Afghanistan, US Media, and Elections: Marching Orders to Protect the War (Mull)

EA correspondent Josh Mull the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

Congratulations US media, you've had a very successful couple of weeks. Your control over the public discourse on the recent Congressional elections is strong. The cretaceous values of Rand Paul, the victor in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, are balanced and justified by saying there aren't a lot of black folks in that state. A former Navy admiral and current US congressman, Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania, becomes "a Washington outsider".

Afghanistan: Obama Suspends the Rule of Law (Greenwald)

To complete the hat trick, you have established the narrative of the partisan insurgency. That means you get to portray both parties as going through some kind of ideological purge. Too progressive! Not conservative enough! What does that mean, and what does it have to do with actual issues and real policy? Who cares, right? Bor-ing!

And you have completely blocked the issue of the war in Afghanistan.


Now this is a big accomplishment, for sure. But you've made a lot of good people fighting for real change look like jerks for carrying water for your narrative, so you're going to want to protect it very carefully. Accordingly, here are a couple things you should avoid in your story.

Moving forward with the idea that the war-supporting candidates you choose to cover are somehow against the "status quo" is going to be very tricky, so make sure to follow these instructions explicitly. We can't blow the whole operation and have everybody actually engaging themselves in civics --- it might bring the collapse of Western Civilization. With that, here are your marching orders:

DON'T mention the cost of war is $1 trillion, trillions more in indirect costs, and is a major factor in our economic and debt crises.

You don't want people knowing about all the things that money could pay for. Things are much easier when you tell Republicans that a trillion dollars in debt is actually small government and fiscal conservatism. Democrats need to think President Obama is fixing the economy, not disemboweling it with a massive, off-budget spending spree for war. If you absolutely must discuss the cost of war, please only do it in the stupidest, inaccurate way possible, like complaining that troops get paid too much.

DON'T talk about any of these candidates who oppose the war.

Initial members of the Coalition Against War Spending (being added to at http://warisacrime.org/caws ) are:

Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives:
Nick Coons, AZ-05, Tempe/Scottsdale, Libertarian
Rebecca Schneider, AZ-06, Phoenix, Democrat
Carol Wolman, CA-01, northwest corner, Green
Clint Curtis, CA-04, northeast corner, Democrat
Ben Emery, CA-04, Nevada City, Green
Mark Williams, CA-12, San Carlos, Libertarian
Mary V. Larkin, CA-17, Monterey, Libertarian
Les Marsden, CA-19, Yosemite/Mariposa, Democrat
Randall Weissbuch, CA-26, Arcadia, Libertarian
Marcy Winograd, CA-36, Los Angeles, Democrat
William Hedrick, CA-44, Riverside/San Clemente, Democrat
Ken Arnold, CA-46, Orange and L.A., Democrat
Mike Paster, CA-49, Fallbrook, Libertarian
Tracy Emblem, CA-50, San Diego, Democrat
Michael Benoit, CA-52, San Diego, Libertarian
Gary Swing, CO-01, Denver, Green
G. Scott Deshefy, CT-02, New London, Green
Doug Tudor, FL-12, Riverview et al, Democrat
Marleine Bastien, FL-17, North Miami, Democrat
Regina Thomas, GA-12, Savannah, Democrat
Matt Reichel, IL-05, Chicago, Green
Bill Scheurer, IL-08, Lindenhurst, Green / Independent
Rodger Jennings, IL-12, Alton, Green
Doug Marks, IL-14, Carpentersville, Libertarian
Sheldon Schafer, IL-18, Peoria, Green
John Wayne Cunningham, IN-08, Terre Haute, Libertarian
James E. "Jim" Holbert, KY-05, London, Democrat
Peter White, MA-10, Cape Cod, Independent
Michael Cavlan, MN-05, Minneapolis, Independent Progressive
Kevin Craig, MO-07, Springfield, Libertarian
Thomas Hill, NC-08, Fayetteville, Libertarian
Lon Cecil, NC-12, High Point, Libertarian
Jonathan Tasini, NY-15, New York City, Democrat
Emin Eddie Egriu, NY-28, Buffalo, Democrat
Ebert G. Beeman, PA-03, Lake Erie, Libertarian
Vernon Etzel, PA-05, Oil City, Libertarian
Ed Bortz, PA-14, Pittsburgh, Green
David Segal, RI-01, Democrat
Eric Schechter, TN-05, Nashville, Democrat
Martin Nitschke, TX-23, El Paso to San Antonio, Libertarian
John Jay Myers, TX-32, Dallas, Libertarian
Claudia Wright, UT-02, Salt Lake City, Democrat
Ron Fisher, VA-08, Arlington, Independent Green/Progressive
Larry Kalb, WA-02, northwest corner, Democrat
Diana McGinness, WA-02, Bellingham, Democrat
Roy Olson, WA-09, Olympia, Green

Candidates for U.S. Senate:
Duane Roberts, CA, Green
John Finger, CO, Libertarian
Bob Kinsey, CO, Green
Cecile Lawrence, NY, Green
Mel Packer, PA, Green
Ben Masel, WI, Democrat (2012)

You need to think small. Three candidates last week were a full blown grassroots insurgency to you. These 53 (and counting) candidates would make your narrative look ridiculous. If three people who support the war are anti-establishment, what do you call 53 candidates who oppose the trillion-dollar price tag? If current Congressman Joe Sestak is "the fringe", where do you think any of these candidates will be in your story?

Just think about all the real grassroots movements, the constant, concerted effort it takes to field 53 candidates, across the political spectrum, all focusing their attention on the war. Those thoughts can be ruinous to your control over the debate, so banish them. You don't know what democracy looks like, so keep it that way. Only stick to safe, pro-war candidates (the three or so of them you have).

DON'T talk about the havoc we're wreaking on the military. Don't mention the death toll is at 1,000 (and is skyrocketing), that we're destroying their health, or that they have a terrible strategy and no alternative. Just keep patting them on the head, telling them, "you're doing a super job, buddy," and then sending them off to do a task you know they can't do but will thanklessly die trying to do.

Don't mention that non-military development works, or that even the slightest association with the military in Afghanistan is enough to destroy entire families. And no matter what, definitely don't talk about the suicides - the many, many, seemingly endless suicides. Support the troops, just don't pay any attention to them. It's a real bummer, and you've got a long campaign to cover. Keep happy thoughts ---  they're heroes!

DON'T ---maybe in this case that isn't strong enough --- never let Afghan voices to be heard. Afghans can be exotic aliens, Muslim fanatics, backwards tribalists, and genetically pre-disposed, xenophobic foreigner-killing machines. But they cannot be allowed to express themselves or have their own voice. They require foreign interference. They can't be trusted to tell their own story.

The same thing goes for Pakistan. Only allow debate to focus on whether we should be more aggressive with Pakistan, more assassinations and kidnappings, maybe some invading troops. Just ignore any notions about democracy. They have nukes and they're Muslim, end of story.

These are massively important foreign policy issues, some of them blatantly illegal, so no way can you let the people most affected by them anywhere near your media. You'll need that airtime to fact-check Stephen Colbert or something (horse race!). And anyway, we need to be able to parachute in un-sophisticated  "Western" journalists to "embed" for like a day and a half and score sweet Twitpics of them posing in flak jackets in front of tanks, and soldiers behind a wall firing and/or reloading their machine gun for the nine zillionth time. That's what war has to look like, otherwise we'll see the icky parts and not want to spend all our blood and treasure on them. And that's bad.

DON'T let people know how much power they have. If they feel isolated and powerless, they'll eagerly swallow whatever pill you're selling. They're an insurgent because they voted for Rand Paul. Good for them. The best way for them to show they're angry at broken government is supporting a trillion-dollar, murderous occupation in Afghanistan. You don't want them to know there is an entire congressional caucus devoted to ending the war. Those are incumbents! Gross!

Don't mention that these slick Washington fat cats are working hard on bills to end the war and return the money to the American people. Don't talk about the Feingold bill in the Senate, the McGovern bill calling for an exit timetable, the impending $33 billion supplemental vote that many members of Congress are prepared to oppose.

Don't mention that pressure works. You can't let people know they have the power to reach out and grab a hold of their elected officials. Grab them and force them to accomplish real change. If they knew they could just pick up a phone and dial (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to their representative, your entire enterprise of access and privilege would crumble overnight. Maintain that this is impossible.

Finally, you'll want to stay completely away from Rethink Afghanistan's Facebook page. If you were shocked and dumbfounded by health care town halls and the Tea Party movement, the tens of thousands of people working to end the war there on Facebook would just blow your mind. Acknowledging the vibrancy and diversity of the peace movement more broadly would destroy even your strongest efforts at "fair and balancing" the left/right paradigm. There are libertarians and conservatives, progressives and liberals, independents, moderates, and hardliners. All of them working together and working hard across party and ideological lines. Not even the most craven plutocrat lobbyist skulking in the bars and brothels of DC could water down that movement to some kind of partisan fringe.

And there are your instructions. Follow these exactly, and with any luck, you the media will remain stupid and this war will go on, destroying our country and theirs, for years and years to come.

MENA House: Mohammed al Fayed and How Harrods Became Egyptian

Last Saturday, the news struck the media that Mohammed al Fayed, the Egyptian business tycoon, would be selling Harrods.  Once surprise settled, the question was, "Who bought it and for how much?"

The answer...to the Qatari royal family’s investment company, Qatari Holdings for a reported £1.5 billion. Al Fayed invested well, considering he purchased Harrods in 1985 for "only" £615 million.

MENA House: Sinai Liberation Day in Egypt

In Al Fayed’s true, colourful style he has left his mark on Harrods, spending a total sum of £300 million.  In a rare interview with an Egyptian presenter, conducted in 2002 by Hala Sarhan, al Fayed discussed the refurbishment Harrods had undergone during his ownership.  It was not just a complete face-lift; it was a cultural reconstruction.  Taking Harrod’s back to his Egyptian roots, al-Fayed altered the internal structure of the building.


Permanent structures

Al Fayed added his own special touches such as the infamous Harrods escalator.  The historical distinction is that Harrods was the first building with a "moving stairlift" in the UK.  At the official opening on 16 November 1898, nervous customers were given brandy at the top of the escalator to calm themselves down.

In 1985, under the new ownership of al Fayed, the escalator became a "£20 million homage to ancient Egypt".  William George Mitchell, the Director of Design at Harrods, and experts from the British Museum of Authenticity, designed the stairlift to be a walk-in sculpture: "The viewer would be transported on the escalator, as if travelling through the Lower Nile to the Upper Nile."

Both the "Egyptian Room" and the Egyptian escalators are listed as "English Heritage", meaning they cannot be removed.

"Ancient Egypt"

William Mitchell also carved spectacular Ancient Egyptian images from the top floor to the ground level.  Each floor represents a different site from the Temple of Denderra to Giza.

In addition, each floor reflects the items being sold on that level.  For example, where a harpist and group have been carved into the walls, musical instruments are for sale.  Where the "Chairman of Eternity" lays, there is an ancient Egyptian sarcophagus --- similar to that of Tutakhamun (but, somehow, with an image with very similar features to al-Fayed) --- "holding" Harrods.

Mohammed Al Fayed’s Legacy

A colourful character indeed, al Fayed ensured that he would leave his mark on what is not only a shopping exhibition but also a tourist attraction. Despite or because of being rejected on several occasions in his efforts to gain British citizenship, the Egyptian business tycoon has ensured that he is stamped into British history.

Al-Fayed insists on ensuring his legacy and that of his family will live on and Harrods is the place to do it. In one of the most famous stores in the world, a memorial for Dodi al-Fayed (Mohammed al Fayed’s son) and Princess Diana is a permanent reminder of al-Fayed's connected with British Royalty.

Al Fayed also wanted to be buried in a sarcophagus, placed in a glass studio on the top floor in his private suite.  In Hala Sarhan’s interview, the eccentric character claimed that he wanted to be buried in Harrods so that his spirit would roam the infamous store forever more.

Since the sale of Harrod’s to a fellow Arab, Qatar’s Amir, al-Fayed's burial wish will remain a mystery. Wherever his body eventually lies is tangential, however: Mohammed al-Fayed’s legacy will remain in Britain for a long time to come.

UPDATED Iran Follow-Up: Ahmadinejad "Bin Laden Lives in Washington DC!"

UPDATE, 6 MAY: State Department Looks Around, Doesn't Find Bin Laden, Does Find Sense of Humour. I feel better now about my fellow Americans.

P.J. Crowley must have thought about his po'-faced, huffy comment on Twitter, as he decided that light-hearted was a better approach in a Washington press conference: "We've done an intensive search here at the Department of State -- every nook and cranny, every rock -- and we can safely report that Osama bin Laden is not here."

Iran: Bin Laden Lives in Tehran Shocker!

UPDATE 1900 GMT: Oh, dear, I think the US State Department has had a satire failure. Spokesman P.J. Crowley has just sniffed on Twitter, "Ahmadinejad says bin Laden is in DC. We don’t have him; what we do have is another wild Iranian accusation and no accountability."

P.J., you do know that Iranians have been known to pull the leg and tweak the nose of an obtuse interviewer, right?


---

From the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous....

Yesterday we had a bit of fun with Fox News' puffed-up, straight-faced "report" that Osama Bin Laden might be living the high life in Tehran. We thought this might be a one-day diversion, since this is not a real news story, but little did we know that George Stephanopoulos, former aide to Bill Clinton and host of ABC Television's Good Morning America, would take it to new levels of absurdity.

Closing his two-dimensional interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Stephanopoulos decided to spring an interrogator's surprise (since, presumably, Mahmoud does not watch Fox News):

STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question. There's a new documentary out that says that Osama Bin Laden is living in Tehran. And the subject of the documentary, a man named Alan Parrot, one of the world's foremost falconers living in Iran, says he's spoken to Osama bin Laden several times since 2003. Is Osama bin Laden in Tehran?

AHMADINEJAD: Your question is laughable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?

AHMADINEJAD: The U.S. government has invaded Afghanistan in order to arrest Bin Laden. They probably know where Bin Laden is. If they don't know he is, why did they invade? Could we know the intelligence?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think if they knew, they would find him. They would get him.

AHMADINEJAD: First they should have tried to find his location, then invade, those who did not know about his location first they invaded and then they tried to find out where he is, is that logical? Do you think this is logical?

STEPHANOPOULOS: What I think is that you didn't answer my question. Is he in Tehran or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Our position is quite clear. Some journalists have said Bin Laden is in Iran. These words don't have legal value. Our position towards Afghanistan and against terrorism is quite clear.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it true or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Maybe you know, but I don't know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm asking you. You're the President of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD: I don't know such a thing, you are giving news which is very strange.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let me ask it a different way. If you did know that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, would you show him hospitality? Would you expel him? Would you arrest him?

AHMADINEJAD: I heard that Osama bin Laden is in the Washington, D.C.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you didn't.

AHMADINEJAD: Yes, I did. He's there. Because he was a previous partner of Mr. Bush. They were colleagues in fact in the old days. You know that. They were in the oil business together. They worked together. Mr. Bin Laden never cooperated with Iran but he cooperated with Mr. Bush--

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask one more time and then I'll let you go. If you knew that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, which you say you don't. If you knew, would you expel him? Would you arrest him? Would you show him hospitality?

AHMADINEJAD: Our borders, our borders are closed to the illegal entry of anyone. Anyone who that may be. Whether it's the three American mountaineers, Mr. Bin Laden or anyone else. The borders are closed. Our position is clear.

I'm quite surprised, to see that you adjust your daily lives based on the news that is being broadcast. I'm concerned that the government of the United States takes positions based on such news. If it is so, it is too bad. The news must be accurate and accountable, otherwise it will disrupt the relations between the nations. Just like this, did the government of the United States knew about the location of Mr. Bin Laden? And you said, "No, they went to find out." Well, first you locate--

STEPHANOPOULOS: They lost the trail.

AHMADINEJAD: --to find out they have invaded Afghanistan. First they have to find out his location and then invade. It's like for a judge to arrest someone and then go after the evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you deny categorically that he's in Tehran today? He is not-- Osama bin Laden is not in Tehran today?

AHMADINEJAD: Rest assured that he's in Washington. I think there's a high chance he's there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't agree.

Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

Iran: Bin Laden Lives in Tehran Shocker!

Sometimes a piece of intrepid "journalism" stands beyond even the sharpest satire. So it is EA's pleasure to post today's classic from an "Ed Barnes" at Fox News, featuring --- in true Monty Python style --- the World's Most Wanted Man, Fox's favourite enemy country, and a falconer named Parrot:

Usama bin Laden gets up each morning in his dark, damp cave in northern Pakistan, gripped by fear, listening carefully for the telltale sound of a drone that is searching for him. His isolation is almost complete. Only a few trusted associates know where he is, and they visit rarely -- bringing food and news, but careful not to fall into a routine. There is no radio or other electronic device whose signal might be followed. He can’t go out in daytime for fear of satellites. It is a grim, lonely existence.

At least, that is the picture that has emerged of the life of the world’s most wanted man since he fled Tora Bora in 2001.

NOW UPDATED Iran Follow-Up: Ahmadinejad “Bin Laden Lives in Washington DC!”

But a new and vastly different picture of the Al Qaeda leader's life has been emerging over the past few years. In this scenario, he wakes each morning in a comfortable bed inside a guarded compound north of Tehran. He is surrounded by his wife and a few children. He keeps a low profile, is allowed limited travel and, in exchange for silence, is given a comfortable life under the protection of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.



The idea that Bin Laden is in Iran got a strong boost recently with the premiere of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine.”  In it, Alan Parrot, the film’s subject and one of the world’s foremost falconers, makes a case that Bin Laden, an avid falcon hunter, has been living comfortably in Iran since at least 2003 and continues to pursue the sport relatively freely. He is relaxed, healthy and, according to the film, very comfortable.

To make his case, Parrot, president of the Union for the Conservation of Raptors, took two Icelandic filmmakers, Om Marino Arnarson and Thorkell S. Hardarson, into the secretive world of falconers. It's a world in which some birds can sell for over $1 million, and in which the elite of the Middle East conduct business in luxurious desert camps where money, politics and terror intermingle.

Parrot, who was once the chief falconer for the Shah of Iran and who has worked for the royal families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, still has extensive contacts in Iran and the falcon world. One of those contacts, described as a warlord from the north of Iran and disguised in a balaclava, reveals in the film that he has met Bin Laden six times on hunting trips inside Iran since March 2003. He says the Al Qaeda leader is relaxed and healthy and so comfortable that “he travels with only four bodyguards.”

Their last confirmed meeting was in 2008, Parrot says. “There may have been more since then, but I haven’t talked to my source since we left Iran,” he said.

Parrot told FOX news.com that the extraordinary disclosure by the warlord, who supplies the falcon camps Bin Laden visits on hunting forays, was not done out of altruism. “One of my men saved his life and this was the repayment," he said. "He was asked to talk. He wasn’t happy about it.”

To prove his case, Parrot said he managed to get the telemetry setting for the falcons Bin Laden was flying, and he provided them to the U.S. Government. “They could locate him to a one-square-mile area using those unique signals”’ he said.  He says the government never contacted him to follow up.

Maj. Sean Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. Military would not comment on the whereabouts of Bin Laden.

Parrot's story is supported in the documentary by former CIA agent Robert Baer, an outspoken critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East and of how the CIA is managed. Baer, the onetime Middle East operative on whom the movie Syriana is based, explains that while he was in the CIA, he used satellites to watch the camps and they proved to be one of the key ways Al Qaeda was funded. He underscored how important falconry is to the vastly wealthy, and how Parrot’s position gave him a unique lens on that world.

Parrot's disclosures add another piece to a jigsaw puzzle that for years has fed suspicion that Bin Laden is living in Iran. Among the other clues are:

-- Iran accepted 35 Al Qaeda  leaders after the fall of the Taliban, despite the schism between Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots and the Shiite regime in Iran.

-- In February 2009 the U.S. Treasury placed sanctions on several high-ranking Al Qaeda operatives working out of Iran and helping run the terror network.

-- In 2004 author Richard Miniter, in his book “Shadow War,” wrote that two former Iranian Intelligence agents told him they had seen Bin Laden in Iran in 2003.

-- In June 2003 the respected Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra [sic --- Corriere della Sera], quoting intelligence reports, reported that Bin Laden was in Iran and preparing new terror attacks.

-- Some analysts believe the reason Bin Laden switched from video to audiocassettes for his announcements was that he couldn’t find a place in Iran that matched the terrain of northern Pakistan.

-- In December 2009 it was widely reported that one of Bin Laden's wives, six of his children and 11 grandchildren were living in a compound in Tehran. The living situation was made public after one of the daughters escaped the compound and sought asylum in the Saudi Embassy. It is in this compound, Parrot says, that Bin Laden has found sanctuary.

Parrot said Bin Laden was renowned as an avid falconer who captured most of the falcons around Kandahar to raise funds to support his terror efforts. Each spring wealthy Arabs from the Gulf would fill military cargo planes full of specially equipped Toyota Land Cruisers and other equipment and fly to the falcon camps in Afghanistan. "Usama would arrive and presented the falcons as gifts," Parrot said. "In return, the wealthy princes would leave the cars and equipment with him when they left, giving Al Qaeda a considerable material advantage over others, including the Taliban.”

Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism expert at the White House through two administrations, has admitted in interviews and before the 9/11 Commission that on one of the three occasions the United States was able to place Bin Laden, he was in a falcon camp set up by falcon hunters from Dubai. The CIA requested a cruise missile strike against Bin Laden. Clarke said he stopped the government from firing at the camp because “it didn’t look like an Al Qaeda camp.”

“I am not political,” Parrot says, “But he is the most wanted terrorist in the world and it has been frustrating getting the government to listen. Perhaps now they will.”