A Lesson on Nonviolence for the President

Obama’s rejection of negotiations as a possible solution to terrorism also doesn’t square with the evidence. After analyzing hundreds of terrorist groups that have operated over the last 40 years, a RAND corporation study published last year concluded that military force is almost never successful at stopping terrorism. The vast majority of terrorist groups that ended during that period “were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40%), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43%).” In other words, negotiation is clearly possible. Full article.

The fundamental unreliability of America’s media

greenwald on thomas-friedman-the-moron: The person who has spent weeks depicting Afghanistan as a “special needs baby” is now lecturing us about the “corrosive mind-set” of “infantilizing” Muslims. And the person who is now inveighing against seeing ourselves as “subjects” and Muslims as “objects” was one of the most vocal cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq on the ground that our invasion would “put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real change in an Arab world.” Full article.

Afghanistan Escalation Ramps Up Contractor Presence

Calling military contractor activity an “accountability free zone,” Scahill argues that Obama has “paid lip service to oversight and cracking down” while he’s actually expanding the use of contractors. “Without the draft, these wars wouldn’t be possible but for hiring these private contractors,” says Scahill. Watch video.

The Afghanistan strategy : The New Yorker

i usually like hendrik hertzberg. in this piece he is way too soft on obama. maybe coz he’s quite misguided about the war. what struck me however was his astute understanding of why obama is calling for an escalation. the reasons r purely political: “Withdrawal, beginning at once? The political and diplomatic damage to Obama would be severe: a probable Pentagon revolt; the anger of NATO allies who have risked their soldiers’ lives (and their leaders’ political standing) on our behalf; the near-certainty that a large-scale terrorist attack, whether or not it had anything to do with Afghanistan, would be met at home not with 9/11 solidarity but with savage, politically lethal scapegoating.” Full article.

How We Invaded Afghanistan

most interesting article. state machinations and outlandish geo-political strategies r not just “conspiracies” – they’re v real. we only have to look at history:

“I was the head of the KGB’s foreign counterintelligence branch when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on Dec. 24, 1979. The fateful order to send our military into such difficult terrain was by no means a foregone conclusion. Before Soviet leaders made the final call, we wrung our hands, considered our options, and argued among ourselves. Here is the inside story of how that wrenching decision was made.” Full article.

Pakistan market blast ‘kills at least 20’

“Although Obama declared that success in Afghanistan is “inextricably linked” to our “partnership” with Pakistan, he has turned reality on its head by embracing the Pakistan myth: that stabilizing Afghanistan is the key to stabilizing Pakistan. But US pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan is pushing more militants into Pakistan, with the potential for upsetting the delicate political balance there and spreading the Pakistani insurgency beyond the border regions.” Editorial, The Nation, Dec 2, 09

Watch here.

Obama’s turn in the “great game”

THIS GROUNDWORK paid off for the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. The U.S. immediately set up military “facilities” in the five Central Asian states formerly part of the USSR that would play an important role in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Suddenly, the strongest military on earth had secured a position that greatly furthered its aims–militarily pressuring Iran to the west, and giving the U.S. military a key airbase within short flying times of key cities in both Russia and China.Certainly, control of proposed oil and gas pipelines is a key part of the equation. But what the U.S. is after is even bigger–limiting Russia’s economic, political and military revival, and raising the stakes for China as it attempts to turn its growing economic power into greater political clout. Full article.

howard zinn on bill moyers journal

“If democracy were to be given any meaning, if it were to go beyond the limits of capitalism and nationalism, this would not come, if history were any guide, from the top. It would come through citizen’s movements, educating, organizing, agitating, striking, boycotting, demonstrating, threatening those in power with disruption of the stability they needed.” (howard zinn)

Watch here.