Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow: Breaking News - Pentagon Report Says Afghanistan Mission Faces HUGE Obstacles

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 10:41 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow: Breaking News - Pentagon Report Says Afghanistan Mission Faces HUGE Obstacles
Edited on Tue Dec-29-09 11:38 PM by Hissyspit
 
Run time: 08:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uJRsicjQU
 
Posted on YouTube: December 30, 2009
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: December 30, 2009
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 4865
 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 29 December 2009: Pentagon Report & Afghan Coalition Soldiers Turning On American Soldiers With American Weapons.

MADDOW: "We are about to break some serious news on this show. Next, joining us here in studio is NBC's Richard Engel. He's NBC's chief foreign correspondent and he is joining us with an exclusive jaw-dropping report from the Pentagon about America's chances for military success in Afghanistan. This is a report that Richard has obtained exclusively. It may change the whole narrative of how we discuss the war...

- snip -

He broke the story tonight on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. We'll have Richard here in person in just a moment to walk us through this document he has obtained.

Because we are talking about Afghanistan, I do want to report first, though, that an American soldier was killed today there under very worrying circumstances. The Defense Department and NATO are not saying anything about this yet, other than to confirm that an American was killed in a shooting, but it's reports from Afghan and Italian sources that make this so worrying. They're saying this American was killed by an Afghan soldier, who opened fire on foreign troops with whom he was serving. Two Italian soldiers wounded in the same incident in which one American was killed... A corps commander with the Afghan National Army told the Associated Press that this Afghan solider got angry when NATO soldiers tried to keep him away from a helicopter that was about to land. Italian sources reporting that there was no chance that this shooting was accidental - it was intentional.

Now, this isn't the first time something like this has happened, not by a long shot. In November, an Afghan policeman shot and killed five British soldiers in Helmand province. Late October two American soldiers killed when someone wearing an Afghan National Police uniform opened fire on them... In March, an Afghan soldier killed two American servicemen and wounded a third before killing himself. Back in July 2007 an Afghan soldier opened fire and killed four of his own countrymen and wounded an American advisor. The American was reportedly the target of his outrage. And in May or 2007, an Afghan soldier shot and killed two American soldiers and wounded two others outside a top security prison outside of Kabul.

... but incidents like today's and this, even, abbreviated catalog of past carnage of this type, raise questions about the nature of our mission in Afghanistan, even as our President escalates it. The most minimal description of what our forces are there to do is to train and equip Afghanistan's military and police, so that they can defend their country themselves. It appears that at times, we are arming them and then they are turning around and training that fire on us.

There are also new questions today about whether our mission to train Afghan forces, even if it is wise, a question about whether it has a chance of succeeding. At least, whether it has a chance at succeeding within the time frame that President Obama has laid out for that mission.

With us again tonight is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel..."

ENGEL: "This report, it's 25-pages long, was provided for a briefing for the top commander, CENTCOM commander, David Patraeus. Also CCed on this report was the senior commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and it talks about the readiness of the Afghan security forces, primarily, the Afghan National Army.

To understand the context of this: THE main mission of the United States Army, all of the different forces that are there, is to train the Afghan security forces so that American forces can ultimately leave. That is THE No. 1 priority. The reason 30,000 extra troops are going there is to try and create enough security so that an Afghan Army can be built. I was told this by numerous commanders. No. 1 priority.

This report says that that priority is facing serious, serious problems and the military knows it.

This was an independent study; if I could just read a few things... It talks about how, this is the opening statement, 'The ANA (which is the Afghan National Army) above company level is not at war.' Now, company level means the small units, so the soldiers on the ground, they're fighting. Above, say 150 soldiers, anything, colonel, general, anyone at that level, doesn't believe he's at war. They talk about corruption. This is a quote: 'Nepotism, corruption, and absenteeism among ANA leaders makes success impossible. Change must come quickly.' Another line: 'If Afghan political leaders do not place competent people in charge, no amount of coalition support will suffice in the long term.'

It's more than sobering. It says that this is a serious challenge. It goes on to say that rehabilitating the Afghan security forces will not take one year, it will take a long time."

MADDOW: "Do they give a time frame about how long it would take if it was going to happen?"

ENGEL: "No. I've heard that, independently from this report, that they're thinking about four years. And the reason that the dates are important is, there is the key speech by President Obama - he says he wants to start dialing back the surge, roughly, eighteen months - the summer of 2011, eighteen months from when he announced it. That is impossible according to this study, to get the Afghan security forces up and running and in place and even with some sort of semblance. Another key finding in this report says that the numbers of Afghan troops and police that on the ground are inaccurate, that some battalions will over-report by 40-50 percent, inflate their numbers."

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. a prominent politician recently said a 30K troop surge was necessary to...win lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. The report was clearly written by racist PUMAs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-31-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. LOL!
Good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Did Obama have this information when making his decision?
If not, why not?
If so, WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpe diem Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. wouldn't this report have been helpful
Edited on Tue Dec-29-09 11:41 PM by carpe diem
a few months ago when the Pres. was trying to decide what to do?...i wonder why it was held until now?...perhaps to make the CIC look bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. What makes you think he didn't have it?
We have been snookered. If your main complaint was WAR, then Obama has failed miserably in fixing that issue.

Now the real question is this .... If Obama knew about this information before he made the decision to send 30K troops to Afghanistan then he flat our lied to the American people and he mislead us that he would be withdrawing troops in 18 months...

Now obviously they will spin to say that he never said he was 100 percent drawing the troops out in 18 months, he only said that as a hopeful sign a minimum if you will.

and then he had the audacity to go and pickup his Nobel Peace Prize.....

Obama is fast becoming and Embarassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Obama is fast becoming and Embarassment.
Hmmmmm....

He is fast! and What Else?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. OK Quickly....
I will not be blindly led, take your rose colored glasses off Pollyana. This Peace President is all about War. Yemen is next and then what? The only difference between this President and the last one is that one of them actually stood their ground when it came to principles they believed in.

You figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-31-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Just give them the trillion dollars for the pipeline already.Corruption will be the only outcome.
Enrich themselves then run and hide.Not worth losing American lives over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-31-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. The need for safety trumps all others but they think money will give this to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've had a problem for awhile after viewing a video of stoned ANA
soldiers. It's very prevalent with the ANA and I'm thinking the guy who shot those people was probably high.

You can't train an army of stoned soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pundaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. People will fight for their interests no matter what the Empire says. I once heard
of an American soldier in Viet Nam who experimented with pot. It ain't the drugs, it's the politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is what happens when you train an army that is not loyal
to any central government. WTF is the Pentagon THINKING?

It's hard to see this as a narrative changing bit of breaking news and not just logical consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. "some battalions will over-report by 40-50 percent, inflate their numbers"...
OK, who's still denying the parallels with Vietnam? :shrug:

ARNV officers were given payrolls to pay a certain no. of troops -- if they had fewer, they pocketed the difference. Didn't really encourage accuracy in reporting. Wonder if the same is happening here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. kick and recommend!! This is the most important post in the last several days!!! a message
everyone absolutely must hear!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. another kick - because it is so important!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howmad1 Donating Member (959 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Oh, so what's the big deal?
The military/industrial corporations will see that US involvement in Afghanistan/Yeman,(any middle eastern country for that matter) will last at least another twenty years. Don't make such a fucking big deal over something any intelligent human being knew all along, except maybe Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I agree. This is about extending the stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, now that 30K are committed
Edited on Wed Dec-30-09 09:26 PM by Nikki Stone1
I think we all got played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. well most Americans didn't realize that getting into military occupations
means getting into intractable and un-winnable situations. It is not on the front burner of the mind of most ordinary Americans, including most ordinary Democrats.

Americans have been reared on Hollywood movies where the heroic liberating Army frees the oppressed and everyone lives happily ever after.

When a Pentagon study confirms what a quagmire the situation really is, it carries a lot of weight in getting the message across that "regime change" means an impossible occupations that is not going to go away and there will be no happy ending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
11. Puts it all into perspective.
It's really disheartening to see these conservatives, who are grown up and in positions of responsibility, simply bald-faced lying. Nothing gets through to them and their obvious hypocrisy makes no difference to them. They are a joke. An absolute joke. Yet here they are in our media spewing their nonsense again and again. They say they're worried about security but their very presence is a threat to our safety. After all, it's conservative politics and conservative business practices that are what are really despised around the world. But heck, being lying, cheating, self-serving pricks is what made them successful, why would they stop now?

Thank God for Rachel Maddow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. "only one who has access to this information"
Then that must make me clairvoyant, for I could have foretold this 5, 10, even 30 years ago (well, 30 years ago it would have been по-русский ).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. MSM's Richard Engel has been blunt about this situation
he does not mince words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl_interrupted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. K&R The News coming out of Afghanistan has not been good
Afghans shout ‘death to Obama’ over killings

Investigator says most of dead were teen students, but NATO disputes that

msnbc.com news services
updated 1:22 p.m. ET, Wed., Dec . 30, 2009
ASADABAD, Afghanistan - The head of a presidential delegation investigating the deaths of 10 people in eastern Afghanistan concluded Wednesday that civilians — including schoolchildren — were killed in an attack involving foreign troops, but NATO officials disputed that. A NATO official had said that initial reports from troops involved in the fighting on Sunday indicated that those killed were insurgents — all young males.

Afghans protested the deaths Wednesday in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad and in the capital of Kabul.

In the capital of Nangahar province, which borders Kunar, around 200 university students took to the streets to protest against the raid, demanding those responsible be brought to justice.

"Death to Obama. Down with Karzai," they shouted.

Wafa said he was convinced all those killed in the Kunar incident were innocent civilians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629216/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia


US troop death in Afghanistan doubles toll for 2008



KABUL (AFP) – The death of a US service member in Afghanistan reported by NATO Sunday doubles the number of American soldiers killed in the country this year compared with 2008, according to an AFP tally.

With four days remaining of 2009, this year has proved the deadliest so far in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency which followed the 2001 US-led invasion to oust the militia's extremist regime in Kabul.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091227/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestustoll


I wish we could get out of there, as soon as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
16. My response to the headline was Duh...Of course we knew this...
The Op itself was more specific and well worth the read. Thanks, Hissyspit!
I still think that anyone who did not know Afghanistan was gonna be a quagmire was just delusional or has no history of the region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
18. Doesn't it seem like we've been here before?
I cannot believe that this report wasn't foreshadowed by other events ongoing since our occupation. To think that this one report is the Rosetta Stone of enlightenment about Afghanistan that casts doubts on all previous forecasts and evidence is laughable.

The behavior of Afghanistan troops was predictable a la the behavior of occupied countries and not knowing what they are fighting for....or excuse me, coming to the realization that what they (the people of Afghanistan) are fighting for is not in their (their people's) own best interests.

What was that Pete Seeger song about being Waist Deep in the Big Muddy?

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. The day we went into Iraq
Edited on Wed Dec-30-09 08:55 PM by Plucketeer
That's the day we should have started pulling out of Laugh-ganistan. The term "Afghan War" is a joke. There's no "war" there. There's only a POORLY contrived occupation. Nothing more.

Edit:....... If there were a REAL battlefront, I'd be right up there voting to let our best generals fully have the reigns until the opposing side was vanquished. Here - there's nothing for the sort of war experts our academies turn out, to do. It's like sending in a platoon of certified psychologists armed with couches into a den of wild beasts to subdue them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. #1 priority is NOT training Afghans - it is pipelines
Actually there are 3 priorities in Afghanistan - pipelines, poppies & profits.

Pipelines to carry oil and natural gas, pipelines controlled by the US.

Let's Speak the Truth About Afghanistan

By Eric Margolis

30/07/08 "Huffington Post" -- - NEW YORK -- During his triumphant European tour, Senator Barack Obama again urged NATO's members to send more troops to Afghanistan and called the conflict there, "the central front in the war on terror." Europe's response ranged from polite evasion to downright frosty.

It is unfortunate that Obama has adopted President George Bush's misleading terminology, "war on terror," to describe the conflict between the United States and anti-American groups in the Muslim world. Like many Americans, he and his foreign policy advisors are sorely misinformed about the reality of Afghanistan.

One understands Obama's need to respond with martial élan to rival John McCain's chest-thumping about "I know how to win wars." Polls put McCain far ahead of Obama when it comes to being a war leader. But Obama's recent proposal to send at least 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his threats to attack Pakistan's territory, and warnings about Islamabad's nuclear forces, show poor judgment and lack of knowledge.

The United States is no longer "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan, as Bush, Obama and McCain insist.
The 2001 U.S. invasion was a legitimate operation against al-Qaeda, a group that properly fit the role of a "terrorist organization." But, contrary to the White House's wildly inflated claims that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was a worldwide conspiracy, it never numbered more than 300 hard core members. Bin Laden and his jihadis long ago scattered into all corners of Pakistan and elsewhere. Only a handful remain in Afghanistan.

Today, 80,000 U.S. and NATO troops are waging war against the Taliban. Having accompanied the mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, witnessed the birth of Taliban, and penned a book about the Afghan struggle, "War at the Top of the World," I can attest that Taliban is not a terrorist organization as the U.S. and its allies wrongly claim.

Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade.
Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law.

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11.

The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.


Read the rest of the story at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20386.h...
**********


Poppies, as in drug trade.

America's Drug Crisis: Brought to You by the CIA
Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:32 — dlindorff

Next time you see a junkie sprawled at the curb in the downtown of your nearest city, or read about someone who died of a heroin overdose, just imagine a big yellow sign posted next to him or her saying: “Your Federal Tax Dollars at Work.”

Kudos to the New York Times, and to reporters Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen, for their lead article today reporting that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghanistan’s stunningly corrupt President Hamid Karzai, a leading drug lord in the world’s major opium-producing nation, has for eight years been on the CIA payroll.

Okay, the article was lacking much historical perspective (more on that later), and the dead hand of top editors was evident in the overly cautious tone (I loved the third paragraph, which stated that “The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raises significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.” Well, duh! It should be raising questions about why we are even in Afghanistan, about who should be going to jail at the CIA, and about how can the government explain this to the families of the over 1000 soldiers and Marines who have died supposedly helping to build a new Afghanistan). But that said, the newspaper that helped cheerlead us into the pointless and criminal Iraq invasion in 2003, and that prevented journalist Risen from running his exposé of the Bush/Cheney administration’s massive warrantless National Security Agency electronic spying operation until after the 2004 presidential election, this time gave a critically important story full timely play, and even, appropriately, included a teaser in the same front-page story about October being the most deadly month yet for the US in Afghanistan.

What the article didn’t mention at all is that there is a clear historical pattern here. During the Vietnam War, the CIA, and its Air America airline front-company, were neck deep in the Southeast Asian heroin trade. At the time, it was Southeast Asia, not Afghanistan, that was the leading producer and exporter of opium, mostly to the US, where there was a resulting heroin epidemic.

A decade later, in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, as the late investigative journalist Gary Webb so brilliantly documented first in a series titled “Dark Alliance” in the San Jose Mercury News newspaper, and later in a book by that same name, the CIA was deeply involved in the development of and smuggling of cocaine into the US, which was soon engulfed in a crack cocaine epidemic—one that continues to destroy African American and other poor communities across the country. (The Times' role here was sordid—it and other leading papers, including the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times—did despicable hit pieces on Webb shamelessly trashing his work and his career, and ultimately driving him to suicide, though his facts have held up.) In this case, Webb showed that the Agency was actually using the drugs as a way to fund arms, which it could use its own planes to ferry down to the Contra forces it was backing to subvert the Sandinista government in Nicaragua at a time Congress had barred the US from supporting the Contras.

And now we have Afghanistan, once a sleepy backwater of the world with little connection to drugs (the Taliban, before their overthrow by US forces in 2001, had, according to the UN, virtually eliminated opium production there), but now responsible for as much as 80 percent of the world’s opium production—this at a time that the US effectively finances and runs the place, with an occupying army that, together with Afghan government forces that it controls, outnumbers the Taliban 12-1 according to a recent AP story.

The real story here is that where the US goes, the drug trade soon follows, and the leading role in developing and nurturing that trade appears to be played by the Central Intelligence Agency.


Read the rest of the story at:
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/408
*************


Profits, as in war profiteering corporations.

Pentagon Pouring Your Money Into Afghanistan: Are They Preparing for a Very Long War?

By Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on November 9, 2009, Printed on November 9, 2009

In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.

While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.

In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects.
In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."

Bogged Down at Bagram

Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs."

Read the rest of the story at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/143819 /


And military contractors are raking in the profits left and right....

*******************

NOW WHY IS IT WE ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-31-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. To pursue a pipe dream that has NO CHANCE???
Or was that a trick question? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. Mating parrot segment on Wed. RM show
I didn't want to start a new thread,
but can I say that Rachel's the best.
Not only has she shown up live this
holiday season but she has the best
material, facts, reporting, quirky stories.
Thanks to her and her staff, Rachel
is the best and most intelligent
show sans big head stuff on MSNBC.

Happy New Year Rachel!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-31-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
30. So, now what everyone already knew intuitively is in print
And yet, the "war" will continue.

To the good fortune of warmongers, there's a steady supply of cannon fodder available due to an increase in economically-induced patriotism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC