The One Trillion Dollar War - Nothing To Show For It

By Joe Clifford 
 We have become so accustomed to war we don’t even bother to discuss it anymore. The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost 15 years, and it is no longer mentioned or discussed on corporate news. The clown show, sometimes called a presidential race, has been reduced to two candidates, both of whom are hated by the voting public, and neither has raised the issue of Afghanistan once. The candidates have not been asked about it, and neither has spoken about it. It is the silent war that appears to be never ending, but just because it is not discussed does not mean you are not paying for it. So far the tab is one trillion dollars and rising every day. To most of us a “trillion” dollars is a meaningless figure, because most readers, myself included, cannot relate to a “trillion”, but consider this. A trillion dollars looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000, and a billion looks like this: $1,000,000,000. A trillion dollars equals one thousand times a billion, so there are 1,000 billion in a trillion. Still can’t relate? How about billions? One billion equals 1,000 million. Still cannot relate. One trillion dollars spread out flat on the ground would cover 4 thousand square miles. If you stacked one trillion dollars in a pile, the pile would be 68,000 miles high. 
So what is the point?

What do we have to show for our one trillion-dollar war? What have we accomplished? We have nothing to show, and have accomplished absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!

The Taliban now controls more land in Afghanistan than ever. US forces cannot venture into the Afghan countryside because they will get killed. The only place in the entire country that is considered under US and Afghan control is the capital city of Kabul, which coincidentally is where the US has its giant embassy with its Green Zone. However, even within Kabul, US troops usually resort to helicopters to get from one section of Kabul to another for fear of getting killed in cars or armored vehicles.
Originally we went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and the perpetrators of 9/11, despite the fact that none of those perpetrators came from Afghanistan. They all originated in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban contacted the US government and said they were willing to give us Bin Laden if we presented proof or evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. The US refused their offer, so the entire war was a wasted effort from day one. First we attacked the wrong country, and second, Bin Laden could have been handed over to us without any war. 

When the war did not go as expected, President Obama announced a new Drug War in Afghanistan. So how has that gone? We have spent about 10 billion dollars on the drug war, and the rate of opium and heroin production is now about 40 times greater than when the drug war began. Afghanistan now is responsible for about 85% of the worlds heroin production. The US nor the Afghan government can go into the highly productive heroin and opium areas for fear of their safety. Once outside Kabul, US soldiers are at great risk. The Taliban sells its heroin around the world and uses the money to finance its war against the occupation of their country by the US.

So what are we doing there?? Who knows? The war is not good for the Afghan people, or the US army, and certainly not the American people. It goes on endlessly with no winner. At some point down the road, the US will be forced to end the occupation and leave Afghanistan to its own people. Isn’t that the way it should be? 

Since 9/11 cannot be used as a pretext for the endless Afghan war and occupation, the focus had to change. We began saying the Taliban had to be stopped from taking over the government. But wait; two opposing forces fighting to control a country is a civil war, i.e. North vs South in Civil War. What business is it of the US to get involved in another countries civil war? What give the US the right to decide who should rule Afghanistan? There is no such right! 
So in the end, we have no business being there, and never had a legitimate reason to get involved in the affairs of Afghanistan, but we have been for 15 years. One trillion dollars of your money has been spent on an illegitimate war which has resulted in absolute and total failure. But the Military Industrial Complex has grown rich, which just might be the point of this whole endless war. A wonderful example of corporate welfare. Will either of the two candidates end this nonsense? No, but Jill Stein will.

What could have been done with one trillion dollars? How about infrastructure, how about Single Payer health care for all, how about free college for all? When Democrats, Republicans, and corporate media say such things are not affordable, they are lying. Easily affordable if we stopped our worldwide wars. All other major nations have these things; they can afford them because they don’t just do war.

What fools we are.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45365.htm

 Pundits, Decrying the Horrors of War in Aleppo, Demand Expanded War

As with Iraq and Libya, these laptop bombardiers offer no clear plan for how to actually end the suffering of the Syrian people.

By Adam H. Johnson

 

Adam H. Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

The devastating photo of 5-year-old Omran Daqneesh sitting in an ambulance after his home was bombed in Syrian or Russian air strikes has amped up calls for direct US military intervention against the Syrian government. The now-viral photo of Omran—and the broader siege of east Aleppo—was prominently featured in most major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and several other publications. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all ran stories on the photo, and editorial boards and pundits weighed in as well, with several insisting that President Obama must “do something” to stop the suffering of the Syrian people.

According to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, State Department officials “sent a cable to Obama, urging stronger military action against Syrian government forces. They suggested that could include cruise missiles and ‘targeted airstrikes.’ That’s what we mean by leverage, of a sort Putin would comprehend.”

In The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote (in response to the siege of Aleppo, but before the photo went viral): “Many experts recommend trying to ground Syria’s Air Force so it can no longer drop barrel bombs on hospitals and civilians. One oft-heard idea is to fire missiles from outside Syria to crater military runways to make them unusable.”

And on Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough proclaimed: “Inaction by the United States and the West and the world is not only responsible for this [holding up the Omran image] and 500,000 deaths, it’s responsible for those images of those Syrian refugees, the little boy we saw washed up on the beach…. The world will look back. Save your hand-wringing…you can still do something right now. But nothing’s been done.”

So what do these outraged observers want “us” to do to ameliorate Syrian suffering? For prominent pundits and leading editorial boards, the answer is usually bombing the Syrian government. More often than not, they use humanitarian euphemisms like “safe zones” or “no-fly zones.” Rarely mentioned is the fact that establishing these zones would require US bombing of Syria’s air capacity, including infrastructure, planes, buildings, possibly troops. That would, in effect, be a declaration of war. How Russia would respond is anyone’s guess, but it would certainly heighten tensions between Washington and Syria’s longtime ally (which also happens to have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal). One 2012 Pentagon estimate found that enforcing a no-fly zone would involve at least “70,000 American servicemen”; another estimate insisted such an effort would involve “hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines and other enablers.” These messy details are hardly ever mentioned when the do-something crowd calls for “action” in Syria.

The pundits also omit the rather glaring fact that the United States and its allies have done quite a bit already. Those pushing for bombing repeatedly assert that Washington sat “idly by”; while they sometimes concede that the Libya intervention was bad, they still insist that “doing nothing” in Syria has been far worse. The overall assumption is that US-led airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad’s government would have been preferable to the long-drawn-out conflict that has taken place.

But this would only be fair if the conflict weren’t partly funded and armed by the United States and its allies in the first place. The United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have actively armed, funded, and fueled the opposition for years. One Washington Postreport puts the total CIA spending on anti-Assad forces at $1 billion a year—or one in every 15 dollars of the CIA’s official budget. This inconvenient fact is tossed into the memory hole in favor of a simplistic fable of Rwanda-like indifference.

Even if they could make the case that Obama has, in some rhetorical sense, “done nothing” by not doing enough, the pundit hawks still have their work cut out for them. The pro-intervention pundits now widely accept that Washington neglected to plan for the aftermath in Iraq and Libya (President Obama even called the latter case his“worst mistake”). Yet almost no one calling for a ramped-up war in Syria has offered a clear indication of what it would entail. What are the risks? What is the endgame? Is there a realistic alternative to jihadi extremists seizing power, or—perhaps even worse—continued brutal warfare between rival militias after Assad is gone? We should be wary of pundits who use the horrors of Aleppo to rush Washington into bombing, just as they did with Iraq’s alleged WMDs and Gadhafi’s hypothetical massacres.

This is part of the broader problem of moral ADD afflicting our pundit class—jumping from one outrage in urgent need of US bombs to the next, without much follow-through. Kristof, for example, was just as passionate about NATO intervention in Libya in 2011,writing several op-eds that called for bombing in equally moralistic terms. Yet as Libya descended into chaos, the country faded into the background for him. His last post on the subject? September 2011. The plight of Libyans was urgent for the Times columnist when it involved selling war to weary liberals, but once the smoke cleared, his bleeding heart dried up and he moved on to the next cause.

Will Kristof and other pundits do the same with the Syrian people in the event that Assad’s government collapses after sustained US bombing? Given their track record and the lack of serious discussion about what “doing something” entails, this is the most important question—and one that few are bothering to address.

https://www.thenation.com/article/pundits-decrying-the-horrors-of-war-in-aleppo-demand-expanded-war/ 

Is Syria Ceasefire Achievable? US-Russia Talks Bring No Solution

U.S. role in unending conflict remains incoherent

by

Nika Knight, staff writer

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took part in a 10-hour negotiation on the Syrian conflict with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Geneva on Friday—but the lengthy talks fell far short of a desired ceasefire agreement, the Guardian  reported  Saturday.

"We are close [to a ceasefire]," Kerry attempted to reassure observers, according to theGuardian. "But we are not going to rush to an agreement until it satisfies fully the needs of the Syrian people."

Kerry spoke of the need for a "political solution" to the multifaceted war in Syria—a term he also used when purportedly seeking peace between Saudi Arabia and Yemen on Thursday—yet the Guardian observed that neither Russia nor the U.S. seem to believe a ceasefire is imminent, let alone achievable. 

The newspaper noted: "it was clear that neither side believed an overall agreement was imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year."

The talks occurred while a barrel bomb attack on Aleppo allegedly from the Syrian regime killed at least 13 people, most of them women and children, as CNN reported.

In fact, dire conditions in war-ravaged Aleppo have prevented other parties in the Syrian conflict from gathering at the negotiation table, the Guardian reported earlier this month.

Meanwhile, U.S.-allied Kurdish forces say they are now being bombed by U.S.-backed Turkish forces, Reuters reported Saturday, which Common Dreams noted was Turkey's goal from the start of its military incursion into Syria earlier this week.

In addition, despite the Pentagon's claims to the opposite, it appears that the U.S. is now operating no-fly zones in Syria. As investigative journalist John Hanrahan wrote earlier this year, "the recent history in Iraq and Libya demonstrate that no-fly zones are actually precursors to—or accompanists of—stepped-up military action by the United States and other western powers to bring about regime change."

There are those who are profiting from this endless war, the author Ramzy Baroudreminded readers earlier this month: "Expectedly, this is a great time for business for those who benefit from war[...] the cycle of war and violence is feeding on itself."

And so the horrors of war continue on in Syria, with no end in sight.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/27/syria-ceasefire-achievable-us-russia-talks-bring-no-solution

Omran Daqneesh and the limits of war photography

Why do some war images, like the one of Syrian boy Omran Daqneesh, resonate more than others? Plus, Ecuador's media law.

• Home
• Episodes
• Alt Media
• Online Only

MEDIA

Omran Daqneesh and the limits of war photography

Why do some war images, like the one of Syrian boy Omran Daqneesh, resonate more than others? Plus, Ecuador's media law.

27 Aug 2016 12:08 GMT Media, Syria's Civil War, War & Conflict, Journalism

• 
• 
• 
• 
• Shares: 2014

• 
• 
• 

On The Listening Post this week: Why do some war images resonate more than others? We look at the picture of the Syrian boy that went viral. Plus, revisiting Ecuador's media law.

Images of the powerless

There is no shortage of disturbing images from the war in Syria. But relatively few of them reach you - because editors often deem them too graphic to publish or broadcast. Last week, images of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh travelled around the world and sparked outrage. But to what end? And for how long?

This week, we analyse the power and the limits of war imagery. 

Talking us through the story are: Mahmoud Raslan, media activist/photographer; Susie Linfield, author of The Cruel Radiance, Photography and Political Violence; Oksana Boyko, RT; Patrick Baz, Middle East and North Africa photo editor, Agence France-Presse; and Craig Allen, journalist, The New York Times.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/08/omran-daqneesh-limits-war-photography-160826175207986.html

US defense industry lobbyist delivers a major Daily Mail fail

This blog represents a range of opinions prepared by a team of authors working at RT. It contains commentary, views, feedback and responses to various events and news media items.

The UK’s most popular mid-market daily, The Daily Mail, has long tried to straddle the line between serious political content and crowd-pleasing tabloid fodder. Sadly, in recent times quite a lot of its Russia coverage has been falling into the second category

This is particularly true when it comes to using Vladimir Putin’s name to generate internet traffic, with click-bait pieces focused on the Russian President. Indeed, no less than 18 articles graced their special “Putin” section in the first 20 days of August alone. 

While most of this constant innuendo is harmless enough, recently things reached a new low. With the headline “Is Trump a Russian agent? Top Kremlinologist presents a tantalizing and disturbing dossier on why the presidential hopeful could have closer links to the Kremlin than it may appear,” the Mail gave ample space to a lobbyist for US defense contractors to publish a factually challenged, and heavily biased, essay on Russia.

The entities that sponsor the author’s activities include Bell Helicopters, Lockheed Martin, the Raytheon Company, and Sikorsky Aircraft. In other words, precisely the same people who benefit the most from renewed tensions between Russia and the West. This support is neatly dressed up in a pseudo-academic sounding enterprise called CEPA (Centre of European Policy Analysis). But don’t be fooled – CEPA is no different from any other lobbying vehicle.

Think Tank Not Thinking

At no point did the Mail explain Edward Lucas’ connections to the armament manufacturers, instead describing him as a “senior editor at the Economist,” which is true, but only half of the story, and very little of it when it comes to Russia. Lucas, together with his fellow lobbyists at CEPA, which include Peter Pomerantsev and Anne Applebaum (who also moonlights as a columnist at the Washington Post), is an experienced activist, who knows how to play to the gallery.

The column itself is extraordinary in its mendacity and inaccuracy, and it is worth highlighting a few examples.

Read more

How US Senate is being fed misinformation by Russia policy advisors

Assailing US Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who is nominally the subject of the diatribe, Lucas seems upset that not only is Trump “friendly to Russia, he is also bitterly critical of American leaders.” Given that the businessman is a presidential nominee of the party that’s been shut out of the White House for the last eight years, it would be somewhat bizarre, in a healthy democracy, if he were not disapproving of what is essentially his opposition.

Next, the writer states that “for years, Russia has cultivated connections in Washington in the hope of gaining political knowledge and leverage.” This is exactly what the US and UK do all over the world, including in Russia. “The Russian government and Kremlin-friendly bodies hire lobbyists, donate money to think tanks, and promote politically influential commercial ties,” he goes on. This is, in fact, the rather logical foundation of foreign relations by all countries.

The Menace of Hypocrisy

Now, to indulge the absurd irony here, this could easily be re-written, so let’s have a go. “For years, America has cultivated connections in Europe in the hope of gaining political knowledge and leverage. The US government and Pentagon-dependent defense contractors hire lobbyists, donate money to think tanks and promote politically influential commercial ties on a scale times bigger than Russia can afford. For example, in Warsaw, where Lucas himself is employed as a lobbyist by CEPA, which is funded by the State Department and US defense contractors.”

Indeed, in a recent opinion piece in The Nation, American journalist William Greider explained this process. “Why should we care who owns Ukraine? The answer may shock some innocent Americans. It’s about gaining a larger market for the US military-industrial complex. That is, recruiting more customers for the planes and other war-fighting equipment manufactured by US companies,” he wrote.

“After all, that was the real reason for NATO expansion after the Cold War ended. Contrary to its assurances, Washington pushed hard to expand NATO membership eastward, right up to the Russia border. Former Soviet satellites were happy to join, though this was sure to be understood by struggling Russia as a hostile act. Putin’s aggressive posture was his response.

“The true winners were Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other major arms makers. I know this because as a reporter I attended Washington issue forums where the US companies and their congressional lackeys laid out the arguments for expanding NATO. There was no plausible threat at the time to justify it; Russians were suffering through their horrendous post-Cold War depression,” Greider continued in a rather enlightening piece. 

Read more

American defense contractors think you have been brainwashed

All The World’s a Kremlin

Lucas also makes a rather astonishing association with respect to Trump’s relatively insignificant business interests in Russia (especially when compared to Clinton’s) to ask “is Donald Trump a Russian agent?” This is never properly answered, and instead a hilariously meek “the answer may be no” is offered, followed by this nonsensical explanation: “Trump, say former intelligence officials, is just the sort of ‘asset’ the Kremlin’s spy services would cultivate.” This supposed Russia specialist finds it absolutely plausible that Russian special services might be keen on recruiting flamboyant celebrities known for having loose tongues.

What’s the tell-tale sign of Trump’s sinister ties to Russia? Apparently, “in 2013, he brought the Miss Universe content to Moscow.” Reality check: Trump controlled the pageant for 19 years and in that time the event was held in 18 other places: Panama, Ecuador, Thailand, Mexico, Vietnam, Bahamas, Brazil, Russia, Cyprus, Trinidad, Puerto Rico (twice), and eight times in the USA. Perhaps Trump is so good at multitasking that he is moonlighting as a secret agent for all of these countries at once.

Throughout the lengthy essay, no mention is made of Trump’s warnings that America may have to start shooting down Russian jets, or the Clinton Foundation’s well-documented connections with Russia, because its purpose is not to inform or educate – it’s to whip up fears that bolster the agenda of the author’s patrons, which is selling weaponry.

The Daily Mail describes the writer as a “top Kremlinologist,” which just serves to emphasize that cold-warriors like Lucas cannot leave the past behind. “Kremlinology” was necessary in the Soviet era when government was conducted behind closed doors and seating positions at official events offered clues to political machinations. In the 21st century, if you want to figure out what Russian leaders are thinking, you can read their speeches and essays online.

You’d imagine that the American defense industry could find lobbyists who are capable of reading the Kremlin’s website. This thrift shop John Le Carre stuff is far too old fashioned these days.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/357396-putin-trump-media-/