Documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald has just released a new video in which U.S. Afghanistan war veterans testify that sending 30,000 more U.S. military troops to Afghanistan (at a cost of about $1,000,000 per American soldier per year) to try to eliminate Al Qaeda and stabilize that country is not an effective use of American troops or taxpayers’ money.
Accompanying the video is a petition to President Obama to rethink his decision. Please consider signing it.
United for Peace and Justice in San Francisco is hosting an anti-war march to protest the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Assemble starting at 11 am at UN Plaza (Market St. between 7th & 8th Streets). The march starts at 12 noon, winds around downtown SF, and returns to UN Plaza, where there will be a rally at 1 pm.
For details, go to oct17awc.wordpress.com
I recently was told about a documentary film, released near the end of the Bush administration, that tries to understand the reasons why the US went to war in Iraq. Hint: Oil isn’t the whole story; there is a great deal of historical context.
The film interviews current and former military officers, defense analysts, politicians, and ordinary citizens about why we went to war against Iraq. It also include archival news footage from all around the world.
I can’t decide what is the best part of the film.
The video is an hour and a half long, but it’s divided into short episodes so you can watch it as you have time.
Highly recommended:
Watch Film
Today is the eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Congress is also getting back to work after its summer recess. The healthcare issue has taken center stage, but the continuation of the Afghan war is also an issue, and on that issue, President Obama faces growing opposition from his own party. Today the number of U.S. troop casualties in Afghanistan hit 745.
Three articles published today describe the controversy:
By Lara Jakes (AP), Sept 11 2009
WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress urged the Obama administration Thursday to quickly produce a plan for winning the war in Afghanistan or risk widespread opposition within the president’s own party to a new troop buildup.
Simmering congressional frustration could lead to tighter scrutiny and more limited resources, even if Capitol Hill ultimately does approve sending more U.S. troops to the war-torn nation, aides said.
“I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat to signal that a push for more troops will get a skeptical look.
Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, chair of the powerful House Appropriations panel that oversees military spending, described himself as “very nervous” about sending more troops to Afghanistan and cited limited funds to do so.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid urged Democrats to resist rushing to judgment. But he, too, said he wanted to see President Barack Obama’s plans for the military mission before adding more soldiers, pilots and Marines to the mix.
…
By Nancy Cordes (CBS News), Sept 11 2009
Paying tribute to the victims of Sept. 11, President Obama urged Americans not to lose faith in the mission it sparked.
“Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and plot against us still,” Mr. Obama said.
But as Mr. Obama considers sending more troops to Afghanistan, his own party is balking. Friday, the Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin implored him not to order more deployments, but to focus instead on training the Afghan army and police, …
“We need a surge of Afghan security forces,” Levin said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a similar message to the president. “I don’t think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress,” Pelosi said.
The misgivings in the President’s own party reflect a growing national pessimism amid record casualties there.
A recent CBS News poll found approval for the president’s handling of the war has sunk to 48 percent – down 8 points since April.
…
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Bloomberg, Sept 12 2009
Lawmakers are taking sides in a debate unfolding at the White House and on Capitol Hill over the wisdom and cost of deploying thousands more U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan.
Senator Carl Levin, the Armed Services Committee chairman, yesterday joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats in expressing opposition to sending more combat forces. He urged the Obama administration instead to focus on expanding Afghan security forces and persuading insurgents to abandon anti-government militias, as was done in Iraq.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, meanwhile, lined up with leading Republicans calling for a boost in U.S. forces akin to the 2007 troop surge that has been credited with improving security in Iraq. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, heads the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
…
The temperature of Hell just dropped below freezing. Watch for pigs flying overhead.
George F. Will, the conservative political columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in his Sept 1 column that there is no further value in continuing the heavy US military ground-troop deployment in Afghanistan, and that the US should withdraw.
He isn’t exactly advocating peace — he suggests continued use of airstrikes and small Special Forces missions — but his position is much closer to that than Obama’s. The Obama administration is following a policy that tries to mix military force, diplomacy, infrastructure development, and nation-building. Obama already faces criticism of this policy from the left.
Will’s column puts him at odds with most of his fellow conservatives (see The Reaction, below).
Some excerpts from Will’s column, followed by links to some of the reaction:
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
…
U.S. strategy — protecting the population — is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about “deteriorating” … conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant …
The U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. …
Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country — “control” is an elastic concept — and ” ‘our’ Afghans may prove no more viable than were ‘our’ Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.” …
Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan’s recent elections were called “crucial.” To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals… Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. …
Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan’s “culture of poverty.” But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. …
…
[F]orces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
…
In my recent review of the book Three Cups of Tea (see review), I suggested that the US Military could learn much from the work of Greg Mortenson and his Central Asia Institute about how to wage peace rather than war in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, allowing them to win over locals and reduce the influence and popularity of the Taliban.
One strong piece of evidence that Mortenson’s approach works is that although the Taliban have since 2007 shut down almost a thousand secular schools — especially schools that educate girls — in the regions where they operate, none of the almost 100 Central Asia Institute schools — all of which educate girls as well as boys — have been shut down (although one was attacked and temporarily occupied by the Taliban until a local warlord whose daughter attended the school had his militia eject the Taliban from the school). Reason: The schools are built with help and consultation with the people who will use them, to meet their needs. This creates a strong sense of ownership by the local community, which helps insulate the schools from harm.
Mortenson made it clear in the book that he felt he had to keep his distance from the US military, because being perceived as helping them (e.g., providing tactical information) would harm the bond of trust that he and his organization have with the people his institute serves, and might even put his life in jeapardy.
Nonetheless, Three Cups of Tea has become required reading for US senior military officers, US Special Forces in Afghanistan, and military personnel from several other countries.
Mortenson has recently decided that, by showing the military how his organization works and what it does, he can educate them to work more his way, rather than the way they have been working over the past eight years. So he is happy to explain to military audiences that the way to win in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan is to “drink more tea” with the local people.
This change of mind and tactic is apparent in Mortenson’s blog, particularly three recent postings, which link to articles recently published elsewhere:
The US-based security firm Blackwater Worldwide (now called “Xe”) first gained notoriety in 2005 when its guards were accused of using excessive force in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The company made news again in a series of incidents in Iraq where excessive force by its guards was alleged to have caused unnecessary civilian deaths and injuries. Now the company is suddenly facing more accusations, based on legal testimony by two former Blackwater guards. The allegations include:
Jeremy Scahill’s recent article in The Nation magazine, excerpted below, reports the allegations.
By Jeremy Scahill, August 4, 2009
A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”
In their testimony, both men [identified in the court documents only as John Doe #1 and #2 for their safety] also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country … They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. …
These allegations, … are contained in sworn affidavits, … filed … on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. … Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.
…
… States Doe #2: “On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed.”
…
The two declarations … contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”.
[The declaration asserts that] Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. … Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” … Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”
Among the … allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”
Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.
…
Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, “were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department.” … Doe #2 … states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy “unfit men” and sent them back to the US. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were “the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to ‘kill ragheads’ or achieve ‘kills’ or ‘body counts,’” as well as “excessive drinking” and “steroid use.” However, when the men returned to the US, according to Doe #2, “Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to ’stop costing the company money.’”
Doe #2 also says Prince “repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men.” He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson “hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field,” saying they “knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money.”
… Doe #1 states that he “personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force.” He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or “seriously” wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department.
Doe #1 also alleges that “all of these incidents of excessive force were initially videotaped and voice recorded,” but that “Immediately after the day concluded, we would watch the video in a session called a ‘hot wash.’ Immediately after the hotwashing, the video was erased to prevent anyone other than Blackwater personnel seeing what had actually occurred.” …
Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince “made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince’s employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis.” …
…
Briefed on the substance of these allegations …, Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, “If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians.” Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004.
…
A hearing before Judge Ellis in the civil cases against Blackwater is scheduled for August 7….
The FBI interviewed deposed and captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein before he was executed. Transcripts of those interviews were recently made public by a non-governmental think-tank as a result of a Freedom of Information request. The interviews show that it might have been possible to avoid war with Iraq, had then-President GW Bush and his cronies wanted to. A Washington Post story, excerpted below, summarizes important findings from the transcipts.
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as “a zealot” and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.
Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from “fanatic” leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a “security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region.”
Former president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. Administration officials at the time also strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Hussein … wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq’s weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The FBI summaries of the interviews — 20 formal interrogations and five “casual conversations” in 2004 — were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site yesterday. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was completely redacted.
…
The 20 formal interviews took place between Feb. 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28. Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006.
…
In an interview last year on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” George L. Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, said he … did not use coercive interrogation techniques, because “it’s against FBI policy.” …
During the interviews, Piro, who conducted them in Arabic, often appeared to challenge Hussein’s account of events, citing facts that contradicted his recollections. He even forced Hussein to watch a graphic British documentary on his treatment of the Shiites, though that did not appear to shake the former president.
…
Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. “Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran,” Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.
“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”
…
Piro raised bin Laden in his last conversation with Hussein, on June 28, 2004, but the information he yielded conflicted with the Bush administration’s many efforts to link Iraq with the terrorist group. Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that “he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix.” Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them “did not have the same belief or vision.”
When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated — they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia — Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies.
Acclaimed documentary film director Robert Greenwald is currently finishing up a new documentary about the war in Afghanistan. The basic message is that pursuing a military solution in Afghanistan is not working and won’t work, and should be abandoned.
One reason for releasing the film now is that the Obama administration is preparing a “troop surge” in Afghanistan. Among other things, the film points out that even with the “surge”, the troop levels will be far below the half a million troops that the Soviets deployed, which as we all know failed to defeat the Afghan insurgents.
Greenwald is releasing a preliminary version of the film in several parts — four so far, with a fifth due to be released soon. Trailers and the complete segments can be viewed online at the film’s website: RethinkAfghanistan.com.
The released segments:
The Obama Administration, allied with Congressional leaders, is trying to push through additional funding to wind down the war in Iraq and build up the one in Afghanistan. The war-funding bill is opposed by both Republicans (because of its funding for the IMF) and progressive Democrats (because it does not end the war quickly enough), and as a result may not pass. See the news report excerpted below.
Now is a good time to call your Congressional representative and tell them to end war funding, and instead to fund infrastructure development in Iraq and Afghanistan and health-care at home.
(06-16) 04:00 PDT Washington — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House will try to muscle through a $106 billion war funding bill today, hoping to quell a rebellion among liberal Democrats against further support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fight has two Bay Area Democrats from across the Golden Gate locked in a seesaw struggle to corral votes: Pelosi, of San Francisco, against Petaluma’s Lynn Woolsey, co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus and a fierce opponent of the war.
“I see no reason to be keeping our troops in Iraq that much longer and to start into Afghanistan when there’s no end in sight,” Woolsey said Monday. …
…
Democratic leaders added sweeteners to lure votes for the war bill, including $7.7 billion to prepare for flu pandemics and $1 billon for a “cash for clunkers” program to provide as much as $4,500 in rebates to consumers who trade in old cars for vehicles with higher fuel efficiency.
…
Rep. Jackie Speier, a San Mateo Democrat, said Monday that she would vote against the funding. … Speier said she has “serious problems with the current wars” and does not believe “escalating the conflicts make America or the world safer.”
…
There is also widespread dismay over Obama’s “surge” of troops into Afghanistan without a clear exit strategy. Modeled on the Bush administration’s Iraq surge, which quelled violence there, the Afghanistan effort will double the number of U.S. troops in the country, to 68,000 by the end of the year.
Today’s vote is expected to be close. Democratic leaders need as many as 18 of the 51 Democrats who opposed the war funding in May to reverse themselves. The legislation has twice been pulled from consideration for lack of votes.
Democrats must carry the load themselves, with Republicans who supported similar bills during the Bush administration expected to vote against the bill on grounds that it includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund. …
Rep. George Miller, a Martinez Democrat and top Pelosi ally who has opposed war funding, reluctantly switched sides Monday.
“I understand the deep frustrations regarding this bill; I’ve voiced them myself and have consistently voted against the war,” Miller said. “I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I want to bring it to a close. I registered my concern, but now it is time to give President Obama what he believes he needs to make progress. …”
…
Pelosi is telling recalcitrant members “that we need to do this, this is President Obama’s plan for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s got a plan to end the war in Iraq,” Daly said. “He’s got a plan to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need to support the president in that, and this is the right way to go.”
How House members polled Monday broke down on the $106 billion bill:
