Certain Doubt

Let’s Talk Numbers

Friday, August 20th, 2010

According to Jack Kem, the Deputy to the Commander of NATO training mission in Afghanistan, the Afghan army now stands at around 134,000 troops. The number of police stand at 115,000.

Add this to the almost 120,000 NATO troops and their attendant 100,000 private contractors and you get a combined number of around 379,000 souls devoted to fighting the Taliban.

To put this into perspective, according to Major-General Richard Barrons, as of March 3, 2010, Taliban forces are estimated to number about 36,000 insurgents.

379,000 against 36,000. I’m no math genius but this looks to me like the Taliban are out numbered Ten to one.

Or to put it another way, with a population of barely 30 million, there are there is one soldier, policeman or foreign contractor for every 77 people in the country.

And the cost? The US has ponied up more than 335 billion dollars for it’s war effort in Afghanistan so far with no end in sight. This staggering amount of money has been spent on a country where two-thirds of the population live on fewer than 2 US dollars a day.

This is past insanity. It is bat shit crazy.

What is even crazier is that the enemy we are afraid of, al Qaeda, according to our own C.I.A. numbers as few as 50 men!

We have poured a third of a trillion dollars into a dirt poor country to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat’ a rag tag bag of fundamentalist nut jobs who’s greatest “victory” over our country was to highjack four airliners using box cutters and fly them into buildings?

300 billion dollars to hunt down 50 guys? Talk about over kill.

To put it into further perspective, Neighboring Pakistan has recently been the victim of catastrophic flooding that has affected some 20 million people. The US military has offered the use of four Chinook Helicopters and two black Hawk helicopters to support flood relief.

Six helicopters to help relief efforts for 20 million people?

By any measure, the United States has completely lost perspective as to what is important in the world. You can’t defeat box cutters with daisy cutters. Thousands of soldiers can’t defeat terrorists who aren’t there. And drones armed with Hellfire missiles are no use against catastrophic floods.

Tags: afghanistan, Al Qaeda, floods, numbers, pakistan, perspective, soldiers, Taliban, Terrorism, war, warfare
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, warfare | No Comments »

Morality of War in Afghanistan

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Since the dawn of history, men have fought wars of aggression.

And since the dawn of history men have sought to justify those wars…

They have failed.

There is no moral justification for starting a war. None. While there can be honest debate about the acceptability of violence in defense of one’s life or liberty, it is a perversion of the concept of morality to claim that it is right and just to be the aggressor and preemptively attack another nation for any reason whatsoever. Whether you call it “making the world safe for democracy,” or whether you claim you are simply seeking “lebensraum,” sending soldiers into battle without provocation is wrong. It is immoral, and yes it is evil.

Fact: Since the events of Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941, no nation has attacked the United States. Despite prodigious amounts of government spin, in the past fifty years none of the conflicts in which we have engaged have been in defense of our shores. In every conflict since WW II in which the United States has begun, we have been the aggressors. Thus with regard to the defense of this nation, none of the wars and invasions we have begun were justifiable.

As I said, bullies of the past have always tried to justify their aggressive acts. The chief difference I see between wars of the past and today’s conflict is that today, those in power don’t even try to justify their actions. Take General David Petraeus for example. In a recent interview with David Gregory of MSNBC, General Petreaus spoke out on the “big issues” of the conflict in Afghanistan. He talked about “the public’s frustration with the war, the strength of the Taliban, the government of Hamid Karzai… and whether President Obama’s July of 2011 withdrawal timeline will hold.” In addition, Gregory added his own straw-man question to the mix: “Is nation building possible in the badlands of Afghanistan?”

However, no question was raised in the interview of the rightness of the United States’ cause. Not one word was devoted to the moral justification of invading and occupying Afghanistan, putting our soldiers in harm’s way, and bankrupting the country in the process.

Instead, Petraeus talked about the “importance of the mission” and how hard that mission was. But the rightness of the mission? Un uh. No way.

In addition to being morally vague, General Petraeus’ comments on the war were so ambiguous as to be practically double speak:

“What we have are areas of progress, we have to link those together, extend them and then build on it because, of course, the security progress, as you noted earlier is the foundation for everything else, for the governance progress, the economic progress, the rule-of-law progress and so forth… the trick is to get all of it moving so that you’re spiraling upward where one initiative reinforces another.”

If my head did much more “spiraling upward” it would leave my shoulders altogether.

Not only can’t Petraeus identify the moral underpinning of America’s cause, he has trouble identifying what constitutes success:

“…but if you could reduce the level of violence by some 90 to 95 percent, as was the case in Iraq, to below a threshold which allows commerce and business and outside investment to take place, where there is an election that’s certainly at least elected representatives, and now you have to see if they can come together and form a government that is still representative of and responsive to the people, as was the previous one. If that can all be achieved there, that would be a reasonable solution here as well. “

The hell with peace; the hell with freedom; the hell with winning hearts and minds, the most important moral justification for all the death and destruction we are causing is so that commerce can resume?

“If Afghanistan can become the central Asian “roundabout,” to use President Karzai’s term, to where it can be the new Silk Road, think of the implications for that, recalling that, of course, Afghanistan is blessed with the presence of what are trillions, with an S on the end, trillions of dollars worth of minerals if, and only if, you can get the extractive technology, the human capital operated, the lines of communication to enable you to get it out of the country and all the rest of that.”

Is he serious? The moral purpose behind fighting and killing and dying in Afghanistan is so that we can dig up some minerals?

In an August 14 article in Huffington Post, entitled “Why Petraeus can’t make the sale” Author Dan Froomkin identifies Petraeus’ main problem as a simple one of facing up to reality.

“That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan — and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.”

I believe Petraeus’ problem to be much more basic. If the General truly cares about “making the sale” for continuing to fight a war in Afghanistan then either he or President Obama must offer up a clear and unambiguous moral reason for fighting it.

And as the United States was the one who invaded and is currently occupying Afghanistan – as well as being responsible for inflicting much of the damage – I think that is a hard sell indeed.

Tags: 9-11, afghanistan, agression, attack, history, Moral, Morality, Obama, Petraeus, preemptive, sale, Terrorism, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, war
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, warfare | No Comments »

More, More, Drone War

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

The continuation of America’s drone war against targets in Pakistan is a crystal clear demonstration of the impotence of the United States with regard to foreign policy. Drone attacks are not a rational policy for solving the problems posed by extremists in the region. Consider the following quote from a New York Times piece by David Sanger reporting on a recent drone attack.

A strike by an unmanned drone last week killed a senior Qaeda commander…

Sounds clear, right? Bold, definitive, lots of action words like strike and kill. To read this first sentence you’d think the U.S. acted decisively to identify an enemy and take him out. Yay team!

The piece goes on to state Hussein al-Yemeni was: “… a senior Qaeda commander who had played a significant role in planning the killing of Central Intelligence Agency operatives in late December at a base in Afghanistan, according to American officials.”

Again, clear and concise. According to a “US counterterrorism official,” positive identification was made. But then we get:

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described Mr. Yemeni as an “Al Qaeda planner and facilitator” in his late 20s or early 30s, who had established ties with the Haqqani network, which has planned many Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Now wait a minute, This supposed “senior al Qaeda commander is a 20 something “facilitator” guilty of “establishing ties” with the Haqqani network. What does that mean? And what was his crime exactly?

His role was described by one American official as a “conduit in Pakistan for funds, messages and recruits, but his real specialty was bombs and suicide operations.”

Okay, that seems clear enough – until we read the next sentence:

It was unclear exactly what role Mr. Yemeni might have played in preparing the Jordanian double-agent, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, also known as Humam Khalil Mohammed, for his meeting in Khost on Dec. 30.

Now let’s recap. We have an unnamed “American Official” who claims we killed a senior al Qaeda commander specializing in bombs and suicide operations who played a significant role in planning the killing of CIA operatives… but no one knows just what significant role he “might” have played in the bombing??? This shit drives me crazy.

The drone attacks are part of a covert program… whose existence is an open secret. The attacks are a key element of an effort to put pressure on Al Qaeda and its leadership, but in recent weeks they appear to have been used to kill those believed responsible for the Khost attack.

In an unusual statement, a senior intelligence official told reporters the deaths (of the CIA agents) would be “avenged through successful, aggressive counterterrorism operations.”

If I am a Pakistani reading this news report I don’t have to read between the lines here. It’s obvious what this is: vengeance. The CIA got caught with their pants down, were given a good sharp kick in the balls and now they are sending drones around in angry swarms to fire missiles at anyone who looks like they’re up to no good. This isn’t a war policy. This isn’t even a viable strategy. It’s a vendetta. This is Hatfields and McCoys. You killed some of our guys so we’re going to lob some Hellfires and take out some of your guys.

But wait, it gets better. Another news report said of the incident:

N. WAZIRISTAN: At least five persons were killed and several others were injured when US unmanned drones fired missiles at a house in Miramshah area of North Waziristan on Monday evening.
According to media reports, US suspected drones fired five missiles at a house in Manay Khan Saraey area of Miran Shah, killing five persons and injuring several others.

And another:

Peshawar: At least five persons were killed in a US drone attack in the lawless north Waziristan tribal region in northwest
The drone fired five missiles at targets near Miranshah, the main town in north Waziristan Agency.
A veterinary hospital was also hit by a missile, sources said.

And this:

PESHAWAR: Five people were killed and six others sustained injuries in a US drone attack on a hotel and nearby veterinary hospital near Miramshah bazaar in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) on Monday.
The drone fired three missiles, which struck a small hotel, where local tribesmen were staying due to daylong curfew clamped by the authorities in the volatile tribal region.

A veterinary hospital?

The point of all this is it doesn’t matter which of these reports is the most accurate. The only important thing here is if we are really serious about wanting to solve the problems of extremists in lawless and volatile tribal areas of Pakistan, the only way it’s ever going to happen is if we bring law and stability to these regions.

Blowing up hotels and hospitals with missiles fired from unmanned drones operated by pilots in a trailer in New Mexico is never going to bring peace to the region. It is never going to make us more secure. It only adds one more piece of evidence to the case that the U.S. is not serious about peace. All it proves is that our government doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about the people of Pakistan.

Hell, we don’t even care about their pets!

Tags: alQaeda, CIA, counterterrorism, Drones, hellfire, pakistan, Policy, Taliban, Terrorism, uav, war
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, warfare | 1 Comment »

Terrorist Publicity

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Why do terrorists get air time?

Have you ever wondered why videos of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and others receive so much play in the media? Think about it. If a radical Islamist straps a bomb to his chest and finds a way to blow up innocent people that is a legitimate news story. But if a video surfaces of this same terrorist, made before his death, explaining not only why he did it but calling on all his compatriots to do the same should the media air it? A bomber who detonates an explosive in a public place is a criminal. Is it really appropriate to give him air time to justify and even publicize his heinous actions?

If our media airs a tape made by a terrorist, whom does it serve? The terrorists themselves must be thrilled with the free publicity. Public airing of terrorist manifesto videos certainly can’t hurt their recruitment goals. Media outlets like Al Jazeera or Fox news probably also benefit monetarily from the ratings boost from airing such a tape.

However, it seems to me there is a third group who benefits from wide airing of terrorist made videos: The US government.

For an administration bent on escalating war in the Middle East, juicy viral videos of bearded men in funny hats holding RPGs is a PR goldmine. What better way to promote and sell a “war on terror” than to have the media broadcast videos of actual terrorists spouting anti-American epithets and fundamentalist hate? Airing a terrorist video in our mainstream press does nothing to improve our safety as a nation. All it does is raise the level of fear among the general populous to the point where they grant the government a tacit mandate to continue spending billions to fight “the war on terror.”

Am I being paranoid? Perhaps. But answer this one:
How is it that terrorist videos go viral so quickly?

As I have mentioned, news outlets like al Jazeera and CNN are delighted to have controversial product to put out over the airwaves that people will watch. But where does the content they air related to terrorist organizations come from? Can a terrorist walk into the offices of Reuters or AP and hand over a video of his comrades performing military training? Not likely.

In fact, most of the information about terrorist groups that enters the major media pipeline in the west comes from companies like SITE and IntelCenter. These “independent terrorist watch organizations,” supposedly comb the internet, looking for radical Islamist sites. They download pictures and videos, translate posted messages and then sell them to news organizations like al Jazeera and AP. For example, this quote appeared in an al Jazeera article on the suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

In a September 2009 posting on a website run by al-Qaeda, according to SITE, al-Balawi wrote: “If [a Muslim] dies in the cause of Allah, he will grant his words glory that will be permanent marks on the path to guide to jihad, with permission from Allah.

“If love of jihad enters a man’s heart, it will not leave him even if he wants to do so. Indeed, what he sees of luxurious palaces will remind him of positions of the martyrs in the higher heaven.”

The problem with this is, though they are frequently quoted as sources for information on jihadist groups, companies like SITE and IntelCenter, are not official government intelligence sources. They are private, secretive, for profit companies. They seldom list the actual websites where their “quotes” supposedly come from, nor do they identify who is responsible for the translations into English. And because their information and pictures are proprietary, there is no way to verify their veracity or accuracy.

Thus, we have the same pattern over and over. A terrorist perpetrates a crime. (Or attempts to perpetrate one) Shortly thereafter we have videos and quotes – ostensibly made by the terrorist group responsible – collected from unidentified Jihadist websites, by unknown reporters, and translated by anonymous translators that somehow miraculously are picked up by major media outlets and instantly go viral with no questions asked!

Does this strike anyone else as weird?

Have we really become so gullible that we will accept information presented in newspapers, on TV or the internet and not question the source of this information or who benefits from its dissemination?

This, if anything is the reason I post on this blog. When I see ready made content (photos, quotes, and videos ) conveniently appearing on lots of news sites simultaneously, it triggers my doubt meter. Things on the internet do not go viral by accident.

Pull out your crayolas and color me skeptical.

Tags: government, IntelCenter, internet, Islamist, media, PR, Radical, Terrorism, video, viral, war
Posted in Daily Doubt, Politics, media | No Comments »