One well-placed Murder Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Is the Taliban weapon of choice in the hearts and minds campaign to win Afghanistan. I learned this at a Capitol Hill discussion yesterday with Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter who now runs a humanitarian organization there (check out her new book ). Seems death obeys that law of diminishing returns  you learned in Economics 101: more of something doesn't necessarily produce a better result. With political goals in mind,the Taliban has developed a ghastly set of campaign advertisements: pick off strategic individuals like a night watchman at a public school (leaving names of teachers pinned to his body) an incorruptible police chief, a Red Cross worker. Later in the day, I attended an annual Army Association conference  that is best described as the beauty pageant of the defense industry. (I counted at least three helicopters, half-dozen drones and several ginormous military personnel vehicles inside the DC convention center). After hearing Sarah talk,  though, I couldn't help thinking that the expo symbolized America's dysfunction on national security: the more political and hands-on our tasks, the more  complicated and remote the technology we create to solve problems.

I've had many conversations with people who have spent time in Afghanistan. All agree that today's violent chaos is largely the result of our own missed opportunity. Iraq sucked the oxygen out of our efforts there.   Accountable government to replace the Taliban became an afterthought as early as 2002.   Even this administration's single minded "free market" foreign policy might have done wonders if we'd paid attention. Afghans are fabulous at commerce, after all and parts of the country have un matched agricultural resources.

Today, Afghan citizens are presented with two lousy choices: a Pakistan backed Taliban or a homegrown corrupt government. Both act like organized gangs, one shakes down the newly minted citizens during the a.m. the other during the p.m. Who you choose to side with depends on two questions:

Who makes you feel safe? and Who is going to extract less personal property?  Americans who have spent time in Afghanistan over the past five years have many suggestions about how we can learn valuable lessons for our security policies. Like most important things in life, timing is vital. For example, if critical infrastructure, roads, bridges and other systems that undergird prosperity are built immediately, democracy and its proponents look pretty good. Many farmers turn to opium production based on the availability of water. Hence acqueducts are related to national security. Our personnel needs follow the same low-tech trend. One reason the National Guard is so important today is that our missions require the citizen skills of pharmacists and city planners.

The scandalous lack of preparation for the aftermath of the Iraq war has grabbed lots of headlines lately.  But the problem goes much deeper than our present conservative /clueless leaders.  This is what I saw at the Army expo. In general, America doesn't seem to be particularly interested in  the sorts of low-tech problem solving that is so urgent today. Our land invasion/airpower obsession stands in contrast to many of our western peers.  A handful of European booths occupied a distant corner of the expo hall. The only display with a crowd around it was the German "Oktoberfest" tent, where a dirndl clad girl was giving away pretzles and beer.   I spent some time talking to a man whose firm creates mine-detectors--imagine a vacuum cleaner on steroids. He mentioned how his company is located in a congressional district where the Member (a liberal Democrat) won't take appointments with him because he is a military contractor. Cluelessness, it seems, is an affliction of both the Left and the Right.  Which brings me to my final point: It is imperative for progressives to separate Iraq from Afghanistan and to not let anger about the mis-named "war on terror" confuse ideas about where we should go as a nation. We have all the military cover we could possibly need. The Defense Department, after all, issued a directive last November that made civilian reconstruction on par with combat as a mission. I wrote about this here .

But its going to take interest and a real political constituency to effect change. National security is up for grabs right now. We have a chance to take our recent experiences and frame them to create a strategy that will still allow for criticism of recent decisions--like invading Iraq, but also make the case for why we should do more to stop  genocide in the Sudan. Time is of the essence. If Congress turns over, these ideas could be out the gate in January.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

It's important to remember that to the Pentagon and their corporate and congressional friends--the military-industrial complex--"National Security" translates to "Corporate Welfare" and "Personal Gain."
Expensive weapons systems bring big bucks and war adds considerably to the bottom line. No profit equals no interest. Money talks and BS walks, to them. These people couldn't care less about the Afghanis, the Koreans, the Egyptians or anyone else.

Case in point: Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of a company which six years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea. Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. Details here.

[Cal]

I spent some time talking to a man whose firm creates mine-detectors... He mentioned how his company is located in a congressional district where the Member (a liberal Democrat) won't take appointments with him because he is a military contractor. Cluelessness, it seems, is an affliction of both the Left and the Right.

The idea that military contractors generally don't have enough access to Democratic representatives is laughable. It may be true in a few cases, but the opposite problem is the rule.

Early on, Clinton required our diplomats to shill for arms merchants to their host countries. The results were immediate: During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.

The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle.

How many time have DA commentators discussed this problem? About as often as Lorelei's outlier example, is my impression.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Cal, you're right, its an outlier example and both parties are shameless shills for the industry. What bothers me is that the liberal Dems could actually go to bat for some really helpful timely technologies, but choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or the mine detectors out with the missile defense in this case ; ) and make it easier for right wingers to call everyone who criticizes "soft" on defense.

[pdquig]

Reading the news lately would leave one with the impression that Dems were all for missile defense against the North Korea threat. What a bunch of bald-faced revisionists.

[Antiquated Tory]

Dan,
Loathe as I am to say anything nice about Donald Rumsfeld, I should point out that those light water reactors were bought for N Korea as part of a deal for them to stop their own nuke development program. The fissionables involved in an LWR are useless for bomb making, which was the whole point of providing them with same.
Otherwise, an interesting and disturbing if not at all surprising piece. Low tech development projects quite aside from military involvement have always had a hard time getting the funding, possibly for a similar reason: it doesn't involve huge sums of money going to large American employers. Not only do little guys like the minesweeper manufacturer not have sufficient funds to grease the wheels, they don't involve employment to thousands of Americans in one go. Don't forget that this is one of the factors behind the strength of the M/I complex. Not only do lots of dosh and cushy jobs go to retired military and political decision-makers, but there are whole barrels of pork and jobs for the lads in the constituencies, too. Everything you could want in a private-public partnership!

[Don Bacon]

AT,
Good point on the light water reactors, but I never said or even implied any connection between LWRs and nuclear weapons. My point was, and I think that it's basically the same as yours, that Rumsfeld and his M/I ilk are amoral, that they don't even care if they make money with the "axis of evil" if they can turn a buck. Or especially 190,000 bucks. And I further agree with you on the mine-detector guy for the same reason. Now if it were cluster bombs or some other fancy death machine . . .

As for Ms. Kelly's last point, that a new national security strategy is needed, any new strategy that merely re-frames neocon-ism and continues to promote US world hegemony and corporate welfare over world partnerships for peace and prosperity is DOA with me. Why do they hate us? Because of our self-defeating "war on terror" and our invention of "Islamo-fascism." Neoconservatism, even with a smiling Democratic face, has proven to be a loser. We don't win friends and influence people by killing them, as has been proven in Afghanistan (where NATO has recently surrendered to the Taliban in the east) and in Iraq (where sixty per cent of the people support killing Americans).

[sf]

Don Bacon wrote:

Rumsfeld sat on the board of a company which six years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea.

A-Tory countered,

those light water reactors were bought for N Korea as part of a deal for them to stop their own nuke development program. The fissionables involved in an LWR are useless for bomb making, which was the whole point of providing them with same.

Don then clarified:

My point was... that Rumsfeld and his M/I ilk are amoral, that they don't even care if they make money with the "axis of evil" if they can turn a buck.

Don, your brazen attempt to re-write history in favor of Dems is duly noted. You accuse Rumsfeld et al of making a deal to sell the Norks nuclear reactors, allegedly because he/they are greedy. But unless every newspaper was lying back in '96, that deal was the heart of the agreement made by Bill Clinton to ostensibly "solve" the problem of the Norks pursuing nukes.

To restate: The idea of selling North Korea two light-water reactors was explicitly negotiated by the Clinton administration--despite warnings from every conservative that the Norks would simply continue their nuke program secretly. Amazingly, the Clintons and Dems would later tout this naive piece of appeasement as a brilliant example of their diplomatic skills!

So for you to accuse Rumsfeld of being greedy for sitting on the board of the company that carried out the agreement made by Clinton is...breathtaking in its audacity.

[J Thomas]

sf, as a morally-impaired republican this might be hard for you to get, but I'll give it a try.

Rummy believed this was a terrible deal that would badly hurt america. But he saw a chance to make a profit doing something that was bad for his preferred policies and bad for the USA and he charged right in.

Of course it's vaguely possible that Rummy argued against it and was overruled, and didn't think it was important enough to resign over.

And it's possible that if they didn't do it, somebody else would. So like, if Rummy had been at IG Farben when the nazis paid them to make poison gas to kill death camp inmates, he could have done the same thing. It's bad, but somebody's going to do it and make a profit, so why shouldn't it be us?

See, sf, you probably didn't understand this idea being a republican and all, but the thought is that to do that sort of thing shows that Rummy is morally bankrupt. But morally bankrupt people won't understand about that.

[Don Bacon]

sf,
This is a pattern with Rumsfeld, and it has nothing specifically to do with Clinton or the Democrats. He's done it with Iraq and with North Korea, and probably with Iran if we knew more, and in fact his actions mirror those of the US government. If a country does what we tell it to do then we'll cooperate with it and make money and or political advantage, if it doesn't we threaten it, embargo it or even invade it. And for you to defend Rumsfeld for making money off a deal that was done "despite warnings from every conservative" is . . .breathtaking in its audacity.