Afghanistan: The Contest

My only thoughts on this, is I would like to see the videos submitted, because to quote Rachel Maddow I need to be 'talked down' about why it does matter. I understand the premise behind providing the Afghans with a better standard of living in order to counter act the level of hate and radical extremism directed towards America and other powerful democratic nations. At one point, however, should our efforts and resources be more focused on our own country and standard of living? Colbert was onto something in Iraq when he joked that when the troops are done there they will be deployed to Detroit for its rebuilding efforts.

there is nothing to say .. it doesn't matter at all .. not a whit

After learning of the work Greg Mortenson has done in northern Pakistan and Afghaistan, I think they're fishing in too small a pool for that viral video that can make a difference. They need to go to the NGO's that don't work directly with military personnel. That is, if they're really trying to find such a video, or if, indeed, such a video can be found… Yeah, the fact that they’re asking the rank and file to render ideas that appear to be directly related to the purpose of the mission AFTER investing so much in both monetary and human terms, is disturbing.

And the Bush administration's intent focus on Iraq distracted the government from domestic issues. While they could not have prevented the failure of the financial industry (they didn't believe in heavy government regulation), they could have at least done a serious attempt at improving the country as a whole.

This is possible even in a conservative government, where the government could provide tax cuts to companies that take on infrastructure jobs deemed critical to the success of the country. I am not saying this is better than the approach taken by the Obama administration, but I am pointing out that it would have been possible for Bush to pursue infrastructure improvement while maintaining his principles.

Yet instead, the administration was almost entirely devoted to conducting a foreign war with absolutely no coordination, at the expense of the national infrastructure.

Who but those with first-hand, on-the-ground information have a better insight to the tactical result? I contend noone. Conversely, they aren't always as read into the strategic implications or as cognizant of what the differences between the two are. I think the results will be interesting but shouldn't necessarily be the driving force in any change of direction.

I can see how we got into the muck we are in today. We are in a world that has no purpose beyond the next hot issue driven opinion poll. Long range goals like environmental stability, population management, life quality optimization, energy security, water and food quality control and public education just don't have a chance. The human race is going through endless cycles of media induced raids on our conscious focus. We don't have the uninterrupted time to think about meaningful opportunities, let alone consider committing to them for several years.

We have succeeded in disenfranchising ourselves and have become helpless witnesses to our own decent as a species that had so much potential. Critical thought has given way to sensational reaction and the Philistines are driving the agenda of history. Darwin would not be surprised.

Your comments ring true BUT, we STILL have potential as a species. All those birds with twisted beaks etc. that Darwin observed ran into the same kind of make or break decision we are faced with in How or WHY we conduct wars or generally tolerate pillaging and looting as long as the spokesperson is wearing a designer suit. This site proves there is still HOPE, now to put feet to our prayers as my Mom used to say

What I think is marketing ploys like this aren't about finding the person with the best statement to express to everyone else, they're about encouraging people to think more about the circumstances they are about to engage in creating a video (or other media).

It's not about who the video will get to, it's about who will feel compelled to make a video. It's not about putting together the right statement, it's about engendering thought and conversation on the topic.

The contest on the topic is meaningful?

The result from the contest: no one is absolutely right.

Jack you've expressed my dissapoinymrnt/frustratioln very nicely. The causes are intetwined, and ugly. The only solution I can offer is to drive public policy by representatives who are absolutely uncorrupt. To that end I offer the notion that public officials should sign a binding 'agreement of poverty'. Something that allows for a very simple and immediate recall process, and retribution, should the 'public servant' be involved in extortion, nepotism, or favoratism. I'll go farther and say their 'benefits' (health care and retirement at least) should be no better than those of the lowest among us. Perhaps then they'd take working 'in the common good' more seriously.

Well, perhaps 'poverty' is a bit too dramatic, but at least they should agree that they nor their family will in no way make any financial gains in or from pulic service. Service is a sacrifice, and that has meaning. An agreement can be drafted, publicized, and grassroots funding should go to DEFEAT politicians who won't agree to sign a binding 'non-profit public service' agreement. We the peole can start a media fund to defeat potential 'profiteers' who won't agree. There now, how about that?

I wouldn't need a video to say why Afghanistan matters. IMNSHO, it doesn't–except to the Afghani people. For the rest of the world, it's just another way of getting bogged down in an impossible morass and a bottomless pit. We don't learn much, if anything at all, from history. Do we?

Since I can't controll the inevitable, so my way of dealing with things is clear and uncomplicated.

I think about the next most important thing I want to deal with and start spending time on it daily. Some things take years and may never happen, some things become irrelevent and some things come about.

Why help Afghanistan? Well, among other reasons, because the United States promised to help — years ago. And, remember, the Afghanistan people were behind the United States when we went chasing after Osama bin Tinycock — evem after we bombed the hell out of their country. The Northern Alliance, in fact, was the muscle of the military groundforce. (Yes, I know they had their own selfish motives; isn't that true of all allies?)

Imagine if we had devoted a fraction of the money we've spent in Iraq to helping out Afghanistan. Maybe, at minimum, every-other-birth there wouldn 't end with a dead mother and a baby that will be lucky to make it past age 5.

And if dead mothers and dieing babies don't do it for you, helping Afghanistan is unquestionably in our own self-interest. One Pakistan is dangerous enough. But two of them?

Dear Spencer Ackerman, We are working on our indy coverage at Talk Nation Radio, syndicated with Pacifica. Following the major European news networks we have come to understand the latest major offensive in Afghanistan as follows:

BBC reported early on in the new drive into Helmand province that the 4000 US Military and 650 cooperating Afghan forces are, “Trying to drive the Taliban out before presidential elections in the country this August”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_812000…

BBC America coverage included phrasing about an offensive that was similar in scale to the US assault on Fallujah. They didn't note which one. — My take then is that Americans will know as little about what has really happened in Helmund as they did about what happened in Fallujah during sieges there in 2004. We were fortunate to be able to hear directly from three people who were there to witness what took place. Jo Wilding, UK, Dahr Jamail and Rahul Mahajan, USA. Many civilian deaths, not allowing military age males, over something like 11 years, to leave the city prior to US air and ground attacks. Attacks on ambulances and on medical clinics. By the time NPR's Ann Garrels covered the story that year she offered her analysis that it might be difficult for Americans to try Saddam Hussein over his revenge assaults in Dujail after what took place in Fallujah. We assumed that was because she had heard Iraqis say this. Garrels never mentioned the story again. –Our take on Afganistan would be to compare the coverage of the two events, Fallujah, Iraq, and now Helmund, Afghanistan.

NPR and PBS news programs have featured interviews with an embedded WaPo reporter who said the US mission in Helmund is not to do a lot of home raids but to win over Afghanis to their larger goal of 'protecting' them from the Taliban. This may compare best to the pacification programs that went on during the US war in Indochina. Pacification included lots of mass arrests, carpet bombing, and killing of those who didn't want to shift loyalties. We should do more coverage on the reality of what Afghan civilians face, farmers who are already caught between militants and oppressive drug lords may not be in any position to shift loyalties to the USA. They might also recall that during the 1980s the USA armed and funded some of the very same drug and war lords they now fear and must obey.

In other words the story won't translate well into short form video that mimics US corporate press coverage as it is right now.

Meanwhile, FOX, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC with exception of course of Olberman and Maddow, are offering coverage that reminds us of early coverage of Iraq invasion. As we recall US soldiers were shown entering Baghdad with sacks of candy to give to kids. There were some staged scenes of soldiers being welcomed by Iraqis with US flags in their hands. Then there was the statue toppling extravaganza. Hopefully we will get better coverage as weeks go on but we count on the alternative news sources for the best info. Thanks!!

[...] comment labeling the effort as “transparent and [anemic] PSYOP.”  Spencer Ackerman, in his post on the Washington Independent’s blog, asked whether the video contest means “NATO governments [...]