Juan Cole makes it clear today in the following report from his blog, Informed Comment, that there is not just one monolithic insurgent group of Taliban. Rather, there are five or so such groups. He refers to "fighters of the Haqqani network" as one non-Taliban group. Ironically, Cole writes, the Haqqani network was one of the group's identified by Ronald Reagan as "Freedom Fighters" during the 1980s. Now they are the target of US drone attacks, and in the process unmanned drone weapons are killing more civilians than insurgents. Drone warfare and counterinsurgency, Gen. Patraeus' strategy in Afghanistan, appear in essential ways to be contradictory and hardly to advance the goal of "winning hearts and minds."
Juan Cole, "US Drone Strikes kill 15 [60] in N. Waziristan"
http://www.juancole.com/, Sept. 15, 2010
The Associated Press does an important story about an intensive drone strike campaign by the US military since September 2 in southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s North Waziristan that has left 60 persons dead, among them innocent civilians.
On Tuesday alone, US drone attacks targeted suspected militants killed some 15 persons in the village of Dargah Mandi village on the outskirts of Miranshah, N. Waziristan’s main city.
The drone strikes have targeted fighters of the Haqqani network, one of five or so major insurgent groups fighting against the US & NATO presence in Afghanistan and against the Karzai government. Jalaluddin Haqqani is one of Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters,” who battled the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan in the 1980s with American aid. He could not accept the US invasion and occupation of his country, either, and organized an insurgency now mainly led by his son Siraj. The Haqqani group is not Taliban but rather Mujahidin and has only a vague tactical alliance with Mulla Omar’s Taliban and similar groups.
Pakistani opposition to the US incursions against Pakistani sovereignty has been muted because of the vast flooding that has affected much of the country, and dealing with which has pinned down the Pakistani military. Another 25 villages in the Sindh province were submerged by flood waters on Tuesday. Hundreds of more villages are menaced by the waters of Manchhal Lake, which is now full to capacity and could overflow. Incredibly, the flooding continues to displace Sindhi villagers on a massive scale without generating much in the way of news in the US. The displaced are facing lack of potable water and food shortages.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
US troop casualties in Afghanistan are rising, contrary to Petraeus' claim
The basic point of Gareth Porter's well written and fact-based article is that the officially documented trend in US troop casualties in Afganistan contradict what Gen. Petraeus has publicly claimed. The evidence indicates the US troop casualties are rising. This trend challenges the general's position that counterinsurgency accompanied by more troops is quelling the Afghan insurgency. Rather than conceding the point that the counterinsurgency strategy is not working, other sources (some posted elsewhere on this blog) report that Patraeus wants more troops and more time to get the job done. If recent trends continue, Patraeus' strategy, backed by the Obama and his administration, means more US casualties as well.
Petraeus Spin on Afghan War Belied by Soaring Casualties
by Gareth Porter, September 10, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/09/09/petraeus-spin-on-afghan-war-belied-by-soaring-casualties
Gen. David Petraeus claimed limited success this week in the war within a war over the Taliban’s planting of roadside bombs, but official Pentagon data shows the Taliban clearly winning that war by planting more bombs and killing many more U.S. and NATO troops since the troop surge began in early 2010.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Tuesday, Petraeus asserted that the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by the Taliban had "flattened" over the past year and attributed that alleged success to pressures by the U.S. military, and especially the increased tempo of Special Operations Forces raids against Taliban units.
Data provided by the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), however, shows that IEDs planted by Afghan insurgents killed nearly 40 percent more U.S. and NATO troops in the first eight months of 2010 than in the comparable period of 2009.
The data also show that Taliban IEDs wounded 2,025 U.S. and NATO troops in the first eight months of this year – almost twice the 1,035 wounded in the same months last year.
In the Journal interview, Petraeus said that the data on violent incidents in Afghanistan indicate a slowly improving security situation.
[....]
The total number of IED incidents in Afghanistan began to rise steeply in March 2010 to a new high of 1,087 and then continued to climb to 1,128 in May and again to 1,258 in August.
[....]
In late 2005, the civilian population was informing U.S. and NATO troops of about 15 percent of of all IEDs planted. That proportion fell to just over nine percent in 2006, to less than seven percent in 2007 to about three percent in 2008, and again to 2.8 percent in 2009.
In the first six months of 2010, that ratio dropped to 2.6 percent, and in May and June it fell to 1.4 and one percent, respectively.
[....]
The steep decline in the proportion of IEDs turned in by the population as more U.S. and NATO troops intruded on the Pashtun countryside is another reliable indicator – supporting opinion surveys in Helmand and Kandahar provinces – of the deterioration of relations between foreign troops and the population.
Petraeus Spin on Afghan War Belied by Soaring Casualties
by Gareth Porter, September 10, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/09/09/petraeus-spin-on-afghan-war-belied-by-soaring-casualties
Gen. David Petraeus claimed limited success this week in the war within a war over the Taliban’s planting of roadside bombs, but official Pentagon data shows the Taliban clearly winning that war by planting more bombs and killing many more U.S. and NATO troops since the troop surge began in early 2010.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Tuesday, Petraeus asserted that the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by the Taliban had "flattened" over the past year and attributed that alleged success to pressures by the U.S. military, and especially the increased tempo of Special Operations Forces raids against Taliban units.
Data provided by the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), however, shows that IEDs planted by Afghan insurgents killed nearly 40 percent more U.S. and NATO troops in the first eight months of 2010 than in the comparable period of 2009.
The data also show that Taliban IEDs wounded 2,025 U.S. and NATO troops in the first eight months of this year – almost twice the 1,035 wounded in the same months last year.
In the Journal interview, Petraeus said that the data on violent incidents in Afghanistan indicate a slowly improving security situation.
[....]
The total number of IED incidents in Afghanistan began to rise steeply in March 2010 to a new high of 1,087 and then continued to climb to 1,128 in May and again to 1,258 in August.
[....]
In late 2005, the civilian population was informing U.S. and NATO troops of about 15 percent of of all IEDs planted. That proportion fell to just over nine percent in 2006, to less than seven percent in 2007 to about three percent in 2008, and again to 2.8 percent in 2009.
In the first six months of 2010, that ratio dropped to 2.6 percent, and in May and June it fell to 1.4 and one percent, respectively.
[....]
The steep decline in the proportion of IEDs turned in by the population as more U.S. and NATO troops intruded on the Pashtun countryside is another reliable indicator – supporting opinion surveys in Helmand and Kandahar provinces – of the deterioration of relations between foreign troops and the population.
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.
[….]
Demonstration for peace and justice planned in DC for Oct 2, 2010
United for Peace and Justice is helping to mobilize a demonstration for October 2nd in Washington DC. The purposes of the event are to call for an end to the war and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq and to redirect the money saved to domestic programs addressing the needs of US citizens. (See their call for support after my comments.)
The evidence so far suggests that 50,000 US military troops, some number of US military bases, a large contingent of government contractors and their employees, along with US air and naval forces, will remain in Iraq for some unspecified period of time.
In Afghanistan, the US troop level has risen to 100,000, along with 30,000 or so troops from allied countries. There are US special forces largely hidden from view working on counter-terrorist projects. General Patraeus is requesting and additional 2,000 troops. There are hundreds of US military bases in the country. The number of contractors working for the US military is going up. There is little progress in building a viable and effective national police or military force. Recent news stories continue to report on widespread corruption in the Afghan government. The majority of Afghans who are polled want an end to the occupation. There is little sign of an end to the conflict.
Leading the way, US policies have left both countries devastated, driving them into poverty or deeper into poverty, created the conditions for civil war, and, especially in Iraq, produced four million refugees and the lowest overall standard of living since 1991. As yet, neither country has a stable government.
United for Peace and Justice, One Nation Working Together
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/, 221-868-5545, P.O. Box 607, Times Square Station, New York, NY, 10108.
Will We See You There?
Two weeks ago we asked if you were ready to hit the streets again. The answer is coming in from every corner of the country: YES.
Even with the usual challenges of end-of-summer organizing, momentum for the One Nation Working Together mobilization in Washington, DC on Saturday, October 2nd is growing every day. New organizations - both national and local groups - are signing on. New organizing committees in cities big and small are coming together. Buses are being reserved, carpools are being organized, and people are getting ready. Without exaggeration, all signs point to the 10.2.10 mobilization being of historical proportion. To put it simply: This is one you do not want to miss!
With the long Labor Day weekend behind us, now is the time to take our organizing to the next level. What we do - what we all do - in the next few weeks will determine if 10.2.10 is one of the largest and most powerful expressions of the progressive agenda that our nation as ever seen. The peace movement has a tremendous role to play, if we step up now. We know how to turn out people: Remember the massive protests against the war in Iraq that we made happen? Those events were critically important in and of themselves, and they also laid the foundation for the work we are now engaged in.
Our work as a movement goes beyond turning out large numbers of people for an historic event. We have an opportunity to help millions of people understand how the struggle to end the wars and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq is directly tied to the urgent need to re-direct this nation's economic and social priorities. We can bring our clear call for cuts in military spending into the efforts to fund the needs of all of our communities, including creating millions of new, green jobs.
Making these connections will only be as strong as our presence within the One Nation Working Together movement. This means being part of the local organizing coalitions that are already in place, or building new ones in the cities where they don't exist yet. It means turning out massive numbers of people in Washington, DC on 10.2.10. And it means helping us build the peace presence there.
Here's what you can do:
1) Find out if there's an organized coalition in your area. Click here to see a list of what's already in place.
2) If there is not a coalition, start right now to form one. If you need help, let us know by contacting us at onenationforpeace@gmail.com or 973 666-4605.
3) Be sure to add your group's name to the growing list of groups participating in the 10.2.10 March on Washington. Click Join Our Coalition here.
4) Join the Peace Table of the ONWT effort. We are the umbrella structure organizing to make sure the issues the peace movement works on every day are visible on October 2nd and a part of the overall agenda for this new movement.
5) Donate today to help support the work of the Peace Table. With a relatively small budget we can have a tremendous impact, but we need to your help now to make that possible. Or mail a check to: UFPJ, PO Box 607, Times Square Station, NY, NY 10108
We will soon send you more details about what will happen in Washington, DC on October 2, including how the Peace Table will make our messages a visible part of the day and how your group can help make that happen. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact us at 973 666-4605.
Help us continue to do this critical work: Make a donation to UFPJ today.
The evidence so far suggests that 50,000 US military troops, some number of US military bases, a large contingent of government contractors and their employees, along with US air and naval forces, will remain in Iraq for some unspecified period of time.
In Afghanistan, the US troop level has risen to 100,000, along with 30,000 or so troops from allied countries. There are US special forces largely hidden from view working on counter-terrorist projects. General Patraeus is requesting and additional 2,000 troops. There are hundreds of US military bases in the country. The number of contractors working for the US military is going up. There is little progress in building a viable and effective national police or military force. Recent news stories continue to report on widespread corruption in the Afghan government. The majority of Afghans who are polled want an end to the occupation. There is little sign of an end to the conflict.
Leading the way, US policies have left both countries devastated, driving them into poverty or deeper into poverty, created the conditions for civil war, and, especially in Iraq, produced four million refugees and the lowest overall standard of living since 1991. As yet, neither country has a stable government.
United for Peace and Justice, One Nation Working Together
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/, 221-868-5545, P.O. Box 607, Times Square Station, New York, NY, 10108.
Will We See You There?
Two weeks ago we asked if you were ready to hit the streets again. The answer is coming in from every corner of the country: YES.
Even with the usual challenges of end-of-summer organizing, momentum for the One Nation Working Together mobilization in Washington, DC on Saturday, October 2nd is growing every day. New organizations - both national and local groups - are signing on. New organizing committees in cities big and small are coming together. Buses are being reserved, carpools are being organized, and people are getting ready. Without exaggeration, all signs point to the 10.2.10 mobilization being of historical proportion. To put it simply: This is one you do not want to miss!
With the long Labor Day weekend behind us, now is the time to take our organizing to the next level. What we do - what we all do - in the next few weeks will determine if 10.2.10 is one of the largest and most powerful expressions of the progressive agenda that our nation as ever seen. The peace movement has a tremendous role to play, if we step up now. We know how to turn out people: Remember the massive protests against the war in Iraq that we made happen? Those events were critically important in and of themselves, and they also laid the foundation for the work we are now engaged in.
Our work as a movement goes beyond turning out large numbers of people for an historic event. We have an opportunity to help millions of people understand how the struggle to end the wars and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq is directly tied to the urgent need to re-direct this nation's economic and social priorities. We can bring our clear call for cuts in military spending into the efforts to fund the needs of all of our communities, including creating millions of new, green jobs.
Making these connections will only be as strong as our presence within the One Nation Working Together movement. This means being part of the local organizing coalitions that are already in place, or building new ones in the cities where they don't exist yet. It means turning out massive numbers of people in Washington, DC on 10.2.10. And it means helping us build the peace presence there.
Here's what you can do:
1) Find out if there's an organized coalition in your area. Click here to see a list of what's already in place.
2) If there is not a coalition, start right now to form one. If you need help, let us know by contacting us at onenationforpeace@gmail.com or 973 666-4605.
3) Be sure to add your group's name to the growing list of groups participating in the 10.2.10 March on Washington. Click Join Our Coalition here.
4) Join the Peace Table of the ONWT effort. We are the umbrella structure organizing to make sure the issues the peace movement works on every day are visible on October 2nd and a part of the overall agenda for this new movement.
5) Donate today to help support the work of the Peace Table. With a relatively small budget we can have a tremendous impact, but we need to your help now to make that possible. Or mail a check to: UFPJ, PO Box 607, Times Square Station, NY, NY 10108
We will soon send you more details about what will happen in Washington, DC on October 2, including how the Peace Table will make our messages a visible part of the day and how your group can help make that happen. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact us at 973 666-4605.
Help us continue to do this critical work: Make a donation to UFPJ today.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
US military plans and requests suggest a long occupation in Afghanistan
The website Antiwar.com is an excellent source of news and reports on countries around the world. The focus is usually critical and on situations that have some relevance to US foreign and military policies.
Today, one of the many articles posted is about Gen. Patraeus request for 2,000 additional troops for Afghanistan. You can find the full article at: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/06/patraeus-seeks-more-troops-for-afghanistan.
Another article (see below) deals with plans for the US to spend $6 billion a year on the Afghan police and military forces, probably a low-ball estimate.
These articles unfortunately suggest that US military leaders in Afghanistan are expecting to be in the country for many years. This follows the pattern of US military wars and interventions around the world since at least the Korean War. Once in a country, stay there.
US Plans to Spend $6 Billion a Year on Afghan Troops
Posted By Jason Ditz On September 6, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/06/us-plans-to-spend-6-billion-a-year-on-afghan-troops
According to previously undisclosed estimates, the United States is planning to spend $6 billion annually on supporting Afghanistan’s military and police starting in 2011, an expense which given the weak Afghan economy will probably continue more or less forever.
But the estimate could also be unrealistically low, as the administration spent about $9 billion this year and is planning to spend $11.6 billion next year on this expense. As US plans to increase the size of Afghanistan’s military seem to grow virtually annually, it seems the expected “drop” past 2011 is not based on anything.
Training pledges and goals seem to constantly go unfulfilled, and most officials openly say that it will take another decade, at best, to build the Afghan security forces, so the $6 billion “maintenance” level, which will be quite a bit lower than the training costs, will likely not come for quite some time.
This cost is only a comparatively small percentage of the overall amount the US spends annually on its occupation of Afghanistan. But it serves as perhaps the clearest reminder of how long the Obama Administration intends to keep the US chained to Afghanistan.
Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
Today, one of the many articles posted is about Gen. Patraeus request for 2,000 additional troops for Afghanistan. You can find the full article at: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/06/patraeus-seeks-more-troops-for-afghanistan.
Another article (see below) deals with plans for the US to spend $6 billion a year on the Afghan police and military forces, probably a low-ball estimate.
These articles unfortunately suggest that US military leaders in Afghanistan are expecting to be in the country for many years. This follows the pattern of US military wars and interventions around the world since at least the Korean War. Once in a country, stay there.
US Plans to Spend $6 Billion a Year on Afghan Troops
Posted By Jason Ditz On September 6, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/06/us-plans-to-spend-6-billion-a-year-on-afghan-troops
According to previously undisclosed estimates, the United States is planning to spend $6 billion annually on supporting Afghanistan’s military and police starting in 2011, an expense which given the weak Afghan economy will probably continue more or less forever.
But the estimate could also be unrealistically low, as the administration spent about $9 billion this year and is planning to spend $11.6 billion next year on this expense. As US plans to increase the size of Afghanistan’s military seem to grow virtually annually, it seems the expected “drop” past 2011 is not based on anything.
Training pledges and goals seem to constantly go unfulfilled, and most officials openly say that it will take another decade, at best, to build the Afghan security forces, so the $6 billion “maintenance” level, which will be quite a bit lower than the training costs, will likely not come for quite some time.
This cost is only a comparatively small percentage of the overall amount the US spends annually on its occupation of Afghanistan. But it serves as perhaps the clearest reminder of how long the Obama Administration intends to keep the US chained to Afghanistan.
Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
Monday, September 6, 2010
Number of street kids rises along with poverty in Afghanistan
Andrew Hammond reports that the number of street children in Afghanistan is in the hundreds of thousands. This horrendous problem is the result of a high level of poverty, which in turn has been exacerbated by three decades of war and civil war. The US has been indirectly or directly involved all this time in generating the devastating conditions that deepen poverty, destabilize or destroy communities and families, and result in a large and growing number of street children.
[....]
...the disturbing reality in this war-torn nation -- where Western powers battle Islamist forces to maintain a friendly government in power -- is that at least 600,000 street children have no safety net to catch them.
The problem, experts say, is getting worse because of the deepening war and the scourge of corruption, despite the inflow of more than $35 billion from foreign donors since the Taliban were removed from power in 2001.
The dangers for children are many, they say: from drugs to the insurgency, from criminal gangs to sexual abuse.
"Poverty is getting worse in Afghanistan and children are forced to find work," said Shafiqa Zaher, a social worker with Aschiana, the group receiving U.S. aid for its work.
[....]
Some 7,000 in the main cities of Afghanistan are attending Aschiana schools, where food and stationery costs are taken care of and some families are assigned sponsors.
Most have a home to go to, even if it is the shell of a building struck in the country's unending wars, Zaher says, but their guardians are often disabled and cannot work.
WAR AND CORRUPTION
A study by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) in 2008 found around 60,000 minors involved in child labour in Kabul alone.
Nader Nadery, a senior commissioner at the AIHRC, says it's a consequence of Afghanistan's decades of conflict. "In the last three to four years an increasing number of displaced from the war affected areas -- Helmand, Kandahar, Ghazni -- have poured into Kabul city to seek refuge," he said.
A community of refugees mainly from Sangin in Helmand, where U.S. forces led an operation against insurgents last year, relies on Aschiana help in a Kabul slum quarter of plastic awnings.
In three decades of war the country's population has doubled to more than 30 million and the dusty mountain capital has swelled to a city of four million, much of it pot-holed and crumbling, with chronic traffic.
"Historically Kabul and Afghanistan have never had this crisis of people not having a ceiling or a roof. They're all poor but at least they had a home," Nadery said.
He says corruption, the subject of an ongoing diplomatic scuffle between Karzai and Washington and a major issue in parliamentary elections this month, makes a bad situation worse.
A United Nations report said in March that entrenched corruption was leaving the poor at the mercy of the powerful while security-obsessed foreign forces turn a blind eye.
"The direct link between poverty and corruption is always there," Nadery said. "Most development projects are halted or don't reach areas where it would affect the life of the poor because of the corruption involved."
[....]
Deprivation and abuse pushes some teenagers to join the insurgents, she says. "The worst was children who the Taliban were forcing to go with them for an amount of money. They were from 7 to 18 years old, with guns and regular training."
[....]
I found Hammond's article, "War, corruption swell number of street kids," at: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE68400H.htm, September 6, 2010. Here are excerpts from the article.
Andrew Hammond:[....]
...the disturbing reality in this war-torn nation -- where Western powers battle Islamist forces to maintain a friendly government in power -- is that at least 600,000 street children have no safety net to catch them.
The problem, experts say, is getting worse because of the deepening war and the scourge of corruption, despite the inflow of more than $35 billion from foreign donors since the Taliban were removed from power in 2001.
The dangers for children are many, they say: from drugs to the insurgency, from criminal gangs to sexual abuse.
"Poverty is getting worse in Afghanistan and children are forced to find work," said Shafiqa Zaher, a social worker with Aschiana, the group receiving U.S. aid for its work.
[....]
Some 7,000 in the main cities of Afghanistan are attending Aschiana schools, where food and stationery costs are taken care of and some families are assigned sponsors.
Most have a home to go to, even if it is the shell of a building struck in the country's unending wars, Zaher says, but their guardians are often disabled and cannot work.
WAR AND CORRUPTION
A study by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) in 2008 found around 60,000 minors involved in child labour in Kabul alone.
Nader Nadery, a senior commissioner at the AIHRC, says it's a consequence of Afghanistan's decades of conflict. "In the last three to four years an increasing number of displaced from the war affected areas -- Helmand, Kandahar, Ghazni -- have poured into Kabul city to seek refuge," he said.
A community of refugees mainly from Sangin in Helmand, where U.S. forces led an operation against insurgents last year, relies on Aschiana help in a Kabul slum quarter of plastic awnings.
In three decades of war the country's population has doubled to more than 30 million and the dusty mountain capital has swelled to a city of four million, much of it pot-holed and crumbling, with chronic traffic.
"Historically Kabul and Afghanistan have never had this crisis of people not having a ceiling or a roof. They're all poor but at least they had a home," Nadery said.
He says corruption, the subject of an ongoing diplomatic scuffle between Karzai and Washington and a major issue in parliamentary elections this month, makes a bad situation worse.
A United Nations report said in March that entrenched corruption was leaving the poor at the mercy of the powerful while security-obsessed foreign forces turn a blind eye.
"The direct link between poverty and corruption is always there," Nadery said. "Most development projects are halted or don't reach areas where it would affect the life of the poor because of the corruption involved."
[....]
Deprivation and abuse pushes some teenagers to join the insurgents, she says. "The worst was children who the Taliban were forcing to go with them for an amount of money. They were from 7 to 18 years old, with guns and regular training."
[....]
Friday, September 3, 2010
Afghan bank caught in huge ponzi scheme
Historian Juan Cole writes informed and insightful commentary on events in the Middle East, important political developments in the US, and much more, on his award-winning blog, Informed Comment. On today's blog, his first post deals with another case of corruption among friends of President Karzai. (See below.) The focus of the article is on the present crisis of Da Kabul Bank, which is embroiled in financial irregularities, suggesting a ponzi scheme, having a debt of $300 million, and facing a run on the bank by depositors. Cole writes that this corruption "could be catastrophic for the country." He is angered by the thought that so many troops from the US, NATO, and Afghanistan have given their lives for what is a corrupt and illegitimate government and for the rich thieves associated with it.
From our perspective, this is yet more evidence that we are on a fool's errand in Afghanistan, compounded immensely by a US military policy that lurches from one strategy to another and calls for extending the US-led occupation of Afghanistan for years into the future. In the meantime, there are profound costs to US taxpayers, in Afghan and US lives, and to the waning credibility of the US in Central Asia, the Middle East and around the world.
Collapse of Kabul Bank Points to Fatal Corruption of Karzai Government
Posted on September 3, 2010 by Juan Cole at http://juancole.com
I write in anger. Not blind rage, mind you. A cool, searing, steady anger. I think it is a righteous anger. It is not consequential, but it is my reality. I am angry about the 1,172 US troops dead in the Afghanistan War, and all the other brave NATO and Afghan soldiers who gave their lives for a new Afghanistan. Because they haven’t gotten a new Afghanistan. They have paid the ultimate sacrifice for a ponzi scheme masquerading as a reformist government. And, as usual, you and I may well get stuck with the bill for the economic damage done by the fraud.
The house of cards that is the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul may be falling before our eyes, as vast, globe-spanning webs of corruption, formerly hidden in shadows, have suddenly had a spotlight thrown on them. The crisis raises the severest questions about whether the Obama administration can plausibly hope to stand up a stable government in Afghanistan before US troops depart.
As with the second phase of the Great Depression in the United States, the crisis begins with a run on Da Kabul Bank. Depositors took out $85 million on Wednesday, after a damning story appeared in the Washington Post. They took out another $70 million on Thursday. The bank, which owes $300 million, may now have as little as $120 million left in the kitty, though it had once been worth over a billion. But the problem is not just a run on one bank. Can Afghanistan’s whole financial system and economy emerge unscathed?
Pajhwok News Service reports,
‘The immediate concern was that news of the bank’s financial irregularities, already spreading through the capital, would prompt a run on the bank itself and that the panic would spread to other financial institutions. Bank deposits in Afghanistan are not guaranteed by the central government, officials here said. “This could be catastrophic for the country,” a senior Afghan banking official said. “The next few days are critical. I am worried.” ‘
The same world-wide real estate crisis that abruptly revealed the ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff has undone Da Bank Kabul. But imagine if Madoff had not merely been a criminal who preyed on the wealthy, but had bankrolled a president’s political campaign with his ill-gotten gains and had brought the president’s brother and the brother of the vice-president into his inner circle. And imagine if he had been only one of a handful of financiers in New York with substantial capital.
The story begins with Sherkhan Farnood, a financier who founded Da Kabul Bank after the fall of the Taliban. Over the years he appears to have used the institution for patronage for politicians and their families. Farnood gave millions to the presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai last summer, a campaign that Karzai was accused of only winning through substantial ballot fraud. (Hint: a vote wouldn’t cost much to buy in Afghanistan, and ‘millions’ would buy a lot). The other top executive at the bank, Khalilu’llah Frozi, was a campaign adviser to Karzai. Hamid Karzai’s brother Mahmoud has a 9% share in the bank.
Instead of wiring money overseas, as banks typically do, Farnood used a traditional money-transfer or hawala service, the New Ansari, which is also alleged to have been resorted to by drug smugglers, some of whose proceeds go to the Taliban and other insurgents that kill US troops. Money transferred by hawala cannot be traced electronically. The New Ansari itself is under investigation by US authorities. Persistent news reports suggest that billions of dollars in cash are being flown out of Afghanistan to Dubai, and that, let us say, irregularities are involved.
Farnood often gave out loans without proper collateral or other formalities. He loaned $100 million to Haseen Fahim, the brother of Marshal Mohammad Fahim (an old-time Northern Alliance warlord whom Karzai brought back into government as his vice-presidential running mate in summer of 2009). Haseen Fahim has substantial investments in Afghanistan’s small natural gas sector.
Farnood also apparently loaned himself $140 million to invest in real estate in Dubai, including in villas on the world islands off Jumeirah. These artificial islands made of landfill were to resemble the map of the globe once constructed, and were intended to give the wealthy the opportunity to own an entire faux country. Farnood has been flying out connected people like Mahmoud Karzai and Haseen Fahim and putting them up in the fancy chalets. Afghanistan is the fifth-poorest country in the world, with 36% of the population under the poverty line.
With the world economic downturn and real estate crash of 2008-2009, the Dubai world project largely fell apart, with investors going bankrupt in droves. Indeed, Dubai itself had to be bailed out by its rich sibling Abu Dhabi (which has petroleum; Dubai just has a financial sector). The artificial islands appear from NASA photos to have been abandoned since late 2009 when the own, Nakheel Properties, asked for a delay in repaying $29 billion in debt. Some seem to be sinking back into the lagoon or their boundaries are blurring. Close-up pictures of some of them show an eyesore.
So Farnood’s $140 million investment was suddenly not worth anything at all, and his bank began spiraling down. The details of his other bad investments have not yet emerged. The bank went from having over $1 billion in capital to now having only $120 million and owing $300 million.
President Hamid Karzai is notorious for running interference for his corrupt cronies, and that Farnood and Frozi were out of control appears to have been known for some time but nothing was allowed to be done about it. The two have now been forced out, but the question is whether it is in time to save not only the bank (doubtful) but also the entire Afghan financial system, rebuilt after the fall of the Taliban.
The Karzai government is corrupt and rotten to the core. Not a single US soldier should die to prop it up. The lie that we are fighting “al-Qaeda” in Afghanistan needs to be exposed. The US and NATO are fighting four or five groups of Pashtun insurgents, some of them until fairly recently US allies. The goal of the fighting is to keep the Karzai government from falling to the guerrillas and to train up an army and police force that could go on defending Kabul. The Afghanistan National Army from all accounts has poor morale. No wonder. What Afghan soldier or policeman would die for a ponzi scheme?
NATO should not have allowed Karzai to steal the presidential election. (At least now we have more of an idea how the theft was accomplished). It should not have allowed him to block corruption investigations.
You have to wonder if the Afghanistan parliament is up to impeaching Karzai. One thing is certain. He is part of the problem, not the solution, and as long as he is at the helm, the situation is highly unlikely to get better.
And our troops will go on dying for a vague and probably unattainable goal that the politicians dress up in idealistic flourishes, and worse, dying for a lie.
From our perspective, this is yet more evidence that we are on a fool's errand in Afghanistan, compounded immensely by a US military policy that lurches from one strategy to another and calls for extending the US-led occupation of Afghanistan for years into the future. In the meantime, there are profound costs to US taxpayers, in Afghan and US lives, and to the waning credibility of the US in Central Asia, the Middle East and around the world.
Collapse of Kabul Bank Points to Fatal Corruption of Karzai Government
Posted on September 3, 2010 by Juan Cole at http://juancole.com
I write in anger. Not blind rage, mind you. A cool, searing, steady anger. I think it is a righteous anger. It is not consequential, but it is my reality. I am angry about the 1,172 US troops dead in the Afghanistan War, and all the other brave NATO and Afghan soldiers who gave their lives for a new Afghanistan. Because they haven’t gotten a new Afghanistan. They have paid the ultimate sacrifice for a ponzi scheme masquerading as a reformist government. And, as usual, you and I may well get stuck with the bill for the economic damage done by the fraud.
The house of cards that is the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul may be falling before our eyes, as vast, globe-spanning webs of corruption, formerly hidden in shadows, have suddenly had a spotlight thrown on them. The crisis raises the severest questions about whether the Obama administration can plausibly hope to stand up a stable government in Afghanistan before US troops depart.
As with the second phase of the Great Depression in the United States, the crisis begins with a run on Da Kabul Bank. Depositors took out $85 million on Wednesday, after a damning story appeared in the Washington Post. They took out another $70 million on Thursday. The bank, which owes $300 million, may now have as little as $120 million left in the kitty, though it had once been worth over a billion. But the problem is not just a run on one bank. Can Afghanistan’s whole financial system and economy emerge unscathed?
Pajhwok News Service reports,
‘The immediate concern was that news of the bank’s financial irregularities, already spreading through the capital, would prompt a run on the bank itself and that the panic would spread to other financial institutions. Bank deposits in Afghanistan are not guaranteed by the central government, officials here said. “This could be catastrophic for the country,” a senior Afghan banking official said. “The next few days are critical. I am worried.” ‘
The same world-wide real estate crisis that abruptly revealed the ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff has undone Da Bank Kabul. But imagine if Madoff had not merely been a criminal who preyed on the wealthy, but had bankrolled a president’s political campaign with his ill-gotten gains and had brought the president’s brother and the brother of the vice-president into his inner circle. And imagine if he had been only one of a handful of financiers in New York with substantial capital.
The story begins with Sherkhan Farnood, a financier who founded Da Kabul Bank after the fall of the Taliban. Over the years he appears to have used the institution for patronage for politicians and their families. Farnood gave millions to the presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai last summer, a campaign that Karzai was accused of only winning through substantial ballot fraud. (Hint: a vote wouldn’t cost much to buy in Afghanistan, and ‘millions’ would buy a lot). The other top executive at the bank, Khalilu’llah Frozi, was a campaign adviser to Karzai. Hamid Karzai’s brother Mahmoud has a 9% share in the bank.
Instead of wiring money overseas, as banks typically do, Farnood used a traditional money-transfer or hawala service, the New Ansari, which is also alleged to have been resorted to by drug smugglers, some of whose proceeds go to the Taliban and other insurgents that kill US troops. Money transferred by hawala cannot be traced electronically. The New Ansari itself is under investigation by US authorities. Persistent news reports suggest that billions of dollars in cash are being flown out of Afghanistan to Dubai, and that, let us say, irregularities are involved.
Farnood often gave out loans without proper collateral or other formalities. He loaned $100 million to Haseen Fahim, the brother of Marshal Mohammad Fahim (an old-time Northern Alliance warlord whom Karzai brought back into government as his vice-presidential running mate in summer of 2009). Haseen Fahim has substantial investments in Afghanistan’s small natural gas sector.
Farnood also apparently loaned himself $140 million to invest in real estate in Dubai, including in villas on the world islands off Jumeirah. These artificial islands made of landfill were to resemble the map of the globe once constructed, and were intended to give the wealthy the opportunity to own an entire faux country. Farnood has been flying out connected people like Mahmoud Karzai and Haseen Fahim and putting them up in the fancy chalets. Afghanistan is the fifth-poorest country in the world, with 36% of the population under the poverty line.
With the world economic downturn and real estate crash of 2008-2009, the Dubai world project largely fell apart, with investors going bankrupt in droves. Indeed, Dubai itself had to be bailed out by its rich sibling Abu Dhabi (which has petroleum; Dubai just has a financial sector). The artificial islands appear from NASA photos to have been abandoned since late 2009 when the own, Nakheel Properties, asked for a delay in repaying $29 billion in debt. Some seem to be sinking back into the lagoon or their boundaries are blurring. Close-up pictures of some of them show an eyesore.
So Farnood’s $140 million investment was suddenly not worth anything at all, and his bank began spiraling down. The details of his other bad investments have not yet emerged. The bank went from having over $1 billion in capital to now having only $120 million and owing $300 million.
President Hamid Karzai is notorious for running interference for his corrupt cronies, and that Farnood and Frozi were out of control appears to have been known for some time but nothing was allowed to be done about it. The two have now been forced out, but the question is whether it is in time to save not only the bank (doubtful) but also the entire Afghan financial system, rebuilt after the fall of the Taliban.
The Karzai government is corrupt and rotten to the core. Not a single US soldier should die to prop it up. The lie that we are fighting “al-Qaeda” in Afghanistan needs to be exposed. The US and NATO are fighting four or five groups of Pashtun insurgents, some of them until fairly recently US allies. The goal of the fighting is to keep the Karzai government from falling to the guerrillas and to train up an army and police force that could go on defending Kabul. The Afghanistan National Army from all accounts has poor morale. No wonder. What Afghan soldier or policeman would die for a ponzi scheme?
NATO should not have allowed Karzai to steal the presidential election. (At least now we have more of an idea how the theft was accomplished). It should not have allowed him to block corruption investigations.
You have to wonder if the Afghanistan parliament is up to impeaching Karzai. One thing is certain. He is part of the problem, not the solution, and as long as he is at the helm, the situation is highly unlikely to get better.
And our troops will go on dying for a vague and probably unattainable goal that the politicians dress up in idealistic flourishes, and worse, dying for a lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
