My Take on the COPE AGM & Next Steps
I took part in COPE’s 6 hour marathon AGM yesterday (Sunday Feb 19th) along with nearly 300 other dedicated COPE members. Like many others I found the evident dis-unity and factionalism within COPE and its impact on the elections process frustrating. Unlike some members however I don’t believe there is an “existential” crisis based on a lack of consensus or agreement on progressive polices.
In fact, you would be hard-pressed to distinguish the candidates on the two slates in yesterday’s election on any other basis than the electoral strategy agreements between COPE and Vision during the past two elections. The talent pool on both slates was also impressive and should not be dismissed out of hand when considering the closeness of the votes. The Treasure elected by one vote, and other positions filled by 3 or 4 vote margins.
Although COPE was all but shut out in Vancouver’s civic elections just a few months ago (electing only one of its candidates – Alan Wong to School Board), and declared dead or on life support by various political pundits it still managed to pack a large hall with a standing room only crowd. It also attracted 21 high calibre candidates for the 12 positions executive positions up for election.
As in most elections, emotions were running high at the start of the meeting (which was delayed due to the high turnout) and there were (in my view) far too many points of order and inappropriate comments which further prolonged the meeting.
There was one area of contention which definitely needs to be dealt with before the next COPE AGM, and that concerns the sign-up and approval of new members immediately prior to the start of the meeting. While the COPE constitution provides for this at regular meetings and the AGM, it does not allow this for meetings to nominate Candidates for Civic elections, for which there is a thirty day membership requirement.
Since we just had such a meeting a few months ago, I believe that lead to confusion and concerns, including assertion that COPE is undemocratic. Of course nothing could be further from the truth, and COPE is so democratic that at times it almost seems like anarchy. The motion was passed at the meeting for the incoming executive to review and bring forward to the membership changes to clarify and update the constitution will hopefully address both these issues.
I am suggesting that the 30 day rule for nomination meetings be extended to AGM’s and meeting where a notice of motion will be dealt with. I believe this addresses concerns raised at the start of the meeting, while still allowing COPE to build its membership by continuing to approve new members at the start of regular meetings. Since there hasn’t been a review of the constitution in a number of years, I expect the executive (and those members who are process oriented) will find others areas in the constitution that can be amended and/or clarified to help COPE function in keeping with its principles.
My final point, deals with strategy (electoral, operational, and issue based), and I expect this to be the most contentious. I say that because at least with respect to electoral strategy, as this is where I see the greatest divide/dis-unity in COPE. For those of us on the left of the political spectrum the greatest challenge for us is not usually on the goal or objective, or even principles and values. It is almost always finding consensus on strategies and tactics, and failing consensus reaching a respectful agreement to disagree democratically so we can still move forward towards our common goal(s).
Like many others on the left I have had some experience with the tyranny of the majority, and also the obstructive (and in more than one case the destructive) actions of a committed and passionate minority. I also have experience working with a bargaining committee that included an avowed anarchist, and was having trouble negotiating a new agreement because their usual committee practices became unworkable.
Based on these experiences, I suggest COPE needs to reach a broadly accepted agreement on a protocol, and the processes it will use in developing and adopting any significant and potentially divisive strategy in the future. I hope this is made a priority, and see it as both a challenge and an opportunity for the new executive. I also say this with all due respect to those who see or saw the agreements with vision as something more that an electoral strategy, and hope my suggestion is viewed in that spirit.
Spinning Election Results
In time honoured fashion the media, candidates (successful and not), political parties, and bloggers (like me) are all putting their spin on the recent Vancouver election results. The media of course looks for most sensational way to portray the results, candidate reactions are as varied as the results and their respective personalities, and political parties tend to be more strategic in responding to the results. As for us bloggers, our spin usually seeks to validate pre-election predictions, reflect deeply rooted bias, and the passion we bring to our blogs.
Vancouver’s civic elections are so uniquely complex, that there are boundless opportunities for spin. Unlike other cities, we have three separate civic bodies and enough candidates to fill a good size hall. And Vancouver has such a turbulent political history that some observers characterize Vancouver Politics as a blood sport. Of course there are others who see it as more akin to a soap opera, and I see it as a bit of all of the above.
With this not so brief introduction, and acknowledgement of my obvious bias as a co-chair of the COPE election planning and campaign committees, here is my personal spin on the election results.
Voter turnout increased, progressive majorities returned to School Board, Council and Park Board, Capital plans approved, and a clear mandate given on the important issues of housing the homeless, creating more affordable housing, improving transit, giving neighbourhoods a stronger voice in civic matters, and making Vancouver a greener more sustainable city. Yes, in spite of running a strong campaign, increasing its support base, greatly expanding its voter contacts, and increasing its vote, COPE only succeeded in electing one of its nine candidates, and that was Allan Wong to School Board.
While COPE’s failure to elect anyone to council has lead to some pundits predicting of the demise of COPE, such predictions are in my opinion nothing more than wishful thinking, and ignore the fact that COPE is not simply an electoral machine. A fact that I believe will be abundantly clear in the days, months and years ahead as COPE continues its tradition of speaking out on important issues and advocating progressive solutions for the serious challenges facing Vancouver.
Occupy Movement
Recently I was posting a video slideshow of photos from my Granddaughters’ first Blues festival this summer, and found myself reading and/or re-reading the many post related to Occupy Wall Street/ Vancouver/ and elsewhere. This brought to mind the following quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead – US anthropologist & populariser of anthropology (1901 – 1978).
That got me to thinking about what to say to those who think organizing the occupations of financial districts, holding rallies, and creating peaceful demonstrations will not change anything. The simple fact is these are the very sort of things that brought and end to segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa, British rule in India, an end to the war in Vietnam, women’s rights to vote, workers rights, protection of old growth forest, endangered species protection, rejection of privatisation of water, and other peoples victories large and small.
Those who got this new movement started, those who are joining in, and those who are supporting it know that change does not come quickly or easily. However, if the idea of change gets planted strong enough, it will become inevitable.
To quote Tommy Douglas – “Courage, my friends; ’tis not too late to build a better world”.
The Spin on COPE Nominations
The media
coverage of the COPE nomination meeting held on September 18 was (in my view)
generally quite good. However, their analysis, while not as wild or factually
questionable as some of the bloggers, left something to be desired.
Although the
media presented the overall results and numbers correctly (as noted below), I
found their headlines and analyses of David Cadman’s failure to secure one of
the three nominations available, at odds with certain facts.
As the media
reported, only 3 nominees for City Council were to be elected, and there were 614 ballots cast. In most of the articles, it appeared as if
there were only four candidates for the 3 spots, instead of the six that
actually ran. Could be that this was
done to make Cadman’s loss appear more dramatic, as suggested by some of the
headlines?
It is also
telling to me that in analyzing the results, there was no reference to the fact
that Cadman’s loss by 7 votes to Aquino and 36 votes to Louis represented less
than 2% and 6% of the total vote respectively. Or, that the next closest
contender Terry Martin was 69 votes, more than 10% of the total vote behind
him. In fact, although Cadman lost his
bid for nomination, he had the support of over half the membership who
voted. Folks I talk to who read about
the nomination results in the media have been stunned when I point that out to
them.
Here are the
results, so you can do the math yourself: Ellen Woodsworth, an incumbent
councillor, topped the poll with 534 votes, former city Councillor Tim Louis
came in second with 345 votes, and first-time candidate RJ Aquino took the
third and last spot with 316. Coming in fourth with 309 votes, and failing to
secure a nomination was David Cadman, a long-time incumbent councillor. The fifth and sixth place finishers were
Terry Martin with 240 vote and Colin Desjarlais with 98 votes.
David Cadman should be praised
instead of flayed
I think it
is shameful that some media and bloggers have used David Cadman’s nomination
loss as an opportunity to denigrate him and recycle some of the criticisms that
were rejected by a majority of Voters in the last civic elections, when they
re-elected Cadman.
David Cadman
worked hard for the citizens of Vancouver, studied the weekly agenda’s
of council, thoughtfully considered the business that came before council, and
did his best to represent us. I know
this from attending weekly caucus meetings with him in mornings before city
hall is even open, and evenings when others are watching hockey games
or socializing with family and friends.
Of course there are any number of reporters
who in the course of their work have (on many occasions) over the past three
years contacted Cadman early in the morning, late at night, on weekends, and
during meal times for his comments or
insights on a story. I hope at least one of them might have the decency to set
the record straight.
In the
meantime – I say to David, thank you on behalf of the many of us who appreciate
your years of dedication and service to the citizens of Vancouver.
A Good COPE-Vision Agreement
The COPE Vision Agreement is being voted on by COPE members this Sunday (June 26) at the Japanese Hall 487 Alexander Street. Registration starts at 2:00pm, and the meeting is scheduled to start at 3:00. There has also been a lot of membership renewals and sign-ups recently and we can expect more right up to the meeting, which I think is great.BTW – to renew membership, or Join COPE go to >http://cope.bc.ca/get-involved/become-a-member. From comments in the media and on the web, there is clearly strong support for and opposition to the agreement, both within and outside of the COPE membership. This is also true within my circle of friends. I am hopeful that the debates on Sunday will be as respectful as the ones I have had, and am having with friends, who are quick to point to Vision decisions at Council that they know I disagree with. I might even have been persuaded to change my position on the agreement between COPE and Vision if it only dealt with City council, and if I thought COPE had the resources (financial and otherwise) to field a Mayor and full slate for Council, and didn’t care about School Board, and Park Board. Of course I would also have to forget or ignore everything I have learned about civic politics and elections over the past 30 years. This includes the fact that plumping (voting for fewer candidates than number of positions to be filled) is allowed in civic elections. This means that the party who runs a full slate or more candidates that other parties usually ends up electing fewer Candidates. An example of this is the last civic elections where COPE ran five Candidates for school Board and three were elected, while Vision ran four and all four were elected. At Council, the NPA ran a full slate and COPE ran two Candidates, who were both elected, while the NPA elected only one. I consider Civic Election campaigns more complex and challenging than electoral campaigns for other levels of government. And Vancouver because of its size, diversity, number of positions to be elected, and political culture is in my view the most complex of all. That is why the COPE election Planning committee has been meeting for months, reviewing campaigns and analyzing results from previous elections, and working on developing an election campaign plan that will enable us to increase the number of COPE representatives on Council, School Board and Park Board.The proposed Agreement with Vision is a critical and strategic part of that planning. This agreement not only enhances our ability to grow our number of elected representative, it also provides ways and means to increase our effectiveness in advancing and achieving progressive policies at all levels. That is why I am going to vote in favor of the Agreement and urge other members to vote yes as well.
The Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) and Vision Vancouver have reached a tentative agreement to once again cooperate on election efforts
and run a common slate of candidates.
This is not a backroom deal akin to the HST or TILMA, where the Provincial
Liberals negotiated deals in secret and no one got to vote on them. Both COPE and Vision were quite open about the fact that we were in discussions regarding the upcoming civic elections over the several months it took to reach this tentative agreement. It is also clear from the agreement that it needs to be approved. In the case of COPE that approval must come from a vote of its membership at a meeting that will be announced shortly.
It is certainly not an unprecedented agreement; after all, it is the third such agreement between COPE and Vision. Although the first of these was not
in writing, this tentative agreement is clearly based on the written agreement that was in place for the 2008 civic election. It should also be noted that, historically, there have been other agreements for cooperation between COPE and other progressive political groups in Vancouver. Team Vancouver and Mike Harcourt come to mind.
I will admit to not being an unbiased observer; as a member of both the COPE executive and the negotiating team appointed by them, I am somewhat offended by suggestions that the COPE negotiating team did not have a mandate to seek an agreement on electoral cooperation with Vision. I and all of the other members of the COPE executive ran on a platform that clearly indicated we would continue the tradition of working with Vision and other progressives, while playing a leading role in making Vancouver a more liveable city – one that is focused on Ecological, Economical and Social Justice for all of its citizens. The membership of COPE elected us with that clear mandate and, I believe, had we not sought an agreement with vision that would have been a betrayal of the membership.
As for the merits of this agreement, I will leave those to a future post. In the meantime I look forward to debating whether or not this is a good agreement with other members of COPE at the upcoming meeting.
For more on the tentative COPE/ Vision agreement > http://cope.bc.ca/news
The Housing Crisis in the West End
There is a housing crisis in the West End. However, it is not a lack of market based rental housing. It is the declining affordability of housing. This has reached the point where it is forcing seniors, other on fix or limited incomes, workers in our community, and working families to leave. Even local businesses are being forced to relocate as their rents become less affordable.
There is no doubt that the character of West End community is being changed, but these changes are not being driven by community needs. Instead, it is market forces controlled by developers, non-resident property owners, and corporations who are the driving force behind them.
Like many others in the West End, I am getting tired of attending rally’s and signing petitions opposing unwanted changes in our neighbourhoods, or attending public meetings to oppose ad hoc planning decisions. I think what we need is a community based planning process, and a “Community Plan”, a plan that would address the real housing crisis in the West End – affordability. This would mean an end to spot zoning, and rezoning motivated by greed, rather than community needs. And it would also provide all of us, including developers and property owners with a clear set of rules and guidelines for now, and into the future.
What about Market Based Housing Making the West End more affordable?
While the addition of more market based rental housing in some areas of the city may have an impact on affordability, this has not been the case in the West End in the past, nor is it likely to be the case in the future. Some of the reasons for this are fairly obvious. The West End housing market is already heavily dominated by market based rentals (approximately 80%), and it is a very desirable place to live. We also have the highest occupancy rate in what is already the most densely populated community in the city.
More market based rental housing, particularly if it is based on increased density, will simply continue to drive property values upward, and make housing less affordable. I am also opposed to more market based housing because we are already the most densely populated community in Vancouver, and one of the most densely populated communities on the planet. Our community services are already stretched to, and in some cases beyond, capacity. Although our density has been steadily increased, the budgets for services have not. In fact, there have been cuts to services, leaving population increase driven needs unmet.
Rezoning the Coast Plaza Hotel
We have been told that rezoning of the West Ends Coast Plaza Hotel (as proposed) would result in approximately 300 new market based rental units in our already densely populated West End community. Some folks believe this would be a good thing, and see it as an opportunity to make housing in the West End more affordable. They are of course calling for the rezoning to be contingent on a significant number of units being set aside for social housing and/or affordable housing where rents are tied to income. Unfortunately this is not likely to happen, although they may be able to secure a few units, which will have no positive impact on affordability in the West end.
This rezoning would also mean the loss of a hotel that has been part of our community for many years, provides a number of well paying jobs, and places far fewer demands on our community services than a 300 unit apartment building would. I know there are some community amenities included in the rezoning application, but are they amenities we as a community decided we needed, or are they a divisive bribe designed to reduce opposition to the rezoning?
I will admit that I am somewhat biased, and also oppose the rezoning of the Coast Plaza hotel for personal reasons. I was married there, I put family and Friends up there when they come to visit, I attend a number of community events there every year – like the Pride brunch, and I value the community support provided by the hotel and its workers throughout the year.
More than Just Fun and Games
It is budget time here in Vancouver, and once again significant cuts to the Parks and Recreation budget are looming. At risk are programs and services which contribute significantly to the quality of life in Vancouver’s 23 neighbourhood communities. Although considered a high priority by most Vancouverites, some of our senior staff and civic leaders consider these soft services. That is one of the reasons that staff reports and budget discussions tend to exaggerate potential savings and downplay the negative effects of cuts to and within the park’s board budget.
Although changes over the last few years to the budget processes at city hall and the park board were supposed to facilitate the participation of citizens and their community associations, the public consultation meetings were seen by many to be a sham. There were folks who waited for hours and never got to speak, and there was an apparent disconnect between the budget decision making process, and the public consultation process.
I know the civic budget process is not fun for staff or the elected decision makers, particularly during difficult economic times. I understand that they spend long hours sorting through reports, debating issues and are lobbied extensively (in both the positive and negative sense of the term). For the most part, these folks (regardless of their political affiliations) are striving to make the decisions that they feel are best for our city. Unfortunately the budget process gives the so called “hard services” advocates and powerful corporate interest in our city a much louder voice; than the grandmother, or child whose program or service is at risk, or the voice of the community association lobbying (in the positive sense) on their behalf.
This imbalance between these respective voices, and their impact on civic budgets, is not unique to Vancouver, and it is something citizens in many cities are struggling with. Some cities, like Vancouver have made changes to their budget consultation processes, some have changed their governance models by adopting ward systems, and others appear to be seeking solutions through studies and reports. I see positive signs in the recognition that there is an imbalance in these voices and that there is a real need to address it. Unfortunately there is no one simple quick fix and I expect a balancing of these voices is still many years away.
In the meantime, I think one of the things we as ordinary citizens can do to strengthen our voices when it comes to Parks and Recreation programs and services, is to adopt the Mantra, “Parks and Recreation programs and services are more than just fun and games”. If enough of us use this mantra whenever the subject of parks and recreation and/or its budget comes up in a conversation, at a meeting, or when motivated to write a letter to the editor of our local paper, we can dispel the myth that these are soft services and not as important as the so called hard services. If you think about it, I will bet that you, someone in your family, or someone you know has benefited from a Parks and Recreation program or service. Unfortunately we have a tendency, as does the mainstream media, to focus on negative events. This mantra can and should be used to highlight the many positive stories we all know but sometimes forget to share. I believe the value in sharing these stories is just as great as talking about the many studies that demonstrate the societal benefit of having well maintained parks and a wide variety of recreation programs and services. Without these personal stories, reports documenting cost savings in the provision of other high cost services like health and policing, seem to get lost or are forgotten while Parks and Recreation budgets continue to be cut. This Mantra can be used an important reminder to each other as well as to the budget decision makers of the broader implications of making Parks and Recreation program and service cuts.
I started drafting this bl
og following a visit to the Adams Avenue Recreation Centre where I spent many hours during my formative years. This was an unplanned visit, which took place while I was in San Diego recently for a conference and visiting Family and friends. My cousin Ken and I set out to see if we could find the apartment my family lived in on Adams Avenue over 50 years ago. We not only found the Apartment, but across the street I saw the recreation centre and playfields from my youth. My cousin who had visited us often, and is still much like an older brother to me, knew I had spent a lot time there and asked if I wanted to take a closer look. Little did he know that this would lead to a full tour of the facilities, while the Centre Director, Joanne McGhee and I, talked about the Centre’s past, present and precarious future. It appears that San Diego, like Vancouver is going through some financially challenging times and is considering significant cuts to its budget. Hearing Joanne talk about the kids who use the centre today, about the different programs they have, and seeing some of their projects, I couldn’t imagine what the neighbourhood would be like for them if the centre were closed. I also couldn’t imagine what my life might have been like had there been no Adams Avenue Rec. Centre. So much of what I have done in my life, and the journey to where I am, has links back to the time I spent there, and influences of its staff.
It was there I learned to play chess and with the encouragement of one of the staff I entered and to my delighted surprise took third place in a citywide chess tournament. I also learned to play table tennis there, and while a recreation coordinator in Nanaimo, I became the BC Table Tennis Vancouver Island zone representative. I also managed to win several medals in table tennis at the BC Games in Kimberly around the same time. My love of basket ball also began at that centre, and that with some modest talent, got me onto a brigade level basket ball team while in the US Army. I still remember my first visit to Berlin to play in a command level tournament. Although the Rec. Centre was a place to play, it was also a place where I learned how to socialize, and it was where I got my sense of community. Through programs like the San Diego Parks and Recreation junior recreation leader program, I learned about responsibility and developed skills that have served me well over the course of my life. I also feel that the communities I have lived in over the years have benefited as well. Prior to becoming a union activist, I was a community activist serving on various volunteer boards and committees, and worked as a Recreation Coordinator. Maybe I would have done these things anyway, but I know I have done them better because of the Adams Avenue Recreation Centre, and the dedicated staff that helped me along the way.
Note – I wrote about the Park Board in my initial blog post, and there you will find a link to its website and information about its structure and meetings which are open to the public. As an elected board, it is unique in Canada and you have the right to attend Park Board meetings. If this blog motivates even just one of you to attend, my time writing it will have been well spent.
Afghanistan – Here Be Dragons
I have started to write about Afghanistan several times, however each attempt floundered in a mishmash of emotion. These emotions have been fostered by the outstanding work of Steven Staples in the media and on the www.ceasefire.ca website on the Afghan situation and the incredibaly dishonest, stupid, embarassing, and (in my view) criminal actions of the Canadian Government and Military.
That I have been finding it hard to focus my thoughts on a particular aspect of the war in Afghanistan, is not all that surpizing when I think of the ”Rolling Thunder” barrage of exposés and critical analysis of Canadian military and political strategies over the past six to tweleve months. Some of these I have posted on my Facebook and emailed to Family and Friends. Usually after having started and abandoning something for my blog.
The forgoing, and my following comments are more of an introduction to the article below than a tradional blog post. Usually, I would simply include a link to the article, however all I have is a link to the webpage where the article appears among others – http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175280/tomgram%3A_ann_jones%2C_in_bed_with_the_u.s._army.
I am also posting this Article because it is the most honest sounding report out of Afghanistan I have read, and because it reminded of a line in a speech given by a dear friend, Brother Tom Kozar ( who passed away the same year as Barb). It was during a BC Federation of Labour convention, when in a very passionate speech, Brother Tom waxed poetically,as only he could do, and said something to the effect that “These are words which ring with the sound of truth, like hailstones on the tin roof of life”.
Ann’s article also gave me flashbacks to Vietnam, but made it easier to connect the dots between the US and Canadian Afghan situation, and gave me a greater understanding of what it is like for the Afghans and the soldiers caught up in a war that is militarily unwinable, and politically, economically and environmentally unsustainable.
Here Be Dragons
MRAPs, Sprained Ankles, Air Conditioning, Farting Contests, and Other Snapshots from the American War in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
In the eight years I’ve reported on Afghanistan, I’ve “embedded” regularly with Afghan civilians, especially women. Recently, however, with American troops “surging” and journalists getting into the swing of the military’s counterinsurgency “strategy” (better known by its acronym, COIN), I decided to get with the program as well. Last June, I filed a request to embed with the U.S. Army.
Polite emails from Army public affairs specialists ask journalists to provide evidence of medical insurance, a requirement I took as an admission that war is not a healthy pursuit. I already knew that, of course — from the civilian side. Plus I’d read a lot of articles and books by male colleagues who had risked their necks with American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. What struck me about their work was this: even when they described screw-ups coming down from the top brass, those reporters still managed to make the soldierly enterprise sound pretty consistently heroic. I wondered what they might be leaving out.
So I sent in a scan of my Medicare card. I worried that this evidence of my senior citizenship, coupled with my membership in the “weaker sex,” the one we’re supposedly rescuing in Afghanistan, would raise questions about my fitness for missions “outside the wire” of a Forward Operating Base (FOB, pronounced “fob”) in eastern Afghanistan only a few miles from the tribal areas of Pakistan. But no, I got my requested embed — proof of neither fitness nor heroism required (something my male colleagues had never revealed). In the end, my age and gender were no handicap. As Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple knows, people will say almost anything to an old lady they assume to be stupid.
Boys and Their Toys
Having been critical of American policies from the get-go, I saw nothing on the various Army bases I visited to change my mind. One day at that FOB, preparing to go on a mission, the sergeant in charge wrote the soldiers’ names on the board, followed by “Terp” to designate the Afghan-American interpreter who would accompany us, and “In Bed,” which meant me. He made a joke about reporters who are more gung-ho than soldiers. Not me. And I wasn’t alone. I had already met a lot of older guys on other bases, mostly reservists who had jobs at home they felt passionately about — teachers, coaches, musicians — and wives and children they loved, who just wanted to go home. One said to me, “Maybe if I were ten years younger I could get into it, but I’m not a boy anymore.”
The Army had sent me a list of ground rules for reporters — mostly commonsense stuff like don’t print troop strength or battle plans. I also got a checklist of things to bring along. It was the sort of list moms get when sending their kids off to camp: water bottle, flashlight, towel, soap, toilet paper (for those excursions away from base), sleeping bag, etc. But there was other stuff too: ballistic eyewear, fireproof gloves, big knife, body armor, and Kevlar helmet. Considering how much of my tax dollar goes to the Pentagon, I thought the Army might have a few spare flak jackets to lend to visiting reporters, but no, you have to bring your own.
That was perhaps a sign of things to come, as I was soon swamped by complaints from soldiers and civilian contractors alike: not enough armor, not enough vehicles, not enough helicopters, not enough weapons, not enough troops — and even when there seemed to be plenty of everything, complaints that nothing was of quite the right kind. This struck me as a peculiarly privileged American problem that seemed to underlie almost everything I was to see on the eastern front of this war. Those complaints, in fact, seemed to spring from the very nature of the American military enterprise — from its toxic mix of paranoia, entitlement, and good intentions.
Take the paranoia, which I suppose comes with the territory. You wouldn’t be there if you didn’t think that there were enemies all around. I turned down a military flight for the short hop from the Afghan capital Kabul to Bagram, the main American base — a rapidly expanding “city” of more than 30,000 people. Instead, I asked an Afghan friend to drive me out in his car.
A Public Affairs officer warned me that driving was “very dangerous,” but the only problem we met was a U.S. military convoy headed in the opposite direction, holding up traffic. For more than an hour we sat by the highway with dozens of Afghan motorists watching a parade of enormous flatbed trucks hauling other big vehicles: bulldozers and armored personnel carriers of various vintages from Humvees to MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles). My friend said, “We don’t understand. They have all these big machines. They put them on trucks and haul them up and down the road. Why?”
I couldn’t get an answer, but I got a clue when I took an Army chopper from Bagram to a smaller base and met a private contractor partly responsible for Army vehicle maintenance. He gave me a CD to pass on to his foreman at the FOB I was headed for. Rather than music, it held an instruction manual for repairing the latest model M-ATV, a hulking personnel carrier with a V-shaped hull designed to repel the blast of roadside bombs. These are currently replacing the older MRAPs and deadly low-slung Humvees. The Humvees are, in turn, being passed off to the Afghan National Army, whose soldiers are more expendable than ours. (You see what I mean about entitlement.) Standing in a lot full of new M-ATVs already in need of fixing, the foreman seemed pleased indeed to get that CD.
It’s a measure of our sense of entitlement, I think, that while the Taliban and their allies still walk to war wearing traditional baggy cotton pants and shirts, we Americans incessantly invent things to make ourselves more “secure.” Since no one can ever be secure, least of all in war, every new development is bound to prove insufficient and almost guaranteed to create new problems.
Still, Americans feel entitled to safety. Hence the MRAP was designed to address a double whammy of fear: roadside bombs (IEDs) and ambushes. I was trained to be a passenger in an MRAP for a mission that never materialized, but in the process I learned where the built-in handholds are for those frequent occasions when the top-heavy MRAP rolls down a mountainside.
The trainer talked so assuredly about what to do in case of a rollover that he almost gave me the impression you could swivel your hips and right the vehicle, like a kayak. But no, once it rolls, it’s a goner. You have to crawl out and walk. (So much for ambush protection.) Then, one of those big trucks we saw on the highway to Bagram has to come out and haul it back to base, where the foreman with that new instruction-manual CD may have a go at fixing it. That, in a nutshell, is why the 7-passenger MRAP is being replaced by the 5-passenger M-ATV, a huge armored all-terrain vehicle not quite so inclined to tip over. Because it holds fewer soldiers, however, you have to put more of those vehicles on the road, and I’m sure you already see where that leads.
One benefit of our addiction to expensive, state-of-the-art stuff, however faulty it may prove, is that the private manufacture of armaments now helps keep our economy on life support and makes some military-industrial types rich. One drawback is that — though it’s a hard point for American soldiers in the line of fire to grasp — it actually undercuts our heralded COIN strategy. Afghans out there fighting in their cotton pajamas take Western reliance on heavy armor as a measure of our fear — not to mention the inferiority of our gods on whose protection we appear unwilling to rely. (By contrast, the watchman at the small Afghan National Army base adjacent to the FOB I was visiting slept on a cot on the roof, exposed to enemy fire with his tea kettle beside him, either trusting his god, or maybe knowing something we don’t about the “enemy.”)
All the Comforts of War
On the great scale of American bases, think of Bagram as a city, secondary bases as small towns, FOBS as heavily gated communities in rural landscapes, and outlying COPs (Combat Outposts) as camps you wouldn’t want your kid to go to. A FOB is, by definition, pretty far out there on the fringe, but I have to say straight out that when the chopper dropped me off in full (and remarkably heavy) body armor and Kevlar helmet at my designated FOB, it didn’t look at all like “the front” to me.
I should explain that my enduring image of war comes from the trenches of World War I, from which my father returned with a lot of medals, lifelong disabilities, and horrific picture books I wasn’t allowed to see as a child. In that war, men lived for months on end without a change of uniform, in muddy or frozen trenches, infested with rats and lice, often amid their own excrement and their own dead.
The frontline FOB where I landed and its soldiers, by contrast, are spic-and-span. Credit for this goes largely to the remarkably inexpensive labor of crews of Filipinos, Indians, Croatians, and others lured from distant lands by American for-profit private contractors responsible for making our troops feel at home away from home. The base’s streets are laid out on a grid. Tents in tidy rows are banked with standard sand bags and their super-sized cousins, towering Hescos filled with rocks and rubble.
The tents are cooled by roaring tornados of air conditioning, thanks to equipment fueled by gasoline that costs the Army about $400 per gallon to import. It takes fuelers three to four hours every day to refill all the giant generators that keep the cold air coming, so I felt guilty when, to prevent shivering in my sleep, I stuffed my towel into the ducts suspended from the ceiling of my tent.
More permanent buildings are going up and some, already built by Afghans and deemed not good enough for American habitation, are scheduled for reconstruction. Even in distant FOBs like this one, the building boom is prodigious. There’s a big gym with the latest body-building equipment, and a morale-boosting center equipped with telephones and banks of computers connected to the Internet that are almost always in use. A 24/7 chow hall serves barbequed ribs, steak, and lobster tails, though everything is cooked beyond recognition by those underpaid laborers to whom this cuisine is utterly foreign.
There’s a remarkably speedy laundry and, as for the toilets and showers — I can speak only for those few designated “Female” — they were the best I’d seen anywhere in Afghanistan. A sign politely suggested limiting your shower to five minutes, a nod to the expense of paying for-profit contractors to hire truckers to haul in the necessary water, and then haul out to undisclosed locations the copious effluence of American latrines. (At Bagram, that effluence goes into a conveniently nearby river, a water source for countless Afghans.) The other detritus from this expanding FOB is dumped into a pit and burned, including a staggering, but undisclosed, number of plastic water bottles. All this helps explain the annual cost of maintaining a single American soldier in Afghanistan, currently estimated at one million dollars.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not making a case for filthy trenches. But why should war be gussied up like home? If war were undisguisedly as nasty and brutish as it truly is, it might also tend to be short. Soldiers freed from illusions might mutiny, as many did in Vietnam, or desert and go home. But this modern, cushier kind of pseudo-war is different.
Many young soldiers told me that they actually live better in the Army, even when deployed, than they did in civilian life, where they couldn’t make ends meet, especially when they were trying to pay for college or raise a family by working one or two low-wage jobs. They won’t mutiny. They’re doing better than many of their friends back home. (And they’re dutiful, which makes for acts of personal heroism, even in a foolhardy cause.) They are likely to reenlist, though many told me they’d prefer to quit the Army and go to work for much higher pay with the for-profit private contractors that now “service” American war.
But the odd thing is that no one seems to question the relative cushiness of this life at war (nor the inequity of the hardscrabble civilian life left behind) — least of all those best able to observe firsthand the contrast between our garrisons and the humble equipment and living conditions of Afghans, both friend and foe. Rather, the contrast seems to inspire many soldiers with renewed appreciation of “our American way of life” and a determination to “do good things” for the Afghan people, just as many feel they did for the people of Iraq.
I emphasize all this because nothing I’d read about soldiering prepared me for the extent of these comforts — or the tedium that attends them. Plenty of soldiers don’t leave the base. They hold down desk jobs, issue supplies, manage logistics, repair vehicles or radios, refuel generators and trucks, plan “development” projects, handle public affairs, or update tactical maps inscribed (at certain locations I am obliged not to name) with admonitions like “Here Be Dragons” or “Here Do Bad Stuff.” They face the boredom of ordinary, unheroic, repetitive tasks.
The most common injury they are likely to suffer is a sprained ankle, thanks to eastern Afghanistan’s carpet of loose rocks — just the size to trip you up. On the wall in the FOB medics’ clinic is a poster with schematic drawings and instructions for strengthening ankles, an anatomical part not enhanced by any of the fitness machines at the gym. The medics dispense a lot of ibuprofen and keep a supply of crutches handy.
What’s Going On
As this is an infantry base, however, most squads regularly venture outside the wire and the characteristic, probably long-term disability the soldiers take with them is bad knees — from the great weight of the things they wear and carry. The base commander reminded me of one of the principles of COIN: security should be established by non-lethal means. So most infantry missions are “presence patrols,” described by one officer as “walking around in places where we won’t get shot at just to show the Afs [Afghans] that we’re keeping them safe.”
I went outside the wire myself on one of these presence patrols, a mission to a village, and — I’m sorry to say — it was no friendly stroll. It’s a soldier’s job to be “focused”; that is, to watch out for enemies. So you can’t be “distracted” by greeting people along the way or stopping to chat. Entering a village hall to meet elders, for instance, may sound cordial — winning hearts and minds. But sweeping in with guns at the ready shatters that friendly feeling. Speaking as someone who has visited Afghans in their homes for years, I have to say that this approach does not make a good impression. It probably wouldn’t go over well in your hometown either.
Nor does it seem to work. Since the U.S. military adopted COIN to “protect the populace,” civilian casualties have gone up 23%; 6,000 Afghan civilians were killed last year (and that’s undoubtedly an undercount). No wonder the presence of American troops leaves so many Afghans feeling not safer, but more endangered, and it even inspires some to take up arms against the occupying army. Ever more often, at least in the area where I was embedded, a non-lethal presence patrol turns into a lethal firefight.
One day, near the end of my embed, I watched a public affairs officer frame a photograph of a soldier who had been killed in a firefight and mount it on the wall by the commander’s office beside the black-framed photos of seven other soldiers. This American fighting force had been in place at the FOB for only a few weeks, having relieved another contingent, yet it had already lost eight men. (Five Afghan soldiers had been killed as well, but their pictures were notably absent from the gallery of remembrance.) The Army takes a photograph of every soldier at the beginning of his or her service, so it’s on file when needed; when, that is, a soldier is killed.
Most American bases and combat outposts are named for dead American soldiers. When a soldier is killed — or “falls,” as the Army likes to put it — the Internet service and the phones on base go dead until an Army delegation has knocked on the door of surviving family members. So even if you’re one of those soldiers who never leaves the base, you’re always reminded of what’s going on out there. And then usually toward evening, some unseen enemies on the peaks around the base begin to shoot down at it, and American gunners respond with shells that lift great clouds of rock and dust from the mountains into the darkening sky.
Doing Good to Afghans
On the base, I heard incessant talk about COIN, the “new” doctrine resurrected from the disaster of Vietnam in the irrational hope that it will work this time. From my experience at the FOB, however, it’s clear enough that the hearts-and-minds part of COIN is already dead in the water, and one widespread practice in the military that’s gone unreported by other embedded journalists helps explain why. So here’s a TomDispatch exclusive, courtesy of Afghan-American men serving as interpreters for the soldiers. They were embarrassed to the point of agony when mentioning this habit, but desperate to put a stop to it. COIN calls for the military to meet and make friends with village elders, drink tea, plan “development,” and captivate their hearts and minds. Several interpreters told me, however, that every meeting includes some young American soldiers whose locker-room-style male bonding features bouts of hilarious farting.
To Afghan men, nothing is more shameful. A fart is proof that a man cannot control any of his apparatus below the belt. The man who farts is thus not a man at all. He cannot be taken seriously, nor can any of his ideas or promises or plans.
Blissfully unaware of such things, the Army goes on planning together with its civilian consultants (representatives of the State Department, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and various independent contractors who make up what’s called a Human Terrain Team charged with interpreting local culture and helping to win the locals over to our side). Some speak of “building infrastructure,” others of advancing “good governance” or planning “economic development.” All talk of “doing good” and “helping” Afghanistan.
In a typical mess-up on the actual terrain of Afghanistan, Army experts previously in charge of this base had already had a million-dollar suspension bridge built over a river some distance away, but hadn’t thought to secure land rights, so no road leads to it. Now the local American agriculture specialist wants to introduce alfalfa to these waterless, rocky mountains to feed herds of cattle principally pastured in his mind.
Yet even as I was filling my notebook with details of their delusionary schemes, the base commander told me he had already been forced to “put aside development.” He had his hands full facing a Taliban onslaught he hadn’t expected. Throughout Afghanistan, insurgent attacks have gone up 51% since the official adoption of COIN as the strategy du jour. On this eastern front, where the commander had served six years earlier, he now faces a “surge” of intimidation, assassination, suicide attacks, roadside bombs, and fighters with greater technical capability than he has ever seen in Afghanistan.
A few days after we spoke, the Afghanistan command was handed to General Petraeus, the sainted refurbisher of the military’s counterinsurgency manual. I wonder if the base commander has told Petraeus yet what he told me then: “What we’re fighting here now — it’s a conventional war.”
I’d been “on the front” of this war for less than two weeks, and I already needed a vacation. Being outside the wire had filled me with sorrow as I watched earnest, heavily armed and armored boys try to win over white-bearded Afghans — men of extraordinary dignity — who have seen all this before and know the outcome.
Being on the base was tedious, often tense, and equally sorrowful at times when soldiers fell. Then the base commander, on foot, escorted the armored vehicles returning from a firefight on to the base the way a bygone cavalry officer might enter a frontier fort, leading a riderless horse. The scene would look good in a Hollywood war movie: moving in that sentimental Technicolor way that seems to imbue with heroic significance unnecessary and pointless death.
One night I bedded down outdoors under a profusion of stars and an Islamic crescent moon. Invisible in the dark, I couldn’t help overhearing a soldier who’d slipped out to make a cell phone call back home. “I really need to talk to you today,” he said, and then stumbling in his search for words, he broke down. “No,” he said at last, “I’m fine. I’ll call you back later.”
The next day, carrying my helmet and my armor on my arm, I boarded a helicopter and flew away.
Ann Jones is the author of Kabul in Winter (Metropolitan, 2006). Her newest book about women in conflict zones, War Is Not Over When It’s Over, will be published by Metropolitan in September.
Like most Vancouverites, I have a love/hate relationship with our city. And although I was not an Olympic Booster, I couldn’t help but feel good about how well our city hosted the Games and how well we all behaved during them.
I am not so proud of our conduct leading up to the Games or in the aftermath of them. Civility seemed somewhat lacking, and bully tactics overused in the lead-up. One example of this was the assault by VANOC on one of my neighbourhood restaurants – The Olympia.
Fortunately the petitions, letters of support, and negative media forced VANOC to back off; and spared Olympia Owners the cost and heartache of taking down signs that have been a part of this restaurant’s motif for many years.
Of course you can’t un-ring a bell, and the highhanded and abusive tactics of VANOC are as much a part of our Olympic legacy as the debt which is still being recalculated upwards. While we may never know the full extent of the debt/cost of the Olympics, the broken legacy promises are painfully obvious.
The Olympic Village instead of a being a showcase of progressive development featuring social and affordable housing, looks to me like just another high cost/ high rent district in a city that a recent survey concluded was by far Canada’s least affordable city to live in.
While affordability took another hit in the recent city budget which included another round of tax shifting from businesses to residents, city services were also hit. This will of course impact the quality of life in our city and our livability ranking, which was once among the highest in the world.
All of the foregoing notwithstanding, we still live in a great place, and I for one am not planning on moving. Instead I will be monitoring our civic governments. I will also join with others who propose and support progressive initiatives (like a livable wage policy), advocate positive alternatives to service cuts, and oppose greed driven, pro-development zoning applications and planning policies.
I believe that since a more sustainable, livable and affordable Vancouver is conceivable, it is achievable. Some good places to start are: http://vancouver.ca , http://www.thinkcity.ca , http://www.cope.bc.ca






