MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W301637434

Obama's War: A Lecture

2010· article· en· W301637434 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tariq Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStalemateSpanish Civil WarAfghanLawGovernment (linguistics)Presidential systemPolitical scienceVietnam WarWorld War IIJust war theorySociologyHistoryEconomic historyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During his presidential campaign, President Obama pledged more troops, ground intrusions, and drone attacks to end the war in Afghanistan. This is a promise he has kept, but it will not work. In this lecture, Tariq Ali talks about why the war is unwinnable and can only lead to a bloody stalemate. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] AFGHANISTAN IS NOW AT A CRITICAL STAGE. AND I AM VERY PROUD TO SAY THAT THE London Review of Books, whose 30th anniversary we are commemorating, has over the years published others and myself on this subject, taking essentially a critical stance to this war. It became fashionable all over the world--not just in the United States--to think of Iraq and Afghanistan as two very different wars. On one level they are, but good-thinking people placed different moral values on these wars. The view of large numbers of people in the United States today--and the uninterrupted view of an overwhelming majority of Europeans--is that the Iraq War was a bad war that never should have happened. The Afghanistan War, on the other hand, was meant to be a good war. This was the war against a country where the people who attacked the United States on September 11 were based and this had to be sorted out. The government that had given them refuge had to be toppled and this could only be done militarily. As a small footnote, the official September 11 inquiry said that the Afghan government never formally refused to hand over these people; they just demanded to see the evidence. The commission of inquiry made a point of noting that if convincing evidence were provided, the government would hand them over. Of course, no one supported this crazed attack on the United States, but some of us asked at the time what the motive was for sending an army in to conquer Afghanistan. Former president George W. Bush said the main aim was to sort out al Qaida and capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, dead or alive, in his unforgettable words. If they were dead, that was that; if they were alive, they presumably would be brought to the United States to stand trial for having ordered this attack. When that was said, I argued with one of the former president's leading supporters on the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, in a debate that took place in Canada on Canadian television. If that was the case, I said, then the war was a failure because this was a small terrorist organization that was not going to hang around in Afghanistan for the U.S. army to capture it. It would flee and seek refuge in other parts of the world, most likely in the border badlands of Pakistan, but presumably elsewhere as well. So it would fail and did fail. If you announce that you are going to occupy a country to capture a, b, and c, they will move on. It is worth remembering that Afghanistan was captured without a struggle. No segment of Afghan society resisted the U.S.-NATO occupation. Why? Because Pakistan was the key player in this war. It had armed the Taliban and had sent the Taliban to take power and end a period of civil war. There were large numbers of Pakistani soldiers, Pakistani air force personnel, as well as Pakistani military and civilian intelligence people in Afghanistan who essentially told the Taliban leaders that now was not the time to fight. Shave your beards and return to Pakistan, but do not resist because you will all be killed. From their point of view, it was quite sane advice and, more astonishingly, the divided Taliban leadership accepted it. So Kabul fell without a struggle. For the first two years, the resistance to the United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan was limited, episodic, and localized. What made it national was the U.S. decision to impose on Afghanistan a regime led by one of its CIA assets, Hamid Karzai. He was propelled into power (more on him later) and has since become a controversial figure by supposedly fighting with the United States. Let us go through the chronology. The United States imposed this regime and gave it a U. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World OrderSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207