US RAIDS AFGHANISTAN HOSPITAL

It appears from recent reports (see below) the loose norms and minimal respect for international law fostered by the Bush-Cheney White House have unavoidably filtered down into the mindset of our troops and officer-corps and now, may act as a stumbling-block for General Stanely McChrystal's new and revised plans for the US effort in Afghanistan.

A Swedish aid agency operating in Afghanistan for decades, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), has reported that soldiers from the US 10th Mountain Brigade stormed through one of their hospitals last week, searching for wounded Taliban. They broke down doors, tied up hospital staff and visitors and generally roughed-up and threatened the staff. Afterward, they insisted that they (the US military) would decide who the hospital admitted and that the staff was to report on any wounded patients which might be insurgents. The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan complained that the actions of the US military were a clear violation of internationally recognized (see below) accords regarding the operation of hospitals in areas of conflict and also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement the US has concluded with the Afghanistan government. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/asia/08kabul.html?ref=global-home.

Such behavior clearly does not conform with the image we, here at home, have of our troops—at least as it is portrayed in the mass media. Such (illegal and inhumane) behavior can only make plans for a "new way" for the US in Afghanistan far more difficult to achieve. In regard to the incident, Lt Commander Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officers for the US Navy, stated that “We are investigating, and we take allegations like this seriously.” She added: “Complaints like this are rare.”

But uncharacteristic as it seems, it must not be as rare as the Navy public affairs officer claims, since after reading the above piece in the NY Times, I made a cursory google search of the words “US troops attack hospital” and came up with other instances, in Iraq--where US troops—chasing “insurgents” raided hospitals.

In “US Troops Raid Fallujah Hospital Again”, See http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=10165, (and http://newstrust.net/stories/2968)
posted on December 15, 2006, (downloaded September 6, 2009) the author relates an incident which occured following a roadside bombing on December 7, 2006, in which several Iraqi policemen were killed, the injured were taken to Fallujah General Hospital in Bagdhad, soon afterward a US marine was hit by sniper fire.

Fallujah General Hospital was raided by US troops many times, particularly during the assault on that city in April and November of 2004. In December 2004, the US military was accused of impeding Iraqi health care workers around and inside Fallujah, and also accused of deliberately targeting ambulances. In November 2005, another report indicated that the US military had raided two hospitals in Ramadi.

The antiwar.com article adds other allegations from Iraq, including US treatment of Iraqi doctors, many of whom were arrested by US forces and held for “supporting terrorism” (ostensibly because they were "guilty" of patching up wounds of men the US considered "insurgents"), as a result, many doctors fled the country. These professionals were guilty of nothing other than providing their essenstial services to the community. The article adds that the independent Iraqi Medical Association announced in November 2006 that of the 34,000 Iraqi physicians registered prior to 2003, over half have fled the country and at least 2000 have been killed. Actions which either cause or encourage harm to health professionals, while having modest effect on the "insurgents" over the long term, severely compromise the health, well-being and survival of the civilian population and particularly to vulnerable pregnant women, children and newborns. Such US actions can achieve no good end. That similar behavior patterns of US troops are being observed in Afghanistan are cause for grave concern.

On the December 7 occasion reported above, shortly after the policemen were admitted to the hospital, a US Marine was also wounded by a sniper. Other Marines responded to the attack, then after the shooting died down, they immediately turned their attention to the hospital across the Euphrates River. Their assumption was that if they had wounded the attacker, he might seek help at the hospital.

However, a retired surgeon interviewed for the (antiwar.com) Inter Press Service article quoted here, said that “Americans have some imagination to think that the injured man would go to that ‘so-called’ hospital.” Any Iraqi from around here knows not to go there, “one, because of the continuous raids by the US, and two, the hospital’s near complete “lack of medicines and equipment,” stated the former physician.

Eyewitnesses add that US soldiers often raided the Fallujah hospital as if it was “a military target”.

On the day of the (December 7th) raid, nurses and staff panicked at the way the soldiers kicked open doors and blasted open other locked ones with their weapons. When a doctor tried to tell them he had the keys for a locked door, they pointed their guns at his head and threatened to shoot him.

Finally, prior to their search, the soldiers ejected all the staff from the building and kept them under guard in the near-freezing outdoor-garden until the early hours of the next morning.

The troops would not permit the staff to re-enter the hospital even to get some warm blankets…though the temperature dropped to five degrees C (41F).

“We are used to that kind of behavior from American soldiers,” said one of the hospital staff. “This is the third time I’ve been handcuffed by them, and had my face pushed into the ground.”
These allegations, if true, are in contravention of the following articles of the Geneva Conventions…to which the US is a signatory nation.

Article 12 of the First Geneva Convention states: "sick and wounded combatants shall be treated humanely and cared for by the party to the conflict in whose power they may be…any attempts on their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited.”

Article 24 (First Geneva Convention) “Medical personnel exclusively engaged in transport of sick and treatment of wounded and staff..shall be protected in all circumstances.”

Article 18 (Fourth Geneva Convention) reads: "Civilian hospitals ….may in no circumstances be the object of attack…but at all times be respected and protected by the parties to the conflict. "

Why was such obviously illegal, inhuman behavior tolerated in Iraq? Is it possible that US soldiers in Iraq (and now those in Afghanistan) are not regularly informed of their responsibilities regarding the Geneva Conventions?

With General McChrystal's new plan, summarized as: "Protecting the people is the mission. The conflict will be won by pursuading the population, not by destroying the enemy."

(As stated by David Ignatius:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103429.html).

For McChrystal to garner even some form of success in that country with his policy, he will have to make significant changes in the mindset of the US forces. That he seems not to have accomplished as yet.

We must ask ourselves this question--if we routinely ignore and undermine these humane, sensible and in the end, practical codes of conduct, how can we expect the Taliban or others to respect them?

After the Fallujah hospital attack, Lt. Col Bryan Salas, spokesman for the Multinational Forces in Iraq, responded to reporter-questions by indicating he was well aware of the alleged illegality of the actions of his men. His carefully crafted response (some may describe it as cagey and hypocritical) to reporters was: “Coalition forces searched the hospital to ensure that it continues to be a safe place for the citizens of Fallujah…and to receive the medical treatment they deserve.”

However, in other cases in Iraq, US officers frankly admitted they raided hospitals, perhaps blithely unaware that it was a war crime to do so.

In this piece, posted in Gulf News, on April 25, 2008, and downloaded September 6, 2009, Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the US military in Iraq, clearly indicates his troops are on their way to attack a psychiatric hospital in Sadr City. See entire article at: http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10208328.htm

“In the latest violence, Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover, a US military spokesman, said his troops were attacked on their way to raid a psychiatric hospital not far from Sadr City.

He said soldiers were attacked by roadside bombs and small arms fire, prompting the US military to call for helicopter support. Four gunmen were killed, Stover added. Iraqi forces eventually raided the Al Rashad psychiatric hospital but made no arrests, he said.

The hospital has been under the spotlight since its acting director was held on suspicion he was involved in passing on details of patients to Sunni Islamist Al Qaida.

He (the director) was released last week after being detained for two months. It was unclear if he was ever charged...."

Perhaps insidious illegal policies established by Bush-Cheney regarding the applicability of Geneva Conventions to the conflict, their characterizations of the enemy, and of the Moslem faith, their blatant propagandizing and their open flaunting of the rule-of-law has had its effects on the nation's thinking and particularly on the mindset of the young men and women who they sent into a war zone. But this unworthy philosophy must be renounced and unlearned for General McChrystal's and President Obama's new plans for "protecting the people and pursuading the population" in Afghanistan to ever succeed.

Get the picture?

rjk

THE SCENT OF HONDURAS AND OBAMA'S ROOKIE JITTERS

Is Obama’s timidity in Honduras—only a symptom of a larger problem..like rookie jitters?

Why won’t President Obama call a spade a spade in Honduras…where in the early morning hours of June 28, 2009 a Honduran military detachment entered the president’s palace and unceremoniously roused the pajama-clad official, hustled him off to an airfield, where at gunpoint he was pushed into a small plane, only to dumped off at a short while later, at an isolated place in neighboring Ecuador. The Honduran military—aligned with right wing forces abroad and in the US-- then assigned the President’s palace to their hand-picked right-wing rubber-stamp, Signor Roberto Micheletti.

Since then Obama and Ms Hillary Clinton have only tentatively (and that is very tentatively) supported the unfortunate Zelaya with mild and well-chosen, (some would say too carefully chosen words). But their deeds clearly say something else. After four months, they finally have gotten around to freezing $38 million in humanitarian funds to Honduras and also revoked the visas of officials who were involved in the coup. But these actions are very small potatoes.

The determined right-wing elements in Honduras have not been frightened. They will try to play for time. President Obama and Ms Clinton must know that their modest fig-leaf actions will not change anything. To many, it is clear that is just what the Obama team wishes. Their goal is to keep the Republican minority in Congress happy. Yes that is the party which was so resoundingly defeated during the last election. Team Obama is willing to undermine our international respect for law and order to keep favor with the disgraced and unmanned Republicans.

They have also fallen back on methods used by the disgraced Bush regime. The Bush-Cheney penchant for of parsing and redefinitions –such as in the Bush-World’s redefinition of “torture” defined so that the CIA and Pentagon could do anything short of shearing off someone's head and could continue to refer to the action as "mild enhanced interrogation”.


In the case of the June 28, Honduran putsch, Obama has defined the overthrow in such as way that …though President Zelaya was man-handled and pushed around by Honduran uniformed military officers, then hustled off in a military plane, ---then twenty-four hours later, after he had a shave and threw on some borrowed clothes--as he and some supporters tried to reenter Honduras—he was faced with massed Honduran military at the border threatening to shoot if he were to step across. According to Obama the clearly military action…is not a military overthrow. Why? Because labeling it “military” would force some really effective economic and political measures that Obama would rather not have to authorize. (Please see Time Magazine’s more complete write up at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1920725,00.html)

Obama has spoken forcefully and well about the Honduran coup, but he would rather do very little. Mr. Zelaya, a left-leaning Honduran who was attempting to liberalize his impoverished nation’s economy…and who is also an ally of the outspoken anti-US--Hugo Chavez—remains the only legally-elected President of that nation. Yet he remains an embarrassing refugee outside of Honduras.

Time Magazine calls Obama’s action a “mixed signal” and states: “When the military hauls away a democratically elected president, it's a military coup, period, regardless of who takes power afterward. It's a rule that needs to apply not just in Honduras, but whenever the U.S. has to take on coupsters.”

Time Magazine and this author ask: what impression does this give to other erstwhile military leaders in other South American nations? This author sees the Honduras situation as a paradigm of Obama’s last few months in office: crafting the good speech, delivering the words and then doing little afterward as follow-up.

Sidling away from tough issues because they might upset some element of Congress or the electorate is becoming all too common the hallmark of President Obama. He seems to actually want to hew to some middle line…as if there was one between the reactionary Republicans left in Congress. Republicans over the last few years have diverged so far right into their netherworld that finding a middle ground is tantamount to a cross-Pacific voyage. It is essentially impossible. It’s their way or the highway. So Obama has set himself an impossible task on that score.

I know it has been only nine months--but these months have been pregnant with problems and policy pronouncements. And here below are some others policy issues that seem to have the smell of Obama’s Honduran behavior—his resistance to take a firm stand.


Let’s take Afghanistan. Why won’t Obama stand up to his military? Doesn't he know he is the commander-in-chief? He should be telling his generals what he wants them to do….not the other way around. Just recently President Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but a recent report leaked by his staff has suggested that he was “pressured” to do so by his generals. I hate to think that the man we elected President must go hat in hand to a general and ask permission. Such behavior has the scent of Tegucigalpa.

On August 26th the “new man” in Afghansitan, General Stanley McChrystal who is widely touted as a brilliant ‘whiz kid” full of new ideas, has promised the President a “new way to win” in Afghanistan by “persuading” the long-suffering Afghanis that the US invaders are “concerned about their welfare”. But within a few weeks after that announcement, reports have surfaced of two disastrous US military blunders.


The first blunder occurred on Friday (September 4th) when a German NATO officer in Kunduz province Afghanistan called in an aerial strike on two stolen tanker-trucks (stuck at river crossing). The stalled fuel tankers were quickly mobbed by local civilians (or invited by the Taliban) carrying empty gerry-cans all eager to get a windfall of free fuel-- when the USAF F15’s missile struck. The result was giant fireball and a holocaust of civilians.

The immediate US military response was "the F15 attack killed only 'insurgents' ( as in the past this mantra proved untrue as it did over the past dozen or so US attacks casuing some 1200 Afghan civilian deaths). Their knee-jerk position of "no civilians killed" soon proved untenable when the local hospitals reported a flood of burnt bodies and patients--men, women, and children with horrible burns. The French daily “Le Figaro” was one of the few journals to publish a wide-angle view of the attack-site, which clearly shows the entire area littered with shards of metal as well as the burned and charred containers and canisters of the unfortunate locals.

Two days later, on Sunday September 6, 2009, another embarrassing military action, (and breach of the Geneva Conventions) surfaced when Reuters reported that US troops had entered a Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) hospital in Wardak south of Kabul, where they rampaged through the facility, tied up employees as well as families of patients, and forced staff and patients (as well as some in beds) out of their rooms in their futile search for possible “insurgents”. (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5850OH20090906?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews.

If these actions are any indication of how effective the new McChrystal polices are going to be, more than a month after the top general in Afghanistan ordered his command (on July 2, 2009) to “embrace the people” and “build governance capacity”-- his efforts will be in vain.

These two events suggest that in spite of McChrystal's new plan--now a full month in force-- the US forces remain unaware, unconcerned, and uninformed.

Other NATO forces consider the Americans "trigger-happy" and unsympathetic. If that characterization is false--these recent acts have not disproved them. Obviously these actions are not going to win us any Afghan friends and change the situation on the ground where perhaps more young Americans will die as a result.

These two stories only underscore the unfortunate truism that the military is a very blunt and unpredictable tool of foreign policy which should be used very sparingly, if at all, and then only when a nation’s survival is actually threatened. Obama does not want to step up to the plate and call for a retreat from Afghanistan. And he does not want to send more troops. I'm getting the scent of old Comayaguela.


In a recent piece in Time Magazine, columnist Joe Klein, took Obama to task for his tendency to “over-learn the lessons of past presidencies"—especially when such lessons permit the president to “avoid taking responsibility for hard decisions” See “Rookie Mistakes” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920050,00.html (downloaded September 6, 2009).

Klein lists several of what he considers Obama’s rookie mistakes. Such as not taking responsibility for a health-care plan, by deferring it to Congress, so now it is a badly muddled mess. He let AG Eric Holder run the game plan on whether to investigate the CIA for torture abuses, another serious deferral of responsibility Klein sees as a rookie mistake, but I might call “Honduran behavior”. In that case the President didn’t step up to the plate and make a decision one way or another. He did say he would not want to look back…but then he let Holder do it. I call that "Honduran" behavior. The result is a CIA investigation that is so limited and so meaningless, that according to Joe Klein, Holder might be faced with prosecuting one agent for threatening a prisoner with an electric drill and let off another who waterboarded a man 83 times! While the real miscreants who were responsible—Mr. Yoo and others-- and in the White House--Cheney and Bush-- are of course off Scott free.

But in his closing remarks Joe Klein is optimistic:
"In the great sweep of history, this presidency has barely begun. The mistakes Obama has made are rookie mistakes that can be corrected. And the general tendency of his Administration — toward civility, as opposed to the ugliness we've seen in the past month — is the right one. But he can't allow his desire for civility to neuter the requirements of leadership. He has to lead, clearly and decisively, starting right now. "

I agree...we need a change...right now.

Get the picture now?
rjk

NUCLEAR THREAT FROM IRAN HYPED: EL BARADEI

On the Iran front, that nation’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, was quoted in BBC on line as indicating that Iran has a “new proposal” for the UN and the "gang of six" countries which oppose its nuclear ambitions. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8231763.stm.

This seems to be Iran’s most recent response to President Obama’s promise to engage Iran in dialogue over the nuclear issue. The American proposed window for such talks is expected to close by the end of this month (September 2009). While last week, the prime minister of Israel, visiting in Europe called for “crippling sanctions” against Iran to force it to end its program to concentrate radioactive materials which can be used in a power plant—or if further refined-- in a nuclear bomb. My interpretation is that nuclear-armed Israel sees Iran as a threat to its regional nuclear and military hegemony and is dead-set against Iran even developing the know-how to concentrate nuclear fuels (and to build a bomb). On the other hand, Iran, the signatory to the nuclear disarmament treaty (unlike Israel), has an established right under that agreement to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran insists it is not interested in building weapons—only to develop technology for electrical power development. What gives many pause is that in the past, Israel, Pakistan, and India too-- all mouthed the same story--- until they actually tested a nuclear device.

Mohammad el Baradei the outgoing head of the UN atomic watchdog group states that he has “seen no evidence that Tehran has an ongoing weapons program”. El Baradei at a recent interview with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, (See BBC) has said that “many people are talking about Iran’s nuclear program as the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat is hyped.” This statement hit the wires as the arch-conservative Israeli PM, Mr Netanyahu visited heads of state in Europe to encourage the need for “crushing sanctions” against Iran, were it to continue on its present path. Netanyahu has coupled such statements with veiled (and not so veiled) threats to pre-emptively bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Were Iran to reach the technological level of refining nuclear materials and having the technical ability to produce weapons—(such as Japan) but not actually doing so—it could change the balance of power in the Middle East. This is a development that the President finds politically distasteful right now. But that benighted region is now so heavily tilted toward the US and its on-the-scene-ally-Israel that any real movement toward peace between Israel and Palestine is a perennial non-starter. Why bother to play fair with the competition or seek compromise if one player holds all the trump cards? A bit of a shakeup, such as a nuclear savvy Iran—even one with no actual stockpile of nuclear weapons--might force others in the region to more seriously consider peaceful solutions and compromises rather than resorting to napalm, white phosporous, aerial bombardment and home-made rockets to solve problems.

Such a nuclear-stand-off worked for the US during the Soviet-era cold war! And recall that nothing else has worked in the Middle East--so far! Now it's up to President Obama to make sure that Mr. Netanyahu does nothing really stupid...like following through on his bomb Iran threat.



rjk

TWO EQUALLY TOUGH CHICKADEES

Around our area of the northeast USA, the fall of the year brings madness to buck deer and moose which are known to attack pets, posts, trees and sometimes even clotheslines. In intra specific battles they are even more aggressive often striking each other so violently that their racks or antlers engage in a way so they can not be disentangled. The result is a slow death of starvarion for the combatants. After the rutting season, their bodies are sometimes found with their antlers locked together in a death tangle, the result of a mortal battle and normal male aggression. But what about other, less obviously aggressive animals? Some birds exhibit extreme aggression during the nesting season.

I recently came across an interesting bird story by Diane Porter entitled “Tough Titmouse”, (see: http://www.birdwatching.com/stories/tough_titmouse.htm. downloaded September 2, 2009) Ms Porter engagingly relates the story of an angry and aggressive titmouse which attacked its own reflected image in her living room window. The bird’s persistent and violent behavior moved from window to window and to the author's automobile mirrors and lasted through the breeding season and then continued on into winter. Ms Porter's intersting research revealed that unlike birds that migrate, tufted titmice (and the other members of the Paridae, such as chickadees, which live in small, non-migratory flocks) spend their whole lives on the very same territory that they will breed on in the spring. This pattern seems to lead to certain aggressive hebaviors. This particular titmouse, finding what it interpreted as another male in its range at Ms Porter’s window, attacked it…to maintain its status in the flock. In winter, the dominant male titmouse of each flock, according to Ms Porter, chases and pecks at all other males in the territory. Such displays tend to ensure that that one male titmouse will be the one that gets to breed on the flock's territory in the spring.

I report here on an example of what I interpret as male aggression in the black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) which I recently observed in Miller Place, New York, in early September 2009.

Walking my two small dogs, one afternoon, I spied what appeared to be a small dead bird in the short grass of a lawn just off the side of our road. My eye was attracted to a slowly waving bird's wing or tail being moved by the faint breeze and rising above the short grass. Thinking it might be a small bird recently struck by a passing car, I approached to find that the slowly waving tail was that of a chickadee, lying on its back. Closer inspection revealed two chickadees. The first bird with the waving tail lay on his back with his tail upright. The tail rythmically fanned the air while the second bird lay on top the first--its gray back the only part visible to me.

At this point both birds were still and appeared lifeless--except for the waving tail, which I attributed to the breeze. Their eyes were closed. But as I bent down and reached over to grip the short gray tail, I could see that at least one of the birds might be alive. At this point I imagined that perhaps they had become entangled in a fine piece of thread or mono filament fishing line. So gripping the upper bird's tail gently, I raised the two above the short grass to get a clear view. It was then that I observed that the bird whose tail I held, had his small black beak locked tightly on the leg(s) of the other individual. As I turned the tangled pair around, I could see that the second bird had his beak locked around the leg of the first bird! The two were engaged in a death grip! I jiggled the birds slightly, thinking I might disentangle the living one from the dead. But as I did so, raising the pair a few inches above the recently cut lawn, the second bird--the dead one, opened its eyes and seeing me, immediately released its grip on its enemy's leg! It was alive. It instantly dropped toward the ground, spread its wings and to my great surprise flew away, seeming no worse for its recent violent encounter. The second bird, whose tail I still held, ached upward and shook loose from my grip almost immediately afterward. It too flew away, to disappear into the branches of a near-by apple tree. Both birds were apparently unhurt and well--as far as I could tell.

I concluded that I must have arrived on the scene, sometime after the end of a fierce battle between these two (presumably male) chickadees, the result of which ended in a draw. Neither one was willing to release its hold on the other. I imagined them struggling and tumbling in the air, then falling to the soft-earth locked in a mutual grip that would not permit either of these equal-sized determined individuals to escape from the other's hold. Thinking the observation an unusual one, I have added it here to my blog, in the hope that perhaps it might entertain or illustrate the sometimes aggressive behavior of "two tough chickadees".

rjk

GOOD NEWS: THE HIN1 VIRUS MAY NOT MUTATE

According to an animal study consducted at the University of Maryland, the HINI virus responsible for the swine flu (called the “grippe porcine” in France and Belgium) does not (appear to) mutate and thus will not become more virulent this season, say the experts who have shown that the new pathogen does not combine with other virus strains such as the seasonal flu. See: From: http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/sciences_sante/2009-09-01/virus-h1n1-devrait-muter-super-pathogene-725530.shtml.


Using ferrets infected by three different virus strains the researchers have observed that the HINI does not combine with the other viral strains to form a super-virus, something which had been feared it might do, (as did the 1918 “Spanish Flu”), this according to a study published on Tuesday…September 1, 2009.

The HINI is contrary to what was expected, is different from the others and reproduces in the body of the ferrets on average two times faster than the other virus strains.
“The HINI virus takes clearly the lower of the two other principle strains of seasonal flu and has all of the characteristics of a pathogen totally adapted to the human organism.” Observed Danile Perez, director of the agricultural program to prevent and control avian flu who in the University of Maryland, and who is the principle author of the work.

“I am not surprised that the HINI virus is more virulent for the simple reason that it is new and that the infected subjects have not had the time to develop immunity, while the other older strains of flu have developed a immune resistance.”

“The results of this study leave on the think that the HINI flu virus will dominate the virus season and could equally be more contagious,” has stated Dr. Antony Fauci, director of the American National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which financed Dr. Perez’s research.

These new data, though preliminary, show the necessity of a vaccination against the seasonal flu and the swine flu this autumn and winter.

In a side-piece Le Soire.be adds:

The EU has Stopped Counting
The European Union, which has tabulated at least 46,000 cases of the swine flu, has ceased to publish daily account since the at this phase of the pandemic many EU member countries have ceased to test more patients. “The disease is benign, and not very much more grave than the ordinary seasonal flu,” has insisted Suzanna Jakab, director of the European Center for Prevention and Control of Disease (ECDC). The seasonal flu kills about 40,000 people annually in the EU. “The disease (each year) actually hits 1% of the EU population. This autumn, this proportion could attain about 30% “(of the population), if the virus does not become more virulent, has indicated Mme Jakab

Trans rjk

GEORGE WILL, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST, CALLS FOR US WITHDRAWL FROM AFGHANISTAN

George Will, the Washington Post journalist and popular TV talking head who is often considered the intelligent conservative’s columnist, has called for the US to get out of Afghanistan. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html (downloaded September 1, 2009)

This author agrees wholeheartedly. As a nation, our policies have caused more harm to that isolated and mountainous country than any good our continued stay might acheive. Our pre-Soviet-invasion-support for the anti-communist insurgency as well as our self-serving support for the Mujahedeen in the ensuing Soviet-Afghan war (where according to some, we actually worked to encourage the Soviet invasion as an anti-communist cold-war policy) caused untold harm there in the decade of the 1980s. While our recent invasion, after 2001, to "out" the Taliban and "capture or kill"--one man-- Osama Bin Laden, has horribly compounded those effects. (Since those simpler times, our reason for being in Afghanistan has slowly morphed from that into several less clear and logical others.) But perhaps at this point, simple benign neglect is what the Afghan State needs and deserves from us now.

The reaction to Mr. George Will's Afghan column came out of a dark silent night like a drone hit on the GOP right wing and the "any war is a good war" neocon supporters. As I see it also hammered home another nail in the Bush-Cheney foreign policy coffin. Coming from Mr Will, who is well known hawk and a strong supporter of ex-President George Bush's foreign policy, as well as part of conservative cadre of intellectuals in Washington this was damaging. Will kept the drum-beat for Bush's so-called "international war on terror". And he is a Washington insider who has never heard of a troop increase, or invasion he didn't support (up to now). He is an odd bedfellow for those of us who are opposed to this war.

Will's piece in the WaPo begins by stating that our weary engagement in Afghanistan has a long history. It is an old war already. Will points out that we have been there nearly twice as long as our involvement in the two great world wars. And what have we accomplished? Answering that question George Will politely skewers the neocon talking heads and medal-bedecked generals who are caught in a Ground Hog Day mentality concerning how to "win" in Afghanistan. Will to his benefit sees no options of success in that quarter, and I agree. He points out that our so-called “new” strategy of “protecting the population” is one that is heavily dependent upon more American troops. This “troop intensive” policy puts great pressure on an already strained military and greatly increases the likelihood for our forces to be targeted and killed or injured. Furthermore, the related policy of “clear, hold and build” cannot work where the Taliban (Will’s term..but the vast majority of forces opposing the US are local war lords and “ethnics” and have little coherence with the Taliban per se) can melt into the mountainous country-side, re-gather elsewhere and attack other unprotected areas. The Taliban's strategy recalls for me General McArthur’s "island hopping policy" used in the Pacific during WWII against entrenched Japanese forces on heavily fortified islands—McArthur just avoided strongly defended places and attacked elsewhere. Furthermore, Will states that the numbers just do not add up...just 4000 Marines are available to “hold” all of Helmand Province-- a region the size of West Virginia. He goes on to examine the US policy of “building” a coherent Afghan state that will be strong enough to avoid becoming a base for potential Islamic terrorism. Will states that “nation building would be impossible (in Afghanistan) “even if we knew how (to do it), and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try..” (after Somalia).

According to recent news reports, President Obama (who is reputedly unsettled about the military's--call it Petraeus--"pressuring him very early in his term for more troops which he alreay sent) is considering again increasing US forces from the present 68,000 to a total of 110,000. He should avoid the pressuse this time. As this author recalls, that is about the same number the Russians fielded in Afghanistan during the war years which ended in ignoble defeat. They struggled for nine long years and finally retreated with their tails between their legs. Is that what we have to expect? According to Will's analysis....yes.

I recall as well, one more very significant difference between our adventure in Afghanistan and that of the Soviet's, one I learned about in my ROTC military science classes at St. Peter's College during the Vietnam era..and that is that the USSR lines of supply were short in 1979, recall that the Soviets or that era were near-neighbors of Afghanistan---while our main supply bases are many thousands of miles away. Recent Taliban attacks on our supply lines passing through the steep mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan often hold up truck convoys for days. Recently, the US has attempted to establish a land-based supply line through Russia (!) and even Iran(!!). But as of this writing, I have learned that a good part of our supplies now arrive in Afghanistan via dangerous and expensive air cargo flights.

As a footnote, I add here a brief summary of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
The 1979 Soviet Invasion lasted nine years—between 1979-1989. The initial invasion forces from near-by USSR landed in December 1979 and constituted over 100,000 troops and nearly 2000 tanks. President Carter at the time claimed that the invasion (which was requested of the Soviets by the legitimate Afghan government at the time) was the “greatest threat to world peace since World War II”. (Does that hyperbole sound familiar?) Over the nine years of fierce fighting, the Soviets were able to occupy the large cities and main axes of transport and communication, but never controlled more than one third of the country. (That is the situation the US finds itselves in now) By the mid 1980s, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev--unhappy with the war and its costs--initiated what we might call a “troop surge” in which USSR forces grew to nearly 110,000, but the situation for the Soviets did not change for the better. By 1986 a more desperate Soviet exit strategy included a policy of building up an Afghanistan Army of more than 300,000 troops to take over as the Soviet troops left. (Does that sound familiar?) The troops finally did leave early in 1989 after concluding non-aggression agreements with the scattered Afghan opponents.

The war left more than fifty thousand Soviet troops dead and many thousands more injured and disabled. Over one-million Afghans were killed and another 2 million were displaced to Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere. Half of the refugees in the entire world in the 1980s were Afghans. More than a million Afghan combatants were wounded and disabled and three million non-combatants were maimed or wounded.

Mr George Will states that “counter-insurgency theory" suggest that the time and ratio of forces required to protect the population in Afghanistan "indicates Afghanistan would need “hundreds of thousands of troops to be deployed there for decades to achieve the goals our leaders are enunciating as the reasons for our continued occupation of Afghanistan. For Will, and for most Americans presently suffering the worst economic downturn since the great depression--such a commitment of the nation's energies, wealth and blood is “inconceivable”.

I agree. How could we justify such a commitment? It is clear that a simple cost-benefit analysis of the potential threat that (a worst case scenario) chaotic Afghanistan would pose to US interests versus the costs in loss-of-life and money (after a US pull-out) could not conceivibly justify the expenditures.

What are the actual threats to the US from the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan…or the Taliban? As I see it, they simply want us to go away so they continue in their former lifeways. Who are we to tell them what those should or should not be? Our presence there only exacerbates the problem. We are not part of the solution--at least on the ground and militarily. Finally, and most importantly, they have no capability for threatening the US or our interests. And if they did---a small contingent of US special forces troops, unmanned drones, cruise missiles and the all too common high altitude air strikes are (unfortunately) still available to us. The costs-to-benefits analysis supports George Will's proposal. We must pull out.

rjk

FLORIDA METAMORPHOSIS

Not more than a few years ago, my Florida neighbor and golf buddy Frankie Smith, a New Hampshire snow bird, related to me how many new immigrants were coming "down Florida way" each year.

“Every day we get another one-thousand new residents down here,” said Frankie, as we sat at an open air bar under the shade of an ancient palmetto which rustled pleasantly in the gentle sea breeze. Twisting around on his bar stool, Frankie tipped his misted beer mug to a place across the white concrete strip of the AIA Coastal Highway.

“See there,” he said, pointing the foam dripped mug toward a new development being carved out of former sea-side sand dunes which were once covered in ragged palms, bunch grass and saw palmetto. He quickly retrieved the mug to gulp down the last of the cold brew.

"That 'ere place buts right back up to my back yard," complained Frankie, wiping the foam from his thin lips with the back of his hand.

I looked where he pointed. A big red and white sign tacked to posts at the highway-edge blared the name: “First Coast Condos”. Another line boasted that of its planned 200 units 150 had been sold already.

“Three-hundred-fifty thousand every year? Why that’s more than a million people every three years! That’s like adding the population of NY City every twenty-four years or so,” I said, swivelling around to avert my eyes from the construction site to gaze at our well-endowed young bar maid who was vigorously cleaning beer mugs in the bar sink.

How things have changed in a few years. As Frankie says, "a lot of beer has run through the taps at that place" since that day. Today, in 2009 the picture is very different. I don't know what happened to that bar maid, where she works now but that bar closed in 2008. And this year--2009--was the first year since the late 1940s that the population of Florida did not grow….in fact it declined by nearly 60,000 people! The drop of population was the greatest in annual population since 1901 when such data was first tabulated. So the recent recession has brought real change to Florida. For the a full treatment of these data see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30florida.html?_r=1&em

And regarding the First Coast Condos, the new development across AIA Highway---. It was never completed. Lack of interest and funds. Today it stands only partially occupied. One ofits parking lots remains a muddy unsurfaced ground with a rusting bulldozer and a great mound of topsoil gowing rank tall reeds. The few residents complain about the exhorbitant community fees, much more than what they expected to pay. Since now there are fewer than 100 residents when more than two hundred were planned.

The New York Times article on Florida by Damien Cave (August 29, 2009) underscores what any southern sojourner knew, that Florida was one of the most rapidly growing states…and most who knew it (except the builders and real-estate agents) thought it was growing too fast for its own good. The NY Times piece states that in 2000, Florida was the fourth most populous state with a population of 16 million. Of course it’s a big state in area, and much of the northern and western regions are still forest, marsh and dry pine plains, where Brahama cattle still roam. But take a Google Earth tour over the southern coastal areas and see what a century of nearly unrestrained development by the "good-ole-boy network" could do. It is eye-popping to see the vast networks of roads, and oh-so-close together rooftops and vast parking lots all extending like a cancer growth over the countryside to every place that is within smelling distance of a bit of waterside, shore area, marsh or even damp soil. The view is a testament what stupidity and greed can do to a lovely landscape.

According to William Frey a population specialist at Brooking Institution, the census data in December will no doubt confirm the findings of the striking population decline and if they are indeed accurate, the information will be a great blow to the state, states Frey, "since the whole Florida economy was based on migration flows.” He states that declines in population tend to compound the ravages of economic downturns such as the present recession. "They have a negative effect on the quality of life," he states. This is a fact for cities in the Rust Belt of the mid west, agricultural northern New York State, as well as sunny Hollywood Park, Florida. But the NY Times author notes that Florida is different, “Florida, in particular, was not built for emptying.” He reminds us that since 1924, a state constitution amendment banned the dreaded income tax. That was one more appealing factor for in migration. One of the major reasons many retirees abandon their home states and become Florida “homesteaders” was the savings that accrue to living in a “no income tax state”. But in those halcyon days the state of Florida made up this loss of revenue by relying heavily on sales taxes and property taxes which are closely linked to population growth and new housing starts.


But now with housing prices plummeting and housing sales about non-existent the State's sources of revenue are sharply crimped. As a result of the decreasing tax base, municipalities and cities have been forced to cut staff and slash budgets. Unfortuneatley these changes are not likely to encourage people to stay in the state. In fact, there has been an uptick of what some Floridians are calling “halfbacks”. These are disenchanted Florida immigrants who have pulled up stakes and turn back north…but do not go all the way---winding up in the lower tax areas of Georgia and the Carolinas.

But back in Florida in 2009, according to the NY Times piece, Broward County schools were forced to slash their staff by one hundred teachers and cut the school budget from $5 billion to $3.6 billion, that is a 28% drop in budget. The county commissioners reduced library hours and closed parks early and the sheriff’s office has cut 177 positions. These are quality of life changes.

But hope springs eternal as some say…and the hope of the “baby-boom” population to choose Florida as their parents did, and of course optimists expect a return of population increases when the economy picks up. But when will that happen? What effects will higher energy costs and a slow starting and weaker economy have on the population boom and on Florida? We must wait and see. Perhaps a bit of a hiatus in the growth boom might not be such a bad development. Frankie thinks so as he looks on his back yard.

rjk