6 Jan 2018

Governments and corporations escalate Internet censorship and attacks on free speech

Andre Damon

The year 2018 has opened with an international campaign to censor the Internet. Throughout the world, technology giants are responding to the political demands of governments by cracking down on freedom of speech, which is inscribed in the US Bill of Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and countless international agreements.
Bloomberg, the financial news service, published a blog post titled “Welcome to 2018, the Year of Censored Social Media,” which began with the observation, “This year, don’t count on the social networks to provide its core service: an uncensored platform for every imaginable view. The censorship has already begun, and it’ll only get heavier.”
Developments over the past week include:
  • On January 1, the German government began implementation of its “Network Enforcement Law,” which threatens social media companies with fines of up to €50 million if they do not immediately remove content deemed objectionable. Both German trade groups and the United Nations have warned that the law would incentivize technology companies to ban protected speech.
  • On January 3, French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to introduce a ban on what he called “fake news” during election cycles, in a further crackdown on free speech on top of the draconian measures implemented under the state of emergency. The moves by France and Germany have led to renewed calls for a censorship law applying to the entire European Union.
  • On December 28, the New York Times reported that Facebook had deleted the account of Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, nominally because he had been added to a US sanctions list. As the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out, this creates a precedent for giving the US government essentially free rein to block the freedom of expression all over the world, simply by putting individuals on an economic sanctions list.
  • This week, Iranian authorities blocked social media networks, including Instagram, which were being used to organize demonstrations against inequality and unemployment.
  • Facebook has continued its crackdown on Palestinian Facebook accounts, and has removed over 100 accounts at the request of Israeli officials.
These moves come in the wake of the decision by the Trump administration to abolish net neutrality, which gives technology companies free rein to censor and block access to websites and services.
In August, the World Socialist Web Site first reported that Google was censoring left-wing, anti-war, and progressive websites. When it implemented changes to its search algorithms, Google claimed that they were politically-neutral, aimed only at elevating “more authoritative content” and demoting “blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.”
Now, no one can claim that the major technology giants are not carrying out a widespread and systematic campaign of online censorship, in close and active coordination with powerful states and intelligence agencies.
In the five months since the WSWS released its findings, Google’s censorship of left-wing, anti-war, and progressive web sites has only intensified.
Even though the World Socialist Web Site’s readership from direct entries and other web sites has increased, Google’s effort to isolate the WSWS through the systematic removal of its articles from search results has continued to depress its search traffic. Search traffic to the WSWS, which fell more than any other left-wing site, has continued to trend down, with a total reduction of 75 percent, compared to a 67 percent decline in August.
Alternet.org’s search traffic is now down 71 percent, compared to 63 percent in August. Consortium News’s search traffic is down 72 percent, compared to 47 percent in August. Other sites, including Global Research and Truthdig, continue to see significantly depressed levels of search traffic.
In its statement to commemorate the beginning of the new year, the World Socialist Web Site noted, “The year 2018—the bicentenary of Marx’s birth—will be characterized, above all, by an immense intensification of… class conflict around the world.” This prediction has been confirmed in the form of mass demonstrations in Iran, the wildcat strike by auto workers in Romania, and growing labour militancy throughout Europe and the Middle East.
The ruling elites all over the world are meeting this resurgence of class struggle with an attempt to stifle and suppress freedom of expression on the Internet, under the false pretence of fighting “fake news” and “foreign propaganda.”
The effort to muzzle social opposition by the working class must be resisted.

5 Jan 2018

University of Michigan Centre for the Education of Women (CEW) Scholarships for Women 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st March 2018.
The CEW Application will be available online  on or before February 1 and will be posted on this Webpage at that period. In the meantime prepare your documents with the 2018/2019 information below.
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): USA
About the Award: Thanks to the generosity of individuals, organizations, clubs, and foundations, CEW has awarded over 1,600 scholarships since 1970. CEW Scholarship Awards are invaluable they often mean the difference between completing a degree or not doing so, for many students at the University of Michigan. Due to the generosity of donors, CEW was able to expand the program in 2008 to include additional scholarships for students of all genders on the Ann Arbor campus.
Type: Undergraduate, Graduate
Eligibility: 
CEW Scholarship applicants must be attending the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Flint, or Dearborn campuses) during the year for which the scholarship is awarded and 2) Must have at least one (1) of the criteria listed below:
Undergraduates
  • A minimum two-year (24 month) consecutive interruption in education anytime since high school OR
  • Primary Caregiver*
Graduate Students
  • A minimum five-year (60 month) consecutive interruption in education anytime since high school  OR
  • Primary Caregiver*
*Primary Caregiver definition:
  • Lives in the same residence at least 50% of the time and consistently assumes major responsibility for housing, health, and safety of a minor, older adult, or disabled adult; anticipates this responsibility will continue during the upcoming academic year.
  • Lives in separate residence and provides care for a minor, older adult, or disabled adult for a minimum of 20 hours per week without monetary compensation for at least the past 6 months; anticipates this responsibility will continue during the upcoming academic year.
In addition to these criteria, preference will be given to undergraduate students who currently qualify for a federal PELL grant, and undergraduate and graduate students who are first generation students (no parent has completed a bachelor’s degree).
Number and Value of Scholarship: Approximately 40 scholarships are awarded annually ranging from $1,000 to $10,000, with some larger scholarship awards given.
How to Apply: Before applying, please review the Eligibility criteria outlined above. The application process is online in M-Compass (opening on Feb 1) and includes the following elements:
  • Demographic information, including a current transcript (Fall 2017 if enrolled)
  • Three Letters of Recommendation:
    It is best to secure recommenders early and let them know the general timeline required for their letter. You will be asked to provide recommenders’ names and contact information, and complete the electronic request forms to be sent as automated emails. Recommenders will be prompted to follow a link in the email and write their recommendation directly on the form. Recommenders that are familiar with your academic record and career aspirations are in the best position to write on your behalf. At least one academic recommender is strongly suggested. Strong references letters typically include:
    • The length and capacity that the recommender has known the applicant.
    • The committee reviewing applications welcomes comments about the applicant’s strengths, academic and professional achievements, the ability to persevere and succeed in their plans for university work, and their potential for impact in their chosen field. (A forthright appraisal of the candidate is most helpful)
    • Biographical information and academic transcripts have already been submitted – focus on what the committee might not already know
  • Essays:
    Once the scholarship application is available, you can paste your responses to the follow prompts directly into the application questionnaire.
    • Explanation of Primary Caregiving and/or Educational Interruption
      In 250 words or less tell us the nature of the relationship with the individual(s) you provide care for and briefly list your caregiving responsibilities, and/or tell us what lead to the interruption in your education, how many consecutive months you were not enrolled or earning academic credit, and what you did during that time. Note: if you are applying based on the interruption in your education criteria you will need to specify the months and years your education was interrupted and transcripts that verify the interruption (e.g. 01/2013-09/2018).
    • Personal Statement – Determination
      How have your life circumstances, experiences, and/or challenges shaped your educational/career path? Describe how you have exemplified persistence in pursuing your goals. (Max. 350 words)
    • Personal Statement – Potential Impact
      What is your vision for success and plan for achieving your goals? How will you make an impact with the degree that you are pursuing at the personal, community, and/or global levels? (Max. 350 words)
    • Financial Information
      Scholarships are awarded on the basis of merit. However, to determine the amount of your award, we need information about your financial needs and how you expect to meet them in the next academic year. Briefly provide as much information about your past, present, and future financial situation as you feel is important for us to know in determining the amount of your award.
Award Provider: University of Michigan Centre for the Education of Women (CEW)

University of Helsinki Fully-funded Masters Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 12th January, 2018
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Finland
Field of Study: Citizens of non-EU/EEA countries, who do not have a permanent residence status in the EU/EEA area, are liable for these fees.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: All candidates must meet the following requirements:
  • You are eligible for the Master’s programme at the University of Helsinki
  • The country of your nationality is outside the EU/EEA and you meet the requirements for obtaining an entry visa and residence permit for Finland. More information at the Studyinfo.
  • You have obtained excellent results in your previous studies and can prove this in your application.
Selection Criteria: The Master’s Programme will make the academic assessment of your degree application simultaneously with your scholarship application. At this stage the scholarship criteria is the same as the programme specific selection criteria.
After the Master’s Programme proposal the Scholarship Committee will make the final decisions. In addition to the academic criteria the committee will also consider the variety and diversity of the applicants and grant the scholarships to those coming from different backgrounds and fields of studies. The aim is to create a rich and diverse learning environment at the University of Helsinki.
If you are awarded a scholarship, you will receive an official acceptance letter with the information of scholarship status.
Value of Scholarships: 
  • Fully Funded Grant (Tuition fee + 10 000 EUR)
  • Full Tuition fee Grant
  • Study Grant (10 000 EUR)
Tuition fees range from 13 000 to 18 000 euros.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship will be granted for two years. All the scholarship students are required to study full time (earn at least 55 ECTS / year) to fulfill the requirements of the scholarship. After the first study year, your studies will be evaluated and, depending on your progress, the scholarship will be continued.
How to Apply: The scholarship application will be filled out in the same application system and simultaneously with your online application to the University of Helsinki English language Master’s programmes. The possible scholarship-related documents should be delivered with the other enclosed documents of your degree application.
Award Provider:  University of Helsinki

Onsi Sawiris Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Egyptians to Study in USA 2019

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Egypt
To be taken at (country): USA
Type: Undergraduate
Fields of Study: Engineering, Economics, Political Science, Finance and Management.
Eligibility: 
  1. GPA 3.5 / 90% in Thanaweyya Amma certification (Secondary year) or equivalent certificates
  2. iBT TOEFL: 100 or above [or equivalent]
  3. Minimum SAT I Score: Overall: 1450, Evidence-Based Reading and Writing: 730, Math: 730
  4. SAT II in 3 subjects: 600 or above
  5. Extracurricular Activities
Candidates should:
  • Meet the above criteria
  • Be planning to start their studies in the U.S.A in the year 2019
  • Be Egyptian nationals, who are residents of Egypt (preference will not be given to dual nationality applicants)
  • Have not lived more than 3 years abroad
  • Be committed to coming back to Egypt for two years directly after the successful completion of their bachelor’s degree
Selection Criteria: : The Onsi Sawiris Scholarships will be awarded based on character and merit as demonstrated through academic excellence, extracurricular activities, and entrepreneurial initiative.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The scholarships include full tuition, a living allowance, travel and health insurance. Scholarship recipients will also be given the option of an internship position within the company.
How to Apply: It is important to go through the application instructions on the Scholarship Webpage before applying.
Award Provider:  Orascom Construction (OC)
Important Notes: 
  • Preference will be given to candidates who have not lived, worked, or studied abroad for a significant period of time.
  • The Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program is only granted to the list of endorsed universities provided in the “Approved Universities” section of the application.
  • Selection as a nominee for the Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program does not guarantee university acceptance. Applicants will be supported in applying for these universities. If nominated for the scholarship; the Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program award will be made once university acceptance is obtained.

Switzerland: EPFL Masters Fellowships for International Students 2018

Application Deadline: 
  • 15th January 2018
  • 15th April 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries:  All countries
To be taken at (country): Switzerland
Type: Masters
Eligibility and Selection Criteria: 
  • Participation is open for candidates of any nationality
  • Anyone applying to an EPFL Master’s Program is eligible for the scholarship.
  • Anyone holding a Bachelor’s degree (or the equivalent) in a related field from a recognized university can apply to one of the EPFL Masters Programs.The selection of candidates and the granting of the fellowships is done based solely on the evaluation of the academic records of the candidates.
Selection Procedure: A first screening is done by sections. The attribution of the fellowships is then done by the Excellence Fellowships Committee, presided by Prof. Vandergheynst, Vice-Provost for Education.
To ensure that all fellowships are distributed in case of withdrawals, multiple candidates can be selected and placed on a waiting list. The fellowship is then offered to the main candidate who will be given a deadline (2-4 weeks) for confirming the acceptance of her/his admission and fellowship. In case of withdrawal or absence of response, the fellowship is offered to the first candidate on the waiting list who then get a deadline (1-2 weeks) for confirming the acceptance of her/his admission and fellowship.
Number of Awardees: Limited
Value of Fellowship:
  • For external applicants, the scholarship includes CHF 16’000 per academic year split into monthly payments (CHF 32’000 for a two-year Master’s or CHF 24’000 for a 1 1/2 year Master’s) and reservation of a room in student’s accommodation.
  • Note that accommodation, tuition fees, visa fees, etc. must be paid by the fellowship holder.
How to Apply: The application is done via the same online form that your application to a Master’s program is sent. It is however necessary to tick the box indicating that your profile should also be considered for an excellence fellowship.
Applications for starting a Master’s program are open from mid-November to January 15th and from January 16th to April 15th
Award Provider: Ã‰cole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)

LSHTM Fully-funded PACF Masters Scholarships for Students from sub-Saharan Africa 2018 – UK

Application Deadline: midnight (GMT) on Sunday 18th February 2018.
Eligible Countries:  sub-Saharan Africa
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The Positive Action for Children Fund Scholarship Programme combines completion of a health/development-focused qualifying MSc programme with practical industry experience to equip students with the knowledge and skills to be effective advocates and catalysts of change in their home country, with a particular focus on championing the role of community interventions in contributing to the HIV and global health response.
The programme’s objectives are to:
  • build knowledge, understanding and skills in global health theory;
  • apply this learning within the development industry context through practical experience;
  • develop strategies to address in-country health gaps and accelerate country-level responses, with a particular focus on community-led interventions; and
  • grow in-country advocates and catalysts for positive change in HIV/AIDS programming.
Fields of Study: The qualifying programmes are: MSc Control of Infectious Diseases, MSc Epidemiology, MSc Health Policy, Planning & Financing, MSc Public Health, MSc Public Health for Development, and MSc Reproductive & Sexual Health Research.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To be eligible for these scholarships, applicants must
  • be nationals of, and resident in, countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and
  • intend to return to sub-Saharan Africa on completion of their MSc year at the School; and
  • have 2 years experience working in any function (board, staff, volunteer etc.) within a grassroots community based organisation with a  focus on HIV/AIDS and/or public health intervention. The selection committee consider a grassroots community organisation to be a non-profit group that work with local communities in delivering HIV/AIDS and/or public health interventions. Applications are encouraged from volunteers, youth group leaders, peer-support group leaders who are delivering locally based interventions.
  • confirm (by submitting an application for this scholarship) that s/he would not otherwise be able to pay for their proposed programme of study, and
  • agree to undertaking a 3 month placement with PACF, in their London office, during the summer (whilst simultaneously undertaking their MSc project); and
  • meet the School’s minimum English language requirements, as required for admission to study, if short-listed; and
  • hold an offer of admission for 2018-19 for one of the following London-based MSc programmes of study
    • MSc Control of Infectious Diseases
    • MSc Epidemiology
    • MSc Health Policy, Planning & Financing
    • MSc Public Health
    • MSc Reproductive & Sexual Health
    • MSc Public Health for Development
Selection Criteria: Applicants should ensure they demonstrate outstanding experience and qualifications in their study and scholarship applications, as appropriate. Preference will be given to those candidates who show how their skills and knowledge might be applied to community HIV/AIDS interventions, and who explain how they will be effective catalysts of change in their communities, particularly with regard to community HIV/AIDS interventions, once they have completed their MSc programme of study.
Number of Awardees: 2
Value of Scholarship: Each scholarship will cover:
  • tuition fees, including any mandatory field trip fees, and
  • a tax-free stipend (living allowance) of GBP 16,750.00, and
  • GBP 2,000.00 towards MSc project costs, and
  • a training support grant for the practical learning element of the award.
It is a condition of this funding that PACF Scholars must undertake a three-month practical element at PACF’s London office, during the period they conduct their MSc project. The purpose of this is to provide students with training, learning, and practical experience, and an opportunity to complete their MSc project, whilst undertaking their placement at PACF.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Applicants should complete both steps below by the scholarship deadline.
  • Step 1: Submit an application for an eligible 2018-19 London-based MSc programme of study, as per instructions under the ‘How to Apply’ tab on the relevant programme of study page, ensuring that all necessary supplementary documents (including references) are submitted via the Admissions portal as soon as possible to ensure that an offer of admission is held by the scholarship deadline.
  • Step 2: Submit an online scholarships application, selecting the option ‘PACF MSc Scholarships’. A completed Supplementary Questions Form for this scholarship must be uploaded as part of the Scholarship application. (This is the only document which should be uploaded on the Scholarships online application.)
If you encounter any technical difficulties whilst using the online application system please contact LSHTM IT by email, providing them with your full name; the scholarship that you are applying for; and the issue that you have encountered. Please attach a screen shot of the difficulty.
Award Provider: Positive Action for Children Fund

African Leadership Academy (ALA) Fellowship for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 16th February, 2018
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): South Africa
About the Award: ALA Fellowships are two-year posts for young professionals who have completed their undergraduate studies within the past five years. ALA Fellows work closely with talented and passionate students from across the African continent through teaching and/or professional staff supporting roles. Teaching Fellows collaborate with exceptional educators and mentors, teaching courses in areas of expertise and gaining broad practical experience in  teaching and learning. Staff Fellows assist in areas such as strategic relations or admissions, developing skills in project management. All Fellows participate actively in student life as resident advisors and coaches overseeing extracurricular activities, bringing energy and cultivating a vibrant culture of leadership, innovation, and international cooperation on campus. Fellows receive housing, a stipend to cover living expenses, and are eligible for a grant to enable one professionally relevant travel excursion during the course of the Fellowship.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: An ideal candidate (is):
  • Creative and passionate about the field of education
  • Celebrates opportunities to interact with people from very diverse cultural and social economic backgrounds
  • Embraces a culture of leadership, international cooperation and excellence
  • Open-minded and willing to share expertise and experiences, and to learn from others
  • Loves to take on challenges and not afraid to work hard
Selection Criteria: 
  • BA or BS degree from a leading university, with an excellent academic transcript and record of outstanding citizenship.
  • A track record of leadership and results in extracurricular or professional activities.
  • Experience working with young people in a mentoring, teaching, or coaching capacity.
  • Experience developing strong relationships with people from a variety of different ages, cultures, religions, and socioeconomic groups.
  • Experience in a boarding school or as a university Residential Advisor is a plus.
  • Fluent in English. Fluency or proficiency in other languages spoken broadly on the continent (French, Portuguese, Arabic, Swahili, Yoruba, etc.) is a plus.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive housing on campus and a stipend payment to cover living expenses. Fellows are also eligible for a modest Summer Exploration grant to enable one professionally relevant travel excursion during the course of Fellowship tenure.
Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships will begin in August 2018 and last for two years.
How to Apply: To apply, complete the form below and attach your CV, cover letter and writing sample. Applications will be accepted through February 16, 2018.
Award Provider: African Leadership Academy

Corporate Coercion and the Drive to Eliminate Buying with Cash

Ralph Nader

“Sorry we’re not taking cash or checks,” said the clerk at the Fed Ex counter over a decade ago to an intern. “Only credit cards.”
Since then, the relentless intensification of coercive commercialism has been moving toward a cashless economy, when all consumers are incarcerated within a prison of corporate payment systems from your credit/debit cards to your mobile phone and very soon facial recognition.
“Terrific!” say those consumers for whom convenience and velocity of transactions are irresistible.
“This is nuts!” say a shrinking number of free-thinking consumers who are unwilling to be dragooned down the road to corporate captivity and coercion.  These people treasure their privacy. They understand that it’s none of any conglomerate’s business – whether VISA, Facebook, Amazon or Google – what, where, when and how consumers purchase goods and services. Or where and when they travel, receive healthcare, or the most intimate relationships they maintain. Not to mention consumers’ personal information can be sent to or hacked around the globe.
Cash-consumers are not alone in their opposition to a cashless economy.  When they are in a cab and ask the driver how they prefer to be paid, the answer is near-unanimous. “Cash, cash, cash,” reply the cab drivers in cities around the country. They get paid immediately and without having to have a company deduct a commission.
Back some 25 years ago, Consumers Union considered backing consumer groups to sign up Main Street, USA merchants who agreed to discount their wares if people paid in cash. For the same reason – merchants get to keep all the money on sales made with cash or check. Unfortunately, the idea never materialized. It is, however, still a good idea. Today, payments systems are much more comprehensively coercive.
Once you’re in the credit card system, lack of privacy and access to your credit are just the tip of the iceberg. That is why companies can impose penalties, surcharges, overcharges and a myriad of other corporate raids on your private treasury. They get immediate payment. If you object, you could see a lowering of your credit score or your credit rating. Besides, you don’t even know you agreed to all of these dictates – banks have over 300 different special charges for their revered customers – in fine print agreements that you never saw, read or even possessed to sign or click on. What’s the likelihood that banks would continue to surcharge you if they had to bill you instead of debit you?
The sheer pace and brazenness of corporations when they have instant access to your credit is stunning. The recent crimes of banking giant Wells Fargo, including selling auto insurance and assigning new credit cards to millions of their customers who had no knowledge and gave no consent for these charges, which resulted in damage to these customers’ credit scores and ratings, can only be committed when consumers are turned into economic prisoners. There are still no criminal prosecutions of the bank or its bosses. Wells Fargo bank stock rose to a year high last month. To their credit, the CFPB imposed a $100 million dollar fine on Wells Fargo, which barred them from deducting the fine as a business expense.
Coercive fine print contracts rob you of your consumer rights by preventing you from going to court, imposing fines as high as $35 fines for  bounced checks (which typically cost the banks less than $2), and decreeing that you agreed in advance to all kinds of unconscionable abuses, so long as you are in a “customer” status with them. Some companies are even charging customers for quitting them.
The rapacity inflicted on cashless purchasers prevails across the economy – insurance, mortgages, telecommunications, healthcare, stock brokerage, online buying and, of course, requirements to use electronic payment systems.
The more consumers become incarcerated by the companies that purportedly serve them, the more lucrative commodity consumers become. This leads to, among other problems, massive computerized billing fraud in the US. In the healthcare industry alone, billing fraud amounts to ten percent of what is spent, according to Harvard applied mathematics professor Malcolm Sparrow, author of License to Steal. This year’s expenditure of ten percent of the $3.5 trillion expected to be spent amounts to $350 billion. A cashless economy further facilitates these larcenous practices.
A computerized economy is one where fraud can easily be committed on a massive scale, according to Frank Abagnale who, after serving his time in prison for identity theft, , has become an impassioned educator (serving institutions ranging from the FBI to AARP) on how to detect and avoid such crimes, which he estimates to cost people about one trillion dollars each year.
What it comes down to is whether consumer freedom is worth more than consumer convenience or whether the points earned for future purchases (assuming the costs are not passed on in hidden ways) are worth minimizing impulse buying, avoiding big data profile manipulations, keeping personal matters personal and requiring your affirmative consent to transactions where you decide what you want to buy and how you can pay.
However, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to pay by cash or check. Try renting a car or occupying a hotel room or buying a snack or drink on an airline without a credit or debit card.
In the latest example of such coercion, new boutique eateries like Two Forks, Dig Inn, Dos Toros or Pokee in New York City operate entirely through payment systems that reject all cash purchases. “But isn’t cash legal tender?” you might ask. How could they reject cash on the barrelhead? Simple, says the Federal Reserve, so long as they notify you in advance. It’s that fine print again.
The New York Times, reported these rejections and noted: “Not surprisingly, the credit card companies, who make a commission on every credit card purchase, applaud the trend. Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.” The nerve!
Cash consumers of America arise, band together and organize a National Association for the Preservation of Cash Purchases. You have nothing to save but your freedom, your desire to push back and your precious, affirmative and personal right to consent or not to consent, before you are forced into contract peonage.

Mapping a World From Hell: 76 Countries are Now Involved in Washington’s War on Terror

Tom Engelhardt

He left Air Force Two behind and, unannounced, “shrouded in secrecy,” flew on an unmarked C-17 transport plane into Bagram Air Base, the largest American garrison in Afghanistan. All news of his visit was embargoed until an hour before he was to depart the country.
More than 16 years after an American invasion “liberated” Afghanistan, he was there to offer some good news to a U.S. troop contingent once again on the rise. Before a 40-foot American flag, addressing 500 American troops, Vice President Mike Pence praised them as “the world’s greatest force for good,” boasted that American air strikes had recently been “dramatically increased,” swore that their country was “here to stay,” and insisted that “victory is closer than ever before.” As an observer noted, however, the response of his audience was “subdued.”  (“Several troops stood with their arms crossed or their hands folded behind their backs and listened, but did not applaud.”)
Think of this as but the latest episode in an upside down geopolitical fairy tale, a grim, rather than Grimm, story for our age that might begin: Once upon a time — in October 2001, to be exact — Washington launched its war on terror.  There was then just one country targeted, the very one where, a little more than a decade earlier, the U.S. had ended a long proxy war against the Soviet Union during which it had financed, armed, or backed an extreme set of Islamic fundamentalist groups, including a rich young Saudi by the name of Osama bin Laden.
By 2001, in the wake of that war, which helped send the Soviet Union down the path to implosion, Afghanistan was largely (but not completely) ruled by the Taliban.  Osama bin Laden was there, too, with a relatively modest crew of cohorts.  By early 2002, he had fled to Pakistan, leaving many of his companions dead and his organization, al-Qaeda, in a state of disarray.  The Taliban, defeated, were pleading to be allowed to put down their arms and go back to their villages, an abortive process that Anand Gopal vividly described in his book, No Good Men Among the Living.
It was, it seemed, all over but the cheering and, of course, the planning for yet greater exploits across the region.  The top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were geopolitical dreamers of the first order who couldn’t have had more expansive ideas about how to extend such success to — as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated only days after the 9/11 attacks — terror or insurgent groups in more than 60 countries.  It was a point President Bush would reemphasize nine months later in a triumphalist graduation speech at West Point.  At that moment, the struggle they had quickly, if immodestly, dubbed the Global War on Terror was still a one-country affair.  They were, however, already deep into preparations to extend it in ways more radical and devastating than they could ever have imagined with the invasion and occupation of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the domination of the oil heartlands of the planet that they were sure would follow.  (In a comment that caught the moment exactly, Newsweek quoted a British official “close to the Bush team” as saying, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”)
So many years later, perhaps it won’t surprise you — as it probably wouldn’t have surprised the hundreds of thousands of protesters who turned out in the streets of American cities and towns in early 2003 to oppose the invasion of Iraq — that this was one of those stories to which the adage “be careful what you wish for” applies.
Seeing War
And it’s a tale that’s not over yet.  Not by a long shot.  As a start, in the Trump era, the longest war in American history, the one in Afghanistan, is only getting longer.  There are those U.S. troop levels on the rise; those air strikes ramping up; the Taliban in control of significant sections of the country; an Islamic State-branded terror group spreading ever more successfully in its eastern regions; and, according to the latest report from the Pentagon, “more than 20 terrorist or insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Think about that: 20 groups.  In other words, so many years later, the war on terror should be seen as an endless exercise in the use of multiplication tables — and not just in Afghanistan either.  More than a decade and a half after an American president spoke of 60 or more countries as potential targets, thanks to the invaluable work of a single dedicated group, the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, we finally have a visual representation of the true extent of the war on terror.  That we’ve had to wait so long should tell us something about the nature of this era of permanent war.
America’s war on terror across the globe (from the Costs of War Project). 
The Costs of War Project has produced not just a map of the war on terror, 2015-2017, but the first map of its kind ever.  It offers an astounding vision of Washington’s counterterror wars across the globe: their spread, the deployment of U.S. forces, the expanding missions to train foreign counterterror forces, the American bases that make them possible, the drone and other air strikes that are essential to them, and the U.S. combat troops helping to fight them.  (Terror groups have, of course, morphed and expanded riotously as part and parcel of the same process.)
A glance at the map tells you that the war on terror, an increasingly complex set of intertwined conflicts, is now a remarkably global phenomenon.  It stretches from the Philippines (with its own ISIS-branded group that just fought an almost five-month-long campaign that devastated Marawi, a city of 300,000) through South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and deep into West Africa where, only recently, four Green Berets died in an ambush in Niger.
No less stunning are the number of countries Washington’s war on terror has touched in some fashion.  Once, of course, there was only one (or, if you want to include the United States, two).  Now, the Costs of War Project identifies no less than 76 countries, 39% of those on the planet, as involved in that global conflict.  That means places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya where U.S. drone or other air strikes are the norm and U.S. ground troops (often Special Operations forces) have been either directly or indirectly engaged in combat.  It also means countries where U.S. advisers are training local militaries or even militias in counterterror tactics and those with bases crucial to this expanding set of conflicts.  As the map makes clear, these categories often overlap.
Who could be surprised that such a “war” has been eating American taxpayer dollars at a rate that should stagger the imagination in a country whose infrastructure is now visibly crumbling?  In a separate study, released in November, the Costs of War Project estimated that the price tag on the war on terror (with some future expenses included) had already reached an astronomical $5.6 trillion.  Only recently, however, President Trump, now escalating those conflicts, tweeted an even more staggering figure: “After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country!” (This figure, too, seems to have come in some fashion from the Costs of War estimate that “future interest payments on borrowing for the wars will likely add more than $7.9 trillion to the national debt” by mid-century.)
It couldn’t have been a rarer comment from an American politician, as in these years assessments of both the monetary and human costs of war have largely been left to small groups of scholars and activists.  The war on terror has, in fact, spread in the fashion today’s map lays out with almost no serious debate in this country about its costs or results.  If the document produced by the Costs of War project is, in fact, a map from hell, it is also, I believe, the first full-scale map of this war ever produced.
Think about that for a moment.  For the last 16 years, we, the American people, funding this complex set of conflicts to the tune of trillions of dollars, have lacked a single map of the war Washington has been fighting.  Not one. Yes, parts of that morphing, spreading set of conflicts have been somewhere in the news regularly, though seldom (except when there were “lone wolf” terror attacks in the United States or Western Europe) in the headlines.  In all those years, however, no American could see an image of this strange, perpetual conflict whose end is nowhere in sight.
Part of this can be explained by the nature of that “war.”  There are no fronts, no armies advancing on Berlin, no armadas bearing down on the Japanese homeland.  There hasn’t been, as in Korea in the early 1950s, even a parallel to cross or fight your way back to.  In this war, there have been no obvious retreats and, after the triumphal entry into Baghdad in 2003, few advances either.
It was hard even to map its component parts and when you did — as in an August New York Times map of territories controlled by the Taliban in Afghanistan — the imagery was complex and of limited impact.  Generally, however, we, the people, have been demobilized in almost every imaginable way in these years, even when it comes to simply following the endless set of wars and conflicts that go under the rubric of the war on terror.
Mapping 2018 and Beyond
Let me repeat this mantra: once, almost seventeen years ago, there was one; now, the count is 76 and rising.  Meanwhile, great cities have been turned into rubble; tens of millions of human beings have been displaced from their homes; refugees by the millions continue to cross borders, unsettling ever more lands; terror groups have become brand names across significant parts of the planet; and our American world continues to be militarized.
This should be thought of as an entirely new kind of perpetual global war.  So take one more look at that map.  Click on it and then enlarge it to consider the map in full-screen mode.  It’s important to try to imagine what’s been happening visually, since we’re facing a new kind of disaster, a planetary militarization of a sort we’ve never truly seen before.  No matter the “successes” in Washington’s war, ranging from that invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to the taking of Baghdad in 2003 to the recent destruction of the Islamic State’s “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq (or most of it anyway, since at this moment American planes are still dropping bombs and firing missiles in parts of Syria), the conflicts only seem to morph and tumble on.
We are now in an era in which the U.S. military is the leading edge — often the only edge — of what used to be called American “foreign policy” and the State Department is being radically downsized.  American Special Operations forces were deployed to 149 countries in 2017 alone and the U.S. has so many troops on so many bases in so many places on Earth that the Pentagon can’t even account for the whereabouts of 44,000 of them. There may, in fact, be no way to truly map all of this, though the Costs of War Project’s illustration is a triumph of what can be seen.
Looking into the future, let’s pray for one thing: that the folks at that project have plenty of stamina, since it’s a given that, in the Trump years (and possibly well beyond), the costs of war will only rise.  The first Pentagon budget of the Trump era, passed with bipartisan unanimity by Congress and signed by the president, is a staggering $700 billion.  Meanwhile, America’s leading military men and the president, while escalating the country’s conflicts from Niger to YemenSomalia to Afghanistan, seem eternally in search of yet more wars to launch.
Pointing to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, for instance, Marine Corps Commandant General Robert Neller recently told U.S. troops in Norway to expect a “bigass fight” in the future, adding, “I hope I’m wrong, but there’s a war coming.”  In December, National Security Adviser Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster similarly suggested that the possibility of a war (conceivably nuclear in nature) with Kim Jong-un’s North Korea was “increasing every day.”  Meanwhile, in an administration packed with Iranophobes, President Trump seems to be preparing to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, possibly as early as this month.
In other words, in 2018 and beyond, maps of many creative kinds may be needed simply to begin to take in the latest in America’s wars.  Consider, for instance, a recent report in the New York Times that about 2,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security are already “deployed to more than 70 countries around the world,” largely to prevent terror attacks.  And so it goes in the twenty-first century.
So welcome to 2018, another year of unending war, and while we’re on the subject, a small warning to our leaders: given the last 16 years, be careful what you wish for.