Failure to Learn

The hubris knows no bounds. The United States is now approaching eight years of its Afghanistan adventure, with a thoroughly predictable outcome. Defeat. The Taliban were so easily "defeated" initially because, as indigenous forces are wont to do, they simply melted back into the country-side, and decided to bide their time, to fight another day. Six years of waiting and gathering strength, coupled with six years of American neglect and incompetence have now provided the conditions where the Taliban feel they will be able to reassert control over much of the country. What did the United States do with it's initial "victory?" Did it turn the bulk of its aid to Afghanistan to economic and social development for that desperately poor country, to win the support of the population? Did it support the nascent democratic organizations and institutions that had existed before the Taliban, to empower these groups to lead the political and economic development of the country? No, the United States did none of these things. The bulk of its aid remains military assistance. It installed a corrupt government, and did nothing to reduce the influence of warlords and militias on average Afghanis. It routinely resorted to massive firepower, including indiscriminate air-strikes, when engaging Taliban militants, with the predictable killing of many innocent Afghan civilians. The latter has done much to turn the population against the American project and is a veritable recruiting boon to the Taliban. One would be hard-pressed to devise a more counterproductive strategy.

While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.

However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."

So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?

"No Matter What Your Purpose Is..."

What happens when the cops are the criminals? What happens when lawless cops with truncheons, mace, tear-gas, hobnailed boots, and "less-lethal ammunition" decide that you are no longer allowed to simply walk the streets of your own campus? This is what happens. Welcome to the Police State known as the University of Pittsburgh campus.

The only criminals evident in this video are the "rioting police," whose Chief apparently decided that he had the authority to suspend the US constitution, and, by fiat, to deny the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The segments of the video where the police commands are being broadcast are truly chilling. Where is the option for redress of grievances as it is declared that, "The Chief of Police has declared this an unlawful assembly." By what authority does the Chief of Police suspend the highest law in the land, and deny people the right to peacefully walk freely about? Then, "no matter what your purpose, you must disperse..." One can only guess at what the phrase, "other police action," is meant to suggest. No doubt a baton to the head, a taser dart to the chest or a rubber bullet to the back. This is the most chilling type of arbitrary authority imaginable, and would be unthinkable in a true democracy.

Is it really necessary for black-clad stormtroopers to invade the peaceful University of Pittsburgh campus, and attack students just walking and gathering? True, the G-20 summit is taking place in Pittsburgh, but that gives Police the right to riot and attack innocent citizens? The behavior of these cops is simply appalling, but who does one turn to when the cops are the criminals? What justice will these common thugs face?

With Friends Like That...

It's so easy to beat up on the poor. The latest skirmish in the ongoing class war of the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless is the targeting of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for the apparent misconduct of some of its employees evident in videos created as part of what might accurately be called a right-wing "sting" operation, the apparent goal of which was to smear the organization and attempt to bring about some type of legal sanction against it. While at face value the conduct evidenced by some of the ACORN employees is indeed reprehensible, one should be mindful that these videos were apparently created and edited with the explicit aim of casting the organization in the worst possible light. One should also keep in mind that there were numerous similar attempts to "entrap" ACORN workers, and indeed at several sites the sting operators apparently found little joy. For a little more balance and perspective than you are likely to find on Fox News, see ACORN head Bertha Lewis's response to the recent firestorm of criticism.

While the right-wing architects of these efforts would probably have been pleased with a general smearing of the reputation of ACORN, they were no doubt giddy upon learning that the Senate, by an 83-7 vote, had moved to bar further government grants to ACORN. And now their glee must have truly turned to wing-nut rapture as the House has similarly voted, this time 345-75, to bar federal funding to the organization. Wow, it's really quite remarkable, here is a small, non-profit organization that, as Glenn Greenwald points out, has perhaps been the recipient of a total of about 50 million federal dollars over the last 15 years, and, without any of its employees having been accused of a crime in a court of law, has apparently already been tried and convicted by the same governing Parties in Congress that have been the perpetrators and enablers of truly epic illegality over the last eight years. The CEOs of KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater (now Xe), to name just a few of the corporate pirates in charge of our government, must be laughing all the way to their banks stuffed with ill-gotten billions and billions of federal no-bid contracts. Those who now sit in judgement of ACORN are the same Parties who were happy to funnel trillions of dollars of federal funds to their client, "too big to fail," Wall Street banks in order to make whole the lost bets they made with other peoples money. The chutzpah and sanctimony here are truly off the Richter scale.

The attack on the poor, and its accompanying hypocrisy is truly bipartisan. Republicans have long sought to cripple ACORN because it's actually been successful in promoting democracy. That is, in helping to enfranchise poor and minority communities, constituencies which tend to vote reliably for Democrats. Apparently Republicans are only for promoting democracy when it can be used as a pretext to enable an illegal, immoral war. Meanwhile, you really don't want to be a friend of the Democrats, do you? Just look how you're treated. ACORN was successful in registering millions of new voters, a majority of whom likely voted for Democratic candidates in the last election, but the instant there are some potentially damaging allegations brought against the group, no matter the circumstances, the Democratic leadership is more than happy to throw ACORN under the proverbial bus. As the saying goes, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.

The entire episode just further reinforces the failure of our now corporate-controlled government. Groups that aid constituencies which the Federal government has long abandoned must scratch and claw for the most meager of support, whereas corporate oligarchs are feted like kings, and wealthy corporations can look forward to the next round of no-bid, socialism-for-the-rich contracts, all at taxpayer expense. Torturers can admit their crimes, indeed brag about them, but not a peep is heard from the leadership of either corporate Party. It is a sorry spectacle indeed.