Norman Solomon, The Huffington Post, July 9, 2009
The president has set a limit on the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. For now.
That’s how escalation works. Ceilings become floors. Gradually.
A few times since last fall, the Obama team has floated rising numbers for how many additional U.S. soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan. Now, deployment of 21,000 more is a done deal, with a new total cap of 68,000 U.S. troops in that country.
But “escalation” isn’t mere jargon. And it doesn’t just refer to what’s happening outside the United States.
“Escalation” is a word for a methodical process of acclimating people at home to the idea of more military intervention abroad — nothing too sudden, just a step-by-step process of turning even more war into media wallpaper — nothing too abrupt or jarring, while thousands more soldiers and billions more dollars funnel into what Martin Luther King Jr. called a “demonic suction tube,” complete with massive violence, mayhem, terror and killing on a grander scale than ever.
As war policies unfold, the news accounts and dominant media discourse rarely disrupt the trajectory of events. From high places, the authorized extent of candor is a matter of timing.
Lots of recent spin from Washington has promoted the assumption that President Obama wants to stick with the current limit on deployments to Afghanistan. Soon after pushing supplemental war funds through Congress, he’s hardly eager to proclaim that 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan may not be enough after all.
But no amount of spin can change the fact that the U.S. military situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. It would be astonishing if plans for add-on deployments weren’t already far along at the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, the White House is reenacting a macabre ritual — a repetition compulsion of the warfare state — carefully timing and titrating each dose of public information to ease the process of escalation. The basic technique is far from new.
In the spring and early summer of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson decided to send 100,000 additional U.S. troops to Vietnam, more than doubling the number there. But at a July 28 news conference, he announced that he’d decided to send an additional 50,000 soldiers.
Why did President Johnson say 50,000 instead of 100,000? Because he was heeding the advice from something called a “Special National Security Estimate” — a secret document, issued days earlier about the already-approved new deployment, urging that “in order to mitigate somewhat the crisis atmosphere that would result from this major U.S. action . . . announcements about it be made piecemeal with no more high-level emphasis than necessary.”
Forty-four years later, something similar is underway with deployments of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Dick Cheney ‘silenced CIA over spy plan’
July 12, 2009Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, deliberately withheld details of a secret CIA spy programme from the US congress for eight years, a US senator has said.
Cheney, who was vice-president to George Bush until January this year, ordered the CIA not to tell congress of a new “counter-terrorism” programme in 2001.
Cheney’s role in stifling the information was revealed by Leon Panetta, who now heads the CIA and who ordered the programme to be stopped in June.
Senator Diane Feinstein, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, speaking on a US television show on Sunday, said: “Director Panetta did brief us two weeks ago … and tell us that he was told that the vice-president had ordered that the programme not be briefed to the congress.”
Amid calls for an investigation, senator Dick Durbin said Cheney’s actions had been “inappropriate”.
“To have a massive programme that is concealed from the leaders in congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal,” he said.
The details of the intelligence programme, launched after the attacks on the US in September 2001, remain secret.
Covert operations
A spokesman for the CIA said it was not policy to discuss classified briefings, but added: “When a CIA unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with congress.
“That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”
Under US law, the president is required to make sure intelligence committees are fully informed about covert operations.
The newspaper did not name its sources and said it had been unsuccessful in reaching Cheney for comment.
Cheney has been criticised in the past for supporting controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (where a detainee is made to feel as if he is drowning), sleep deprivation, long periods of standing and exposure to cold.
Many critics have described the methods as being torture.
Controversial move
Eric Holder, the US attorney general is reported to be considering assigning a prosecutor to investigate interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects by the government of George Bush, the former US president.
Such an appointment could lead to a criminal inquiry into the treatment of prisoners by the CIA following the 2001 attacks in New York.
The move is seen as being controversial as Barack Obama, the US president, had previously said he wanted to leave the issue “in the past”.
An official from the US justice department said Holder planned to “follow the fact and the law”.
Holder’s decision is expected to be made in the next few weeks.
Share this:
Tags:CIA spy programm, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder, torture, U.S. Congress
Posted in Commentary, crime, imperialism, torture, Uncategorized, US policy, USA | Leave a Comment »