My cover story this week involves casualties in Afghanistan and the reaction of the American public to the Afghan War. So far, around 800 US soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan (compared to more than 4000 in Iraq) and over 2000 have been seriously wounded. Generally, the public thinks only about American casualties, but there have also been many thousands of "enemy" soldiers killed, and about 8000 civilians.

The article, however, seeks to balance the horror (and tremendous $ expense) of the war against the possibility that good will come of it. "Is the war necessary?" asks the author. The argument is that we HAVE to win this war to make America safe from terrorists. In truth, we may be protecting Israel from nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan (which is similar to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran), rather than protecting America. But Israel is the proxy of the West in the oil-rich Mideast region, and America has (so far) always chosen to back up Israel against all competitors. Loss of Mideast oil would definitely be a disaster for the American economy.

Besides the question of whether the war is necessary, the article asks "Can America ever win this war?" The Taliban definitely hope that, like the Russians before them, the Americans will find war in Afghanistan too difficult and too expensive. If the Taliban are correct, America would have to retreat in a year or two, having lost lives, money and national honor (similar to the situation in 1975 as US Marines left Vietnam). If, on the other hand, America is able to create a sustainable nation state that respects American (and Israeli) interests, then the American people are likely to praise the government that brings this about. If the public sees progress toward this kind of positive future, it will support the war; if not, protests will grow and the government may be forced to abandon the war.

But what if the object of this war is not "to win". What if 90% of the world's heroin supply is sufficient motivation to remain, to dominate the huge profits and direct the valuable drug toward addicts willing to serve the interests of the war-makers? What if keeping armies on the eastern border of Iran (Afghanistan) and the western border (Iraq) is another important motivation? What if the real target is Pakistan, the traditional enemy of both India (the world's second-largest developing economy, which just signed several trade pacts with the US) and Israel?

Winning the war may or may not be Obama's objective, but whether the public sees progress toward a desirable goal certainly will influence what he can do there.

Hooray! We have a blog.

Okay, this coming Tuesday, October 20, everyone will be reading the New York Times insert in the Lian He Bau (United Daily News) which came out on October 13. As usual, I have the cover story. This week's cover feature is called "Invasive Humans" -- a good title for 7 billion people on the Earth today, but especially apt for the Galapagos Islands, located about a thousand miles off the coast of Ecuador.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3A1pagos_Islar for a general view of the islands.

You may also enjoy this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIacOeB9cs

In the future, student may add information they find interesting by posting comments. For instance, if your weekly article concerns the Afghanistan war, you may want to post some additional information on the country, the war, the number of casualties, or websites you think are important about the topic. You do not have to do that, however.

I'm not sure why the school has asked us to make this blog, actually, but it has. Let's find ways to use it profitably. If you have any ideas, post them as comments or just bring them to class.

WARNINGS: Do not expect me to look at the blog daily. Students have my e-mail address and can contact me with questions that way. Whatever you post here will form a (more or less) permanent record of our activities. Post only what you want the whole world to read, and especially what would be interesting to our class.