To date we have identified over 80 and mapped 50 such Black Spots and begun to assess the types of interactions going on in these areas as well as the various kinds of insecurity that they are exporting and the directions in which it is or may be going. We continually scan the globe for other areas where conditions seem right for the presence of a Black Spot. Using published materials, news-scanning software, formal and informal interviews, and, where feasible, visits to the areas, we piece together a picture of the Global Black Spots, their nature, and their interactions with the outside world.
Paul Kawika Martin, Political and Policy Director for Peace Action, said:
I think the question should be: How much U.S. credit should we use on the war in Afghanistan? As it stands, the over $230 Billion we have already spent has mostly been borrowed money adding to the U.S. deficit. Of course, just like buying a car or home, sometimes it's good to do things on credit. But this isn't the true cost. As Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes points out, that figure fails to include interest on debt, veterans benefits and other costs to society. They estimate the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top a staggering $5 trillion to $7 trillion.
Phi Beta Iota: Other “pundits” can be read within the full story. The cost is far more than the “tangible debt.” It includes the hollowing out of America–the loss of integrity, the failure of paradigms, the cheating culture, and on and on and on. We have in essence sacrified the Republic in the name of partisan politics and corporate greed, enabled by civitas minimus. America is less safe and less prosperous today than it was on 9/12.
One of the great things about being the touchstone for public intelligence is the contacts that are made by students, officers and enlisted personnel serving in the field, and so many others.
While we were in Denmark, an officer now serving in Iraq sent us some questions that we answered to the best of our ability. The questions alone are listed here. For the answers, click on the cover.
1. We never should have invaded Iraq. I have a less developed opinion on Afghanistan, but if I had to say one way or another, that was probably a mistake as well.
Do these mistakes fall solely on the Bush administration?
Was the administrating that incompetent or did they have an immoral and selfish reason such as fleecing the U.S.?
Was it shortsighted political gain objectives with an underestimation of the downside?
We will have at least double the amount of dead service members before these conflicts are over as were killed during the 9/11 attacks. I read somewhere that we have 75,000 amputees due to the two conflicts not to mention the amount of PTSD. Who has the blood on their hands? Certainly nobody is willing to admit mistakes.
I don't understand how Cheney can even think about spouting off after how the conflicts have gone. Where is the cost vs gain analysis?
2. Once we did invade, we didn't have a solid plan and we didn't bring nearly enough troops if we planned on staying. Was this mainly Rumsfeld's fault?
BRUSSELS – There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory.
London — THE highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around Kabul: “There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” he said. “Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.
Five years ago, C.K. Prahalad published a book titled, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, in which he argues that multinational companies not only can make money selling to the world's poorest, but also that undertaking such efforts is necessary as a way to close the growing gap between rich and poor countries. Key to his argument for targeting the world's poorest is the sheer size of that marke.
Knowledge@Wharton: In the five years since The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid was published, what impact have your ideas had on companies and on poor consumers?
C.K. Prahalad: The impact has been interesting and profound in many ways — much more than one could have expected. For example, several of the multi-lateral institutions — The World Bank, UNDF [United Nations Development Fund], IFC [International Finance Corporation] and USAid — have fundamentally accepted the idea that involvement of the private sector is critical for development…. I asked 10 CEOs of companies as diverse as Microsoft, ING, DSM, GSK and Thomson Reuters to essentially reflect on whether the book has had some impact on the way they think about the opportunities. Uniformly, everybody — whether it is Microsoft or GSK — essentially says not only that it has had some impact, but that it has changed the way they approach innovation and … new markets.
Bangalore: Money transfer company Western Union believes in tapping fortune at the bottom of the pyramid.
The company is tying up with microfinance institutions (MFIs) and e-governance service providers to facilitate financial inclusion.
This marks a shift in its India game plan, to offer money transfer services through MFIs besides its current portfolio of India Post network, banks, retail and finance agents.
The Nasdaq-listed company has tied up with e-governance and IT solutions provider CMS Computers, which has government's mandate to roll out more than 17,000 e-governance locations across India.
In my opinion, it is now almost certain that Afghanistan will wreck the presidency of Barack Obama. As I feared, Mr. Obama has allowed the US military and its allies in the Democratic wing and Republican wing of the national-security apparat (there is no real difference between these wings) to ensnare him in the wreckage left by the Clinton/Blair/Bush not-so-grand strategy of “indispensable” power: coercive diplomacy punctuated by endless “[no-so] precision” warfare. Supporting Sources for this Comment at end of posting.
Spinney Comments Continue After the Highlighted Article
