A key reason that many Americans are turned off by politics is that they don’t experience news sportscasters who are on their side. The average American, if she reads The New York Times, would feel like a Chicagoan watching the Cubs game on St. Louis TV. Her team hits a home run and the sportscaster is melancholy. Her team strikes out, and the sportscaster does a dance. Who wouldn’t be turned off?
The day after the budget deal, we should have had a National Day of Gloating Over Wall Street because Social Security once again evaded the knives of the Wall Street greedheads. The day after the United States didn’t bomb Syria, we should have had a National Day of Gloating Over AIPAC and the Neocons. But the US news media was so sad! No Social Security cuts. No new war. What is America coming to?
Now the US news media is so sad because Afghan President Hamid Karzai won’t follow Washington’s orders. You can’t find good help these days! Washington has written an agreement for Karzai to sign that would enable US troops to stay in the country after 2014. But Karzai says he won’t sign unless the United States agrees to do two things: transfer Afghan prisoners from Gitmo to Afghanistan and start the peace talks with the Afghan Taliban to end the war.
According to the US news media, the fact that Karzai is holding out risks disaster. What’s the terrible thing that could happen if there’s no agreement? All US forces would have to withdraw from Afghanistan.
But from the point of view of most Americans, this would be no disaster. If all US forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan, most Americans would be totally delighted.
Moreover, Karzai’s demands are just demands that are quite consistent with stated US policy. It’s stated US policy to close Gitmo, which means that the people who are held there have to be sent somewhere else. We should be delighted that Afghanistan wants to take its prisoners back. It’s stated US policy to try to start peace talks with the Afghan Taliban. Indeed, the Obama administration tried to transfer Afghan Taliban prisoners from Gitmo to Qatar to start peace talks with the Afghan Taliban.
What was the holdup? Congress, we were told. Republicans in Congress opposed the transfer of Afghan Taliban prisoners from Gitmo. Obama’s hands were tied.
But Obama’s hands were tied because he didn’t try very hard to loosen them. The wimpiness of the Obama administration has been greatly exaggerated. When it really wants something, it fights for it. Look what’s happening now in Congress with the Iran nuclear deal. Republicans threatened to tank the negotiations by passing new sanctions on Iran. The administration fought back – it actually got up off its butt, went down to Capitol Hill and lobbied Congress. And, so far, there are no new Congressional sanctions.
The administration could do this on transferring the Afghan Taliban prisoners from Gitmo to start the peace talks. It actually could get up off its butt and go lobby Congress to permit the deal to go through. But it hasn’t, not because it couldn’t, but because it doesn’t care enough.
And this is why Karzai’s negotiating strategy is totally rational. He has to make Washington care enough to implement its own stated policy.
From the point of view of the interests of the majority of Americans, it’s win-win for Karzai to stand tall. If Washington calls his bluff, US troops come home and we win. If Washington caves to Karzai’s demands, the peace talks start and the war starts to wind down. This means that if US troops stay, they are much less likely to be blown up, and if the peace holds, the US troops will come home, because there will be no excuse for their presence and their departure is sure to be a condition of a final peace deal. So either way, Karzai’s stand leads to US troops not being blown up and coming home.
In particular, the fate of one US soldier is directly tied to the prisoner transfer. Bowe Bergdahl comes home when the Afghan Taliban prisoners leave Gitmo.
And here’s another reason that Karzai’s stand is in our interest: Washington is trying to get a deal to keep US troops in Afghanistan without getting Congressional approval. So the administration’s claim that it was urgent to get a deal by the end of the year served two purposes. The first purpose was to pressure Karzai to sign. The second purpose was to get a deal ahead of any Congressional vote. If you get the deal ahead of a Congressional vote, you can say to Congress the deal is done. It’s too late. If you vote no now, you’re going to undermine the president. You’re going to undermine US foreign policy. But if the deal can be delayed until next summer – which US officials now admit is the case – it’s very likely that we can get a Congressional vote first, because the House typically considers the National Defense Authorization Act in the late spring. And that’s the perfect venue for an amendment against keeping US troops in Afghanistan.
So if the US news media represented the interests of the majority of Americans, here’s what it would be saying: President Karzai, stand tall. Don’t cave to Washington’s pressure. Hold out for the prisoner transfer and the start of peace talks.
You can urge President Obama to transfer the prisoners and start the peace talks here.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.