Headphones Not Required

mohandasgandhi:

Why the US won’t leave Afghanistan: How US military bases and the energy war play out

No more than “50-75 ‘al-Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA, have been responsible for draining the US government by no less than US $10 billion a month, or $120 billion a year.  

At the same time, outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been adamant that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is “premature”. The Pentagon wants the White House to “hold off on ending the Afghanistan troop surge until the fall of 2012.”

That of course shadows the fact that even if there were a full draw down, the final result would be the same number of US troops before the Obama administration-ordered AfPak surge.

And even if there is some sort of draw down, it will mostly impact troops in supporting roles - which can be easily replaced by “private contractors” (euphemism for mercenaries). There are already over 100,000 “private contractors” in Afghanistan. 

A recent, detailed study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the war on terror has cost the US economy, so far, from $3.7 trillion (the most conservative estimate) to $4.4 trillion (the moderate estimate). Then there are interest payments on these costs - another $1 trillion.

That makes the total cost of the war on terror to be, at least, a staggering $5.4 trillion. And that does not include, as the report mentions, “additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending”, or a promised (and undelivered) $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan.

Who’s profiting from this bonanza? That’s easy - US military contractors and a global banking/financial elite.

The notion that the US government would spend $10 billion a month just to chase a few “al-Qaeda types” in the Hindu Kush is nonsense.

The Pentagon itself has dismissed the notion - insisting that just capturing and killing Osama bin Laden does not change the equation; the Taliban are still a threat. 

In numerous occasions Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself has characterised his struggle as a “nationalist movement”. Apart from the historical record showing that Washington always fears and fights nationalist movements, Omar’s comment also shows that the Taliban strategy has nothing to do with al-Qaeda’s aim of establishing a Caliphate via global jihad.  

So al-Qaeda is not the major enemy - not anymore, nor has it been for quite some time now. This is a war between a superpower and a fierce, nationalist, predominantly Pashtun movement - of which the Taliban are a major strand; regardless of their medieval ways, they are fighting a foreign occupation and doing what they can to undermine a puppet regime (Hamid Karzai’s). 

In the famous November 1, 2004 video that played a crucial part in assuring the reelection of George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden - or a clone of Osama bin Laden - once again expanded on how the “mujahedeen bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.”

That’s the exact same strategy al-Qaeda has deployed against the US; according to Bin Laden at the time, “all that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note, other than some benefits to their private companies.”

The record since 9/11 shows that’s exactly what’s happening. The war on terror has totally depleted the US treasury - to the point that the White House and Congress are now immersed in a titanic battle over a $4 trillion debt ceiling.  

What is never mentioned is that these trillions of dollars were ruthlessly subtracted from the wellbeing of average Americans - smashing the carefully constructed myth of the American dream.

So what’s the endgame for these trillions of dollars?

(Read more)

The Trans-Afghan Pipeline, geopolitical strategy, billions of dollars sent to contractors, an increase in domestic security and military spending, etc.? Wars make a few rich white guys even richer and the rest of the population pays for it. We bought the deaths of all those Iraqis, Afghans, and U.S. soldiers so a few guys in several very corrupted industries could make a fast buck and we kept reelecting the same politicians that continuously voted to increase war funding to make this all possible. Was it worth it?

npr:

Energy is not a thing.

It is not a cell phone. It is not a PS3. It is not a new Lexus. It is not a product in the sense we denizens of consumer culture have become so comfortable embracing. Find an intro-to-physics book, look up “energy” and you will find something like “the ability to do work.”

What a strange, amorphous, slightly circular sounding definition. If you want to understand the depths of the problem facing our culture you need look no further. We treat energy like a product, like a thing. From the fundamental perspective of physics, however, it is something altogether different.

—From the commentary “Energy Choices Are Bearing Down On Us, With Hard-To-Swallow Costs In Tow”

mohandasgandhi:

Salazar Opens 750 Million Tons Of Wyoming Coal To Mining

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans Tuesday to auction off vast coal reserves in Wyoming over the next five months, unleashing a significant but controversial power source amid uncertainty about clean and safe energy development.

The four coal leases next to existing strip mines in the Powder River Basin — the largest coal-producing region in the United States — total 758 million tons and will take between 10 and 20 years to mine.

Last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill raised questions about offshore oil drilling and the current Japanese nuclear power plant crisis has renewed concern about nuclear energy, but coal has its own baggage — especially when it comes to climate change.

About 40 percent of the nation’s coal comes from Wyoming, and coal from the Powder River Basin used in power plants accounts for nearly 14 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Even so, the Obama administration remains committed to an “all of the above” energy policy that relies on a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources, Salazar said.

“The president knows this approach is the approach we will embrace in the future. The president also knows that we need to embrace and encourage safe development of traditional energy — coal, oil, gas and nuclear,” Salazar said.

….

Mead said Wyoming has invested heavily in developing “clean coal” technologies. They include carbon sequestration — pumping carbon dioxide emissions from power plants underground — and converting coal into a gas that can be burned more cleanly than straight coal.

Salazar’s announcement didn’t sit well with environmentalists. The coal will provide 20 times more electricity than the Interior Department committed all last year to develop from renewable sources, said Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians.

The group already is challenging two of the proposed coal leases in court on climate change grounds, although there’s been no sign that the auctions will be halted.

“We’ll be challenging Salazar’s call for more dirty energy. It’s the last thing this country needs or can afford,” Nichols said by email.

(Read more)

A few things:

1. “Clean coal” does not exist.  The term “clean coal” is an oxymoron.  All that it does, at best, is reduce smog - not greenhouse gas emissions, which are the big problem.  This is called “greenwashing.” 
2. Coal is the #1 man-made contributor to CO2 emissions.
3. “Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.” — President Obama, June 15, 2010 - What happened to that?
4. What happened to this?

janric:

secretrepublic:

What if solar power was subsidized like fossil-fuels?

Reblogging for Bronwyn, mostly.

Thanks, Sam! And of course, it’s a great reblog…

(Source: )