Why an Election Couldn’t Fix Afghanistan

Published on TIME.com:

Little over a week ago, Senator John Kerry was hailed for his diplomatic success in Kabul, where he cajoled President Hamid Karzai into accepting a runoff in the disputed Afghan election. But Sunday’s withdrawal from the race by Karzai’s challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, rendered Kerry’s achievement moot. Moreover, it was an outcome the U.S. had come around to rooting for.

The fact that U.S. officials in Kabul had pivoted within a matter of days from insisting that a runoff be held to pressing for it to be canceled highlighted the problem with the U.S.’s obsession on staging elections in conflict zones. Such elections, though often held up (with the U.S. domestic political audience in mind) as examples of democracy’s triumph, can actually undermine U.S. goals in those situations. Contrary to the Obama Administration’s spin, resolving the dispute over the fraudulent ballots in Afghanistan’s August election was never the key to determining whether to send more U.S. troops into the country. In fact, the runoff election was never going to strengthen the legitimacy of the resulting government; it was always more likely to further weaken it.
(See pictures of the presidential election in Afghanistan.)

Elections typically only resolve a conflict when the major parties to that conflict have accepted the balloting and its ground rules as the basis for a solution. And that was no more the case in Afghanistan today than it was in the U.S. in 1864, when a presidential election was held during the Civil War. Nobody imagined that the electoral contest between President Abraham Lincoln and General George B. McClellan was the country’s primary political battle; nor was the contest between Karzai and Abdullah the key conflict in Afghanistan. Instead, Afghanistan is in the grip of a civil war that pits a U.S.-backed political establishment, which includes both Karzai and Abdullah, against the Taliban.

In that light, the main legitimacy problem with the August vote was not the 1 million–plus fake votes that were cast mostly for Karzai but the 12 million–plus votes claimed by the Taliban. No one actually voted for the Taliban, of course, and its call for a boycott of the poll was enforced by threat of death. But whether out of fear, political choice or sheer indifference, 12 million voters — representing 70% of the electorate, compared with just 30% in 2004 — stayed away from the ballot stations. A runoff election was expected to see an even smaller turnout. Read the rest here

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Stalled

Published in the National on Sunday:

The surest sign yet that the Iranian nuclear deal is in deep trouble is its endorsement by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“A positive first step,” Mr Netanyahu called the deal. This was in marked contrast to his own defence minister, Ehud Barak, who complained earlier that the agreement accorded Iran “legitimisation for enriching uranium for civilian purposes on its soil, contrary to the understanding that those negotiating with it have about its real plans”.

Mr Barak and Mr Netanyahu march in lockstep when it comes to Iran. The reason for their apparent disagreement is simple. Mr Barak dismissed the proposed deal when it looked as if Iran might accept it. Mr Netanyahu’s approval came only after Iran’s response was interpreted by the western powers as a “no”.

The proposed deal used Iran’s request for fuel to power a medical research reactor in Tehran as an opportunity to address western concerns over Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which could produce enough material for a single crude bomb at some point in the future. The Vienna agreement required that Iran send around three-quarters of its own stockpile to Russia and France for processing into fuel that cannot easily be weaponised.

The breakdown arose precisely because the two sides remain committed to mutually exclusive objectives. The more hawkish elements in the western camp, along with Israel, insist that Iran cannot be allowed to continue enriching its remaining uranium, even for energy purposes, because this would give it the means to move quickly to build a bomb. Tehran, on the other hand, saw the agreement as tacit acceptance of Iran’s right to enrichment. So when Mr Netanyahu spoke of a “first step”, he meant a first step towards ending all enrichment in Iran – which is what Iran feared. Read the rest here

Posted in Situation Report | 9 Comments

Obama’s Afghanistan Vaudeville


John Kerry was the toast of the spoon-fed media last week for his ostensible “achievement” in cajoling Hamid Karzai into accepting a runoff election in Afghanistan. Where was Richard Holbrooke, the sophisticates who indulge in Beltway kremlinology asked, as if his absence from this supposed “breakthrough” moment was telling. The reality, of course, is that Kerry’s insistence on standing behind Karzai, as if twisting the visibly uncomfortable U.S.-installed president’s arm as he announced a humiliating retraction of his insistence that he’d won the election on its first round, simply confirmed that the failed U.S. presidential candidate from Massachusetts is a political dolt. But the announcement — a delicious propaganda moment for the Taliban, who insist that Karzai is an obedient servant of the U.S. — was not half as damaging as the political gambit it showcased: Forcing Karzai to accept a runoff election which even the U.S. knows is a farce — so much so, that Washington is now hard at work trying to press Karzai into a power sharing deal so as to avoid the very runoff they had insisted was a precondition for sending more troops.

The fact that the Obama Administration asked us to believe that sorting out the matter of about a million fraudulent ballots would somehow decide whether Washington would send the 40,000 or more troops its commanders on the ground had asked for suggests that they really are no different from the Bush Administration in the extent to which they think we’re stupid.

As I put it in the National this week,

the argument [that resolving the ballot fraud issue is the key to establishing a legitimate government] is a red herring. Sure, those ballots were fraudulent, but the far more significant threat to the legitimacy of the next government was that more than 12 million of Afghanistan’s approximately 17 million voters stayed away from the polls in response to a violently enforced Taliban boycott (in contrast to the 70 per cent turnout in the 2004 presidential election). The Taliban were by far the biggest winners in the first round of voting, and the turnout for Mr Karzai and his opponent Dr Abdullah Abdullah is unlikely to increase in the second round; on the contrary, it is expected to decline.

The organisation of the run-off borders on farce. The UN has sacked some 200 of the 380 senior polling officials on suspicion of complicity in fraud; they have to be replaced, and whole new cadres of balloting officials hired, within two weeks. Western officials don’t sound confident that massive fraud can be avoided in a second round.

…It’s far from certain, though, that the run-off vote will go ahead – and nor does the US necessarily want it to. As one report put it last week: “Western officials also continued advocating a power-sharing compromise to avoid the problems of a second round of voting.” Problems? You would think Washington might have thought about those before forcing Mr Karzai to accept a second round.

Then again, cynics read the pressure for a run-off as a device to bring an increasingly insubordinate protege back under US tutelage by forcing him to share power; after all, the Americans have made clear all along that they accept the inevitability of the incumbent remaining president, even after a second vote.

Being forced into the run-off is certainly a slapdown for Mr Karzai, a tribal leader parachuted in by the US in early 2002 who understood that his only prospect of survival lay in cutting deals with the myriad warlords who control Afghanistan’s hinterland, and in ritually denouncing those aspects of the western military presence in his country – such as air strikes – that most antagonised the Afghans. The Taliban, of course, have always maintained that Mr Karzai is a US stooge, and last weekend it looked as if Mr Kerry was trying to prove their point.

Indeed, the song and dance over the runoff election is primarily aimed at a domestic audience. After all, President Obama looks set to dramatically escalate U.S. military involvement there. And so the folks back home need a good fairy tale to sustain that commitment. (Those being the folks on Capitol Hill, of course, who are also prone to fantasies that “training” hundreds of thousands of Afghans will turn them into an army ready to fight the Taliban. Curiously enough, the American electorate is far more skeptical of this war than its elected leaders are.)

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , , , | 15 Comments

More Iran Hysteria from the NY Times

The surest sign that another neocon bill of goods is being hawked in respect of the Iran “nuclear peril” is the revival of Rumsfeld-esque “unknowable unknowns”, a la Iraq WMD panic circa late 2002. In the real world, of course, solid progress is being made towards a plausible diplomatic deal to strengthen safeguards against Iran weaponizing the nuclear material it is producing. (See my latest on this at TIME.com)

But in the fevered world of the neocons, which the New York Time has, once again, bought into wholesale, the progress is illusory; Iran is playing games by only showing us the tip of the iceberg. Utterly shameless in its willingness to repeat the Judith Miller debacle, the Times tells us that Iran at Geneva agreed “to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium” to Russia for reprocessing into fuel rods for a medical research facility. Twice more in the story it uses the phrase “declared stockpile” — unmistakably signaling the reader that he or she ought to believe that Iran, of course, has other stocks of enriched uranium that are undeclared.

This new neocon talking point is explicitly elaborated by Michael Crowley in the New Republic: “It’s definitely good news that Iran has agreed to ship a large quantity of its low-enriched uranium out of the country. Every pound of the stuff that leaves Iran is a pound less that they can use for a bomb. But an agreement isn’t a shipment. And if there are more Qom-like secret enrichment facilities–which is likely–then Iran may have more enriched uranium than we know, and has the luxury of making a public show of giving some away.”

The New York Times may think it’s a serious newspaper, but not when it comes to Iran, where it is simply reprising the role of Fox News-for-the-arugula-crowd that it played in support of the Iraq invasion.

Writing about Iran’s “declared” facilities implies that there are undeclared ones. This is what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called an “unknowable unknown” in the buildup to war in Iraq. Nobody knows that Iran has such undeclared stocks, nor has any evidence to that effect been cited by the IAEA or by U.S. intelligence. It’s simply a guess.

And a pretty stupid guess at that. If Iran was, indeed, secretly stockpiling enriched uranium, with all the risks that entailed, the only rationale for doing so would be to build a bomb. In which case, they wouldn’t confine themselves to the 4% enrichment of their “declared” stocks, which are suitable only for reactor fuel; they’d have enriched that material to the upward of 90% necessary to make weapons-grade materiel. Otherwise, why bother to keep it secret?

But if Iran already has stockpiles of weapons grade uranium, then the whole process of engagement is a farce. Sanctions, too. Because it means Iran essentially already has the key component of a bomb. And, of course, the vaunted “military option” still on Obama’s “table” would be a joke — if nobody knows where the “undeclared” facilities are, they can’t be bombed.

Having done its bit to create a climate for war against Iraq, the New York Times is once again carrying water for the neocons. Unwittingly, I’m sure, because I wouldn’t want to suggest that such a venerable institution had an “undeclared” agenda.

Posted in A Skeptical Read, Situation Report | Tagged , , , | 20 Comments

The Travels of Abu Mazen…

Sometimes, pictures render words superfluous…

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , , , | 18 Comments

Bruce Springsteen at 60: A Personal Appreciation

Guest Column: My good friend Gavin Evans pays tribute to Bruce Springsteen, who proved to be a remarkable companion on Gavin’s emotional and political journey.

I always was a sucker for prolonged crushes, but this one, well, it has survived longer than most and is unlikely to fade: we’ve been through a lot together, you see. Time then to shout if from the rooftops (though, come to think of it, I haven’t exactly held back previously). So…. on your 60th birthday, take a bow, rock-n-roll’s finest lyricist.

Oh, I know there are other songwriters who possess wonderful ways with words but Bruce Springsteen is a lyricist of a different kind: a story-teller who spins yarns with a profundity few can match. Bruce’s writing hero is Philip Roth, but his own deceptively simple approach is closer to Raymond Carver: little stories about big things, and he tells them in the voice of characters on the edge, who embrace cliché only to turn it on its head, who feel at once unique and for all time.

Lyrics are not the same thing as poetry, and those who pretend they are – by, say, giving students Bob Dylan to read alongside WH Auden – are silly (I prefer the approach of the poet Simon Armitage, who gives Dylan to his students as an example of how not to write poetry). The need to relate words to tunes imposes restrictions that do not exist in poetry. Still, within these confines, Springsteen’s writing has so often expanded the horizons of its chosen form.

In rock-n-roll mode the tale-telling is mediated through the rousing chorus, reaching maturity in Darkness on the Edge of Town (1978), where every song is a gem, none better than the much-covered Racing in the Street , which is as good as it gets in his early theme of the car as expression of alienation. The choice is bleak: ‘Some guys they just give up living / And start dying little by little, piece by piece / Some guys come from home from work and wash up, / And go racin’ in the street.’ Even at his lightest, this Bruce can produce writing that bites. Take Brilliant Disguise, the poppy chart-topper on Tunnel of Love, where he drops in the killer couplet, ‘God have mercy on the man/ Who doubts what he’s sure of.’

His other string is the contemporary folk song, and here, unencumbered by the demands of a pulsating chorus, he reaches heights few have approached. His apex in this genre arrived in 1982 with Nebraska , famously recorded in the kitchen with just a guitar and four-track tape recorder. It never puts a word wrong: stories about small lives that capture the spirit of a nation. While none of his subsequent work has quite the same consistent brilliance, the more overtly political Ghost of Tom Joad (1995), comes close: so specific and yet so wonderfully universal.

Bruce was raised in a Catholic, New Jersey family, his Dutch-Irish father a frequently unemployed bus driver, with whom he had a fraught relationship. He was closer to his Italian-American mother and speaks of his strong female role models (he also has two sisters). In stark contrast to most other male lyricists, the women in his songs are strong and real — friends as well as lovers — with issues of their own. (I once had a misguided girlfriend who complained Bruce was always calling his women ‘babe’ and ‘baby’. “No!” I yelled’ “You’re confusing Bruce with his characters’ — ‘and she said: “Baby if you wanna be wild/ You got a lot to learn..’ …” )

Moving on …aged seven he saw Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show and from then-on, as he put it, ‘ I learnt more from those three-minute records/ Than I ever learnt in school’. He bought his first guitar and in 1965 became lead guitarist and singer of his first band, adding piano and harmonica to his repertoire. In the later 1960s he played the eastern club circuit until signing with Columbia. His first album Greetings From Asbury Park received critical acclaim despite its wobbly production values, but bombed commercially (although Blinded by the Light , became a Manfred Mann hit). His second, The Wild, the Innocent and the E-Street Shuffle was also released to press approval and also failed commercially. Then the music critic (and subsequent Spingsteen manager) John Landau, saw one of his high-energy marathon concerts and wrote: ‘I saw the future of rock and roll and its name is Bruce Springsteen’. ‘Born to Run was a massive commercial success, capped by Bruce appearing on the covers of Time and Newsweek the same week in 1975.

This was my moment of discovery, aged 15. On the English service of Radio South Africa a late night, vaguely alternative music programme was fronted by a man called Mike Littellier who spoke in the slow tones of what passed in South Africa as post-60s cool. One evening he diverged from his usual Roxy Music dross and offered us ‘something a little different.’ Born to Run burst out of the speakers of our ancient gramophone-radio, and that was that. I devoured my father’s Time magazine and wanted more: more of that rich baritone, more of those words.

Bruce’s timing was perfect: it was a horrible spell for popular music. ‘Rock’ had lost its capacity to roll, becoming this stolid, pretentious thing — full of light shows by overblown super-groups with their drugs, orgies and hairdresser’s appointments, devoid of any capacity for self-deprecation. Soon punk would sweep them away (in Britain and New York, anyway), but in the gap between Pink Floyd and the Sex Pistols there was only Bruce, and he was there to stay. He just grew and grew from the same base, honing his writing, allowing it to absorb new influences, his observations sharper, his characterisation more real.

After three years of touring and legal disputes he came out with Darkness.., which I first heard driving across west Texas, and, again, ecstasy. As much as I loved Thunder Road and everything else about Born to Run , it was clear that Bruce had developed hugely as a writer. It paints a dark picture of a fractured, alienated, despairing working class — unblinking in its analysis and never descending into platitudes of false hope. The fast cars are a desperate escape, not a genuine source of joy and the working life is hard (And you just better believe, boy/ somebody’s gonna get hurt tonight/ It’s the working, the working, just the working life’). In the opening track, Badlands , his narrator tells how the system works: ‘Workin’ in the fields/till you get your back burned/ workin’ ‘neath the wheel/till you get your facts learned/ Baby, I got my facts/ earned real good right now/ Poor man wanna be rich/ rich man wanna be king/ And a king ain’t satisfied/ till he rules everything.’

Bruce once said the last candidate he felt able to vote for was the liberal George McGovern in 1972. ‘I want to try and work more directly with people; try to find some way my band can tie into the communities we come into I guess that’s a political action, a way to bypass the whole electoral thing,’ he added. Still, his first public political step was a curious one: the 1979 No Nukes concert, a worthy event that inadvertently exposed the telling contrast between, say, the daft fluffiness of David Nash fretting that his son might eat a nuked fish before playing the silly Our House, and the raw power of Springsteen singing The River (a heart-breaker, even if it includes the iffy rhyme, ‘I got a job working construction/For the Johnstown company/But lately there ain’t that much work/On account of the economy’).

Springsteen began using his three-hour concerts as vehicles to support striking workers and raising money for food banks, war veterans and trades unions (and he made a fat personal donation to the British Mineworkers’ strike). He’d speak from the stage and beyond about causes close to his heart — castigating Americans for their ‘racist paranoias’, for their ‘degrading attitude to women’, for their ‘knee-jerk fear of the Soviet Union’. Sometimes he went into detail — such as telling concertgoers how the interests of America’s United Fruit company prompted the Dominican Republic’s dictatorship. When Ronald Reagan was elected he called his economic policy ‘a form of racism’ and later declared his own admiration for European social democracy.

This was hardly the going rate in rock-n-roll at the time. After the 60s, most who dressed to the left became wildly inconsistent. Neil Young, for instance, flip-flopped from singing about ‘six dead in Ohio’ to backing Reagan in 1980 and back to Jessie Jackson in 84. More typically, the era was epitomised by the thrusting, misogynistic, a-political narcissism of, say, The Eagles, and there was also a rightist current creeping in, including ardent Republican Party reptiles like Joey Ramone, Sonny Bono and the NRA frontman Ted Nugent. In Britain, it went further…

Exhibit A: Eric Clapton . The chinless wonder who learnt guitar at the feet of the black blues giants, came out at a concert in Birmingham in 1976, talking of ‘wogs’ and called on the crowd to ‘stop Britain becoming a black colony’ and for the Asian immigrants who fled Idi Amin’s Uganda to be ‘sent home’. He went on to say: ‘I used to be into dope; then a foreigner pinched my missus’s bum. Now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man.’ Complaining that England was overcrowded he called on the audience to back the openly racist Enoch Powell. Later, putting his other foot in it, he said these drunken remarks were prompted by ‘an Arab’ feeling his wife’s bum by and by an ‘upsurge of Arab money-spending and their lack of respect for other people’s money’. Interviewed about all this in 2004 he called Enoch Powell ‘outrageously brave’, adding: ‘My feeling about this has not changed really.’

Exhibit B: David Bowie, who, in the mid-1970s declared Britain ‘was ready for a fascist leader’, called Hitler ‘one of the first rock-n-roll superstars’ and gave a fascist salute at London’s Victoria Station, although he later apologised, blaming it on drugs.

Exhibit C: Brian Ferry . For many years the velvet-attired Roxy Music frontman stayed on the fringes of politics — marrying into the aristocracy, sending his son, Otis, to Marlborough College and enthusiastically backing awful Otis’s civil disobedience campaign for the right to kill foxes as he pleased. But aside from calling his home ‘Fuehrerbunker’, he kept his more disturbing views to himself until 2007 when he told a German newspaper: ‘The way that the Nazis staged themselves and presented themselves, my Lord. I’m talking about the films of Leni Riefenstahl and the buildings of Albert Speer and the mass marches and the flags – just fantastic. Really beautiful.’

I should add that rightist leanings aren’t limited to dinosaurs of 70s ‘rock’. In 2002, Dannii Minogue , (Kylie’s sister) delighted the British National Party by complaining about asylum seekers and Gypsies and praising French fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, saying his attacks on Asians ‘struck a chord..’. Speaking of Asians in Australia, the European-speaking Dannii said: ‘Even some of the street signs are in Asian!’

And then there’s Morrissey whose ‘Bengali in Platforms’ had the line, ‘Life is hard enough when you belong here…’ – and he has since given a clearer sense of what he meant by belonging. In 1992, this white working class-obsessed son of Irish immigrants, appeared at an Irish festival in London wearing bovver boots and draped in a Union Jack. All ironic (like his ‘National Front Disco’)? Perhaps, but in an interview soon after he said everyone was inherently racist: ‘I don’t really think black people and white people will ever really get on or like each other.’ Then in 2007 Rome-based Morrissey told NME he wouldn’t live in Britain because of the ‘immigration explosion’, adding that the ‘gates are flooded …’ He complained: ‘If you walk through Knightsbridge on any bland day of the week you won’t hear an English accent. You’ll hear every accent under the sun apart from a British accent.’

Back to Bruce : In 1982 he released Nebraska , which, aside from its lyrical brilliance, provided an oblique hint at his political views. Johnny 99, for instance, is about a worker who loses his job when a factory closes, gets drunk and shoots a clerk. He tells the court: ‘Now judge I got debts no honest man could pay/ The bank was holdin’ my mortgage and they was takin’ my house away/ Now I ain’t sayin’ that makes me an innocent man/ But it was more ‘n all this that put my gun in my hand’.

But his next move seemed to take him on a different course. Born in the USA (1984) sold 15-million copies in the USA alone, producing seven top 10 singles and for a long time making Springsteen passé among those who favoured style over substance (it’s only over the last decade or so that he’s fully recovered his reputation for cool). Concerts became stadium events, bringing in hordes who adored this blue-collar rocker with his new set of muscles, new California home, new model/actor wife, with his American flag on the cover and his anthem-like choruses.

I recall writhing with impotent outrage on being detained by the apartheid police and having to endure my detainer playing Born in the USA while driving me to jail, and, another time, spotting a security policeman at a traffic light, with Glory Days blaring forth. ‘Bastards!’ I wanted to yell. ‘Look at My Hometown — all about the cost of Reagan’s policies: ‘They’re closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks/ Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain’t coming back to your hometown’. How could they get it so wrong?’ And yet Reagan declared: ‘America’s future rests in the message of hope in the songs of a man so many young Americans admire: New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.’ He even wanted Born in the USA to be his ‘84 campaign tune — a remarkable request (firmly refused), given its content. ‘Got in a little hometown jam/So they put a rifle in my hand/ Sent me off to a foreign land/to go and kill the yellow man/Born in the USA…/ Had a brother at Khe San/fighting off the Viet Kong/They’re still there, he’s all gone’

In response, Bruce introduced Johnny 99 at one concert: “I don’t think Ronald Reagan’s been listening to this one.” He explained: “I think people need to feel good about the country they living but what’s happening is that this need is getting manipulated and exploited, and that’s why when Reagan mentioned my name I felt it was another manipulation and I had to dissociate myself from his words. I don’t know if he’s a bad man, but there’s a large group of people in this country whose dreams don’t mean that much to him, that just get indiscriminately swept aside.”

He joined the 1985 ‘I ain’t gonna play Sun City’ anti-apartheid drive, headed by his lead guitarist Steve van Zandt, but much of his focus was on his own country. For instance, he introduced into his repertoire a magThis Land is Your Land , talking of it as an ‘angry song’ written in answer to Irving Berlin’s God Bless America’, linking its spirit to the loss of hope in parts of America. He added Guthrie’s ‘extra’ verse: ‘In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple/ By the relief office, I’d seen my people/ As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking/ Is this land made for you and me?’

Another aside: In 1978 I missed a Springsteen concert in Austin, Texas — all to do with a girl I desired and bad timing (as ever). A decade on, I had another chance. Bruce took part in the 1988 Amnesty International series, and so I shamelessly used my ANC connections to secure an interview. We drove to Harare, eating cannabis cookies along the way, and just before the border, decided to stop for breakfast – watching with dazed fascination as thousands of cars drove past. And so we found ourselves at the back of a six hour queue. I missed my interview and instead received a bollocking from the ANC. The best I managed was a backstage chat with Bruce’s manager, John Landau. I implored him to ask Bruce to give a message to the thousands of South African army conscripts in the audience. Landau asked me to write it out but Springsteen wisely diverged from my script.

After condemning the ‘systematic apartheid of South Africa’ along with the ‘economic apartheid of my own country,’ Bruce introduced his anti-war song, ‘War’ with a tale about avoiding the Vietnam War draft, ending on a poignant note of how his ‘join the army’ dad simply said ‘good!’ on hearing that Bruce failed his medical. ‘Now I know they processed 15 000 South African visas for the show tonight and I want to say welcome,’ he continued. ‘I’m glad you came. I guess there’s a lot of young guys that are of conscription age. Well, I guess there can’t be much worse than living in a society at war with its own people — and being required to support that government, and I just want to say to you young people that I do not envy your positions. My prayers are with the young men here to use your hearts and voices in the struggle for the dignity and freedom of all the African people. There can be no peace without justice and where there is apartheid — systematic or economic — there is no justice and where there is no justice there is only WAR!’

Shortly before this tour, his marriage broke up and his relationship with band member, Patti Scialfa, became public. The feminist-oriented Scialfa has continued to work with the band while pursuing her own recording career. They have three children. His next album, the introspective Tunnel of Love, reflected this period of his life. It makes no reference to personal experience but the context is clear – what happens when what you think is love turns out to be something less. Take Cautious Man, a story about those polar opposites, love and fear. Its build-up appears quaint: a folksy tale about a man striving for domestic steadiness — which makes it denouement that much more devastating: ‘One night Billy awoke from a terrible dream callin’ his wife’s name/ She lay breathing beside him in a peaceful sleep, a thousand miles away/ He got dressed in the moonlight and down to the highway he strode/ When he got there he didn’t find nothing but road.’ He returns but hardly in triumph. ‘Billy felt a coldness rise up inside him that he couldn’t name/Just as the words tattooed ‘cross his knuckles he knew would always remain…’

Springsteen returned to New Jersey but it was only with Ghost of Tom Joad in 1995 that he found his writing voice again. Taken in isolation, some of the verses hint at the activist preacher, starting in the title song when his vagrant protagonist quotes the hero of Grapes of Wrath: ‘Now Tom said Mom, wherever there’s a cop beatin’ a guy/ Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries/ Where there’s a fight ‘gainst the blood and hatred in the air/ Look for me Mom I’ll be there/ Wherever there’s somebody fightin’ for a place to stand /Or decent job or a helpin’ hand/ Wherever somebody’s strugglin’ to be free/ Look in their eyes Mom you’ll see me."’ In Youngstown , his character says: ‘These mills they built the tanks and bombs/ That won this country’s wars / We sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam /Now we’re wondering what they were dyin’ for.’ In Sinaloa Cowbows , the Mexican dad warns: ‘My sons one thing you will learn, for everything the north gives, it exacts a price in return.’ And, from the other side of the border, his patrolman learns that ‘hunger is a powerful thing.’

It’s an album that confirms his standing as the true successor to Woody Guthrie — a songwriter who tells stories not just about people but for them. He continued along this path with American Skin (41 Shots ), inspired by the NYPD’s shooting of Amadou Diallo. It deals with the status of immigrants but also shows sympathy for the cops– ‘we’re baptized in these waters /and in each other’s blood’ — although the Patrolman’s Benefit Association called for a boycott of his shows.

Perhaps his most politically interesting album is The Rising , released in 2002 in the wake of 9/11, which affected Springsteen profoundly at a personal level, drawing close to some of those in mourning. None of the songs refer to 9/11 specifically but several concern loss after tragedy, and one, World’s Apart (featuring the Pakistani singer Asif Ali Khan and his group), is a plea for love across the divide.

He became a vocal critic of the Iraq war and in 2004 broke his self-imposed boycott of electoral politics to campaign for John Kerry. His 2004 album Devils and Dust (featuring Springsteen singing falsetto, playing the autoharp, and writing graphically about sex with a prostitute while dreaming of a wife he’d lost), begins with the theme of the uncertain soldier: I got my finger on the trigger/ But I don’t know who to trust /When I look into your eyes / There’s just devils and dust’. Starbucks had planned to co-release the album but they objected to some of the content.

Springsteen had long been enamoured with Guthrie (in addition to This Land is Your Land, he contributed two Guthrie songs to a Folkways tribute album in 1988) but his next offering, released in 2006, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions , took this to a new level — 13 traditional folk songs with Bruce playing guitar, mandolin, organ, piano, harmonica and percussion. What was most remarkable about this venture was that he took a form considered uncool and dedicated the album to perhaps the least cool of all the folkies and gave it new life.

His 2008 album, Magic, heralded a return to rock-n-roll and overt politics (prompting a boycott from some radio stations). Its combination of nostalgia and despair offers magnificent moments that grow with each play – an air of sadness beneath the joy, reflecting disillusionment with contemporary America: ‘There’s bodies hangin’ in the trees/This is what will be, this is what will be.’ Its most poignant song is Long Walk Home about the distance his country had moved from the images represented by the flag flying over the courtroom. The Iraq war hangs heavy in Last to Die , with its chorus, repeating John Kerry’s words of 35 years earlier, ‘Who’ll be the last to die for a mistake’ and adding, ‘Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break.’ Gypsy Biker is about the return of a soldier killed in war — ‘The speculators made their money on the blood you shed’ and Springsteen has since said the backdrop for Livin’ in the Future is ‘extraordinary rendition’ and illegal wiretapping.

And so to the present. After a spell campaigning for Barack Obama he returned to touring and came out with the jauntily a-political Working on a Dream – not one of his great albums (more on the level of ‘The River’ or ‘Human Touch’ than ‘Nebraska’ or ‘Darkness’). Inevitably, there’s a bleak edge: ‘Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time / Till to the music we grow deaf, to God’s beauty blind/ Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart? / Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts…’. But it also delights in eulagising mature love: ‘With you I don’t hear the minutes ticking by/ I don’t feel the hours as they fly/ I don’t see the summer as it wanes/ Just a suble change of light upon your face…’

This album, like the man who created it, is flawed but beautiful. There’ve been failures and bad decisions along the way — of course there have: depression, infidelity, neglect, creative cul de sacs. And yet, through all this, he’s remained heroically steady. Nearly 35 years after my undersized gramaphone speakers were nearly blown out of the box by Born to Run , he still inspires, makes me think, surprises me. Back then, in 1975, he wrote: ‘I’m no hero, that’s understood’. Well, all I can say to this 60-year-old is: pull the other one.

Posted in Guest Columns, Situation Report | Tagged , | 876 Comments

Why Bin Laden Lost


The 9/11 attacks were a spectacular terrorist version of Che Guevara’s “foco” theory — a small band of armed men launches attacks on an enemy loathed by the population on whose behalf it claims to act, assuming that this will rally the masses to armed revolt. And like Che’s Bolivia foco, it was a spectacular failure.

Eight years on, tensions are escalating between the U.S. and its allies on the one hand, a range of Muslim adversaries on the other. But al-Qaeda is irrelevant, its attempt to supplant the likes of Hamas, Hizballah, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood through made-for-TV spectacular mass casualty terror attacks lying in tatters. It should have been obvious from the get-go that this would fail: The surest sign was the fact that from Cairo to Islamabad and Jakarta, Muslims were so repulsed by the wanton killing of innocents that they preferred to see it as the dirty work of the CIA or Mossad, rather than of “glorious mujahedeen” as Bin Laden would have it.

Read my whole piece on this at TIME.com by clicking here

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , | 19 Comments

Obama to Unveil ‘Roadmapolis’


If you’re getting a little uneasy about President Obama reprising Bush Administration policies with new gloss — my personal favorite being his decision to continue the policy of ‘rendition’, under which terror suspects are sent to third countries where the rules governing interrogation are more permissive, but Obama promises to do it “with greater oversight” — his Middle East peace plan is unlikely to make you feel much better.

As I wrote here, Obama’s Mideast peace plan appears to be a hybrid between President Bush’s “roadmap” and his “Annpolis” initiative — Roadmapolis, if you like.

President Bush’s “road map” first emerged as the US began preparing to invade Iraq. Key Arab regimes had long made clear to Washington that the price of even tacit support for the war was American willingness to address a conflict that generated immense hostility towards the US on the Arab street. The “road map” read like a crack of the whip, outlining a timetable that promised a provisional Palestinian state by the end of 2003 and a resolution of all final status issues by the beginning of 2005. But the Bush administration gave the Israelis and Palestinians no reason to take it seriously; its purely symbolic purpose was plain to see.

The Bush administration made a second high-profile stab at the peace process in the form of the Annapolis Conference held in November 2007, which drew in not only the Israelis and Palestinians, but also a range of Arab states – in what it portrayed as a symbolic affirmation of the administration’s policy of building an alliance of Arab moderates with the US and Israel against the region’s radicals, namely Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. Again, there was little reason for the Israelis or Palestinians to take the process seriously. Annapolis simply invited them to talk among themselves about what a peace agreement could look like. The conversation went nowhere, of course, but the fact that it was happening at all was the point for the Bush administration, whose new priority had become rallying Arab support against Iran and its allies.

Despite the Israelis giving him a no-but answer on his demand for a settlement freeze, Obama will soon unveil a plan for a resumption of final-status talks between the two sides, on a two-year time frame. The initiative will be launched with a high-profile summit.

As jaded as this may seem, it’s hard not to label the new process “roadmapolis”. While it would mimic the high-profile launch of Annapolis, it will avoid the mistakes of leaving them to talk among themselves by putting US officials in the room. And like the road map, it will provide a strict timeline and a detailed set of benchmarks. The US is unlikely at this stage to outline proposals of its own for resolving final status issues.

But the roadmap set strict timelines, which were ignored — and the Israelis are already making clear that they plan to ignore much of what Obama is demanding of them — and Annapolis actually proved the futility of relying on bilateral talks to resolve a conflict in which the balance of power between the adversaries is so hopelessly unequal.

In the best-case scenario, Obama is kicking the can down the road. A gloomier explanation might hold that like Bush before him, he’s simply going through the motions in the hope of rallying Arab support against Iran.

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

The ‘Metrics’ of Obama’s Vietnam

This is priceless. The Washington Post tells us

The White House has assembled a list of about 50 measurements to gauge progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan as it tries to calm rising public and congressional anxiety about its war strategy.

Administration officials are conducting what one called a “test run” of the metrics, comparing current numbers in a range of categories — including newly trained Afghan army recruits, Pakistani counterinsurgency missions and on-time delivery of promised U.S. resources — with baselines set earlier in the year. The results will be used to fine-tune the list before it is presented to Congress by Sept. 24.

Uh, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that conducting a “test run” on your metrics is designed to see if they reveal the result you want. Hence the “fine-tuning” of the list before it is presented to Congress — making sure the “metrics” tell a tale that affirms the dubious idea that the war in Afghanistan is winnable.

Posted in 99c Blogging | 14 Comments

Karzai as Diem in Obama’s Vietnam

The suggestion that doubts over the clearly crooked election process in Afghanistan somehow undermine the U.S. strategy there are missing the point: As I wrote here last week,

An inconclusive poll that fails to clearly legitimize the next government may not be a setback for the Obama Administration’s Afghanistan strategy. On the contrary, it could offer an important opportunity to remake a system of government so dysfunctional that it has enabled a massive Taliban resurgence.

When a broken bone heals badly, it often leaves doctors no option but to re-break and reset the limb in order to allow the bone to properly do its job. Long before Thursday’s election, U.S. officials had identified the Afghan political system — not simply the Karzai government, but the very manner in which the Afghan system created after the U.S. invasion is organized, and allocates power and resources — as an obstacle to the goal of defeating the Taliban. The key to the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy is to create security and development at the local level, establishing a system of governance that Afghans believe is worth fighting for. Plainly, nothing like that has happened on Karzai’s watch, and few had much confidence that a change of personality in the presidential palace would be enough to change the dynamic.

U.S. advisers had made clear that regardless of who won the election, Washington planned to use the leverage derived from the dependency of any Afghan on Western military and financial support to reorganize the way the country is governed — strengthening the capability of ministries to deliver services to the citizenry; eliminating corruption and cronyism; and reallocating power and resources away from the central government and towards provincial and local level administrators capable of promoting development and winning the hearts and minds of the population… The last thing the U.S. counterinsurgency effort needs is for Karzai to be returned on a winner-takes-all basis, owing countless political favors to local level warlords whose interests run counter to good governance — and using a popular mandate as a basis to resist U.S. efforts to weed out corruption and cronyism. An election outcome that puts a question-mark over the legitimacy of the next president could, paradoxically, actually suit the U.S. purpose. That’s because Afghanistan’s current system of government, in U.S. thinking, requires the proverbial re-break and reset in order to create a regime sufficiently responsive and accountable to its own citizenry to give the counterinsurgency campaign a better chance of defeating the Taliban.

The reports of a flaming row between Karzai and Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s pointman in Afghanistan, ought to be read in this context. The U.S. is pushing Karzai to accept a runoff race that he could lose, and even if he edges it, he’ll be under even greater pressure from the U.S. to share power with his rivals. The last thing Washington needs is for Karzai to emerge strengthened and confident, emboldened, like Iraq’s Nuri al-Maliki, to push back against the U.S. and take control of the script.

As I noted here,

But an election outcome that weakens the incumbent while leaving him in place may actually suit the US strategy in Afghanistan. American officials have, for the past three years, made clear that they see the Karzai government as a weak link in a strategy that depends, first and foremost, on delivering security, services and good governance to the areas targeted by the Taliban. That’s because the government is intimately associated, in the eyes of ordinary Afghans, with rampant corruption, warlordism, drug trafficking and a failure to deliver security, justice and basic services. The clear-eyed architects of the US counterinsurgency strategy have long recognised that the Karzai government offers little that Afghans would deem worth fighting for.

For some US commentators taking the long view, Mr Karzai has lately been likened to Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnamese dictator who initially enjoyed Washington’s backing but whose regime was so brutal, corrupt and nepotistic that it was eventually deemed an obstacle to America’s goals and was overthrown in a coup with Washington’s backing.

Of course, there are limits to the Diem analogy, in no small part because the US has also recognised that there may be no credible alternative capable of rallying Afghans against the Taliban…

Actually, reports today that Western officials in Kabul are increasingly worried about Dr. Abdullah and his supporters threatening violence if Karzai is allowed to get away with electoral fraud underscore the point: Nothing would play into the Taliban’s hands better than what would be painted as a Tajik power grab (by Abdullah) in Kabul. Should Karzai be muscled out of power by the Northern Alliance, the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan will be irredeemably lost to the Taliban. Despite his failures, Karzai probably remains the best bet in the minds of U.S. strategists. But, continuing from my piece quoted earlier,

even if it was resigned to another five-year term for Mr Karzai, the US made clear before the election that it planned to use its own leverage – Kabul remains entirely dependent on foreign financial and military assistance – to reorder the way Afghanistan is governed. The talk in Washington has been of working around Mr Karzai and to strengthen those ministries best equipped to deliver and least plagued by corruption; of empowering provincial level administrators by bypassing the central government to funnel aid directly; and even pressuring Mr Karzai to accept the appointment of a technocrat like Mr Ghani as a “chief executive” to run the government.

Mr Karzai and those power brokers invested in the status quo were never going to willingly accept being shunted to the margins. Mr Karzai has grown strident in rejecting Washington’s tutelage, instead making common cause with some of the Afghan elements most detested by the Americans.

Given the precipitous decline in Afghanistan’s security and the growing risk of failure in what Mr Obama had always dubbed “the right war” (in contrast to Iraq), the last thing Washington needed was a buoyant Mr Karzai borrowing the tactics of Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al Maliki, who has pushed back against US strategy and taken control of the terms and timetable for the deployment of US forces in Iraq.

US military experts on the ground have made clear to Mr Obama that reversing the Taliban’s steady advance in Afghanistan will require a commitment measured in years, thousands more troops than the 68,000 he has already committed, a steady stream of US casualties and an economic cost of at least $4 billion a month. And even then, the chances of success are slim.

“Slim”, in fact, is an exaggeration.

Posted in Situation Report | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments