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!!

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?

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.

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

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.