The US/NATO strategy in Afghanistan is based mostly on some mixture of counter-terrorism (killing Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan) and counter-insurgency (forcing insurgents out of targeted areas and winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan residents). Nir Rosen and Marika Theros refer to evidence of the failure of the strategy up to now. (You can access the full article at http://www.commondreans.org/view/2011/01/18-8.) I’ll identify some of their central points with quotes from their article and few statements.
First, Rosen and Marika challenge Obama’s recent cautious but upbeat annual review of purported military progress and improved Afghan security in 2010. Their cogent summary doesn’t support Obama’s views.
“The year 2010 witnessed a significant spike in violence both in the south, with offensive military operations triggering greater Taliban intimidation [2] and assassinations of civilians, and in the north [3] in heretofore ‘stable areas’ where international neglect and government abuse provide fertile ground for insurgent expansion. Real progress has been further complicated by the increasingly poisonous relationship between the Afghan government, the international community, and the Afghan people, aggravated by a potentially catastrophic electoral crisis [4], even more predatory government corruption and brazen war-profiteering [5], and near total disregard for the average Afghan citizen. As American and NATO forces enter their tenth year in Afghanistan, Afghan communities find themselves increasingly caught in a complex system of violence generated by insurgents, criminal gangs, drug lords, corrupt officials, US-allied local strongmen, and aggressive international forces.”
Second, the US military strategy during 2010 resulted in continuing and extensive damage to the Afghan population, property, and environment. They write:
“In Kandahar, the US is bombarding populated areas with smart rocket launchers and guided warheads, razing orchards, destroying homes, and partnering with people like the brutal commander [8] Colonel Abdul Razik and his militia. This increase in offensive operations, night raids, drone attacks, and use of irregular local forces remain precisely the tactics that provoke civilian outrage [9] even as they increase Taliban losses. Even more problematic, the international community never developed a complementary and much-needed political strategy that reinforces Afghan national unity and builds trust between state and society through genuine political reform and reconciliation at all levels of society.”
Third, Rosen and Marika provide evidence on the views of ordinary Afghan cities, focusing on their own experiences and future prospects. The evidence comes from a study sponsored in 2009 by LSE Global Governance at the London School of Economics and the Civil Society Development Center in Afghanistan. Rosen and Marika
“engaged a range of selected Afghan citizens - community, religious, and tribal leaders; NGO and community activists; teachers and educators; and, students and youth leaders – in seven regions to capture their experiences of insecurity and their views on how to secure Afghanistan’s future, including the provinces of Balkh, Baghlan, Herat, Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, and Nangarhar.” They identify three themes from the first rounds of interviews.
“ Firstly, the Taliban movement is a symptom of larger ills, and the continued focus on defeating them obscures the fact that the post-2001 political and economic order the international community helped create is the fundamental driver of instability, violence, and recruitment into the insurgency. Secondly, the current strategy with its near exclusive focus on government and armed actors as partners in the war effort perpetuates a system of personalized politics, power-grabbing and profiteering that fosters insecurity, corrupts Afghan society, and prevents the emergence of alternative political forces…. [while continuing] more as a mutual business enterprise in which belligerents – the political and economic elites, the internationals, and the insurgents – use insecurity as a cover for personal political and economic ambitions. They point to the massive amounts of international aid underwriting a perverse political economy that has created a nexus of financial interests between corrupt government officials, warlords, international contractors, and even the Taliban….”
“Finally… most Afghans want a rational outcome that produces a participatory system of governance rooted in Afghan values and able to provide minimally adequate services of justice, health, and education. Most Afghans do not challenge the existence of the state itself and support a unified Afghanistan…. In assessing the current struggle, Afghans look to progress on questions of justice, representation and allocation of resources rather than to kill-and-capture rates or announcements of new programmes in Kandahar or Helmand that link the populace to the government.”
In short, the situation in Afghanistan remains mired in conflict, corruption, destruction, and extensive human casualties and death. A major part of the problem is that the US and its allies are out-of-touch with or are misreading the views of ordinary Afghan citizens. Rosen and Marika believe that the situation can be ameliorated, though “not all of it can be undone.” Nonetheless, they can imagine policies that would be in the interests of the broad range of Afghan citizens they have interviewed.
First, with respect to the international aid coming into the country, the interviewees say that it must be better targeted, designed, and overseen, as well as making sure “that aid produces tangible results on the ground.”
Second, the international community could use the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to “crack down on corruption.” And, further, the “US Government should seriously consider prosecuting those Afghan-Americans who have participated in corrupt practices.”
Third, “the international community – particularly the US – must do more than pay lip service to a political solution and de-escalate the conflict….This requires more emphasis on issues of governance, justice, and representation; a reconsideration of the exclusive partnerships developed with the pro-government local strongmen; a genuine effort to defend the Afghan population from predatory political and economic elites (and not only insurgents); and, increased checks on impunity and marginalization.”
Unfortunately, there is little in US history that would justify much hope in seeing US foreign and military policies transformed in ways to give humanitarian and democratic values priority over the interests of those in the US who dominate the economic and political systems. It’s not out of the question, though there is no recent precedent. We’ll see. It depends in part on how the following questions are answered. Will we witness the Obama administration and the US Congress reduce the allocation of money and resources to the US military in Afghanistan? Will there be a withdrawal of a large number of troops over the course of the year? Will the US and her allies, along with other concerned nations and the UN, find ways to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan that are consistent with the views of the majority of the Afghan people?
Showing posts with label time table. Show all posts
Showing posts with label time table. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Thursday, September 9, 2010
High-level study group recommends significant reductions of US troops
Two high-level reports, one from the US, the other from the UK, call for policy options that
would increase the chances of significant reductions on US force levels beginning next summer.
The thrust of the reports, focusing mostly on the US report, is that the US should reduce its ambitions in Afghanistan from nation-building through counterinsurgency (winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people) because it is too costly and ineffective. Rather, the members of the US group, The Afghanistan Study Group, prefer a counter-terrorist approach, involving fewer troops and narrowly targeted at al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. The goals in this case is one of deterrence and containment and lowered costs. It does not recommend a full withdrawal of US troops, but a reduction in troops and a different strategic goal.
I cite below sections of three articles to provide a sense of what is being reported on this alternative approach of the Afghanistan Study Group.
First, Jim Lobe provides information on the US and UK reports in an article titled “Calls for Change of Afghan Strategy Grow Louder, September 9, 2010. You can find his full report at: http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2010/09/08/calls-for-change-of-afghan-strategy-grow-louder
“Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
“In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration’s ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "prospects for success are dim."
“Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group," which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.
“‘(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions,’ said IISS’s director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year’s report.
"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."
[….]
Second, here are sections from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s article, “Finding a Way Out of Afghanistan.” The full article can be accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-5
[....]
“At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent [bipartisan] report can't be overstated.
“The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America's footprint in our nation's longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."
“Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year -- about seven times Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration's health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."
[….]
Third, Steve Clemons offers further views in his article, “Rethinking US War in Afghanistan, which can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-8
[….]
“Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group's recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.
[….]
“….The group's core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.
“The five key recommendations are:
1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.
2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence - which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.
3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.
4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.
5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.
[….]
“Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan - and failing in its efforts - than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research - or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.
“Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims - assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
“The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.
[….]
would increase the chances of significant reductions on US force levels beginning next summer.
The thrust of the reports, focusing mostly on the US report, is that the US should reduce its ambitions in Afghanistan from nation-building through counterinsurgency (winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people) because it is too costly and ineffective. Rather, the members of the US group, The Afghanistan Study Group, prefer a counter-terrorist approach, involving fewer troops and narrowly targeted at al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. The goals in this case is one of deterrence and containment and lowered costs. It does not recommend a full withdrawal of US troops, but a reduction in troops and a different strategic goal.
I cite below sections of three articles to provide a sense of what is being reported on this alternative approach of the Afghanistan Study Group.
First, Jim Lobe provides information on the US and UK reports in an article titled “Calls for Change of Afghan Strategy Grow Louder, September 9, 2010. You can find his full report at: http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2010/09/08/calls-for-change-of-afghan-strategy-grow-louder
“Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
“In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration’s ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "prospects for success are dim."
“Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group," which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.
“‘(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions,’ said IISS’s director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year’s report.
"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."
[….]
Second, here are sections from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s article, “Finding a Way Out of Afghanistan.” The full article can be accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-5
[....]
“At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent [bipartisan] report can't be overstated.
“The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America's footprint in our nation's longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."
“Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year -- about seven times Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration's health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."
[….]
Third, Steve Clemons offers further views in his article, “Rethinking US War in Afghanistan, which can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-8
[….]
“Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group's recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.
[….]
“….The group's core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.
“The five key recommendations are:
1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.
2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence - which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.
3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.
4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.
5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.
[….]
“Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan - and failing in its efforts - than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research - or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.
“Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims - assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
“The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.
[….]
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
We need to plan for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan
Robert Naiman, Policy Director of Just Foreign Policy, writes in support of an explicit timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. We applaud his position. He responds to President Obama's statement that too many citizens are "obsessed with a timetable," by pointing out that a timetable, and withdrawal of troops is in the best interests of the US because it will help to reduce anger and violence in Central Asia against the US. Additionally, Naiman makes two other points. One, he refers to evidence that there is a growing number of Democrats in the US Congress who want a timetable. Two, there are more Democrats who recognize that we are neglecting domestic programs as we spend so much on the Afghanistan war/occupation. With no end in sight. This latter point may imply growing support among Democrats for alternatives to war in US foreign relations and growing congressional resistance against the ever-increasing military spending.
3/5 of House Dems "Obsessed" with Afghan Withdrawal Timetable
By Robert Naiman
Source: CommonDreams.org
Tuesday, July 06, 2010A+
Robert Naiman's ZSpace PageJoin ZSpace
"Obsession" isn't just "a fragrance for men." According to our Commander-in-Chief, "obsession" now also characterizes the widespread interest in the timeline for bringing home 100,000 American boys and girls safely from Afghanistan so they can grow old with their sweethearts and lead economically productive lives, rather than becoming Pentagon statistics or lifelong burdens on their family members and the public purse.
President Obama said there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan, AP reported Sunday.
This "obsession" has so afflicted the body politic that Thursday night, three-fifths of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for an amendment on the war supplemental that not only tried to lock in the July 2011 timetable for the beginning of the drawdown that President Obama promised last year, but also would have required the President to establish a timetable for the completion of the drawdown.
Are some of us "obsessed" with a withdrawal timetable for U.S. forces from Afghanistan? Damn straight we are. Advocacy of a withdrawal timetable is the principal means by which Americans outside of the military can act politically to protect the lives of our fellow citizens who are being deployed. Every day by which we can shorten the war is a day on which our fellow citizens won't have the opportunity to be blown up in Afghanistan.
And as for the people of Afghanistan, the withdrawal timetable is our ticket to freedom from having the same relationship with Pashtun residents of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan as the Israeli army has with Palestinian residents of Hebron in the southern West Bank. The withdrawal timetable is the little patch of blue that we prisoners call the sky.
The group of Americans afflicted by this "obsession" is surely going to continue to grow in numbers and influence. The 162 who voted for a timetable for withdrawal yesterday represented almost a 20% increase over those who voted for an exit strategy last June. The three-fifths of the Democratic caucus in the House who voted for a timetable for withdrawal yesterday featured many members of the Democratic leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], who usually doesn't vote on the floor (her statement backing her vote for the amendment is here), David Obey [D-WI], chair of Appropriations, who co-sponsored the amendment; John Larson [D-CT], chair of the Democratic Caucus; Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], assistant to the Speaker; George Miller [D-CA], chair of Education and Labor; Barney Frank [D-MA], chair of Financial Services; and Henry Waxman [D-CA], chair of Energy and Commerce.
And crucially, important Democratic players have begun to violate the Washington consensus that pretended that war spending had nothing to do with unmet domestic needs. David Obey tied funding for teacher's jobs to the war supplemental, and labor unions, by insisting on money for teachers in the House bill, have helped to jam up Congressional approval of the war money. MoveOn called out House Republican leader John Boehner [R-OH] for suggesting that we should cut Social Security benefits - including raising the normal retirement age to 70 - while saying no limit can be placed on war spending. And Speaker Pelosi told the Huffington Post: "It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget...in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it...we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition."
Once the artificial wall between consideration of war spending and consideration of domestic spending is thoroughly breached, every Republican, Wall Street and corporate Democratic attack on Social Security and on spending to support domestic employment under the guise of "deficit reduction" is likely to provoke a counter-attack from important Democratic players on war spending and the Pentagon budget. That's going to drive even more Democrats and Independents into the "timetable for withdrawal" camp.
Time is running out on the Obama Administration's ability to maintain politically a large-scale deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Even solely from the point of view of its own narrow self-interest, the Administration should get busy pursuing serious peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, because there's no reason to expect that the Administration's leverage in the future will be any greater than its leverage today.
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy
3/5 of House Dems "Obsessed" with Afghan Withdrawal Timetable
By Robert Naiman
Source: CommonDreams.org
Tuesday, July 06, 2010A+
Robert Naiman's ZSpace PageJoin ZSpace
"Obsession" isn't just "a fragrance for men." According to our Commander-in-Chief, "obsession" now also characterizes the widespread interest in the timeline for bringing home 100,000 American boys and girls safely from Afghanistan so they can grow old with their sweethearts and lead economically productive lives, rather than becoming Pentagon statistics or lifelong burdens on their family members and the public purse.
President Obama said there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan, AP reported Sunday.
This "obsession" has so afflicted the body politic that Thursday night, three-fifths of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for an amendment on the war supplemental that not only tried to lock in the July 2011 timetable for the beginning of the drawdown that President Obama promised last year, but also would have required the President to establish a timetable for the completion of the drawdown.
Are some of us "obsessed" with a withdrawal timetable for U.S. forces from Afghanistan? Damn straight we are. Advocacy of a withdrawal timetable is the principal means by which Americans outside of the military can act politically to protect the lives of our fellow citizens who are being deployed. Every day by which we can shorten the war is a day on which our fellow citizens won't have the opportunity to be blown up in Afghanistan.
And as for the people of Afghanistan, the withdrawal timetable is our ticket to freedom from having the same relationship with Pashtun residents of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan as the Israeli army has with Palestinian residents of Hebron in the southern West Bank. The withdrawal timetable is the little patch of blue that we prisoners call the sky.
The group of Americans afflicted by this "obsession" is surely going to continue to grow in numbers and influence. The 162 who voted for a timetable for withdrawal yesterday represented almost a 20% increase over those who voted for an exit strategy last June. The three-fifths of the Democratic caucus in the House who voted for a timetable for withdrawal yesterday featured many members of the Democratic leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], who usually doesn't vote on the floor (her statement backing her vote for the amendment is here), David Obey [D-WI], chair of Appropriations, who co-sponsored the amendment; John Larson [D-CT], chair of the Democratic Caucus; Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], assistant to the Speaker; George Miller [D-CA], chair of Education and Labor; Barney Frank [D-MA], chair of Financial Services; and Henry Waxman [D-CA], chair of Energy and Commerce.
And crucially, important Democratic players have begun to violate the Washington consensus that pretended that war spending had nothing to do with unmet domestic needs. David Obey tied funding for teacher's jobs to the war supplemental, and labor unions, by insisting on money for teachers in the House bill, have helped to jam up Congressional approval of the war money. MoveOn called out House Republican leader John Boehner [R-OH] for suggesting that we should cut Social Security benefits - including raising the normal retirement age to 70 - while saying no limit can be placed on war spending. And Speaker Pelosi told the Huffington Post: "It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget...in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it...we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition."
Once the artificial wall between consideration of war spending and consideration of domestic spending is thoroughly breached, every Republican, Wall Street and corporate Democratic attack on Social Security and on spending to support domestic employment under the guise of "deficit reduction" is likely to provoke a counter-attack from important Democratic players on war spending and the Pentagon budget. That's going to drive even more Democrats and Independents into the "timetable for withdrawal" camp.
Time is running out on the Obama Administration's ability to maintain politically a large-scale deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Even solely from the point of view of its own narrow self-interest, the Administration should get busy pursuing serious peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, because there's no reason to expect that the Administration's leverage in the future will be any greater than its leverage today.
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy
Friday, May 28, 2010
US Senate votes for more funding for Afghanistan war and no timetable
One of the "headlines" on radio/TV/internet broadcast today is that "The Senate Approves War Funding, Rejects Timetable for Afghan Withdrawal." The implication of this vote is that the U.S. Congress stands behind an U.S. occupation of Afghanistan for the indefinite future. This is a sad action by the U.S. Senate, which is likely to be followed by similar action in the House of Representatives, the legislation signed by President Obama, and cheered on by the military-industrial complex and those eager to continue U.S. influence, if not domination, of the rich oil reserves in the larger region. Here is the disheartening headline from Democracy Now.
"In other news from Capitol Hill, the Senate has approved a nearly $60 billion measure in continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure includes full funding for President Obama’s deployment of an additional 33,000 troops in his escalation of the Afghan war. In earlier voting, the Senate rejected an amendment from Democratic Senator Russ Feingold that would have required President Obama to submit a timetable for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan."
"In other news from Capitol Hill, the Senate has approved a nearly $60 billion measure in continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure includes full funding for President Obama’s deployment of an additional 33,000 troops in his escalation of the Afghan war. In earlier voting, the Senate rejected an amendment from Democratic Senator Russ Feingold that would have required President Obama to submit a timetable for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan."
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
War Resisters Leaque urges actions against funding for Afghanistan war and occupation
Important New Anti-War Legislation Call today!
Dear Friends,
In a time when there is such urgent need here in the U.S. we need to continue to pressure our elected officials to reduce the outrageous military budget. Please call your Representatives and Senators and urge them to vote NO on the upcoming supplemental that will provide an additional $33 billion for war and occupation in Afghanistan.
In addition to asking them to vote against this funding and instead support the swift and safe removal of all of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have new legislation to let them know about. Last week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and U.S. Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) announced they are introducing legislation requiring President Obama to develop a timetable to draw down U.S. troops from Afghanistan.Senate bill: S. 3197House bill: H.R. 5015
There are over 20 national organizations mobilizing for a call-in week. Please help make it a success!1. Call the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121. If you want to call your Representative or Senator directly you can easily find them here. 2. Forward this message to your friends and family, and ask them to make a call as well.
What you can say to your representatives:"I urge you to vote against the $33 billion supplementary spending bill to pay for the escalation of troops in Afghanistan and the continuation of this war and occupation! I also want to let you know about the Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal Bill, Senate: S. 3197 and House: H.R. 5015 and ask you to do everything you can to insist that President Obama develop a rapid, real and complete plan to bring our troops home now." PLEASE CALL TODAY: 202-224-3121
Thank you for your work for peace!
War Resisters League339 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10012212.228.0450 wrl@warresisters.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
