[first some science-notes: four articles in Sunday’s Anchorage Daily News (July 26, 2009).

1 - “The Race For The Secret of the Universe” by Stephen Fried (Parade) provides a good but brief introduction to cutting edge physics on the mysteries of the Big Bang.

2 - “Because of Jupiter, Earth dodges a bullet” [this time] tells how Jupiter’s massive gravitational pull sometimes draws comets away from Earth---and sometimes slings them towards Earth.

3 - “Fish ear bones carry history” - fish ear bones reveal if salmon are wild or hatchery-raised.

4 - “Alaska university students see inner workings of NASA” tells how students experience temporary weightlessness (as in space).]

Now into the breach of the Middle East once more…:

I have been swayed by the comments (see below) on my latest Afghanistan writings. I was pessimistic before but I thought President Obama might at least have had a chance to stabilize Afghanistan. After reading (most) of these comments (and reading about Sen. Feingold) I now realize we are doomed. President Obama should have declared Afghanistan the irretrievable George W. Bush disaster it is instead of raising hope where little exists.

Here are my responses to the comments:

Cat train2: After a craven demonstration of the exact, opposite virtues, you had the nerve to suggest a reading list about---of all things---extraordinary bravery and outstanding heroism.

Toklat2: What can we do? [about Afghanistan] I’d say “take to the streets.” But you would be alone or in a small group of Quakers. And, if you were a woman and appeared sufficiently weak, old and defenseless, someone with an attitude would dump ice water on you from the back of a pickup truck in freezing weather and then get represented pro bono by Wayne Anthony Ross because he “supports our troops.”

Go Badgers: Join toklat2 in a street demonstration. Same cautions apply. Wait two years and you will have more company. [To answer your other question: “Oil company science” is like tobacco company science---scientists hired by industry to reflect industry views that excessive consumption of their products is not dangerous.]

Knittininak: Repeating my name over and over so we won‘t notice you have nothing---no evidence, no facts, no rebuttal, no nothing. [Note: That’s what you’re supposed to say to your husband---that he doesn‘t “love” you anymore.]

TheSdog: You are an old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal. Not one of those new-fangled, neo (conservative) liberals who want their cut of the action. Who else would still believe we are in the Middle East simply to do good for the downtrodden and oppressed? That our bombing campaigns have humanitarian motives?

Iraq and Afghanistan are not just about oil, natural gas, water, etc. Just because the U.S. didn’t start sucking out the oil right away is not the point of these resource wars---the point is to control (“stabilize”) the entire region---oil, water, minerals, governments---everything---to our “strategic” specifications. [see Biden quote below]

Afghan women are being treated worse than ever under U.S./NATO occupation. And the Afghan girls in the schools we set up get acid thrown in their faces. That’s according to an Afghan woman: The Big Lie of Afghanistan” by Malalai Joya - Published on Sunday, July 26, 2009 by The Guardian/UK - “Malalai Joya is an Afghan politician and a former elected member of the Parliament from Farah province. Her last book is Raising My Voice.”

Anyone who actually believes we went into Iraq to save Iraqis and chastise bad-boy Saddam Hussein needs to read the Anchorage Daily News, 7-27-09: “Soldiers in Colorado unit bring Iraq horrors home.” This story actually downplays the actions of U.S. soldiers who deliberately “smoked“ (killed) Iraqi civilians as a matter of routine and ran over taxi cabs with their Bradley “fighting“ vehicles---indiscriminately, often under orders, and were then “taunted” by superiors for seeking psychiatric help. Ten of these vets from one unit were accused of “murder, attempted murder or manslaughter after returning to civilian life”---for their actions right here in the U.S.

Right in Sunday’s paper (Anchorage Daily News - July 26, 2009) is an article describing exactly what I have been talking about in both my Afghanistan blogs as pertains to military reality: “Veterans of fight in Iraq find Afghan enemy bolder.”

“Insurgents skilled at tactics US Marines had learned.”

It appears that the Taliban---who have been doing this kind of fighting for centuries---fight like U.S. Marines.

“TACTICS: Insurgents pick their battles, and tough ones lie ahead.”

Actually, only TheSdog even addressed this topic.

Now here’s a most important story about Afghanistan published on Friday, July 24, 2009 by The Nation - “Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard” by Jeremy Scahill

Joe Biden (the current holder of Dick Cheney’s former office) says the Afghan war is in the "…national interest of Great Britain, the US and Europe, is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt.... And more will come."

There is, however, one hero in our U.S. Congress. Senator Russ Feingold cast the only vote against an amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization bill that immediately authorizes an expansion of the military by 30,000 troops.

The Wisconsin Senator believes "the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country." He calls pushing Afghan resistance fighters into Pakistan the "balloon effect."

After a month of the worst U.S. casualties in Afghanistan Senator Feingold was the only politician to question President Obama and his officials on their Afghan policy.

Feingold asked Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, "Are we sure that when we...get up to a level of 70,000 troops, are we sure that that isn't making the situation in Pakistan potentially worse?"

Holbrooke replied that the troop buildup "could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability."
"Are you sure that the troop buildup in Afghanistan will not be counterproductive vis-à-vis Pakistan?" Feingold asked. "No," Holbrooke replied. "I'm only sure that we are aware of the problem."

Feingold got the same answer from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. "Can I [be] 100 percent certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that," Mullen said.

"This is something I've been trying to hammer away at," Feingold tells The Nation. "They admitted that it's a problem, but where's the follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on this issue."

Feingold added, "How is it that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our special envoy to this region both agree that this could be a problem and that it is not talked about as a serious mistake if we're going to keep increasing troops and increase that effect? This is, in my view, the central flaw in what is otherwise a policy that is better than the Bush administration's. This is the central flaw in the thinking of the administration on this issue, and it needs to be pursued."
He [Feingold] said it was not "in the best interest of our troops or our national security." He cited escalating troop levels, high U.S. casualties and a growing insurgency.

"It appears that no one even asked the president about [Afghanistan] at his [July 22] press conference after apparently thirty or thirty-one Americans were killed in Afghanistan last month. How is that possible?" Feingold asks. "People have to wake up to what's going on in Afghanistan, and my vote is a request that people wake up to what's happening, which is we are getting deeper and deeper into this situation in a way that I don't think necessarily makes sense at all and may actually be counterproductive."

To summarize: Current U.S. military strategies in Afghanistan have a good chance of destabilizing an already destabilized Pakistan even further by driving Afghan insurgents into a position where they can gain control of nuclear weapons that actually exist.

<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

[This is my previous blog with the comments I have addressed above:]

The domino wars: A long response to comments on a war already lasting longer than World War II -

The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that the Afghan War (more correctly the Afghan-Pakistan War) will not be won by military means alone---but by a “political” (negotiated) settlement.

The way we are fighting right now precludes a military victory in any case.

The U.S. spends half it’s discretionary income on the military---about what the entire rest of the Planet spends. We are proudly militaristic flag-wavers---so citizens should learn to read between the lines of simple battlefield reports to see how their “defense“ dollars are being spent; what their armies are doing in the field; what “sacrifices“ are being required of their troops; and what the U.S. government‘s true intentions might be.

On July 23 (2009) Marines announced how surprisingly well their Helmand operations were going---with no civilian casualties caused by them. Wars are full of secrets and lies but these media reports can give us clues about operational realities.

The Taliban are (no surprise) avoiding set-piece combat and also are apparently not huddling among civilians and firing at U.S. troops. U.S. troops, under orders to avoid civilian deaths, may not be calling in as many air strikes. But U.S. troops are taking heavy casualties compared to previous years so the Taliban are not only ambushing our troops but are attacking in force when situations present themselves.

The outcome is that ground has been taken but the Taliban have not been destroyed and are simply moving around. See my archived “…leftover Wars…” for clues from a previous Anchorage Daily News article that the Taliban are nimbly avoiding the lumbering Marines offensive. The Marines on the ground cannot be too happy about this because it means they may have to fight the same, elusive Taliban fighters somewhere else. That’s the reality on the ground.

Now here’s an unusual glimpse into the big picture (the Afghan war is obviously and inextricably connected to other conflicts in the region):

“Clinton warns Iran of ‘shield’” (Anchorage Daily News 7-23-09). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatens a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran doesn’t give up it’s nuclear program.

I suggest reading this article to understand why I believe the Obama Administration is not that different from the George W. Bush Administration on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or the Middle East (although there seems to be actual movement on a Palestinian-Israeli resolution). Here’s a quote from the Anchorage Daily News article:

“While such a defensive shield has long been assumed, administration officials in Washington acknowledged Wednesday that no senior official had ever publicly discussed it.”

In case you still don’t get it, let’s go back to the “ground.“ To fight a lightly-armed Afghan insurgency with jet planes, 500 pound bombs, drones firing explosives into local neighborhoods (and also into Pakistan) and troops carrying 100 pound packs is absurd and stupid! Unless...unless there is some other motive or motives such as say, control of oil, natural gas, water (it’s dry and hot over there) and geopolitics---global dominance. Also to feed a voracious “defense” industry that manufactures atomic submarines to fight guys in caves and says the F-22 fighter is intended for some future war with China while China finances us. Crazy without a doubt.

The U.S. has already invaded two bordering nations on thin or made-up pretexts---why should Iranians believe they wouldn’t be invaded anyway or get bombed by the Israelis? Why shouldn’t Iran view the U.S. as trigger-happy, self-righteous fools? Iran has good reasons to develop nukes before being “defensively shielded” by the nation that already has it surrounded with military bases.

Bill Clinton and Kosovo began this latest era of “just” and “preemptive“ wars---heavy with bombings from the air. Secretary Gates refers blithely to “tomorrow’s wars.“ America is now engaged in domino warfare---first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Pakistan, then Iran, then Syria, then North Korea, then Russia, then China---whoops, too far! Let’s get back to the “small” Af-Pak war.

So why has Russia offered the U.S. access to it’s airspace to facilitate our fight in Afghanistan? It’s three-for-nothing. Russia is seen as “cooperating“ with the U.S; they get to see the U.S. keep Afghanistan weak; and they get to see the U.S. weaken itself even further by pouring willpower. manpower and borrowed money into that mountainous death-trap.

Of course President Obama wants to “stabilize” Afghanistan (as did George W. Bush and ditto on Iraq). Afghanistan was somewhat more “stable” before we invited ourselves in and stirred up the ongoing civil war between the Taliban and our “allies,“ the drug-dealing Northern Alliance warlords.

What about Iraq? Just because we have the world’s greatest fighting machine (as our new Ambassador to Iraq who almost just got blown up by a roadside bomb recently boasted on Charlie Rose) doesn’t mean we are wise in it’s use or transparent in our stated motives. Those Obama officials have learned how to talk George W. Bush military tough-guy-speak---because the American public wants Democrats to prove they can wage stupid wars as relentlessly as the Republicans.

Iraq was also more “stable” under Saddam (remember him?). Not nice, not democratic, but stable compared to the instability that now exists. Iraq is just now approaching the oil production levels achieved under Saddam’s worst pre-invasion, “U.S. sanction“ days.

So what about Al Quaida? In 2001 the American military went into Afghanistan to get Al Quaida. In 2003 the American military went into Iraq. Al Quaida followed them in.

Al Quaida, some say, doesn’t care about Afghanistan or Iraq---they are transnational and will take advantage of any turmoil anywhere on the Globe. In my opinion, however, the mountainous region of Afghanistan/Pakistan---with it’s fierce, loyal and hospitable fighters---must be a favorite base of operations for Al Quaida. And the Afghanis love Bin Laden because he fought side by side with them against the Russians (while the U.S. supported them). Hey, Al Quaida can be stupid and sentimental too. And besides, allowing the U.S. to wear itself out in the traditional place for big powers to burn themselves out serves Al Quaida’s purpose well even if they eventually do get kicked out of Afghanistan. Making Afghanistan unfriendly to Al Quaida as a training base will only move them around to other areas of turmoil.

I don’t think that is do-able anyway. The Americans have betrayed too many in Afghanistan after the time we supported Osama Bin Laden against the Russians---when the Russians left we just split the scene and let the country remain in ruins. Now we have been back there for eight years and it is still a ruined land. We didn’t care about Afghanistan then so why do we care now? It doesn’t make sense (except for the oil, resources and Russia thing).

The Taliban are a creation of Pakistan which wants the Taliban as a barrier to it’s main enemy, India. This was enabled by the U.S.---Pakistan accepted American military aid (to fight Al Quaida) but secretly used our money to support the Taliban. This is only one of many complicating and contradicting factors of America’s involvement in Afghanistan---which is why I question our true purpose. Oil, energy and the global jousting between the U.S. and Russia seem like obvious ulterior motives to many in the World---but not to Americans. We keep our true intentions secret even from ourselves.

Rudy Wittshirk