The Terroir of Terror

 And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look behind 
--The Circle Game, Joni Mitchell

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off 
--Let's Call the Whole Thing Off,
George Gershwin
_________________

Contrary to Ms. Mitchell's lyrics, we can and do return.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai complained last year about United State's efforts to openly negotiate with the Taliban. This year, it is the U.S. that's complaining about Karzai's efforts to open negotiations with that group.

Game on in a country mired in violence, where momentary stability will only be achieved by the reinstatement of another strongman, whom the U.S. will then embrace until he becomes another jilted lover. Round and round it goes.

If the U.S. is awaiting Karzai's exit in order to negotiate a security alliance with the next guy, this alone reveals our policies in the region as wasted efforts. If a security treaty depends upon the good graces of one man, it is clear that democracy does not reign.

What was achieved by the war? Did the American public benefit? Neither our near nor far security has been enhanced, so why the effort? Why remain in a nation which rejects our way of governing and does not even want our presence?

Clearly, al Qaeda is a borderless entity which can operate out of a suitcase without a physical home station. Al Qaeda no longer needs "Terror training camps" in Afghanistan, but the State Department is not keen on disseminating this information.

In fact, the entire region is a Terror training camp. There is no shortage of combat-trained and willing members to take up the fight, but these are not the near threats to the U.S. They are a FAR military threat that can only become a near threat with specialized advanced training and integration into Western societal networks.

However, the U.S.'s presence in Afghanistan is not going to lessen that threat. In fact, it can only bolster it by romanticizing the cause. So tell me, why do we wish to continue our self-delusional behavior by keeping a presence in Afghanistan?

Maybe it is that we are so acclimated to self-delusions, graft and corruption that Afghanistan seems as good a place as any to soldier on under these auspices.

Eyes Wide Open

Never underestimate the difficulty
of changing false beliefs by facts
--economist Henry Rosovsky

 An electric light is a nocturnal joy to an honest man,
but a scarecrow to a thief   
--Proceedings of the National Electric Light Assn.
_____________________

The U.S. is in negotiations with Afghan President Karzai (he of the very cool yak cap and silk cape, the Afghan mafioso uniform) to extend the presence of United States troops in his country through 2024.

For this privilege, the U.S. is willing to pay for the upkeep, maintenance, equipage, training and provisions for the Afghan National Security forces. (Sorry, Detroit, it's not your day.) In return, we get the right to kill Al Qaida members in that country.

This is a sucker deal for the U.S. which serves neither the security interests of the U.S. or the burgeoning and dire needs of our own society.

The U.S. will support the security forces of arguably the most corrupt nation in the world ©, while here in America we have cut federal funds for domestic food stamp programs and our citizens go homeless, cold and hungry, stuck in a cycle of poverty which capitalism aids and abets. They are given Medicaid, while few doctors will accept the coverage.

This is called the sunk cost fallacy which any freshman logic or economics class will tell you, is a losing proposition.

Strategic Partnership Agreement

"Relax," said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive,
You can check out anytime you like
... but you can never leave"
--Hotel California, The Eagles

“The Case for Preemptive War:
Taking the ‘Re-’ Out of Retaliation”
--Book by the fictional Institute for Continuing Conflict in
They Eat Puppies, Don't They, Christopher Buckley

How could I have loved someone
like the one I see in you?
I remember the good times baby now,
and the bad times too
--Goodbye to You, Scandal

She asked me to stay
and she told me to sit anywhere,
So I looked around and I noticed
there wasn't a chair
--Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown),
The Beatles
_________________

President Obama and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan President Karzai had their own May Day celebration by signing the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America (as opposed, presumably, to the "non-enduring, not-so-strategic" partnerships; of course, it is hard to have relationship sans good dialog, so maybe this really is something new.)

However, no matter how cheerily the new partnership begins, without the imprimatur of a super majority of the Senate, it lacks the weight of a treaty. We all should know that without the official piece of paper, a partnership is only so much pipe smoke, as partners may just roll up their goods in an Afghan rug or Bodhi bag and hie thee out of there at any moment.

This is not to say partners don't fail to honor the real deal (marriage/treaties) all the time. It's just more difficult, and with that impending effort, a little more consideration and circumspection between the partners is called upon. With a non-binding agreement Mssrs. Obama and Karzai are like the ill-fated live-in lovers, and a divorce or separation is imminent.

Without the advice and consent of the Senate, Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai's partnership lacks even the heft of a Civil Union, and is therefore not worth the paper on which it is written. Where are the references to the imperative for a Senate vote? The lack of discussion suggests that the United States has something to gain from this "agreement" which makes Afghanistan into a "major non-NATO ally."

Which presents the question: How can the 3rd poorest and most corrupt nation in the world, with a Gross National Product of $16 billion, morph into a major ally? Exactly what does "security and defense cooperation"actually translate into in definable parameters? How did the security and defense of Afghanistan become a strategic objective of U.S.policy? Why would we even care?

It matters naught if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is securely defended since we invaded that country to defeat al Qaeda and to neutralize their threat to the American Homeland. The two concepts are not reliant on each other.

We should remember that President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger offered the South Vietnamese our pledge of support in 1970 and '71, then threw in the towel shortly thereafter. Surely the Afghan leadership has not forgotten that lesson, for all of Mr. Obama's convection to move "Forward!", and not be troubled by such things as prosecuting our own war criminals.

Surely Mr. Karzai also notes that John Yoo, torture memoist, cannot be prosecuted for his illegal work. Mr. Obama is behaving at home like the member of a partnership who must suck it up and give a pass for the bad behavior of his household members for the sake of peace in the house. It is not a very strong position.

Legal concepts are the basis of our Constitution, and words express these concepts. Mr. Obama is a Constitutional law specialist, so they say. The words, "Advise and consent" by the Senate express the needful basis of a binding treaty between partner countries. Anything shy of that bar is an unconstitutional exercise of Executive power.

Is Obama sampling Afghan poppy products when he signs such agreements?