Afghanistan

How do you feel about the new policy announced by President Obama last night? Here's your chance to offer an opinion.

What sort of victory do elections in Afghanistan represent?

The article in the European Voice is ironically titled "A milestone for democracy?" Of course, that is how the election in the Afghanistan is being presented in the US press, but this conclusion requires a fairly tortured understanding of the word "democracy."

An AFP article presents some blunter assessments, including one analyst's opinion that the Taliban were successful in their effort to restrict the turnout for the election. Because the voter turnout was so low, it's questionable how much a mandate any winner can claim.

As the article makes clear, the main objective is to preserve what stability there is at the government, in order to allow the military to impose stability on the ground. To me, this appears to be one of those situation while there are surely individual heros on all sides, none of the forces can claim strong moral high ground.

While I am have not interviewed Taliban members, I have read enough interviews by journalists I respect to conclude that they are, in fact, brutal toward the Afghani population and their purported foes. The Americans have committed their share of atrocities, often through sheer stupidity and hubris. The Europeans have not assumed their share in finding a solution to a problem that has large implications for them, not just the Americans. The Russians are out of the current fight, but they committed innumerable war crimes in their last foray into Afghanistan. The current government of Afghanistan is thoroughly ridden with corruption, and the so-called "army" of Afghanistan has demonstrated little ability and less inclination to oppose the Taliban.

I doubt a military "victory" can be achieved here, not in the conventional sense. Even some American military experts and lawmakers have voiced this opinion. So what is the solution? What type of accommodation is possible with a foe so reviled, and that hold views so inimical to Western thought? On the other hand, is Afghanistan really where we should be fighting? We want to protect ourselves from Al Qaeda, but is Afghanistan the right place to accomplish this goal. And can total war be waged against a foe that is not clearly distinguishable from the supporting population? Do we have to destroy Afghanistan to save it?

Assessing hopes for change in USA

Here we are in the last week of August. President Obama is taking a vacation on Martha's Vineyard. Every day brings news about forces mobilizing against real health care legislation. Military leaders are talking about the need to further increase troops in Afghanistan. While signs point to economic recovery in the United States, this has been a discouraging summer for those of us who had hoped that the election of President Obama would mean more fundamental change in the United States. The reactionary forces in the United States are, in fact, quite strong and all the more bitter and dangerous because of their defeat last November.

Yesterday's column by Paul Krugman reflects this discouragement. The multiple myths that underpin the political thinking of the United States are apparently unassailable. The fact that the economic doctrines and approaches of Reagan and the neo-conservatives lack both supporting evidence and logic does not apparently detract from their political power. It's discouraging because I believe that the path to the future for America is to be found in an economic approach that is both more realistic and better designed to benefit all classes of people, not just the wealthy

I can hear the chant of conservatives first voiced more than four decades ago: "America. Love it or leave it!" But I refuse to believe that those of us who do not agree with conservatives are not American. We are citizens too, and America cannot be claimed as the possession of conservatives only. I'm not leaving. (Yet.)