The NYT knows very well that the US game plan is always to go to a country we don't like, and then arm and fund the most far-right, violent and radical groups we can find.
If you want to cause havoc in a country, you don't go and fund the peaceniks, now do you? You give money to the warlords and Nazis and whomever is willing to go around and kill the peaceniks. That's how it always works, and the NYT knows all about it.
Timely, in a note from Dan Ellsberg’s family today, regarding his theory of "Desperate Proposal Pattern” that he developed while trying to understand Vietnam War decision making in DC:
“To avoid an ‘intolerable’ (infinitely negative) outcome, any measure with some chance of success is justified, no matter how low its probability of success, or how high its costs and risks. Hence there is no need to report or even calculate the latter considerations; it is enough to say that, unlike current policy, the one proposed is not certain to fail.”
Thank You, Matthew, first for that link to the Ellsberg family's website ~ which i did not know existed ~ and second and particularly, to "The Desperate Proposal Pattern" PDF.
Thomas Reifer, PhD ~ Daniel Ellsberg’s "longtime research associate, colleague and friend" ~ has a very informative and thought-provoking essay on Mr Ellsberg's DPP Theory on the website at https://www.ellsberg.net/ellsbergs-desperate-proposal-pattern/ .
In it, he references Seymour Hersh's 8 May 24 piece, THE PATTERN OF BIBI’S DESPERATE PROPOSALS, which explores "what a twenty-five-year-old memo by Daniel Ellsberg says about the past failures of Lyndon Johnson and the current horrors of Benjamin Netanyahu," and is equally well-worth the read. [ https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/the-pattern-of-bibis-desperate-proposals ]
The concluding paragraph of Mr Ellsberg's DPP paper says it all:
"An empirical rule: there is no limit to the number of human "others" that a man or woman in power will endanger, afflict, or destroy in order to avert an otherwise-certain, short-run loss of power (or perhaps even, prestige) — or even to make such an outcome less-than-certain."
Bill: Ellsberg builds his case for his “empirical rule” in the immediately preceding paragraphs as follows [EMPHASES added]:
Decision-makers are prone to accept such “two-valued” evaluations of all outcomes as either "victory" or "defeat," "success" or "loss", "acceptable" or "unthinkable." The decision-maker acts as if he (usually male) sees only one kind of success and one kind of failure.
Usually this is in reference to himself, to his own (or perhaps his party's, his administration's) power, image, prestige, and maintenance in office. HE SEES HIS OWN HUMILIATION, OR LOSS OF OFFICE OR POWER, AS "CATASTROPHIC"—
INDISTINGUISHABLY CATASTROPHIC COMPARED TO OTHER TYPES OF CATASTROPHE SUCH AS: ENTRY INTO AND CONTINUATION OF A COSTLY, ESCALATING, HOPELESSLY STALEMATED WAR; VAST DESTRUCTION OF A WEAKER ENEMY NATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION; HUGE LOSS OF LIFE AMONG HIS OWN PEOPLE AND ENEMY CIVILIANS; OR EVEN VAST AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO GLOBAL ECOLOGY BY USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR BY OTHER AVOIDABLE MAN-MADE PROCESSES SUCH AS GLOBAL WARMING.
COULD ANY HUMAN WHO IS NOT CLINICALLY INSANE REALLY ACT AS IF HIS LOSING AN ELECTION WAS EQUIVALENT TO ANY OF THESE DISASTERS? If one of them was seen as certain, no. But if his losing an election, or suffering some other clearcut setback or embarrassment, was seen as certain in the short-run, unless he averted it in the short-run (say, with certainty) by a course that entailed one or more of these risks (especially, in the longer-run) with less than certainty, then historical experience shows that the answer is yes.
THE SORT OF LEADERS WE AND OTHER NATIONS HAVE ELECTED OR TOLERATED HAVE ACTED PRECISELY "AS IF" THEY REGARDED THESE TWO SORTS OF DANGERS — ONE PERSONAL AND THE OTHER SOCIETAL OR GLOBAL — AS EQUIVALENTLY NEGATIVE OR DISASTROUS.
This means that they have felt justified in choosing a course of action that would, in the short run, certainly avoid the personal disaster (or make it less than certain), even if this course entailed a positive but less-than-certain chance of the other, long-run social or global disaster. In a "desperate crisis" (i.e., one in which their power or office-holding is at stake), they will often choose such a course over an alternative course that offers no danger of societal/global catastrophe in either the short- or long-run, but which poses a certainty or near-certainty in the short-run of humiliation and defeat. This is especially true when all courses of action conforming to public norms are seen as guaranteeing failure or loss of power.
Thanks, Jeff. Yes, we tend to elect and empower smug assholes who think the world revolves around them. Their "confidence" has surface appeal. But when they possess no empathy and very little compassion or humility, you get forever wars and similar catastrophes because these men in their "big-boy pants" refuse to admit mistakes while doubling-down to show "toughness."
So what is it about the American system of Government and Governance that predisposes Americans to keep electing all those smug assholes with no empathy, compassion, or humility?
In other words, are those smug assholes the problem? Or are We, The Citizen-Voters that put and keep them in office the problem? Or is the real problem that system of Government and Governance?
i dare submit, jg, that the answer is a commensurate commingling of all 3 of your argute interrogative musings, all of which have a synergistic effect on the outcome of the US as a failed democracy.
Your question about “why now?” is a good one. What is the Grey Lady up to? Is it just to absolve Biden or distract from a Gaza and Ukraine? Or is there a bigger reason the NYT does its investigation 20 years too late?
Can a leopard change his spots? America’s Afghanistan disaster is just one U.S. military misadventure of catastrophic consequences. GANGSTER CAPITALISM by Jonathan Katz weaves his account of U.S. military brutality around the military life of Smedley Butler (he wrote in 1935 WAR IS A RACKET). Maybe some of will live long enough to see the NYT write an honest account of the Ukrainian tragedy. It is unfortunate that most people don’t understand the real nature of American exceptionalism.
The Afghanistan war. Just one more sh*t-show concocted by the war mongers and profiteers that control the National Security State. The list keeps growing.
It remains so that even as a grain of truth is spoken the counter balance of lies and propaganda greatly outweigh the admission.
I saw today that Germany had the rather embarrassing situation of Ukrainian soldiers in Germany for training who were wearing their beloved Nazi insignia. So too, last week, I saw the before picture of the pizza restaurant where Blinken ate with its Nazi posters on the wall--sanitized for Blinken's visit. We can't even tell the truth at this simplistic level, let alone about the death and destruction our "democracy defenders" continue to actively inflict around the world.
Time may not heal all things, but it sure does bring out the truth. In the present there is always a ruling idea. It may have opponents but it is largely accepted as accurate.
Then the idea erodes. Problems come out and a few years deadens the pain for the powerful of being wrong. Being out of office helps.
Then it crumbles. I'd say at least ten years must pass, usually more, when all kinds of things come out of the woodwork. This and that person involved in what happened decide they can afford to tell the truth and if among the first to do so can get some real pats on the back if not invitations to appear in the media.
Finally it collapses. Everyone knows it was a mistake. What a stupid idea! Anyone who had any authority back in the day has an alibi with the rare exception of the insane, like Dick Cheney, who swear they would do it all again in the same way.
Then the sequence is repeated. This tells us that it isn't the particular group in charge at the time but something that drives any group to push hard for something that will be regretted. What the groups have in common is power.
For Afghanistan, rage for revenge made spin initially unnecessary, but then essential. For Iraq, spin was everything from start to finish. It is finished, isn't it?
The truth is always present, but you and I are are not permitted to know it. Social media may just stop this sequence. They tell us Tik-Tok must be controlled!
Russian hating, Nazi loving Zbigniew Brzezinski’s comment to President Carter in Dec 1979 on the Russian invasion of Afghanistan applies, “This is our chance to give Russia its Vietnam.”
What was understood then was Afghanistan, “the graveyard of empires,” applies to the Bush/Cheney Zionists, the USA, & it’s sidekick’s. Lesson learned too late - at the appalling expense of millions of Afghans & others , treasure wasted, and thousands of Americans & friends lost !
On "losing" ~ and "winning" ~ Afghanistan [posted on 8 Sep 2021]
Anybody who wants to know and understand exactly Who "lost" Afghanistan ~ and How, When, and Where they lost it ~ needs to read two books published this year: THE AMERICAN WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: A HISTORY, by Carter Malkasian; and THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS: A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR, by Craig Whitlock.
And anybody who wants to know and understand exactly WHY those American politicians ~ and their bureaucrats, diplomats, generals, special ops and conventional troops, drones, bombs, and missiles ~ "lost" Afghanistan needs to read Stephen Tanner's AFGHANISTAN: A MILITARY HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER THE GREAT TO THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN, published in 2009.
Malkasian spent two years as an on-the-ground, in-the-villages, language-speaking observer in Afghanistan's countryside before serving as the senior civilian advisor to the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, and then followed that general to the Pentagon when he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In short, he is somebody who knows exactly what he is talking about.
And the Washington Post's three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Whitlock waged a three-year Freedom Of Information Act [FOIA] battle against the Pentagon to make public the REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION [SIGAR] on its "Lessons Learned" project: more than 2,000 pages of confidential interviews with more than 400 people who "played a direct role in the War, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials." In short, the record of a bunch of people who knew exactly what they were talking about, as well.
The bottom-line, bullets-hit-the-bone conclusion of both books is that Bush, Obama, and Trump "lost" Afghanistan because of their, their staffs', their career civilian and military bureaucrats', and their political appointees' arrogance, indifference, incompetence, and, particularly, their basic, fundamental ignorance about Afghanistan, its History, and its Peoples.
And it is unfortunate that Tanner's book wasn't available in the heady days after 9/11; to offer to those folks in DC frothing for a War a sneak preview of what loomed should America choose to follow the Persians, Greeks, Mauryans, Huns, Mongols, Moghuls, British, and Soviets, and attempt to invade, conquer, "liberate," occupy, and control the Land, Country, Nation, and Peoples of Afghanistan.
Had that happened, this whole twenty-year "Lost Crusade" GoatFuck might have been avoided. But probably not. After all, there was lots of money to be made by all the right people: those "winners" in that War that nobody wants to talk about.
Of the estimated $5.8 trillion spent on America's "Forever War" in, on, and against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemnn, etc, et al, 94-to-96 percent of that went into the pockets of employees, managers, executives, shareholders, and other stakeholders of America's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex and Surveillance-Secrecy-Security Panopticon. And the other 4-to-6 percent went into the pockets of America's lackeys in those governments and elsewhere. Note: An additional $2.2 Trillion is projected to be required to meet obligations to America’s "Forever War" Veterans over the next 30 years.
Even when the War was officially "over" and "lost," the winners kept winning. The day after the last American troop left Kabul, the US House of Representatives approved a $24 billion increase in the Department of Defense's requested budget of $716 billion for Fiscal Year 2022. A reward for continuing its streak of now going 76 years without winning a single War. Unless one calls Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait "Wars." [Note: The final reward to the Pentagon for FY22 came out at $778 billion. The projected appropriation for FY23 stands at $818 billion.]
And the best part about it all is that no American taxpayer for the past 20 years has paid a single dime of that $2.3 trillion tab. It's all been done through the magic of Deficit Spending and floated-upwards-as-convenient legal limits on America's National, Sovereign Debt. On 9/11, that Debt stood at $5.3 trillion; it currently is at $28.9 trillion and counting. It is presently estimated that the Interest to be paid on the debt incurred to wage this War alone will be approximately $6.5 trillion dollars. [Note: As of today ~ 22 May 24 ~ that Debt is $34.76 TRILLION and bounding.]
So while the M-I-CC and the S-S-SP and current and past taxpayers have benefited enormously from America's War-by-Credit Card, at some point, the bills will start coming due and, eventually, tomorrow's taxpayers will be left to paying it. Or suffering the consequences of a national Default if they don't.
Thus, those who declare The Forever War against Afghanistan and Pakistan ~ along with Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Equatorial Africa, Syria, and who knows where else ~ to be a "failure," either fail or refuse to recognize, acknowledge, and accept the simple, stark fact that it was, in fact, a booming success.
America's so-called "Global" so-called "War On" so-called "Terrorism" [GWOT] that turned into its “Forever War” provided something its M-I-CC and S-S-SP desperately needed after Cold War I ended with the demise of European Communism at the end of the 80s, and the total disintegration of the USSR at the end of 1991: a credible "Threat" and thus an "Enemy." How else could they justify continuing their already-record high budgets after the cornucopia of the Reagan and Bush I years?
Even before the USSR failed, things were looking up for them courtesy of our boy in the Middle East, Saddam, and his solution to Kuwait's stealing his oil and revenues.
On the day that the USSR was no more, the United States had already chased Saddam out of Kuwait along the infamous "Highway of Death," and, more importantly, had firmly established a permanent, full-time, boots-on-the-ground, combat-ready military presence in the Middle East; something it had been trying to figure out how to do since the end of World War II, if not World War I.
And thus was the seed of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda planted, to sprout ten years later on September 11, 2001; and to then bear fruit on October 7 with the launch of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
"If we were to accept the literal truth of religious books that describe the origin of the universe, how could we reconcile the data, The only plausible conclusion, I think is that God recently made all the photons of light arriving on the Earth in such a coherant format as to mislead generations of astronomers into the misapprehension that there are such things as galaxies and quasars, and intentionally driving them to the spurious conclusion that the Universe is vast and old. This is such a malevolent theology I still have difficulty believing that anyone no matter how devoted to the divine inspiration of any religious book, could ever seriously entertain it."--Carl Sagan; Pale Blue Dot
I would actually prefer to be sent when I perish to the 1st. Circle of Hell in Dantes Inferno "Limbo" I understand there is no discomfit there, a pleasant place, and the people I'd never gotten to meet in my Lifetime on Earth would be there too most interesting I believe, Being raised Cath., and surviving it I know Limbo the artificial muted light well the Limbo of us lost souls lol Basking in the Eternal light of God sounds boring and uninteresting by contrast! Being "Saganist" basically Athiest, and also the righteous Dude I also believe William Blakes idea that all heavens and all hells are within us -- just makes much more sense to me...
The most important thing to remember ~ and to never, ever forget ~ about America’s “Forever War” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc, is that it was, is, and ever will be nothing but a half-time show between Cold War I and Cold War II to do the following:
1. Keep the troops engaged;
2. Keep the MICC profitably employed; and
3. Keep the American people comfortably numb to protracted conflicts in places that most of them can't find on a map of the world; and even if they could, don’t care about.
In other words, the goal, objective, and purpose of “The Forever War” was never to “win” it; whatever “winning” might be taken to mean. Rather, the goal, objective, and purpose was simply to Have it, and to keep it going as long as necessary until the second half of the production could proceed.
And it worked perfectly. For now, Russia has recovered from the collapse of the USSR and European Communism ~ and China from the madness of Mao and betrayal of Deng ~ to present very real, credible "Threats" to America's global, unipolar hegemony since the end of Cold War I thirty-three years ago this coming December.
For now Cold War II has kicked on and into high gear in Ukraine, the Middle East, and East Asia, and America’s MICC is doing better than ever.
That started the day after the last American troop left Kabul when the US House of Representatives approved a $24 billion increase in the Department of Defense's requested budget of $716 billion for Fiscal Year 2022, to "deal with the threat of Russia and China.” A reward, one can only surmise, for continuing its streak then of going 76 ~ now just under 79 ~ years without winning a single War [unless one calls Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait "Wars"].
Post-Forever War boom times for the MICC started that day, and haven’t slowed down since.
And one thing is certain: They will continue, no matter who the next President is.
Bill, After reading your post, I went and looked at titles of the NYT's editorials going back to 2002.
Depending on the writer, there are differing views, but it's clear they understood as early as those early editorials there was at a minimum a strategy problem; there were then many editorials about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, comparison to Iraq, etc. Even a brief search turned up their new reporting on the same issues. They've known for a long time how corrupt and savage that war was.
But with the Ukraine war, they've been fully onboard with the Biden administration - same on Gaza to maybe a lesser degree. In both cases, they likely really know the reality. The Afghan feed could be a way of establishing sincerity and truthfulness for their future apologia on at least Ukraine.
UNDERTHROW’s Max Borders offers one answer to the Question raised here earlier: “Why do Humans have Governments?”...:
THE PROTECTION RACKET
*** From proto-states, to states, to empires... shitty game theory and path dependence created our sorry condition. ***
“What we call 'taxes' might be better understood as the protection rent paid by subject peoples to a dominant minority whose crop was less grain than the raw materials of coercive force.” — James C. Scott
Cracked earth bore the scars of an unforgiving sun. Brittle grasses held fast, waiting for rain. Upon that arid expanse, the Makers toiled. Their hands were calloused from tilling the soil, diverting the river, and gleaning the harvest. Their only ambition was to feed their families and sell any surplus at the market.
But the Takers watched and waited like raptors. Their eyes surveyed the Makers' bounty, and their greed swelled with each harvest day. When the time was ripe, the Takers descended upon the Makers and slaughtered them. The Takers feasted, which strengthened them. With scarcely time to grieve, the Makers’ widows and children resorted to begging.
Once the Makers were buried and the Takers fed, the land lay fallow. But those who knew how to coax sustenance from the dirt were gone. So it wasn’t long before the Takers’ bellies growled again. Without the Makers, the specter of starvation haunted them. The Takers would have to find new victims.
One day, the brigand Takers wandered across the river. There, they found a new set of Makers. The Takers weren’t so rash as before. Having heard about the raids across the river, the Makers feared the Takers and invested a little in defense.
But it was not enough.
THE TAKERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MAKERS’ FEAR AND WEAKNESS, BUT THIS TIME, INSTEAD OF PREYING UPON THEM, THEY MADE THEM AN OFFER. BECAUSE DEFENSE AND PREDATION HAD BECOME TOO COSTLY, AN UNEASY EQUILIBRIUM TOOK SHAPE.
“WE WILL COME BY EACH QUARTER AND TAKE TEN PERCENT,” SAID THE TAKERS. “IN EXCHANGE, WE WILL NOT HARM YOU BUT OFFER YOU PROTECTION FROM OTHERS.”
The makers agreed. It was this or certain death.
SO, THE PROTECTION RACKET EVOLVED INEXORABLY INTO A PROTO-STATE, THEN A STATE, AND FINALLY A VAST EMPIRE. THOUGH IT GREW MUSCULAR AND EXPANSIVE—COMPLETE WITH ADORNMENTS AND THE BLESSINGS OF HOLY MEN—IT NEVER CEASED TO BE A PROTECTION RACKET.
A coterie of cousins and advisors formed a court of dandies. But royal blood was always brigand blood. Even a century after the hierarchs shed royalty and aristocracy, the protection racket remained. Politicians and functionaries played similar roles. THE EDIFICE OF STATE HAD ALWAYS BEEN BUILT UPON A BITTER COMPROMISE BETWEEN THOSE WHO MADE AND THOSE WHO TOOK. LITTLE DIFFERS TODAY.
Such is the nature of POWER, so our charge is to become COUNTERPOWER.
The NYT knows very well that the US game plan is always to go to a country we don't like, and then arm and fund the most far-right, violent and radical groups we can find.
If you want to cause havoc in a country, you don't go and fund the peaceniks, now do you? You give money to the warlords and Nazis and whomever is willing to go around and kill the peaceniks. That's how it always works, and the NYT knows all about it.
Timely, in a note from Dan Ellsberg’s family today, regarding his theory of "Desperate Proposal Pattern” that he developed while trying to understand Vietnam War decision making in DC:
“To avoid an ‘intolerable’ (infinitely negative) outcome, any measure with some chance of success is justified, no matter how low its probability of success, or how high its costs and risks. Hence there is no need to report or even calculate the latter considerations; it is enough to say that, unlike current policy, the one proposed is not certain to fail.”
https://www.ellsberg.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Ellsberg_The_Desperate_Proposal_Pattern_4_11_99.pdf
And we can kick the can of failure down the road, maybe to an opposing administration, while still making money.
If all else fails, blame the peaceniks!
Thank You, Matthew, first for that link to the Ellsberg family's website ~ which i did not know existed ~ and second and particularly, to "The Desperate Proposal Pattern" PDF.
Thomas Reifer, PhD ~ Daniel Ellsberg’s "longtime research associate, colleague and friend" ~ has a very informative and thought-provoking essay on Mr Ellsberg's DPP Theory on the website at https://www.ellsberg.net/ellsbergs-desperate-proposal-pattern/ .
In it, he references Seymour Hersh's 8 May 24 piece, THE PATTERN OF BIBI’S DESPERATE PROPOSALS, which explores "what a twenty-five-year-old memo by Daniel Ellsberg says about the past failures of Lyndon Johnson and the current horrors of Benjamin Netanyahu," and is equally well-worth the read. [ https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/the-pattern-of-bibis-desperate-proposals ]
The concluding paragraph of Mr Ellsberg's DPP paper says it all:
"An empirical rule: there is no limit to the number of human "others" that a man or woman in power will endanger, afflict, or destroy in order to avert an otherwise-certain, short-run loss of power (or perhaps even, prestige) — or even to make such an outcome less-than-certain."
Thank You again.
That empirical rule is the very definition of a monster, Jeff.
Imagine allowing others to die, or even killing them directly by one's orders, just to preserve personal power and/or prestige.
I couldn't live with myself, but of course sociopaths have no problem sleeping under such conditions.
Bill: Ellsberg builds his case for his “empirical rule” in the immediately preceding paragraphs as follows [EMPHASES added]:
Decision-makers are prone to accept such “two-valued” evaluations of all outcomes as either "victory" or "defeat," "success" or "loss", "acceptable" or "unthinkable." The decision-maker acts as if he (usually male) sees only one kind of success and one kind of failure.
Usually this is in reference to himself, to his own (or perhaps his party's, his administration's) power, image, prestige, and maintenance in office. HE SEES HIS OWN HUMILIATION, OR LOSS OF OFFICE OR POWER, AS "CATASTROPHIC"—
INDISTINGUISHABLY CATASTROPHIC COMPARED TO OTHER TYPES OF CATASTROPHE SUCH AS: ENTRY INTO AND CONTINUATION OF A COSTLY, ESCALATING, HOPELESSLY STALEMATED WAR; VAST DESTRUCTION OF A WEAKER ENEMY NATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION; HUGE LOSS OF LIFE AMONG HIS OWN PEOPLE AND ENEMY CIVILIANS; OR EVEN VAST AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO GLOBAL ECOLOGY BY USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR BY OTHER AVOIDABLE MAN-MADE PROCESSES SUCH AS GLOBAL WARMING.
COULD ANY HUMAN WHO IS NOT CLINICALLY INSANE REALLY ACT AS IF HIS LOSING AN ELECTION WAS EQUIVALENT TO ANY OF THESE DISASTERS? If one of them was seen as certain, no. But if his losing an election, or suffering some other clearcut setback or embarrassment, was seen as certain in the short-run, unless he averted it in the short-run (say, with certainty) by a course that entailed one or more of these risks (especially, in the longer-run) with less than certainty, then historical experience shows that the answer is yes.
THE SORT OF LEADERS WE AND OTHER NATIONS HAVE ELECTED OR TOLERATED HAVE ACTED PRECISELY "AS IF" THEY REGARDED THESE TWO SORTS OF DANGERS — ONE PERSONAL AND THE OTHER SOCIETAL OR GLOBAL — AS EQUIVALENTLY NEGATIVE OR DISASTROUS.
This means that they have felt justified in choosing a course of action that would, in the short run, certainly avoid the personal disaster (or make it less than certain), even if this course entailed a positive but less-than-certain chance of the other, long-run social or global disaster. In a "desperate crisis" (i.e., one in which their power or office-holding is at stake), they will often choose such a course over an alternative course that offers no danger of societal/global catastrophe in either the short- or long-run, but which poses a certainty or near-certainty in the short-run of humiliation and defeat. This is especially true when all courses of action conforming to public norms are seen as guaranteeing failure or loss of power.
Thanks, Jeff. Yes, we tend to elect and empower smug assholes who think the world revolves around them. Their "confidence" has surface appeal. But when they possess no empathy and very little compassion or humility, you get forever wars and similar catastrophes because these men in their "big-boy pants" refuse to admit mistakes while doubling-down to show "toughness."
So what is it about the American system of Government and Governance that predisposes Americans to keep electing all those smug assholes with no empathy, compassion, or humility?
In other words, are those smug assholes the problem? Or are We, The Citizen-Voters that put and keep them in office the problem? Or is the real problem that system of Government and Governance?
i dare submit, jg, that the answer is a commensurate commingling of all 3 of your argute interrogative musings, all of which have a synergistic effect on the outcome of the US as a failed democracy.
Your question about “why now?” is a good one. What is the Grey Lady up to? Is it just to absolve Biden or distract from a Gaza and Ukraine? Or is there a bigger reason the NYT does its investigation 20 years too late?
Can a leopard change his spots? America’s Afghanistan disaster is just one U.S. military misadventure of catastrophic consequences. GANGSTER CAPITALISM by Jonathan Katz weaves his account of U.S. military brutality around the military life of Smedley Butler (he wrote in 1935 WAR IS A RACKET). Maybe some of will live long enough to see the NYT write an honest account of the Ukrainian tragedy. It is unfortunate that most people don’t understand the real nature of American exceptionalism.
Thanks Bill
The Afghanistan war. Just one more sh*t-show concocted by the war mongers and profiteers that control the National Security State. The list keeps growing.
Assured profit margin, no matter the outcome.
It remains so that even as a grain of truth is spoken the counter balance of lies and propaganda greatly outweigh the admission.
I saw today that Germany had the rather embarrassing situation of Ukrainian soldiers in Germany for training who were wearing their beloved Nazi insignia. So too, last week, I saw the before picture of the pizza restaurant where Blinken ate with its Nazi posters on the wall--sanitized for Blinken's visit. We can't even tell the truth at this simplistic level, let alone about the death and destruction our "democracy defenders" continue to actively inflict around the world.
Time may not heal all things, but it sure does bring out the truth. In the present there is always a ruling idea. It may have opponents but it is largely accepted as accurate.
Then the idea erodes. Problems come out and a few years deadens the pain for the powerful of being wrong. Being out of office helps.
Then it crumbles. I'd say at least ten years must pass, usually more, when all kinds of things come out of the woodwork. This and that person involved in what happened decide they can afford to tell the truth and if among the first to do so can get some real pats on the back if not invitations to appear in the media.
Finally it collapses. Everyone knows it was a mistake. What a stupid idea! Anyone who had any authority back in the day has an alibi with the rare exception of the insane, like Dick Cheney, who swear they would do it all again in the same way.
Then the sequence is repeated. This tells us that it isn't the particular group in charge at the time but something that drives any group to push hard for something that will be regretted. What the groups have in common is power.
For Afghanistan, rage for revenge made spin initially unnecessary, but then essential. For Iraq, spin was everything from start to finish. It is finished, isn't it?
The truth is always present, but you and I are are not permitted to know it. Social media may just stop this sequence. They tell us Tik-Tok must be controlled!
Russian hating, Nazi loving Zbigniew Brzezinski’s comment to President Carter in Dec 1979 on the Russian invasion of Afghanistan applies, “This is our chance to give Russia its Vietnam.”
What was understood then was Afghanistan, “the graveyard of empires,” applies to the Bush/Cheney Zionists, the USA, & it’s sidekick’s. Lesson learned too late - at the appalling expense of millions of Afghans & others , treasure wasted, and thousands of Americans & friends lost !
On "losing" ~ and "winning" ~ Afghanistan [posted on 8 Sep 2021]
Anybody who wants to know and understand exactly Who "lost" Afghanistan ~ and How, When, and Where they lost it ~ needs to read two books published this year: THE AMERICAN WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: A HISTORY, by Carter Malkasian; and THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS: A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR, by Craig Whitlock.
And anybody who wants to know and understand exactly WHY those American politicians ~ and their bureaucrats, diplomats, generals, special ops and conventional troops, drones, bombs, and missiles ~ "lost" Afghanistan needs to read Stephen Tanner's AFGHANISTAN: A MILITARY HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER THE GREAT TO THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN, published in 2009.
Malkasian spent two years as an on-the-ground, in-the-villages, language-speaking observer in Afghanistan's countryside before serving as the senior civilian advisor to the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, and then followed that general to the Pentagon when he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In short, he is somebody who knows exactly what he is talking about.
And the Washington Post's three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Whitlock waged a three-year Freedom Of Information Act [FOIA] battle against the Pentagon to make public the REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION [SIGAR] on its "Lessons Learned" project: more than 2,000 pages of confidential interviews with more than 400 people who "played a direct role in the War, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials." In short, the record of a bunch of people who knew exactly what they were talking about, as well.
The bottom-line, bullets-hit-the-bone conclusion of both books is that Bush, Obama, and Trump "lost" Afghanistan because of their, their staffs', their career civilian and military bureaucrats', and their political appointees' arrogance, indifference, incompetence, and, particularly, their basic, fundamental ignorance about Afghanistan, its History, and its Peoples.
And it is unfortunate that Tanner's book wasn't available in the heady days after 9/11; to offer to those folks in DC frothing for a War a sneak preview of what loomed should America choose to follow the Persians, Greeks, Mauryans, Huns, Mongols, Moghuls, British, and Soviets, and attempt to invade, conquer, "liberate," occupy, and control the Land, Country, Nation, and Peoples of Afghanistan.
Had that happened, this whole twenty-year "Lost Crusade" GoatFuck might have been avoided. But probably not. After all, there was lots of money to be made by all the right people: those "winners" in that War that nobody wants to talk about.
The "Winners"
Of the estimated $5.8 trillion spent on America's "Forever War" in, on, and against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemnn, etc, et al, 94-to-96 percent of that went into the pockets of employees, managers, executives, shareholders, and other stakeholders of America's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex and Surveillance-Secrecy-Security Panopticon. And the other 4-to-6 percent went into the pockets of America's lackeys in those governments and elsewhere. Note: An additional $2.2 Trillion is projected to be required to meet obligations to America’s "Forever War" Veterans over the next 30 years.
See https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/BudgetaryCosts and Malkasian and Whitlock for details.
Even when the War was officially "over" and "lost," the winners kept winning. The day after the last American troop left Kabul, the US House of Representatives approved a $24 billion increase in the Department of Defense's requested budget of $716 billion for Fiscal Year 2022. A reward for continuing its streak of now going 76 years without winning a single War. Unless one calls Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait "Wars." [Note: The final reward to the Pentagon for FY22 came out at $778 billion. The projected appropriation for FY23 stands at $818 billion.]
And the best part about it all is that no American taxpayer for the past 20 years has paid a single dime of that $2.3 trillion tab. It's all been done through the magic of Deficit Spending and floated-upwards-as-convenient legal limits on America's National, Sovereign Debt. On 9/11, that Debt stood at $5.3 trillion; it currently is at $28.9 trillion and counting. It is presently estimated that the Interest to be paid on the debt incurred to wage this War alone will be approximately $6.5 trillion dollars. [Note: As of today ~ 22 May 24 ~ that Debt is $34.76 TRILLION and bounding.]
So while the M-I-CC and the S-S-SP and current and past taxpayers have benefited enormously from America's War-by-Credit Card, at some point, the bills will start coming due and, eventually, tomorrow's taxpayers will be left to paying it. Or suffering the consequences of a national Default if they don't.
Thus, those who declare The Forever War against Afghanistan and Pakistan ~ along with Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Equatorial Africa, Syria, and who knows where else ~ to be a "failure," either fail or refuse to recognize, acknowledge, and accept the simple, stark fact that it was, in fact, a booming success.
America's so-called "Global" so-called "War On" so-called "Terrorism" [GWOT] that turned into its “Forever War” provided something its M-I-CC and S-S-SP desperately needed after Cold War I ended with the demise of European Communism at the end of the 80s, and the total disintegration of the USSR at the end of 1991: a credible "Threat" and thus an "Enemy." How else could they justify continuing their already-record high budgets after the cornucopia of the Reagan and Bush I years?
Even before the USSR failed, things were looking up for them courtesy of our boy in the Middle East, Saddam, and his solution to Kuwait's stealing his oil and revenues.
On the day that the USSR was no more, the United States had already chased Saddam out of Kuwait along the infamous "Highway of Death," and, more importantly, had firmly established a permanent, full-time, boots-on-the-ground, combat-ready military presence in the Middle East; something it had been trying to figure out how to do since the end of World War II, if not World War I.
And thus was the seed of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda planted, to sprout ten years later on September 11, 2001; and to then bear fruit on October 7 with the launch of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
A little off topic, but bear with me on the occasion. This picture was taken TODAY, the 2nd Day of my 81st Year looking UP, not DOWN!
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3697764177133390&set=a.1388216181421546&__cft__[0]=AZX21H0LYGhueb1nsPMGl_Y_9AnSpVVFtvmx1coasFKdQ027KswL2JRHY4lxNiLVPnnCNhlqyI2PSLk_iZWNjCtaPBYGJtxJ3DTfQIyF3Snumg&__tn__=EH-R
Know Jesus, Know Peace.
Great to see you, Ray!
"If we were to accept the literal truth of religious books that describe the origin of the universe, how could we reconcile the data, The only plausible conclusion, I think is that God recently made all the photons of light arriving on the Earth in such a coherant format as to mislead generations of astronomers into the misapprehension that there are such things as galaxies and quasars, and intentionally driving them to the spurious conclusion that the Universe is vast and old. This is such a malevolent theology I still have difficulty believing that anyone no matter how devoted to the divine inspiration of any religious book, could ever seriously entertain it."--Carl Sagan; Pale Blue Dot
I would actually prefer to be sent when I perish to the 1st. Circle of Hell in Dantes Inferno "Limbo" I understand there is no discomfit there, a pleasant place, and the people I'd never gotten to meet in my Lifetime on Earth would be there too most interesting I believe, Being raised Cath., and surviving it I know Limbo the artificial muted light well the Limbo of us lost souls lol Basking in the Eternal light of God sounds boring and uninteresting by contrast! Being "Saganist" basically Athiest, and also the righteous Dude I also believe William Blakes idea that all heavens and all hells are within us -- just makes much more sense to me...
Know Sagan, Know Bliss!
What's so wrong to admit that we are-- on our own...!?
Nothing!
In the immortal words of Dave ("Dave's a killer!"), "One with the universe--nothing matters."
The most important thing to remember ~ and to never, ever forget ~ about America’s “Forever War” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc, is that it was, is, and ever will be nothing but a half-time show between Cold War I and Cold War II to do the following:
1. Keep the troops engaged;
2. Keep the MICC profitably employed; and
3. Keep the American people comfortably numb to protracted conflicts in places that most of them can't find on a map of the world; and even if they could, don’t care about.
In other words, the goal, objective, and purpose of “The Forever War” was never to “win” it; whatever “winning” might be taken to mean. Rather, the goal, objective, and purpose was simply to Have it, and to keep it going as long as necessary until the second half of the production could proceed.
And it worked perfectly. For now, Russia has recovered from the collapse of the USSR and European Communism ~ and China from the madness of Mao and betrayal of Deng ~ to present very real, credible "Threats" to America's global, unipolar hegemony since the end of Cold War I thirty-three years ago this coming December.
For now Cold War II has kicked on and into high gear in Ukraine, the Middle East, and East Asia, and America’s MICC is doing better than ever.
That started the day after the last American troop left Kabul when the US House of Representatives approved a $24 billion increase in the Department of Defense's requested budget of $716 billion for Fiscal Year 2022, to "deal with the threat of Russia and China.” A reward, one can only surmise, for continuing its streak then of going 76 ~ now just under 79 ~ years without winning a single War [unless one calls Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait "Wars"].
Post-Forever War boom times for the MICC started that day, and haven’t slowed down since.
And one thing is certain: They will continue, no matter who the next President is.
Wondering why no one has noticed that force-feeding the idea of democracy on centuries-old tribal societies never seems to work ...
Bill, After reading your post, I went and looked at titles of the NYT's editorials going back to 2002.
Depending on the writer, there are differing views, but it's clear they understood as early as those early editorials there was at a minimum a strategy problem; there were then many editorials about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, comparison to Iraq, etc. Even a brief search turned up their new reporting on the same issues. They've known for a long time how corrupt and savage that war was.
But with the Ukraine war, they've been fully onboard with the Biden administration - same on Gaza to maybe a lesser degree. In both cases, they likely really know the reality. The Afghan feed could be a way of establishing sincerity and truthfulness for their future apologia on at least Ukraine.
UNDERTHROW’s Max Borders offers one answer to the Question raised here earlier: “Why do Humans have Governments?”...:
THE PROTECTION RACKET
*** From proto-states, to states, to empires... shitty game theory and path dependence created our sorry condition. ***
“What we call 'taxes' might be better understood as the protection rent paid by subject peoples to a dominant minority whose crop was less grain than the raw materials of coercive force.” — James C. Scott
Cracked earth bore the scars of an unforgiving sun. Brittle grasses held fast, waiting for rain. Upon that arid expanse, the Makers toiled. Their hands were calloused from tilling the soil, diverting the river, and gleaning the harvest. Their only ambition was to feed their families and sell any surplus at the market.
But the Takers watched and waited like raptors. Their eyes surveyed the Makers' bounty, and their greed swelled with each harvest day. When the time was ripe, the Takers descended upon the Makers and slaughtered them. The Takers feasted, which strengthened them. With scarcely time to grieve, the Makers’ widows and children resorted to begging.
Once the Makers were buried and the Takers fed, the land lay fallow. But those who knew how to coax sustenance from the dirt were gone. So it wasn’t long before the Takers’ bellies growled again. Without the Makers, the specter of starvation haunted them. The Takers would have to find new victims.
One day, the brigand Takers wandered across the river. There, they found a new set of Makers. The Takers weren’t so rash as before. Having heard about the raids across the river, the Makers feared the Takers and invested a little in defense.
But it was not enough.
THE TAKERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MAKERS’ FEAR AND WEAKNESS, BUT THIS TIME, INSTEAD OF PREYING UPON THEM, THEY MADE THEM AN OFFER. BECAUSE DEFENSE AND PREDATION HAD BECOME TOO COSTLY, AN UNEASY EQUILIBRIUM TOOK SHAPE.
“WE WILL COME BY EACH QUARTER AND TAKE TEN PERCENT,” SAID THE TAKERS. “IN EXCHANGE, WE WILL NOT HARM YOU BUT OFFER YOU PROTECTION FROM OTHERS.”
The makers agreed. It was this or certain death.
SO, THE PROTECTION RACKET EVOLVED INEXORABLY INTO A PROTO-STATE, THEN A STATE, AND FINALLY A VAST EMPIRE. THOUGH IT GREW MUSCULAR AND EXPANSIVE—COMPLETE WITH ADORNMENTS AND THE BLESSINGS OF HOLY MEN—IT NEVER CEASED TO BE A PROTECTION RACKET.
A coterie of cousins and advisors formed a court of dandies. But royal blood was always brigand blood. Even a century after the hierarchs shed royalty and aristocracy, the protection racket remained. Politicians and functionaries played similar roles. THE EDIFICE OF STATE HAD ALWAYS BEEN BUILT UPON A BITTER COMPROMISE BETWEEN THOSE WHO MADE AND THOSE WHO TOOK. LITTLE DIFFERS TODAY.
Such is the nature of POWER, so our charge is to become COUNTERPOWER.
Source: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-protection-racket ; EMPHASES added.
Note: For a brief overview of UNDERTHROW, see https://underthrow.substack.com/about . For a more detailed introduction to and information about UNDERTHROW, see UNDERSTANDING UNDERTHROW: An Introduction to Anti-Authoritarian Thinking and Practice at https://underthrow.substack.com/p/understanding-underthrow .
The Petraeus Comeback Tour: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-petraeus-comeback-tour/