“The argument we make in the film is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the war: How many troops? What’s the cost in lives and treasure?” says Greenwald. “In the film, we try to ask these fundamental core questions. It’s not just 10,000 troops there, or 12,000 there, it’s why troops at all?” He added, “Those are the questions we need to ask, and those are the questions you need to ask in a democracy.”
While the Journal got it right, the New York Times reviewer apparently wants no truck with either such questions – or with a film that reminds us that:
Military engagements, it seems, are messy and claim innocent lives.
In fact, she was upset that the film did not allow time for an opposing view – yet, as Greenwald shows us throughout Rethink Afghanistan, the messiness and loss of innocent lives is precisely at the core of this (or any) war and is the central reason we need to look more closely and ask our own questions about our government’s decision to continue into a 9th year in Afghanistan.
But the film also does much more.
Rethink Afghanistan combines footage from Greenwald’s own trip to Afghanistan earlier this year with interviews with key experts like Robert Grenier, former CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, former CIA operative Robert Baer, Graham Fuller, the former CIA station chief in Kabul, Anand Gopal, the Afghanistan correspondent of The Wall Street Journal and Steve Coll, author of the Pulitzer winning book on Al Qaeda, Ghost Wars.Such expertise provides us with important insights, insights lacking in the spotty coverage of this war in the standard media which rarely strays beyond the usual footage of American soldiers to ask the question why they are there and if it is the “right war” after all.
Yet Rethink Afghanistan is not simply a platform for various experts, it is so much more because the film introduces us to Afghan voices. So often our policy debates completely leave out the views, the worries and the concerns of those most impacted by our actions. Rethink Afghanistan includes them throughout – and these voices are so important for us to hear.
From the refugee who tells us:
If the Talib comes and fires a bullet, Americans will come and they kill the whole village.
To the Afghan women activists who describe our alliance with the misogynist Northern Alliance and our support for Karzai’s misogynist cabinet, to the voice of Fatana Gailani, founder of the Afghanistan Women Council who starkly reminds us that:
The United States government has not sent one delegation to go and talk with the Afghan people, what the Afghan people want and especially what the Afghan women want.”
These are voices we have not heard in the debate over our war and occupation, voices which should be at the center of any discussion of what we will do next. Rethink Afghanistan finally allows us to listen and learn.
Robert and the Brave New Films team are not just providing a new forum for these voices, they are also creating a new model of filmmaking with Rethink Afghanistan. By producing the film in stages and releasing it online, they have made their work immediately available to us all in time to inform the debate not merely document it after the fact – and they have used the film as the centerpiece of a campaign to raise the questions and concerns we all must face about Afghanistan.
They also invited viewers along the way to contribute to help the people profiled in the film, raising $15,000 in aid which has already made its way to families living in the refugee camps the film profiles.And now they are asking us all to participate in the education of our communities. Rethink Afghanistan does such a good job of raising the critical issues and encouraging discussions that it really must be shared and viewed with friends and neighbors. You can order a copy here to do your part to help shape this essential debate.



139 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Robert, Leighton, Welcome to the Lake.
Siun, Thank you for Hosting tonight’s Movie Night.
Hi, Christina!
hi everyone, robert here.looking forward to your thoughts and questions
Robert should be with us shortly. Technical issues.
Robert – thank you for this essential analysis – hope your work is seen widely.
And thank you for being here today, a great honor.
Hello Leighton! and thanks Beverly!
What a pleasure to get to host this discussion.
To get us started, I’d love to hear a bit about how the film is being received at screenings?
And Hello Robert!
I seem to have a bit of a lag here so forgive the delay.
As we begin, I wanted to start at the end with a bit of discussion on the film’s reception … then perhaps we can talk more about how you came to make Rethink Afghanistan.
Me too.
We’ve finally finished producing the film, and it’s now available on DVD. The reception has been amazing. As you know, we released the film in installments, for free, online, as we went through the production process. The New York Times called it a “real time documentary.” The reception to each chapter was great, but the response to the feature film has been on a whole other level. We put out a call for grassroots screenings of the film, and over 600 have taken place or are scheduled to happen all over the country. MoveOn joined in, asking their members to do screenings. And we did premiere screenings in New York and DC, which were outstanding. Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson joined us in DC, and Jim McGovern joined us in New York.
Welcome Brave ones.
Then we can all just pretend to be extra thoughtful rather than lag-gy!
So … I understand the film has been screening around the country. How is that going?
Thanks! Welcome to you, too.
Welcome Robert Greenwald and thank you for your work.
It boggles my mind that any foreigner could think they could win a coin by bombing wedding parties and trucking around the country in big military vehicles looking like overarmed creatures from outer space.
At some of these screenings, we’ve also had Afghanistan War vets come speak to audiences. There’s a new group of vets called “Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan,” who are calling for an end to the escalation of the war. They’ve attended dozens of grassroots screenings, sharing their experiences and explaining why this war makes no sense.
Over 600! wow!
Is there a theme or common reaction to the film? The timing is so good and I’m wondering how people respond when they see this new side of Afghanistan?
And spending 400.00 per gallon on gasoline while flying bottled water in from 7,500 miles away.
This quote hit home with my resultant thought that our decisions vis–à–vis Afghanistan is all about us.
Afghanis? Involved in decisions about their country, their leadership, their very lives?
Sorry, but that’s not how we do things here in America.
Thank you for coming here to talk about your film, the only quibble with which I have is its title. I’m not sure America ever actually thought about Afghanistan in the first place, so a re-think may not be what’s necessary.
But we certainly need to think about it now, as do our lawmakers. Every effort ordinary Americans make to reach out to Afghans is to be applauded.
What do you think about Arianna Huffington’s idea that Joe Biden should resign the Vice-Presidency should his well-considered advice be ignored?
I’m sure Robert will want to respond here, but I’ll also chime in and point out that Ann Jones, a former humanitarian aid worker in Afghanistan and the author of “Kabul in Winter” (she appears in the film), explained to us when we were together in DC that those uniforms you refer to, that look like “overarmed creatures from outer space,” are quite unhelpful in dealing with Afghan civilians. Apparently, far from being intimidating, Afghans consider all of that body armor and weaponry to be indicative of fear and cowardice. I don’t want to be misunderstood here — I’m not saying these troops are cowardly; very, very far from it — but it sends off that signal culturally. This is just another indication of the lack of cultural understanding American soldiers and leaders have of Afghan society. Which is exactly why it makes no sense to be asking soldiers to act as cultural liaisons or amateur anthropologists, which is really what “counterinsurgency” doctrine calls for. Or at least it’s being interpreted that way, to our detriment.
It’s the hubris of empire.
It’s also like the drunk at the party who thinks if he sez it one more time, and a little bit louder, surely everyone will understand.
People have been very, very grateful to have a tool to begin a conversation with members of their community about Afghanistan. It’s not like healthcare; it’s not something that people have interfaced with their whole lives. So it’s not easy to know how to begin a conversation. This film allows people to do so.
That is a fascinating point – and another example of how we forget or chose not to listen to Afghans.
And before we dig more into the film, I understand we can all order copies and do the same – host a house meeting or such for friends?
Obama seems unclear on the Afghan women’s issue:
Even with all the delays and further reviews, no one in the Obama Administration seems to be asking this fundamental policy question. Is there a rationale for our being there at all? Although it sometimes seems that way, we do not invade and occupy for years every country that does something we don’t like. It is like we have an army there, so we must have a war, and if we have a war then we must win it, no matter how long it takes or costs in lives and treasure. It is a narrative that begins and proceeds backwards.
Thanks. Being culturally American, I look at those military costumes as intimidating, not helpful if you are trying to win H&Ms. However, you’re absolutely right, they make the soldiers look like they’re afraid of their own shadow from the Afghans’ POV.
My version of that is: where is the U.S. going to find over 100,000 culturally sensitive, multilingual 18-year-olds? We have the cliche of the U.S. GI handing a candy bar to a grinning kid in the invaded country, but unlike most cliches, that one’s pretty rare.
Added on edit: And, I recently heard that boot camp training has increasingly focused on removing the human inhibition to kill, inuring the soldiers to kill as much as possible, so that they actually fire their guns at their alleged opponent, which apparently didn’t happen very often in past wars. So now soldiers trained to kill, kill, kill are supposed to win H&Ms? What could they be thinking.
You may be right about not having thought about Afghanistan the first time around, when we barreled into the country and executed exactly the wrong strategy for our ostensible goal of capturing bin Laden. But the title has a purpose: we want to suggest that just blindly putting more troops into the country without asking basic questions about what we’re trying to accomplish there, how to achieve it, and what costs we’re willing to pay, is a recipe for disaster. We need to rethink our approach, which has really just been coasting on momentum since 2001. And clearly, it’s not working.
There’s one tomorrow night in Pasadena, for any SoCal readers. There will be veterans speaking
Thursday, October 22 2009 07:00 PM
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California 91101
That story is so very very telling – and not simply about Obama but about our whole mindset.
Yes! People can host a screening (or see if there’s one in your area you can attend) by going to this page on our website: http://rethinkafghanistan.com/screenings/
And if you want to make a contribution to BNF and receive a DVD as a thank you gift, you can go to our homepage and click the big green “Get a DVD” button:
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
So the model – of real time filmmaking and campaigning along with production seems to work!
Robert and Leighton, can you tell us a bit about how you came to decide to do the film? I read that Robert mentioned a visit to Vietnam and reading Best and Brightest and that’s an intriguing place to start.
Yes indeed, and that vet is Jake Diliberto, a very interesting guy: he’s a registered Republican who grew up in a conservative Christian household. He fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and is 100% opposed to both wars. He’s one of the founding members of Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan.
Jake is living proof of what Arianna Huffington has pointed out many times – that opposition to the Afghanistan War is not a “left” position. It’s a common sense position.
Well certainly we’re not going to get very far by firing such rare soldiers under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (That was in Iraq, but the point remains.)
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. And a tragedy.
Hey, guys. Keep up the good work!
There’s a great story there, but I’m going to let Robert tell it.
leighton has my vote! so many possibilities and challenges
So how many Contractors, Mercs, etc in Afghanistan How many are American, Foreign and Afghan?
So Robert – what started you on this project?
What happened to rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan what have we accomplished?
That’s really a discussion we need to be having. We need to talk about this war, but we also need to talk about war in general. We need to talk about the costs and risks of a militaristic foreign policy, we need to talk about what it means to live in a multipolar world, we need to talk about the causes of terrorism and not just the consequences. A lot of progressives started to raise these questions after 9/11, but got shut down and called unpatriotic and I don’t think we’ve had the courage to bring them up again. And we need to. We need to right now.
re reading best and brightest was the key to getting me started on rethink
What is the state of women’s rights in Afghanistan in American controlled vs Taliban areas.
The Taliban are religious fundies are they keeping prostitution down in their areas? I remember some prostitution scandal awhile back or we exploiting local girls in our areas or importing foreign or American girls.
That is so true Leighton! So many core questions, basic premises, have been off the table – and without that kind of analysis, we will always end up in the wrong place. This is something that hits me over and over … that we lack that central analysis of how we share a world.
This assumes that there is SOME legitimacy, some actual, real “purpose” to engage in organized mayhem.
What if warfare is cynically foisted upon both the American public and those receiving our kind attentions?
What if the shocking purpose of war is none of the advertised “reasons” but simply a furtherance of of the shock-doctrine mentality?
What if war, for the purposes of our empire, is simply the most-brutal “means” to the deliberately intended “end” of enriching and empowering the few?
Why should such an idea, given what we see daily in politics, in economics and in governance, not be considered as worthy of consideration?
We are not in Afghanistan to help the people.
We are killing them and destroying their society.
As MadDog says, this war is ALL about us. As is the war in Irak, about us.
Our “enemy” and our oil, our patience and our manipulated fears.
Our willingness to torture.
Our willingness to ignore the causes that bring people to hate and despise us … how many other people must we destroy to satify our lust, our greed and our hubris?
Our puppets, our contractors, our bombs.
Their deaths, their anguish, their loss.
I see no “balance”.
I see no reason.
I see no humanity.
And I am looking at us.
There are two answers to almost all human questions:
1. Because they can
2. Because they have to
The U.S. has a military (many would say paranoid) foreign policy because it can. The only way that the U.S. will stop doing that is when the “because they have to” kicks in.
Looks like Robert is having some technical gremlins … but I hope he gets a chance to tell us of the connections. It seems like we are only talking about the parallels of Afghanistan to Vietnam in the context of Obama yet Best and Brightest to my mind says something broader about the american psyche.
We’ve accomplished almost nothing in terms of rebuilding infrastructure. Afghans we’ve spoken to, and Westerners who have spent time in the country, say that the visibility of American aid projects and development is practically nil. All the Afghans see is guns and uparmored vehicles and fighter jets. That’s the face of the U.S. in Afghanistan. Few of the NGOs there, I’ve been told, get out of Kabul, and the greatest need (and the recruitment grounds for the Taliban) are in the countryside, far from the capital. That’s what happens when 90% of resources go toward military needs, and only 10% (and an inefficiently spent 10%) go to civilian aid.
The MSM has been shoeing the opposing view non stop. Just how many years ago was the first Friedman Unit? After the first 2 years you would think a Times Editor would have said stop you are embarrassing yourself and the New York Times.
That is a BINGO!, eCAHN
Thanks for the information who in the Bush White House did the planning if any for after the war?
You should check out our section on women: http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604
The short version is this: conditions have become far worse for women since the invasion began. The reason is that the Karzai government has been just as misogynistic as the Taliban, so legal conditions have not improved, but additionally, now there’s war — and the burdens of war always fall disproportionately on women.
sorry,am having some computer issues. but getting fixed. i am readinig all comments. having a challenge responding
Amen… and pass the peace.
Three Cups of Tea
So sorry for the problem Robert … we’ll cross our fingers and hope it gets fixed!
I read somewhere (perhaps antiwar.com?) that the Soviets did much more in the way of infrastructure improvement (roads, schools, etc.) while they occupied Afghanistan (10 years, only 2 more than the U.S. has been there) than the U.S. Also, that a great deal of women’s lib went on during that occupation. Girls went to school, women became professionals, esp doctors. Do you know if that is accurate?
That is what you should say to Congress and the news media and Laura Bush who bragged about the great strides women have made in Afghanistan.
Just because Afghanistan is not exactly parallel to Vietnam is no reason not to re-think it.
While Robert is dealing with technical issues, Leighton, can you tell us a bit about the difficulties making the film … I gather funding was not easy to come by?
Keep harping on that. There are some on the left who say that the U.S. must stay to make sure the women get treated properly. That is sooo perverted.
when i was in kabul i was deeply moved and affected by talking to women in kabul. there fear of foreign troops was painful to observe
Well initially the war plan was Get Osama Bin Laden and depose the Taliban. That’s what Congress authorized. There was no goal of rebuilding Afghan society. There was no objective of an indefinite occupation of the country. What we’ve witnessed is mission creep on a massive scale. So I think it’s fair to say that there’s been no planning for the predicament we’re in. The war has drifted from its initial objectives, and now the U.S. is just reacting to circumstances and trying to control a situation that can’t be controlled, so it’s not surprising that the proposed ‘solution’ is always ‘more troops.’ That’s why we need to rethink this whole effort. And while we’re at it, we need to start to accept that it’s sheer hubris to believe that we can walk into another country and create their destiny. I don’t care how well-intentioned these hawkish, nation-building liberals are, the mentality is paternalistic at best, imperialist at worst.
Another very big BINGO!
eCAHN, you are in fine form this evening.
Including Feminist Majority. Unfortunately.
Robert – that is so sad and important. We hear so much about our being there to somehow save Afghan women and yet once again it is our idea of what Afghan women want, not theirs. Rawa and so many other sources say that conditions for women are worse … and our support for the warlords certainly points to horrific conditions for women and girls.
So did you get any impression of McChrystal in your research? He seems to be pushing the gold-plated unlimited edition of the war.
It was a huge treat to see Rethink in its final form after seeing it in parts. It’s a huge accomplishment, congrats to all!
Agreed plus its stupid and predictable and that which can be predicted can be manipulated.
Siun:
Thank you, for inviting Robert and Leighton.
Your posts are always right at the heart of our human predicament.
DW
Thanks. I’ve thought about this a lot. After awhile it becomes fairly clear.
Nobody I’ve seen on this blog saying must be the fake Dems on the news the ones who always lose to the GOPers in debates.
the rethink battle is really heartbreaking one………….and critical one
I wonder, for instance eCAHN, if Hillary, as a woman, as a mother, ever thinks (and feels) anything about this timeless truth of warfare?
There was a piece just recently in the New York Times saying exactly that. Also, Ahmed Rashid (also in the film) leaves that impression in his book, ‘Taliban.’ But I’ve also heard a very different story. Howie Klein, a blogger at http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/ who lived in Afghanistan for about 6 months in ’69 and from ’71-2, calls that article “drivel.” He says the Soviets built one road, from Herat to Mazar to Kabul, and the U.S. built another one from Herat to Kandahar to Kabul, and that was it. He had to travel everywhere by horse. And he says the idea that women were liberated at the time he was there is preposterous. They weren’t even literate enough to be able to think in abstract terms. I’ll ask him to blog about it; his experiences are really fascinating, especially in light of some of the conventional wisdom that’s arising now about Afghan society and history in the context of war mobilization.
Sadly she is reported to be on the hawkish side of the current White House debate.
Howie’s Afghanistan tales are amazing – I hope he will write more about this. We need his perspective.
yes Hilary Clinton has been very hawkish . we are working to get the film to her advisers
Thanks, Jason. For everyone else out there, Jason Rosenbaum blogs at The Seminal (here at FDL) and is an opinion leader on Afghanistan and a great online organizer in the antiwar movement. You should all get to know him, he’s an enormously important voice.
Thanks for the opposite side. I suspected what I had read was one-sided. I’ll keep my eyes open for more info on both sides.
Why am I not surprised?
Where is Lysistrata?
We have need of her.
And all of her sisters …
Throughout the world.
Maybe you and I can team up and pressure him to blog more about it!
Every panel I see on CSPAN, or Charlie Rose etc., absolutely refuses to raise the question of whether we should be there. How do we get them to rethink at all?
I thought it was really important that Robert went to Afghanistan during the making of Rethink Afghanistan – his reports back were a valuable view into the reality. Id love to hear more about how that experience shaped the viewpoint of the film?
Aw thanks.
It’s a huge issue right now, and only getting bigger. The media is really paying attention and the polls are moving against further escalation, which is a really good thing. There is an opportunity right now to impact the debate.
Well She did start out as a Goldwater girl .
You’re On with that! I always read Howie’s travel writing since it gives me such a real view of very new places. Having that view on Afghanistan from his time there would be wonderful.
I used to think Hillary was hawkish as a device to prove she had balls, to counter the subliminal that she isn’t an alpha male, the key to getting elected. However, since she lost the primary, she hasn’t changed, so I’ve decided her hawkishness is more fundamental. Also, I think she’s good friends with Madeline what’s-the-point-of-having-a-military-if-you-can’t-use-it Albright (both Wellesley, but many years apart).
So no thoughts on McChrystal? or Petraeus’ role?
Siun here, by the way, is one of the leading bloggers on Afghanistan and has been a huge resource to us as we’ve produced this film and used it to engage people in the movement to end the war. I guess this audience is probably very familiar with her already, though. Another writer I’d like to highlight (who also blogs here on FDL occasionally) is our own Brave New Foundation/The Seminal ‘blog fellow,’ Derrick Crowe. Derrick is nothing short of brilliant, and I would really encourage people to follow his blogging at http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/.
my trip to afghanistan was extraordinary. the sight and sounds and feel of the 3rd poorest country in the world cut to the soul. and they stay with me every day
Derrick’s work has been superb!
McChrystal is just wrong. Pure and simple. He’s also got an interesting history in special ops in Iraq that you can read about if you follow Tom Hayden’s writing: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090601/hayden
One way would be to sign our petition and send it to everyone you know:
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
((((Siun))))
Derrick is doing great work. Delighted to see him here and at Open Left.
I really find the model of producing a film initially in segments and sharing it as you’ve done with Rethink Afghanistan quite wonderful – aside from the impressive content. How was that process for the BNF team? and do you think it’s a model that could be used more broadly?
Thanks..)
Your suggesting that school produced Right wingers who later became Dems perhaps because it was popular?
What infrastructure projects do you think would do the most good if we had to do it over again. What do these people want and need the most besides no more foreign troops in their land?
the process was a very positive one. we learned so much as we went. and doing it in segments allowed us to keep adjusting our messaging and content.
and it allowed us to keep re working each segment of the film.
fabulous.
and deja vu all over again.
korea, vietnam, iraq, et alia.
are we on some phonograph disc that keeps going around with the tonearm continuing to skip?
We loved that process — it comes very naturally to us, since we’re in both the filmmaking business and the short online video making business. The New York Times described our approach well in this story from last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/movies/23gree.html
This approach allowed us to use each segment of the film to provoke debate and pressure Congress, and to build a campaign out of the movie. So in a way, politically, we got multiple bites at the apple, where we would have only had one had we released it the conventional way.
I imagine we’ll use this approach again in the future, it worked so well.
we also built an audience and activism as we went along. so we helped find and build those who cared about the issue . and we helped convert and convince depending on the aspect we focused on, women, civilian casualties, securityu.
No necessary link. I just included it because I disliked being there so much, so take petty opportunities to take a swipe.
I really enjoyed it too, and it almost seems like this model let you all get more leverage out of the release. There was lots of people watching at all points in the film.
we will definitely use it again. also we did not have to wait for a finished film but were able to impact the debate as we turned out sections of the film. and as the debate changted, we could vary our focus. it truly was real time documentary film making. hard to imagine going back to the old model
I agree completely – I certainly found it invaluable to have the various segments nudging me to look in new ways at the topics … and beyond politics, it seems an ideal model in an internet age which more filmmakers should try.
I noticed that you mentioned Alan Grayson coming to a screening … are other members of congress watching?
creatively the segment approach was useful. when we came to civilian casualties we made the decision to vary the interview style and go with the personal/human. on one level we were breaking the form, which is a no no. on the other hand it was clear we were making the case and so the human factor was important addition
People in Afghanistan are poor and they need jobs. The infrastructure they need is pretty much everything, since there simply is no development in Afghanistan. But the important thing is that Afghans be employed to develop their own infrastructure. Foreign aid helps, but if the work is contracted out to Western companies instead of being given to Afghans, as it is now, it denies Afghans the income they so desperately need (and turn to the Taliban to secure), it does nothing to give Afghans a sense of controlling their own future, and it comes as something alien to their society that’s just dropped on top of them. It’s entirely the wrong approach.
This is a great post Siun and a wonderful thread.
The net appears to want to kick me off … and has done several times.
May not be able to remain for long.
Thank you, all.
DW
Still you might be on to something.
alan grayson and donna edwards attended dc screening. we URGE all of you to hve screenings in your district and invite congressmen/women or staffer to attend. and then ask the simple basic questions, how many troops? how long? what cost? what is exit strategy?
we can really impact this.
I should add that Afghan refugees need immediate relief. That’s not infrastructure-building, but it’s an emergency. Our war is creating their suffering and it would be a good thing if we were focused on providing food and shelter for the displaced.
her views on foreign policy (which I admit kind of agree with some of my own) have been pretty consistent… which s precisely why she is IMO ideally suited to be secretary of state… perhaps more so than she would have been as CIC. She’s a master of realpolitik.
Many of us here do our own analyses. We know about McChrystal’s past. The strategy paper he sponsored was a mass of contradictions. It is really not his purview but he seems to be totally ignorant about policy. It is like it never occurred to him. I was interested also in the dynamics between McChrystal and Petraeus, who is much more a political general. I was wondering how much Petraeus’ treatment for prostate cancer sidelined him and kept him from selling the war to the politicians.
Got you give locals money to build roads etc.
Absolutely. McGovern, Edwards and Grijalva have also been close allies. We’ve chatted extensively with Honda’s office and know that he’s paying attention. And Doggett’s office recently thanked us for making the film.
It just occurred to me that the by-now well established tradition of having the SecState be a minority or woman is just another part of downgrading diplomacy, thus upgrading military in the U.S. foreign policy mix.
I hope this understanding, which you have eloquently delineated, becomes more generally appreciated among Americans, Leighton.
DW
Infrastructure? Like pipeliines?
I think the problem there may be that you need a measure of security and stability to build and
maintain infrastructure. Chicken or egg… ‘course you also need institutional context for such development, including a (preferably non-puppet occupation) government that isn’t totally corrupt.
That’s heartening – and I love the idea of setting up screenings for our congress people!
Just want to thank everyone here for showing up and asking such great questions. Very enjoyable. Robert got booted from the site but wants to say good night as well.
Please sign our petition and circulate it to friends, sign up to host a grassroots screening, and follow our blog and join our Facebook group!
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
Is Rethink still raising funds for refugees or should we look to Red Crescent or some other group as a good way to get funds to those who need it most?
As we come to the end of this great salon,
Robert, Leighton, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the evening discussion your new movie and Afghanistan.
Siun, Thank you very much for Hosting the salon.
Everyone – you can buy a copy of the Rethink Afghanistan DVD – here.
Thanks all.
Sorry to lose Robert but I really appreciate both of you joining us tonight – Rethink Afghanistan is such a valuable contribution to our understanding – and our work to set a different course.
I really hope to hear that folks are getting their copies and showing the film to their neighbors and friends and family – and member of Congress!!!
Thanks Bev for once again bringing us such a great film to discuss here at FDL – and thanks firepups for a very interesting conversation!
don’t look at me.. I think she’s doing a good job. She’s actually convinced our allies to start talking to us again… minor miracle after what we subjected them to for eight years.
Our allies gave the Nobel to O just because he’s not W (and makes good speeches), so I would suggest that Hillary’s success, such as it is, is because she’s not Condi.
Thanks to Bev, Siun and FDL for having us!
Keep up the awesome work Leighton and thank you!
thanks for coming! loved your insights!
Thanks all, great discussion, and yes, invite your Members of Congress to a screening! It’s such a good idea!
we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. I thought, for example, that it was pretty masterful to convince the Chinese to commit to carbon targeting without really giving up much of anything ourselves… not progressive perhaps, but good realpolitik nonetheless. Only one of many examples…
Wonderful discussion, thanks to all.
Gee! If protecting the women in Afghanistan is our reason for staying, does that mean we have to invade Saudi Arabia and about thirty other countries who treat woman similarly. We could take over countries in half the world that treat people as if they had no human rights.
We forgot about China’s human rights problems, because we thought we could make trillions on their cheap even slave labor, and can’t say much now that they almost own us.
All while our human rights toward Healthcare in our own country is in question. The world watched as they saw how we treated the people of New Orleans. The world also hears of us letting people lose jobs, houses, life savings, and having to file bankruptcy, while bailing out our banks. We act like no one see’s what goes on in our own country. They see and it’s no wonder they question where our morality gives the right to tell other how to live.