[Peace-discuss] Mortenson and Moyer on PBS

[Brussel Morton K.]

David,

Speaking of the new military humanitarian, I just watched the presentation of Howard Zinn, listed in DemocracyNow! ( and given in November, 2009 at BU) about our "holy" wars. In a way he talks movingly about the "military humanitarianism" of our best, i.e. holy, wars. He asks people to question the all the results of these holy wars. 

Mort


On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David Green wrote:

> Mort,
>  
> From what I know of Mortensen, I'm not surprised by your critique. This humanitarian mindset is shared by Nicholas Kristof of the NYT, and others. Perhaps we should call it "the new military humanitarianism."
>  
> David
> 
> From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
> To: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 10:54:08 AM
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mortenson and Moyer on PBS
> 
> My response to the program tonight:
> 
> Moyers was possibly somewhat disappointed with Mortensen; He tried to bring out the contradictions in Mortenson's dialog in his questioning, but his important non-personal questions were not cogently answered. The following is what I wrote to PBS about the program. I note that most responses were ecstatic in their praise of Mortenson. 
> 
> In some ways Mortenson seems dumb, or at best naive, for there are many disconnects, contradictions, in what he has said and advocated. On the one hand he says that the Taliban do not want their people educated, that they are inveterate violent, ignorant, religiously intolerant people, but on the other hand he said that he was able to get them enthusiastic about his girls schools, and he was able to work with them, to in a sense turn them around. On the one hand he praises the work of our military commanders, Mullen, McCrystal et al, the latter well known to have carried out special forces murderous operations in Iraq (and Afghanistan?). Evidently, these guys now see the virtues in understanding and living among the Afghans. One of course wonders if that is only a ploy to accomplish the success they strive for—a land compliant with U.S. imperial objectives. He implicitly praises our occupation forces and the billions of dollars that are needed to maintain them, although admitting "mistakes" have been made (as in Iraq?). On the other hand, he advocates building schools and getting along with the tribal elders, which cost minimally compared to the billions militarily we spend. It does not seem to occur to him that perhaps if the U.S. spent those billions on improving the lives of Afghans, without military intervention, drone bombings, firefights, breaking and entering, and whatever else our troops and their hangers on do there, it would be far better, less disastrous, more effective in establishing a secure and viable Afghan society. Finally, he never really confronts the issue of why the U.S. has invaded that country and expands its presence there. Was he afraid (?) to say that the U.S. invasion and occupation was/is a terrible tragic mistake?
> 
> I now wonder in view of all this if he has connections with the CIA. He seems to be a goodhearted guy, effective in getting schools built, but otherwise blind to what his own country is up to there.
> 
> Posted by: Morton K. Brussel | January 16, 2010 12:02 AM
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100116/66e8afee/attachment.html>