I just deleted the post that was here. It was much too long and self-indulgent. The best bit was this: ...I've been worrying a lot about the preponderance of supernatural tv shows & movies. If it ain't reality tv, it's vampires, psychics, demons and zombies. I like some of this stuff a lot (especially the zombies) but why all the fantasy? Is it the culture-tainment industry's way of accepting and answering to the rise of the religious right to power in North America? Is it simply an escape? Are we playing at magic in an attempt to imbue a culture based on commodity and surface with some kind of mythic depth?
And this other bit: ...I've also just started reading Gwynne Dyer's revised edition of WAR, and the very first page of the first chapter gave me something concrete:
Soldiers often prefer to cloak the harsh realities of their trade in idealism or sentimentality, as much to protect themselves from the truth as to hide it from the rest of us, but at the professional level they have never lost sight of the fact that the key to military success is cost-effective killing. The relentless search for efficiency in killing that ultimately led to the development of nuclear weapons was just as methodical when the only means of introducing lethal bits of metal into an enemy's body was by muscle power.
Just like urban planning, health care and education, war planning is something that society does by choice, and Canada is no exception.
NOW magazine this week has a piece by Dyer about Afghanistan:
The combat in Afghanistan is more severe and sustained than anything seen in Iraq, for the Taliban fight in organized units with good light infantry weapons. In the past month, Britain and Canada have had about half as many soldiers killed in Afghanistan as the U.S. lost in Iraq in the same time, out of a combat force perhaps one-10th as big.
How is this a good choice? After reading a bit of Dyer I understand better how our soldiers might genuinely feel un-supported by those of us who would prefer that they come home, because, like little children deciding not to clap their hands to keep Tinkerbell alive, we are failing to believe in the myths that sustain them, such as the oft-repeated (and insulting to our intelligence) rallying cry that they are protecting us from terrorists. Worrying that the military is perhaps not doing its job at cost-efficient killing in Afghanistan demonstrates a cultural lack of fantasy. We consumer-citizens are supposed to be eating up the narratives we are fed, not calling for accountability.
I feel like more of shit for not keeping tinkerbell alive when faced with the horrible pain those military families are suffering with each combat loss. It's hard to make the argument when we see people who desperately need the myths to accommodate such a huge personal loss. (though, I'll still make it)
Yeah, I agree. But it is a frustrating paradox that people who feel that the loss of life is an outrage are characterised as unsupportive of those who are suffering that loss. I believe the 'support our troops' sound bytes are strategically designed to create this confusing conflation.
Yes, of course, that's why everyone has to tediously preface their public criticism with "I support the troops but..."
I'm wonding what NATO is trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. A worthy goal, from my perspective, would have been to take out bin Laden and the al Qa'ida leadership through a limited, surgical, special ops strike (with air cover) to Tora Bora. Which, of course, they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Franks) bungled. All the rest of the military action in Afghanistan is ... what?
Googling for "goals in Afghanistan", I came across this propaganda from the US government.
04/03/2002
EDITORIAL NUMBER=0-09800
COALITION GOALS IN AFGHANISTAN
The United States and its allies in the war on terrorism are working to help Afghanistan become a safer and more stable country. Already, the military campaign has liberated the Afghan people from the repressive Taleban regime and stopped the use of Afghanistan as a base for al-Qaida terrorists. As Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, said, the U.S. and its allies are not interested in occupying Afghanistan.
Instead, the international coalition is spending millions of dollars on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to help keep Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven for terrorists.
Many Afghans are displaced and hungry. The presence of U.S. and other troops has made humanitarian relief efforts much more secure. Food is finally being distributed, hospitals are again able to function, and relief trucks and planes are arriving safely.
To help provide security, coalition forces will remain in Afghanistan to pursue al-Qaida and Taleban wherever they try to regroup. The U.S. and its allies will also continue to go after the leaders of these organizations.
This effort is already paying off. Pakistani authorities have handed over to the U.S. the biggest catch so far in the war on terrorism: Abu Zubaydah. A senior al-Qaida operational planner, Abu Zubaydah plotted terrorist attacks based on guidance from Osama bin Laden and his inner circle. Abu Zubaydah is known to have organized the millennium plots to bomb the Los Angeles airport and a hotel in Jordan frequented by American tourists.
The next step in Afghanistan’s political development is the Loya Jirga tribal council meeting planned for June. At that time, the council will elect a head of state and decide on the type of government to rule Afghanistan until national elections can be held. As Mohammad Ismail, an Afghan civil servant, said, the convening of the Loya Jirga "will at last take us down a new road to peace. The whole country at last will have a say in running our affairs."
The U.S. and its allies in the war on terrorism want Afghanistan to become a stable, peaceful country that no longer offers a haven to terrorists. That’s why coalition forces will remain until the threat from the Taleban and al-Qaida has been eradicated.
By that, they mean to say "forever".
4 years, 5 months, 26 days later ...
And from the beginning, our actions in Afghanistan have had a clear purpose -- in other words, our goals are clear for people to understand -- and that is to rid that country of the Taliban and the terrorists, and build a lasting free society that will be an ally in the war on terror.
G.W. Bush 9/29/06
Clear? Yeah, clearly delusional. And quit calling him "President" Karzai. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's more like "Mayor of Kabul" Karzai.
I'm starting to wonder how far they will stretch the definition of Taliban, the label works its magic on so many people. ( I've been hating them since 1999, however, I'm not under the illusion that this is being done for the Taliban Ladies)
Eric Margolis recently wrote about the disinformation in regards to Afghanistan.
That analysis sounds pretty grim. A lot of people are going to die before the denial-on-two-fronts facade falls.
The redefinition of the Taliban is surely taking place, since any opposition is by definition Taliban (or al Qaeda or the all-purpose "terrast").
In Iraq, the military terminology for anyone who opposes the US is AIF -- anti-Iraq forces. Doubleplusgood Newspeak.
Unless, of course, the Taliban are rehabilitated. Oh wait, Frist was misundercomprehenderated. The Taliban are back to being a "murderous band of terrorists". That was quick.
We've always been at war with the Taliban.
Here's a link of links you'll enjoy, courtesy of Pierre Tristam, for playing that fave game: "where's Osama now!":
"Of course Musharraf lodges Osama just across the border in Afghanistan. Wouldn’t want to have him lollygagging around on Pakistani soil for the ISI, the Pakistani secret service that doubles up as the Taliban’s travel agent and Osama’s limousine service, to take yet one more hit from its critics."
The Gwynne Dyer article printed in NOW also has this: ...For the past five years, a shadowy outfit called DynCorps has been destroying the poppy fields of southern Afghanistan's poorest farmers with U.S. and British military support.
This was an opportunity the Taliban could not resist, and the alliance between Taliban fighters and poppy farmers (now often the same people) is at the root of the resurgent guerrilla war in the south.
|
I just deleted the post that was here. It was much too long and self-indulgent. The best bit was this: ...I've been worrying a lot about the preponderance of supernatural tv shows & movies. If it ain't reality tv, it's vampires, psychics, demons and zombies. I like some of this stuff a lot (especially the zombies) but why all the fantasy? Is it the culture-tainment industry's way of accepting and answering to the rise of the religious right to power in North America? Is it simply an escape? Are we playing at magic in an attempt to imbue a culture based on commodity and surface with some kind of mythic depth?
And this other bit: ...I've also just started reading Gwynne Dyer's revised edition of WAR, and the very first page of the first chapter gave me something concrete: Just like urban planning, health care and education, war planning is something that society does by choice, and Canada is no exception.
NOW magazine this week has a piece by Dyer about Afghanistan: How is this a good choice? After reading a bit of Dyer I understand better how our soldiers might genuinely feel un-supported by those of us who would prefer that they come home, because, like little children deciding not to clap their hands to keep Tinkerbell alive, we are failing to believe in the myths that sustain them, such as the oft-repeated (and insulting to our intelligence) rallying cry that they are protecting us from terrorists. Worrying that the military is perhaps not doing its job at cost-efficient killing in Afghanistan demonstrates a cultural lack of fantasy. We consumer-citizens are supposed to be eating up the narratives we are fed, not calling for accountability.
- sally mckay 10-02-2006 10:03 pm
I feel like more of shit for not keeping tinkerbell alive when faced with the horrible pain those military families are suffering with each combat loss. It's hard to make the argument when we see people who desperately need the myths to accommodate such a huge personal loss. (though, I'll still make it)
- L.M. 10-03-2006 12:18 am
Yeah, I agree. But it is a frustrating paradox that people who feel that the loss of life is an outrage are characterised as unsupportive of those who are suffering that loss. I believe the 'support our troops' sound bytes are strategically designed to create this confusing conflation.
- sally mckay 10-03-2006 12:33 am
Yes, of course, that's why everyone has to tediously preface their public criticism with "I support the troops but..."
- L.M. 10-03-2006 12:41 am
I'm wonding what NATO is trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. A worthy goal, from my perspective, would have been to take out bin Laden and the al Qa'ida leadership through a limited, surgical, special ops strike (with air cover) to Tora Bora. Which, of course, they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Franks) bungled. All the rest of the military action in Afghanistan is ... what?
Googling for "goals in Afghanistan", I came across this propaganda from the US government.
By that, they mean to say "forever".
- mark 10-03-2006 3:15 am
4 years, 5 months, 26 days later ...
Clear? Yeah, clearly delusional. And quit calling him "President" Karzai. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's more like "Mayor of Kabul" Karzai.
- mark 10-03-2006 3:37 am
I'm starting to wonder how far they will stretch the definition of Taliban, the label works its magic on so many people. ( I've been hating them since 1999, however, I'm not under the illusion that this is being done for the Taliban Ladies)
Eric Margolis recently wrote about the disinformation in regards to Afghanistan.
- L.M. 10-03-2006 4:15 am
That analysis sounds pretty grim. A lot of people are going to die before the denial-on-two-fronts facade falls.
The redefinition of the Taliban is surely taking place, since any opposition is by definition Taliban (or al Qaeda or the all-purpose "terrast").
In Iraq, the military terminology for anyone who opposes the US is AIF -- anti-Iraq forces. Doubleplusgood Newspeak.
- mark 10-03-2006 4:48 am
Unless, of course, the Taliban are rehabilitated. Oh wait, Frist was misundercomprehenderated. The Taliban are back to being a "murderous band of terrorists". That was quick.
We've always been at war with the Taliban.
- mark 10-03-2006 4:59 am
Here's a link of links you'll enjoy, courtesy of Pierre Tristam, for playing that fave game: "where's Osama now!":
- L.M. 10-03-2006 5:01 am
The Gwynne Dyer article printed in NOW also has this:
- sally mckay 10-03-2006 9:23 pm