Connect the dots: Goldman Sachs made $3.44 billion in profit this past quarter, while the U.S deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history and appeared to be headed toward doubling that figure before the budget year is out. Since most of the increase in the federal deficit is due to bailing out the banks and salvaging the greater economy they helped destroy, why is the top investment bank doing so well?
Well, because that was the plan, as devised by Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Remember that Lehman Brothers, Goldman’s competitor, was allowed to go bankrupt. The Paulson crowd wouldn’t let Lehman change its status to that of a bank holding company and thus qualify for federal funds; soon afterward, Goldman was granted just such a deal, worth a quick $10 billion. Much is now made of Goldman paying back part of its bailout money, but forgotten is the $12.9 billion that Goldman got as its cut of the $180 billion AIG payoff. That is money that will not be paid back.
El periodista y anfitrión del programa de Telemundo “El Contexto” Ruben Luengas habló sinceramente con Robert Greenwald, productor de Brave New Foundation, en los asuntos mayores frente a la guerra en Afganistán. Mientras la mayoría de norteamericanos forma sus opiniones en Afganistán leyendo las noticias, nadie sabe la realidad que se encuntra en el país. Sin embargo, cinematográfico documental Robert Greenwald ha estado manteniendo un ojo cercano en Afganistán habiendo visitado recientemente Kabul y trabajando actualmente en su último proyecto Repensar Afganistán.
En su reportaje, “Infierno en Afganistán,” Ruben Luengas afirma que cuando utilizamos el poder militar para resolver lo que es en esencia un problema político y económico, el resultado es la muerte y accidentes civiles en gran parte debido a política exterior de EEUU. Por ejemplo, en el documental se destaca una anciana con cinco nietos que han perdido a sus padres debido a la guerra. Ella, un anciano con una pierna amputada, se confronta con la responsabilidad de cuidar por sus nietos sin poder trabajar. En el documental ella prefiere morirse antes que vivir la manera en que ella y sus nietos viven actualmente. Otro ejemplo destaca a un padre que pone a su joven hija arriba en venta para ganar dinero para alimentar a otros miembros de la familia.
Wells Fargo is a roadblock to economic recovery. That’s what members of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (UE) are claiming, as they literally blocked a busy Rock Island, Illinois intersection late last week to protest Wells Fargo’s decision to cut off credit to the Quad City Die Casting factory.
100 Quad City factory employees risk losing their jobs if Wells Fargo doesn’t extend tens of thousands of dollars in credit to continue day-to-day operating costs. So why won’t Wells Fargo use some of its $25 billion in bailout funds to keep this factory afloat, particularly when the Illinois-Iowa Quad Cities region is losing $6.1 million in wages and tax revenue annually? According to UE organizer Leah Fried, “[Wells Fargo] want[s] to get out from under the TARP money because they want to get out from the scrutiny. They’re hoarding.” Wells Fargo has even gone so far as to prevent the company from paying the wages and benefits owed to its employees, which prompted UE to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board last week.
Across the country, we’re seeing more and more protests this one. As journalist/labor activist Mike Elk recently noted, these public demonstrations are highly effective ways of bringing national attention to the bailed out banks that are cutting off credit and have done pathetically little to jump-start our ailing economy. We saw this last December, when laid-off UE workers held sit-ins at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago because Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase wouldn’t fork over credit for the company to pay severance.
Thousands of Iranian protesters marched toward Tehran University today, both to commemorate the 1999 student uprising and to continue their opposition toward the recently stolen presidential election. Once again, the Iranian regime has responded with violence, as Basij militia members dispersed demonstrators with live fire, tear gas, and other brutal measures. It’s clear though that Iran’s reform movement is still alive and strong, despite the regime’s best efforts to thwart protesters and the fact that the US media have largely buried this story beneath coverage of Michael Jackson’s death.
Though instantaneous social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter helped spark and coordinate last month’s protests, we simply can’t expect Iran’s reform movement to succeed as quickly. Any success will be slow going, a point Juan Cole emphasized when he discussed the chaos in Iran with The Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney yesterday at Brave New Studios. Cole, the author of Engaging the Muslim World, told Pitney that while the Obama administration definitely can’t intervene to the point that they enable a reformist victory, they must continue engaging Iranian hardliners if the current regime remains in power.
Respectful, diplomatic engagement, Cole argued, is key to resolving the Iranian nuclear threat, the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the continued US/NATO military presence in Afghanistan, and Iran’s relationship with both Hamas and the Hezbollah. Cole, who also believes Iran’s election was stolen, sees all of these issues as being intertwined, and he’s absolutely right.
It’s well worth watching Cole and Pitney (who’s been doing a terrific job in his own right covering the Iranian election) discuss the future of the reform movement, the possibility of an emerging power sharing situation within the Iranian government, and how we can keep supporting reformists still voicing their dissent.
(Help spread awareness about the reform movement in Iran by posting this video on Facebook and Twitter: “What’s next for the reform movement in the wake of the violent #iranelection? @jricole explains: http://bit.ly/Sg9xh“)
As the US military launches operation “Strike of the Sword” in Afghanistan, sending 4,000 newly arrived Marines and 650 Afghan forces into the Helmland River valley, we must consider how this major offensive will impact Afghan civilians forced to flee this war torn region. Rough estimates from The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) suggest there are already up to 1,000 Helmland families living in refugee camps near Kabul. Who knows how many thousands more families will seek shelter in these camps in the ensuing weeks due to deadly battles in Helmland or anywhere else in Afghanistan. One thing is clear though, which Tom Hayden nailed in his recent piece on the Long War, “American troops can never “protect” Afghanistan civilians from American troops!”
The Afghan Women’s Mission and RAWA have been working tirelessly to help Afghan refugees in dire need, despite threats from warlords and the Afghan intelligence agency. At this point, refugees lack food more than anything else. Just consider what the prices of food are in an Afghan market (based on a exchange rate of $1 US = 50.2 Afghanis):
5 kg ghee = 247 Afg
4 kg rice = 145 Afg
50 kg flour = 1100 Afg
A middle quality blanket = 500 Afg
A middle quality tent carpet = 2000 Afg
According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and a newly released UN report, there were 800 civilian casualties between January and May 2009. Armed clashes between insurgents, the US military, and the ISAF are up 24 percent this year, and have displaced tens of thousands more people. With over 1,000 recorded incidents of violence in May alone, Afghanistan is experiencing the worst security since the war began. And to make matters worse, the UN reported concluded, “The next period will likely experience an increase in the level of violence compared with the same period last year, including complex suicide attacks, intimidation and assassinations carried out by insurgents.” That period, unfortunately, coincides with the Afghan presidential and provincial council elections slated for August.
The deadly consequences of militarizing the political crisis in Afghanistan may seem logical, but they’re no less disturbing as we see staggering numbers of civilian casualties from this war. Complicating matters is the fact that insurgents have been targeting NGOs and aid workers. In the past six months, there were over 60 security incidents involving NGOs, with many aid workers reported killed or kidnapped. Such violence undercuts the chances of already underfunded humanitarian efforts, and yet the Pentagon has responded with more troops and airstrikes, creating more violence, more casualties, more anti-American sentiment, and the need for even more aid.
US military leaders clearly view the precarious situation in Afghanistan in part as a PR war. That’s why they were so quick to blame Taliban militants for the Farah province aistrikes that left up 140 civilians dead. But as Gareth Porter reported last week, the official military investigation of that disastrous attack revealed there were no Taliban fighters killed during second and third B-1 bombings, in which the majority of civilians died. So much for the military’s human shield theory.
We can’t allow the Pentagon to continue blaming Taliban insurgents when it’s obvious that these civilian deaths are primarily the result of current US foreign policy. To help those Afghans whose lives have been shattered by US military operations, contribute to RAWA through the Afghan Women’s Mission. And to help change foreign policy to incorporate a more humanitarian approach, sign up to become a Peacemaker.
Today is Afghanistan Exit Action Day. As Congress prepares to authorize $550 billion in military spending along with an additional $130 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–more federal dollars than Bush ever requested–Rep. Jim McGovern is proposing a bill that requires Defense Secretary Gates to establish an exit strategy. McGovern intends to propose it as an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee wartime spending bill making its way to the House floor today.
I realize how hard it may seem for Congressional Democrats to require the Obama administration to develop an exit strategy as a condition for continued funding. After all, this is our guy, right? The last thing our guy needs is a Democratic Congress second guessing, making demands, and putting conditions on the war.
But this is exactly what we and the administration need precisely because he is our guy.
Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, we want and need President Obama to succeed. The very real prospect of the United States embedded in an endless war in Afghanistan would undermine everything this administration is trying to do while imperiling the very Congressional Democrats President Obama needs to move his agenda.
Though McGovern currently has 91 co-sponsors, we can get that number to over 100 and give this bill real visibility by the time the House votes on it later today or tomorrow. Call your Representative at (202) 224-3121 and:
1. urge her/him to co-sponsor Rep. Jim McGovern’s Afghanistan Exit Strategy bill – H.R. 2404
2. vote for Rep. McGovern’s amendment to the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2647)
Though the Pentagon finally took responsibility for the Afghan civilian deaths in last month’s Farah province airstrikes, we’re only seeing minor adjustments toward a deeply flawed military strategy in need of a complete overhaul.
Late last week, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said US troops were responsible for civilian casualties in the May 4 airstrike, during which B-1 bombers unleashed three 2000 lb bombs and five 500 lb bombs on a village compound, killing up to 140 Afghan civilians. Following Mullen’s admission, Gen. Stanley McChrystal announced plans to limit the use of these deadly airstrikes in populated areas. Meanwhile, McChrystal will also issue orders in the coming days to disengage from combat whenever possible in order to reduce the number of civilian casualties. According to McChrystal’s spokesman, Rear Admiral Greg Smith, “Even if you are receiving fire from a structure, the first question you have to ask is: ‘Can I de-escalate the situation by removing my force or relocating it’?”
Shouldn’t commanders on the ground have been asking themselves this question all along? And why has it taken military leaders this long to restrict airstrikes to more uninhabited areas? Either limiting airstrikes and calling for disengagement signals a genuine shift in military strategy, or this is just a PR maneuver on McChrystal’s end–an attempt to save face because the soaring civilian death toll could quickly become inversely proportionate to the war’s popularity. I’m betting on the latter, considering McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. McKiernan, tried a similiar tactical shift last year when US airstrikes resulted in an inordinate number of civilian deaths. As I noted last week, this could easily be part of the Pentagon’s plan to take greater control of the media narrative regarding the war.
Either way, you can take action and ensure the Pentagon takes further steps to disengage from the war in Afghanistan altogether. By becoming a Peacemaker, you’ll be alerted whenever there are civilian casualties to call our government and protest the current US foreign policy. Then, support Rep. Jim McGovern’s calls for an exit strategy.
The job of serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan is difficult enough. Our servicemembers shouldn’t face the added challenge of finding good jobs once they return home. That’s why veterans are calling on Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to support The Employee Free Choice Act, which would enable workers to unionize more easily and negotiate better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Watch the compelling testimonies of vets at a recent town hall meeting in Los Angeles, sponsored by the Veterans Committee of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Then take action by calling Sen. Feinstein at 202-224-3121.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis supports Employee Free Choice, so why is Feinstein looking for a compromise on this legislation? This video will be running outside Feinstein’s office today; hopefully, that and your calls will help drive the message home.
Since 2001, the US Air Force has dropped nearly 31 million pounds (14,049 metric tons) of bombs on Afghanistan. The UN estimates that US airstrikes alone accounted for 64 percent of the 828 Afghan civilians killed last year. Those numbers practically scream the need to abandon conventional warfare tactics in Afghanistan and dramatically shift US foreign policy to incorporate a more humanitarian approach. Instead, we’re seeing the horrific images from IDP camps: refugees who have lost loved ones; parents so desperate they would rather sell their children than watch them starve; children scarred both physically and psychologically. These are the survivors, forced to endure the bleak aftermath of airstrikes as the US escalates this war.
The front page story in the LA Times today examines the US military’s seemingly impossible task of reducing the number of civilian casualties in airstrikes like the one that killed up to 140 people in Farah province on May 4. The civilians casualties from that attack, we know from a preliminary investigative report, died because a series of military errors. Had the Afghan forces being trained by the US military not ignored warnings about entering a Farah village, they wouldn’t have been ambushed by insurgents, prompting the Marines to call for a strike. And had the pilot of an aircraft not lost site of his target, or had those commanders rethought the need to send in a B-1 bomber strike at a point when those Afghan forces weren’t under direct attack, the high number of civilian casualties could have been avoided. Yet as our highly skilled military revisits protocols for conducting airstrikes to minimize mistakes like these in the future, these casualties are the inevitable consequences of conventional warfare.
