Actually, Andrew Bacevich, the correct answers are ...

... Nothing long-term positive that I can think of, Body counts!, No, No, and No, but your point, sir, is well-taken, nonetheless.

“If you think back to 1980,” Bacevich tells Donahue, “and just sort of tick off the number of military enterprises that we have been engaged in that part of the world, large and small, you know, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia — and on and on, and ask yourself, ‘What have we got done? What have we achieved? Is the region becoming more stable? Is it becoming more Democratic? Are we enhancing America’s standing in the eyes of the people of the Islamic world?’ ‘The answers are, ‘No, no, and no.’ So why, Mr. President, do you think that initiating yet another war in this protracted enterprise is going to produce a different outcome?”

I have not actually watched this interview, because I'm sure I'll agree with everything else he says, but it's out there if you want it.

(h/t: LibertyBelleJ)

Line of the Day: 2012-12-05

From “The Conflict Against Al Qaeda and its Affiliates: How Will It End?”, a talk given by Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense, at the Oxford Union, Oxford University, on 30 November 2012.

“War” must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. War permits one man – if he is a “privileged belligerent,” consistent with the laws of war — to kill another. War violates the natural order of things, in which children bury their parents; in war parents bury their children. In its 12th year, we must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the “new normal.” Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives.

(source | via)

See what happened because Obama cut the defense budget???1?

Which I don't doubt at least a few wingnuts will exclaim, in response to this news:

U.S. drone hijacked by GPS hack?

A U.S. stealth drone in Iranian hands was hijacked by using software that spoofed GPS coordinates, forcing it to land at those coordinates, the Christian Science Monitor reported today.

The really disturbing part?

Military officials have known about the aircraft's GPS vulnerability since 2003, according to a published report cited by The Register.

Which only proves once again that Obama uses time travel because he hates America so much.

Unsurprising News of the Day

How often does the Pentagon award contracts to defense companies that have already been proven to be defrauding taxpayers? A report the Department of Defense did at the request of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reveals an answer that should make Washington very uncomfortable.

The report, released today, showed that hundreds of defense contractors found guilty of civil fraud received more than $1.1 trillion in defense contracts since 2001. The study took into account only companies that were found to have defrauded taxpayers of more than $1 million dollars.

But still, you should read the whole thing.

Another of our Sisyphean trips up the hill

Nicholas Kristof had a good column a few days ago about cutting military spending. John Quiggin's comments on it are even better, including this nice variation on the old "wouldn't it be great if the Air Force had to hold a bake sale" bumper sticker:

An obvious reason for the focus on military spending is that Americans have massive confidence in their military and much less in their education system, particularly the public school systems.

Yet judged by results, the opposite should surely be the case. Why is this so?

The US military has fought five large-scale wars in the past fifty years, resulting in a draw in Korea[1], a defeat in Vietnam, and three inconclusive outcomes in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. That’s a record that makes the worst inner-city public school look pretty good. At least the majority of students, even at the worst schools, end up more or less literate.

Your new Majority Leader, of course, has already announced that when discussing ways to be Fiscally Responsible™ and cut the budget, even mentioning military spending would make him cry.

Fun stat of the day, via Quiggin: we could pay for all of Afghan higher education by reducing our US troop presence by …?

243 soldiers.

And if you read the footnotes, it's probably not even close to that many.

Of course it is not that simple. Of course we are not Serious for talking about such things in such ways. Of course.

You may say that I'm a dreamer

And yeah, this is never going to happen. But can you imagine?

Ideas from history - "wealth conscription"

Hey liberals and other sad Obama fans: Need a pick-me-up?

I just finished listening to the latest episode of Liberal Oasis, and the interview of David Rees is especially good. (Starts around 32:47, if you're pressed for time. But if you have time, you don't want to miss the always delightful Bill Scher and his new-delight-to-me partner in podcasting, Traci Olsen.)

And … excitement plus! "The Return of 'Get Your War On'!"

What's that you say? You can't quite place the name David Rees? Hints: "The Moustache of Understanding" and the classic short vid, "New World Order."

Mo' Rees: best response to Lewis D'Vorkin I've read in a while.

(x-posted)

P.S. I don't always use a pencil, but when I do … stay sharp, my friends.

P.P.S. Get your PowerPoint on!

Report from the ground in Afghanistan

Here is Chris Hayes guest-hosting Rachel Maddow's show, interviewing Jeremy Scahill of Nation magazine. It's about six minutes long. I believe it originally aired 23 Nov 2010.

(alt. video link)

(h/t: Glenn Greenwald)

Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria

John Cole notes an added irony of the furor over this latest disclosure: "I have a hard time getting worked up about it - a government that views none of my personal correspondence as confidential really can’t bitch when this sort of thing happens." Note how quickly the "if-you've-done-nothing-wrong-then-you-have-nothing-to-hide" mentality disappears when it's their privacy and communications being invaded rather than yours.

I'd note an added irony: many of the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq and/or who support the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes and assassination programs -- on the ground that the massive civilians deaths which result are justifiable "collateral damage" -- are those objecting most vehemently to WikiLeaks' disclosure on the ground that it may lead to the death of innocent people. For them, the moral framework suddenly becomes that if an act causes the deaths of any innocent person, that is proof that it is not only unjustifiable but morally repellent regardless of what it achieves. How glaringly selective is their alleged belief in that moral framework.

The above from Glennzilla's latest post.

Also from him, via his Twitter feed:

• John Kampfner | The Independent: "Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority"

• Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"

• Simon Jenkins | The Guardian: "US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment/It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks' revelations"

(x-posted)

Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables

Currently dominating the front page of nytimes.com:

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks intends to make the archive public on its Web site in batches, beginning Sunday.

The anticipated disclosure of the cables is already sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could conceivably strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

[...]

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:

Read the rest.

Note in the sidebar:

State's Secrets

Day 1 of 9

It looks like this might be the NYT's index page for the series.

As you might imagine, wikileaks dot org is swamped by traffic right now.

Or 4chan has been hired by the striped pants brigade to run a DDoS attack. One of those two. [Update: Oops. Might have made a joke in poor taste there. Wikileaks claimed they were under DDoS attack five hours ago.]

__________

[Added] Here's a place to start for the Guardian's coverage: "US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis."

[Added2: Guardian liveblog here. (h/t: @PoliticallyBrit)]

@wikileaks and others are using the hashtag #cablegate, because originality is dead, or for some other reason. (Reporterbaitgate?)

(x-posted)

Damn Straight

Justin Elliot takes the NYT, the LAT, the AP, the WaPoo, the Boston Globe, and CNN (and by implication, among others) to task for shameless stenography:

Now, there are legitimate uses for anonymity in journalism. But it's hard to see how granting an administration official anonymity to advance an entirely self-serving argument -- thus removing the risk that the official can be challenged on what he or she said in the present or later on -- serves any defensible purpose.

And what self-serving argument are we talking about? The first label for this blog post may give you a hint.

[Added] Related: Fallows, "More on 'Destroy the Town'."

Nine years in, and we still don't even know who to BRIBE?

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

NYT via Wonkette.

Parenthetical Aside of the Day

In a post that went up last week, about deaths caused by the CIA’s Predator drone bombing campaign, this useful reminder from Charli Carpenter:

(Never mind the fact that as civilians, CIA agents are not entitled to wage war and would have to be considered ‘unlawful combatants’ if brought to justice.)

Of course, she's a university professor, so by definition, she's rooting for the terrorists.

P.S.  Did you know that you can keep your body count of those accidentally killed by high explosives dropped from robot airplanes Collateral Damage™ down if you simply redefine all males over 13 as non-civilians?

We are not here to create disorder. We are here to preserve disorder.

Paul Tait/Reuters reports:

KABUL — Afghans in two crucial southern provinces are almost completely unaware of the September 11 attacks on the United States and don't know they precipitated the foreign intervention now in its 10th year, a new report showed on Friday.

[...]

Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.

The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001.

"The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward the NATO military operations and made the job of the Taliban easier," ICOS President Norine MacDonald told Reuters from Washington.

Ya think?

"We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both convince them and show them that their future is better with us than the Taliban," MacDonald said.

Yep. But, really, no hurry. Any decade now.

Full ICOS report available here.

(h/t: John Cole, Michael Crowley | title: Hizzoner)

What's that I smell? I smell trial balloons.

No One Could Have Predicted. (Except everyone who read this.)

Meanwhile, the Defense Department said Thursday Afghans may not be ready to assume full responsibility for security in their country by the target date of 2014 and some U.S. forces may need to remain beyond that date.

(source | via)

Do Not Adjust Your Sets

If the bumper sticker over there at the top of the sidebar looks a little faded … well, good-bye to all that, as the man once wrote.

Looks like it's back to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Such is the lot of the liberal in these United States.

(h/t: Riley Waggaman | x-posted)

[Update] Also.

[Update] Also too.

[Update] Also also too.