I’m sure after watching something like that you are both disturbed and filled with questions. What can we do about these atrocities that our consumerism obviously help finance!? The clearest, and what I believe is the most immediate and self-disciplined answer, is curb our individual consumption. All to often in ‘developed’ countries that are distant from the toil, production, and environmental impact of our goods, we think it is okay to purchase recklessly because it ‘boosts the economy.’ This insatiable habit for consumption is not only likely to get us into serious trouble in the future as resources diminish, but is having deadly effects now, today, in countries across the globe. Take a look at this report on the effects of factories in Lesotho. Levi-Gap Factories Pollute Rivers and Damage Health in Lesotho.

We are not taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We want to open up markets and turn everyone into ‘effective consumers,’ yet we can not even mitigate the effects of our own actions. We blame the corporations and call for corporate social responsibility (CSR), when it is in fact our demand that fueled that irresponsibility in the first place. This is not to say that CSR is not crucial, it is, but the answer is two-fold and addressing and controlling our spending is also a necessary part. We can also pressure our officials, our corporations, our NGO’s, whoever will listen, to create a better system of product line accountability. Indeed efforts like this have already been put into motion, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, http://eiti.org. But then we must use it! If the demand is there then supply will follow, we know this all too well. And if laws don’t come first let’s create a normative movement, entreating people to join PTEP: People for the Ethical Treatment of People!

Paul Farmer is famously quoted in Tracy Kidder’s book Mountains Beyond Mountains for saying “I love WL’s (white liberals), love ‘em to death. They’re on our side. But WL’s think all the world’s problems can be fixed without any cost to themselves. We (PIH) don’t believe that. There’s a lot to be said for sacrifice, remorse, even pity. It’s what separates us from roaches” (Kidder, 40). I recognize this is a very touchy subject, and it often makes people uncomfortable. My response to this… good! Maybe that discomfort will entice some sort of action, rather than compliance; and besides, this discomfort hardly begins to grasp the inhumanity our brothers and sisters in Lesotho and the DRC face.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the NATO forces in the town of Marja no longer seek to eradicate the poppy fields, as they are trying to build support among the villagers rather than destroy more livelihoods. While the new burst of conflict-sensitivity is welcome, the real conundrum remains. Eradicating the poppy plantations has hurt the poorest in Afghanistan, worsened corruption, and encouraged the peasants to join the Taliban, but not eradicating poppy strengthens the insurgents, who benefit from the narco-trafficking by taxing peasants and collecting protection fees. Experts fear that the insurgents are getting involved in the production and trafficking of opium as well, which provides them even a stronger incentive to continue fighting compared to mere ideology. As the conflict is fueled by the several billion-dollar opium trade, it is clear that lasting peace cannot be built before the narcotics industry is curbed.

While the NATO-ISAF approach to combat poppy growing is now more gradual, there are other links in the smuggling chain that should be cut. The easiest target is the bottom link, the peasants; much more difficult is to punish the people with power and wealth. The poor legal institutions and a lack of political will ensure that many influential people involved in the trade never get prosecuted or even removed from their office. A lack of state security makes borders so porous that only two percent of opium is seized when leaving the country. In contrast, 20 percent of Colombia’s cocaine is seized at its border.

The Western military does not want to harm its reputation any more by angering the villagers, but the flourishing narco-trade should not be ignored. Instead of focusing on the voiceless peasants, the counter-narcotic forces can boost their efforts to destroy heroin laboratories, improve border security, and target traffickers and drug lords. While it remains a true challenge in one of the world’s most corrupt countries, it is also one of the most important ones, as the conflict in Afghanistan is quickly turning into another narco war with the insurgents and drug traffickers uniting.

Thirty years ago this Christmas Eve will be the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It’s interesting to think that the United States will succeed where the Soviets failed. Newsweek has an interesting article on avoiding making the same Soviet mistakes. Questions abound: How much has changed in Afghanistan in those 30 years? Is the US that much better of a military? — among many others. Personally, I feel that history will repeat itself, and will simply show that Afghans may fight amongst themselves, but will band together should an outsider intrude.

An old adage states, “Never fight a land war in Asia.” Never has this been more accurate. Afghanistan is a mysterious and complicated society where foreign militaries have consistently failed.

I agree that the U.S. military is easily the most successful, powerful and professional in history. That does not mean, however, that it will be capable of fixing every situation and being successful in every mission it undertakes. I would love nothing more to see the US succeed in Afghanistan, yet we can’t want it more than the Afghanis do. Top-down and outside-influenced democracy isn’t generally successful. Afghanis need to find their own way through political, economic and democratic development. Such an indigenous path makes it more likely that the final decision will stick.

The Soviets spent years trying to subdue the Afghanis and install a communist government. Eventually, they decided that it just wasn’t worth the time, money and effort. Will the U.S. break the Afghan curse or will we simply join the Soviets as yet another failed occupier?

Through most of 2005 and 2006, the Department of Homeland Security flew a Predator drone over the U.S.-Mexico border. The robot border-cop helped arrest 2,309 people and seize seven tons of marijuana.

In 2008, DHS presented plans to Congress to buy eighteen drone planes to patrol the U.S. broder. Of course, all realize that the drones are actually focused on stopping a different type of border crosser than al-Qaeda agents — illegal immigrants. “But the acceptability of using these systems for border surveillance has increased dramatically since terrorism became such a real, in-our-backyard threat,” says Cyndi Wegerbauer of General Atomics, which sold the Predator drone to the Border patrol.

Indeed, the war to defend against would-be immigrants, robots have also gone to work not only for the government, but also for the private border patrols, or “militias,” as some have called themselves. One example is the “Border Hawk” drones serving with the American Border Patrol, a private organization operating in Cochise County, Arizona.

…[The] group’s technology is twenty-first century. They operate three drones that carry video and infrared cameras. The drones are launched by radio control and then automatically fly a patrol pattern using GPS, staying at four hundred feet, just below what the government requires for certification. While in the air, they search out any illegal immigrants crossing the border and record the images to TiVo for playback and review. The group doesn’t arrest the illegal aliens themselves, but passes on the information to the United States Border Patrol as well as loads its robots’ footage onto the Internet using a satellite connection, or, as the group describes, “broadcasting the invasion live on the internet.”

And today, the Department of Homeland Security announced the expansion of its drone program in surveillance and patrol of the U.S.-Mexico border. These new drones will survey maritime smuggling and illegal drug trafficking and will employ special wide-ranging radar to scan the seas. In January, DHS will test out a drone over the Caribbean off the Florida coast, and there are plans to launch a second one over the Gulf of Mexico by the summer of 2010.

The idea of having a machine that is more often used in the battlefield in Pakistan and Afghanistan in a civilian environment is unsettling, to say the least – not to mention the hefty $13.5 million bill that comes with its services. But the success of the land drones currently in use at the border has Homeland Security officials ecstatic and willing to explore future possibilities. And despite the ominous name and affiliation with a chaotic war abroad, the drones don’t carry any weapons and serve primarily as a monitoring tool.

Still, it’s unnerving to come to grips with the fact that somewhere along the road, humans and international relations entered the future. Three days ago, it was reported that the CIA would expand the drone program in Pakistan – a controversial move, since the program has been sharply criticized for killing innocent civilians in addition to military targets. Robotics technology alarmed us when it entered the battlefield – and it’s a topic that still remains somewhat taboo for officials – but now that both its military and  civilian roles are expanding as well, how will we begin to reassess our relationship with technology in international affairs? As P.W. Singer reminded us in the New York Times, “We’re talking about a technology that’s not going away.” The technology will only become better, faster, more efficient, and more durable, and will wheedle its way further into transnational crime, law enforcement, terrorism and counter-terrorism. We’ll keep a lookout, of course. But as always, we will not realize the extent of the changes until they are already fully upon us.

I would like to be cautiously optimistic about this new campaign/escalation/surge, but deep down I just don’t believe history is on our side. As good as the intentions are of President Obama, he can’t make the U.S. military or the Afghani population make this work out. Only they can come to that conclusion and figure out a way to move forward. The U.S. military is undoubtedly one of the most (if not the most) successful military in history, yet it can’t fix a problem that isn’t solely a military one. Building social cohesion, creating infrastructure and institutions, and providing the stable, transparent government is not traditionally a military role. That’s not to say the military can’t help, just that personnel aren’t always prepared for the civil society role.

The problem for me and many others is just how the U.S. can justify its continued involvement in Afghanistan when there is rampant corruption and ties to the drug trade (see previous entries on this subject). According to Newsweek, the plot is even thicker since Afghan drug money is now tied to Dubai. It is very difficult, even in the best of circumstances, to defend and support a government that is one of the most corrupt in the world and is essentially a narcostate. I fear that very little good will actually come from this, with good money being poured after bad.

One other major issue is the publication of a possible withdrawal date. While it’s smart to have an exit strategy in the works, but announcing it out of the gate will most likely make things that much more complicated. It also doesn’t help to have an opposition party ready and willing to pounce on any decision Obama makes, good, bad or indifferent. Opposition is great when it’s healthy, but in some cases it has been disingenuous. Many of these politicians were unquestioning of “questionable” policies 7 or 8 years ago, and yet now the fine-tuning of said policies is a major issue.

Apparently, only time will tell whether or not Obama made the right decision or if history will simply repeat itself in Afghanistan.

The film opens at the Film Forum on Wednesday, September 16 (tomorrow) and Daniel and Patricia Ellsberg will make special appearances at the 6:00pm and 8:00pm shows on Wednesday, September 16 and Thursday, September 17. Filmmaker Rick Goldsmith will make an appearance at 1:00pm on Friday, September 18.

Film Forum Website