TCR: Salvatore Giunta

I've been reading about and watching this guy all week after he became the first living soldier to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor since the Vietnam Conflict and he's always been the very definition of humility. We need to find some way to clone Giunta whilst imprinting his sense of duty and bravery upon the DNA:

American Power And Imaginary Numbers

My conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power breathlessly cuts and pastes the following from FOX News in his recent post "Total Costs of Iraq War Less Than Obama-Democrats' Economic Porkulus Package":

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion...

And how's that "stimulus" working out?

Now I've mentioned on several occasions that economics is not my strong suit and that I even find that field of study fairly boring but I do speak English pretty well and I'm no slouch when it comes to basic mathematics so I was able to detect a few flaws in Don's argument here. Ignoring the fact that I automatically take people who use cute little nicknames like "Porkulus" when discussing serious political topics less seriously than those who speak like actual grown ups, the operational word one should really pay attention to in the above article is "projected".

The cost of the Bush administration's war in Iraq is stated flatly and in the past tense, as if the final bill has arrived in the mail and therefore will not increase past the stated $709 billion price tag while the final $862 billion cost of the stimulus is "projected" well into next year. Now this disparity might prompt an honest (or at least curious) person to ask, "Say, is there also a 'projected' final cost for the Iraq war as well?" Interestingly enough, there is:

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates^[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.^[2]...

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.^[9][10]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.^[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."^[11]

So the projected cost of Bush's war (which he never paid for in any of his budgets because apparently deficits didn't matter back then) is actually conservatively estimated at almost four times that of Obama's stimulus bill, which he passed in order to pull the country out of the economic recession and possible depression he inherited from Bush and company. And it seems that FOX News is having a little trouble with their own research as well. From the AP last week:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s stimulus measure has created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs and continues to boost economic growth in the second half of 2010, but it’s come at a higher price tag than originally billed.

Congressional analysts released new figures today estimating that the law enacted in January 2009, when it projected to cost $787 billion over a decade, would cost $814 billion. But that’s still less than the Congressional Budget Office estimated in January, when it said the measure would cost $862 billion.

So FOX's difference was only off by $48 billion or around 6% (maybe their researchers haven't read the news since January) but admittedly the stimulus did go over its projected budget by $27 billion or almost 4%. Now everyone knows that government spending almost always goes over its estimated costs so the 4% run over isn't surprising but noting that the stimulus went over its original projected cost might also prompt an honest (or at least curious) person to ask, "Say, was there also a 'projected' original cost for the Iraq war as well?" Interestingly enough, there was:

WASHINGTON — At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

Based on the time periods cited those numbers are from 2 1/2 years ago so they've obviously increased since then but if we use the higher original Bush administration estimate of $60 billion as well as the older CBO estimate of $1.9 trillion (much lower than Stiglitz's own current conservative estimates) the Iraq war will eventually go over its original projected budget by at least 3200%, again estimating extremely conservatively. Not only is this scenario the exact opposite of what Don tried to claim above but it's cost overruns are higher by several orders of magnitude.

Now I don't blame Don for foolishly stating what is an extremely obvious falsehood about the comparisons between the Bush administration's profligate wartime spending and the Obama administration's relatively modest depression averting spending. I actually had to Google complicated phrases like "original cost iraq war", "original cost stimulus", "projected cost iraq war" and "projected cost stimulus" to gain access to all of this esoteric information. And I don't know if you noticed but those phrases contain several words each, some of them are even multi-syllabic! So I guess Don can be forgiven for lazily cutting and pasting a story from the propaganda media wing of the Republican party rather than doing actual minimal research to make sure that what he's posting isn't an outright partisan lie. The man only has one PhD. after all. Hey, it's hard out here for a hack.

Something Someone Else Said

"Personally I’m not interested in “limited government” as an end in itself, but as a means to greater individual liberty. I’m opposed to government programs that waste taxpayer dollars because higher taxes restrict my freedom. But I’m much more opposed to government programs that use taxpayer dollars to restrict freedom directly. I’m not interested in joining a “limited government” movement that considers the two equivalent. And I’m definitely not interested in being part of a movement that gives torture and preemptive war a free pass under the heading of “national defense” while it focuses instead on fighting the tyranny of SCHIP and unemployment insurance," -Timothy B. Lee, Bottom-Up.

I completely agree with this sentiment. It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between those on the political right who call themselves conservatives and even claim to endorse the philosophy of libertarianism and their simultaneous enthusiastic embrace of the military and security culture of our government. Yes, rising taxes and government waste are problems that I believe we need to address but I hardly find those issues as insidious as our government's relatively recent proclaimed power to tap your phone and read your email without warrants, kick in your front door and ransack your home, lock you away without charging you with a crime or reading you your rights and yes, torturing you to within and even beyond an inch of your life.

I too care about how my tax dollars are spent but I care even more about my personal bodily liberty and civil rights and it appears that those aforementioned "conservatives" are quite happy to cede what I consider to be more than a few personal rights and freedoms in exchange for their nanny state government claiming to protect them from every conceivable danger in the world, even from themselves. To me this world outlook smacks of fear, which would definitely explain the desperate bouts of bravado and jingoism these people so often go through to compenate for it. While on principle I agree with them on several issues of fiscal responsibility their hypocrisy as it pertains to personal liberties unfortunately prevents me from taking them seriously on most other issues.

(via)

Picture Of The Day

Time magazine's latest cover is causing some controversy in the blogosphere:

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws. Aisha posed for the picture and says she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan, many of whom have flourished in the past few years. Her picture is accompanied by a powerful story by our own Aryn Baker on how Afghan women have embraced the freedoms that have come from the defeat of the Taliban — and how they fear a Taliban revival.

Now of course this photo is meant to be emotionally manipulative: how could you not feel sorry for this woman? What was done to her was truly reprehensible and horrible and I don't mind admitting that I would be quite happy to see something equally as horrible happen to her attacker in return. This sort of thing happens to women far too often in that part of the world and our troops are doing good work by trying to prevent further violence being perpetrated upon innocents. That said: do you consider this to be a form of exploitation? In their defense of running the cover Time claims that they neither endorse nor oppose the war effort but as I said, it's clearly meant to support an agenda of remaining in Afghanistan and I think this claim of objectivity would seem equally transparent if the cover photo featured the dead mutilated corpse of an American soldier instead.

We've occupied Afghanistan for nearly a decade now. Credible military experts and historians agree almost universally that it will be several more decades before any sort of functional civilized government will be able to run the country and maintain some semblance of peace in the face of Taliban aggression. As I've said before I see only two options for us in this war: either get out now largely on our own terms or else wait until a lack of money, troops and equipment slowly drains us dry before forcing us to leave in defeat. I'm sympathetic to the plight of people like Aisha and I wish the United States could stop all suffering on the planet through shear force of will but that's obviously logistically unrealistic and economically unfeasible.

So, how do we define "victory" in Afghanistan? Should we remain there indefinitely until it is achieved? Should we spend an infinite amount of money to achieve it? What about all of the other countries whose people endure equally appalling levels of suffering and cruelty, should we commit ourselves just as fully to achieving "victory" in those places as well? Should we truly become Team America: World Police? I think the short and inevitable answer is that we simply cannot, and I believe that President Obama was mistaken in doubling our military down on the war in Afghanistan. Just as important as striving to win a war is being able to recognize when that cannot be done, even if doing so leads to an increase in human suffering. That's a hard truth for Americans to accept but we must do so if we wish to avoid bankrupting our nation and retain the ability to help people around the world like the poor girl pictured above.

Something Depressing Someone Else Said

"Nobody is winning," -Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan.

I'll admit, I can't see any way for us to get out of either Afghanistan or Iraq without the security situations in either country going south like a duck in winter but in order to prevent that from happening we'd have to permanently occupy both countries for what increasingly looks like forever and we cannot afford that on many levels. I say we leave both now while we can still do so on our own terms and then provide whatever support we can to at least staunch the bleeding. Otherwise we're just going to have to do the same thing a few more years down the road when we're forced to for lack of money, troops and equipment. It's not a pretty option but as far as I can tell it's the best one we have. The very nature of these two wars and how they were prosecuted has made "winning" highly impractical if not outright impossible. It's almost as if neither conflict was thought out too well from the start, huh?

(via)

Lowering The Drinking Age To 18

I've long been a fan of doing this even after I turned twenty-one. Under my plan every American who is both eighteen-years-old and a high school graduate would automatically be of legal drinking age and able to purchase and consume alcohol. Just being eighteen wouldn't work because we would experience the same outcome we do in colleges: students who are old enough to drink would constantly be buying alcohol for those who are not. It would also be a great incentive for kids to stay in school and get their degree or pass a high school equivalency exam (all of those who do not do so would have to wait until they turn twenty-one to drink lawfully). We allow eighteen-year-olds to be tried as adults, vote, own guns and serve in the military yet when it comes to consuming alcohol they are treated as second-class citizens. I say that if someone can risk their life for their country they should be able to enjoy a beer after work. What do you think?

Something Patriotic Someone Else Said

"I felt fury and disgust and rage and nausea, but I didn't feel fear. I found I felt a sort of exhilaration. I thought: if this war has been declared as it looks as it has been, by theocratic fascism then it's a war I would never get bored with fighting, because it involves defending all the things I do like, against all the things I don't. Culturally as well as politically, and intellectually. And I still feel that way, I think it's absolutely worth fighting..." -Christopher Hitchens, commenting on where he was during the 9/11 attacks and boiling down why I really don't like war or religion, especially when they're combined.

"Can You Give Me More Details About This Bill?"

In the comment section of my last post regular commenter, friend of this blog, family member and rational conservative one L bill wrote the following:

A coworker turned to me last week and said "next week they vote on whether the gov't takes over 20% of the economy." I asked if he was talking about healthcare (I already knew the answer) and he said "yeah". So my next question was what they were voting on. He gave me a general answer, so I clarified that I wanted to know more specifics about the bill. He said he couldn't tell me anything because he haddn't made time to read [more specifics about] the bill.

I feel like this sums up 95% of Americans... either Republican or Democrat. They latch on to the1 or 2 talking points that are easy and ignore the rest... and if that 20% figure is accurate, then it seems like there's a problem.

I know you are better read than my coworker, but I only see the general outrage in most of your blog posts. Can you give me more details about this bill, JBW? It doesn't need to be in this comments section. I know it's a lot of information.

As I began to answer I had the thought that some other readers might have the same question about tomorrows vote so I decided to make it a post instead. That number is actually closer to 16% (1/6 of our economy already goes toward health care and that number has been rising for decades). I haven't gone into any great specifics about the legislation thus far because frankly they've only just finished crafting it, and even if it passes both houses of congress certain aspects will be changed again in committee after that before it reaches President Obama's desk. Some things I can tell you:

• It will cover 95% of Americans.
• Almost everyone will be required to participate (that's the only way it will work to cover that many people).
• Consumer safeguards will include no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions including children, no higher premiums for women, no lifetime dollar limits on policies for those with serious illnesses, parents can keep their kids on their policies until age 26 and starting out there will be a high risk pool for the uninsured.
• It expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor.
• It closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830.
• Businesses are not required to offer coverage and instead employers are charged a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage; businesses with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from this fee.
• Tax credits are provided for purchasing insurance.
• Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges which would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from.
• This will not be a government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress.
• No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. And no, your grandmother will not be executed for being too old either.
  

As I've said before, this bill is far from perfect. I personally would have liked to see a single-payer system instituted but that idea was scrapped some time last year. I would also like to see some of the proposals put forth by Republicans (although not wholly owned by them) like tort reform, malpractice reform, increased fraud investigation and purchasing coverage across state lines included as well. Hopefully some of these ideas will find their way into the final legislation as it's instituted and refined over the next several years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that reform will cost $940 billion over ten years whilst trimming federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over that same time period, and studies have shown that increased preventative care will further defray current costs. To put those numbers in perspective, we've already spent over $970 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan and that cost is estimated to climb to between two and three trillion by the time we leave those countries, if ever. We spend more than twice as much on health care per capita than any other Western industrialized nation and our overall level of care is mediocre by comparison. Yes, the United States has the best health care system in the world but it has become increasingly obvious that only the financially well off are able to take full advantage of it; the rest of America is forced to incur what are often crippling lifetime debts in order to do so.

Presidents have talked about reforming our health care system since Teddy Roosevelt was in office and as every administration since has failed to do so Americans' insurance premiums and costs have continued to increase while coverage and levels of care have similarly decreased. I honestly don't know if Obama's reforms will solve these problems (nobody does, although most of the provisions sound pretty good to me) but I do know that our current path is entirely unsustainable financially and has been for quite some time. Doing nothing for decades has clearly not worked. I for one am ready to try something else. I hope this was what you were looking for, one L.

The U.S. Still Won't Ban Land Mines

Via TYWKIWDBI comes this excerpt from a Bill Moyers essay on the subject:

As a weapon, variations of land mines have been around since perhaps as early as the 13th century, but it was not until World War I that the technology was more or less perfected, if that can be said of weapons that mangle and mutilate the human body, and their use became common.

The United States has not actively used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991, but we still possess some 10-15 million of them, making us the third-largest stockpiler in the world, behind China and Russia. Like those two countries, we have refused to sign an international agreement banning the manufacture, stockpiling and use of land mines. Since 1987, 156 other nations have signed it, including every country in NATO. Among that 156, more than 40 million mines have been destroyed.

Just days before Obama flew to Oslo to make his Nobel Peace Prize speech, an international summit conference was held in Cartagena, Colombia, to review the progress of the treaty. The United States sent representatives and the State Department says our government has begun a comprehensive review of its current policy.

Last year 5,000 people were killed or wounded by land mines, often placed in the ground years before, during wars long since over. They kill or blow away the limbs of a farmer or child as indiscriminately as they do a soldier. But still we refuse to sign, citing security commitments to our friends and allies, such as South Korea, where a million mines fill the demilitarized zone between it and North Korea.

The article goes on to say that about 75-80% of the victims of land mines are innocent civilians not involved in the conflicts that caused their placement. I have a hard time believing that we're still having this conversation in 2010, and the refusal to sign this international agreement is just one more thing that Obama isn't doing that depresses me about his administration so far.

Stewart Punks Kristol On Health Care Reform

It's recently been brought to my attention through private emails and public admonitions that many of you would like to see more of the lengthy commentary that was a staple of this site several months ago. Again, I apologize for the lack thereof (recounted and explained with as much emotional honesty as I could muster in this previous post) and I promise to make a considerable effort to pull myself from out my current intellectual funk. In so doing, I have a few things to say about this Jon Stewart interview of leading neoconservative William Kristol on health care reform in America from the middle of last year, which I apparently completely missed at the time. The mental disconnect here is staggering:


So, what does Kristol mean to say here? Stewart is the one who lets slip the phrase "our better citizens" yet Kristol seems to agree with the sentiment when he answers "Our soldiers? Absolutely." Now before I say what I'm about to say let me first state that I have great respect for the soldiers in our military and that I'm truly thankful for the protection they provide this country. In fact, for those not in the know, I almost attended West Point myself (I blew my scholarship partying way too much in my first year at Texas A&M instead). Just wanted to get that out of the way before I say this.

I'm getting a bit tired of the constant claim that every one of our military men and women are the best this nation has to offer, that by signing up to join the American military you somehow automatically become an incredible individual who is a far better person than those who have not done so. Granted, there are a lot of brave and extraordinarily capable individuals serving in the military (many of them truly are the best America has to offer) and we're lucky to have them fighting for us but the truth is that the military has also traditionally been somewhat of a last resort for many in our society, especially during times of economic duress.

Ever since the Bush administration got this country hopelessly mired in two intractable wars overseas our military has been stretched to the breaking point, so much so that the admission standards have had to be drastically lowered. As a result of these lowered standards, our military now admits recruits of lesser physical and mental prowess, recruits with less than healthy psychologies, recruits well over the traditional age of service and even recruits with substantial criminal records. We've watered down the ranks in an effort to maintain unsustainable recruitment numbers during a time of unpopular war. Yet Kristol and other neocons still insist that every one of these men and women are inherently better than any one of us and thus deserve better health care than you and I. Why is this?

Is it because they perform a service that is more dangerous than the average American's job? OK, I'll readily admit that but what does Kristol have to say about timber-cutters, deep sea fishermen, pilots, structural metal workers, delivery drivers, roofers, electrical power installers, farm workers, construction laborers and truck drivers? These are the ten most dangerous occupations in the country and I don't think that anyone could argue that these jobs are not essential to our economy and society, so all things being equal why should they not receive the same level of health care as those in our military?

Kristol also claims that "the military need different kinds of health care than the rest of us". Again I ask, why is this? Granted, their jobs (those active duty soldiers and civilian personnel who are currently serving and working in dangerous war zones, which is about ten percent of the total military employed by our government) are indeed dangerous but how is the health care they require that different from that of the occupations I referenced above? When a soldier incurs a serious head injury in battle does he need different medical care than a timber-cutter or construction laborer who receives the same type of head wound at their work site? Does a soldier who loses a limb in combat any more disadvantaged or physically traumatized than a farm worker who loses the same limb within the blades of a motorized thresher? Just how exactly are the wounds and injuries of soldiers in the military any different or more serious than those same wounds or injuries received by civilians, thus requiring "different kinds of health care than the rest of us"?

The obvious answer is that they are not but to Kristol and the other architects of the Iraq war who favor constant American military interventionism across the globe the role of the soldier and the United States military must be all but mythologized in order to support their warmongering ambitions. Yet the problem for the neocons is that most of America already subscribes to this supposed mythology: "Support Our Troops" signs are ubiquitous within our society and stories abound of everyday Americans buying beers for returned servicemen and women (which I wholeheartedly support by the way, especially for those soldiers who are under the legal drinking age). Despite the neocons' best efforts to insist otherwise, we Americans already treat our soldiers as our somewhat social betters.

So Kristol chooses instead to denigrate the sacrifices and hard work of those Americans not belonging to the military as being somehow inferior to that of our soldiers in order to justify his support for never-ending wars around the world (wars he himself would never deign to fight in, of course), hence his insistence that the well being of those in civilian American society deserves much less respect and regard than that of those serving in the American military. And despite his usual inane and hypocritical posturing about the costs of various government subsidies he is also all too happy to let those same Americans pay for these wars with the tax dollars they might very well have spent on their own health care system, if only it was something that they, you know, actually deserved.

Picture Of The Day

The first four floors of the Freedom Tower finally start to emerge from the former location of the World Trade Center destroyed on September 11th, 2001. Four floors, in eight years. At this rate the entire 94 story structure should be completed by 2189. It amazes me how easily showing the terrorists who attacked us and the world at large how strong and resilient we Americans are as a people inevitably takes a back seat to political posturing and bureaucratic wrangling. The terrorists chose their target well.

(via)

Stormbirds Concept Air Warfare Animation

This is a concept animation film featuring dogfighting and aerial bombers produced by some British guys I know nothing about. It's not that long but the visuals and effects are beautifully stunning:


(via)

Tancredo Gets Smackdown From Veteran Kos

This is what's known as being called on your chickenhawk pussy bullshit:


After college Moulitsas completed a three year voluntary enlistment in the army. Tancredo was too depressed to fight in the Vietnam War when he graduated college and became eligible for the draft, although he was an outspoken proponent for America's involvement there. Which actually puts him in pretty good company, Republicanwise:

There are similar stories [of avoiding service in Vietnam] about almost every other prominent rightwing Republican of recent vintage. Newt Gingrich, ex-Speaker of the House, went the Cheney route [of obtaining deferments]; Kenneth Starr, Clinton's legal nemesis, had psoriasis; Jack Kemp, Dole's running mate in 1996, was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years; Pat Buchanan had arthritis in his knees, though he soon became an avid jogger.

The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either "anal cysts" or an "ingrown hair follicle on his bottom". It is not my custom to mock others' ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate.

It's easy to be enthusiastic about wars when your neighbor's sons are the ones fighting them for you.

SNL: Pirates And Emperors

Just thought of this cartoon the other day and decided to post it:

Walled In: Learning About The Berlin Wall

I knew that it had been a daunting obstacle at the time but I actually had no idea that it was quite so intricate a structure:


I visited pieces of this former cold war landmark several years ago but I couldn't really get a feel for just how menacing it really was at the time. In fact, I nonchalantly purchased a replica KGB pocket watch on the East German side of Checkpoint Charlie but viewing this digital recreation has given me a much more sobering look at this monument to communist oppression.

(via)

Something Someone Else Said

"He tore up a copy of the UN charter in front of startled delegates, accused the security council of being an al-Qaida like terrorist body, called for George Bush and Tony Blair to be put on trial for the Iraq war, demanded $7.7tn in compensation for the ravages of colonialism on Africa and wondered whether swine flu was a biological weapon created in a military laboratory. At one point, he even demanded to know who was behind the killing of JFK. All in all, a pretty ordinary 100 minutes in the life of the colonel." -The Guardian U.K., recapping Wednesday's speech by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

I haven't heard or read this speech but the Guardian is one of the more reputable papers of record out there, so now having said that: What a crazy Libyan motherfucker, and I'm sure the right-wingosphere will try to tie this insane bastard to Obama in some way. It's kind of sad when acting like an asshole is predictable for you. And before any of you ask: Yes, I also want to know who killed JFK, but I keep that shit on the downlow when someone puts a microphone in front of me.

(via)

Afghan Insurgents Die In Explosion From IED

Now this is some terrorist activity I can get behind, and it didn't cost us a dime:


I'm glad the kid made it out OK but I fear that we'll just be fighting him in a few years anyway. The war in Afghanistan is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I just don't see a winning strategy for either staying or leaving, thus I've pretty much come to the conclusion that we should just cut our losses and get out. Unfortunately President Obama has decided to double-down our forces there; it's one of many policy decisions he's made since taking office that I find myself at odds with.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd still love to either capture or kill Osama bin Laden but let's be honest: Those are some pretty long odds right now and even if we did achieve that goal I suspect that Al Qaeda would keep right on keeping on, although they've definitely hit a low point in their popularity and effectiveness within the Arab world. And then there's this to consider: What if our taking out bin Laden is just what Al Qaeda needs to revive and rally more believers to their cause? That's not to say that we still shouldn't try to erase his bearded ass but in my experience religious nuts love a good martyr and we should be prepared to accept the regional repercussions of said actions.

But then what happens there when we leave? The recent election between current president Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah (the man so nice, they Abdullahed him twice) has been marred with U.N. allegations of voter fraud that could lead to a run-off election that must be completed as soon as possible so as not to leave this incendiary country essentially rudderless until next summer. The Taliban and other insurgents have started to step up their terror campaigns in the face of increased U.S. military activity and to be completely honest: We're flat broke right now. Plus, every historical precedent I look at says that we could be there for decades and still not pacify the country, much less install a legitimate and functional government. And on top of everything else, there's next door neighbor Pakistan and their precarious nuclear arsenal to consider.

While I obviously don't agree with Obama's decisions on this issue to date, I do hope that he's successful in this endeavour and that right soon. Otherwise, Afghanistan could become the modern day Vietnam in a relatively clumsy modern day Iraq/Korea analogy. I don't know about you (and I'm definitely not an advocate for total U.S. isolationism by any means) but I'm getting pretty fucking tired of being the world's police force. And we're still paying people good money not to grow poppies there. What the hell?

Building Tomorrows Super-Soldiers Today

I always thought that those loaders Ripley drove in Aliens were so cool when I was a kid:


(via)

Freedom Of The Press Isn't Always Free

This is the danger in allowing an American military that is well-versed in the art of propaganda and public relations (as it invariably must be at the dawn of the 21st century) to also be the sole arbiter of who can and can not cover the actions of that same military during a time of war:

As more journalists seek permission to accompany U.S. forces engaged in escalating military operations in Afghanistan, many of them could be screened by a controversial Washington-based public relations firm contracted by the Pentagon to determine whether their past coverage has portrayed the U.S. military in a positive light.

U.S. public affairs officials in Afghanistan acknowledged to Stars and Stripes that any reporter seeking to embed with U.S. forces is subject to a background profile by The Rendon Group, which gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.

Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company...

...U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter “refused to highlight” good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.

Professional groups representing journalists are decrying the Pentagon’s screening of reporters.

As well they should. Now, I understand the need for positive propaganda and effective PsyOps to win a war but the ability of a free American press to document and report on the activities of its government halfway around the world should not be subject to military approval based on their history of "pro-military" stories. If George W. Bush had run his White House press corps this way during his tenure as president FOX NEWS, the National Review and The Wall Street Journal op/ed page would have been very lonely in that room all by themselves with the Press Secretary.

And even more disturbing is that this business with The Rendon Group is still going on a full seven months after Barack Obama entered office. Yes, as the Commander-in-Chief it's obviously now his military to command so I can see why he would want it portrayed in the best possible light but manipulation of the press on any level is something that should be avoided by any honest administration, regardless of the subject matter and location. And the fact that very few Americans read Stars and Stripes and thus will never hear about this officially sanctioned practice of military censorship only makes it that much worse.

Financing The Taliban

This isn't so much a surprise as it is just disturbing:

KABUL — It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy...

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.

As I've said before, I'm not at all sure what role the United States should be playing in Afghanistan at this point and I'm fairly uncomfortable with President Obama's plans to double-down the war effort there. I hate to admit this but it seems just as bad an idea as Bush deciding to go into Iraq. The Afghan people are fiercely nationalistic and have pretty much outfought and outlasted every country that has tried to occupy and pacify them in the past, regardless of their intentions. Our policy of continuing to try to hold that country together just seems like another quagmire that we should be avoiding, given how much each of those two countries have cost us in lives and treasure over the last six years. That said, I still think that this suggestion is a pretty good idea but I'm not holding my breath.