The Stop the War Coalition, a coalition of groups in the UK, re-prints below Michael Moore's essay on what Obama should have said - but didn't - about US policy in Afghanistan. As usual, Moore makes many reasonable points here in why we should withdraw our troops from the country. Al Qaeda is not a threat, the US war/occupation is ineffective and a waste of taxpayers' money, the Karzai government is corrupt and many in his administration and government are linked to the production and distribution of "illegal" drugs, and we could better keep the money spent on this war at home to address the needs of Americans.
I would add that the Afghan war/occupation is related to the growing US needs for oil and Afghanistan is a part of the world in which there are large oil reserves, near the Casbian Sea and not too far from the Middle East. There is concern in the higher circles of the US about oil and also about pipelines, one feasible route for which would be through Afghanistan. Also, there are at least four other interests that make it difficult for US leaders to pull out of the country. One, the military establishment is concerned about some sort of success in Afghanistan to justify its huge budget. Second, there are hundreds of thousands of workers in the US who are employed by US weapons and supply producers. We have not yet created good alternative jobs for them. Third, our military and government leaders want to think we can be the big shot in the international community and that it is our destiny to bring "democracy" to all countries we define is relevant to this misbegotten goal. (See William Pfaff,'s book, The Irony of Manifest Destiny.) And fourth, we are concerned about the growing competition from China in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Obama must, then, announce a massive program for greening the economy, ala the Apollo Alliance and even greater, partly financed by the savings from US withdrawal from Afghanistan, from a tax on the wealthy, from the withdrawal of subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, from a tax on transactions on Wall Street....The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan could be a catalyst for transforming our economy and setting an example to the rest of the world. It would be a great beginning.
Senseless war begins 10th year: Time to Go says President Obama
"The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer in Afghanistan. So why are we? It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die, says President Obama (as reported to Michael Moore).
By Michael Mooremichaelmoore.com07 October 2010
My fellow Americans...
(Michael Moore's case for time to go from Afghanistan)
Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I'd just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.
Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country.
And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?
The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!
My generals have also admitted the following to me:
1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.
2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we've only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)
3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).
4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.
The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.
In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?
It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.
It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.
I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.
I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.
And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?
Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.
Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.
And it ends tonight.
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The many costs and tragedy of the war in Afghanistan
Peter Preston questions why soldiers stationed in Afghanistan are dying needlessly, as the US and allied commanders and political leaders try desperately to find a rationale for pulling troops out of the country. The article is printed below, after some of my own fact-gathering observations and quotes from a new book by Chris Hedges.
The Afghanistan war has taken its toll on US and allied troops. The most recent troop fatality figures that I could find were at the website http://icasualties.org/. From 2001 up through 2010 [not clear whether this includes July and after], there were a total of 2,147 fatalities among US and allied troops, 1,323 were US troops, 340 were UK troops, and 484 were "other." With respect to the wounded, Cause USA estimates that through July 31, 2010, there were 7,285 US troops wounded. Many of these troops will require medical and psychological assistance for years and in some cases for the rest of their lives. In addition, there are often extraordinary financial and psychological demands on the families of these troops.
Afghan civilian deaths were in the tens of thousands. You can find some estimates at Wikipedi, Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
In his cogent new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Chris Hedges summarizes some of the financial costs of the war/occupation for US taxpayers and the misconceived foreign policies. He writes:
"Congress has approved $345 billion for the war in Afghanistan, which includes more than $40 billion for training and equipping the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan and Reconstruction. The United States spends an estimated $500,000 to $1 million per soldier or marine per year in Afghanistan, depending on whether expenditures on housing and equipment are included along with pay, food, and fuel. These funds do not include medical costs and veterans' compensation. Foreign aid to Afghanistan, including food and development assistance, has totaled $17 billion since 2002, according to the State Department and Congressional Research Service documents.
"But it is not the financial cost of the war that makes the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so tragic, wasteful, and immoral. War as an instrument of change is brutal, savage, impersonal and counterproductive. It mocks the fantasy of individual heroism and the absurdity of utopian goals, such as the imposition of Western-style democracy or the liberation of women. In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering....The wounds for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation, and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed, all talk of human rights is a farce."
We are in the grip of a powerful military establishment in the US. It gets significant help from elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, in the White House and Congress and from state governments. There is indeed a military-industrial complex, more so than ever before. The US is following a foreign policy that is based on military force and priorities. This is not all. There are geopolitical reasons for what we have been doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, where the US has about 1,000 military bases. Our leaders are motivated by the aspiration of being a hegemon in the world and by the growing need to ensure America's corporations have privileged access to or control of increasingly scarce resources (e.g., oil and other minerals). The leaders give us the hogwash about wanting to create "democratic" regimes. See Hedges book to disabuse you of this nonsense. Also check out William Pfaff's just published book, The Irony of Manifest destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy. We need what seems impossible now, that is, a transformation of our society's priorities from war- and profit-oriented to a democratic socialist agenda that includes environmental preservation and regeneration.
Peter Preston's article:
Despicable Afghanistan endgame: Obama and Cameron knowingly ask soldiers to die in vain
The politicians are just waiting for a politically acceptable moment to proclaim a phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly, says former Guardian editor Peter Preston. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
By Peter PrestonThe Guardian11 October 2010
Downloaded from: http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2015/1/
You don't cry during TV news bulletins. But there I sat, a few nights ago, watery-eyed as a hero died again. Lieutenant Mark Evison of the Welsh Guards was back from the dead, gripping the imagination. His mother had wanted Channel 4 News to show the video of her son's last few hours on earth.
Evison, just 26, was leading his platoon on patrol in Helmand 18 months ago when the Taliban attacked. He couldn't get a radio connection to call for help, so he broke cover to try again. A bullet took him in the shoulder, rupturing an artery. His men carried Evison back inside their compound and called for an emergency helicopter. If he could get to a base hospital 20km away, perhaps the surgeons could save him. But the helicopter took 94 minutes to arrive. He bled to death.
Evison's mother wanted the film shown because she still sought answers to two questions. Were the radio signals really so frail that her son had had to put himself in harm's way to get a message through – and could a faster medical response have saved him? The answers on offer (via an inquest and a ritual Ministry of Defence statement) set your teeth on edge. An "extensive log" of the patrol's radio connections was produced, so the radios were working. (In which case, why did Evison make himself a target?) And no helicopter arriving even in seconds could have helped him: his wound was "unsurvivable".
Of course you can grow angry over duff equipment, duff support, duff military bureaucracy. But the filming of Evison's dying moments went beyond questions of kit and response time. This, in a way that Hollywood never contrives, was war: real chaos, real gallantry, real death.
Killing fields
I remember in northern Cyprus, once the shooting had subsided, looking down into a foxhole in a Turkish Cypriot garden, and seeing three young Turks lying at the bottom, shot to pieces. I remember travelling the Jammu sector as India and Pakistan fought yet again and seeing the bloated bodies of cows and bullocks alongside the bodies of dead infantry littering the killing fields of retreat. I remember our jeeps strafed by jets. I remember the chaos for myself.
Evison, by these lights, was just one more victim among millions stretching through history. Cue "war" as the darkest destroyer haunting mankind. But the grief, tinged with anger now, went beyond general revulsion over such folly. In death, as in life, stuff happens, which means that sometimes war can't be avoided, sometimes you have to fight.
In Afghanistan, though? In this particular war, with this particular rationale? It doesn't need a murdered aid worker and a botched rescue mission to show you that the reasons for carrying on grow more derisory day by day. Last week the Obama administration sent a report to Congress so feeble it barely crawled up the steps of Capitol Hill. The White House is scrabbling round looking for the nearest exit. Some leftover hawks, watching fuel convoys explode and supply lines blocked, natter about invading Pakistan. The insanity of the endgame.
No, the only "debate" here merely trades dates for Nato departure. Some, like the Dutch, have gone already. The Americans want to start going home next year. David Cameron is as eager as anyone to draw the last line under this misbegotten, failed foray. The last post cannot sound too soon. And that is the real reason to weep as Mark Evison's final moments flash across our screens.
So much bravery, loyalty, devotion; so many young lives snuffed out. But back in London or Brussels or Washington, other young men in expensive suits – who have never pulled on a uniform – are toiling over the politically acceptable moment to proclaim phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
The Afghanistan war has taken its toll on US and allied troops. The most recent troop fatality figures that I could find were at the website http://icasualties.org/. From 2001 up through 2010 [not clear whether this includes July and after], there were a total of 2,147 fatalities among US and allied troops, 1,323 were US troops, 340 were UK troops, and 484 were "other." With respect to the wounded, Cause USA estimates that through July 31, 2010, there were 7,285 US troops wounded. Many of these troops will require medical and psychological assistance for years and in some cases for the rest of their lives. In addition, there are often extraordinary financial and psychological demands on the families of these troops.
Afghan civilian deaths were in the tens of thousands. You can find some estimates at Wikipedi, Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
In his cogent new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Chris Hedges summarizes some of the financial costs of the war/occupation for US taxpayers and the misconceived foreign policies. He writes:
"Congress has approved $345 billion for the war in Afghanistan, which includes more than $40 billion for training and equipping the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan and Reconstruction. The United States spends an estimated $500,000 to $1 million per soldier or marine per year in Afghanistan, depending on whether expenditures on housing and equipment are included along with pay, food, and fuel. These funds do not include medical costs and veterans' compensation. Foreign aid to Afghanistan, including food and development assistance, has totaled $17 billion since 2002, according to the State Department and Congressional Research Service documents.
"But it is not the financial cost of the war that makes the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so tragic, wasteful, and immoral. War as an instrument of change is brutal, savage, impersonal and counterproductive. It mocks the fantasy of individual heroism and the absurdity of utopian goals, such as the imposition of Western-style democracy or the liberation of women. In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering....The wounds for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation, and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed, all talk of human rights is a farce."
We are in the grip of a powerful military establishment in the US. It gets significant help from elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, in the White House and Congress and from state governments. There is indeed a military-industrial complex, more so than ever before. The US is following a foreign policy that is based on military force and priorities. This is not all. There are geopolitical reasons for what we have been doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, where the US has about 1,000 military bases. Our leaders are motivated by the aspiration of being a hegemon in the world and by the growing need to ensure America's corporations have privileged access to or control of increasingly scarce resources (e.g., oil and other minerals). The leaders give us the hogwash about wanting to create "democratic" regimes. See Hedges book to disabuse you of this nonsense. Also check out William Pfaff's just published book, The Irony of Manifest destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy. We need what seems impossible now, that is, a transformation of our society's priorities from war- and profit-oriented to a democratic socialist agenda that includes environmental preservation and regeneration.
Peter Preston's article:
Despicable Afghanistan endgame: Obama and Cameron knowingly ask soldiers to die in vain
The politicians are just waiting for a politically acceptable moment to proclaim a phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly, says former Guardian editor Peter Preston. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
By Peter PrestonThe Guardian11 October 2010
Downloaded from: http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2015/1/
You don't cry during TV news bulletins. But there I sat, a few nights ago, watery-eyed as a hero died again. Lieutenant Mark Evison of the Welsh Guards was back from the dead, gripping the imagination. His mother had wanted Channel 4 News to show the video of her son's last few hours on earth.
Evison, just 26, was leading his platoon on patrol in Helmand 18 months ago when the Taliban attacked. He couldn't get a radio connection to call for help, so he broke cover to try again. A bullet took him in the shoulder, rupturing an artery. His men carried Evison back inside their compound and called for an emergency helicopter. If he could get to a base hospital 20km away, perhaps the surgeons could save him. But the helicopter took 94 minutes to arrive. He bled to death.
Evison's mother wanted the film shown because she still sought answers to two questions. Were the radio signals really so frail that her son had had to put himself in harm's way to get a message through – and could a faster medical response have saved him? The answers on offer (via an inquest and a ritual Ministry of Defence statement) set your teeth on edge. An "extensive log" of the patrol's radio connections was produced, so the radios were working. (In which case, why did Evison make himself a target?) And no helicopter arriving even in seconds could have helped him: his wound was "unsurvivable".
Of course you can grow angry over duff equipment, duff support, duff military bureaucracy. But the filming of Evison's dying moments went beyond questions of kit and response time. This, in a way that Hollywood never contrives, was war: real chaos, real gallantry, real death.
Killing fields
I remember in northern Cyprus, once the shooting had subsided, looking down into a foxhole in a Turkish Cypriot garden, and seeing three young Turks lying at the bottom, shot to pieces. I remember travelling the Jammu sector as India and Pakistan fought yet again and seeing the bloated bodies of cows and bullocks alongside the bodies of dead infantry littering the killing fields of retreat. I remember our jeeps strafed by jets. I remember the chaos for myself.
Evison, by these lights, was just one more victim among millions stretching through history. Cue "war" as the darkest destroyer haunting mankind. But the grief, tinged with anger now, went beyond general revulsion over such folly. In death, as in life, stuff happens, which means that sometimes war can't be avoided, sometimes you have to fight.
In Afghanistan, though? In this particular war, with this particular rationale? It doesn't need a murdered aid worker and a botched rescue mission to show you that the reasons for carrying on grow more derisory day by day. Last week the Obama administration sent a report to Congress so feeble it barely crawled up the steps of Capitol Hill. The White House is scrabbling round looking for the nearest exit. Some leftover hawks, watching fuel convoys explode and supply lines blocked, natter about invading Pakistan. The insanity of the endgame.
No, the only "debate" here merely trades dates for Nato departure. Some, like the Dutch, have gone already. The Americans want to start going home next year. David Cameron is as eager as anyone to draw the last line under this misbegotten, failed foray. The last post cannot sound too soon. And that is the real reason to weep as Mark Evison's final moments flash across our screens.
So much bravery, loyalty, devotion; so many young lives snuffed out. But back in London or Brussels or Washington, other young men in expensive suits – who have never pulled on a uniform – are toiling over the politically acceptable moment to proclaim phoney triumph and leave the Afghans to their own devices. It is dismaying when soldiers die needlessly. It is despicable when they are knowingly asked to die in vain.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Negotiations, or endless war and chaos in Afghanistan
The Guardian newspaper (UK), published the following editorial on October 7, 2010, titled "Afghanistan: War Without End." The position taken by the editors is that the war (and occupation) of Afghanistan should be ended. In the first sentence, they write: "There is a clear and pressing need to end the monumental folly of prosecuting a war in Afghanistan." They justify their position with a number of points, which I list below from the editorial.
(1) The war is spreading "in intensity into the tribal areas of Pakistan and could yet rattle a weak civilian government in Islamabad to bits."
(2) The US and its allies operate under the "illusion" that they can build a Afghan state that has the capacity to bring stability to the country. This "claim is being routinely undermined by corrupt elections and a president in Hamid Karzai who packs his administration with his relatives."
(3) The US-led occupation intensifies the insurgent and Taliban oppostion to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and "has become both a magnet for, and training ground of, no less than two generations of jihadis, each more determined than the last."
(4) Moreover, the war/occupation, now in its tenth year, serves as a "rallying cause for terrorist acts against civilian targets across the world."
(5) There are huge and increasing resources devoted to the fight against the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, including 150,000 US and allied troops, tens of thousands of private contractors, and "140,000 Pakistan military in the tribal areas alone." The increase in the growing military presence and operations has only "accomplished...a larger battlefield and more intense battle."
(6) The counterinsurgency plan of the Pentagon to increase the US troop level, push the Taliban out of Marjah, then out of "Helmand and Kandahar has faded...." No hearts and minds won in these battles or anticipated battles.
(7) Only a negotiated settlement can bring an end to this wide-ranging war. The Karzai government has begun talks "with the Haqqani network, a group based in North Waziristan and one of the most feared insurgents in Afghanistan," and, in separate secret talks "with
the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organisation based in Pakistan." The Guardian editors think that "taken together there is now credible evidence of a desire in Washington [?] as well as in Kabul to address the leadership of the main Taliban groups, to reconcile the so‑called irreconcilables, and not rely on a policy of removing them."
(8) It is not clear why principal Taliban groups are entering into negotiations, "how far these talks have gone, and "whether indeed they present a viable alternative to the Taliban strategy of waiting the Americans out."
(9) If negotations don't gain traction, there is the prospect of more years of fruitless war and occupation in Afghanistan, and the escalation of military actions in Pakistan, further undermining an already tenuous Pakistan government. Without a negotiated settlement, the US and its allies may face "chaos, the inability to stick to one course of action and to bend competing actors to that end. The war could continue simply because its momentum is now unstoppable."
We agree with the Guardian editorial. The Obama administration should make explicit plans to end US military involvement in Afghanistan, end drone attacks in Pakistan, and do what it can to support and advance negotiations with the principal Taliban groups.
Such a process does not now appear likely. One of the biggest obstacles is that negotiations require a legitimate Afghan central government which does not exist. Among some of the other major obstacles are that the Obama administration continues to bend to the influence of the Pentagon, the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a stagnant economy, Republicans in the Senate and House who want more military resources sent to Afghanistan, and the seeming political momentum in favor of hawkish voters who want US military power to prevail.
(1) The war is spreading "in intensity into the tribal areas of Pakistan and could yet rattle a weak civilian government in Islamabad to bits."
(2) The US and its allies operate under the "illusion" that they can build a Afghan state that has the capacity to bring stability to the country. This "claim is being routinely undermined by corrupt elections and a president in Hamid Karzai who packs his administration with his relatives."
(3) The US-led occupation intensifies the insurgent and Taliban oppostion to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and "has become both a magnet for, and training ground of, no less than two generations of jihadis, each more determined than the last."
(4) Moreover, the war/occupation, now in its tenth year, serves as a "rallying cause for terrorist acts against civilian targets across the world."
(5) There are huge and increasing resources devoted to the fight against the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, including 150,000 US and allied troops, tens of thousands of private contractors, and "140,000 Pakistan military in the tribal areas alone." The increase in the growing military presence and operations has only "accomplished...a larger battlefield and more intense battle."
(6) The counterinsurgency plan of the Pentagon to increase the US troop level, push the Taliban out of Marjah, then out of "Helmand and Kandahar has faded...." No hearts and minds won in these battles or anticipated battles.
(7) Only a negotiated settlement can bring an end to this wide-ranging war. The Karzai government has begun talks "with the Haqqani network, a group based in North Waziristan and one of the most feared insurgents in Afghanistan," and, in separate secret talks "with
the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organisation based in Pakistan." The Guardian editors think that "taken together there is now credible evidence of a desire in Washington [?] as well as in Kabul to address the leadership of the main Taliban groups, to reconcile the so‑called irreconcilables, and not rely on a policy of removing them."
(8) It is not clear why principal Taliban groups are entering into negotiations, "how far these talks have gone, and "whether indeed they present a viable alternative to the Taliban strategy of waiting the Americans out."
(9) If negotations don't gain traction, there is the prospect of more years of fruitless war and occupation in Afghanistan, and the escalation of military actions in Pakistan, further undermining an already tenuous Pakistan government. Without a negotiated settlement, the US and its allies may face "chaos, the inability to stick to one course of action and to bend competing actors to that end. The war could continue simply because its momentum is now unstoppable."
We agree with the Guardian editorial. The Obama administration should make explicit plans to end US military involvement in Afghanistan, end drone attacks in Pakistan, and do what it can to support and advance negotiations with the principal Taliban groups.
Such a process does not now appear likely. One of the biggest obstacles is that negotiations require a legitimate Afghan central government which does not exist. Among some of the other major obstacles are that the Obama administration continues to bend to the influence of the Pentagon, the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a stagnant economy, Republicans in the Senate and House who want more military resources sent to Afghanistan, and the seeming political momentum in favor of hawkish voters who want US military power to prevail.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Obstacles to a negotiated settlement between Karzai government and Taliban
Juan Cole links to the following article by Chris Sands on his blog today (Informed Comment, 10-8-10). In the end, Cole thinks, there will be a negotiated settlement between the Karzai government and the leaders of the Taliban. Reports from other sources indicate that negotiations are already underway, despite objections by the US military.
Sands identifies some of the complex obstacles that stand in the way of an eventually successful negotiation, citing the Washington Post for some of his information. My comments are in parentheses.
See the Sands' full article at: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/south-asia/afghanistan-chance-for-a-breakthrough?pageCount=0
(1) The Taliban have ties with al Qaeda. Sands reports, however, that the Taliban leaders have expressed a willingness "to cut these ties," as part of a general agreement.
(2) The Taliban leaders demand a withdrawal of US and other foreign troop. Sands thinks that the US leadership, implicitly Obama and the generals, want to find a way out of this quagmire and have already promised to "start" pulling out US troops by next summer. (However, Obama has recently suggested that it may take longer than one year to create a "stable" Afghan government.)
(3) "The US has ruled out a deal with [the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar], yet he remains central to the Taliban and there are few divisions among the insurgents." (The US may not have the final say in this regard.)
(4) There are divisions among Afghans "across ethnic, religious and party lines," which complicate negotiations limited to the Taliban and Karzai government.
(5) The Taliban are known for their adherence to their fundamentalist principles and will have to compromise them in order to join a corrupt Karzai administration, which includes many of the Taliban's most hated enemies.
(6) For the Taliban to agree to a settlement, its leaders would have to be given important positions in the government. Such a settlement would generate opposition from leaders of the Tajik ethnic group and the Shite Hazara.
(7) There is concern in Washington that the Taliban would want to restrict women's rights and religious, cultural and social freedoms. (There is already such restrictions, especially on women's rights.)
(Sands finishes his article as follows.) But all the stars surely have to be aligned for this to bring a definitive end to the Afghan tragedy. If the Post's story is correct, there is some hope. But if it is simply an attempt by US officials to sow discord among the Taliban, it is unlikely to succeed. The insurgents now control a large part of rural Afghanistan and have a presence in most provinces across the country. They will not give up easily. (That is, there is no military settlement in sight.)
Sands identifies some of the complex obstacles that stand in the way of an eventually successful negotiation, citing the Washington Post for some of his information. My comments are in parentheses.
See the Sands' full article at: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/south-asia/afghanistan-chance-for-a-breakthrough?pageCount=0
(1) The Taliban have ties with al Qaeda. Sands reports, however, that the Taliban leaders have expressed a willingness "to cut these ties," as part of a general agreement.
(2) The Taliban leaders demand a withdrawal of US and other foreign troop. Sands thinks that the US leadership, implicitly Obama and the generals, want to find a way out of this quagmire and have already promised to "start" pulling out US troops by next summer. (However, Obama has recently suggested that it may take longer than one year to create a "stable" Afghan government.)
(3) "The US has ruled out a deal with [the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar], yet he remains central to the Taliban and there are few divisions among the insurgents." (The US may not have the final say in this regard.)
(4) There are divisions among Afghans "across ethnic, religious and party lines," which complicate negotiations limited to the Taliban and Karzai government.
(5) The Taliban are known for their adherence to their fundamentalist principles and will have to compromise them in order to join a corrupt Karzai administration, which includes many of the Taliban's most hated enemies.
(6) For the Taliban to agree to a settlement, its leaders would have to be given important positions in the government. Such a settlement would generate opposition from leaders of the Tajik ethnic group and the Shite Hazara.
(7) There is concern in Washington that the Taliban would want to restrict women's rights and religious, cultural and social freedoms. (There is already such restrictions, especially on women's rights.)
(Sands finishes his article as follows.) But all the stars surely have to be aligned for this to bring a definitive end to the Afghan tragedy. If the Post's story is correct, there is some hope. But if it is simply an attempt by US officials to sow discord among the Taliban, it is unlikely to succeed. The insurgents now control a large part of rural Afghanistan and have a presence in most provinces across the country. They will not give up easily. (That is, there is no military settlement in sight.)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Indications that the war in Afghanistan will last for years to come
Rick Rozoff's article on Global Research.ca today describes developments in Afghanistan that indicate US military and allied forces will remain in the country for many years to come, as the number of occupational forces increase, the number of bases in Afghanistan and in surrounding countries increase, as military actions become more multifaceted, and despite the rising deaths and casualties among US and allied troops. Rozoff notes also that US troop and drone attacks in Pakistan are causing some tension in Pakistan-US relations. This, along with massive government corruption, increasing insurgent and Taliban advances, a lack of progress in meeting the needs of the great majority of Afghans, appear to conflict with the US generals' dreams of success.
Still, there is strong bipartisan support in the US Congress for the funding of this war. Last July, the Senate supported by a voice vote supplemental funding of over $30 billion for US military forces in Afghanistan. The House passed the request by a vote of 308 to 114. Obama then signed it. A few months later General Patraeus tested the waters, unofficially suggesting even more troops were needed. Congress has not dealt with any further requests. But, sadly, the Obama administration and the US Congress have a proven record of supporting American war efforts and increased military budgets when asked. A rubber-stamp. The US government and military appear not to be deterred in this unending war by rising US troop casualties and seem little concerned about Afghan deaths and the continuing devastation to that country's infrastructure, economy, education, health care, water, and other basic services.
Here are some paragraphs from Rozoff's article.
[....]
"October 7 will mark the advent of the tenth year of the US war in Afghanistan. NATO joined the war on September 12, 2001, "invoking its Article 5 collective military assistance clause." The combined US and NATO forces are referred to as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
[There is little doubt, though, that this is an American-led military occupation.]
"There are now at least 152,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 120,000 under NATO command [US dominates the command], according to several recent statements by American and NATO officials most if not all of them will remain there byond the 2011 withdrawal date announced by the American administration last year."
[....]
American and Alliance military bases have expanded into other central Asian countries - "Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - and the elaboration of networks for the transit of troops, military equipment and supplies and for combat and training and bombing runs from Estonia and Latvia on the Baltic Sea to Georgia on the Black Sea and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistand on the Casbian Sea as well as in several other nations from Eastern Europe to the so-called Broader Middle East, including Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Diego Garcia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Kazakhstan."
[....]
"US and NATO deaths for 2009 and so far this year account for over half of the total of 2,129 killed since the beginning of the war: 1,082."
[....]
Drone attacks are increasing. Rozoff: "The Washington Post...disclosed that massive intensification of drone warfare 'represents a significant evolution of an already controversial targeted killing program, run by the CIA, which in the past month...has been delivering what amounts to a cross-border bombing campaign in coordination with the conventional military operations a few miles away."
[....]
"The integrated strategy the US and NATO are purusing is threefold: Counterinsurgency operations, including targeted assassinations, in Afghanistan's eastern and southern povinces bordering Pakistan; an unprecedented escalation of drone missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan; and attacks by helicopter gunships in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in combination with drone strikes."
[....]
"The Pakistan government has 'halted NATO supply trucks and oil tankers from entering Afghanistan, which policy remainsin force with 160 vehicles stopped near the border on Oct. 5."
Still, there is strong bipartisan support in the US Congress for the funding of this war. Last July, the Senate supported by a voice vote supplemental funding of over $30 billion for US military forces in Afghanistan. The House passed the request by a vote of 308 to 114. Obama then signed it. A few months later General Patraeus tested the waters, unofficially suggesting even more troops were needed. Congress has not dealt with any further requests. But, sadly, the Obama administration and the US Congress have a proven record of supporting American war efforts and increased military budgets when asked. A rubber-stamp. The US government and military appear not to be deterred in this unending war by rising US troop casualties and seem little concerned about Afghan deaths and the continuing devastation to that country's infrastructure, economy, education, health care, water, and other basic services.
Here are some paragraphs from Rozoff's article.
[....]
"October 7 will mark the advent of the tenth year of the US war in Afghanistan. NATO joined the war on September 12, 2001, "invoking its Article 5 collective military assistance clause." The combined US and NATO forces are referred to as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
[There is little doubt, though, that this is an American-led military occupation.]
"There are now at least 152,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 120,000 under NATO command [US dominates the command], according to several recent statements by American and NATO officials most if not all of them will remain there byond the 2011 withdrawal date announced by the American administration last year."
[....]
American and Alliance military bases have expanded into other central Asian countries - "Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - and the elaboration of networks for the transit of troops, military equipment and supplies and for combat and training and bombing runs from Estonia and Latvia on the Baltic Sea to Georgia on the Black Sea and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistand on the Casbian Sea as well as in several other nations from Eastern Europe to the so-called Broader Middle East, including Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Diego Garcia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Kazakhstan."
[....]
"US and NATO deaths for 2009 and so far this year account for over half of the total of 2,129 killed since the beginning of the war: 1,082."
[....]
Drone attacks are increasing. Rozoff: "The Washington Post...disclosed that massive intensification of drone warfare 'represents a significant evolution of an already controversial targeted killing program, run by the CIA, which in the past month...has been delivering what amounts to a cross-border bombing campaign in coordination with the conventional military operations a few miles away."
[....]
"The integrated strategy the US and NATO are purusing is threefold: Counterinsurgency operations, including targeted assassinations, in Afghanistan's eastern and southern povinces bordering Pakistan; an unprecedented escalation of drone missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan; and attacks by helicopter gunships in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in combination with drone strikes."
[....]
"The Pakistan government has 'halted NATO supply trucks and oil tankers from entering Afghanistan, which policy remainsin force with 160 vehicles stopped near the border on Oct. 5."
Withdraw US troops from Afghanistan and join protests on Oct 7-10
The following email was distributed by United for Peace and Justice, with reference to a recently created website, http://www.endafghanistanwar.com The website was launched by Peace Action, AFSC and WRL, and a host of other national peace organizations. In the following message, the coalition of peace groups bring our attention to reasons why we should support the withdrawal of US (and foreign) troops from Afghanistan and also issue a call to action in support of this goal.
Our Call to Action: October 7-10, 2010
As we approach the ninth anniversary of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, we call for decentralized international days of action October 7-10 to bring U.S. and NATO troops home. We call for a ceasefire, negotiations and the withdrawal of foreign forces.
The U.S.-NATO phase of the Afghan War has been predictably deadly and counterproductive since the beginning. Even U.S. military leaders now concede that there is no military solution to what is at its core an Afghan civil war. Yet, in an era defined by the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, instead of investing in job creation and provision of essential social services, our governments are flushing colossal amounts of taxpayers’ money down the drain of a futile, murderous and destructive war.
Rather than “winning hearts and minds”, the war and long-term foreign military occupation have alienated the Afghan people and fueled deepening and increasingly widespread armed resistance by local communities and the fractured Taliban. A new civilian UN mandate in Afghanistan is needed to create and develop human security. A growing majority of Afghans no longer see U.S. and NATO forces as liberators. Instead, they see Western occupiers as the primary cause of their insecurity and suffering and want them to leave. As the international press reports, “a drumbeat is starting to sound across Afghanistan in favor of talking to the Taliban”.
Instead of the promised peace and security, Afghans are suffering an ever-growing civilian death toll. The corruption of the increasingly unpopular U.S.-imposed warlord/Karzai government, which controls little more than the capital Kabul, is now infamous. The 2010 presidential election has been universally condemned as a fraud. Massive increases in poppy cultivation have further corrupted the Karzai government, warlords and the Taliban, who use the drug trade to maintain their privileges and finance the continuing civil war. By allying with minority non-Pashtun warlords to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and making them the foundation of the Karzai government, the majority Pashtuns were further alienated from the rulers in Kabul. And, with the exception of Kabul, the values shared by warlords and the Taliban have meant few or no changes for women.
We therefore call for decentralized international days of nonviolent action October 7-10 urging a ceasefire, Afghan and international negotiations, and the urgent withdrawal of all foreign military forces from that beleaguered nation. With actions from vigils, banner drops, conferences and meetings with government officials to teach-ins, demonstrations and civil disobedience, we can move our governments to end this catastrophic war.
Our Call to Action: October 7-10, 2010
As we approach the ninth anniversary of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, we call for decentralized international days of action October 7-10 to bring U.S. and NATO troops home. We call for a ceasefire, negotiations and the withdrawal of foreign forces.
The U.S.-NATO phase of the Afghan War has been predictably deadly and counterproductive since the beginning. Even U.S. military leaders now concede that there is no military solution to what is at its core an Afghan civil war. Yet, in an era defined by the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, instead of investing in job creation and provision of essential social services, our governments are flushing colossal amounts of taxpayers’ money down the drain of a futile, murderous and destructive war.
Rather than “winning hearts and minds”, the war and long-term foreign military occupation have alienated the Afghan people and fueled deepening and increasingly widespread armed resistance by local communities and the fractured Taliban. A new civilian UN mandate in Afghanistan is needed to create and develop human security. A growing majority of Afghans no longer see U.S. and NATO forces as liberators. Instead, they see Western occupiers as the primary cause of their insecurity and suffering and want them to leave. As the international press reports, “a drumbeat is starting to sound across Afghanistan in favor of talking to the Taliban”.
Instead of the promised peace and security, Afghans are suffering an ever-growing civilian death toll. The corruption of the increasingly unpopular U.S.-imposed warlord/Karzai government, which controls little more than the capital Kabul, is now infamous. The 2010 presidential election has been universally condemned as a fraud. Massive increases in poppy cultivation have further corrupted the Karzai government, warlords and the Taliban, who use the drug trade to maintain their privileges and finance the continuing civil war. By allying with minority non-Pashtun warlords to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and making them the foundation of the Karzai government, the majority Pashtuns were further alienated from the rulers in Kabul. And, with the exception of Kabul, the values shared by warlords and the Taliban have meant few or no changes for women.
We therefore call for decentralized international days of nonviolent action October 7-10 urging a ceasefire, Afghan and international negotiations, and the urgent withdrawal of all foreign military forces from that beleaguered nation. With actions from vigils, banner drops, conferences and meetings with government officials to teach-ins, demonstrations and civil disobedience, we can move our governments to end this catastrophic war.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The costs of war - a comprehensive overview
In the article below, Bob Adelmann compiles a more comprehensive itemized list of the costs of US military spending than most authors. He starts with Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes' estimate of $3 trillion from their book by the same name, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (2008). He points out that the authors now think they underestimaed the costs of this war by one-third. In the meantime, the costs of the Afghanistan War has escalated, while the costs of the war in Iraq have fallen and while the overall military budget has continued to go up. Adelmann also identifies other indirect and not well known costs of war.
The widely cited books by Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power and Washington Rules, provide a historical and political-economic context in which to acquire an understanding of why the US population is so willing to live with such enormous costs of ongoing wars- and other military-related costs. Check them out.
Much of the effects and the contexts are simply not known by the great majority of people. However, in a stagnating, high-unemployment, low-wage, economy in which government services are being curtailed, this information may at some point have an impact. In the meantime, there is extensive support for keeping "the military strong," a view that is constantly being reinforced by the government's ideological justification of a "war on terror" and supported by the media in general and by right-wing sectors of the population.
Bob Adelmann, "The Real Costs of War,"
Friday, 01 October 2010 14:57
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4765-the-real-costs-of-the-war
[....]
Because the number of veterans needing post-combat medical care is about 30 percent higher than their original estimates [i.e., the estimates of Stilglitz and Bilmes], the long-term costs of the wars are likely to exceed $4 trillion.
[....]
Admiral Mike Mullen agrees that these costs are “just not sustainable,” with Pentagon health spending tripling in just the past ten years.
When Publishers Weekly reviewed the book in 2008 [The Three Trillion Dollar War], it said that “Figuring in macro economic costs and interest — the [Iraq] war has been funded with much borrowed money — the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.” And reviewers of the book at Amazon.com noted additional costs, including [some of which are addressed by Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book]:
loss of life and work potential for the private sector
cost of seriously impaired to society
mental health costs and consequences
quality of life impairment
family costs
social costs
Other impacts of the wars are higher oil prices, reduction in capital available for investment in the private economy, and increased pressure on the dollar.... Unfortunately, the authors and reviewers have left out the most damaging cost of all: that wars are used to maintain the oppression of the state against the people. This is the conclusion of a controversial study, The Report from Iron Mountain, published in 1967 by Dial Press and then re-published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster. Responses to challenges to the validity of the report authored by a Special Study Group of 15 highly-placed individuals were resolved when one of those involved in the study, Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote “As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions.”
Some of the conclusions of that study include
war produces waste, which is a way to control surpluses
war produces jobs and industrial advancement
war stimulates the economy
war “is, and has been, the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies”
war is “virtually synonymous with nationhood”
military service has a “patriotic” priority in society
wars "have provided...[a] state-supported haven...for the 'unemployable'"
war can be used as a “…control device over the hostile, nihilistic, and potential unsettling elements of society…”
[....]
[War] has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state [emphasis added] by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.
In his expose of the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, author G. Edward Griffin studied the Iron Mountain report carefully and concluded that “war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal [of stability]. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint … No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”That is the true cost of wars.
The widely cited books by Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power and Washington Rules, provide a historical and political-economic context in which to acquire an understanding of why the US population is so willing to live with such enormous costs of ongoing wars- and other military-related costs. Check them out.
Much of the effects and the contexts are simply not known by the great majority of people. However, in a stagnating, high-unemployment, low-wage, economy in which government services are being curtailed, this information may at some point have an impact. In the meantime, there is extensive support for keeping "the military strong," a view that is constantly being reinforced by the government's ideological justification of a "war on terror" and supported by the media in general and by right-wing sectors of the population.
Bob Adelmann, "The Real Costs of War,"
Friday, 01 October 2010 14:57
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4765-the-real-costs-of-the-war
[....]
Because the number of veterans needing post-combat medical care is about 30 percent higher than their original estimates [i.e., the estimates of Stilglitz and Bilmes], the long-term costs of the wars are likely to exceed $4 trillion.
[....]
Admiral Mike Mullen agrees that these costs are “just not sustainable,” with Pentagon health spending tripling in just the past ten years.
When Publishers Weekly reviewed the book in 2008 [The Three Trillion Dollar War], it said that “Figuring in macro economic costs and interest — the [Iraq] war has been funded with much borrowed money — the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.” And reviewers of the book at Amazon.com noted additional costs, including [some of which are addressed by Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book]:
loss of life and work potential for the private sector
cost of seriously impaired to society
mental health costs and consequences
quality of life impairment
family costs
social costs
Other impacts of the wars are higher oil prices, reduction in capital available for investment in the private economy, and increased pressure on the dollar.... Unfortunately, the authors and reviewers have left out the most damaging cost of all: that wars are used to maintain the oppression of the state against the people. This is the conclusion of a controversial study, The Report from Iron Mountain, published in 1967 by Dial Press and then re-published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster. Responses to challenges to the validity of the report authored by a Special Study Group of 15 highly-placed individuals were resolved when one of those involved in the study, Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote “As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions.”
Some of the conclusions of that study include
war produces waste, which is a way to control surpluses
war produces jobs and industrial advancement
war stimulates the economy
war “is, and has been, the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies”
war is “virtually synonymous with nationhood”
military service has a “patriotic” priority in society
wars "have provided...[a] state-supported haven...for the 'unemployable'"
war can be used as a “…control device over the hostile, nihilistic, and potential unsettling elements of society…”
[....]
[War] has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state [emphasis added] by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.
In his expose of the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, author G. Edward Griffin studied the Iron Mountain report carefully and concluded that “war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal [of stability]. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint … No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”That is the true cost of wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
