janinsanfran's blog

What's wrong with Iran developing a nuclear bomb?

New York Times magazine cover, January 29, 2012 If we're going to go to war with Iran, something we seem to be edging toward, I think that as a citizen, I've got a right to an answer. Why it is worth spilling anyone's blood over Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon? After all there are nine states currently armed with nukes -- the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Not all of those are anywhere I'd like to live, but so far no country except the United States has ever used the Bomb. So far, nuclear weapons' destructive horror has created a taboo that we can all hope will never be broken. Four states formerly possessed nukes (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa) but voluntarily gave them up. It's not as if the science underlying nuclear weaponry is a deep dark secret. Making a bomb requires sophisticated technology and some wealth, but the principles are in the public domain. So why should anyone die to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? The most succinct rationale I was able to find came from Thomas Buonomo, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Army.

An ignominious end to a war that never should have been

This just went up on the New York Times digital front page.

A little life-saving would be something to be thankful for

Providing security
U.S. Army Spc. Lester Aldana, Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team security force provides security during a dismounted patrol in Sub-District 10 of Kandahar City Nov. 16. ISAF Media Flickr

Afghanistan: more pointless deaths, more blather

Thirty-seven, mostly U.S., soldiers were shot down by the Taliban in a helicopter in Afghanistan yesterday. Oh yes, those surface to air missiles can be so effective against foreign troops who must be moved by air because they will be blown up on the roads -- or there are no roads. Ask Charlie Wilson.

Here's how foreign "aid workers" travel in Afghanistan:

Costs of US wars since 9/11: it's even worse than we think

war costs.jpg

The Eisenhower Research Project based at Brown University has created a new website devoted to exploring what the misguided United States wars since 9/11 have cost this country -- and the unfortunate countries and people in the way of the injured, but infantile, imperial colossus. Many of their findings reproduce what people seeking peace have attempted to highlight for a decade, but it seems worthwhile to reproduce the suggestive conclusions from the executive summary.

The war that no one wants must go on

So the President has decided to "declare victory in Afghanistan and get out" except that neither he nor anyone else has a definition of "victory" and we're not actually getting out. By the end of the President's current term in 2012, there will still be more than twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office.

afghanistan_withdrawal.png

Lest peace break out ...

101st Meeting

On the one hand: U.S. foreign policy elites know that the national swoon over the killing of Osama bin Laden makes for a great chance to cut our losses in wars across the globe.

Syndicate content