Check for web archive captures
What Threat Do We Fear Most?
By maudeaster on 2009-10-07 13:11:06
On a recent trip to Europe, I was incredibly struck by the heightened concern there about the horrible consequences of
unchecked global warning. Preparations for the Copenhagen Conference - the international effort to create a strong enough
plan to prevent catastrophic changes to life as we know it - was major news. People were worried about the melting Alpine
glaciers, about the rising sea levels along Europe’s coasts, and about the likelihood of huge losses of life and forced
migration in areas of the world likely to be even more severely impacted — with resulting military conflicts very much
feared. While we were there, the 10:10 Climate Change Campaign was launched in Great Britain, to get individuals,
companies and institutions to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010. People were responding to scientists’ warnings
that the longer we delay, the more disastrous future we will face. The entire British cabinet, the Tate Modern Museum, the
Cheshire Police, 16 local government councils, The Guardian newspaper and high profile artists were among those who
joined individuals in pledging to reduce their energy use. In Switzerland, if we needed a plastic bag at the grocery store, we
paid for it. In a small Austrian Alpine village, we saw solar powered fences around tiny herds of cows, and there were
posters promoting a public-transportation-only week sponsored by the World Car Free Europe Network. The last
incandescent bulbs were manufactured in Europe while we were there. So, the threat that seems to motivate Europeans to
make personal changes and to invest public resources in change is the specter of millions and millions of peoples’ lives
radically changed — or worse - by unaddressed climate change. This felt to me like an enormous contrast with the US, where
since 9-Il we have seemed mesmerized by the possibility of more terrorist actions being sparked on the other side of the
globe. I came back feeling that we all need desperately in the US to think about what is really the largest threat we face.
Today is the eighth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. US taxpayers have already poured $189 billion into the
Afghan War. I believe I’d be safer today, and our children and everyone around the world would be safer tomorrow, if these
resources had instead already been spent to green our economy and the way we live our lives. As President Obama
reconsiders the growing quagmire of Afghanistan, I think we need to let him and Congress know that what we fear most is
the devastation of climate change. What a present to the Copenhagen Conference would be an announcement that the US
was ending the war in Afghanistan and shifting its resources to counter climate change! Editing note: This article was
posted on another page, in error and rather than abandon the orphan comments we will add them here at the bottom of the
article. 10 Comments » 1.. What would really be nice, is the scientists on opposite sides of this issue getting together and
actually determining how much of the changing climate is natural and what percentage might actually be man made. That
would help all of us understand, specifically, what we might do that would be most beneficial. Under any circumstances
there is nothing positive about wasting any kind of natural resource or polluting our environment, so whatever we can do to
minimize either problem will be beneficial. The questions remains, how beneficial and will certain actions actually make
any noticeable difference. Whatever we decide is the best way to utilize our assests to reduce our interference with the
natural rythms of the planet should be based on achieving tangible results. Unfortunately, it appears there we are far from
consensus on what steps should be taken to do the most good. That’s a gap we schould, and most likely could, close if we
removed the political hysteria from the discussion. One lesson we all should have learned from the recent activities in both
Iraq and Afganistan is that it’s a lot easier to blow something up than it is to rebuild, or create, something. Time, effort and
money expended over months by dedicated people with only the best intentions and efforts can be wiped away, instantly, by
a breach in security. When you speak of this “quagmire” in Afganistan, you seem eager to overlook who is causing the
difficulties. The reality is that until there is rational security in place that can be counted on to preserve whatever is being
rebuilt, there is no stability, which all but the insane, see as the ultimate goal. What would leaving Afganistan accomplish?
Without the added security currently provided by American and NATO forces, would there be any rebuilding? any
restoration of basic services? If not, what would be accomplished. You may believe that the possibility of, “enormous human
devastation of unchecked climate change” is the most serious concern of the American people, but we don’t know if there’s
anything we can do to reverse these climate changes, or if reversing them will be beneficial or the cause of more serious
problems. Regardless of the effect, we should recognize the value of not wasting what we may not be able to replace, but
there are no guarantees that anything we actually do can, or should, dictate the evolution of the planet. Instead of rushing to
judgment based on 01% of the necessary data, and making grand presumptions based on a minimum of jknowledge, there
may be great value in considering large chunks of the remailing 99%of relevant data to determine what, specifically we can
or should do, to try and contribute some meaningful difference. If, as well it may turn out, there is nothing man can do to
stop this natural change, perhaps adjusting to a future of a warming climate may be the ultimate answer, and security may
become a larger piece of that puzzle. Comment by AlbertJ — October 7th, 2009 @ 4:23 pm 2.. The biggest man-made threat
to the US remains a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon on New York City, in my opinion. The consequences of such an
attack would be instantaneously catastrophic on a scale that is hard to comprehend, and would also have gigantic world wide
impacts both economically and militarily that would make 9-11 pale dramatically in comparison. As for global warming, the
most recent scientific observations indicate a definite trend over the past 5 years towards an overall global cooling. Not
worried about it at all at this point. Comment by Wally — October 7th, 2009 @ 8:40 pm 3.. Er, whats all this? “Code Pink’
rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout In Afghanistan, the US women’s activist group finds that their Afghan counterparts
want US troop presence — as well as more reconstruction. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html
Comment by gunga dan — October 7th, 2009 @ 9:05 pm 4.. There’s something wrong with thinking? PS — Please read the
whole article and other ones in the press. Also, please recognize that the peace movement, or left, or whatever you want to
call it isn’t monolithic or even lithic. Comment by Anita McKay — October 8th, 2009 @ 10:07 am 5.. #3, Gunga Dan, it is
good that some people get to observe “left” leaning people doing do diligence and listening to many sources before
establishing firm conclusions..and being flexible when information suggests a change in position. I have read about people
and polls reporting that Afghans as a whole object to the occupation of their country by the US. I have read more than one
report that says any number of people are also afraid of the US pulling out or pulling out too quickly. The group whose
spokeperson is on the following link was active long before the US invaded. RAWA asked first the Clinton administration
and then the Bush administration to take strong action (sanctions? diplomatic pressure?) against their allies, the Taliban.
RAWA received little attention to their demands until the US wanted an excuse to attack the country.
http:/Awww.democracynow.org/2009/10/7/voices_from_afghanistan afghan womens _ activist As you will see, this group
does not see the value in the US remaining for any length of time, and the spokesperson explains the ways in which the
major stated goals of the US presence have not been met. Since this group has been involved in women’s rights the longest
of the major groups, their opinion carries some weight with me. Reading the article itself is better than my summary, but I
will add that she says the best role the US could play would be to disarm the fundamentalist militias run by warlords and to
disempower the oppressive, corrupt government in Kabul. Meanwhile others, from former CIA agents (you could look up
some of Robert Baer’s recent comments) to opposition leaders in Afghanistan are pointing to current goals as off the mark
and current strategies doomed to fail. And people from many countries and political stripes are beginning to say out loud
that Al Qaeda did much of its planning from other countries, that it is weakened to the point where there may be as few as
100 left in the country, and that containment of Al Qaeda and attention paid to splinter groups across the globe is the best
protection for all concerned. It is good to remember that the Taliban want a theocracy in their own country but do not share
the goal of global Islamic expansion with Osama bin Laden. When the previous Taliban government tolerated bin Laden
they had something to gain. He funneled some of his fortune to them. If they ever came to power again, they would see their
bread as buttered on the side of some international cooperation and not in an alliance with Al Qaeda. (Not clear if much of
his fortune is left, anyway.) Finally, if the US and allies were to actually disempower the warlords and depart in orderly
fashion, the people of Afghanistan would not support the Taliban since they would no longer need their protection against
foreign or domestic threats. Comment by Linda Muralidharan — October 8th, 2009 @ 2:59 pm 6.. Without an American
presence in Afghanistan you can guarantee the summary execution of the women’s rights workers. It’s just like asking the
cops to leave-to whom does it benefit the most? Do you remember how the Taliban dealt with “Un-chaste” Afghan women
who had the audacity (Can you beleive that? The nerve!) to walk around without a burka on in the 90’s or listen to music or
leave their home? There is a difference between the Taliban and the AL qaeda that most people do not take the time to know.
The Taliban seek an Islamic government in the capitol to institute Sharia law. Their goals are regional, not international,
however they have no problem supporting terrorism abroad, which is why we are there to begin with. Al qaeda just wants to
destroy the US and our allies. So far, they’ve failed, miserably. A few successes, but the damage to their organization is
immense. Most are members of the waterboarding club down at Gitmo. 189 billion? That’s nothing. Health care is proposed
to suck nearly a trillion from the Federal government, and then there’s a few trillion of “porkulus” spending by Bush and
Obama (which got nowhere). The threat the US faces the most right now is not from Terrorism, but that is NOT to discount
that threat, but from our own government. Terrorism is nipping on the government’s coat tails in the number 2 slot. Andrew
Comment by Captain pooby — October 8th, 2009 @ 7:39 pm 7.. Climate change may or may not mess up the world in time
and it may or may not be man made and may or not be man correctible. Islamic terrorists, especially if aligned with a
nuclear Iran, can destroy the entire world and/or return us to the stone age. When I was in Vietnam 69-70, I read a novel
about a post nuke war world called.” A Canticle For Liebowitz.” If I recall correctly Liebowitz was a monk who, hundreds of
years after the war, was about to rediscover electricity in a world of feudalism where might made right. If we have to kill
Iran to prevent a religious fanatic maniac getting nuclear weapons, and I hope we don’t, it would be worth it. God help us
and forgive us. Comment by Peter M. — October 9th, 2009 @ 12:16 am 8.. Re 6 & 7: Andrew, I agree completely that we
are our own greatest threat, both from a government that has great power and has taken on a life of its own, and from the
passive citizens of this country who do not challenge elected officials. As for the costs for healthcare, the worst part of it is
that the system is no good. We spend money on it far out of proportion to the outcomes, which are mediocre in comparison
to other developed nations. At the same time, how is it OK for only some of us to have access to healthcare? Anyway, why
compare spending on healthcare to the wars or anything else. We need universal access to a functioning healthcare system in
this country. Peter M., Even if I agreed with your assessment of the degree and nature of the threat from Iran, I’m at a loss to
understand how we “kill” Iran. We haven’t been able to defeat either Iraq or Afghanistan, both countries where the right
wing asserts that the people of the countries are behind our actions. Unless I’m forgetting something, isn’t the only war
we’ve won since WWII the one against Grenada, a low-tech 12 by 24 mile island with fewer than 100,000 people? Maybe
it’s time to stop putting ourselves above the rest of the world, form some meaningful coalitions, and try to find real
solutions. On another topic, I am speechless at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. This is one more indication
of the myopic vision and corruption of the West. Obama has made some long-overdue moves toward paths other than war,
but it is too early to tell whether these overtures will be sustained and effective. In the meantime, our two senseless wars
rage on. I cannot call Obama a man of peace of the stature of other winners of the award. Comment by Anita McKay —
October 9th, 2009 @ 8:30 am 9.. HOPEFULLY WE WILL ONLY HAVE TO KILL THE IRAN NUCLEAR SITES. By
1972 the US and South Vietnam had won the Vietnam war with the defeat of the huge North Vietnamese Easter offensive.
We used air power and resupplied the South Vietnamese with ammo and spare parts. By 1975, the Democrats controlling
congress cut off all ammo and resupply to our allies, the South Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese invaded again and,
weakened by lack of ammo, supplies, and US Air Power, the enemy, North Vietnam won. History may repeat itself as the
Democrats strive mightily to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan—obviously, not all Democrats support defeat, but, too many do.
Comment by Peter M. — October 9th, 2009 @ 4:21 pm 10.. #6, Iam opposed to Sharia law and all other forms of
oppression and denial of human rights. However, I do not agree with all the assumptions you appear to make. First of all, it
has been stated over and over that the movitivations for the current numbers of Afghanis who fight with the Taliban vary.
Some really want Sharia law. Some want just a stable, conservatively oriented Islamic society..and that comes in many
shades of black, white, and grey and does not always adhere to strict Sharia law. Some want power. Some want the
foreigners to leave. Some have no jobs and want the opportunity to be fed and be busy. Fighting comes naturally to many of
the Afghani tribes so they find purpose and a kind of “safety” in being armed by the Taliban and fighting with them. If the
“Taliban”, as some kind of focused governing entity, come to power, they will be willing to make a lot of adjustments based
on the popular wants of the whole country and based on certain things they will need from the international community to be
successful in running a nation. One more time, this Taliban is not precisely identical with the group that previously ruled
many parts of the country. More importantly, women are not safe now. They are not safe with the United States presence and
its repeated siding with the wrong factions inside the country. If you had followed the link, you would have learned that the
woman spokesperson uses an alias and needs to live in safe houses because her life is presently in danger. Other women
activists have already been killed under Karzai’s warlord laced regime. Finally, even if you or I or anybody thinks RAWA is
wrong, and that the US is the savior they are looking for after all, do we Consitutionally get Congress to declare war on a
country in order to “save” a percentage of the women? (Clearly, all will not be killed as many will conform to the
fundmentalist norms.) Or to be sure that each girl can get an education? Which other countries must we attack to save
women from religious oppression? Or civil oppression? Which other country ought we to make into a 51st or 52nd state in
order to be sure that each child, male or female, gets an education? Please let us all remember that some women experience
suffering they view worse than death. Thus in India and in a number of countries where women are oppressed by cruel
arranged marriages, too many kill themselves rather than continue living in that kind of oppression. There is tremendous
suffering of men and women in Pakistan where too many autocratic rulers, whether secular or religious, have put their power
and wealth and egos and militaristic ambitions ahead of ordinary people who lack adequate water supplies, food, education,
health care, and even security. We can’t help everybody directly no matter what we do. I see no reason to try in Afghanistan
by suspect war methods that cost as many or more lives than they save and add to the US debt and deprivation of Americans.
I do see a reason to continue on the world stage, and with better targeted material aid, to minimize suffering in Afghanistan
and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and many other places. Diplomacy and public, international pressure for human rights do
contribute to an atmosphere in which people everywhere gradually stand up for more and more or their own rights and
freedoms. Even from Saudi Arabia you hear occasional snipits of good news. Comment by Linda Muralidharan — October
10th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
