[Peace-discuss] excerpt from bill lind on afghanistan

[C. G. Estabrook]

Lind buys the propaganda of those he rightly criticizes if he thinks the fight
is between "believers in a ... future in which everyone on earth becomes modern"
and "billions of people are willing to fight to the death against modernity" -- 
unless "modernity" is reduced to meaning "doing what the USG says."  It's closer 
to right (if still not correct) to say it's a fight over oil. --CGE


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> William Lind is a military strategist actually rather opposed to war, 
> particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. He writes on
> LewRockwell.com this morning about the folly of the Obama Administrations
> plans for *"**a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent 
> Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a
> relatively prosperous democratic state."* 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind158.html
> 
> No surprises there.  The most interesting part of Lind's article (to me) is
> the conclusion:
> 
> *...Here we see how little "change" the Obama administration really 
> represents. The differences between the neo-liberals and the neo-cons are
> few. Both are militant believers in Brave New World, a Globalist future in
> which everyone on earth becomes modern. In the view of these ideologues, the
> fact that billions of people are willing to fight to the death against
> modernity is, like the river Pregel, an unimportant military obstacle. We
> just need to buy more Predators.*
> 
> *Meanwhile, the money is running out. The/ ancien//regime/ syndrome looms
> ever larger: we not only maintain but increase foolish foreign commitments,
> at the same time that debt is piling up, those willing to lend become fewer
> and we are reduced to debasing the currency. Historians have seen it all
> before, many, many times. It never has a happy ending.*
> 
> *It appears Afghanistan will be the graveyard of yet another empire.*
>