1978 versus 2008: An Afghan Parallel?
After watching Charlie Wilson’s War, the viewer is left with the belief that the calculating congressman from East Texas essentially bled the Soviet treasury dry and as a result, the Kremlin collapsed. Yet, that is only part of the story.
While the movie is much more entertaining than Lions for Lambs (which is focused on Afghanistan today) both Ivan Eland and Chalmers Johnson are right to condemn the glorification of the state and its wars, including Operation Cyclone.
And as the political class lauds itself for this cunning war of attrition against the ruskies, they have created their very own moneypit in Afghanistan. Current estimates of maintaining the occupation and suppression of Iraq and Afghanistan is heading into orbit around the $5 trillion marker. This is a far cry from the $200 billion that got Larry Lindsey fired.
The antiwar presidential candidates may have exited but the questions still remain: who will have to pay for this? And what happens when that treasury goes dry? Who will star in the movie?
Kirk Hayes
March 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am
The treasury is already dry, its contents having been replaced with monopoly money. The only question remaining is how long will the world continue to accept the monopoly money we use. When the monopoly money is no longer desired, the empire will end. At this point, what will the phoenix that arises look like? Given the recent past, it will be ugly, very ugly. Not to mention savage, mean and filled with bloodlust against the only ones left for it to abuse – we, the people.
Carl Savich
March 9th, 2008 at 8:53 am
This reminds me of the myth that the American Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Wrong. The Civil War was fought to prevent the secession of the Confederate States of America. Secession is only for the other guy, not the US. Lincoln opposed freedom and democracy for the South.
There is also the myth that the sinking of the Maine caused the Spanish American War. Wrong. That war was motivated by American colonial and imperial expansionism. The US wanted to be an empire and have colonies around the globe for its expanding navy. The US wanted to control world markets and to be an empire. No one knows why or how the Maine was sunk. One finding was that an accident in the boiler caused it.
There is the myth that Germany lost World War I because of the stab in the back by Jews, Socialists, and Marxists. Wrong. Actually, a war rallies a nation and a people, as it did with Germany. Germany lost because the US entered the war and changed the balance against Germany. The US wanted to protect its loans, investments, and its economic position, not to end all wars or make the world safe for democracy as the propaganda maintained to fool the masses. It was about power.
The US occupation of Kosovo was motivated by “genocide” and “human rights”. Wrong. The US wanted to neutralize a country, Serbia, that was an obstacle to US expansion in “Southeastern Europe” (the new CIA term for the Balkans). The US had been planning the secession of Kosovo for decades. There was no genocide. It was pure lies like the WMDs in Iraq. But who cared? It was about secession and Greater Albania all along.
The war in Afghanistan united everyone in the Soviet Union and kept the USSR together. Charlie Wilson made the Soviet Union stronger, not weaker. Like any war, it unites a people and keeps a country unified. It is human nature. 9/11 united America too. What caused the Soviet Union to break up was the death of Andropov in 1982 and the emergence of Gorbachev. There was a decline in the power and role of the Soviet hardliners and a new opennes or glasnost and perestroika. Change was in the air after Andropov died. Gorbachec favored decentralization and reform, a change in the Soviet system. This was all happening in the early 1980s and without any connection to Afghanistan.
The lie that Charlie Wilson brought down the Soviet Union is just as insane as that Jews were responsible for World War I. Both are just mindless lies and delusional constructs to justify immoral or illegal actions taken. Imagine if the KGB was training Mexican terrorists to take back Tejas and give Tejanos freedom and democracy and independence. California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada would also be “liberated” and returned to Mexico. The KGB set up bases on the border with the US. Of course the US would intervene.
Similarly, the USSR could bever tolerate the Islamist extremists and the CIA on its border. It was a no brainer. It is a Catch-22. The USSR could let Muslim extremists infiltrate the USSR and commit terrorist acts with the support of the CIA. It could allow the mujahedeen to commit Beslan massacres where Muslims murder hundreds of Russian children and civilians, like the Chechen terrorists did in Moscow and elsewhere. But how would that make the USSR stronger?
US propoganda paints Afghanistan as a Soviet “adventure”, but it was necessary to prevent Beslans and Soviet 9/11s. Vietnam was an adventure, by contrast, fought for some vague reason (discredited Domino theory). In fact, Vietnam united China and the USSR and Vietnam. US planners were too psychotic to realize this. The US just kept dropping napalm bombs and the Viet Cong got stronger and stronger until they won.
Charlie Wilson should get credit for creating the mujahedeen Freedom Fighters, Ossama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and 9/11. The connection is much stronger for this claim.
Charlie Wilson is also responsible for the almost 4,000 US troops that have been killed in Iraq because if not for his role in the creation of the mujahedeen, then there would have arguably been no 9/11 and no war in Iraq.
But of course, Old Charlie won’t take credit for 9/11. But he should. He is probably the most responsible for 9/11. Take a bow Charlie. You did good.
Stanley Laham
March 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Here we go Carl,
I have to disagree with your premise, development and conclusion. The Soviet war in Afghanistan had not an iota to do with some kind of a Muslim fundamentalist threat! It was about stopping a truly existential threat from the United States and NATO. Pakistan was already Western occupied territory under the rule of Zia Ul Haq. From there the US had been undermining the soft belly of the USSR since the early fifties. It was the perfect base to launch covert operations against the USSR, including Francis Power’s infamous U2 flight. In 1978, the US was attempting to extend their influence one step closer to the Soviet Union. Secret cables were already intercepted between the government of Amin and Haq. That truely represented a massive threat to the Soviet Union, and Zbigniew Brzezinsky had well in advance calculated the untenable position such a state of affairs would put the Soviet Union in. That is why Andropov saw an intervention as imperative!
The Islamic fervor was whipped up by the US as a mean to bleed the Soviets. And it was done on a grand scale with their Saudi and Pakistani ally. The rest is history. What I can not for the life of me comprehend is why the Soviets did not react the way the US would have such as in 1961 with Cuba. The survival of Pakistan itself should have been put in the balance. Indeed, tactical nuclear weapons should have targeted Islamabad itself as the next move in this game of chess. American interference through Pakistan should have simply not been tolerated. Just like the Soviet nuclear presence in Cuba was not tolerated. I guarantee you, Brzezinsky would have back pedaled with his tail between his legs. But the Russians, it seems, can never muster the political will to go to the brink. They constantly back down while being slowly but surely reduced to the margin. It has been indeed a Domino Theory in action against them. One country after another has been ripped from their sphere of influence into the Pax Americana. And every time they have given in.
And now we come to the final act of dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia with the ripping of Kosovo from Serbian (ergo Russian) influence. And again we read today that Serbian PM Kostunica has declared that Belgrade is not seriously resisting NATO and the US and has therefore dissolved his government! What in heaven’s name is wrong with the Serbs?? Now is the time or never to call NATO’s bluff. NATO is losing ground to the meager remnants of the Taliban, yet the Serbs(and Russians) are allowing them to emasculate Serbia with impunity.
Am I missing something??
masmanz
March 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Not all wars unite a nation, only the wars in which are in response to an attack do. The war in Afghanistan did not unite the Soviets because the Soviets were not attacked by Afghans. Just as we see that 9/11 did unite America but war in Iraq is a divisive one. Although the Afghan war was not the only factor in the demise of USSR but it was one of the major factors as the Soviets dumped billions of dollars in this counterproductive endeavor. Afghanistan was never a part of the Soviet empire so your analogy with New Mexico, Nevada etc. is completely unfounded. Afghanis were not interfering with Soviet republics, even Chechnya struggle was unconnected to Afghan war. Soviet’s Afghan adventure had no relationship to Beslan or any of the soviets so-called 9/11s. Chechens have been severly brutalized by Soviets they have been fighting with or without the help of CIA for ages.
Iraq war has no connection to Afghan Mujahedeen nor to 9-11. So blaming Charlie Wilson for Bush’s follies is completely unfounded. Although, I am not too found of Charlie Wilson but let us not blame everything on him.
Afghans are not responsible for 9/11, none of the presumed perpetrators were Afghan. None of the weapons used were from the Afghan war (Charlie Wilson did not send box-cutters to Afghanistan.) The hijackers did not need any training in ‘terrorist camps.’ They took flying lessons in USA and Germany — none funded by Charlie Wilson. Although Bush administration and the neocons used 9/11 to wage war on Afghanistan, it is well known that it had no connection to Afghanistan. Just because OBL was in Afghanistan does not make Afghans the culprit. OBL could have as easily conceived of the operation sitting in Sudan, Germany or the USA.
8Ball
March 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Check out the Faber article at the MarketWatch website. Some people think that the US and global economy are soon to go into the tank and that the dollar is DOA. Spending our time arguing over the details of who did what to whom is exactly what the megalomaniacal dimwits who run the country want while they continue to ruin it.
Kenneth
March 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I don’t think there is much I can add to this, except to say that the legitimacy of the Soviet invasion is perhaps tied to the legitimacy of the PDPA’s rule as a whole. The Soviet Union did exploit increasing unrest under Mohammed Daoud Khan, triggering a riot and the subsequent massacre that deprived Khan of much of his remaining support and fomenting public outrage by way of propaganda. The Khalq faction would eventually seize power under the leadership of Hafizullah Amin and Nur Muhammad Taraki who initiated a program of violent repression. I’m therefore somewhat sceptical of your account, Stanley. Surely, the Soviets could have chosen Khan’s relatively liberal regime over the Khalq faction, given the KGB’s knowledge of the latter’s propensity for terror? Do you not think there are imperialist aspirations involved here? The adoption of Soviet-style reforms would indicate a premeditated attempt to subsume Afghanistan into the Stalinist mosaic, don’t you think? What’s your opinion of the Soviet invasion, or, indeed, of Soviet foreign policy as a whole?
Kenneth
March 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Further: the Khalqi regime proved to be instrumental in the formation and consolidation of Islamist tendencies. The USSR could have anticipated this, could it not have? In light of these facts, it is hard to accept the line that the invasion was conducted primarily for reasons of security.
Soviet War
March 9th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Amin, even if helped by General Zia, posed no threat to USSR. It is true that US used a Pakistani base to fly U2 but that was ancient history. There were no US bases in Pakistan at the time of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even if there were they would have posed no additional existential threat to Soviets. US or NATO would not have dared to attack USSR. Why the soviets decided to help Bubrak Karmel and kill Amin is hard to figure out. I guess they must have had neocon counterparts in the Polit Bureau.
Kenneth
March 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Not really. Amin had proven a feckless and brutal leader, and the Soviets intended to use the Parchami both as a replacement and political foil with which to shore up the DRA.
Stanley Laham
March 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
First Kenneth,
The soviet invasion did indeed strengthen Islamist tendencies, but the Islamists were not in possession of 30,000 nuclear warheads. It was a question of priority. US policy towards the Soviets was never one of benevolent live and let live. Its policy was one of constant encirclement and positioning for the demise of the USSR. There was nothing magnanimous in the planing of the Strategic Air Command since 1949. The land mass of the Soviet Union was constantly being overflown until the Red Army proved its capability of high altitude interception of American aircraft in 1959 with the U2 incident, and it was not until the late 60s that some parity was achieved by the Soviet Union. If you were in charge of Soviet security, there was no doubt that the greatest threat came from the Americans. Afghanistan was Soviet backyard as much as Cuba was American backyard. And by the way the Islamists would have gotten nowhere without the enormous effort of the US. It was a proxy war in every sense of the word.
Soviet,
If you believe the US had no bases in Pakistan, then you’re in denial.To argue that the US did not pose an existential threat to the Soviet Union is somewhat literally unrealistic. The Soviet Union did cease to exist!!! And it was no Deus Ex Machina.
Levar Bradley
March 9th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Wow…The civil war was not about slavery but the right for the south to exit the union? Well why did they want to leave the union? Because they didn’t want to abolish slavery. Thats a clear and present fact. Your diatribe started off with a proven falsehood. I do agree with you about the WMD lies though.
Stanley Laham
March 9th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
8Ball,
I can’t say I understand fully the technicalities presented in the article, but I can tell you that I was always weary of the inherent contradictions in those phoney gambling casinos referred to as stock markets. Their values are less based on productivity and demand than on greedy speculations. Indeed that article itself may cause a downward plunge in said markets. The current price of oil as well has nothing to do with production and demand. They did not change in the last 2 months. Greed and speculation has been the engine driving up the cost of oil.
By the way, I have never invested a penny in stocks or commodities. I have always refused to play that game!
Stanley Laham
March 9th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
If the Civil War was about abolishing slavery, than why did the Emancipation Declaration come three years after it started?
Kenneth
March 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Stanley,
Granted, it was a proxy war, and the United States did pose an immense threat to the security and well-being of the Soviet Union and its citizenry (we saw what happened when Sachs & Co. got their teeth into the country in 1992- well, I didn’t, because I was only three at the time, but I read about it), but we should not forget that the Soviets were deeply involved in the instability that preceded the invasion. The upheavals that provoked the suicidal reaction of Khan’s regime were entirely Soviet in origin. Khan, while he posed no threat to the Soviet Union, strayed precariously far from the Soviet orbit (though not into the American one) and therefore invited punishment from a basically imperialist power intent on sustaining regional hegemony. I simply cannot see anything meriting a full-blown invasion that was not the outcome of Soviet designs. Perhaps I’ve missed some vital component of the story, so I leave explication in your capable hands. Also, you didn’t quite answer my question, but I think I’ll pose a new one anyway: What did you think of the USSR in general? I do not mean to be invidious, but you seem a bit soft in your approach toward it.
Kenneth
March 9th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
For that matter, why did the blacks’ self-declared emancipator have such a colourful prior record on such matters? The concatenation of racist remarks from Lincoln prior to his presidency is hardly cause for encouragement.
Levar Bradley
March 9th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
The war in Afghanistan has quietly drained the U.S. economically. In my opinion very little has been accomplished in that country and the Taliban remains robust after nearly being destroyed in 2002. There obviously is no clear path to stability and no country seems fully committed to executing a viable plan including the U.S.. I find it funny that we chastise other countries for not putting enough troops on the ground yet we have 160,000 soldiers tied up in Iraq in a misguided costly adventure to spread democracy. The sad thing is the policy wonks on both sides have no plans to fix the problem and I fear we will continue on the downward spiral we are in militarily and economically.
Levar Bradley
March 9th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
To Stanley,
The emancipation proclamation was a culmination of enevitable change. The main economic source of the South was agriculture. This required labor. What better labor than free labor. This was not the case in the industrialized north. The funny thing is that only a few very wealthy people could afford slaves. They just sold the lie to the poor whites that free blacks would disrupt there way of living and their “status”.
As for Lincoln, sure he was a racist. It was the 1860’s. Most people were back then. I would consider Lincoln a reluctant emancipator. Sooner or later slavery was going to be abolished. It just took a bloody four year affair to speed the process up.
Joe C
March 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
While keeping slaves was surely one of the reasons the Confederate states chose to leave the Union, it was by no means the only reason and perhaps not the greatest reason.
It was certainly not the reason the Union went to war, the Union went to war to prevent the southern states from seceding, as was originally stated. There were four slave holding states still in the Union (Delaware, Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky) and slaves in those states didn’t get their freedom until Dec, 1865, months after the Civil War had ended.
Not only did the Emancipation Declaration come 3 years after the war started, it only applied to areas in rebellion, and if you read it it was clearly meant to encourage slaves to act as a behind-the-lines problem, not to free anyone that had a human right to be free. If the North cared about slavery it would have freed its own slaves first, not last.
Meanwhile, back in 2008, it seems pretty clear that Osama and Co learned their lessons from Charlie Wilson’s war. His stated goal this whole time, as Justin has pointed out time and time again, is to bankrupt the West and it looks like he’s doing a pretty damned good job of it from where I’m sitting.
The corrupted Right bellows that an Obama presidency will be celebrated by terrorists, when of course the exact opposite is true. So true that if Obama is the nominee (as I hope he will be…sort of*) we will surely see a videotape getting released around Nov 1st of Osama crowing that the fact that Obama has a chance to win is evidence that his plan to destroy us is working, when in fact Osama is desperately hoping for McCain.
* I say “sort of” because I just watched a speech of his where he goes on about transforming the whole world for democracy. I miss Ron Paul already :(
Levar Bradley
March 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
The Slave debate can go on forever. I definately am not under the impression that the North had a saving grace mentality. Sherman had no use for the slaves that were liberated if i’m not mistaken. There were other factors without a doubt.
As for the present situation in Afghanistan. I absolutely agree that Osama has to be pleased to have the U.S. tied up in two wars that have drained us economically. There is more than one way to skin a cat and it is clear that Osama sees this. Gas prices, weak dollars, and spiraling war costs are all playing agianst us with no end in sight.
Stanley Laham
March 10th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Let me try to acknowledge your question briefly because it is getting a bit late. If I seem soft on the Soviet Union, it is because I sincerely believe that it rendered a great service to what became known as the Third World. It allowed it to be born.
After WWII, the great colonial powers, considerably weakened by Hitler, still tried to reimpose their supremacy over their colonial holdings. From Indonesia to the Congo, from Vietnam to Angola, from Algeria to Madagascar, the Western Powers displayed a brutal bestiality to re-subjugate the peoples who were now aspiring for liberty and independence. Were it not for the help of the Soviet Union, this “revolution of rising expectations” would have been nipped at the bud. It was the only country that Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth could turn to for help. It was the other great pole that provided balance in the post war world. Without it, the Suez Canal would still be a Franco-British company. Need I say more? If so, I will continue tomorrow.
By the way, I wrote a little narrative back in 05 entitled “The Taking of Tigert Hall: Reminiscences from a Bygone Era”. Check out its synopsis on Amazon.
subHuman
March 10th, 2008 at 3:43 am
ALA Afghanistan Liberation Army) and ILA (Iraq Liberation Army) will not surrender till the last terrorist serving the Evil Empire is gone.
Freedom and Liberty are UNIVERSAL desires and Evil Empire in spite of being the best equipped TERRORIST and BULLY on the globe can not and will not enslave HUMANITY.
Freedom ALWAYS wins.
Will be very interesting to watch how people living there react when humanity starts rejecting monopoly money?
Eugene Costa
March 10th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Display of unaccountability defines status as a member of the elite.
In order to be unaccountable one must err or transgress.
For unaccountability to be displayed error or transgression must be displayed.
Genuine incompetence is the most reliable path to error and transgression and their display.
Ergo: Given competition and over time the elite will approach and display complete incompetence in all its acts and their immunities.
Kenneth
March 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Er, yes, you could say more. I cannot bring myself to believe that the USSR’s support for third world nationalism was born of anything but opportunism. I am not, however, in a position to assess the effects of the Soviet Union on the third world. Please continue.
City Buddha
March 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
It is about the pipelines stupid. Nothing else matters. The soviets got their line going west and got out. Now the US wants a line going south east. Once Exon & company have built the pipe lines and have them secured, the US & Canadian military will go home and leave the mess to NATO.
All this garbage about ultra militants, they are protecting their homes. What would you do if I rammed my way into your home and told you to leave?
Kenneth
March 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am
In fact, why don’t we continue this exchange in private? You can email me at hzrdbaal@netscape.net. I’ve been wanting such a correspondence for some time.
Vassili
March 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
OK – there are so many biased opinions here. I will not say anything about the US Civil War.
But speaking of the USSR and Afgan war. Afgan war did NOT unite the nation, and it played a major role in the USSR collapse.
Unlike what americans have been brainwashed in relation to Russia – over here the Govt. is controlled by the people to a greater extent :-) but not with a formal procedure. That was the main reason for Communist’s tyrany – not the lack of love of freedom, but the excess. People in the West and in the US are allowing to their Govts much more then I have seen in my life since 1972 (which is the time I started to think about politics – i.e. my first naive child political question – “Why there is no King or Tsar in our country any more?” – and my mother was not able to answer, just told me – “You will understand later, but it’s a sad story”)
So – the monent the “moral capital” gained in 2nd World War by Soviet Govt. was completely wasted in Afgan War – the country collaped.
So – one very popular movie in Russia – “Brother-2″, the main character comes to the US to do justice to an american oligarh, which is of course is in concert with his oligarh friends in Russia. The dialoge (monologue) goes as follows:
“Tell me American – who has the Power? You think – Money is Power? Well, my brother (his brother decided to migrate to the US) also thinks that Money is Power. But I think that the ultimate Power is Truth – and the one that acts in accordance with Truth – Wins in the end” – having said that he instantly kills him by a precise shot from his automatic weapon with a silencer. No noise, no sadistic “last moments”.
Then he has enough time to get to the airplane and get out of the US as quickly as possible, being assisted from couple non-oligarh american friends.
So – the final moment of Truth as approaching. Russia would win in a nuclear conflict – there is not enough time for the US to build the SDI system before the bancrupcy happens. Therefore, we have some chance of not taking part in the WW-III.
Need I to remind you that the reason why Germany got into WW-II was a choice they had – either war on bancrupcy in 2 years. BUT – this is a lesson from history that does not teach US elite – wars started to avoid bancrupcy are not won. They are not JUST. There is no Truth behind them. Therefore there is no Power.
Indeed – bona fide external threat does unite the Nation – the vote for Medvedev was indeed 70%. I have looked at the elections. People were coming and calmly casting their votes. Not the Putin or Medvedev are ideal. But this time is no time to get into petty political disputes when mortal threat is that close.
Very soon we’ll see if the USA would be able to exist into the 21st century. But I doubt – both elite and the people in the US have totally lost the contact with the reality. They have lost the Truth and that is one thing that this world does not excuse for.
Well – I knew that perfectly well in 2003… I just did not knwo that it is THAT bad, and that Iraq war would mean an and to the US as we have known for last 200 years. Bye bye US dollar bill – soon they would be only a collectable item. Sad. USSR, then USA. Sad.
Stanley Laham
March 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Kenneth,
Their intention was irrelevant. Their effect though was irrefutable. One can argue the merits or evils of the Soviet Union, but that they seriously inhibited the ambitions of the western powers is undeniable. The proof is simply what we have today. Iraq and Yugoslavia must surely regret its demise. As George Bush The First said in his address to Congress in 1991 as the Soviet Union was crumbling: “From now on, what America says goes!”. More infamous words have never been spoken.
To ascribe whatever motive to the actions of the Soviets is theory. The effect they had is reality. As Thomas Moore told the kangaroo court assembled to condemn him by interpreting his intentions: “The world may judge me according to its wits, but you must judge according to the law!”
MetaCynic
March 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Stanley:
Perhaps, as you argue, stock prices are more a function of speculation than of economic fundamentals. But then in an era of global unbacked fiat currencies, where can working people safely park their savings?
In saving accounts or money market funds paying almost no interest, their nest egg will be savaged by inflation and taxes. Witness the 97% loss of purchasing power of the dollar since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. The current rapid collapse of the dollar via foreign currencies and in particular gold is a creature of fractional reserve banking.
Real estate is a possibility, but prices have advanced far beyond people’s incomes and all other fundamentals. The ongoing price correction is going to be very painful. Besides, real estate is by its nature illiquid. How does one withdraw, say $5,000 of equity, without a home equity loan and the accompanying unwanted interest payment?
The only viable liquid alternative for most is the stock market. Yet very few “investors” understand what they are doing, and speculative waves generated by the Fed’s credit creation will certainly roil the markets. Even professional money managers can rarely outperform the indexes for more than a few years.
What is rarely acknowledged in the financial world is that historically gold and silver are the working man’s best friend. They hold their value. In 1964 a gallon of gas cost $0.25. One can still purchase a gallon of gas with a 1964 silver quarter! The price of oil hasn’t gone up. The dollar has gone down. Inflation, in reality a hidden tax on the poor and middle class, has eroded the purchasing power of the dollar and all other currencies. In the gold dollar era century prior to 1913, consumer prices had actually declined.
The entire purpose of central banks and fiat currencies is to avoid overt tax increase by allowing unlimited credit creation to finance modern out of control government spending including wars and perpetual preparation for war all of which would not be tolerated by taxpayers under a gold standard.
MetaCynic
March 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
They left the Union because of ruinous tariffs that were designed to protect Northern manufacturers at the expense of the South which, of course, preferred to trade their cotton for less expensive European manufactured goods.
Lincoln, in his first inaugural address even offered to support a constitutional amendment which would forever protect slavery if only the South would remain in the Union. During his presidency Lincoln even seriously considered deporting all Blacks to either Central America or Africa. What the history books fail to acknowledge, is that Lincoln was a white supremacist.
The sentiment in the North was virulently racist. Except for a handful of abolitionists there was no popular support to fight a war to free the slaves in the South. For example Blacks were allowed to vote in only 4 Northern states. It was even illegal for Blacks in Lincoln’s home state of Illinois to move there to work. Lincoln’s armies were equal opportunity war criminals as they rampaged through the South indiscriminately killing both black and white civilians.
Slavery throughout the Western world was abolished during the 19th century without resorting to war to do so. If Lincoln was really interested in abolishing slavery, he could have used his considerable political skills to do so. Instead he chose to go to war to destroy the autonomy of the states in order to erect an almighty central government whose powers have been escalating ever since. We are still reaping the toxic legacy of this monster.
Stanley Laham
March 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Very interesting. Though your last paragraph is somewhat convoluted. I have no idea what one is to do. I doubt that there is enough gold and silver for everyone to possess it.
Bill K.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Well it is false to think the Taliban were “destroyed” in 2002. It is impossible to destroy them when the Pashtun population, which supports them, has around 40 million people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 2002 they simply blended into the background and began rebuilding their insurgent bases and supply lines from staging areas in Pakistani tribal areas(with Pashtun majorities). They simply reverted back to their old ways and began the standard attacks against convoys and hit and run attacks against NATO troops.
You can’t defeat them without wiping out the Pashtun population, which is about 40% of the population in Afghanistan and is strongest in the southern and eastern regions.
MetaCynic
March 10th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Stanley:
The principle to understand here is that money must be something of value. It must also be homogenous, portable, scarce and durable. So in spending money to buy something, one is in reality exchanging one thing of value for something else of value. Over the eons, silver and gold, already valued in Jewelry, had evolved globally as the premier money because of their physical properties and relative scarcity.
You’re right that gold is so scarce that if all the above ground gold estimated to exist were apportioned equally amongst the world’s population, each person would receive about 0.4 ounce and probably not much more silver. There is also an industrial and jewelry demand for the two metals that would further reduce their availability as money.
However it’s not important that we can jingle some gold or silver coins in our pockets. We can continue to use paper and other familiar forms of money so long as they are backed by something of value and that these money substitutes can be converted by their issuers into something of value upon demand. Perhaps money substitutes for large commercial transactions can be backed by some other commodity or a basket of commodities. The important thing is to prevent counterfeiting and to punish it as fraud. Competing moneys, convertibility on demand and the threat of bank runs as well as treating counterfeiting as a serious crime would all act as a deterrent to over issuance of money substitutes. The volume of commodity based money would then increase as the world’s volume of commodity wealth backing it also increased.
Compare a stable commodity based money to today’s worldwide fiat currencies backed by nothing and the bias of governments everywhere to inflate their currencies and thus rob savers. With a commodity based money, those who don’t feel comfortable speculating in the various “investment” casinos can simply stuff their savings under a mattress confident that they will retain their value over the years.
Of course commodity based currencies are unlikely to be voluntarily adopted anywhere until the maximum plunder through fiat currencies has transpired and they then disappear in a global bonfire of hyperinflation.
Bill K.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Charlie Wilson’s War” was at best Revisionist History. Not only did US involvement in Afghanistan begin much earlier than the movie suggests(likely began around the time the Shah ruled Iran), and actual US agitation against the USSR began in the Summer of 1979 as Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted. There was a real plan to lure Soviet troops into Afghanistan and not just 1,000 or so military engineers and military advisers that had been brought in by Afghan communists a year earlier(so the December 1979 “invasion” was actually a “surge”). A US supported tribal uprising spread quickly and the Afghan government under Amin began to lose control and resort to brutal acts of mass killings which quickly turned the people against the government. The Soviet government under Leonid Brezhnev could not deal with such negative PR and decided to remove Amin and install a less violent government. This required the Soviet Army to put down the pro-Islamic rebellion and restore order(they also instituted reforms that gave women rights and allowed education for majority).
Of course in the US this was characterized as a brutal invasion. What has been said above by certain posters is true, the Soviets could not allow more Islamic fundamentalist states to appear on their border because there were over 50 million Muslims in the USSR’s Central Asian regions. The Civil Wars that hit those regions in the 1990’s were predicted in the 1970’s. This is why the USSR supported Saddam Hussein’s secular government against Iran and sought to undermine Islamic movements in Afghanistan.
The US government had other ideas and Charlie Wilson supported those ideas. In the movie they try to characterize the Mujahideen as Refugees turned soldiers headed by Ahmed Shah Massoud, which is not true. Massoud was a Tajik tribal chief that did fight the Soviet Army initially, but over time began cooperating with pro-Soviet forces against his enemies in the Pashtun minority. Massoud received virtually no support from the US. Many Tajiks and Uzbeks backed the Soviet moves(and joined the Soviet Afghan Army) and had connections to the Soviet citizens of the same ethnic background. The Northern Alliance that brought down the Taliban is made up of these 2 ethnic groups. The actual US allies were people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was/is an anti-social bloodthirsty Warlord who has likely killed more innocent Afghans than the Soviet invasion. He likely had drug-running and weapons smuggling on his resume when he and his buddies were leveling Kabul several times in a row during the 1990’s. And these are the kind of people that received CIA aid and Stinger missiles. People who were obviously absent from “Charlie Wilson’s War”.
Jerry Greenberg
March 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
You are correct. International vendors would be crazy to accept American green paper in payment, even if compelled to do so at bayonet point.
We need to go back to the gold standard.