Writing for TomDispatch, Nick Turse reveals the extent of US military and corporate plans and operations for a long-term involvement in Afghanistan:
In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year’s Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was “the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s.” At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.
While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year — ranging from small-scale power plants to “public latrines” to a meat market — the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.
In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion — $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent “roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years” in that country and, “if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.”
You could be forgiven for thinking, amidst the deluge of revelations on the Bush Administration’s authorisation of torture, that we only learned about the existence of “enhanced interrogation” recently.
Actually, despite the secrecy of the Bushmen as they expanded (and rationalised) Executive power to pursue “enhanced interrogation”, it was with us all along.
FBI and Justice Department investigators are increasingly frustrated by the silence of jailed suspected associates of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, and some are beginning to that say that traditional civil liberties may have to be cast aside if they are to extract information about the Sept. 11 attacks and terrorist plans.
This morning, I was catching up with the newspapers when a friend/reader Skyped about our recent item, “Dick Cheney’s Fox Interview and the Defence of Torture”: “Surely there must be some date by which I can hope to never ever see Cheney’s face on EA again.”
While I could understand the sentiment, it also brought on depression about how this torture discussion will probably “go away”. The barrage of news stories and commentary — now that many in the American “mainstream” media, with the Bush Administration in the rear-view mirror, has decided torture should be noticed — brings on fatigue. Now that Cheney, formerly the most secretive Vice President in history, has decided that he will incessantly shine his own distorted light on “enhanced interrogation”, I have the sense from his smirk that he knows he is wearing us down. Read the rest of this entry »
Two days after the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council, primarily because of his views on the Middle East and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, the unspeakable is being spoken:
The latest news from the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre is of an attack by insurgents — probably Pakistani, rather than Afghan — on a Peshawar warehouse, destroying 150 NATO trucks. Meanwhile, there is high-profile comment, spectacularly missing the point, from Robert Kaplan (“our best strategy is, as difficult and trite as it sounds, to be at all places at once”). The following may be of significance: