Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
11/23/2012
our comedian-in-chief
CBS captures a couple great quotes in this article.
"[T]here is no* country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders..."
"So if we're serious about wanting to resolve this situation and create a genuine peace process, it starts with no* more missiles being fired..."
* whereby "no" excludes places that the Obama Administration and partnering governments like to bomb.
6/23/2011
shorter obama
9/11...blah blah blah...it's all bush's fault...al qaeda is on the run...we need tens of thousands of troops to chase them...even though Afghanistan has 100,000 security forces...don't ask when all the troops will come home because we're trying to turn the page on decades of war
Got it?
Got it?
6/08/2011
in defense of delta
I've been helping prepare some info at work for a press conference tomorrow on our HVRP program, so I've got veterans on the mind. I checked YahooFinance when I got home, and a story about Delta charging soldiers bag fees naturally caught my attention.
On first glance, it appears pretty outrageous that a big company would tack on fees to members of our armed forces for checked luggage on a flight from DC to Atlanta.
But the thing is, as hard a critic as I am of failures in corporate governance, it's important to observe when the policy under scrutiny isn't actually that terrible. Delta (and the other major airlines) actually have quite friendly policies toward off duty members of our armed forces using domestic, civilian transportation networks. Relevant to this story, Delta doesn't charge any bag fees to checked luggage until the fourth bag, even though they do charge bag fees to other customers on the same routes. Southwest Airlines thinks this is such a huge issue that they've invented an entire television advertising campaign highlighting their policy that 'bags fly free'.
What this demonstrates is one specific example of the economic costs of militarism. There are the direct costs shown on the federal budget, which are astronomical. But then there are the indirect costs on the civilian economy which are even larger. It costs money to fly four bags from DC to Atlanta. It costs money to train soldiers on their return to the US from overseas deployments, on what they should expect right down to the logistical details of how to return home (the military reimburses bag fees). Somebody has to pay for all this.
It's right to be angry.
But in this case, don't be angry at Delta. The problem is DC. When you have Presidents and Congresses that are too deceitful and cowardly to fully account for all of the costs of war, those costs don't simply disappear. They're just externalized onto private actors, from the soldiers themselves to their family members and community to the various actors they encounter in the civilian economy.
And of course, if we weren't deploying troops overseas in Afghanistan, there wouldn't be any troops needing to carry four bags back from Kabul in the first place.
On first glance, it appears pretty outrageous that a big company would tack on fees to members of our armed forces for checked luggage on a flight from DC to Atlanta.
But the thing is, as hard a critic as I am of failures in corporate governance, it's important to observe when the policy under scrutiny isn't actually that terrible. Delta (and the other major airlines) actually have quite friendly policies toward off duty members of our armed forces using domestic, civilian transportation networks. Relevant to this story, Delta doesn't charge any bag fees to checked luggage until the fourth bag, even though they do charge bag fees to other customers on the same routes. Southwest Airlines thinks this is such a huge issue that they've invented an entire television advertising campaign highlighting their policy that 'bags fly free'.
What this demonstrates is one specific example of the economic costs of militarism. There are the direct costs shown on the federal budget, which are astronomical. But then there are the indirect costs on the civilian economy which are even larger. It costs money to fly four bags from DC to Atlanta. It costs money to train soldiers on their return to the US from overseas deployments, on what they should expect right down to the logistical details of how to return home (the military reimburses bag fees). Somebody has to pay for all this.
It's right to be angry.
But in this case, don't be angry at Delta. The problem is DC. When you have Presidents and Congresses that are too deceitful and cowardly to fully account for all of the costs of war, those costs don't simply disappear. They're just externalized onto private actors, from the soldiers themselves to their family members and community to the various actors they encounter in the civilian economy.
And of course, if we weren't deploying troops overseas in Afghanistan, there wouldn't be any troops needing to carry four bags back from Kabul in the first place.
5/02/2011
last call
(P) It's been 21 years since economic sanctions started killing Iraqis in 1990.
18 years since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
13 years since the 1998 African embassy bombings.
11 years since the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
10 years since the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and the invasion of Afghanistan.
8 years since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
5 years since Saddam Hussein was killed in 2006.
And now, the White House is set to report the death of Osama bin Laden.
If we don't bring our troops home now from foreign military occupations, we'll be doing this forever.
Forever.
Well, as long as empires last.
Which tends to be shorter than forever.
18 years since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
13 years since the 1998 African embassy bombings.
11 years since the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
10 years since the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and the invasion of Afghanistan.
8 years since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
5 years since Saddam Hussein was killed in 2006.
And now, the White House is set to report the death of Osama bin Laden.
If we don't bring our troops home now from foreign military occupations, we'll be doing this forever.
Forever.
Well, as long as empires last.
Which tends to be shorter than forever.
7/03/2010
quick, who said this
"Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan," [x] says of the president. "Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."
[x] also described the situation around the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as "very comical."
- And no, it wasn't me! -
It wasn't someone from Code Pink or the Green Party either.
It was this guy, Chairman of the Republican Party.
I'm so confused. Nebraska has moved to the Big Ten and I don't know who to root for.
Oops, I mean, Democrats have replaced Republicans, and now I don't know whether the good guys support a military occupation or think having troops in central Asia ranks on the stupid ladder somewhere between bungie jumping without a cable and putting your hand on a hot stove to recover from frostbite.
What does it mean when the Bush/Cheney folks and the Obama/Biden folks both think that the head of the RNC is an idiot - when he happens to spout something with a hint of sensibility to it?
Help! There's been conference realignment but no one has printed the new media guides yet about what rivalries I'm supposed to care about and who's on which side.
Is Liz Cheney the new Adult in Charge? Has Bill Kristol been right about war all along?
DNC, please bring a little sanity to the episode:
It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.
okie dokie, or do that...
6/07/2010
will manning serve more jail time than libby?
There are some fascinating angles to this story at Wired. What is classified information? What should be classified? Who gets to determine what is classified? Is it ever okay to leak something? What should happen to whistleblowers? How does the public conduct oversight of classification?
And perhaps most interestingly, what is the military smoking to give a 22 year old the keys to the kingdom? Is this what our military has become? We're so far removed from dealing with actual national security matters that an army specialist deemed by our own government as barely competent to drink a beer has access to sensitive diplomatic cables that have nothing to do with his assignment in Iraq?
Or maybe, they do have something to do with Iraq, and they would be quite embarrassing for our political leadership. But of course, how can we know what they are when the government classifies them and prevents We the People from seeing them? This is particularly intriguing as it involves the Wikileaks video Collateral Murder to which my reaction is basically ho hum.
You see, unlike when, say, the Bush Administration destroyed an actual national security asset, and most ironically, one working on WMDs, stuff like this carries no military value. None. Zero. It's political, and there are no reasons to classify politics. In fact, secrecy is pretty much exactly how We the People get screwed.
But remember, no senior Bush official served jail time for revealing undercover agent Valerie Plame (Wilson). None. Zero. Wanna bet 22 year old Manning gets more than that?
And perhaps most interestingly, what is the military smoking to give a 22 year old the keys to the kingdom? Is this what our military has become? We're so far removed from dealing with actual national security matters that an army specialist deemed by our own government as barely competent to drink a beer has access to sensitive diplomatic cables that have nothing to do with his assignment in Iraq?
Or maybe, they do have something to do with Iraq, and they would be quite embarrassing for our political leadership. But of course, how can we know what they are when the government classifies them and prevents We the People from seeing them? This is particularly intriguing as it involves the Wikileaks video Collateral Murder to which my reaction is basically ho hum.
You see, unlike when, say, the Bush Administration destroyed an actual national security asset, and most ironically, one working on WMDs, stuff like this carries no military value. None. Zero. It's political, and there are no reasons to classify politics. In fact, secrecy is pretty much exactly how We the People get screwed.
But remember, no senior Bush official served jail time for revealing undercover agent Valerie Plame (Wilson). None. Zero. Wanna bet 22 year old Manning gets more than that?
4/14/2010
I don't get the Iraq shooting video
(P) I had been debating whether I wanted to see the video posted at Wikileaks of the shooting of some Iraqis a few years ago from Apache helicopters. There was so much hype around it, I really wasn't sure what might be on it.
But I went and watched it last night, and I don't get it. The soldiers in the video were quite professional. They maintained aerial surveillance of the ground, stayed in contact with each other, sought permission from their commanders before taking action, used short controlled bursts of rounds, and were otherwise quite calm and focused. I was particularly impressed by their restraint after one of them thought he saw an RPG. I'm sorry, but if I'm in a helicopter in a war zone, and my colleague is saying there's an RPG, I just might pull that trigger and ask permission to engage later. After wetting my pants, of course.
This. Is. War.
What the bleeping bleepity bleep bleep did you think was going on over there? We're handing out flowers? Baking cookies? Singing Kum ba yah?
If Iraqis (and Afghans and Iranians and Saudis and Pakistanis and everybody else) are our enemies, then we should celebrate the efficient, professional conduct captured in this engagement. If those people aren't our enemies, well, get the heck out of there. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Centcom commanders give the orders to leave, this is precisely what will continue in our name.
The story of this video is that there's no story. That's why the government fought Reuters' FOIA request. The Reuters employees, and the other Iraqis too, are dead because of the choice to occupy the country. These events are expected consequences of sending military troops to patrol foreign places.
But I went and watched it last night, and I don't get it. The soldiers in the video were quite professional. They maintained aerial surveillance of the ground, stayed in contact with each other, sought permission from their commanders before taking action, used short controlled bursts of rounds, and were otherwise quite calm and focused. I was particularly impressed by their restraint after one of them thought he saw an RPG. I'm sorry, but if I'm in a helicopter in a war zone, and my colleague is saying there's an RPG, I just might pull that trigger and ask permission to engage later. After wetting my pants, of course.
This. Is. War.
What the bleeping bleepity bleep bleep did you think was going on over there? We're handing out flowers? Baking cookies? Singing Kum ba yah?
If Iraqis (and Afghans and Iranians and Saudis and Pakistanis and everybody else) are our enemies, then we should celebrate the efficient, professional conduct captured in this engagement. If those people aren't our enemies, well, get the heck out of there. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Centcom commanders give the orders to leave, this is precisely what will continue in our name.
The story of this video is that there's no story. That's why the government fought Reuters' FOIA request. The Reuters employees, and the other Iraqis too, are dead because of the choice to occupy the country. These events are expected consequences of sending military troops to patrol foreign places.
11/11/2009
happy armistice day
Well, we're about where we were last year. As we remember peace and veterans, we're stuck with wars and way too many policy areas that deny veterans the support they need.
How is it that there are homeless veterans in our country? Those without decent employment? Backlogs at the VA? Why does our prison system incarcerate so many veterans?
Don't hold your breath waiting for politicians to do anything bold about it. They're too busy waving their flags at the parades and talking about how brave and heroic other people are to allocate any real public dollars to these problems.
After all, we need the money to bail out corporate criminals and pay private mercenaries to imprison, torture, and kill scary muslim foreigners.
How is it that there are homeless veterans in our country? Those without decent employment? Backlogs at the VA? Why does our prison system incarcerate so many veterans?
Don't hold your breath waiting for politicians to do anything bold about it. They're too busy waving their flags at the parades and talking about how brave and heroic other people are to allocate any real public dollars to these problems.
After all, we need the money to bail out corporate criminals and pay private mercenaries to imprison, torture, and kill scary muslim foreigners.
8/04/2009
unsanitizing torture
(P) I personally tend to be more discrete and diplomatic in my communication, but I wanted to highlight somebody being a little more direct in telling it like it is. The notion that our prison policies have been anything but immoral, illegal, and counterproductive is pretty funny.
Some articles have a way of just lettin' it all hang out, leaving little to the imagination. The graphic alone makes reading this story worth it.
I would normally give a warning that this is mature content, but this is what our government is doing in our name to real human beings. How can conduct be so horrific we should shelter our kids from it, but at the same time, not be worth investigating and prosecuting? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Of the millions of Americans who have been arrested in the last few years, few have committed crimes even remotely as disgusting or an as large a scale as the senior officials of the Bush Administration.
For your reading pleasure, Whores on Terror by Allan Uthman.
A snippet:
Some articles have a way of just lettin' it all hang out, leaving little to the imagination. The graphic alone makes reading this story worth it.
I would normally give a warning that this is mature content, but this is what our government is doing in our name to real human beings. How can conduct be so horrific we should shelter our kids from it, but at the same time, not be worth investigating and prosecuting? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Of the millions of Americans who have been arrested in the last few years, few have committed crimes even remotely as disgusting or an as large a scale as the senior officials of the Bush Administration.
For your reading pleasure, Whores on Terror by Allan Uthman.
A snippet:
I don’t want to come off as minimizing the horror of controlled drowning. It’s just that there’s something about forcible anal rape that brings the torture issue into sharp focus. Just once, I’d like to hear one of these American Enterprise Institute psychos, the ones that always trot out to defend the Neocons’ freakish obsessions, have to defend shoving a flashlight up a guy’s ass. I want to hear Frank Gaffney or Jonah Goldberg tell me why I shouldn’t be fucking mortified that raping prisoners was considered within tolerable interrogation practices by my country. I want Glenn Beck to justify butt-raping a suspect.
4/19/2008
to laugh or to cry
Oh, this is just too much. One of my main hesitations about Senator Obama has been his position that we need to pay more attention to Afghanistan, not less.
But regardless of how you feel about US troops there, this is pretty funny, in a very disturbing way.
Nato forces mistakenly supplied food, water and arms to Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan, officials today admitted.
That NATO has been so unsuccessful in militarily occupying Afghanistan is a very sobering reality. The last thing we need to be doing is helping the Taliban.
But regardless of how you feel about US troops there, this is pretty funny, in a very disturbing way.
Nato forces mistakenly supplied food, water and arms to Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan, officials today admitted.
That NATO has been so unsuccessful in militarily occupying Afghanistan is a very sobering reality. The last thing we need to be doing is helping the Taliban.
3/29/2008
traitors or liars
Or both?
(P) Attorney General Mukasey's comments in San Francisco are really interesting:
...we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. You've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that...
Did we know about a safe house in Afghanistan that was making phone calls in 2001? If so, why did the Bush Administration choose not to perform surveillance of those terrorists, as explicitly allowed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? What part of foreign, intelligence, and surveillance does the Bush Administration not understand?
And if we didn't know that, will we now be treated like kindergarteners as Mukasey tells us he didn't say that we knew that? It's definitely a new low when the Administration doesn't even try to tell believable lies anymore.
(P) Attorney General Mukasey's comments in San Francisco are really interesting:
...we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. You've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that...
Did we know about a safe house in Afghanistan that was making phone calls in 2001? If so, why did the Bush Administration choose not to perform surveillance of those terrorists, as explicitly allowed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? What part of foreign, intelligence, and surveillance does the Bush Administration not understand?
And if we didn't know that, will we now be treated like kindergarteners as Mukasey tells us he didn't say that we knew that? It's definitely a new low when the Administration doesn't even try to tell believable lies anymore.
6/23/2007
maybe we should be recruiting them
(P) I was doing a little reading this afternoon, and I ran into a very interesting tidbit of information. One of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the cases that were recently thrown out, Omar Kadhr, is charged with killing a special forces medic on the battlefield.
Omar was 15.
For all the talk about how illegal and immoral the Bush Administration's wars are, maybe there's another problem we need to address.
Let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume Omar is guilty. What does that say about the state of our military when a teenager in an impoverished country can kill a special forces medic on the battlefield?
Omar was 15.
For all the talk about how illegal and immoral the Bush Administration's wars are, maybe there's another problem we need to address.
Let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume Omar is guilty. What does that say about the state of our military when a teenager in an impoverished country can kill a special forces medic on the battlefield?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)