This Week: Patterns of Confusion in the News

"Quote" of the Week

Confusion About Dealing With Terrorism

Confusion about Dealing With Hunger

Greetings,

This week is Part 1 of a two-part series on confusion. I don't have space to say more right now, but I'll explain more next week.

Confusingly yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This week's "Quote" was largely unreported in this country, but widely noted in Europe. I offer the entire first three paragraphs from the London Daily Telegraph of July 10th, as it give a context. The headline: "Bush Bids Farewell with Another Gaffe" We'll pick it up there:

"President George W Bush stunned world leaders with a joke about his poor record on the environment as he left the G8 summit in Japan.

"Mr Bush, condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: ‘Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter.'

"He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present, including Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, looked on in shock."

Confusion About Dealing With Terrorism

I was listening on August 7th to the National Public Radio news show All Things Considered when on came a report introduced by host Melissa Block that started with these words: "In Afghanistan, U.S. military officials acknowledge they're facing an increasingly tough fight against the Taliban and other Islamist militants." My ears perked up.

(Here's an odd tidbit about this story: The online transcript of the story was headlined "In Afghanistan, Disenchantment Against Coalition." I say this was odd because reporter Jackie Northam had only three sources, and all were official spokespersons for NATO/U.S. forces, who never mentioned any "disenchantment" of any sort. Hmmm....)

One of the sources cited by NPR was "Lieutenant Colonel Rumi Neilson-Green, a spokesperson for the U.S. military in the eastern part of Afghanistan." Reporter Northam told us that "Neilson-Green says despite better tactics, the militants are soundly beaten by U.S. and NATO forces in almost every encounter. She says allied troops, quote, ‘kill literally hundreds of insurgents every week.' It's not even newsworthy anymore, she says, it's become just routine."

I seriously doubt that Ms. Neilson-Green's numbers are accurate, but there's really no way to know. The Associated Press reported last week (August 6th) that "More than 2,700 people have died in insurgency-related violence so far this year [in Afghanistan], according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and Western officials." That figure of 2,700, after seven months, would amount to about 90 people a week, and this total is A) A grand total, not all of which are "insurgents," and B) A total cited by "officials" of one side in the conflict, which means they have an interest in inflating the numbers of "enemies" killed. Accurate or not, the AP count is the only attempt of any kind to count the dead in Afghanistan, a reflection of the callous disregard for Afghan lives that permeates U.S. culture.

What Do People Think We're Trying to Do?

So, as I said, there's really no way to know if the U.S. military spokesperson's statement is true. But, for now, let's say it is. Let's believe that "the militants are soundly beaten by U.S. and NATO forces in almost every encounter." Then let's remind ourselves (this may sound obvious) that this claim is supposed to be "good news," news that we are "winning" in Afghanistan.

And let's further remind ourselves what "winning" in Afghanistan is supposed to be. The U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001 in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th in the United States. The whole idea of the attack was to stop terrorism, if you recall. The joint resolution passed by Congress on September 14th 2001—known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"—said it clearly: "[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States . . . therefore . . . the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force . . . in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States...."

That is, the U.S. would be "winning" in Afghanistan if the actions we take could be shown to be preventing "any further acts of international terrorism against the United States." Does killing more "insurgents"—one or three or "hundreds"—accomplish this? Let's have a look at a few sources that might shed light on the question.

First off, The Media. Here's a headline from the front page of USA Today of July 15th: "Taliban Attacks Spur Calls for Troops; Enemy Undeterred Despite Airstrikes."

The lead paragraphs read like this: "A shortage of ground troops in Afghanistan has led the Pentagon to significantly intensify its air campaign in the first half of the year to the highest levels since 2003 to fight the resurgence of the Taliban. However, the increased bombing has not slowed the Taliban... On Sunday, Taliban fighters attacked a base near the Pakistan border, killing nine U.S. soldiers and wounding 15. Such Taliban strength, military officials and analysts say, shows the airstrikes alone cannot stop attacks and that more ground troops are needed."

There are those "military officials" and "analysts" again. And they all seem to have the same opinion which, not surprisingly, is that "more ground troops are needed."

Other opinions can be found, however. Someone who is not a "military official or analyst," for example, might say that more ground troops would likely make the situation worse. In fact, there are military analysts who are saying that. It was just a couple of weeks ago that the ultra-establishment think tank The RAND Corporation said so in a report (July 29th) called "How Terrorist Groups End; Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida." RAND is filled with military analysts.

So, how DO terrorist groups "end"? RAND asked that question, and concluded that "The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a ‘war on terrorism' approach that relies heavily on military force."

Other people who reside somewhere outside of the military-industrial complex might go further than that and point out that it could be that the United States is a primary target of terrorism due to its policies and historical enforcement of an unjust and violent international order. The less-militarized think tank Foreign Policy in Focus would be one example here.

About a year ago (June 13, 2007), FPIF issued a paper on U.S. policy in Afghanistan called "Ending the ‘Good War.'" In it they made the point that, while the deployment of 28,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan (now 33,000) has as its goal "ending sanctuary for ‘terrorists' who might attack U.S. and allied assets," it's not doing that. Instead, says the report, "the overwhelming reliance on force has created more people willing to commit terrorism against the United States. Today, Afghanistan is plagued by a new insurgency funded by the remnants of the Taliban and drug lords and fueled by a new hatred of Americans and other foreigners."

None of this is news to readers of Nygaard Notes. I said the same thing five years ago, as the attack on Afghanistan was just getting started. It was on October 26th, 2001, in Nygaard Notes #129, that I published these words: "The U.S. attack on Afghanistan is making the world a more dangerous place for Americans, since it is almost guaranteed to increase the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against our country. Yet the military campaign is presented to us as a part of the ‘War Against Terrorism.'"

A couple of weeks ago, in issue #413, I said it again, more succinctly: "The problem of ‘terror' cannot be effectively addressed by military means."

Killing more people in Afghanistan is seen by many people in this country as evidence of "success" in the so-called War On Terror. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. So, rather than shedding light on the issue, the public discussion of our response to terror serves mostly to breed confusion. A similar confusion permeates much of our public discussion, such as our public discussion about hunger and the current food crisis, which is the subject of the following article.

Confusion about Dealing With Hunger

The news has been filled in recent months with stories about "food riots" around the world.

(Before I go any further, I have to say that I wouldn't call them that. The word "riot" refers to a mindless, out-of-control violence or disorder. From what I can gather, what we are seeing are angry demonstrations aimed at the political and economic forces that people understand are the causes of their hunger. But that's another story.)

To its credit, the daily media has also been filled of late with reports and opinions on what to do to address the problem of the increasing hunger that is behind the demonstrations. The response among elites has been fairly uniform, as evidenced by the following comments from various media over the past three months or so.

* The McClatchy news organization ran a story on May 14th about Congressional hearings on the food crisis. The headline was "Experts Call for a New Green Revolution to End World Food Crisis." They summed up the thoughts of Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (reportedly on Barack Obama's "short list" for vice president) like this: "Biden said the United States should support a second Green Revolution... The original Green Revolution introduced better seeds and agricultural techniques that increased yields."

* A couple of weeks after that, on May 31st, one of my local newspapers, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, ran a piece headlined simply, "THE GREEN REVOLUTION," saying "Today, with developing nations facing renewed hunger and even riots amid a potential global food crisis, experts agree that a new Green Revolution is needed to offset the challenges of population growth, biofuel demand, extreme weather and a growing clamor for costly-to-produce meat and milk." (There's that word "riots" again. And, as usual, the "experts agree.")

* Two more weeks went by. Then, on June 11th, the Omaha World-Herald had its own editorial on the subject—Nebraska is a big farm state, after all. Headlined "A New Revolution; Developing World Needs Renewed Effort to Boost Farm Production," the piece led off with this: "The developing world, suffering from an alarming food crisis, is in desperate need of a new Norman Borlaug. And a new Green Revolution." (Norman Borlaug is known as the "father" of the Green Revolution. See NN #244 for more on Borlaug.)

And, finally, three weeks later, on July 3rd, the influential Washington Post featured an opinion piece by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, headlined "Global Action to Save Global Growth." The Secretary General tells us that "What's needed, in effect, is a ‘green revolution' of the sort that once transformed Southeast Asia..."

As I said, the elite response is uniform and, as these examples show, the uniformity is based on the idea that hunger is the result of a shortage of food. The "Green Revolution," after all, was about producing more food. And, say the experts, we need another one now in order to deal with global hunger.

But here's the fact, which has been true for my entire life and remains true: There is enough food in the world to feed every human being there is. The problem is not the quantity of food, it's a economic system that doesn't get the food to the people who need it.

Consider this comment that I found in a "backgrounder" from the Food First: The Institute for Food and Development Policy a few months ago called "From Food Rebellions to Food Sovereignty: Urgent Call to Fix a Broken Food System:" "[T]here is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone—at least 1.5 times current demand. In fact, over the last 20 years, food production has risen steadily at over 2.0% a year, while the rate of population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply." The figures they are citing are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, whose job it is to alleviate world hunger.

I addressed the faultiness of this "there's not enough food" reasoning ‘way back in 2003, in Nygaard Notes #210 ("Hunger, Power, and Politics: Looking for the Key Fact"). I quoted Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset from their book "World Hunger: 12 Myths." Responding to the argument that "The Green Revolution is the Answer" they explain that

"The production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth. Thanks to the new seeds, millions of tons more grain a year are being harvested. But focusing narrowly on increasing production cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic power that determines who can buy the additional food. That's why in several of the biggest Green Revolution successes—India, Mexico, and the Philippines—grain production and in some cases, exports, have climbed, while hunger has persisted and the long-term productive capacity of the soil is degraded. Now we must fight the prospect of a 'New Green Revolution' based on biotechnology, which threatens to further accentuate inequality."

Back in Nygaard Notes #86 I cited one of those authors, Peter Rosset, in an interview with Multinational Monitor, who explained a little more clearly how this works:

"During the boom years of the Green Revolution, from 1970 to 1990, world food production did go up dramatically. Unfortunately, hunger increased in most parts of the Third World as well. The Green Revolution creates what we call the paradox of plenty, or hunger amidst abundance. Production goes up, but that production is in the hands of larger farmers, who expand at the expense of smaller farmers. These smaller farmers eventually lose their land, move to the cities, don't find jobs, and can't afford to buy the additional food that's produced. So the Green Revolution gives you more food and more hunger."

Everyone in a position of authority in this country talks about hunger as if it were caused by a lack of food. But there is not a lack of food, and in fact the production of more food could make hunger worse for a lot of people. So the public discussion of the food crisis, like our discussion of terror, serves mostly to breed confusion.

Next week I'll give a couple more examples of this peculiar variety of confusion to which so many of us fall victim. I'll also offer some useful tips to help us be less confused.