In another unreflective and pro-war article, Letting women reach women in Afghan War, the NYT illustrates how army managers and think tanks related to the Pentagon are now using all our human capacities for empathy, including women’s traditional roles, in order to achieve means that are *power*-related. It is the other side of our economic world in which everything becomes commodified, including the most intimate aspects of life, such as friendship. We are in Afghanistan not only to prevent the return of Taliban and to destroy Al Qaeda, but also to make sure Pakistan’s situation doesn’t deteriorate further, to be a massive presence all along the border south of Russia (Caspian oil has become important), and to try to control Iran East (Afghanistan), West (Irak), and South (Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean where we maintain a fleet at all times), not to mention be a reminder to China that we are the top dog when it comes to energetic sources. The first objectives (Taliban-Al Qaeda) are a cover for the second galaxy of objectives, which are little talked about. It is interesting that our army is trying to be humanitarian in an area (Helman province) where in the fifties Brits and US already tried to be humanitarian for similar reasons (building dams and irrigation systems, but also worried about Iran which was nationalizing its oil industry: Dr Mossadegh was murdered, apparently with US help, to avoid that).

But back to the use of humanitarian means: giving food, medicine, talking to women and children. Of course, no matter the “cultural sensitivity training”, the locals are surely not confused about the exercise of power! Guns aplenty outside, planes that hit civilians occasionally overhead (automated drones often)… Is it surprising then that true NGOs find themselves under suspicion of being agents of imperialism or “the West,” and their volunteers may become victims of violence? I would like to see more discussion of these issues in our papers, but even the NYT doesn’t go there, or rarely.