters here in D. C. would
try to get these 'administration officials' to explain how this
interacts with their recent embrace of 'war of necessity'
rhetoric. I can see a few possibilities:
---Since this is a war of necessity, they intend to keep
fighting it even if there's no progress after 12 months, so if
there isn't progress they'll try to mislead the public into
thinking there is." (That, of course, is just what happened
with other unnecessary wars in Iraq and Viet Nam.)
---(Still quoting Yglesias:) "If there's no progress after 12
months, they'll bow to public pressure to withdraw even
though that would mean 'losing' a 'war of necessity.'
---The same officials who privately say the war effort may
collapse in 12 months also 'privately' know that this talk
about a 'war of necessity' doesn't make sense, but they're
using the rhetoric anyway in order to bolster public support
right now.
---The relevant officials are supremely self-confident about
their own abilities, and just haven't bothered to think about
Plan B in case they're unable to deliver significant progress
over the next 12 months."
Bob Herbert (about increasing our troop numbers there:)
"These will be troops heading into the flames of a no-win
situation. We're fighting on behalf of an incompetent and
hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. If our ulti-
mate goal, as the administration tells us, is a government
that can effectively run the country, protect its population
and defeat the Taliban, our troops will be fighting and dying
in Afghanistan for many, many years to come."
Malour Innocent (in 9/4/09 Huffington Post regarding
nation building there): "First, Afghanistan has yet to de-
monstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern,
nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will
(that's my own belief). Many tribes living in rural, isolated
and sparsely populated provinces have little interest co-
operating with 'foreigners,' a relative term considering the
limited contact many have with their country's own central
government.
Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment
of armed 'nation building' --the words of another civilian
advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook
whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs
acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to trans-
form what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tri-
bal-based society -- while our own country faces
economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous,
especially since even the limited goal of creating a
self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democ-
racy would require a multi-decade commitment --
and even then there'd be no assurance of success."
(Emphasis mine.)
That pretty much covers it!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically,
strategically and politically unsustainable and will result
in unnecessary tragedy -- especially for the men and
women, and their families, who serve our country"
---former Sen. Chuck Hagel
Since my last blog (Aug. 25) several prominent colum-
nists and political leaders have come out strongly against
escalating our military efforts in Afghanistan. Among
the most persuasive articles I have seen are those by Geo.
Will (in WaPo), Bob Herbert (NYT) and Malou Innocent
of the Cato Inst., writing in the Huffington Post. That, of
course includes the article quoted above from former
Sen. Hagel (in WaPo).along the same lines. Vice Pres.
Biden is known to be making similar arguments within
the inner councils of the administration.
All of the above reject the "war of necessity" argument
being put forward by the Obama administration. Mathew
Yglesias ( whom I'll always read, on any subject) quotes
Helene Cooper, who wrote: "Administration officials say
privately that they believe that they have 12 months to
show significant progress in Afghanistan before they totally
lose public support." Yglesias says of Cooper's report: "I
wish one of our crackerjack reporters here in D. C. would
try to get these 'administration officials' to explain how this
interacts with their recent embrace of 'war of necessity'
rhetoric. I can see a few possibilities:
---Since this is a war of necessity, they intend to keep
fighting it even if there's no progress after 12 months, so if
there isn't progress they'll try to mislead the public into
thinking there is." (That, of course, is just what happened
with other unnecessary wars in Iraq and Viet Nam.)
---(Still quoting Yglesias:) "If there's no progress after 12
months, they'll bow to public pressure to withdraw even
though that would mean 'losing' a 'war of necessity.'
---The same officials who privately say the war effort may
collapse in 12 months also 'privately' know that this talk
about a 'war of necessity' doesn't make sense, but they're
using the rhetoric anyway in order to bolster public support
right now.
---The relevant officials are supremely self-confident about
their own abilities, and just haven't bothered to think about
Plan B in case they're unable to deliver significant progress
over the next 12 months."
Bob Herbert (about increasing our troop numbers there:)
"These will be troops heading into the flames of a no-win
situation. We're fighting on behalf of an incompetent and
hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. If our ulti-
mate goal, as the administration tells us, is a government
that can effectively run the country, protect its population
and defeat the Taliban, our troops will be fighting and dying
in Afghanistan for many, many years to come."
Malour Innocent (in 9/4/09 Huffington Post regarding
nation building there): "First, Afghanistan has yet to de-
monstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern,
nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will
(that's my own belief). Many tribes living in rural, isolated
and sparsely populated provinces have little interest co-
operating with 'foreigners,' a relative term considering the
limited contact many have with their country's own central
government.
Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment
of armed 'nation building' --the words of another civilian
advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook
whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs
acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to trans-
form what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tri-
bal-based society -- while our own country faces
economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous,
especially since even the limited goal of creating a
self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democ-
racy would require a multi-decade commitment --
and even then there'd be no assurance of success."
(Emphasis mine.)
That pretty much covers it!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
UNNECESSARY WAR
Richard Haass, pres. of the Council of Foreign Rela-
tions wrote in NYT op-ed (8/21/09): "If Afghanistan
were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of
effort. It is not and does not. It is not certain that
doing more will achieve more." (emphasis mine).
In the article he argues convincingly that the war is one
of choice (our choice) and not one of necessity. He writes:
"It is not obvious that Afghans can overcome ethnic and
tribal loyalties, corruption and personal rivalries. No mat-
ter who is declared the winner, the (recent) election is al-
most certain to leave the country even more divided."
Here's the skinny on the above-mentioned divisions:
Afghanistan has about 37 million people. 40% of them are
Pashtuns living in the S. E. part of the country. There are
25 million more of them across the border in western Paki-
stan. Remember, the Brits set the boundary (the Durand
Line) back in the 19th century without regard to ethnic or
tribal lines. The natives have always ignored the line.
Pashtuns in both countries regard each other as one united
people. While not all Pashtuns are Taliban (Karzai is Pash.),
virtually all Taliban are Pashtuns.
Over the centuries, as the majority group in Afghanistan,
Pashtuns have wielded political power most of the time.
But tribal people in the north of the country still maintain
ethnic connections across national boundaries with people
to their north: Uzbeks look to Uzbekistan as their home-
land, Tajiks to Tajikistan, Kyrygs to Kyrygzstan, and Turko-
men to Turkistan.
Together, these various ethnic (and linguistic) groupings
make up the "Northern Alliance" which was armed and
equipped (and brought together) by our CIA to drive out
the Soviets. They are fiercely anti-Taliban, and even when
Taliban ruled the rest of the country, they were never
successful in conquering the northern forces. The anti-
pathy between Tajiks and Pashtuns goes back for centu-
ries and is a major hurdle against the kind of national
unity the U. S. is trying to foster. In intensity it is some-
thing like the Kurd-Arab split in Iraq (or the Sunni-Shia
one, take your pick.)
Another major barrier against unity is the fact that each
region in the country is run by one or more warlords.
These guys (naturally) are for the most-part corrupt, and
involved in the drug trade and doing business with the
Taliban. Many also remain on the CIA payroll, and funnel
useful information to our people. They go along and get
along with everyone! Some of them also serve in the Karzai
government! They are more interested in personal power
than they are in national unity. Their system runs on crime,
corruption, dope and violence.
Efforts by the U.S, its allies, and its Afghan clients to clean
up the corruption, curb the drug trade, and control depre-
dations by the Taliban are so far (after eight years) still
unsuccessful. The Taliban are gaining, reported our top
military honcho, Adm. Mike Mullen. Our situation is "de-
teriorating" (his words). The military says we are going to
have to supply more troops there, probably a lot more.
That will, of course, escalate the resistance and hence the
violence, and hence the suffering and enmity of the popula-
tion.
Governor Massoud, of Helmand province said he personally
admires the Marines there, from the Second Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people "just
don't want them here." He estimated that two of every
three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because
they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which
the Taliban control. Others support them for religious
reasons or because they object to foreign (non-Muslim)
forces. The Taliban receives over $200 million a year from
the drug business.
As violence increases, and more civilians are killed, the
alienation of the people grows, like it did in Viet Nam and
Iraq. And, by the way, on-going flareups in Iraq indicate
that nothing was settled there. 95 people were killed there
and 600 wounded in explosions in the past two weeks. We
imposed a Shia government on them that is still unwilling
to share power or oil revenue with the Sunnis and Kurds.
That means more trouble, not less. Nothing has been
learned!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
tions wrote in NYT op-ed (8/21/09): "If Afghanistan
were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of
effort. It is not and does not. It is not certain that
doing more will achieve more." (emphasis mine).
In the article he argues convincingly that the war is one
of choice (our choice) and not one of necessity. He writes:
"It is not obvious that Afghans can overcome ethnic and
tribal loyalties, corruption and personal rivalries. No mat-
ter who is declared the winner, the (recent) election is al-
most certain to leave the country even more divided."
Here's the skinny on the above-mentioned divisions:
Afghanistan has about 37 million people. 40% of them are
Pashtuns living in the S. E. part of the country. There are
25 million more of them across the border in western Paki-
stan. Remember, the Brits set the boundary (the Durand
Line) back in the 19th century without regard to ethnic or
tribal lines. The natives have always ignored the line.
Pashtuns in both countries regard each other as one united
people. While not all Pashtuns are Taliban (Karzai is Pash.),
virtually all Taliban are Pashtuns.
Over the centuries, as the majority group in Afghanistan,
Pashtuns have wielded political power most of the time.
But tribal people in the north of the country still maintain
ethnic connections across national boundaries with people
to their north: Uzbeks look to Uzbekistan as their home-
land, Tajiks to Tajikistan, Kyrygs to Kyrygzstan, and Turko-
men to Turkistan.
Together, these various ethnic (and linguistic) groupings
make up the "Northern Alliance" which was armed and
equipped (and brought together) by our CIA to drive out
the Soviets. They are fiercely anti-Taliban, and even when
Taliban ruled the rest of the country, they were never
successful in conquering the northern forces. The anti-
pathy between Tajiks and Pashtuns goes back for centu-
ries and is a major hurdle against the kind of national
unity the U. S. is trying to foster. In intensity it is some-
thing like the Kurd-Arab split in Iraq (or the Sunni-Shia
one, take your pick.)
Another major barrier against unity is the fact that each
region in the country is run by one or more warlords.
These guys (naturally) are for the most-part corrupt, and
involved in the drug trade and doing business with the
Taliban. Many also remain on the CIA payroll, and funnel
useful information to our people. They go along and get
along with everyone! Some of them also serve in the Karzai
government! They are more interested in personal power
than they are in national unity. Their system runs on crime,
corruption, dope and violence.
Efforts by the U.S, its allies, and its Afghan clients to clean
up the corruption, curb the drug trade, and control depre-
dations by the Taliban are so far (after eight years) still
unsuccessful. The Taliban are gaining, reported our top
military honcho, Adm. Mike Mullen. Our situation is "de-
teriorating" (his words). The military says we are going to
have to supply more troops there, probably a lot more.
That will, of course, escalate the resistance and hence the
violence, and hence the suffering and enmity of the popula-
tion.
Governor Massoud, of Helmand province said he personally
admires the Marines there, from the Second Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people "just
don't want them here." He estimated that two of every
three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because
they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which
the Taliban control. Others support them for religious
reasons or because they object to foreign (non-Muslim)
forces. The Taliban receives over $200 million a year from
the drug business.
As violence increases, and more civilians are killed, the
alienation of the people grows, like it did in Viet Nam and
Iraq. And, by the way, on-going flareups in Iraq indicate
that nothing was settled there. 95 people were killed there
and 600 wounded in explosions in the past two weeks. We
imposed a Shia government on them that is still unwilling
to share power or oil revenue with the Sunnis and Kurds.
That means more trouble, not less. Nothing has been
learned!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, August 15, 2009
DISCUSSION OF DEATH AND THE DEATH OF DISCUSSION
We are witnessing the death of reasonable discussion
in open forums like town meetings. Noisy thugs are
claiming that "free speech" entitles them to trump
others' right to listen, learn and reason together in a
civilized manner and atmosphere. What we are being
robbed of is not only the sacred privilege of civil discourse,
but also the sense and practice of community.
Disruption of deliberative discussion is one of the first
tactics employed by antidemocratic forces throughout
history. Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of
America how thuggery has been used in the early
stages of mass movements in Germany, Italy, Chile
and innumerable other societies to disrupt and take
over public gatherings and then use them for propaganda
purposes to take over the government.
Another tactic used to cause confusion and disruption is
the invention and propagation of outright lies. One of the
leading ones at the moment is "socialism." "Government
takeover of the health system" is a variation of this lie.
To be socialism, the government would have to own the
hospitals and employ all the doctors, nurses and support
personnel. That is not being advocated here by anyone!
Under Obama's plan, private doctors practice, private
hospitals flourish, and private insurance companies con-
tinue to do their thing. That's not socialism, folks. Not
even close.
Part of the lying going on equates our health reform plan
with the National Health Service in England. Sen. Grassley
(who gets his misinformation from Glen Beck) remarked
that Sen. Kennedy would be refused treatment for his
brain tumor in England because of his age. "That's just
wrong," retorted a British Health Department spokesman,
who went on to say "The NHS in England provides health
services on the basis of clinical need, irrespective of age or
ability to pay." The British public approves of their health
service at a much higher rate than our people approve of
ours. They wouldn't if they didn't see it as fair and equitable.
Actually, truth be told, there is very little that can be done
by conventional medicine anywhere for advanced brain tumors.
Dr. Burzynski in Houston has had considerable success with
brain tumors, but the FDA has tried for years to shut him
down. He doesn't jump through their hoops or do chemo,
so big Pharma hates him and wants him out of business!
Google him if you are interested in that story.
And we won't have living will information paid for in the
new plan, thanks to Sarah Palin and her lie (repeated by
Glen Beck and Sen. Grassley and others) about "death
panels." Many people, particularly in their later years,
want to make plans about end of life matters. They want
peace of mind and do not want to be kept alive by extra-
ordinary measures when terminally ill. Currently, we
already have death panels: they are called insurance
companies. By deciding what treatments they'll pay for,
and what they refuse, they are deciding life and death
decisions all the time. They are also rationing. After
taking people's money for years, the first serious illness
may result in a "rescission" by your insurer. They may
now go back and discover you had a pre-existing con-
dition (perhaps a childhood illness) you had forgotten
to tell them about when you signed up. That makes your
insurance null and void, per fine print in the contract.
Have a nice day!
in open forums like town meetings. Noisy thugs are
claiming that "free speech" entitles them to trump
others' right to listen, learn and reason together in a
civilized manner and atmosphere. What we are being
robbed of is not only the sacred privilege of civil discourse,
but also the sense and practice of community.
Disruption of deliberative discussion is one of the first
tactics employed by antidemocratic forces throughout
history. Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of
America how thuggery has been used in the early
stages of mass movements in Germany, Italy, Chile
and innumerable other societies to disrupt and take
over public gatherings and then use them for propaganda
purposes to take over the government.
Another tactic used to cause confusion and disruption is
the invention and propagation of outright lies. One of the
leading ones at the moment is "socialism." "Government
takeover of the health system" is a variation of this lie.
To be socialism, the government would have to own the
hospitals and employ all the doctors, nurses and support
personnel. That is not being advocated here by anyone!
Under Obama's plan, private doctors practice, private
hospitals flourish, and private insurance companies con-
tinue to do their thing. That's not socialism, folks. Not
even close.
Part of the lying going on equates our health reform plan
with the National Health Service in England. Sen. Grassley
(who gets his misinformation from Glen Beck) remarked
that Sen. Kennedy would be refused treatment for his
brain tumor in England because of his age. "That's just
wrong," retorted a British Health Department spokesman,
who went on to say "The NHS in England provides health
services on the basis of clinical need, irrespective of age or
ability to pay." The British public approves of their health
service at a much higher rate than our people approve of
ours. They wouldn't if they didn't see it as fair and equitable.
Actually, truth be told, there is very little that can be done
by conventional medicine anywhere for advanced brain tumors.
Dr. Burzynski in Houston has had considerable success with
brain tumors, but the FDA has tried for years to shut him
down. He doesn't jump through their hoops or do chemo,
so big Pharma hates him and wants him out of business!
Google him if you are interested in that story.
And we won't have living will information paid for in the
new plan, thanks to Sarah Palin and her lie (repeated by
Glen Beck and Sen. Grassley and others) about "death
panels." Many people, particularly in their later years,
want to make plans about end of life matters. They want
peace of mind and do not want to be kept alive by extra-
ordinary measures when terminally ill. Currently, we
already have death panels: they are called insurance
companies. By deciding what treatments they'll pay for,
and what they refuse, they are deciding life and death
decisions all the time. They are also rationing. After
taking people's money for years, the first serious illness
may result in a "rescission" by your insurer. They may
now go back and discover you had a pre-existing con-
dition (perhaps a childhood illness) you had forgotten
to tell them about when you signed up. That makes your
insurance null and void, per fine print in the contract.
Have a nice day!
Monday, August 3, 2009
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE?
"We've become a society in which the big bucks go to bad
actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us
poorer." So writes Paul Krugman (PK) in a NYT op. ed.
of 8/3/09. He had in mind Wall St. and the financial in-
dustry gamblers that "plunged us into economic crisis"
(his words) and were then rescued by taxpayers' money
to the tune of $1 trillion or so.
PK goes on to explain "high speed trading," where big
firms use super fast (and super expensive) computers to
act ahead of other investors by a millisecond to reap huge
profits by buying or selling a stock before ordinary inves-
tors can. Of course that's an unfair advantage, and should
be illegal.
The super fast computers also secure "insider information"
by anticipating by split seconds what the price of a parti-
cular stock will do. Trading with insider information not
available to the general public is illegal. But it is done with
impunity. There are cops, but they are blind! Who do you
suppose arranges that?
Making us poorer to enrich a few unscrupulous gamblers is,
of course, at the very heart of lais-sez-faire capitalism. They
play and the public pays. Twas ever thus. St. Jerome, one
of the early church Fathers, said: "The Gospel rightly calls
riches unjust because they have no origin other than injus-
tice, and nobody can own them without another losing them."
An arm of Citigroup that speculates in oil and other com-
modities has made so much profit (according to PK) that
their star broker is entitled to a $100 million bonus! Citi,
you will recall, is into us taxpayers for $45 billion. Where's
our bonus?
The finance wizards continue to move investment (and
therefor jobs) overseas, where the action is: China's GDP is
growing at 8% while ours has "improved" from -8% to
"only" -1% this quarter. But it's still minus, and unemploy-
ment continues to rise.
In the meantime, our manufacturing base continues to
shrink as more of those firms go out of business or out of
the country. The remaining jobs will be either in well
paying hi-tech areas (not enough of those) or in lower
paying service areas (most employment, actually.) The
latter do not enable families to flourish as the working
class once did. The underclass becomes enslaved by debt,
poor health, lack of education and underemployment. To
deal with it many turn to crime or recreational drugs.
Confucius (500 B. C.) said: "When poverty is widespread
the bold (among them) become robbers." Well, isn't that
what the richest among us become as well? And how
about their enablers is Congress? James K. Galbraith
has written about that brilliantly in The Predator State.
Tertullian, another influential church Father, said that
Jesus, who had no material possessions, always defended
the poor and condemned the rich. We've come a long
way, haven't we? But in which direction?
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us
poorer." So writes Paul Krugman (PK) in a NYT op. ed.
of 8/3/09. He had in mind Wall St. and the financial in-
dustry gamblers that "plunged us into economic crisis"
(his words) and were then rescued by taxpayers' money
to the tune of $1 trillion or so.
PK goes on to explain "high speed trading," where big
firms use super fast (and super expensive) computers to
act ahead of other investors by a millisecond to reap huge
profits by buying or selling a stock before ordinary inves-
tors can. Of course that's an unfair advantage, and should
be illegal.
The super fast computers also secure "insider information"
by anticipating by split seconds what the price of a parti-
cular stock will do. Trading with insider information not
available to the general public is illegal. But it is done with
impunity. There are cops, but they are blind! Who do you
suppose arranges that?
Making us poorer to enrich a few unscrupulous gamblers is,
of course, at the very heart of lais-sez-faire capitalism. They
play and the public pays. Twas ever thus. St. Jerome, one
of the early church Fathers, said: "The Gospel rightly calls
riches unjust because they have no origin other than injus-
tice, and nobody can own them without another losing them."
An arm of Citigroup that speculates in oil and other com-
modities has made so much profit (according to PK) that
their star broker is entitled to a $100 million bonus! Citi,
you will recall, is into us taxpayers for $45 billion. Where's
our bonus?
The finance wizards continue to move investment (and
therefor jobs) overseas, where the action is: China's GDP is
growing at 8% while ours has "improved" from -8% to
"only" -1% this quarter. But it's still minus, and unemploy-
ment continues to rise.
In the meantime, our manufacturing base continues to
shrink as more of those firms go out of business or out of
the country. The remaining jobs will be either in well
paying hi-tech areas (not enough of those) or in lower
paying service areas (most employment, actually.) The
latter do not enable families to flourish as the working
class once did. The underclass becomes enslaved by debt,
poor health, lack of education and underemployment. To
deal with it many turn to crime or recreational drugs.
Confucius (500 B. C.) said: "When poverty is widespread
the bold (among them) become robbers." Well, isn't that
what the richest among us become as well? And how
about their enablers is Congress? James K. Galbraith
has written about that brilliantly in The Predator State.
Tertullian, another influential church Father, said that
Jesus, who had no material possessions, always defended
the poor and condemned the rich. We've come a long
way, haven't we? But in which direction?
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
AYAAN HIRSI ALI: THE INFIDEL
The above named author (of The Infidel) is famous
and gifted and appears often on TV. Time Magazine
listed her as one of 100 of the "most influential"
people of the world. Born in Somalia, she grew up
there and in Kenya, with brief stopovers in Saudi
Arabia and Ethiopia. So she has had sufficient ex-
posure to a variety of Muslim cultures to be convinced
that she doesn't want any part of any of them, or the
religion they represent.
She makes no difference between the religion itself
and the many distinct cultures, with their baggage,
who claim to follow its doctrines. It's all equally bad,
so why try to sort it out? She also sees little, if any,
difference between moderate Muslims and extremists:
they are all equally to blame for the bad stuff (in her
view) that flows from a bad religion.
When asked on NPR whether she sees any positive
sides to Islam, she said, "that's like asking if I see posi-
tive sides to Nazism, communism or Catholicism." She
doesn't. She wants to see it stamped out -- by force if
necessary. She would like to see all Muslim religious
schools closed and banned, because they spew out poison.
Her hatred for Islam is powerful, and fully understandable,
when you read her life story. But it clouds her judgement
and blocks her vision, causing exaggeration and twisting
of the truth. For example, she said in an interview: "When
Pres. Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust we may consider
him crazy. But the concept that Jews are vermin is accep-
ted throughout the Muslim world." That, of course is to-
tal hogwash! While Jews may be persona non grata in
Saudi Arabia and many if not most Arab countries, that
is not the case in non-Arab countries like Indonesia, Turkey,
and Iran. The latter two have sizable Jewish communities
going back to Biblical times, who live in peace and worship
without opposition or persecution.
When Ferdinand came to power in Spain in 1492, he be-
gan driving Jews out of that country by forcing them to
convert to his idea of Christianity. Since Jews were wide-
ly persecuted in other parts of Europe, they had no place
to go. The Ottoman Empire thereupon invited them to
find homes there, and treated them with hospitality.
Jews there often became doctors and other professionals
and were treated with dignity and respect in that Muslim
society. Iran also has about 25,000 Jews living and wor-
shipping freely in Tehran. They are patriotic Iranians,
and their religion is not an issue. So Ms. Hirsi's generali-
zation is incorrect and misleading.
A more serious lack of knowledge on her part was re-
vealed in an interview with Guernica Magazine. In it, she
said: "I tried to explain in the book that I used to be a
member of the [Muslim] Brotherhood movement. And
listening to bin Laden, and listening to al Qaeda, listen-
ing to all those extremists the only reason these people
win from the moderates is because what they are saying
is in the Qu'ran and what the prophet wanted and how
they are acting is all consistent." (Emphasis mine.)
To know that this is completely false, and is nonsense,
all one has to do is read the Qu'ran! It clearly and un-
equivocally forbids the killing of non-combatant civilians
of any stripe or description. I'm not an expert on Islam.
Nor is Ms. Hirsi, although she presents herself as such.
Her training is in political science. A genuine expert on
Islam, who has written the definitive treatment on its
teachings, is Reza Aslan, who wrote No God But God.
In there he explains point by point how the extremists
err and why.
Further proof Ms. Hirsi doesn't know what she's talking
about: In 2005 King Abdullah II of Jordan convened in
Amman a conference of 180 of the world's top Islamic
scholars and religious authorities. They represented all
17 of the different groups, sects, and "schools" of interpre-
tation in Islam, and together issued a fatwa summed up
by the King: "Muslims from every branch of Islam can
now assert without doubt or hesitation that a fatwa calling
for the killing of innocent civilians -- no matter what na-
tionality or religion, Muslim or Jew, Arab or Israeli -- is
a basic violation of the most fundamental prin-
ciples of Islam." (Emphasis mine.)
That's what the vast majority of Muslims in the world
actually believe, regardless of what any of the Islamo-
phobes claim in their ignorance. You can take that to the
bank (if it's still in business). It's astounding and inexcu-
sable that Ms. Hirsi continues to peddle her nonsense to
the contrary. Either she doesn't know or she doesn't care!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
and gifted and appears often on TV. Time Magazine
listed her as one of 100 of the "most influential"
people of the world. Born in Somalia, she grew up
there and in Kenya, with brief stopovers in Saudi
Arabia and Ethiopia. So she has had sufficient ex-
posure to a variety of Muslim cultures to be convinced
that she doesn't want any part of any of them, or the
religion they represent.
She makes no difference between the religion itself
and the many distinct cultures, with their baggage,
who claim to follow its doctrines. It's all equally bad,
so why try to sort it out? She also sees little, if any,
difference between moderate Muslims and extremists:
they are all equally to blame for the bad stuff (in her
view) that flows from a bad religion.
When asked on NPR whether she sees any positive
sides to Islam, she said, "that's like asking if I see posi-
tive sides to Nazism, communism or Catholicism." She
doesn't. She wants to see it stamped out -- by force if
necessary. She would like to see all Muslim religious
schools closed and banned, because they spew out poison.
Her hatred for Islam is powerful, and fully understandable,
when you read her life story. But it clouds her judgement
and blocks her vision, causing exaggeration and twisting
of the truth. For example, she said in an interview: "When
Pres. Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust we may consider
him crazy. But the concept that Jews are vermin is accep-
ted throughout the Muslim world." That, of course is to-
tal hogwash! While Jews may be persona non grata in
Saudi Arabia and many if not most Arab countries, that
is not the case in non-Arab countries like Indonesia, Turkey,
and Iran. The latter two have sizable Jewish communities
going back to Biblical times, who live in peace and worship
without opposition or persecution.
When Ferdinand came to power in Spain in 1492, he be-
gan driving Jews out of that country by forcing them to
convert to his idea of Christianity. Since Jews were wide-
ly persecuted in other parts of Europe, they had no place
to go. The Ottoman Empire thereupon invited them to
find homes there, and treated them with hospitality.
Jews there often became doctors and other professionals
and were treated with dignity and respect in that Muslim
society. Iran also has about 25,000 Jews living and wor-
shipping freely in Tehran. They are patriotic Iranians,
and their religion is not an issue. So Ms. Hirsi's generali-
zation is incorrect and misleading.
A more serious lack of knowledge on her part was re-
vealed in an interview with Guernica Magazine. In it, she
said: "I tried to explain in the book that I used to be a
member of the [Muslim] Brotherhood movement. And
listening to bin Laden, and listening to al Qaeda, listen-
ing to all those extremists the only reason these people
win from the moderates is because what they are saying
is in the Qu'ran and what the prophet wanted and how
they are acting is all consistent." (Emphasis mine.)
To know that this is completely false, and is nonsense,
all one has to do is read the Qu'ran! It clearly and un-
equivocally forbids the killing of non-combatant civilians
of any stripe or description. I'm not an expert on Islam.
Nor is Ms. Hirsi, although she presents herself as such.
Her training is in political science. A genuine expert on
Islam, who has written the definitive treatment on its
teachings, is Reza Aslan, who wrote No God But God.
In there he explains point by point how the extremists
err and why.
Further proof Ms. Hirsi doesn't know what she's talking
about: In 2005 King Abdullah II of Jordan convened in
Amman a conference of 180 of the world's top Islamic
scholars and religious authorities. They represented all
17 of the different groups, sects, and "schools" of interpre-
tation in Islam, and together issued a fatwa summed up
by the King: "Muslims from every branch of Islam can
now assert without doubt or hesitation that a fatwa calling
for the killing of innocent civilians -- no matter what na-
tionality or religion, Muslim or Jew, Arab or Israeli -- is
a basic violation of the most fundamental prin-
ciples of Islam." (Emphasis mine.)
That's what the vast majority of Muslims in the world
actually believe, regardless of what any of the Islamo-
phobes claim in their ignorance. You can take that to the
bank (if it's still in business). It's astounding and inexcu-
sable that Ms. Hirsi continues to peddle her nonsense to
the contrary. Either she doesn't know or she doesn't care!
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
MORE ON TERRORISM
The Bush admin. went to Congress two years ago and
asked (and got) $400 million for clandestine activities
against Iran. This money is used by the CIA to support
groups of Iranian dissidents (insurgents) based near the
Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of these
groups, known as MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq a.k.a. PMOI),
has had a camp in Iraq for years that was protected by
Saddam, and then by us. They have friendly relations
with al-Qaida, with whom they swap information and
hospitality. The MEK has a history of terrorist attacks
in Iran, such as bombings of mosques and other gatherings
of civilians.
Other terrorist groups in that part of the world that our
taxpayers are supporting are known as Jondollah (Army
of God), and PJAK. You can Google them if you want to
know more. Jondollah members have received special
training by our forces here in the U. S. (in Nevada). On
June 12 (last month) they claimed responsibility for a
mosque bombing in southern Iran that killed twenty-five
and injured 100+. Our taxpayer dollars at work! Aren"t
you proud? And do you wonder that the Iranian govern-
ment expresses hostility toward us from time to time?
Our "war on terrorism" is a big joke in the rest of the
world!
asked (and got) $400 million for clandestine activities
against Iran. This money is used by the CIA to support
groups of Iranian dissidents (insurgents) based near the
Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of these
groups, known as MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq a.k.a. PMOI),
has had a camp in Iraq for years that was protected by
Saddam, and then by us. They have friendly relations
with al-Qaida, with whom they swap information and
hospitality. The MEK has a history of terrorist attacks
in Iran, such as bombings of mosques and other gatherings
of civilians.
Other terrorist groups in that part of the world that our
taxpayers are supporting are known as Jondollah (Army
of God), and PJAK. You can Google them if you want to
know more. Jondollah members have received special
training by our forces here in the U. S. (in Nevada). On
June 12 (last month) they claimed responsibility for a
mosque bombing in southern Iran that killed twenty-five
and injured 100+. Our taxpayer dollars at work! Aren"t
you proud? And do you wonder that the Iranian govern-
ment expresses hostility toward us from time to time?
Our "war on terrorism" is a big joke in the rest of the
world!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
OUR LONG (AND WRONG) SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
We can't have diplomatic relations with Iran because
they support terrorists (Hamas and Hizbollah)! Guess
who supported Hamas before Iran? Can you say "Israel?"
Yep. If you'll Google "Israeli support for Hamas," you'll
learn how they did it financially, and by police protection
and intelligence help. Why? Because they wanted to di-
vide the Palestinians, using anti-Arafat factions attracted
to Islamism. Arafat was a secularist, opposed to religious
rule. He had Christians in his government, and was sup-
ported by them. Once Hamas got rolling, with substantial
Israeli help, Arafat's corruption turned people against him,
and toward Hamas which is very religious and, for the
most part, honest.
Truth be known, Israel has always fostered and used
terrorism quite openly, and on a massive scale. If you'll
Google "Israeli terrorism," you'll learn about Irgun, and
the Stern Gang, who blew up the King David Hotel when
the Brits were still in charge. They killed civilians in that
deal, and continuously thereafter. We have always suppor-
ted them of course, in pretty much everything they have
done. We have given them well over $50 billion in the
past 60 years of our taxpayers' dollars with which to
commit war crimes. But we won't speak to Iran because
they help Hamas! The Muslim world just shrugs and
laughs in bitter derision at our duplicity and delusion.
We, by the way, are ourselves actively sponsoring terror-
ism against Iran. I'll go into that more in the next blog.
they support terrorists (Hamas and Hizbollah)! Guess
who supported Hamas before Iran? Can you say "Israel?"
Yep. If you'll Google "Israeli support for Hamas," you'll
learn how they did it financially, and by police protection
and intelligence help. Why? Because they wanted to di-
vide the Palestinians, using anti-Arafat factions attracted
to Islamism. Arafat was a secularist, opposed to religious
rule. He had Christians in his government, and was sup-
ported by them. Once Hamas got rolling, with substantial
Israeli help, Arafat's corruption turned people against him,
and toward Hamas which is very religious and, for the
most part, honest.
Truth be known, Israel has always fostered and used
terrorism quite openly, and on a massive scale. If you'll
Google "Israeli terrorism," you'll learn about Irgun, and
the Stern Gang, who blew up the King David Hotel when
the Brits were still in charge. They killed civilians in that
deal, and continuously thereafter. We have always suppor-
ted them of course, in pretty much everything they have
done. We have given them well over $50 billion in the
past 60 years of our taxpayers' dollars with which to
commit war crimes. But we won't speak to Iran because
they help Hamas! The Muslim world just shrugs and
laughs in bitter derision at our duplicity and delusion.
We, by the way, are ourselves actively sponsoring terror-
ism against Iran. I'll go into that more in the next blog.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
STOP DIGGING! START CLIMBING
I love this country. I want it to prosper. It isn't,
right now. To fix it, we must understand what has
gone right, and what has gone wrong. When you're
in a hole you need to do two things: stop digging, and
start climbing.
My last blog gave a grim picture of our economic situ-
ation. Perhaps unduly grim. There are always new
technological breakthroughs, like the inter-net, that
can radically alter the situation for the better. We
need to proceed however, on the basis of where we are,
and what we know now.
What we know for sure is that we are losing, for the most
part, our manufacturing base. Some of the people losing
jobs there are being retrained and get into jobs in health
services, computers, and education. But most find only
lower paying jobs in food service, retail clerking, cleaning
and other domestic chores. Increasing numbers of such jobs
are temporary or part-time, without benefits. People can't
support a family on these incomes, and are falling out of the
middle class into the underclass. That bodes ill for our
democracy. Our strength in the past has been a large,
prosperous middle class. But that was based on industrial
expansion and manufacturing. The countries that are now
in rapid industrial growth are China, India, and Brazil. (And,
in a lesser degree, the southeast Asia "tigers."
If we want to become competitive with the fastest growing
world economies, we need to re-industrialize. And we need
to do that while ending our addiction to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. Otherwise global warming will increase at a
frightful pace! The reason I'm so pessimistic is because our
Congress is dysfunctional. As I said in the last blog, it's a
house of ill repute. Its favors go to the highest bidder. Many
congress-people deny global warming is a problem. Instead
of weaning us from dependence on oil, they want to just do
more drilling!
So we need a new industrial revolution based on developing
"green" energy resources. There is technology available to
make the switch. What isn't available is vision and imagina-
tion, along with investment capital. Wall Street won't in-
vest in environmentally friendly projects unless and until
they can see the same kinds of return on investment that
they get in China or other hot markets. Our old people that
own the pension funds are the only available source of capi-
tal for the green revolution (other than the government).
It's up to us, the oldsters to save our dying economy by
using our money and our votes intelligently (and patriotic-
ally) to reindustrialize the country.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
right now. To fix it, we must understand what has
gone right, and what has gone wrong. When you're
in a hole you need to do two things: stop digging, and
start climbing.
My last blog gave a grim picture of our economic situ-
ation. Perhaps unduly grim. There are always new
technological breakthroughs, like the inter-net, that
can radically alter the situation for the better. We
need to proceed however, on the basis of where we are,
and what we know now.
What we know for sure is that we are losing, for the most
part, our manufacturing base. Some of the people losing
jobs there are being retrained and get into jobs in health
services, computers, and education. But most find only
lower paying jobs in food service, retail clerking, cleaning
and other domestic chores. Increasing numbers of such jobs
are temporary or part-time, without benefits. People can't
support a family on these incomes, and are falling out of the
middle class into the underclass. That bodes ill for our
democracy. Our strength in the past has been a large,
prosperous middle class. But that was based on industrial
expansion and manufacturing. The countries that are now
in rapid industrial growth are China, India, and Brazil. (And,
in a lesser degree, the southeast Asia "tigers."
If we want to become competitive with the fastest growing
world economies, we need to re-industrialize. And we need
to do that while ending our addiction to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. Otherwise global warming will increase at a
frightful pace! The reason I'm so pessimistic is because our
Congress is dysfunctional. As I said in the last blog, it's a
house of ill repute. Its favors go to the highest bidder. Many
congress-people deny global warming is a problem. Instead
of weaning us from dependence on oil, they want to just do
more drilling!
So we need a new industrial revolution based on developing
"green" energy resources. There is technology available to
make the switch. What isn't available is vision and imagina-
tion, along with investment capital. Wall Street won't in-
vest in environmentally friendly projects unless and until
they can see the same kinds of return on investment that
they get in China or other hot markets. Our old people that
own the pension funds are the only available source of capi-
tal for the green revolution (other than the government).
It's up to us, the oldsters to save our dying economy by
using our money and our votes intelligently (and patriotic-
ally) to reindustrialize the country.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
THE DANGEROUS "D"S
Deregulation and the deindustrialization that
accompanied it really got rolling with Reagan in the
'80s, with the worship of the "free" market, the
attacks on unions, and the movement toward glo-
balization as well. Most Americans don't under-
stand the extent that deindustrialization has hap-
pened here, or the social consequences of the disap-
perance of the lower middle class resulting therefrom.
This leaves us with really only two classes: the haves
(a shrinking minority), and the have-nots, a rapidly
growing and embittered majority which does under-
stand that it is basically powerless and manipulated.
These have-nots are largely distracted by God, guns,
gays, gambling, sports and other entertainment. Re-
member when Obama caught hell in his campaign for
accurately pointing to these distractions? Denial is the
other dangerous "D" that completes this package.
As manufacturing (for the most part) moved overseas
(or next door) what took its place was "financial services."
That's banking, insurance of many kinds, investing and
related activities that now make up our leading industries
(in dollar volume). Unlike manufacturing, that used to
"make things" and provide jobs doing that, financial ser-
vices don't make anything but money. They do it by
gambling with other people's savings, especially pension
funds (p. f.s) These p. f.s own most of the corporate
stocks being traded, and have lost a $trillion or so in the
past year or two in the big casino. Even though they own
most of the stock (along now with tax payers in many
cases), they have no effective voice in the running of these
companies. So hired managers rule their fiefdoms with
absolute power and appoint cronies to their boards who
reward them with outlandish salaries, perks, stock options,
bonuses and golden parachutes. All this while, too often
the hapless companies are being run into the ground by
the petty tyrants! You really can't blame the coyotes for
stealing chickens. If you put them in charge of the hen-
house, that's what coyotes do!
Peter Drucker, the management guru who helped the
Japanese re-industrialize after WW II, wrote a prescient
book in 1993 entitled Post-Capitalist Society. Speaking
of the divorce between ownership (by P. F.s) and manage-
ment in our big corporations, he wrote: "We have no social,
political, or economic theory that fits what has already
become a reality." Noam Chomsky has also written often
about the totalitarian structure of our corporations, and
the damage this causes.
Drucker observed (in the same book): "It was the failure
of the production of capital more than anything else, that
brought about the collapse of the Soviet economy in the
end." Isn't that where we are today? Our capital no longer
produces goods like it once did. What we are mostly pro-
ducing now is debt. The rest of the world is noting this, and
is alarmed. What this mountain of debt will probably produce,
and it's already beginning, is the fourth "D," de-dollarization.
As we speak (6/15-16/09) the top officials of the six Asian
nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are meeting
in Yekaterinburg, Russia to discuss their economic vulnera-
bility resulting from using the inflated U. S. dollar as the
world's reserve currency. They are not happy about that,
and working with other rapidly industrializing countries
like India and Brazil, they are seeking alternatives to the
U. S. dollar as a medium of exchange. They have noted that
we are running a $2 trillion deficit this year, and will keep
printing money to finance it, along with our hugely expen-
sive military activities around the world (750 bases).
If the nations now seeking to do so can successfully re-
place the dollar in their economic futures, the dumping of
the dollar will have cataclysmic effects on our own economy
and on those of may others. Chris Hedges (Truthdig 6/14/
09) writes of this possibility: "The dollar will dramatically
plummet in value. The cost of imports, including oil will sky-
rocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at
a rate that will make the last few months look like a boom."
Chris' article in Truthdig, incidentally is titled: "The
American Empire is Bankrupt." And of course it will be if
the dollar is replaced as it should be. It turns out that
Washington (surprise!) is a whore house. Everything of
lasting value is for sale. Come to think of it, the "profit is
everything" mentality is whore house thinking too.
About the concept of "profit," Peter Drucker wrote this:
"There is no such thing as 'profit.' There are only costs:
costs of the past (which the accountant records) and costs
of an uncertain future. And the minimum financial return
from the operations of the past that is adequate to the
costs of the future is the cost of capital."
Yes, the costs of our future include the costs of a wasted
environment, a wasted infrastructure, the mounting costs
of wars still on-going, the clean-up of toxic wastes and
mining refuse, and on and on: all left for the taxpayers to
cover from their diminishing returns after the owning
class have taken their precious "profits," and run.
Jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
accompanied it really got rolling with Reagan in the
'80s, with the worship of the "free" market, the
attacks on unions, and the movement toward glo-
balization as well. Most Americans don't under-
stand the extent that deindustrialization has hap-
pened here, or the social consequences of the disap-
perance of the lower middle class resulting therefrom.
This leaves us with really only two classes: the haves
(a shrinking minority), and the have-nots, a rapidly
growing and embittered majority which does under-
stand that it is basically powerless and manipulated.
These have-nots are largely distracted by God, guns,
gays, gambling, sports and other entertainment. Re-
member when Obama caught hell in his campaign for
accurately pointing to these distractions? Denial is the
other dangerous "D" that completes this package.
As manufacturing (for the most part) moved overseas
(or next door) what took its place was "financial services."
That's banking, insurance of many kinds, investing and
related activities that now make up our leading industries
(in dollar volume). Unlike manufacturing, that used to
"make things" and provide jobs doing that, financial ser-
vices don't make anything but money. They do it by
gambling with other people's savings, especially pension
funds (p. f.s) These p. f.s own most of the corporate
stocks being traded, and have lost a $trillion or so in the
past year or two in the big casino. Even though they own
most of the stock (along now with tax payers in many
cases), they have no effective voice in the running of these
companies. So hired managers rule their fiefdoms with
absolute power and appoint cronies to their boards who
reward them with outlandish salaries, perks, stock options,
bonuses and golden parachutes. All this while, too often
the hapless companies are being run into the ground by
the petty tyrants! You really can't blame the coyotes for
stealing chickens. If you put them in charge of the hen-
house, that's what coyotes do!
Peter Drucker, the management guru who helped the
Japanese re-industrialize after WW II, wrote a prescient
book in 1993 entitled Post-Capitalist Society. Speaking
of the divorce between ownership (by P. F.s) and manage-
ment in our big corporations, he wrote: "We have no social,
political, or economic theory that fits what has already
become a reality." Noam Chomsky has also written often
about the totalitarian structure of our corporations, and
the damage this causes.
Drucker observed (in the same book): "It was the failure
of the production of capital more than anything else, that
brought about the collapse of the Soviet economy in the
end." Isn't that where we are today? Our capital no longer
produces goods like it once did. What we are mostly pro-
ducing now is debt. The rest of the world is noting this, and
is alarmed. What this mountain of debt will probably produce,
and it's already beginning, is the fourth "D," de-dollarization.
As we speak (6/15-16/09) the top officials of the six Asian
nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are meeting
in Yekaterinburg, Russia to discuss their economic vulnera-
bility resulting from using the inflated U. S. dollar as the
world's reserve currency. They are not happy about that,
and working with other rapidly industrializing countries
like India and Brazil, they are seeking alternatives to the
U. S. dollar as a medium of exchange. They have noted that
we are running a $2 trillion deficit this year, and will keep
printing money to finance it, along with our hugely expen-
sive military activities around the world (750 bases).
If the nations now seeking to do so can successfully re-
place the dollar in their economic futures, the dumping of
the dollar will have cataclysmic effects on our own economy
and on those of may others. Chris Hedges (Truthdig 6/14/
09) writes of this possibility: "The dollar will dramatically
plummet in value. The cost of imports, including oil will sky-
rocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at
a rate that will make the last few months look like a boom."
Chris' article in Truthdig, incidentally is titled: "The
American Empire is Bankrupt." And of course it will be if
the dollar is replaced as it should be. It turns out that
Washington (surprise!) is a whore house. Everything of
lasting value is for sale. Come to think of it, the "profit is
everything" mentality is whore house thinking too.
About the concept of "profit," Peter Drucker wrote this:
"There is no such thing as 'profit.' There are only costs:
costs of the past (which the accountant records) and costs
of an uncertain future. And the minimum financial return
from the operations of the past that is adequate to the
costs of the future is the cost of capital."
Yes, the costs of our future include the costs of a wasted
environment, a wasted infrastructure, the mounting costs
of wars still on-going, the clean-up of toxic wastes and
mining refuse, and on and on: all left for the taxpayers to
cover from their diminishing returns after the owning
class have taken their precious "profits," and run.
Jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, June 13, 2009
MEDICINE FOR PROFIT ROBBERY:
YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE
More than 18,000 Americans die every year from
preventable illnesses because they can't get to a doc-
tor when they should. This doesn't happen in
Canada! Or in France, Germany, or any other in-
dustrialized country. 67% in this country say they
can't get the tests or treatments they need. That
doesn't happen in Canada either. And half these
Americans are insured (or think they are.) But they
can't afford the co-pays, or they can't get permission
from their HMO for the test or treatment. So their
insurance is worthless for that particular need.
Yes, they sometimes wait in Canada for non-urgent
care or elective surgery. But isn't that better than not
getting it at all? Each Canadian pays $49 per month for
their coverage. An American family of four pays $1,000
per month and may not be fully covered! Canadians
choose their own doctors, contrary to the lies floating
around. 91% of Canadians approve of their system.
Americans in HMOs are assigned doctors, they seldom
get to choose them. The choice in our system is to pay
or do without insurance. 80% of our people want uni-
versal health care: that's their choice! They won't
get it because there's too much money at stake in the
for-profit system for HMOs, Big Pharma, and the pols
pigging out with them.
How much moola are we talking about? It's a $2 trillion
scam that enriches a few and robs the many. Two thirds
of home foreclosures are due to medical causes and their
attendant expenses. Here are some typical paychecks for
insurance company CEOs: (From The Huffington Post,
6/10/09)
Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
H. Edward Hanway -CIGNA- T. " $12,236,740.
Angela Braly - WellPoint - T. " $ 9,844,212.
Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - " $ 9,047,469.
Michael Neidorff -Centene - Total " $ 8,774,483.
James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - " $ 5,292,546.
Michael McCallister - Humana - " $ 4,764,309
Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total " $ 4,425,355
Richard Barasch - Universal Amer. - " $3,503,702
Stephen Hemsley - United Health Gr. " $3,241,042
Grand Total $85,429,970
Where do these big bucks come from? From profits, of
course. Obscene profits, actually, because they come from
the sick, the crippled, the dying, as well as people with no
known illnesses. The only way insurance companies make
money: the premiums they charge (and overcharge) must
exceed the benefits they pay out. This is accomplished by
collecting excessive premiums way above and beyond
actual requirements to cover claims, and then withholding
benefits or services by simple denial. You had a pre-existing
condition, or that illness (or procedure) isn't covered in your
policy. Too bad! You lose your house, we keep your money.
You have been scammed (and probably ruined). Nation (as
Colbert would say), there is simply no moral justification for
this kind of profiteering off peoples' tragedies, pain, and trauma.
No other nation in the world allows this if they are able to
remedy it. We are morally disabled and in denial about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE
More than 18,000 Americans die every year from
preventable illnesses because they can't get to a doc-
tor when they should. This doesn't happen in
Canada! Or in France, Germany, or any other in-
dustrialized country. 67% in this country say they
can't get the tests or treatments they need. That
doesn't happen in Canada either. And half these
Americans are insured (or think they are.) But they
can't afford the co-pays, or they can't get permission
from their HMO for the test or treatment. So their
insurance is worthless for that particular need.
Yes, they sometimes wait in Canada for non-urgent
care or elective surgery. But isn't that better than not
getting it at all? Each Canadian pays $49 per month for
their coverage. An American family of four pays $1,000
per month and may not be fully covered! Canadians
choose their own doctors, contrary to the lies floating
around. 91% of Canadians approve of their system.
Americans in HMOs are assigned doctors, they seldom
get to choose them. The choice in our system is to pay
or do without insurance. 80% of our people want uni-
versal health care: that's their choice! They won't
get it because there's too much money at stake in the
for-profit system for HMOs, Big Pharma, and the pols
pigging out with them.
How much moola are we talking about? It's a $2 trillion
scam that enriches a few and robs the many. Two thirds
of home foreclosures are due to medical causes and their
attendant expenses. Here are some typical paychecks for
insurance company CEOs: (From The Huffington Post,
6/10/09)
Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
H. Edward Hanway -CIGNA- T. " $12,236,740.
Angela Braly - WellPoint - T. " $ 9,844,212.
Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - " $ 9,047,469.
Michael Neidorff -Centene - Total " $ 8,774,483.
James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - " $ 5,292,546.
Michael McCallister - Humana - " $ 4,764,309
Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total " $ 4,425,355
Richard Barasch - Universal Amer. - " $3,503,702
Stephen Hemsley - United Health Gr. " $3,241,042
Grand Total $85,429,970
Where do these big bucks come from? From profits, of
course. Obscene profits, actually, because they come from
the sick, the crippled, the dying, as well as people with no
known illnesses. The only way insurance companies make
money: the premiums they charge (and overcharge) must
exceed the benefits they pay out. This is accomplished by
collecting excessive premiums way above and beyond
actual requirements to cover claims, and then withholding
benefits or services by simple denial. You had a pre-existing
condition, or that illness (or procedure) isn't covered in your
policy. Too bad! You lose your house, we keep your money.
You have been scammed (and probably ruined). Nation (as
Colbert would say), there is simply no moral justification for
this kind of profiteering off peoples' tragedies, pain, and trauma.
No other nation in the world allows this if they are able to
remedy it. We are morally disabled and in denial about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, May 30, 2009
O. K., SHE MISSPOKE
Judge Sotomayor's now famous statement about the
ability of white men to understand non-white women
was not about race at all. It was all about life experience,
and its relevance to the judicial process. The whole
speech (and it's a long one) is about equality and impar-
tiality and how difficult those are to maintain, by judges
or anyone else.
Of course we are all shaped by our life experiences. How
could we not? Our views are as well. What she was talk-
ing about was how as a Puerto Rican child growing up in
poverty, she had a better understanding of those circum-
stances than someone raised in privilege and power. She
should have stated it that way instead of referring to race,
because that makes people crazy. She woke up the luna-
tic fringe. The crazies are like a pack of dogs that smell
red meat.
Racism is a belief that a particular group of people just by
virtue of belonging to that group makes them superior to
all people of some other group. Judge Sotomayor's whole
speech rejected any hint of that. She shouldn't have men-
tioned color, because that's not what she meant.
What she said: "I would hope (didn't say it would happen)
that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her exper-
ience would more often than not (not always) reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
(Emphasis and parentheses mine). She, for sure, should
have eliminated "white male" and substituted "someone"
instead. It wouldn't have changed her meaning, but it
would have gotten her off the hook.
In the very next paragraph she proved her point by adding:
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes
and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex
and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Su-
preme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a
gender discrimination case." What was their problem?
They simply had no understanding of the plight of victims
of discrimination! "No understanding" is another term for
"ignorance." Discrimination is always the result of ignor-
ance.
What I have just shown is that judges are not always
totally objective. If they were, they would always agree
on everything! They have all the same facts, and the same
law to interpret. But they perceive (see) facts differently.
What one judge sees as relevant, another doesn't see at
all, or discounts. Judge Sotomayor's whole lecture (to a
Latino law symposium) was about the long struggle of
minorities and women for fairness and understanding
and opportunity. It is more than ironic that her words
now have her again facing this struggle personally.
ability of white men to understand non-white women
was not about race at all. It was all about life experience,
and its relevance to the judicial process. The whole
speech (and it's a long one) is about equality and impar-
tiality and how difficult those are to maintain, by judges
or anyone else.
Of course we are all shaped by our life experiences. How
could we not? Our views are as well. What she was talk-
ing about was how as a Puerto Rican child growing up in
poverty, she had a better understanding of those circum-
stances than someone raised in privilege and power. She
should have stated it that way instead of referring to race,
because that makes people crazy. She woke up the luna-
tic fringe. The crazies are like a pack of dogs that smell
red meat.
Racism is a belief that a particular group of people just by
virtue of belonging to that group makes them superior to
all people of some other group. Judge Sotomayor's whole
speech rejected any hint of that. She shouldn't have men-
tioned color, because that's not what she meant.
What she said: "I would hope (didn't say it would happen)
that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her exper-
ience would more often than not (not always) reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
(Emphasis and parentheses mine). She, for sure, should
have eliminated "white male" and substituted "someone"
instead. It wouldn't have changed her meaning, but it
would have gotten her off the hook.
In the very next paragraph she proved her point by adding:
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes
and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex
and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Su-
preme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a
gender discrimination case." What was their problem?
They simply had no understanding of the plight of victims
of discrimination! "No understanding" is another term for
"ignorance." Discrimination is always the result of ignor-
ance.
What I have just shown is that judges are not always
totally objective. If they were, they would always agree
on everything! They have all the same facts, and the same
law to interpret. But they perceive (see) facts differently.
What one judge sees as relevant, another doesn't see at
all, or discounts. Judge Sotomayor's whole lecture (to a
Latino law symposium) was about the long struggle of
minorities and women for fairness and understanding
and opportunity. It is more than ironic that her words
now have her again facing this struggle personally.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
DANGEROUSLY MISINFORMED
"Everything you think you know about Iran is
wrong," says Fareed Zakaria in the 6/1/09 issue
of Newsweek. His cover story is a must-read
for anyone concerned about our dealings with
that pivotal country. Diplomatic improvement
there could get their cooperation helping with
Hezbollah and Hamas and Palestinian issues. No-
thing of importance will be done with those issues
without dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah. Well,
probably nothing good is going to happen anyway,
as long as Israel makes and controls our foreign
policy.
But just maybe, with accurate knowledge of Iran and
its fears and factions and legitimate needs, we can
avoid going to war there, in spite of Israel's and our
neo-cons demanding otherwise. Fareed shoots down,
one by one, many of the prevailing myths popular in
our media and among the pundits about Iran. And
ignorance, remember, is not bliss: it's deadly. It got us
into Iraq, where seven years later we still have 140,00
troops and 150,000 contract employees at still a horri-
fic cost in lives and dollars.
The killing goes on there. Nothing has been settled after
all this time and blood. The Surge was tactically a success
because the Sunnis went along with it. But it failed in its
purpose strategically. The main underlying issues remain
unsolved, and the fighting to settle them will surely resume
when we leave. No one who is at all knowledgeable of the
history and the people there, whether Iraqi or outsider,
doubts that hostilities will again escalate upon our exit.
And this time the Kurds will be drawn into it in a way
that they have avoided heretofore. So its all for nought:
we destroyed that country, its infrastructure, its social
fabric, its culture and cohesion. Humpty dumpty won't
and can't put it back together again. Only another Sad-
dam can do that!
The question now is whether we'll repeat the same kind
of ignorant mistake with Iran. Israel, who urged us to
attack Saddam on the mistaken notion the he had nukes,
now wants us to do the same with Iran for the same reason.
Fareed skillfully marshals facts to show why that isn't
necessary. He points out that there is a big debate going
on in Iran about whether to make nuclear weapons or not.
We are helping the hard-liners by threatening Iran and
trying to force them, by sanctions, to stop their efforts.
That not only won't work, but its both ignorant and stupid.
(Yes, you can be both, as we were in Iraq.) They may not
even want the bomb, says Fareed. We need an all-out
diplomatic effort to find out from them what they do want,
and whether we can make real progress in that direction.
Iranians are not suicidal, says Fareed. And they are not
fanatics, says Mohamed Elbaradei, who has spent a lot of
time there with Irani officials. He is head of the Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency. He also says that there
is no military solution to the nuke issue. You can't bomb
the knowledge of Iranian scientists. Elbaradei says of
Iran's leadership: ". . . you do see a lot of infighting
among them. And part of it is about who is going to get
credit for finally breaking out of this 30 years of fighting
and confrontation with the United States. Everybody is
positioning himself to be the national hero who would
finally put Iran back on the world map as part of the
mainstream. They are not like the stereotyped fanatics
bent on destroying everybody around them. They are
not!"
There are a number of misunderstanding in this country
about Ahmadinejad and his role in Iranian policy. He
doesn't make policy. The country is run by the Mullahs.
Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military, or make mili-
tary decisions. He doesn't make foreign policy or control
it either. He has some influence on domestic policy. He
is a spokesperson for his government, but an uncontrolled
one. He's a loose canon, often at odds and disliked by the
Mullahs. He's a rabble rouser, and popular with the poor
and the working class. They make up the majority, na-
turally. Most Iranians don't agree with his holocaust de-
nial, or his vicious hatred of Israel. It's absolutely false
though, to say (as many Americans do on TV) that he
has threatened to destroy Israel. He hasn't. And he
couldn't if he wanted to. (As I have already explained,
he doesn't have the power.) What he has said is that he
wants God to destroy Israel! And he prays to that end.
And being a devoutly religious person, believing God is
just, he believes God will do as he asks.
I'll plan to return later to this discussion of Iran. Let me
know what you think about it.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
wrong," says Fareed Zakaria in the 6/1/09 issue
of Newsweek. His cover story is a must-read
for anyone concerned about our dealings with
that pivotal country. Diplomatic improvement
there could get their cooperation helping with
Hezbollah and Hamas and Palestinian issues. No-
thing of importance will be done with those issues
without dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah. Well,
probably nothing good is going to happen anyway,
as long as Israel makes and controls our foreign
policy.
But just maybe, with accurate knowledge of Iran and
its fears and factions and legitimate needs, we can
avoid going to war there, in spite of Israel's and our
neo-cons demanding otherwise. Fareed shoots down,
one by one, many of the prevailing myths popular in
our media and among the pundits about Iran. And
ignorance, remember, is not bliss: it's deadly. It got us
into Iraq, where seven years later we still have 140,00
troops and 150,000 contract employees at still a horri-
fic cost in lives and dollars.
The killing goes on there. Nothing has been settled after
all this time and blood. The Surge was tactically a success
because the Sunnis went along with it. But it failed in its
purpose strategically. The main underlying issues remain
unsolved, and the fighting to settle them will surely resume
when we leave. No one who is at all knowledgeable of the
history and the people there, whether Iraqi or outsider,
doubts that hostilities will again escalate upon our exit.
And this time the Kurds will be drawn into it in a way
that they have avoided heretofore. So its all for nought:
we destroyed that country, its infrastructure, its social
fabric, its culture and cohesion. Humpty dumpty won't
and can't put it back together again. Only another Sad-
dam can do that!
The question now is whether we'll repeat the same kind
of ignorant mistake with Iran. Israel, who urged us to
attack Saddam on the mistaken notion the he had nukes,
now wants us to do the same with Iran for the same reason.
Fareed skillfully marshals facts to show why that isn't
necessary. He points out that there is a big debate going
on in Iran about whether to make nuclear weapons or not.
We are helping the hard-liners by threatening Iran and
trying to force them, by sanctions, to stop their efforts.
That not only won't work, but its both ignorant and stupid.
(Yes, you can be both, as we were in Iraq.) They may not
even want the bomb, says Fareed. We need an all-out
diplomatic effort to find out from them what they do want,
and whether we can make real progress in that direction.
Iranians are not suicidal, says Fareed. And they are not
fanatics, says Mohamed Elbaradei, who has spent a lot of
time there with Irani officials. He is head of the Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency. He also says that there
is no military solution to the nuke issue. You can't bomb
the knowledge of Iranian scientists. Elbaradei says of
Iran's leadership: ". . . you do see a lot of infighting
among them. And part of it is about who is going to get
credit for finally breaking out of this 30 years of fighting
and confrontation with the United States. Everybody is
positioning himself to be the national hero who would
finally put Iran back on the world map as part of the
mainstream. They are not like the stereotyped fanatics
bent on destroying everybody around them. They are
not!"
There are a number of misunderstanding in this country
about Ahmadinejad and his role in Iranian policy. He
doesn't make policy. The country is run by the Mullahs.
Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military, or make mili-
tary decisions. He doesn't make foreign policy or control
it either. He has some influence on domestic policy. He
is a spokesperson for his government, but an uncontrolled
one. He's a loose canon, often at odds and disliked by the
Mullahs. He's a rabble rouser, and popular with the poor
and the working class. They make up the majority, na-
turally. Most Iranians don't agree with his holocaust de-
nial, or his vicious hatred of Israel. It's absolutely false
though, to say (as many Americans do on TV) that he
has threatened to destroy Israel. He hasn't. And he
couldn't if he wanted to. (As I have already explained,
he doesn't have the power.) What he has said is that he
wants God to destroy Israel! And he prays to that end.
And being a devoutly religious person, believing God is
just, he believes God will do as he asks.
I'll plan to return later to this discussion of Iran. Let me
know what you think about it.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
Saturday, May 23, 2009
REZA ASLAN ON "COSMIC WAR"
In my last blog I reintroduced Reza Aslan, author of
No God But God, the best book on Islam available in
English, and probably the best in any language! Why
is it so good? Because the history of the religion is
there, warts and all, along with clear explanations of
the main doctrines. Aslan, an American Muslim born
in Iran, has studied the main writings of Islam in Arabic.
While I won't say that no non-Muslim can fully under-
stand that religion, I will say that Muslims fully edu-
cated in their faith are in a better position to under-
stand it than any non-Muslim. In other words, the
view from inside is different (and better) than the
view from outside the circle of belief. That would be
the case, I believe, with any religion.
Now Reza Aslan (RA) has brought his profound under-
standing of his faith, with its rich variety of peoples and
teachings, to a discussion of the clashes going on between
Muslims and the West. The result is a second brilliant
effort as valuable as the first. Jim Wallis says of this
new book, How to Win a Cosmic War, "Aslan makes the
case that the War on Terror is an unwinnable one, pre-
cisely because it is the wrong war to fight. A war between
religions, a battle between good and evil, a 'cosmic war,'
fails to address the underlying social and political roots
of conflict and terror. For people of faith and all those
concerned with peace in our world, Aslan's exacting prose
and depth of discernment create an enticing and neces-
sary read."
While RA discusses the origins of Christian "cosmic war"
teachings in the Crusades, and the lasting effects on Mus-
lims of those Crusades (and Mr. Bush's unfortunate use
of that poison term after 9/11), his most valuable insights
are into Jihadism, its history and spread and appeal to
certain kinds of Muslim youth that are culturally adrift.
He points out that: "According to a 2006 poll by the Pew
Global Attitudes Project, 70% of Egyptians, 70% of Indo-
nesians, 73% of Pakistanis, 85% of Jordanians, and 88%
of Turks (all U. S. allies, by the way) have an unfavorable
view of the U. S. If the War on Terror is an ideological
battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, there should
no longer be any question that the battle has been lost."
(Emphasis mine.)
Jerry Falwell proudly proclaimed God to be "prowar."
That's the Old Testament God of Israel, of course, not the
"God is love" of the new. Pres. Bush, following 9/11, re-
peatedly said it is America's task to "rid the world of evil."
That's Cosmic War talk. He said further that "America is
the hope of all mankind . . . the light that shines in dark-
ness . . ." in other words, America is the light of the world.
The same as Jesus!
RA explains further: "The concept of cosmic war, which in
its simplest expression refers to the belief that God is
actively engaged in human conflicts on behalf of one side
against the other, is deeply engrained in the Hebrew Bible.
'God is a man of war' (Exodus 15:3). In 1 Sam. God orders
Saul to attack the Amalekites and "utterly destroy all that
they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman,
child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." A simi-
lar fate was ordered for Achan, his wife and children and
their children. (Josh. 6:21)"
Folks, the world didn't change on 9/11. Nothing changed
in China, or India, or Africa, or S. America. Nothing really
changed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, or the Kashmir
stand-off between India and Pakistan. What changed was
our awareness of the world, our recognition of hatred
against us (not entirely unearned), and our feeling of
vulnerability. Our fear made us over-react, just as bin
Laden expected and planned. "This battle is not between
al Qaida and the U. S.," he said, This is a battle of Mus-
lims against the global Crusaders." He wants it to be, and
sees it as, a cosmic war. RA's answer to how do you win
a cosmic war? Don't fight it! Deal patiently and intelli-
gently with the real issues that divide us. This not a
"clash of civilizations." That's hogwash, and he explains
why. Military force is necessary to protect us, but it
cannot solve the specific issues we have in various parts
of the world. We can't make friends by killing children,
said Pres. Karzai of Afghanistan the other day. It can't
be done! Or by terrorizing Pakistanis with our drones
that strike without warning both friend and foe.
I urge you to read Aslan's book. Here's what Bernard
Avishai, author of The Hebrew Republic said about it:
"How to Win a Cosmic War hovers confidently over a
vast historical terrain, landing where it must to explore
how common and terrible apocalytic thinking is -- how
it plagues every religious tradition, every inspired na-
tionalism, and cannot be defeated with brute force, upon
which it thrives. This is a unique primer for pragmatic
leaders whose patient enlightenment is the real antidote
to terror."
No God But God, the best book on Islam available in
English, and probably the best in any language! Why
is it so good? Because the history of the religion is
there, warts and all, along with clear explanations of
the main doctrines. Aslan, an American Muslim born
in Iran, has studied the main writings of Islam in Arabic.
While I won't say that no non-Muslim can fully under-
stand that religion, I will say that Muslims fully edu-
cated in their faith are in a better position to under-
stand it than any non-Muslim. In other words, the
view from inside is different (and better) than the
view from outside the circle of belief. That would be
the case, I believe, with any religion.
Now Reza Aslan (RA) has brought his profound under-
standing of his faith, with its rich variety of peoples and
teachings, to a discussion of the clashes going on between
Muslims and the West. The result is a second brilliant
effort as valuable as the first. Jim Wallis says of this
new book, How to Win a Cosmic War, "Aslan makes the
case that the War on Terror is an unwinnable one, pre-
cisely because it is the wrong war to fight. A war between
religions, a battle between good and evil, a 'cosmic war,'
fails to address the underlying social and political roots
of conflict and terror. For people of faith and all those
concerned with peace in our world, Aslan's exacting prose
and depth of discernment create an enticing and neces-
sary read."
While RA discusses the origins of Christian "cosmic war"
teachings in the Crusades, and the lasting effects on Mus-
lims of those Crusades (and Mr. Bush's unfortunate use
of that poison term after 9/11), his most valuable insights
are into Jihadism, its history and spread and appeal to
certain kinds of Muslim youth that are culturally adrift.
He points out that: "According to a 2006 poll by the Pew
Global Attitudes Project, 70% of Egyptians, 70% of Indo-
nesians, 73% of Pakistanis, 85% of Jordanians, and 88%
of Turks (all U. S. allies, by the way) have an unfavorable
view of the U. S. If the War on Terror is an ideological
battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, there should
no longer be any question that the battle has been lost."
(Emphasis mine.)
Jerry Falwell proudly proclaimed God to be "prowar."
That's the Old Testament God of Israel, of course, not the
"God is love" of the new. Pres. Bush, following 9/11, re-
peatedly said it is America's task to "rid the world of evil."
That's Cosmic War talk. He said further that "America is
the hope of all mankind . . . the light that shines in dark-
ness . . ." in other words, America is the light of the world.
The same as Jesus!
RA explains further: "The concept of cosmic war, which in
its simplest expression refers to the belief that God is
actively engaged in human conflicts on behalf of one side
against the other, is deeply engrained in the Hebrew Bible.
'God is a man of war' (Exodus 15:3). In 1 Sam. God orders
Saul to attack the Amalekites and "utterly destroy all that
they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman,
child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." A simi-
lar fate was ordered for Achan, his wife and children and
their children. (Josh. 6:21)"
Folks, the world didn't change on 9/11. Nothing changed
in China, or India, or Africa, or S. America. Nothing really
changed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, or the Kashmir
stand-off between India and Pakistan. What changed was
our awareness of the world, our recognition of hatred
against us (not entirely unearned), and our feeling of
vulnerability. Our fear made us over-react, just as bin
Laden expected and planned. "This battle is not between
al Qaida and the U. S.," he said, This is a battle of Mus-
lims against the global Crusaders." He wants it to be, and
sees it as, a cosmic war. RA's answer to how do you win
a cosmic war? Don't fight it! Deal patiently and intelli-
gently with the real issues that divide us. This not a
"clash of civilizations." That's hogwash, and he explains
why. Military force is necessary to protect us, but it
cannot solve the specific issues we have in various parts
of the world. We can't make friends by killing children,
said Pres. Karzai of Afghanistan the other day. It can't
be done! Or by terrorizing Pakistanis with our drones
that strike without warning both friend and foe.
I urge you to read Aslan's book. Here's what Bernard
Avishai, author of The Hebrew Republic said about it:
"How to Win a Cosmic War hovers confidently over a
vast historical terrain, landing where it must to explore
how common and terrible apocalytic thinking is -- how
it plagues every religious tradition, every inspired na-
tionalism, and cannot be defeated with brute force, upon
which it thrives. This is a unique primer for pragmatic
leaders whose patient enlightenment is the real antidote
to terror."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)