Strykers deployed until mid-2011

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100214/COLUMNISTS32/2140375/Strykers+out+of+town+until+mid-2011

Posted on: Sunday, February 14, 2010

Strykers out of town until mid-2011

By William Cole

Advertiser Columnist

Did you catch sight of the Army Stryker vehicles heading down H-2 Freeway in late January?

If you blinked, you missed them.

Now they’re gone — for about the next year and a half.

Keeping the vehicles off public roads has been an Army priority, and judging by how little they are spotted, they’ve done a pretty good job.

Maintaining a low profile when a vehicle weighs 19 tons, sports eight large tires and looks vaguely like a tank is not easy under any circumstances, but as a result of a previous deployment to Iraq and one upcoming, the vehicles will be out of the state for a combined total of more than three years.

The Stryker brigade and its 4,300 soldiers and about 330 eight-wheeled Stryker vehicles soon will be taking part in six weeks of training at the National Training Center in California ahead of a summer deployment to Iraq.

The vehicles convoyed to Pearl Harbor in late January for shipment to the West Coast. They won’t be shipped back to Hawai’i before the deployment to Iraq, said Lt. Col. David P. Doherty, a spokesman for the 25th Infantry Division.

The 599th Transportation Group had loaded more than 2,400 pieces of cargo — including the Strykers — for shipment at Pearl Harbor by Feb. 4.

The Stryker vehicles returned to Hawai’i last spring and summer after an even longer deployment to Iraq and absence from the state. The vehicles were shipped in August 2007 for training in California and then were sent on to the Middle East.

The Strykers most recently were driven down to Pearl Harbor between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. to minimize traffic interference.

“The 25th Infantry Division goes to great lengths to ensure that the deployment of soldiers, equipment and vehicles is done safely, effectively and with minimum impact on the local community,” Doherty said.

Even rarer than the sight of a troop-carrying Stryker is the Mobile Gun System, a variant mounting a 105mm gun that makes the vehicle even more tank-like.

Col. Malcolm Frost, the Stryker brigade’s commander, says he is authorized to have nine, but actually has three.

“That’s being worked by the folks that field the Strykers based on the distribution. There were some initial glitches that they worked through on those and now they are sending them out to the Stryker brigades,” Frost said recently. “It’s going to take a little bit to catch up to what we’re authorized.”

In Iraq, Frost expects his soldiers and Strykers to be spread out across several provinces as an “advise and assist” unit working with Iraqi army and government officials.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Army to Discharge Single Mom, Rather Than Court-Martial Her

http://www.truthout.org/army-discharge-single-mom-rather-than-court-martial-her56846

Army to Discharge Single Mom, Rather Than Court-Martial Her

Thursday 11 February 2010

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Army Spc. Alexis Hutchinson with son Kamani Hutchinson. (Photo: Alexis Hutchinson / Oakland Tribune)

On Thursday, February 11, Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother of an infant son, was informed she would be granted an administrative discharge from the Army.

Last fall, Hutchinson was ordered to prepare to deploy to Afghanistan. On November 5, 2009, after her childcare plans fell through, Hutchinson was faced with the dilemma of having no one to take care of her son when she deployed to a war zone.

She chose not to show up for the plane to Afghanistan and missed her deployment. When she reported for duty the following day the Army arrested her and took away her son, who was allegedly placed in an Army day care. His grandmother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland, California, picked him up a few days later. Alexis was granted leave to go home for the holidays in December, and returned to Georgia with her baby, Kamani, in early January.

After Hutchinson returned to Georgia in January, the Army filed court-martial charges against her and refused to discharge her under the Army regulations that clearly allow for discharges for reasons of parenthood responsibility. Truthout broke the story on January 14.

Both Hutchinson and her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, are happy with the results. In a press release from Sussman’s office, Hutchinson said that she is “excited to know what will happen to me, and that I am not facing jail. This means I can still be with my son, which is the most important thing.” Hutchinson will receive an “Other Than Honorable” discharge, but will not be facing criminal charges at a court-martial, which would have subjected her to a bad-conduct discharge and up to a year in jail if she lost, as well as a criminal record.

“Alexis is pleased because she now will have closure and knows what is going to happen to her,” Sussman told Truthout. “She is no longer waiting to possibly go to trial and jail, all the while trying to figure out what to do with her child. She feels she was treated unfairly overall, but is relieved with this outcome.”

Until this recent decision, the Army had opted to court-martial Hutchinson as her commander believed she was attempting to get out of her Afghanistan deployment. Both Hutchinson and Sussman have consistently stated that Hutchinson always fully intended to deploy until her childcare plans fell through.

Hutchinson’s mother, Angelique Hughes, was thrilled with the recent news.

“I’m very happy,” Hughes told Truthout via telephone from her home in Oakland. “I just found out myself. I’m glad it worked out.”

However, Hughes was concerned about the fact that due to Hutchinson’s “Other Than Honorable” discharge, she will not maintain any of her benefits, like medical care for herself and her infant son.

“I don’t know why they didn’t give her an honorable discharge,” Hughes added. “Other single parents they’ve discharged got one. I’m glad they are letting her out, but now she lacks enough benefits … so it’s going to be a hard situation for her.”

Jeff Paterson, the director of the soldier advocacy group Courage to Resist, which has assisted Hutchinson, felt that the administrative discharge was a victory all around.

“From our perspective, since she didn’t deploy to Afghanistan, she has no injuries; we see this as a big success,” Paterson told Truthout. “She didn’t go to Afghanistan, she didn’t go to jail, she won’t be separated from her baby and she gets out of the Army. That’s what’s important.”

“I hoped she would have gotten a general discharge, but they seem to have had it out for her, so at least now she can move on,” Sussman explained. “I’ve never heard of a commander taking a child away from a person in this situation. But I think it’s a success, and we’re very excited to hear that they decided not to go ahead with the criminal charges.”

Base commanders at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Ga., where Hutchinson was assigned, said in a statement Thursday, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that an “investigation revealed evidence, from both other soldiers and from Pvt. Hutchinson herself, that she didn’t intend to deploy to Afghanistan with her unit and deliberately sought ways out of the deployment.”

Hutchinson chose not to speak to the media about the Army’s decision.

The Army has regulations regarding parents who miss deployment due to childcare plans falling through. The regulations call for an extension of time to find alternate caregivers, and to discharge a parent honorably if no solution is found.

Of these regulations, Sussman wrote on Thursday: “Here, the Army did not act according to their own regulations, and did not value the family responsibilities of this soldier. If they had, Spc. Hutchinson would not have been in this situation and would be getting a better discharge.”

Sussman told Truthout that she feels the way the Army handled Hutchinson’s situation “shows that it takes a lot of work to get the military to understand what single parents in the military are facing. Up until last week they wanted to court-martial her for choosing her child over her job.”

After Truthout reported that the Army had filed charges against Hutchinson, other media covered her situation, including several national outlets.

Speaking to Truthout about the role played by media coverage in Hutchinson’s situation, Sussman said. “I think that it kept her from being sent to Afghanistan to face a court-martial back in November.”

Brigadier General Jeffrey Phillips, Hutchinson’s commander at the Hunter Army Airfield Military Reservation near Savannah, Georgia, made the recent decision to allow an administrative discharge for Hutchinson.

While both Sussman and Hutchinson are pleased with the Army’s decision, Sussman feels that Hutchinson’s plight does not send a positive message to parents – especially single parents – who plan on joining the US military today.

“Her situation shows the Army is not really friendly to families,” Sussman told Truthout. “The lives of military families are very difficult and they often face a command that isn’t understanding or empathetic towards the situation of raising a child in that environment.”

Currently Hutchinson remains assigned to Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, where she has been posted since February 2008.

Hutchinson lives off post and places her son in day care when she goes to work.

Sussman told Truthout she believes Hutchinson should be discharged by the end of this month.

Hawaii-based Marines gearing up for major assault in Afghanistan

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100212/NEWS08/2120348/Hawaii-based+Marines+gearing+up+for+major+assault+in+Afghanistan

Posted on: Friday, February 12, 2010

Hawaii-based Marines gearing up for major assault in Afghanistan

By William Cole

Advertiser Military Writer

Hawai’i Marines battled with fighters on the edge of Marjah in southern Afghanistan this week as thousands of troops mass to attack the Taliban stronghold in what’s being called the biggest offensive since 2001.

The upcoming attack is being likened to the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004 — a difficult house-to-house offensive the same Hawai’i unit, the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, also participated in.

Estimates are that up to 15,000 U.S., British and Afghan forces are prepared to assault Marjah in Helmand province, described as a Taliban haven in the poppy-growing south.

Hawai’i Marines with Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines were flown in by helicopter on Wednesday to secure an intersection known as “Five Points” outside Marjah, and were fired upon by fighters from the town with machine guns.

The Marines and allied Afghan soldiers fired back with heavy machine guns, rockets and small arms fire, wounding and killing several Taliban fighters, according to a story by Sgt. Brian Tuthill on the military Web site www.dvidshub.net.

“We got in here quickly, under cover of darkness on the helicopters, moved into position, set everything in place and were able to seize the objective,” Tuthill quoted Capt. Stephan Karabin, Charlie Company’s commander, as saying.

Karabin, 30, from West Palm Beach, Fla., said the intersection of roads is important because the route links northern Marjah to eastern Helmand province, and the Marine presence blocks the route of escape.

Other Hawai’i Marines from Bravo Company reinforced Charlie Company after arriving on foot from Nawa about five miles away.

The 1,000 Marines and sailors of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines have been in and around Nawa in central Helmand since November. Three from their ranks have been killed.

Wednesday’s skirmish came as the U.S., British and allied forces inch closer to a showdown in Marjah, a town of more than 50,000.

key stronghold

For months the U.S. has been telegraphing its intent to take Marjah. The Taliban stronghold provides insurgents a sanctuary to store weapons, refine and transit opium, and is along a key highway allowing attacks to the north and south, according to the Center for Defense Studies.

As many as 1,000 fighters are believed to be waiting in Marjah. The U.S., with a new emphasis on protecting civilians as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, has repeatedly advertised the planned offensive — without giving the exact date — hoping civilians will take refuge and that the enemy will disperse so Afghan governance can return to Marjah with as little fight as possible.

U.S. commanders have said they expect the town to be heavily booby-trapped.

To combat the mines around Marjah, Marines planned to use their new 72-ton Assault Breacher Vehicles, which use metal plows to scoop up hidden bombs or fire rockets to detonate them at a safe distance, The Associated Press reported.

Tent cities of Marines have sprung up outside Marjah as Marines and U.S. Army soldiers and their allies have surrounded the town.

On Wednesday, Hawai’i Marines were attacked a second time as they fortified fighting positions with sandbags and concrete blocks.

A Javelin shoulder-launched missile was fired back by the Marines and AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters followed up with machine gun fire and rockets.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Japan eyes Northern Marianas for relocating 4000 U.S. troops

http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=97156

Thursday, February 11, 2010

JAPANESE LAWMAKERS STOP OVER SAIPAN

Relocation of up to 4,000 US troops to CNMI mulled

By Haidee V. Eugenio

Reporter

Visiting Japanese lawmakers said yesterday they may recommend the relocation of 2,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops from the aviation units at Futenma in Japan to the CNMI, on top of the 8,000 Marines to be relocated from Okinawa to Guam, said Senate Pres. Paul A. Manglona (R-Rota).

National Diet or Japan Legislature members Mikio Shimoji, Tomoko Abe, and Ryoichi Hattori met with Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, Lt. Gov. Eloy S. Inos, House Speaker Froilan C. Tenorio (Cov-Saipan), and Manglona at the Saipan airport yesterday afternoon, on their way to Guam.

Shimoji, Abe, and Hattori are part of the 23-member Japanese government delegation arriving on Guam for what Fitial described as a “fact-finding” visit, particularly to see if there’s suitable place on Guam for more U.S. troops to be relocated off Okinawa.

This is in addition to the estimated 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents who are expected to be relocated by 2014, although Guam Gov. Felix P. Camacho asked for the military buildup to be delayed until after 2014.

Fitial and other CNMI officials were one in saying they welcome the relocation of U.S. troops to the Commonwealth provided the U.S. government consents to such move.

“We’re not offering them anything. We’re just telling them we welcome them, provided that the U.S. government consents or concurs,” the governor said.

Manglona and Fitial clarified that there is no definite plan to move U.S. troops to the CNMI, but it’s one of the options being looked at.

“Shimoji said they will recommend moving troops to the CNMI. He gave the range. It could be 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000,” he said.

Guam trip

Fitial will travel to Guam to attend today’s meeting between Guam officials and the visiting Japanese delegation led by Yorihisa Matsuno, deputy chief Cabinet secretary of the Japan Diet.

The three Japanese lawmakers who made a stopover on Saipan were major players in the relocation talks. Shimoji is the policy chief of the People’s New Party, one of the tripartite ruling coalitions in Japan, while Abe is the policy chief of the Social Democratic Party. Hattori is also with the Social Democratic Party.

“They’re looking at all options, including Guam and the CNMI. I will be listening to what Guam has to say. As I said, I welcome them provided that the U.S. government concurs,” Fitial said.

Manglona said Tinian has been waiting for decades to welcome military presence on the island.

“It seems they have been listening to the people, as they prepare to meet with the U.S. government. We made it clear to the Japanese lawmakers that the CNMI is open, but we defer making decisions to the U.S. government,” Manglona said.

Fitial said as with all other existing relocation plans, any cost to move troops to the CNMI should not be borne by the CNMI.

Both the CNMI and Guam governors had said that socio-economic impacts are the major concerns when it comes to the massive military buildup on Guam, and Fitial said this is also true with any plan to relocate U.S. troops to the CNMI.

Fitial said Japanese lawmakers wanted to visit the CNMI again to see for themselves any room for U.S. troops to be relocated.

Sen. Jude U. Hofschneider (R-Tinian) said Tinian welcomes any plan to relocate U.S. troops to the island, two-thirds of which is leased by the U.S. Department of Defense.

“The lease makes it easier for them to come here. We certainly welcome the plan or the option of choosing the CNMI as a site for relocating U.S. troops from Japan,” said Hofschneider, who is the chairman of the Tinian Legislative Delegation.

Tinian Mayor Ramon Dela Cruz earlier said that an expected decrease in civilian tourist arrivals to the island as a result of he massive buildup should be mitigated by an increase in military personnel and their families’ visit to Tinian for rest and recreation.

Dela Cruz also said the military should ensure an effective quarantine system to prevent brown tree snakes, rhinoceros beetles, and other invasive species from entering Tinian.

‘Stretch out and spread out’

Sen. Judith Guthertz of Guam, in a Jan. 28 letter to Joint Guam Program Office executive director David Bice, recommended stretching out and spreading out the relocation of U.S. troops from Okinawa to Guam.

She said the U.S. military should consider relocating the First Marine Aircraft Wing aviation command from Futenma to Tinian and Agrigan or the Goat Island in the CNMI.

“This command numbers about 4,000. The mayor of Tinian and Agrigan has already asked the U.S. military to consider these islands for the buildup. Agrigan is uninhabited and the federal government already has a long-term lease for the northern two-thirds of Tinian,” she told Bice.

Guthertz, who chairs the Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and Homeland Security, said the Marines’ movement should be spread over eight years instead of only two years from 2014.

Lastly, she suggested the reduction in size of the movement to Guam by 50 percent-for about 4,000 active duty Marines.

“This would still provide a greater than 100 percent jump in footprint, but provide a greater welcome mat for our Marines,” she told Bice.

The Futenma issue has become a sticking point in the military realignment talks.

The recent election of an anti-base mayor in Nago made it more difficult to move Marine air operations and led to a growing sentiment among Okinawans to move Futenma operations outside Okinawa and outside Japan.

Hedges: Zero Point of Systemic Collapse

The following article by Chris Hedges is like an apocalyptic-postmodernist-humanist-survivalist manifesto.  He raises interesting arguments and analysis about the futility of trying to save a corrupt and dying system and the need to create a new system.  He argues that we need to plan, prepare and implement strategies for a long period of survival, resistance, and rebuilding of the world.  With the unsentimental vision of a former war correspondent, his descriptions of the addictive power of violence and its deforming effects are compelling.  He touches on militarization:

The rot of imperialism, which is always incompatible with democracy, has seen the military and arms manufacturers monopolize $1 trillion a year in defense-related spending in the United States even as the nation faces economic collapse. Imperialism always militarizes domestic politics. And this militarization, as Wolin notes, combines with the cultural fantasies of hero worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured in nanoseconds and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility to sever huge segments of the population from reality.

>><<

https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/chris-hedges.html

Chris Hedges on the Zero Point of Systemic Collapse

We stand on the cusp of one of humanity’s most dangerous moments.

Chris Hedges
08 Feb 2010

Aleksandr Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.” All resistance must recognize that the body politic and global capitalism are dead. We should stop wasting energy trying to reform or appeal to it. This does not mean the end of resistance, but it does mean very different forms of resistance. It means turning our energies toward building sustainable communities to weather the coming crisis, since we will be unable to survive and resist without a cooperative effort.

These communities, if they retreat into a pure survivalist mode without linking themselves to the concentric circles of the wider community, the state and the planet, will become as morally and spiritually bankrupt as the corporate forces arrayed against us. All infrastructures we build, like the monasteries in the Middle Ages, should seek to keep alive the intellectual and artistic traditions that make a civil society, humanism and the common good possible. Access to parcels of agricultural land will be paramount. We will have to grasp, as the medieval monks did, that we cannot alter the larger culture around us, at least in the short term, but we may be able to retain the moral codes and culture for generations beyond ours. Resistance will be reduced to small, often imperceptible acts of defiance, as those who retained their integrity discovered in the long night of 20th-century fascism and communism.

We stand on the cusp of one of the bleakest periods in human history when the bright lights of a civilization blink out and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity. The elites have successfully convinced us that we no longer have the capacity to understand the revealed truths presented before us or to fight back against the chaos caused by economic and environmental catastrophe. As long as the mass of bewildered and frightened people, fed images that permit them to perpetually hallucinate, exist in this state of barbarism, they may periodically strike out with a blind fury against increased state repression, widespread poverty and food shortages. But they will lack the ability and self-confidence to challenge in big and small ways the structures of control. The fantasy of widespread popular revolts and mass movements breaking the hegemony of the corporate state is just that – a fantasy.

My analysis comes close to the analysis of many anarchists. But there is a crucial difference. The anarchists do not understand the nature of violence. They grasp the extent of the rot in our cultural and political institutions, they know they must sever the tentacles of consumerism, but they naïvely believe that it can be countered with physical forms of resistance and acts of violence. There are debates within the anarchist movement – such as those on the destruction of property – but once you start using plastic explosives, innocent people get killed. And when anarchic violence begins to disrupt the mechanisms of governance, the power elite will use these acts, however minor, as an excuse to employ disproportionate and ruthless amounts of force against real and suspected agitators, only fueling the rage of the dispossessed.

I am not a pacifist. I know there are times, and even concede that this may eventually be one of them, when human beings are forced to respond to mounting repression with violence. I was in Sarajevo during the war in Bosnia. We knew precisely what the Serbian forces ringing the city would do to us if they broke through the defenses and trench system around the besieged city. We had the examples of the Drina Valley or the city of Vukovar, where about a third of the Muslim inhabitants had been killed and the rest herded into refugee or displacement camps. There are times when the only choice left is to pick up a weapon to defend your family, neighborhood and city. But those who proved most adept at defending Sarajevo invariably came from the criminal class. When they were not shooting at Serbian soldiers they were looting the apartments of ethnic Serbs in Sarajevo and often executing them, as well as terrorizing their fellow Muslims. When you ingest the poison of violence, even in a just cause, it corrupts, deforms and perverts you. Violence is a drug, indeed it is the most potent narcotic known to humankind. Those most addicted to violence are those who have access to weapons and a penchant for force. And these killers rise to the surface of any armed movement and contaminate it with the intoxicating and seductive power that comes with the ability to destroy. I have seen it in war after war. When you go down that road you end up pitting your monsters against their monsters. And the sensitive, the humane and the gentle, those who have a propensity to nurture and protect life, are marginalized and often killed. The romantic vision of war and violence is as prevalent among anarchists and the hard left as it is in the mainstream culture. Those who resist with force will not defeat the corporate state or sustain the cultural values that must be sustained if we are to have a future worth living. From my many years as a war correspondent in El Salvador, Guatemala, Gaza and Bosnia, I have seen that armed resistance movements are always mutations of the violence that spawned them. I am not naïve enough to think I could have avoided these armed movements had I been a landless Salvadoran or Guatemalan peasant, a Palestinian in Gaza or a Muslim in Sarajevo, but this violent response to repression is and always will be tragic. It must be avoided, although not at the expense of our own survival.

Democracy, a system ideally designed to challenge the status quo, has been corrupted and tamed to slavishly serve the status quo. We have undergone, as John Ralston Saul writes, a coup d’état in slow motion. And the coup is over. They won. We lost. The abject failure of activists to push corporate, industrialized states toward serious environmental reform, to thwart imperial adventurism or to build a humane policy toward the masses of the world’s poor stems from an inability to recognize the new realities of power. The paradigm of power has irrevocably altered and so must the paradigm of resistance alter.

Obama

THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK LAST YEAR ABOUT HOW BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE A “TRANSFORMATIONAL” PRESIDENT – BUT TRUE TRANSFORMATION, IT TURNS OUT, REQUIRES A LOT MORE THAN ELECTING ONE TELEGENIC LEADER. ACTUALLY TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND IS GOING TO TAKE YEARS OF SIEGE WARFARE AGAINST DEEPLY ENTRENCHED INTERESTS, DEFENDING A DEEPLY DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITICAL SYSTEM.

PAUL KRUGMAN, “MISSING RICHARD NIXON,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUGUST 30, 2009

Too many resistance movements continue to buy into the facade of electoral politics, parliaments, constitutions, bills of rights, lobbying and the appearance of a rational economy. The levers of power have become so contaminated that the needs and voices of citizens have become irrelevant. The election of Barack Obama was yet another triumph of propaganda over substance and a skillful manipulation and betrayal of the public by the mass media. We mistook style and ethnicity – an advertising tactic pioneered by the United Colors of Benetton and Calvin Klein – for progressive politics and genuine change. We confused how we were made to feel with knowledge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand for an experience. Obama, now a global celebrity, is a brand. He had almost no experience besides two years in the senate, lacked any moral core and was sold as all things to all people. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertisers want because of how they can make you feel.

We live in a culture characterized by what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. It always personalizes issues rather than clarifying them. It eschews real debate for manufactured scandals, celebrity gossip and spectacles. It trumpets eternal optimism, endlessly praises our moral strength and character, and communicates in a feel-your-pain language. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes, “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.

The cultural belief that we can make things happen by thinking, by visualizing, by wanting them, by tapping into our inner strength or by understanding that we are truly exceptional is magical thinking. We can always make more money, meet new quotas, consume more products and advance our career if we have enough faith. This magical thinking, preached to us across the political spectrum by Oprah, sports celebrities, Hollywood, self-help gurus and Christian demagogues, is largely responsible for our economic and environmental collapse, since any Cassandra who saw it coming was dismissed as “negative.” This belief, which allows men and women to behave and act like little children, discredits legitimate concerns and anxieties. It exacerbates despair and passivity. It fosters a state of self-delusion. The purpose, structure and goals of the corporate state are never seriously questioned. To question, to engage in criticism of the corporate collective, is to be obstructive and negative. And it has perverted the way we view ourselves, our nation and the natural world. The new paradigm of power, coupled with its bizarre ideology of limitless progress and impossible happiness, has turned whole nations, including the United States, into monsters.

We can march in Copenhagen. We can join Bill McKibben’s worldwide day of climate protests. We can compost in our backyards and hang our laundry out to dry. We can write letters to our elected officials and vote for Barack Obama, but the power elite is impervious to the charade of democratic participation. Power is in the hands of moral and intellectual trolls who are ruthlessly creating a system of neo-feudalism and killing the ecosystem that sustains the human species. And appealing to their better nature, or seeking to influence the internal levers of power, will no longer work.

We will not, especially in the United States, avoid our Götterdämmerung. Obama, like Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the other heads of the industrialized nations, has proven as craven a tool of the corporate state as George W. Bush. Our democratic system has been transformed into what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin labels inverted totalitarianism. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, a free press, parliamentary systems and constitutions while manipulating and corrupting internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens but are ruled by armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington, Ottawa or other state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. Mass culture, owned and disseminated by corporations, diverts us with trivia, spectacles and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” Wolin writes. “Economics dominates politics – and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness.

Inverted totalitarianism wields total power without resorting to cruder forms of control such as gulags, concentration camps or mass terror. It harnesses science and technology for its dark ends. It enforces ideological uniformity by using mass communication systems to instill profligate consumption as an inner compulsion and to substitute our illusions of ourselves for reality. It does not forcibly suppress dissidents, as long as those dissidents remain ineffectual. And as it diverts us it dismantles manufacturing bases, devastates communities, unleashes waves of human misery and ships jobs to countries where fascists and communists know how to keep workers in line. It does all this while waving the flag and mouthing patriotic slogans. “The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed,” Wolin writes.

The practice and psychology of advertising, the rule of “market forces” in many arenas other than markets, the continuous technological advances that encourage elaborate fantasies (computer games, virtual avatars, space travel), the saturation by mass media and propaganda of every household and the takeover of the universities have rendered most of us hostages. The rot of imperialism, which is always incompatible with democracy, has seen the military and arms manufacturers monopolize $1 trillion a year in defense-related spending in the United States even as the nation faces economic collapse. Imperialism always militarizes domestic politics. And this militarization, as Wolin notes, combines with the cultural fantasies of hero worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured in nanoseconds and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility to sever huge segments of the population from reality. Those who control the images control us. And while we have been entranced by the celluloid shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave, these corporate forces, extolling the benefits of privatization, have effectively dismantled the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services and public housing) and rolled back the social and political ideals of the New Deal. The proponents of globalization and unregulated capitalism do not waste time analyzing other ideologies. They have an ideology, or rather a plan of action that is defended by an ideology, and slavishly follow it. We on the left have dozens of analyses of competing ideologies without any coherent plan of our own. This has left us floundering while corporate forces ruthlessly dismantle civil society.

We are living through one of civilization’s great seismic reversals. The ideology of globalization, like all “inevitable” utopian visions, is being exposed as a fraud. The power elite, perplexed and confused, clings to the disastrous principles of globalization and its outdated language to mask the looming political and economic vacuum. The absurd idea that the marketplace alone should determine economic and political constructs led industrial nations to sacrifice other areas of human importance – from working conditions, to taxation, to child labor, to hunger, to health and pollution – on the altar of free trade. It left the world’s poor worse off and the United States with the largest deficits – which can never be repaid – in human history. The massive bailouts, stimulus packages, giveaways and short-term debt, along with imperial wars we can no longer afford, will leave the United States struggling to finance nearly $5 trillion in debt this year. This will require Washington to auction off about $96 billion in debt a week. Once China and the oil-rich states walk away from our debt, which one day has to happen, the Federal Reserve will become the buyer of last resort. The Fed has printed perhaps as much as two trillion new dollars in the last two years, and buying this much new debt will see it, in effect, print trillions more. This is when inflation, and most likely hyperinflation, will turn the dollar into junk. And at that point the entire system breaks down.

THE CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

IMAGINE LEADING ECONOMISTS SPENT A LITTLE TIME IN THE WILDERNESS. PERHAPS THE CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE COULD SPEND AN AFTERNOON STANDING AT THE MOUTH OF THE TSIU RIVER ON CENTRAL ALASKA’S LITTLE EXPLORED LOST COAST, AS THE SLEEK BODIES OF SILVER SALMON EVERYWHERE SWELLED UPSTREAM PUSHING AGAINST HIM.

E.F. SCHUMACHER SOCIETY, SMALLISBEAUTIFUL.ORG

All traditional standards and beliefs are shattered in a severe economic crisis. The moral order is turned upside down. The honest and industrious are wiped out while the gangsters, profiteers and speculators walk away with millions. The elite will retreat, as Naomi Klein has written in The Shock Doctrine, into gated communities where they will have access to services, food, amenities and security denied to the rest of us. We will begin a period in human history when there will be only masters and serfs. The corporate forces, which will seek to make an alliance with the radical Christian right and other extremists, will use fear, chaos, the rage at the ruling elites and the specter of left-wing dissent and terrorism to impose draconian controls to ruthlessly extinguish opposition movements. And while they do it, they will be waving the American flag, chanting patriotic slogans, promising law and order and clutching the Christian cross. Totalitarianism, George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith but an age of schizophrenia. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote. “That is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Our elites have used fraud. Force is all they have left.

Our mediocre and bankrupt elite is desperately trying to save a system that cannot be saved. More importantly, they are trying to save themselves. All attempts to work within this decayed system and this class of power brokers will prove useless. And resistance must respond to the harsh new reality of a global, capitalist order that will cling to power through ever-mounting forms of brutal and overt repression. Once credit dries up for the average citizen, once massive joblessness creates a permanent and enraged underclass and the cheap manufactured goods that are the opiates of our commodity culture vanish, we will probably evolve into a system that more closely resembles classical totalitarianism. Cruder, more violent forms of repression will have to be employed as the softer mechanisms of control favored by inverted totalitarianism break down.

It is not accidental that the economic crisis will converge with the environmental crisis. In his book The Great Transformation (1944), Karl Polanyi laid out the devastating consequences – the depressions, wars and totalitarianism – that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that “fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function.” He warned that a financial system always devolves, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism – and a Mafia political system – which is a good description of our financial and political structure. A self-regulating market, Polanyi wrote, turns human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. The free market’s assumption that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market allows each to be exploited for profit until exhaustion or collapse. A society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic value beyond monetary value, commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. This is what we are undergoing.

If we build self-contained structures, ones that do as little harm as possible to the environment, we can weather the coming collapse. This task will be accomplished through the existence of small, physical enclaves that have access to sustainable agriculture, are able to sever themselves as much as possible from commercial culture and can be largely self-sufficient. These communities will have to build walls against electronic propaganda and fear that will be pumped out over the airwaves. Canada will probably be a more hospitable place to do this than the United States, given America’s strong undercurrent of violence. But in any country, those who survive will need isolated areas of land as well as distance from urban areas, which will see the food deserts in the inner cities, as well as savage violence, leach out across the urban landscape as produce and goods become prohibitively expensive and state repression becomes harsher and harsher.

The increasingly overt uses of force by the elites to maintain control should not end acts of resistance. Acts of resistance are moral acts. They begin because people of conscience understand the moral imperative to challenge systems of abuse and despotism. They should be carried out not because they are effective but because they are right. Those who begin these acts are always few in number and dismissed by those who hide their cowardice behind their cynicism. But resistance, however marginal, continues to affirm life in a world awash in death. It is the supreme act of faith, the highest form of spirituality and alone makes hope possible. Those who carried out great acts of resistance often sacrificed their security and comfort, often spent time in jail and in some cases were killed. They understood that to live in the fullest sense of the word, to exist as free and independent human beings, even under the darkest night of state repression, meant to defy injustice.

When the dissident Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was taken from his cell in a Nazi prison to the gallows, his last words were: “This is for me the end, but also the beginning.” Bonhoeffer knew that most of the citizens in his nation were complicit through their silence in a vast enterprise of death. But however hopeless it appeared in the moment, he affirmed what we all must affirm. He did not avoid death. He did not, as a distinct individual, survive. But he understood that his resistance and even his death were acts of love. He fought and died for the sanctity of life. He gave, even to those who did not join him, another narrative, and his defiance ultimately condemned his executioners.

Live Free Or Die

We must continue to resist, but do so now with the discomforting realization that significant change will probably never occur in our lifetime. This makes resistance harder. It shifts resistance from the tangible and the immediate to the amorphous and the indeterminate. But to give up acts of resistance is spiritual and intellectual death. It is to surrender to the dehumanizing ideology of totalitarian capitalism. Acts of resistance keep alive another narrative, sustain our integrity and empower others, who we may never meet, to stand up and carry the flame we pass to them. No act of resistance is useless, whether it is refusing to pay taxes, fighting for a Tobin tax, working to shift the neoclassical economics paradigm, revoking a corporate charter, holding global internet votes or using Twitter to catalyze a chain reaction of refusal against the neoliberal order. But we will have to resist and then find the faith that resistance is worthwhile, for we will not immediately alter the awful configuration of power. And in this long, long war a community to sustain us, emotionally and materially, will be the key to a life of defiance.

The philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote that the exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others beyond the self-identified group is what ultimately made fascism and the Holocaust possible: “The inability to identify with others was unquestionably the most important psychological condition for the fact that something like Auschwitz could have occurred in the midst of more or less civilized and innocent people.

The indifference to the plight of others and the supreme elevation of the self is what the corporate state seeks to instill in us. It uses fear, as well as hedonism, to thwart human compassion. We will have to continue to battle the mechanisms of the dominant culture, if for no other reason than to preserve through small, even tiny acts, our common humanity. We will have to resist the temptation to fold in on ourselves and to ignore the cruelty outside our door. Hope endures in these often imperceptible acts of defiance. This defiance, this capacity to say no, is what the psychopathic forces in control of our power systems seek to eradicate. As long as we are willing to defy these forces we have a chance, if not for ourselves, then at least for those who follow. As long as we defy these forces we remain alive. And for now this is the only victory possible.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, is the author of several books including the best sellers War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning and his latest, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. He is married to the Canadian actress Eunice Wong. They have a son, Konrad, who is also a Canadian.

Haiti relief efforts becomes a commercial for the return of the Hawaii Superferry

The Honolulu Advertiser ran a story that featured the efforts of a Hawai’i engineer to help the relief and recovery in Haiti.   The article includes the following commercial for the return of the Hawai’i Superferry:

He said one odd sight was the former Hawai’i Superferry Alakai in port to provide relief duty in Haiti. The high-speed passenger and vehicle ferry ended service in the Islands last year, and Baldridge worried that a vessel like the Alakai might be needed here someday.

“To see the Hawaii Superferry painted with the same painting it had on while it was here doing relief work, we kind of missed that opportunity here in the Islands having that additional resource if there were a bad disaster here,” he said.

Who would rescue us if the Superferry and bad projects like it are the disaster?

Akaka Bill in trouble?

The so-called Akaka Bill, which would establish Native Hawaiians as a federally recognized native tribe under U.S. law and powers, has been strongly opposed by the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement.   The bill would place Native  Hawaiians under the Department of Interior and effectively extinguish claims to land and independence.   The bill would also exempt the U.S. military from any claims that could be brought by Native Hawaiians, say for the illegal taking of Hawaiian national lands. Republicans and racist anti-Native Hawaiian groups also oppose the bill, but for different reasons.

While progressive activists oppose the  anti-gay politics of the author of the following article, he provides a good summation of recent events that may have set back the Akaka Bill.

>><<

AKAKA BILL FALTERS
by Leon Siu
February 5, 2010



The Akaka Bill is in big trouble. Earlier this week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint placed a ‘hold’ on the bill, which in essence freezes the bill from moving forward. This is the newest setback in a series of catastrophic hits over the past six weeks that took the bill from certainty of passage by Christmas, to certainty of passage by February, to being dead in the water.

How did this happen? Let’s go back about eight weeks…the Akaka Bill was literally days away, closer than it’s ever been, to passing…

AKAKA BILL – SNEAK ATTACK PROTEST
Monday, December 14, 2009, independence protesters assembled at the corner of Beretania and Punchbowl to protest an attempt by Hawaii’s US senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye to sneak the Akaka bill into one of the large US federal appropriations bills while congress and the nation were distracted by the epic battle over the huge healthcare reform bills.

INOUYE’S DENIAL
Senator Inouye in Washington, D.C. hurriedly issued a strong denial, but it was way over the top, like that of someone caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one believed his denial as everyone knows sneaky back-door deals is his specialty, his modus operandi.

STATE WITHDRAWS SUPPORT
Our SNEAK ATTACK protest triggered inquiries by Governor Lingle, and uncovered a scheme (brokered by Robin Danner) between Akaka and the White House to amend the Akaka bill in two days. State Attorney General, Mark Bennett, sent a scathing letter to Akaka and the members of the house and senate committees, strongly objecting to the unexpected changes and withdrawing the state’s support of the bill. He also suggested that public hearings be held in Hawaii before Congress takes further action on the bill. This constituted a major blow to the Akaka bill, as the State of Hawaii is the most vital player in the scheme of things.

OBAMA ASKS QUESTIONS
The demand for ‘congressional-hearings-in-Hawaii’ grew to a clamor coming from many diverse quarters. Even President Obama caught the hint from protestors at the entrance to his vacation compound while in Hawaii over the holidays. Of course it was hard to miss the huge banners and signs for ‘congressional hearings in Hawaii.’ Sources tell us that upon returning to DC, the White House asked questions about why there had not been hearings in Hawaii.

OHA CAUGHT OFF GUARD
Apparently the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was also caught off guard by the amendments. OHA was strangely silent about the crisis for quite some time. Eventually OHA responded with yet another dog-and-pony TV forum. Their purpose? To squelch the growing demands for congressional hearings in Hawaii and assure everyone that everything was still on track. The OHA show was unbelievably shameful and pathetic.

[Ironically, the day of OHA’s televised forum hyping the Akaka Bill, Senator Akaka was on Maui holding a “public hearing” for Maui veterans for a proposed vet complex (as they deservedly should get). This insult by Senator Akaka (the vets get a hearing, Hawaiians don’t) has not been lost on the people of Hawaii.

CONGRESSIONAL SUPORTERS CAUGHT OFF GUARD
Co-sponsors of the bill like Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, were also kept in the dark about the amendments. Murkowski has hedged her support.

INOUYE’S DAMAGE CONTROL FALLS FLAT
Trying to regain composure, Inouye arrogantly tells the press that the governor’s balk was just a matter of miscommunication and that he would get it straightened out over the holidays, and the bill will pass by mid February.

OHA and STATE TEAM UP
On January 20, the State AG and OHA submitted a list of 30(!) changes they would like to see made to the Akaka Bill, in essence crippling any chances of it being passed any time soon, certainly not “by mid-February.”

SHIFTS IN SENATE KILLS BILL
The surprise upset by Scott Brown in Massachusetts left Democrats in the US Senate one short of the 60 needed for a super majority to dislodge a ‘hold’ or stop a ‘filibuster.’ Sure enough, Senator Jim DeMint placed a hold on the Akaka bill. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead.

INOUYE/DANNER PLOT EXPOSED
One of the bonuses of the last six weeks is that the long, unholy alliance between Inouye and the Danner sisters has been exposed. The last-minute amendments (that caused the eventual collapse of the bill) would have contracted CNHA (the Danner’s non-profit corporation) to be the interim administrator of the Native Hawaiian tribe, until such time that negotiations were ever completed for the creation of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

In a supreme display of poor judgment, Robin Danner has been sent out into the Hawaiian community to put out the wildfires of growing opposition to the Akaka bill. But Hawaiians are ma’a to what’s going on and Robin’s presence is like pouring gasoline on the flames. The more she tries to extinguish the fires, the larger the conflagration gets.

###

America’s Shadowy Base World

http://snipurl.com/ubppw [Tom Dispatch]

Tomgram: Nick Turse, America’s Shadowy Base World

By Nick Turse
Posted on February 9, 2010, Printed on February 10, 2010
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175204/

Once is an anomaly; twice is the beginning of a pattern.  Right now, we’re seeing the same sequence of events for the second time in less than a decade, and it looks like the signature American way of war in our time is coming into focus.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country.  (They were charmingly called “enduring camps.”)  Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll, hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones — 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all.  Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam’s old palaces for something a little spiffier.  In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest, most expensive embassy on the planet.  It was planned for a staff of 1,000 “diplomats” with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help.  (Even now, despite much discussion about “ending” the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy’s staff to double.)  This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

Building of this expansive kind is, of course, a staggering imperial undertaking.  It implies a global power with resources beyond measure, for which waste means nothing.  The mega-bases and the embassy were, in that sense, American wonders of the world, our own ziggurat-equivalents in Mesopotamia, right down to the multiple PXs, familiar fast food outlets, and miniature golf.  No empire had ever launched a base-building program quite like it (if, that is, you leave out the precursor to this whole experience, the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s).

The Iraqi base-building project alone had already absorbed several billion taxpayer dollars in just the first half-year of construction in 2003.  But it did look like a one-of-a-kind architectural adventure — until, that is, the “forgotten war,” the one in Afghanistan, came back into view.  Starting in 2008, base building ramped up there, went into overdrive in 2009, and hasn’t come out of it yet.  The result: according to Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, an even more staggering base-construction splurge, and with it, the announcement last year that another monster embassy would go up, this time in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, for another cool near-billion. (The already large U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul, would also be further expanded to the tune of $175-200 million).  And keep in mind that none of this even includes the huge ring of supporting bases for America’s Afghan and Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf, South and Central Asia, and even on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Does anyone see a pattern here?  The American military must be the heaviest occupation force in history.  According to reports, it now has 1.5 million pieces of equipment, micro to mega, to get out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down.  This is war and occupation of Guinness World Records proportions, a veritable Ripley’s Believe It Or Not of imperial military construction.  The only thing that won’t make the record books, of course, is the results: in war-fighting terms, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the world’s mightiest military has been battled to at least a draw by rag-tag, lightly armed, minority insurgencies.

Who would believe any of this, if it weren’t happening?  Given how our media reports on such things, who would even know about it if you didn’t read it first here at TomDispatch.com?  Tom

The 700 Military Bases of Afghanistan
Black Sites in the Empire of Bases
By Nick Turse

In the nineteenth century, it was a fort used by British forces.  In the twentieth century, Soviet troops moved into the crumbling facilities.  In December 2009, at this site in the Shinwar district of Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province, U.S. troops joined members of the Afghan National Army in preparing the way for the next round of foreign occupation.  On its grounds, a new military base is expected to rise, one of hundreds of camps and outposts scattered across the country.

Nearly a decade after the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, TomDispatch offers the first actual count of American, NATO, and other coalition bases there, as well as facilities used by the Afghan security forces.  Such bases range from relatively small sites like Shinwar to mega-bases that resemble small American towns.  Today, according to official sources, approximately 700 bases of every size dot the Afghan countryside, and more, like the one in Shinwar, are under construction or soon will be as part of a base-building boom that began last year.

Existing in the shadows, rarely reported on and little talked about, this base-building program is nonetheless staggering in size and scope, and heavily dependent on supplies imported from abroad, which means that it is also extraordinarily expensive.  It has added significantly to the already long secret list of Pentagon property overseas and raises questions about just how long, after the planned beginning of a drawdown of American forces in 2011, the U.S. will still be garrisoning Afghanistan.

400 Foreign Bases in Afghanistan

A spokesman for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) tells TomDispatch that there are, at present, nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, including camps, forward operating bases, and combat outposts.  In addition, there are at least 300 Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) bases, most of them built, maintained, or supported by the U.S.  A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 U.S. troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors.

In fact, Kandahar, which housed 9,000 coalition troops as recently as 2007, is expected to have a population of as many as 35,000 troops by the time President Obama’s surge is complete, according to Colonel Kevin Wilson who oversees building efforts in the southern half of Afghanistan for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  On the other hand, the Shinwar site, according to Sgt. Tracy J. Smith of the U.S. 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, will be a small forward operating base (FOB) that will host both Afghan troops and foreign forces.

Last fall, it was reported that more than $200 million in construction projects — from barracks to cargo storage facilities — were planned for or in-progress at Bagram.  Substantial construction funds have also been set aside by the U.S. Air Force to upgrade its air power capacity at Kandahar.  For example, $65 million has been allocated to build additional apron space (where aircraft can be parked, serviced, and loaded or unloaded) to accommodate more close-air support for soldiers in the field and a greater intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability.  Another $61 million has also been earmarked for the construction of a cargo helicopter apron and a tactical airlift apron there.

Kandahar is just one of many sites currently being upgraded.  Exact figures on the number of facilities being enlarged, improved, or hardened are unavailable but, according a spokesman for ISAF, the military plans to expand several more bases to accommodate the increase of troops as part of Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal’s surge strategy.  In addition, at least 12 more bases are slated to be built to help handle the 30,000 extra American troops and thousands of NATO forces beginning to arrive in the country.

“Currently we have over $3 billion worth of work going on in Afghanistan,” says Colonel Wilson, “and probably by the summer, when the dust settles from all the uplift, we’ll have about $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion worth of that [in the South].”  By comparison, between 2002 and 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $4.5 billion on construction projects, most of it base-building, in Afghanistan.

At the site of the future FOB in Shinwar, more than 135 private construction contractors attended what was termed an “Afghan-Coalition contractors rodeo.”  According to Lieutenant Fernando Roach, a contracting officer with the U.S. Army’s Task Force Mountain Warrior, the event was designed “to give potential contractors a walkthrough of the area so they’ll have a solid overview of the scope of work.”  The construction firms then bid on three separate projects: the renovation of the more than 30-year old Soviet facilities, the building of new living quarters for Afghan and coalition forces, and the construction of a two-kilometer wall for the base.

In the weeks since the “rodeo,” the U.S. Army has announced additional plans to upgrade facilities at other forward operating bases.  At FOB Airborne, located near Kane-Ezzat in Wardak Province, for instance, the Army intends to put in reinforced concrete bunkers and blast protection barriers as well as lay concrete foundations for Re-Locatable Buildings (prefabricated, trailer-like structures used for living and working quarters).  Similar work is also scheduled for FOB Altimur, an Army camp in Logar Province.

The Afghan Base Boom

Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan District-Kabul, announced that it would be seeking bids on “site assessments” for Afghan National Security Forces District Headquarters Facilities nationwide.  The precise number of Afghan bases scattered throughout the country is unclear.

When asked by TomDispatch, Colonel Radmanish of the Afghan Ministry of Defense would state only that major bases were located in Kabul, Pakteya, Kandahar, Herat, and Mazar-e-Sharif, and that ANA units operate all across Afghanistan.  Recent U.S. Army contracts for maintenance services provided to Afghan army and police bases, however, suggest that there are no fewer than 300 such facilities that are, according to an ISAF spokesman, not counted among the coalition base inventory.

As opposed to America’s fast-food-franchise-filled bases, Afghan ones are often decidedly more rustic affairs.  The police headquarters in Khost Farang District, Baghlan Province, is a good example.  According to a detailed site assessment conducted by a local contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Afghan government, the district headquarters consists of mud and stone buildings surrounded by a mud wall.  The site even lacks a deep well for water.  A trench fed by a nearby spring is the only convenient water source.

The U.S. bases that most resemble austere Afghan facilities are combat outposts, also known as COPs.  Environmental Specialist Michael Bell of the Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan Engineer District-South’s Real Estate Division, recently described the facilities and life on such a base as he and his co-worker, Realty Specialist Damian Salazar, saw it in late 2009:

“COP Sangar… is a compound surrounded by mud and straw walls. Tents with cots supplied the sleeping quarters… A medical, pharmacy and command post tent occupied the center of the COP, complete with a few computers with internet access and three primitive operating tables. Showers had just been installed with hot [water]… only available from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m…

“An MWR [Morale, Welfare and Recreation] tent was erected on Thanksgiving Day with an operating television; however, the tent was rarely used due to the cold. Most of the troops used a tent with gym equipment for recreation… A cook trailer provided a hot simple breakfast and supper. Lunch was MREs [meals ready to eat]. Nights were pitch black with no outside lighting from the base or the city.”

What Makes a Base?

According to an official site assessment, future construction at the Khost Farang District police headquarters will make use of sand, gravel, and stone, all available on the spot.  Additionally, cement, steel, bricks, lime, and gypsum have been located for purchase in Pol-e Khomri City, about 85 miles away.

Constructing a base for American troops, however, is another matter.  For the far less modest American needs of American troops, builders rely heavily on goods imported over extremely long, difficult to traverse, and sometimes embattled supply lines, all of which adds up to an extraordinarily costly affair.  “Our business runs on materials,” Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, told an audience at a town hall meeting in Afghanistan in December 2009.  “You have to bring in the lumber, you have to bring in the steel, you have to bring in the containers and all that. Transport isn’t easy in this country — number one, the roads themselves, number two, coming through other countries to get here — there are just huge challenges in getting the materials here.”

To facilitate U.S. base construction projects, a new “virtual storefront” — an online shopping portal — has been launched by the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).  The Maintenance, Repair and Operations Uzbekistan Virtual Storefront website and a defense contractor-owned and operated brick-and-mortar warehouse facility that supports it aim to provide regionally-produced construction materials to speed surge-accelerated building efforts.

From a facility located in Termez, Uzbekistan, cement, concrete, fencing, roofing, rope, sand, steel, gutters, pipe, and other construction material manufactured in countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan can be rushed to nearby Afghanistan to accelerate base-building efforts. “Having the products closer to the fight will make it easier for warfighters by reducing logistics response and delivery time,” says Chet Evanitsky, the DLA’s construction and equipment supply chain division chief.

America’s Shadowy Base World

The Pentagon’s most recent inventory of bases lists a total of 716 overseas sites.  These include facilities owned and leased all across the Middle East as well as a significant presence in Europe and Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.  Perhaps even more notable than the Pentagon’s impressive public foreign property portfolio are the many sites left off the official inventory.  While bases in the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates are all listed, one conspicuously absent site is Al-Udeid Air Base, a billion-dollar facility in nearby Qatar, where the U.S. Air Force secretly oversees its on-going unmanned drone wars.

The count also does not include any sites in Iraq where, as of August 2009, there were still nearly 300 American bases and outposts.  Similarly, U.S. bases in Afghanistan — a significant percentage of the 400 foreign sites scattered across the country — are noticeably absent from the Pentagon inventory.

Counting the remaining bases in Iraq — as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s August 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. “combat troops” from the country — and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000.  Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known.  What we do know — from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea — is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering.

After nearly a decade of war, close to 700 U.S., allied, and Afghan military bases dot Afghanistan.  Until now, however, they have existed as black sites known to few Americans outside the Pentagon.  It remains to be seen, a decade into the future, how many of these sites will still be occupied by U.S. and allied troops and whose flag will be planted on the ever-shifting British-Soviet-U.S./Afghan site at Shinwar.

Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and the winner of a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction as well as a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. Turse is currently a fellow at New York University’s Center for the United States and the Cold War. He is the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books). His website is NickTurse.com.

John Murtha, Pennsylvania’s “King of Pork” dies

John Murtha, a longtime hawkish congressman from Pennsylvania, dubbed the “King of Pork”, died at age 77.   His legend as a master of pork-barrel politics rivals that of Hawai’i’s Senator Daniel Inouye.   But now that Ted Stevens has been toppled from his throne in Alaska, and Murtha has died, Inouye is coming under greater scrutiny for his own activities that also qualify him for the title “King of Pork”.

>><<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020802352_pf.html

John Murtha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics

By Carol D. Leonnig and Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 9, 2010; A01

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam War veteran who staunchly supported military spending and became a master of pork-barrel politics, died Monday at Virginia Hospital Center. The 19-term lawmaker died from complications of gallbladder surgery. He was 77.

Elected to Congress in 1974 from a southwestern Pennsylvania district that has been economically devastated by the decline of the nation’s coal-mining and steel industries, the gruff and jowly Murtha was beloved by his constituents for tapping billions of dollars in federal money to seed new industries there.

He was revered among Democrats — and even some Republicans — for his skill in using the power of the federal purse to make kings and deals. A right-hand man of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he was considered one of the most influential lawmakers on Capitol Hill and credited with her ascension.

Critics dubbed Murtha, the chairman of the powerful subcommittee that controls Pentagon spending, the “King of Pork” for the volume of taxpayer money he could direct to the area around his home town of Johnstown. Most of the largess came in defense and military research contracts he steered to companies based in his district or with small offices there.

The former Marine became a mentor to lawmakers trying to learn how to work Washington’s power levers but also a symbol of the controversial congressional practice of “earmarking.” In that process, lawmakers can add federal money to the budget to give no-bid contracts to pet projects and companies of their choosing. Murtha faced a drumbeat of questions about possible ethical conflicts in his earmarks, as executives and lobbyists for the firms receiving the earmarks were among his most generous campaign contributors.

Murtha was firmly unapologetic, saying it was his duty to help his district create jobs and U.S. troops gain new research and tools to help them in battle. To a television crew following him in a House office building with questions about potential conflicts, he held up his miniature red, page-worn copy of the Constitution.

“What it says is the Congress of the United States appropriates the money,” he said. “Got that?”

Volunteered for combat

John Patrick Murtha Jr. was born June 17, 1932, in New Martinsville, W.Va., and raised in Westmoreland County, Pa. He long credited the resilient women in his family, including his mother, with being key to his success. His father, an alcoholic, died early. Murtha said he didn’t drink for that reason, and despite the many political fundraisers where a congressman is either honored guest or host, Murtha was known for making an early appearance and an early departure.

He entered the Marine Corps in 1952, during the Korean War period, and served until 1955. He returned to Johnstown to run the family carwash and finish his undergraduate degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1962, and he joined the Marine Corps Reserve. During the Vietnam conflict, he volunteered for combat and served near Da Nang in 1966 and 1967.

In 1955, he married Joyce Bell. She survives, along with their daughter, Donna Murtha; twin sons, Pat Murtha and John M. Murtha; and three grandchildren.

Back from Vietnam, Murtha was recruited by the local Democratic Party to challenge longtime Rep. John P. Saylor (R) and presented himself as hawkish on military affairs. “To me, it is academic whether we should be in Vietnam,” the young veteran said at the time. “Our men are fighting their hearts out so we can sit at home and enjoy the luxuries of this great nation. We have to unite.”

He lost that race but won election to the Pennsylvania House. When Saylor died in office, Murtha won a special election to the U.S. House in 1974. In a district with a strong conservative tradition, Murtha’s victory was taken in part as a rejection of then-President Richard M. Nixon. His slogan: “One honest man can make a difference.”

Murtha, whose military decorations included the Bronze Star and two awards of the Purple Heart, was one of the first Vietnam veterans to sit in the House. His district returned him regularly to office, and after 10 years Murtha had quietly established himself as a key Capitol Hill player who could woo lawmakers of divergent views to join forces.

“His reputation is, if you’re going to put a coalition together, you have to have Murtha,” then-Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.) told The Washington Post for a 1985 profile of Murtha.

In one of the more painful moments of his career, Murtha was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal of the late 1970s. As a result of the FBI undercover operation, several Capitol Hill figures were charged with agreeing to pay bribes to agents posing as representatives of Arab sheiks. Murtha was taped talking with an undercover agent about his interest in helping his district, but he was not charged and said he did nothing wrong.

In 2005, he became a darling of the Democratic antiwar movement when the prominent hawk announced that he was in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. He had supported the resolution to go to war in 2002, but he later denounced the Bush administration’s war effort as badly planned, calling it “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

Murtha lost his shot, however, to become House majority leader after Democrats retook control of the House in 2006. He had successfully led Pelosi’s campaign to be speaker at that time, but some colleagues argued that he could be a political liability in the leadership because of what they called his old-style politics.

Ethics investigations

In the past two years, Murtha and several close associates came under the scrutiny of ethics and investigative panels.

In 2008, the FBI raided a powerhouse lobbying firm, PMA Group, whose founder, Paul Magliocchetti, was a close friend of Murtha’s and which had had unique success in winning earmarks from Murtha for its clients.

In January 2009, federal investigators raided Kuchera Industries, a Pennsylvania company that Murtha had helped grow with more than $100 million in military contracts and earmarks. The company was suspended from receiving further Navy contracts pending an investigation into allegations that the company had defrauded the government in its billing.

In May 2009, the Justice Department subpoenaed records from the offices of a Murtha protege, Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind). Investigators were looking into allegations that Visclosky’s chief of staff, who announced his resignation shortly after the subpoena, had pressured lobbyists to donate to Visclosky’s campaign in exchange for earmarks for their clients, two sources familiar with the probe said.

In December 2009, the Office of Congressional Ethics reported that it saw no reason to continue its investigation of Murtha’s actions on behalf of PMA Group and recommended that the House ethics committee take no action against him.

In March 2009, Murtha told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that every lawmaker looks out for his own: “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district. . . . Every president would like to have all the power and not have Congress change anything. But we’re closest to the people.”

He had a bravado that even his critics admired, in part because he could often back up his seemingly big talk. He publicly squared off with many a heavyweight, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney and even a few presidents.

Last month, Murtha chuckled when asked about President Obama’s assertion that he was going to freeze all discretionary spending.

“Well, he can call for it, but we’re the guys who make the decision,” the congressman said. “I always remind them of that.”

Insulting China

Insulting China

By Robert Dreyfuss
The Nation: 02/01/2010

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/524652/insulting_china

Just like Hong Kong, soon enough Taiwan — the so-called Republic of China — will be absorbed into China proper. It’s a goner. The sheer force of China’s gravitational pull will draw the island to the mainland. So what, exactly, is the Obama administration thinking?

In what can only be seen as a calculated insult to Beijing, the Pentagon is selling a huge arsenal to Taiwan — according to The Australian, more than $8 billion worth — following upon a $6 billion sale by the Bush administration in 2008. According to the New York Times, the sales include “60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.” The Obama administration is praising its own retraint for having held off on selling advanced F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan as well, though it hasn’t ruled out that in the near future, either.

Not surprisingly, China is furious. The Chinese government has officially protested the sale, freezing military cooperation with the United States and announcing retaliatory measures that apparently will include sanctions against US arms makers involved in the deal, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Action against Boeing could potentially be devastating to the company, which relies on enormous sales of civilian aircraft to Chinese airlines, but it isn’t clear how far China would go, say, in shifting its purchases to European-made Airbus aircraft, for instance.

Writing in the Times, Helene Cooper quotes a US official who says, stupidly:

“This was a case of making sure that there was no misunderstanding that we will act in our own national security interests. Unlike the previous administration, we did not wait until the end of our administration to go ahead with the arms sales to Taiwan. We did it early.”

Leaving aside the issue of why Obama and Co. take pride in “doing it early,” what conceivable US national security interest involves selling a weapons package to an island which belongs to China, and whose increasingly less nationalistic and less independence-minded leaders know will eventually revert to Chinese control? The dwindling number of fierce anti-communist relics and ultra-nationalists on the island isn’t able to stop the process of detente between China and Taiwan, and the successful integration of Hong Kong into China in the 1990s provides a model for the eventual resolution of the China-Taiwan talks.

Making matters worse, after having rebuffed the Dalai Lama in 2009, when he visited Washington, it appears that President Obama will orchestrate a high-profile encounter with the Tibetan leader soon, adding insult to injury in US-China relations. (The Chinese see the Dalai Lama as leader of an independence-minded religious cult in China’s western province, an analysis that isn’t far wrong, and they believe that the biggest national security threats to China’s west are both religion-centered: the Dalai Lama and the Uighur Muslims.)

The fact remains that China’s star is rising, and America’s is declining. To remain relevant, the United States is going to have to abandon its pretension to economic and military dominance in the western Pacific, southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean, which will soon become a Chinese sphere of influence. China, too, will eventually become a far more important player in central Asia and the Middle East, because of its insatiable need for oil and natural gas from that part of the world.

President Obama needs China’s help in dealing with Afghanistan, where China’s alliance with Pakistan and its investments in Afghanistan make it an important part of the diplomatic puzzle in seeking a negotiated end to that hopeless war. Obama needs China, too, in relation to Iran, not to impose useless economic sanctions but to provide Iran with diplomatic assurances and some gentle pressure to move toward an accord over its nuclear program. And, of course, China is central to the confrontation with North Korea. In addition, on economics and the environment, China is by far the most important player after the United States. If the Obama administration thinks it can play hardball with China, pressuring and intimidating it to win its support for US policy goals, then the former junior senator from Illinois has another think coming.

Hillary Clinton is already revving up her hawkish rhetoric on China’s Iran policy. Last week, during the Afghanistan conference in London, Clinton slammed China over Iran, warning Beijing that it would face diplomatic isolation if it doesn’t cave in and support sanctions on Iran. And Clinton said outright that China’s policy in the Middle East is built around its concerns over the region’s (and Iran’s) oil. Addressing China’s leaders, she said:

“We understand that right now, that is something that seems counterproductive to you, sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs.”

As if the United States doesn’t base its own Middle East policy on the fact that the Persian Gulf is the center of the world’s oil supply!