The article below (after comments and quote) is from Aljazeera-English, http://english-aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/03/2010318152734763348.html
Al-Jazeera reports on the initial forays of US-led military actions around Kandahar in the south and the preparation of NATO (German) troops for offensives in the northern province of Kunduz. The goals of the military actions, as reported by Al Jazeera, are to "shape, take, hold, and build." So far, the military strategy of the US/NATO has not demonstrated that targeted towns and areas can be held and then built up through reconstruction projects. One criticism from right-wing politicians in the US is that the Obama government needs to put even more troops in the country to achieve the goals. We who are opposed to the US intervention and escalation of the "war" in Afghanistan, and who question the rationality of the very notion of a "war on terrorism," remain hopeful that there will be a government commitment to withdrawing combat troops by 2011. We also hope that some reconstruction of what the US government military as helped to destroy, directly and indirectly over the last 30 years, will actually be implemented.
In his book Revolution at the Gates, Philosopher Slavoj Zizek suggests that this war on terrorism in Afghanistan seems the height of hubris, misguided at that, and an economic drain on US resources. Still, as Zizek asks, why Afghanistan?
"The ridicule of America attacking Afghanistan cannot fail to strike us: if the greatest power in the world destroys one of the world's poorest countries, in which peasants barely survive on barren hills, will this not be the ultimate case of impotent acting out? In many ways, Afghanistan is an ideal target: a country that is already reduced to rubble, with no infrastructure, repeatedly destroyed by war for the last two decades...we cannot avoid the surmise that the choice of Afghanistan will also be determined by economic considerations: is it not best procedure to act out one's anger at a country for which no one cares, and where there is nothing to destroy" ( p. 234).
But there are economic reasons to propel this tragic US-led assult that shore up some of the underpinnings of the US empire. It is good for the inflated US military to be able to use its "assets" somewhere in the world. It is profitable for US weapons' producers. It is profitable for US contractors. It is useful for US Afghan allies who endorse the military focus on the Taliban and who benefit from US aid and lack of attention otherwise to how they govern. It helps to distract attention away from the corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Middle East and in Central Asia.
Bob
----------------------------------
Al Jazeera reports:
Major Afghan offensive 'under way'
McChrystal said efforts to gradually retake control of Kandahar will "ramp up" in coming weeks [Reuters]
The US has said a new offensive to drive the Taliban from the southern Afghanistan city of Kandahar is under way and will steadily "ramp up" in the months ahead.The military and political efforts against the Taliban around Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city, are the next step in the US-led strategy to end a war now in its ninth year.
General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan, said the offensive had begun with initial military and political efforts, including operations to secure key roads and districts."Kandahar is already being shaped," McChrystal said on Thursday, adding that efforts will "ramp up" in the coming weeks and months ahead, lasting "a significant time".
A major offensive in Kandahar, once a Taliban stronghold, would follow the current military operation in neighbouring Helmand province,which appears to have largely pushed back the Taliban and given the government a chance to take control.'Reversing momentum'"What you are going to see in the months ahead, without giving too much detail, is a number of activities to shape the political relationships in and around Kandahar," he said.
McChrystal said there would also be a "series of activities" to boost security, like more partnering with Afghan police inside Kandahar city and boosting troop levels in the surrounding areas.
"If you control the environs around Kandahar, you go a long way to controlling Kandahar," he said.
To win over Afghans, US must listen
McChrystal has not given a timeline for the operation but said last week in Kabul that troops would be at full force for Kandahar operations by the early summer.
Kandahar is the next target in major military operations to eradicate the Taliban from areas they have controlled, in many cases in tandem with drug cartels, over the years since their regime was overthrown in 2001.
Operation Moshtarak- "together" in Dari and Pashto - is the first major test of the strategy of Barack Obama, the US president, to take on the Taliban and end the eight-year conflict with one of the biggest offensives since the 2001 US-led invasion.It is designed to clear Taliban fighters from the Marjah region of the southern province and hold it so that the civilian administration can establish itself.
The strategy comprises military, political and civilian approaches in four stages dubbed "shape, take, hold and build" and aims to ensure that once eradicated, the Taliban threat does not re-emerge.
Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Kabul, the Afghan capital, said: "These are the very early stages of the Kandahar offensive.
"We are at the 'shape' phase of the operation, however, there are military offensives being carried out around the city of Kandahar to facilitate a larger offensive in the coming weeks."The campaign in Kandahar is seen as a crucial test of Obama's strategy to reverse Taliban momentum after more than eight years of war.
Initial stages of the strategy aimed at speeding up the war's end began in Kandahar province around November, a Western official told the AFP news agency, on condition of anonymity.
"The emphasis increased last November, and most of it is invisible because it is aimed at understanding the situation on the ground, the political landscape and the human terrain," he said.
"We all understand how important and iconic Kandahar is for the Taliban - it was their first foothold."Taliban stronghold
Zalmai Ayobi, a spokesman for Kandahar governor Turyalai Wisa, said consultations had begun with tribal elders and community leaders as the long-term goal was to "expand good governance to all districts and villages".
Kandahar city, is Afghanistan's second largest city after Kabul and the birthplace of the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until their overthrow in the 2001 US-led invasion.
Suicide attacks are frequently carried out in Kandahar, a Taliban stronghold [Reuters]
The Taliban claimed responsibility for a multiple suicide bomb attack on the city last Saturday that killed 35 people,saying it was intended to sabotage the planned offensive.
Bruno Kasdorf, chief of staff at the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) said there would "definitely" be an operation in the northern province of Kunduz, where most of Germany's 4,300 troops in Afghanistan are based.
He declined to give details but Lieutenant Colonel Michael Kaemmerer, an Isaf spokesman, said it would be similar in "type not the scale" to Moshtarak.
The number of foreign troops under US and Nato command is set to rise to 150,000 by August, with most of the new deployment heading to the south.
The 15,000 US, Nato and Afghan troops currently deployed to Helmand's Marjah and Nad Ali areas for Operation Moshtarak will remain in the province for other offensives there, the spokesman said.
Newly arrived troops would be sent to Kandahar, he said, adding that foreign troops would remain in both provinces to ensure security was maintained and the Taliban did not re-emerge.
But in the battle to win the support of local people, perceptions that Kandahar's leaders are corrupt could be an obstacle to long-term success, military officials have said.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, the elected leader of Kandahar's provincial council, has long denied allegations that he has ties to the three-billion-dollar-a-year illicit drug trade.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Afghan war criminals give themselves blanket immunity
On the basis of the information that we have become familiar with, there are four points worth reiterating: (1) the Taliban are not a unitary force, (2) the core insurgent groups among the Taliban are not the only enemy of the Afghan people, (3) there are many non-Taliban warlords who are also enemies of the Afghan people, who the US military considers their allies, and who occupy important local positions of power, and (4) there are warlords, who are alleged to be war criminals, who hold positions in the national parliament and President Karzai's cabinet.
I'd like to focus on the 4th point, and quote Malalai Joya from chapter 9 of her book, A Woman Among Warlords.
"As I walked inside the recently rebuilt halls of Parliament, I saw mostly the same old faces from Afghanistan's sorrowful past. Many warlords had once again strong-armed the process and forced their way into Parliament. Even though, it was supposedly illegal for militia leaders or combatants to run for office, a Human Rights Watch report exposed their allies. Many of these people either stole their places in Parliament at gunpoint or bought their seats with U.S. dollars - which they had in abundance because leaders of the Northern Alliance were paid with cash by the CIA for the support of the U.S. war" (p. 124).
With this context from Joya, I'll identify what I see as four key points in a recent article by Jason Leopold, "Afghanistan Enacts Law Giving War Criminals Blanket Immunity."
The article appeared in Truthout.org on March 16, 2010. The URL for the article is: http://www.truthout.org/afghanistan-enacts-law-giving-blanket-immunity-war-criminals57746
The first of the points that I draw from Leopold's article is that the Afghan Parliament, "made up largely of former warlords" who have been "accused by Afghans and human rights groups of war crimes," have voted for a law "that provides blanket immunity and pardons for members of the Afghanistan armed factions of war crimes and human rights abuses prior to Dec. 2001."
Second, Leopold refers to The Transitional Justice Coordination Group (TJCG), "made up of a coalition of 24 civil society organizations, [that has] called upon the Karzai government" to suspend the law and eventually abolish it.
Three, according to Leopold, there is a provision in the amnesty law that "allows victims of atrocities to file individual claims against alleged perpetrators." Leopold reports that TJCG said this "places an unfair burden upon victims, who have already suffered so much and would put themselves at rick of reprisals given the impunity of Aghanistan today." He adds: "This provision is particiularly impractical so far as it concerns women and the many victims of sexual violence, who already face barriers to obtaining justice."
Four, and most relevant for the present post, Leopold writes that there are "War Criminals in Karzai's Cabinet, including "high-level officials who were accused of war crimes." For example, "both of Karzai's vice presidents are former leaders of armed groups whose factions squabbled for control of Kabul in the 1990s, when thousands of civilians wee killed and hundreds of thousands fled from their homes." Another example: "...Karzai approved the re-appointment in Jan. of Gen. Abdul Rashid Dotsum, an ex-militia chief, to a high-level military position which had been harshly criticized by civil rights groups."
The implications? The US appears to be fighting a war focused on what it calls the Taliban, while much of the rest of the country is ruled by warlords who have also perpetrated atrocities on the Afghan people and who now use present circumstances to consolidate their power. Along the way, the Afghan people remain among the poorest in the world and the U.S. government and military spend tens of billions of dollars on an adventure that appears to have no clear strategy for bringing security to the Afghan people - and no end point.
I'd like to focus on the 4th point, and quote Malalai Joya from chapter 9 of her book, A Woman Among Warlords.
"As I walked inside the recently rebuilt halls of Parliament, I saw mostly the same old faces from Afghanistan's sorrowful past. Many warlords had once again strong-armed the process and forced their way into Parliament. Even though, it was supposedly illegal for militia leaders or combatants to run for office, a Human Rights Watch report exposed their allies. Many of these people either stole their places in Parliament at gunpoint or bought their seats with U.S. dollars - which they had in abundance because leaders of the Northern Alliance were paid with cash by the CIA for the support of the U.S. war" (p. 124).
With this context from Joya, I'll identify what I see as four key points in a recent article by Jason Leopold, "Afghanistan Enacts Law Giving War Criminals Blanket Immunity."
The article appeared in Truthout.org on March 16, 2010. The URL for the article is: http://www.truthout.org/afghanistan-enacts-law-giving-blanket-immunity-war-criminals57746
The first of the points that I draw from Leopold's article is that the Afghan Parliament, "made up largely of former warlords" who have been "accused by Afghans and human rights groups of war crimes," have voted for a law "that provides blanket immunity and pardons for members of the Afghanistan armed factions of war crimes and human rights abuses prior to Dec. 2001."
Second, Leopold refers to The Transitional Justice Coordination Group (TJCG), "made up of a coalition of 24 civil society organizations, [that has] called upon the Karzai government" to suspend the law and eventually abolish it.
Three, according to Leopold, there is a provision in the amnesty law that "allows victims of atrocities to file individual claims against alleged perpetrators." Leopold reports that TJCG said this "places an unfair burden upon victims, who have already suffered so much and would put themselves at rick of reprisals given the impunity of Aghanistan today." He adds: "This provision is particiularly impractical so far as it concerns women and the many victims of sexual violence, who already face barriers to obtaining justice."
Four, and most relevant for the present post, Leopold writes that there are "War Criminals in Karzai's Cabinet, including "high-level officials who were accused of war crimes." For example, "both of Karzai's vice presidents are former leaders of armed groups whose factions squabbled for control of Kabul in the 1990s, when thousands of civilians wee killed and hundreds of thousands fled from their homes." Another example: "...Karzai approved the re-appointment in Jan. of Gen. Abdul Rashid Dotsum, an ex-militia chief, to a high-level military position which had been harshly criticized by civil rights groups."
The implications? The US appears to be fighting a war focused on what it calls the Taliban, while much of the rest of the country is ruled by warlords who have also perpetrated atrocities on the Afghan people and who now use present circumstances to consolidate their power. Along the way, the Afghan people remain among the poorest in the world and the U.S. government and military spend tens of billions of dollars on an adventure that appears to have no clear strategy for bringing security to the Afghan people - and no end point.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
US-led assault on Marja produces civilan casualties and refugees
The following post is from the Peace Action West blog - http://blog/peaceactionwest.org/2010/03/04/the-marja-offensives-impact-on-civilians
The Marja offensive’s impact on civilians
March 4, 2010
tags: Afghanistan, civilian casualties, marja, war
by Chen Lin
A prominent narrative relating to the offensive in Marja has been the military’s emphasis on reducing civilian casualties. For example, the Brookings Institution notes that unlike past operations, the recent US offensive into Marja was announced in advance to Afghanis in order to reduce civilian casualties:
This battle is fascinating for the fact that it was announced repeatedly in advance by NATO commanders. The unusual tactic deprived us of tactical surprise, but General Stanley McChrystal and others clearly felt it even more important to minimize civilian casualties by trying to convince resistance fighters to vacate the area in advance. Even if those insurgents who flee remain free to fight another day, our key premise is that they will not be successful in galvanizing widespread support in Helmand province or elsewhere if we can establish positive momentum first—on the battlefield, and then in improving the lives of Afghan citizens.
The strategy adopted by General McChrysal also serves a broader PR purpose, bolstering US efforts to “win hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and, indeed, the US. But this approach can only work if it is actually effective in reducing the humanitarian cost of the battle. In reality, civilians always pay dearly for war. That is, as we’ve argued, one of the most fundamental strategic failings of war. As an interview with Radio Free Europe reveals, many civilians remain in the city because they did not escape in time.
“The civilians are trapped because although they had planned to leave after the fighting started in cars or anything they could find, all the roads are mined now and they cannot leave their homes,” said Rahman. “Their food supplies are running out and they face thirst and hunger. People are slaughtering and eating up their cattle. All the shops are closed even as most people stayed behind. Less than 10 percent of the residents left. We have information that civilians have also suffered deaths and injuries and they cannot bury their dead or help their wounded.”
Moreover, as we covered earlier, some 20 civilians have already been killed in the battle. Worse, more are dying because the battle has greatly restricted their access to hospitals:
Most of the wounded civilians recuperating at the whitewashed Italian-run hospital said their injuries were caused by “the foreign soldiers” — a claim that does not bode well for international and Afghan forces who are trying to get residents to renounce the Taliban and embrace the Afghan government.
Bernard Metraux, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Helmand province, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that as many as 40,000 people trapped by fighting in and around Marjah have little to no access to medical care.
The emphasis on the direct casualties of the battle masks a humanitarian crisis of equal magnitude occurring outside of city limits – the plight of the internally displaced. The LATimes reported last Tuesday that since the beginning of the offensive, some 4,000 families have escaped the town. While most currently have access to proper food and shelter, their inability to return home has begun to jeopardize their livelihoods, and there is no guarantee their resources will last:
For agricultural families, the great majority of the town’s residents, each passing day is a countdown to ruin. Worry beads click late into the night as farmers envision their crops dying, livestock scattered or starving, irrigation ditches choked with debris.
Still, many believe their decision to flee may have saved their lives. NATO says 16 civilians have been killed in the offensive, but the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission on Wednesday put the civilian death toll at 28, of whom 13 were children. At least 70 others have been hurt, the group said.
Although most of the displaced have access to food and at least rudimentary shelter, the privations are beginning to grate. Kinship dictates that a family must take in fleeing relatives without question. But many people in rural Helmand already live at the subsistence level, so host families and their guests alike face growing hardship.
The problems began in the planning stages of the Marja operation. For all the attention paid to making civilians aware of the impending battle, the advance efforts fell short of ensuring that fleeing civilians had places to stay with secure access to necessary resources.
NATO and Afghan leaders said they hatched the assault in close co-operation so the military phase can be immediately followed by the establishment of civil administration and services.
But Norine MacDonald, the president of the International Council for Security and Development, which has an office in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, said planners had paid little regard to civilian well-being.
”The forward planning we heard so much about did not include ensuring that the local population would be able to leave and live elsewhere in decent conditions, with access to food and medical care,” she said.
More than 2800 families – averaging about five members each – had been displaced before and during the fighting, said Abdul Rahman Hutaki, the head of the Human Rights and Environment Organisation, an independent Afghan group.
NATO commanders say it could be another three weeks before the area is under control as fighting between militants and the 15,000-strong force of US marines, NATO and Afghan troops is proving ”difficult”.
The US and NATO decision to reach out to the civilian population prior to the offensive in Marja is commendable, but efforts like this will likely continue to fall short in the face of a messy war. In Marja as in so many other places in Afghanistan, a military solution has only made existing problems worse.
The Marja offensive’s impact on civilians
March 4, 2010
tags: Afghanistan, civilian casualties, marja, war
by Chen Lin
A prominent narrative relating to the offensive in Marja has been the military’s emphasis on reducing civilian casualties. For example, the Brookings Institution notes that unlike past operations, the recent US offensive into Marja was announced in advance to Afghanis in order to reduce civilian casualties:
This battle is fascinating for the fact that it was announced repeatedly in advance by NATO commanders. The unusual tactic deprived us of tactical surprise, but General Stanley McChrystal and others clearly felt it even more important to minimize civilian casualties by trying to convince resistance fighters to vacate the area in advance. Even if those insurgents who flee remain free to fight another day, our key premise is that they will not be successful in galvanizing widespread support in Helmand province or elsewhere if we can establish positive momentum first—on the battlefield, and then in improving the lives of Afghan citizens.
The strategy adopted by General McChrysal also serves a broader PR purpose, bolstering US efforts to “win hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and, indeed, the US. But this approach can only work if it is actually effective in reducing the humanitarian cost of the battle. In reality, civilians always pay dearly for war. That is, as we’ve argued, one of the most fundamental strategic failings of war. As an interview with Radio Free Europe reveals, many civilians remain in the city because they did not escape in time.
“The civilians are trapped because although they had planned to leave after the fighting started in cars or anything they could find, all the roads are mined now and they cannot leave their homes,” said Rahman. “Their food supplies are running out and they face thirst and hunger. People are slaughtering and eating up their cattle. All the shops are closed even as most people stayed behind. Less than 10 percent of the residents left. We have information that civilians have also suffered deaths and injuries and they cannot bury their dead or help their wounded.”
Moreover, as we covered earlier, some 20 civilians have already been killed in the battle. Worse, more are dying because the battle has greatly restricted their access to hospitals:
Most of the wounded civilians recuperating at the whitewashed Italian-run hospital said their injuries were caused by “the foreign soldiers” — a claim that does not bode well for international and Afghan forces who are trying to get residents to renounce the Taliban and embrace the Afghan government.
Bernard Metraux, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Helmand province, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that as many as 40,000 people trapped by fighting in and around Marjah have little to no access to medical care.
The emphasis on the direct casualties of the battle masks a humanitarian crisis of equal magnitude occurring outside of city limits – the plight of the internally displaced. The LATimes reported last Tuesday that since the beginning of the offensive, some 4,000 families have escaped the town. While most currently have access to proper food and shelter, their inability to return home has begun to jeopardize their livelihoods, and there is no guarantee their resources will last:
For agricultural families, the great majority of the town’s residents, each passing day is a countdown to ruin. Worry beads click late into the night as farmers envision their crops dying, livestock scattered or starving, irrigation ditches choked with debris.
Still, many believe their decision to flee may have saved their lives. NATO says 16 civilians have been killed in the offensive, but the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission on Wednesday put the civilian death toll at 28, of whom 13 were children. At least 70 others have been hurt, the group said.
Although most of the displaced have access to food and at least rudimentary shelter, the privations are beginning to grate. Kinship dictates that a family must take in fleeing relatives without question. But many people in rural Helmand already live at the subsistence level, so host families and their guests alike face growing hardship.
The problems began in the planning stages of the Marja operation. For all the attention paid to making civilians aware of the impending battle, the advance efforts fell short of ensuring that fleeing civilians had places to stay with secure access to necessary resources.
NATO and Afghan leaders said they hatched the assault in close co-operation so the military phase can be immediately followed by the establishment of civil administration and services.
But Norine MacDonald, the president of the International Council for Security and Development, which has an office in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, said planners had paid little regard to civilian well-being.
”The forward planning we heard so much about did not include ensuring that the local population would be able to leave and live elsewhere in decent conditions, with access to food and medical care,” she said.
More than 2800 families – averaging about five members each – had been displaced before and during the fighting, said Abdul Rahman Hutaki, the head of the Human Rights and Environment Organisation, an independent Afghan group.
NATO commanders say it could be another three weeks before the area is under control as fighting between militants and the 15,000-strong force of US marines, NATO and Afghan troops is proving ”difficult”.
The US and NATO decision to reach out to the civilian population prior to the offensive in Marja is commendable, but efforts like this will likely continue to fall short in the face of a messy war. In Marja as in so many other places in Afghanistan, a military solution has only made existing problems worse.
Misinformation on Marja battle to mislead US public
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, uncovers information on the US-led offensive on Marja, in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. The offensive included 7,500 US, NATO, and Afghan troops. In an article titled "Fiction of Marja as a City Was US Information War," Porter makes three major points.
First, "the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by the news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war." In the highly publicized run-up to the battle, US officials described Marja as "a city of 80,000 people." Porter reports that "Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agicultural area covering much of the Helmand River Valley, which covers "125 square miles." The focus of the attack was a location in Marja "where farmers gathered for markets" and included "a mosque and a few shops."
Second, Porter asks, "how did the fiction that Marja is a city of 80,000 get started?" "The idea," he reports, "was passed on to the news media by the US Marines in southern Helmand," and then picked up by the Associated Press and other news media. The story that was more or less repeated was that there were as many as a 1,000 insurgents in the town and that there would be deadly "house to house urban street fighting."
Third, why then was the fiction of an urban Marja perpetrated. Porter's answer can be gleaned from from the last two sentences in the article:
"The Washington Post reported Feb. 22 that the decision to launch the offensive against Marja was intended largely to impress US public opinion with the effectiveness of the US military in Afghanistan" - and how Afghan soldiers are becoming ready to engage the enemy and do their part in the fighting that lies ahead.
"The false impression that Marja was a significant city was an essential part of that message."'
One implication of Porter's reporting is that the US command in Afghanistan - and at the Pentagon - is groping for a military strategy that can convince American elected officials and the American public that pouring more resources into the Afghanistan occupation will eventually be successful or cost-effective. They seem to be making it up as they go. What a snow job.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/03/08/fiction-of-marjah-as-city.
First, "the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by the news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war." In the highly publicized run-up to the battle, US officials described Marja as "a city of 80,000 people." Porter reports that "Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agicultural area covering much of the Helmand River Valley, which covers "125 square miles." The focus of the attack was a location in Marja "where farmers gathered for markets" and included "a mosque and a few shops."
Second, Porter asks, "how did the fiction that Marja is a city of 80,000 get started?" "The idea," he reports, "was passed on to the news media by the US Marines in southern Helmand," and then picked up by the Associated Press and other news media. The story that was more or less repeated was that there were as many as a 1,000 insurgents in the town and that there would be deadly "house to house urban street fighting."
Third, why then was the fiction of an urban Marja perpetrated. Porter's answer can be gleaned from from the last two sentences in the article:
"The Washington Post reported Feb. 22 that the decision to launch the offensive against Marja was intended largely to impress US public opinion with the effectiveness of the US military in Afghanistan" - and how Afghan soldiers are becoming ready to engage the enemy and do their part in the fighting that lies ahead.
"The false impression that Marja was a significant city was an essential part of that message."'
One implication of Porter's reporting is that the US command in Afghanistan - and at the Pentagon - is groping for a military strategy that can convince American elected officials and the American public that pouring more resources into the Afghanistan occupation will eventually be successful or cost-effective. They seem to be making it up as they go. What a snow job.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/03/08/fiction-of-marjah-as-city.
Kucinich resolution fails, while occupation grows
The House resolution proposed by Representative Dennis Kucinich, House Concurrent Res. 248, generated impassioned speeches by its supporters, but failed in the vote by a lopsided 65-356. The aim of the resolution was to end the US military occupation in Afghanistan by the end of 2010. The majority of both Democrats and Republicans rejected the resolution on the grounds that there was an already a consensus on the decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, which they supported.
In the meantime, official estimates of the US troop level in Afghanistan indicate that there will be approximately 100,000 troops in the country by this summer. The expense for each of the additional soldiers is reported to be $1 million per year.
The number of contractors and their employees will also soar, along with expected tens of thousands of troops from allied countries. Figures from the DOD indicate there were already 104,100 contractors/employees by December 2009. Contractors provide a variety of services, including food, transportation, construction, and security. Large contractors like KBR, DynCorp, Halliburton, and Xe (formerly Blackwater) get the lion's share of the DOD money spent on these services.
The failure of the Kucinich resolution and the continued expansion of the occupation offer little solace for opponents of the war.
http://news.antiwar.com.2010/03/10/house-votes-against-ending-afghan-waar
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/how-many-private-contractors-are-there-afghanistan-military-gives-us-numbers
In the meantime, official estimates of the US troop level in Afghanistan indicate that there will be approximately 100,000 troops in the country by this summer. The expense for each of the additional soldiers is reported to be $1 million per year.
The number of contractors and their employees will also soar, along with expected tens of thousands of troops from allied countries. Figures from the DOD indicate there were already 104,100 contractors/employees by December 2009. Contractors provide a variety of services, including food, transportation, construction, and security. Large contractors like KBR, DynCorp, Halliburton, and Xe (formerly Blackwater) get the lion's share of the DOD money spent on these services.
The failure of the Kucinich resolution and the continued expansion of the occupation offer little solace for opponents of the war.
http://news.antiwar.com.2010/03/10/house-votes-against-ending-afghan-waar
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/how-many-private-contractors-are-there-afghanistan-military-gives-us-numbers
Friday, March 5, 2010
Kucinich resolution forces debate on whether to continue Afghan war
Published on Friday, March 5, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan
by Robert Naiman
On Thursday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H. Con Res. 248 [1], a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Ron Paul, José Serrano, Bob Filner, Lynn Woolsey, Walter Jones, Danny Davis, Barbara Lee, Michael Capuano, Raúl Grijalva, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Johnson, Yvette Clarke, Eric Massa, Alan Grayson, and Chellie Pingree.
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more [2] to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American soldiers [3] and Afghan civilians [4] once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging fire.
So it's a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress would be urged by their constituents [5] to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the United States Government plays Russian Roulette with the lives of American soldiers [3] and Afghan civilians [6].
The British Government has more urgency [7] than the U.S. government about ending the war - and is more supportive than the U.S. of a political solution to end the conflict - because in Britain there is greater public outcry [7].
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the U.S., we could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for Members of Congress to hear from their constituents [5].
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy [8]
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/05-3
Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan
by Robert Naiman
On Thursday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H. Con Res. 248 [1], a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Ron Paul, José Serrano, Bob Filner, Lynn Woolsey, Walter Jones, Danny Davis, Barbara Lee, Michael Capuano, Raúl Grijalva, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Johnson, Yvette Clarke, Eric Massa, Alan Grayson, and Chellie Pingree.
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more [2] to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American soldiers [3] and Afghan civilians [4] once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging fire.
So it's a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress would be urged by their constituents [5] to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the United States Government plays Russian Roulette with the lives of American soldiers [3] and Afghan civilians [6].
The British Government has more urgency [7] than the U.S. government about ending the war - and is more supportive than the U.S. of a political solution to end the conflict - because in Britain there is greater public outcry [7].
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the U.S., we could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for Members of Congress to hear from their constituents [5].
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy [8]
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/05-3
Monday, March 1, 2010
Congressman Dennis Kucinich offers a resolution to consider ending Afghan war
Kucinich: Afghanistan “Awash with U.S. cash and U.S. blood”
Washington, Feb 26 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement about the ongoing war in Afghanistan:
“The Washington Post reports that nearly one billion dollars per year in cash, suspected to include U.S. aid, opium receipts or both, is moving from Afghanistan to Dubai, where friends and family of Afghanistan’s President Karzai have multimillion dollar villas.
“Dubai real estate deals and a number of crooked enterprises connected to the Karzai family have created crony capitalism in a country awash with U.S. cash and U.S. blood.
“Nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers have died. And for what? Hundreds of billions spent. And for what? To make Afghanistan safe for crooks, drug dealers and crony capitalism?
“Next Thursday, I will bring a privileged resolution to this House so that Congress can claim our constitutional right to end this war and to bring our troops home. Please support the resolution.”
Kucinich will introduce the resolution on Thursday, March 4, 2010. It is expected that the resolution will be taken up for consideration on the following Wednesday, March 10, 2010 and that the debate will be subject to a rule providing for three hours of debate.
Washington, Feb 26 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement about the ongoing war in Afghanistan:
“The Washington Post reports that nearly one billion dollars per year in cash, suspected to include U.S. aid, opium receipts or both, is moving from Afghanistan to Dubai, where friends and family of Afghanistan’s President Karzai have multimillion dollar villas.
“Dubai real estate deals and a number of crooked enterprises connected to the Karzai family have created crony capitalism in a country awash with U.S. cash and U.S. blood.
“Nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers have died. And for what? Hundreds of billions spent. And for what? To make Afghanistan safe for crooks, drug dealers and crony capitalism?
“Next Thursday, I will bring a privileged resolution to this House so that Congress can claim our constitutional right to end this war and to bring our troops home. Please support the resolution.”
Kucinich will introduce the resolution on Thursday, March 4, 2010. It is expected that the resolution will be taken up for consideration on the following Wednesday, March 10, 2010 and that the debate will be subject to a rule providing for three hours of debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
