[Peace-discuss] Re: Obama's AfPak war

Sat Oct 18 14:02:57 CDT 2008

I agree with both points.  And they apply to both (business) parties.  --CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> I think the US's speech is -- or at least has been -- more like, We need 
> to control the world's oil because we need to control the world. We will 
> control yours, whether you like it or not. Not sure we can turn that 
> mind-set around very easily, but no way we can stop trying.
>  --Jenifer
>  
> 
> --- On *Fri, 10/17/08, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
>     From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Obama's AfPak war
>     To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>     Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>     Date: Friday, October 17, 2008, 2:27 PM
> 
>     "You Westerners have your watches," the leader observed. "But we
>     Taliban have time."
> 
>     That statement right there is a succinct summary of the entirety of
>     modern world history, and of the futility of empire.
> 
>     I read a book a while back about oil in Africa.  As we all know,
>     America wants it, but so does China.
> 
>     But here's the difference, according to the book I read:  America
>     says, "You have oil that we need.  If you don't sell it to us on
>     terms that we deem favorable, we're gonna send in our armies and
>     kick your ass and take it."  We don't say it QUITE so directly, but
>     it's pretty close.
> 
>     China, on the other hand, says, "You have oil that we need.  We'd
>     like to buy it from you at a fair market price.  And to help sweeten
>     the pot, what type of infrastructure do you need?  We have a million
>     engineers, laborers, plenty of heavy equipment.  We'll build you
>     roads, dams, whatever you need for your country."
> 
>     Now if you were running an African country, who would YOU want to
>     sell your oil to?
> 
>     And why doesn't America ever think to try honey rather than vinegar,
>     the carrot rather than the stick?  Is it really so impossible for us
>     to change our paradigm?  Not only would it make us more friends and
>     fewer terrorist enemies in the world, but wouldn't it even end up
>     COSTING us FAR less in the long run?
> 
>     John Wason
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:47 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
>     <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>         [From Nir Rosen, "How We Lost the War We Won: A Journey Into
>         Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan," Rolling Stone, Issue 1064
>         (October 30, 2008). --CGE]
> 
>         ...it is foolhardy to believe that the Americans can prevail
>         where the Russians failed. At the height of the occupation, the
>         Soviets had 120,000 of their own troops in Afghanistan,
>         buttressed by roughly 300,000 Afghan troops. The Americans and
>         their allies, by contrast, have 65,000 troops on the ground,
>         backed up by only 137,000 Afghan security forces — and they face
>         a Taliban who enjoy the support of a well-funded and highly
>         organized network of Islamic extremists. "The end for the
>         Americans will be just like for the Russians," says a former
>         commander who served in the Taliban government. "The Americans
>         will never succeed in containing the conflict. There will be
>         more bleeding. It's coming to the same situation as it did for
>         the communist forces, who found themselves confined to the
>         provincial capitals."
> 
>         Simply put, it is too late for Bush's "quiet surge" — or even
>         for Barack Obama's plan for a more robust reinforcement — to
>         work in Afghanistan. More soldiers on the ground will only lead
>         to more contact with the enemy, and more air support for troops
>         will only lead to more civilian casualties that will alienate
>         even more Afghans. Sooner or later, the American government will
>         be forced to the negotiating table, just as the Soviets were
>         before them.
> 
>         "The rise of the Taliban insurgency is not likely to be
>         reversed," says Abdulkader Sinno, a Middle East scholar and the
>         author of Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. "It
>         will only get stronger. Many local leaders who are sitting on
>         the fence right now — or are even nominally allied with the
>         government — are likely to shift their support to the Taliban in
>         the coming years. What's more, the direct U.S. military
>         involvement in Afghanistan is now likely to spill over into
>         Pakistan. It may be tempting to attack the safe havens of the
>         Taliban and Al Qaeda across the border, but that will only
>         produce a worst-case scenario for the United States.. Attacks by
>         the U.S. would attract the support of hundreds of millions of
>         Muslims in South Asia. It would also break up Pakistan, leading
>         to a civil war, the collapse of its military and the possible
>         unleashing of its nuclear arsenal."
> 
>         In the same speech in which he promised a surge, Bush vowed that
>         he would never allow the Taliban to return to power in
>         Afghanistan.. But they have already returned, and only
>         negotiation with them can bring any hope of stability. Iraq,
>         Afghanistan and Pakistan "are all theaters in the same overall
>         struggle," the president declared, linking his administration's
>         three greatest foreign-policy disasters in one broad vision. In
>         the end, Bush said, we must have "faith in the power of freedom."
> 
>         But the Taliban have their own faith, and so far, they are
>         winning. On my last day in Kabul, a Western aid official reminds
>         me of the words of a high-ranking Taliban leader, who recently
>         explained why the United States will never prevail in Afghanistan.
> 
>         "You Westerners have your watches," the leader observed. "But we
>         Taliban have time."
> 
> 
>         http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_won
> 
> 
>         -------- Original Message --------
>         Subject: Obama's AfPak war
>         Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:02:03 -0500
> 
>         [On yesterday's Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviewed Nir
>         Rosen, whom Noam
>         Chomsky calls "one of the most astute and knowledgeable
>         correspondents in the
>         region." Rosen says that Obama "needs to prove, as a Democrat,
>         that he too can
>         kill brown people." --CGE]
> 
>         ...
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss