The Obama administration inherited its Afghan Quagmire from its predecessor and now recognizes the war for what it is a muddy hole. President Obama also inherited a bureaucracy vested in failed policies and corrupted Afghan data, which skews his search for solutions.
Harvard Prof. Stephen Walt argues that the President’s justification for expansion of the Afghan war should be viewed with skepticism. The skepticism is not due to the President’s lack of desire for a solution but to the military’s recommended course of action of even greater buildup next year on top of this year’s total of 68,000 U.S. Troops. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated the situation in Afghanistan is “serious and deteriorating.” The President stated that, “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight, and we won’t defeat it overnight.”
They are both right but the difficulty is that it was military policies that turned a victory into a growing insurgency. It is the rhetoric used to justify continued buildup that should be of concern. Its American State terror targeting American people with calls for arms against new al-Qaeda, attacks if the United States doesn’t defeat the Taliban. The Taliban began as a fundamentalist anti-corruption movement that brought a degree of peace and stability to a war torn country. The Taliban was never al-Qaeda nor did they have similar objectives but after eight years of occupation now share a common enemy. Many Afghan dissents and political interest are now sheltered under the Taliban unbrella. An umbrella that is an honest to God homegrown insurgency of many colors becoming more capable as a resistance movement against Americanization.
Insurgencies are hard defeat and America has wide experience and a great deal of frustration in its attempts. It took over 200 years to defeat the Indian and that by total war on a peoples. America continues its over 100 year, on again off again, struggle against Philippine insurgents. It took over 20 years for America to finally declare victory in Indo-China deserting its indigenous friends to an enemy it could not defeat. In each of these insurgencies as well as the present one the objective was to social engineer little American governments without regard to local customs or the desires of the people that democracy is suppose to represent.
Many Afghans look nostalgically at the Soviet occupation as more benign than the current American one. The Afghan people will determine the fate of Afghanistan. It is probable that Russia and China will continue their rolls of Afghan friends and the American post war roll will be limited.
Is it possible to turn things around? Of course but not by a military solution. The military destroys things well, roads, bridges, villages and friendships. The sooner the administration realizes this the more chance there is of an Afghan acceptable lasting solution to insurgency. Successful counter-insurgency doctrine is equitable negotiation rather than force. Voices of the all Afghans must be heard not just the voices of those that profit from the occupation.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Political terror 082109
The Bush administration’s immediate reaction after the 911 attacks was SCREAM & SHOUT, RUN ABOUT. Wild pronouncements confused and terrorized the American public. The Administration speculated on speculation in the absence of facts and went to emergency powers that elevated fears even further as even shopping center rent-a-cops began to arrest terrorist. The ensuing panic resulted in a Constitutional crisis that continues today.
The administration proposed and Congress approved outrageous legislation that violated not only citizen civil rights but also many international laws that the United States had originated. The administration’s Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff wrote politically correct opinions, legalizing the illegal for the administration.
Following the example of previous floundering political administration Bush appointed a Czar to take the heat. Elevated to Cabinet level the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) captured all agencies that might have some capacity for emergency services. Throughout the country upward mobile bureaucrats flocked to the new department to benefit from its money and power. Not satisfied with their piece of pie these bureaucrats ravaged the budgets of its incorporated agencies while safe from oversight.
Hiding behind executive orders, secret courts, and permissive legislation DHS began a campaign of terror. Terror, targeting the public at large. DHS announced terrorist warnings almost daily. The color-coded warnings seemed to ebb and flow on the rise and fall of political polls. Eventually the public began to lose interest in the colors of the day. DHS became a bloated black hole for public money and its TSA the beltway joke.
In a new book former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge says administration pressure to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election convince him it was time to quit working for President George W. Bush. Former administration officials of course deny this allegation. If true the Tom Ridge should be commended for a demonstration of ethics in an administration known for a lack of ethics.
This is not the first case of an administration attempting to terrorize the public for political gain. The Lincoln administration considered declaring war on Mexico to prevent succession. Teddy Roosevelt escalated an African colonial dispute to justify his “Big Stick” intervention. JFK coined a non-existent missile gap to win the 1960 election and LBJ used the bomb to terrorize the electorate.
Being the big bully for almost a century America has made numerous enemies around the globe. Out of powerless frustration some of those enemies are resorting to terror tactics. Administrations however have focused on only one enemy, the American people. The people are the target of state terror through creative dis-information and rationalization that a terrorized population can be controlled for political advantage.
The administration proposed and Congress approved outrageous legislation that violated not only citizen civil rights but also many international laws that the United States had originated. The administration’s Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff wrote politically correct opinions, legalizing the illegal for the administration.
Following the example of previous floundering political administration Bush appointed a Czar to take the heat. Elevated to Cabinet level the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) captured all agencies that might have some capacity for emergency services. Throughout the country upward mobile bureaucrats flocked to the new department to benefit from its money and power. Not satisfied with their piece of pie these bureaucrats ravaged the budgets of its incorporated agencies while safe from oversight.
Hiding behind executive orders, secret courts, and permissive legislation DHS began a campaign of terror. Terror, targeting the public at large. DHS announced terrorist warnings almost daily. The color-coded warnings seemed to ebb and flow on the rise and fall of political polls. Eventually the public began to lose interest in the colors of the day. DHS became a bloated black hole for public money and its TSA the beltway joke.
In a new book former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge says administration pressure to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election convince him it was time to quit working for President George W. Bush. Former administration officials of course deny this allegation. If true the Tom Ridge should be commended for a demonstration of ethics in an administration known for a lack of ethics.
This is not the first case of an administration attempting to terrorize the public for political gain. The Lincoln administration considered declaring war on Mexico to prevent succession. Teddy Roosevelt escalated an African colonial dispute to justify his “Big Stick” intervention. JFK coined a non-existent missile gap to win the 1960 election and LBJ used the bomb to terrorize the electorate.
Being the big bully for almost a century America has made numerous enemies around the globe. Out of powerless frustration some of those enemies are resorting to terror tactics. Administrations however have focused on only one enemy, the American people. The people are the target of state terror through creative dis-information and rationalization that a terrorized population can be controlled for political advantage.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Capitalist engine 082409
Most of America’s airlines now charge exorbitant fees for every checked bag. According to industry analysts these fees add over $600 million to airlines’ bottom line. Airlines also limit the number and size of carry on bags to the point that a change of underwear requires at least one checked bag. This is highflying capitalism’s engine for economic recover.
Airlines are sharing their economic innovations. By losing up to 50 percent of checked bags passengers are forced to buy new clothing for important meetings or strolls on vacation beaches. Because they are strangers in town without transportation they buy at inflated prices in airport and hotel shops. Searching for discount clothing entails a cab, a fuel surcharge and a tip while trusting the cabby to find the nearest “bargain.”
All these new purchases drive economic growth as merchants, truck drivers and manufactures get a piece of passenger pie, or is that hide? Taking the new duds home requires a new bag (luggage industry must get its share). When checking out of the hotel the airline delivers the lost bag so the passenger now has two bags to check and the second at a higher cost.
If 20th century passenger rail had been as creatively capitalistic it might not have failed. Airlines continue to innovate exploring the possibly of no seats allowing passengers the freedom to stand during flight. Possible future innovations could be all nude passengers with no bags for expedited boarding and no lost bags.
Airlines are sharing their economic innovations. By losing up to 50 percent of checked bags passengers are forced to buy new clothing for important meetings or strolls on vacation beaches. Because they are strangers in town without transportation they buy at inflated prices in airport and hotel shops. Searching for discount clothing entails a cab, a fuel surcharge and a tip while trusting the cabby to find the nearest “bargain.”
All these new purchases drive economic growth as merchants, truck drivers and manufactures get a piece of passenger pie, or is that hide? Taking the new duds home requires a new bag (luggage industry must get its share). When checking out of the hotel the airline delivers the lost bag so the passenger now has two bags to check and the second at a higher cost.
If 20th century passenger rail had been as creatively capitalistic it might not have failed. Airlines continue to innovate exploring the possibly of no seats allowing passengers the freedom to stand during flight. Possible future innovations could be all nude passengers with no bags for expedited boarding and no lost bags.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Truing the record 081909
It appears that the Cheney/Rumsfeld School for polmil (political militarist) has again been caught manufacturing information. A recent investigation by intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee finds that estimates of the Taliban’s profit from the drug trade are wildly inflated.
The report concluded that the estimated amount of drug money flowing to the Taliban is only about $70 million a year. The report went even further by stating that “there is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds go to al-Qaida.” Even this figure may prove to be inflated as the polmil continues to report great disruption of al-Qaida/Taliban financing every time the U.S. military captures a kilo of drugs.
While this information may be disconcerting to those who bought into DOD’s disinformation it begins to vindicate those long vilified regional professionals.
Ideological Taliban leaders, as fundamentalist Muslims, never supported Afghanistan’s drug trade. When Taliban finally gained control of government they officially banded opium production. This could be expected of a fundamentalist movement aware of over 1300 years of Islamic doctrine. Opium production fell to almost zero in part due to their draconian punishments and to trafficker stockpiles from previous over production. Opium production continued in the region controlled by the Northern Alliance.
Since the United States over threw the Taliban government opium production has grown even larger providing over 90 percent of the worlds opium supply. Opium poppy cultivation has also spread across the country outside of the traditional growing areas. The explanation of this resurgence is that while Taliban fundamentalists still oppose opium, there are many opportunists who joined the movement for its protection and power that are profiting from that protection. As in Christianity, in Islam there are those that choose greed over faith. It is problematic as to how much of the estimated $70 will actually end up supporting Taliban fundamentalist objectives.
The Senate report states that the United States contributed to the resurgent drug trade by backing warlords and drug traffickers in its drive to oust the Taliban. "These warlords later traded on their stature as U.S. allies to take senior positions in the new Afghan government, laying the groundwork for the corrupt nexus between drugs and authority that pervades the power structure today."
The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has continuously been linked to corruption and connections to drug trafficking. Despite these links the U.S. polmil has supported the Karzai presidency through four “democratic” processes and appears to be supporting his current run for reelection.
This begs the question, is Afghan Taliban or the United States military more responsible for the worlds opiate addiction?
The report concluded that the estimated amount of drug money flowing to the Taliban is only about $70 million a year. The report went even further by stating that “there is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds go to al-Qaida.” Even this figure may prove to be inflated as the polmil continues to report great disruption of al-Qaida/Taliban financing every time the U.S. military captures a kilo of drugs.
While this information may be disconcerting to those who bought into DOD’s disinformation it begins to vindicate those long vilified regional professionals.
Ideological Taliban leaders, as fundamentalist Muslims, never supported Afghanistan’s drug trade. When Taliban finally gained control of government they officially banded opium production. This could be expected of a fundamentalist movement aware of over 1300 years of Islamic doctrine. Opium production fell to almost zero in part due to their draconian punishments and to trafficker stockpiles from previous over production. Opium production continued in the region controlled by the Northern Alliance.
Since the United States over threw the Taliban government opium production has grown even larger providing over 90 percent of the worlds opium supply. Opium poppy cultivation has also spread across the country outside of the traditional growing areas. The explanation of this resurgence is that while Taliban fundamentalists still oppose opium, there are many opportunists who joined the movement for its protection and power that are profiting from that protection. As in Christianity, in Islam there are those that choose greed over faith. It is problematic as to how much of the estimated $70 will actually end up supporting Taliban fundamentalist objectives.
The Senate report states that the United States contributed to the resurgent drug trade by backing warlords and drug traffickers in its drive to oust the Taliban. "These warlords later traded on their stature as U.S. allies to take senior positions in the new Afghan government, laying the groundwork for the corrupt nexus between drugs and authority that pervades the power structure today."
The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has continuously been linked to corruption and connections to drug trafficking. Despite these links the U.S. polmil has supported the Karzai presidency through four “democratic” processes and appears to be supporting his current run for reelection.
This begs the question, is Afghan Taliban or the United States military more responsible for the worlds opiate addiction?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Fuzzy Vision 081209
What’s wrong with this picture, Afghanistan version? U.S. generals are pushing to reinforce defeat in Afghanistan. In eight years of combat they have managed to resurrect the moribund Taliban and send al-Qaida to the power of ten. Now the general most responsible for the Afghan/Pakistan hole in which we are to dump more troops has been appointed Ambassador.
Another general has been appointed to investigate waste, fraud and corruption. He can’t find any, in an American program that may ultimately prove to be more corrupt than the civil war and subsequent Tammany Hall scandals.
The Ambassador is demanding 2.5 billion dollars for support of civil activities. As U.S. commander in Afghanistan he oversaw the diversion of State Department foreign aid funds to military priorities.
It is estimated that the war in Afghanistan so far has cost over 200 billion dollars with money flowing out of the country so fast that Bernie Madoff appears an amateur. Labor and supplies are incredibly cheap allowing local construction for a few thousands of dollars. Comparable American construction projects cost several million dollars.
The U.S. is now proposing an expansion of the Afghan security forces to the level the Afghan government called for in 2002, which the coalition vetoed from fear of local force. The U.S. military needs thousands more American trainers for these security forces. The U.S. has been training Afghan security forces of highly qualified and combat experienced officers and NCOs for eight years, and they are still unable to train their own personnel? The Afghans repeatedly complain that the coalition allows them only token participation in stability operations. They also complain that of coalition’s failure to consult with them on combat operations or take advantage of both their culture awareness and on the ground battle experience.
As the American buildup continues and permanent bases are built it appears that the U.S. military is intent on keeping at least one war going long enough for the increasing supply of colonels to become generals. The cost of American continued support for corruption is greater resistance. The expanded training program in all probability will be training resistance fighters. A change in American tactics is to little to late, for the Afghans are astute with long memories of broken promises, betrayal, abuse and occupations.
We can’t reverse eight years of military blundering but the path out is to return assistance to civilian control, neither condone nor contribute to corruption, allow the Afghans to manage their own affairs and treat the people with honor and respect. It should be remembered that the Taliban (students) banded together as an anti-corruption force with the support of the people. While the U.S. blames the Taliban for all resistance it has really become the umbrella for diverse resistance movements. A mobilization that opposes foreign occupation, corruption and frustration over independent, proud peoples’ sense of powerlessness is the road to great power decline.
Another general has been appointed to investigate waste, fraud and corruption. He can’t find any, in an American program that may ultimately prove to be more corrupt than the civil war and subsequent Tammany Hall scandals.
The Ambassador is demanding 2.5 billion dollars for support of civil activities. As U.S. commander in Afghanistan he oversaw the diversion of State Department foreign aid funds to military priorities.
It is estimated that the war in Afghanistan so far has cost over 200 billion dollars with money flowing out of the country so fast that Bernie Madoff appears an amateur. Labor and supplies are incredibly cheap allowing local construction for a few thousands of dollars. Comparable American construction projects cost several million dollars.
The U.S. is now proposing an expansion of the Afghan security forces to the level the Afghan government called for in 2002, which the coalition vetoed from fear of local force. The U.S. military needs thousands more American trainers for these security forces. The U.S. has been training Afghan security forces of highly qualified and combat experienced officers and NCOs for eight years, and they are still unable to train their own personnel? The Afghans repeatedly complain that the coalition allows them only token participation in stability operations. They also complain that of coalition’s failure to consult with them on combat operations or take advantage of both their culture awareness and on the ground battle experience.
As the American buildup continues and permanent bases are built it appears that the U.S. military is intent on keeping at least one war going long enough for the increasing supply of colonels to become generals. The cost of American continued support for corruption is greater resistance. The expanded training program in all probability will be training resistance fighters. A change in American tactics is to little to late, for the Afghans are astute with long memories of broken promises, betrayal, abuse and occupations.
We can’t reverse eight years of military blundering but the path out is to return assistance to civilian control, neither condone nor contribute to corruption, allow the Afghans to manage their own affairs and treat the people with honor and respect. It should be remembered that the Taliban (students) banded together as an anti-corruption force with the support of the people. While the U.S. blames the Taliban for all resistance it has really become the umbrella for diverse resistance movements. A mobilization that opposes foreign occupation, corruption and frustration over independent, proud peoples’ sense of powerlessness is the road to great power decline.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Exit Strategy? 080709
While the American civil administration is seeking a strategy to get out from under the previous administration’s ill-advised wars; the American military is planning a long occupation of Afghanistan.
The U.S. operational force buildup is now more than ten times its strength a little over a year ago. Part of this build up is to replace coalition forces that are quitting the flimsy fiction of success. The rest of the buildup is U.S. military self-delusion that although its tactics failed in Iraq they will succeed in Afghanistan. Despite more lucid military minds’ arguments that Afghanistan is not Iraq, military bureaucrats are winning the argument that greater troop strengths will win the battle. Vietnam however proved that you can win all the battles and still lose the war.
Bureaucratic project managers are promising that their new techno-remote weapons will end insurgency with minimal collateral damage. Collateral damage is mil-speak for dead and wounded non-combatants, women, children and friendly forces. Survivors of collateral damage however provide even more recruits to the growing insurgency.
The buildup of operational troops will live the Spartan life common to combat soldiers for thousands of years. The military bureaucrats however will have all the comforts of home in new 220 million-dollar permanent U.S. bases. These new bases are in addition to the permanent U.S. bases already built in Afghanistan.
The new U.S. bases exceed the needs of the Afghan military, that already has permanent bases of its own, and it is doubtful that the Afghans requested the construction or was even consulted on the construction. It is interesting to note however that from these bases the U.S. will be able to project its power into the Central Asian States, China, India, Pakistan and Iran. This fact has not escaped the attention of Russia, China and India the regional powerhouses. It should not be ignored by administration planners that the surrounding countries are all nuclear equipped. U.S. occupation bases could become the ground zero for a series of nuclear constructed lakes in central Asia.
The U.S. military’s attitude seems to be: “We don’t need no stinking exit strategy, cause we ain’t leaving.” The DOD should remember however that these new bases are also land locked and access dependent on the targeted nations. While America seeks an exit strategy DOD continues to implement the Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy, already proven a failure.
The U.S. operational force buildup is now more than ten times its strength a little over a year ago. Part of this build up is to replace coalition forces that are quitting the flimsy fiction of success. The rest of the buildup is U.S. military self-delusion that although its tactics failed in Iraq they will succeed in Afghanistan. Despite more lucid military minds’ arguments that Afghanistan is not Iraq, military bureaucrats are winning the argument that greater troop strengths will win the battle. Vietnam however proved that you can win all the battles and still lose the war.
Bureaucratic project managers are promising that their new techno-remote weapons will end insurgency with minimal collateral damage. Collateral damage is mil-speak for dead and wounded non-combatants, women, children and friendly forces. Survivors of collateral damage however provide even more recruits to the growing insurgency.
The buildup of operational troops will live the Spartan life common to combat soldiers for thousands of years. The military bureaucrats however will have all the comforts of home in new 220 million-dollar permanent U.S. bases. These new bases are in addition to the permanent U.S. bases already built in Afghanistan.
The new U.S. bases exceed the needs of the Afghan military, that already has permanent bases of its own, and it is doubtful that the Afghans requested the construction or was even consulted on the construction. It is interesting to note however that from these bases the U.S. will be able to project its power into the Central Asian States, China, India, Pakistan and Iran. This fact has not escaped the attention of Russia, China and India the regional powerhouses. It should not be ignored by administration planners that the surrounding countries are all nuclear equipped. U.S. occupation bases could become the ground zero for a series of nuclear constructed lakes in central Asia.
The U.S. military’s attitude seems to be: “We don’t need no stinking exit strategy, cause we ain’t leaving.” The DOD should remember however that these new bases are also land locked and access dependent on the targeted nations. While America seeks an exit strategy DOD continues to implement the Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy, already proven a failure.
Friday, August 7, 2009
AF Again 080409
A Time Magazine article asks, “Does the U.S. Have an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan?”
(By Tony Karon Monday, Aug. 03, 2009). Despite politically correct rhetoric it is unlikely that the Western powers have even grasped the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. The U.S. and those nations it could coerce into and appearance of an international coalition entered Afghanistan without a strategy of victory and no understanding of the country or its people.
Eight years later the U.S. Military still lacks understanding of Afghanistan’s people, culture or history. The military ignored promising diplomatic initiatives when it invaded and began sweeping up everyone with a beard as terrorists. American prisons were soon filled with bearded farmers, street vendors and a few so-called “terrorist.” After a prolonged period of intense foreign interrogation the newly terrorized captives were quietly released back to their country. At home they told their stories of horror becoming local heroes and recruits in growing resistance movements.
To the military resistance was proof of terrorist activity to be destroyed by remote aircraft and massive bombing. Thousand pound bombs were dropped on public telephones suspected of being used by the resistance. Weddings were bombed, villages destroyed and populations became refugees, wintering in the open. The military publicly announced that the civilians deserved what they got for harboring terrorist and the resistance won more recruits. The military can destroy well but is ill equipped for the processes of “nation building” and civil government.
The U.S. military points back to World War Two as proof of its ability to govern civil populations. The truth however is that the GIs who established military governments were in fact draftees and volunteers with civil experience, not professional soldiers. The military governments did provide some civil services but the missions were to secure the military’s rear areas from civil disturbances. These military governments ceded control to local authorities as soon as civil governments could be reestablished.
The present Afghan government, established in the wake of a foreign invasion that overthrew the Taliban’s theocratic government, finds itself in predicament. It must defend its constitution against the foreign invaders it needs for support. In 2002 the newly established government advocated bringing moderate Taliban leaders into the new administration. The foreign military supressed all attempts to negotiate with the shattered Taliban. The Afghan government and its military now must ward off attempts by coalition forces to establish military government in the country. Faced with internal corruption, foreign military dictates and growing resistance the administration has been unable to establish central authority across the country. According to coalition figures, resistance movements now control over half of Afghanistan.
A suggested exit strategy is for the foreign military to back off and allow inclusion of dissent elements, including the Taliban, in governing the country. National police and military must be allowed to secure the nation rather than foreign militaries blundering operations that drive more recruits into resistance.
The only other exit strategy is to follow the British model of three previous failed Afghan invasions, fight on for a while then declare victory and flee Afghan justice.
(By Tony Karon Monday, Aug. 03, 2009). Despite politically correct rhetoric it is unlikely that the Western powers have even grasped the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. The U.S. and those nations it could coerce into and appearance of an international coalition entered Afghanistan without a strategy of victory and no understanding of the country or its people.
Eight years later the U.S. Military still lacks understanding of Afghanistan’s people, culture or history. The military ignored promising diplomatic initiatives when it invaded and began sweeping up everyone with a beard as terrorists. American prisons were soon filled with bearded farmers, street vendors and a few so-called “terrorist.” After a prolonged period of intense foreign interrogation the newly terrorized captives were quietly released back to their country. At home they told their stories of horror becoming local heroes and recruits in growing resistance movements.
To the military resistance was proof of terrorist activity to be destroyed by remote aircraft and massive bombing. Thousand pound bombs were dropped on public telephones suspected of being used by the resistance. Weddings were bombed, villages destroyed and populations became refugees, wintering in the open. The military publicly announced that the civilians deserved what they got for harboring terrorist and the resistance won more recruits. The military can destroy well but is ill equipped for the processes of “nation building” and civil government.
The U.S. military points back to World War Two as proof of its ability to govern civil populations. The truth however is that the GIs who established military governments were in fact draftees and volunteers with civil experience, not professional soldiers. The military governments did provide some civil services but the missions were to secure the military’s rear areas from civil disturbances. These military governments ceded control to local authorities as soon as civil governments could be reestablished.
The present Afghan government, established in the wake of a foreign invasion that overthrew the Taliban’s theocratic government, finds itself in predicament. It must defend its constitution against the foreign invaders it needs for support. In 2002 the newly established government advocated bringing moderate Taliban leaders into the new administration. The foreign military supressed all attempts to negotiate with the shattered Taliban. The Afghan government and its military now must ward off attempts by coalition forces to establish military government in the country. Faced with internal corruption, foreign military dictates and growing resistance the administration has been unable to establish central authority across the country. According to coalition figures, resistance movements now control over half of Afghanistan.
A suggested exit strategy is for the foreign military to back off and allow inclusion of dissent elements, including the Taliban, in governing the country. National police and military must be allowed to secure the nation rather than foreign militaries blundering operations that drive more recruits into resistance.
The only other exit strategy is to follow the British model of three previous failed Afghan invasions, fight on for a while then declare victory and flee Afghan justice.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Human traffic 073009
Legal slave trade was eliminated for most of the western world in the 18th century. In mid 19th century slavery was banned in the United States. Most of the world slowly banned slavery so by the 20th century slavery was no longer an issue, right? WRONG.
Slavery never ended it merely adapted to new dynamics and governments turned a blind eye to the problem. Now in the 21st century trafficking in humans is the number one international crime. In some cases governments themselves are party to continuing slavery. During World War Two the United States officially imported unskilled workers who were exploited and often held in appalling conditions by Agri-businesses and factories owners. At the end of the war most of these workers were rounded up and ejected from the country without any recourse to justice. Post war Germany sanctioned importation of Turkish “guest workers” who, without rights were exploited by businesses. This practice continues today in many parts of the world as governments seek “cheap labor” to support domestic industry and public works.
The tentacles of human trafficking now reach into virtually every country either in exploitation or supply of cheap labor. Traffickers recruit among the poor, with grand promises, for stoop laborers and the sex workers. These traffickers often add a twist by extorting payments from the victims for the privilege of being of trafficked. Attractive young men, women and children are recruited only to end up as sex workers once in a strange land. As in the 17th century others are captured and sold to traffickers by human dealers in poorer regions of the world.
Once in a foreign land without friend, papers or language trafficking victims are easy prey. Even if they are rescued from traffickers along their odyssey victims may fall into the hands of corrupt officials who trade on fear. Victims have to fear retaliation, attacks on families, criminal charges, deportation and official abuse back in their home countries.
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) an estimated 8.1 million victims of forced labor in the world today are denied more than $20 billion due to the perpetrators of human trafficking. These opportunity costs, or "stolen" wages, are incurred largely in the developing world and most significantly in Asia and the Pacific, which accounts for $8.9 billion, or almost half of forced labor's costs in the world. As wages denied and not remitted to workers’ home countries, these costs can be viewed as an impediment to economic development.
Unlike immigrants who eventually work themselves up and take their place in new societies victims of human trafficking are lost in a quagmire that sucks their soul into oblivion. The black market cost of human trafficking is measured (above) but there is another cost that must be considered. Both the supplying and exploiting countries are ignoring the probable potential and future contributions those who are traded as a labor commodity may make in open societies. As nations once learned global societies must learn again that the cost of slavery can not be supported.
Slavery never ended it merely adapted to new dynamics and governments turned a blind eye to the problem. Now in the 21st century trafficking in humans is the number one international crime. In some cases governments themselves are party to continuing slavery. During World War Two the United States officially imported unskilled workers who were exploited and often held in appalling conditions by Agri-businesses and factories owners. At the end of the war most of these workers were rounded up and ejected from the country without any recourse to justice. Post war Germany sanctioned importation of Turkish “guest workers” who, without rights were exploited by businesses. This practice continues today in many parts of the world as governments seek “cheap labor” to support domestic industry and public works.
The tentacles of human trafficking now reach into virtually every country either in exploitation or supply of cheap labor. Traffickers recruit among the poor, with grand promises, for stoop laborers and the sex workers. These traffickers often add a twist by extorting payments from the victims for the privilege of being of trafficked. Attractive young men, women and children are recruited only to end up as sex workers once in a strange land. As in the 17th century others are captured and sold to traffickers by human dealers in poorer regions of the world.
Once in a foreign land without friend, papers or language trafficking victims are easy prey. Even if they are rescued from traffickers along their odyssey victims may fall into the hands of corrupt officials who trade on fear. Victims have to fear retaliation, attacks on families, criminal charges, deportation and official abuse back in their home countries.
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) an estimated 8.1 million victims of forced labor in the world today are denied more than $20 billion due to the perpetrators of human trafficking. These opportunity costs, or "stolen" wages, are incurred largely in the developing world and most significantly in Asia and the Pacific, which accounts for $8.9 billion, or almost half of forced labor's costs in the world. As wages denied and not remitted to workers’ home countries, these costs can be viewed as an impediment to economic development.
Unlike immigrants who eventually work themselves up and take their place in new societies victims of human trafficking are lost in a quagmire that sucks their soul into oblivion. The black market cost of human trafficking is measured (above) but there is another cost that must be considered. Both the supplying and exploiting countries are ignoring the probable potential and future contributions those who are traded as a labor commodity may make in open societies. As nations once learned global societies must learn again that the cost of slavery can not be supported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)