Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Senator Barbara Boxer: End Afghanistan War

February 23, 2012

I recently wrote California Senator Barbara Boxer to give her my opinion that the Afghanistan war should be ended immediately. Boxer — or more likely, someone on her staff — sent a reply. Senator Boxer advocates a rapid draw-down of US military forces in Afghanistan. While it isn’t exactly a call for an immediate end to the war, her position is closer to that than I had expected.

The letter:

Dear __________:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the withdrawal of United States combat forces from Afghanistan. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I strongly believe that it is time to significantly decrease the presence of US combat forces in Afghanistan. That is why I proudly co-sponsored an amendment to the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act requiring President Obama to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and report to Congress on the progress of his plan. I was pleased that language based on this amendment was included in the final bill.

I believe that the United States has accomplished much of what it set out to achieve in Afghanistan and that the current cost — both to our armed forces and to the American taxpayer — is far too high. Ten years ago, the US Senate unanimously voted to use all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 — the al Qaeda terrorist network. On May 2, 2011, the United States dealt al Qaeda a major blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Although we must remain vigilant in our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and continue our support for the Afghan people, there is simply no justification for the continued deployment of roughly 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Our current forces should be drawn down to a point where they are sufficient only to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations, train Afghan security forces, and protect American and coalition personnel.

As a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be assured that I will continue to advocate for a plan to accelerate the withdrawal of US combat forces from Afghanistan while protecting US national security.

Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
US Senator

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Eight Afghan Teenagers Killed in NATO Airstrike

February 16, 2012

By now, the story is sadly familiar: NATO forces in Afghanistan launch an airstrike against people on the ground thought to be enemy combatants, only to discover after the airstrike that the Afghans, now dead, were mainly or all civilians.

Last week, it happened again: eight Afghan teenagers were killed by a US airstrike. Below are exceprts from an Associated Press report.

Each time such “accidents” occur, the US-led NATO command apologizes, saying that they “do not target civilians”. In fact, they do target civilians because their rules of engagement are not stringent enough to require them to obtain positive identification of targets before shooting at them.

What would happen if police snipers perched on rooftops in a US city shot down into a street filled with people and killed several bystanders while aiming at a criminal? They would be charged with neglect and/or malfeasance. What would happen if a homeowner shot at a mountain lion in his back yard but missed and killed a child playing in the next yard? He would be charged with manslaughter and criminal neglect.

If you set up a situation in which accidents are likely, then when they occur you cannot call them “accidents”. They are predictable incidents, resulting from criminal dereliction of duty or malfeasance. Afghan President Karzai’s anger over these repeated incidents is entirely justified.

NATO regrets air strike killed 8 Afghan civilians

Associated Press, Thursday, February 16, 2012

KABUL — The US-led military coalition said Wednesday that it regrets the killing of eight civilians in a NATO air strike this month in eastern Afghanistan.

Civilian casualties have long been a source of friction between the US-led international force and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who condemned the bombing and sent a delegation to the scene to investigate.

The coalition called in the air strike Feb. 8 in Kapisa province, after movements by eight people on the ground were assessed as a threat to Afghan police and NATO forces in the area, said Army Brig. Gen. Lewis Boone, director of public affairs for the coalition.

Boone told reporters in Kabul: “Despite all tactical directives being followed precisely, we now know the unfortunate result of this engagement. In the end, eight young Afghans lost their lives in this very sad event.”

Local officials said seven victims were boys between the ages of 6 and 14 and one was a mentally ill young man around 18 to 20 years old.

U.S. Gen. John Allen, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has met with the provincial governor to express his condolences.

[Read entire story]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Truth, Lies and Afghanistan

February 7, 2012

The Armed Forces Journal recently published an article by Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis that assesses the state of the war in Afghanistan. Lt. Col. Davis wrote two versions of his assessment: a classified version for security-cleared personnel only, and a shorter unclassified version. The unclassified article is amazingly candid. Here are excerpts from the unclassified article.

By Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, Armed Forces Journal, 07 February 2012

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. … I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports – mine and others’ – serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. … One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier's] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited [a] unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”

Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described – and many, many more I could mention – had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid – graphically, if necessary – in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.

[Read entire article at Reader-Supported News]

[Read entire article at Armed Forces Journal]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Drone Strikes are Error-Prone

January 21, 2012

It should be is obvious that launching airstikes from drone aircraft controlled from thousands of miles away by operators viewing and assessing ground “targets” from high altitude though video links is a bad idea. Based on grainy video that lags a bit behind the actual action on the ground, operators decide remotely who to blow to bits. Clearly, this will be highly prone to accidents.

Predator drone firing missile

Predator drone firing missile

Common sense should have stopped the US military from using drones for combat rather than just for reconnaissance. Unfortunately, it didn’t.

So now we are faced with an ever-growing list of incidents in which erroneous drone strikes killed and maimed innocents. Past Peace Pundit posts have documented previous incidents (see list below). Sadly, a new incident must now be added to the list (excerpted):

US Deaths in Drone Strike Due to Miscommunication, Report Says

By David Zucchino and David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times, Oct 14, 2011

Washington — A Marine and a Navy medic killed by a US drone airstrike were targeted when Marine commanders in Afghanistan mistook them for Taliban fighters, even though analysts watching the Predator’s video feed were uncertain whether the men were part of an enemy force.

The 381-page report, which has not been released, concludes that the Marine officers on the scene and the Air Force crew controlling the drone from half a world away were unaware that analysts watching the firefight unfold via live video at a third location had doubts about the targets’ identity.

The incident closely resembles another deadly mistake involving a Predator in early 2009. In that attack, at least 15 Afghan civilians were killed after a Predator crew mistook them for a group of Taliban…

In that case, analysts located at Air Force Special Operations Command in Florida who were watching live battlefield video from the aircraft’s high-altitude cameras also had doubts about the target. Their warnings that children were present were disregarded by the drone operator and by an Army captain, who authorized the airstrike.

[Read entire story]

[Read extra story detailing errors that led to the incident.]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

SF Supervisors Pass Resolution to Bring War-Dollars Home

December 14, 2011

Tuesday December 13, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution putting the city on record as “urging the United States Government to reduce the military budget, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and redirect the savings for domestic needs”.

The resolution, co-sponsored by Supervisors John Avalos (D11) and Eric Mar (D1) passed with eight supervisors voting “yes” and three voting “no”. The supervisors voting in favor of the resolution were: Avalos, Mar, Board President David Chiu (D3), Ross Mirkarimi (D5), Jane Kim (D6), Scott Wiener (D8), David Campos (D9), and Malia Cohen (D10). Those voting against the resolution were: Mark Farrell (D2), Carmen Chu (D4), and Sean Elsbernd (D7).

The Bay Area New Priorities Campaign (http://NewPrioritiesCampaign.org) initially drafted the resolution and brought it to the Board of Supervisors as part of the organization’s campaign to get similar resolutions adopted in cities and counties around the SF Bay Area.

The resolution notes that approximately 58 cents of every federal discretionary budget dollar in 2011 will pay for past, present, and future military expenses. It also notes that San Francisco faces falling federal and state support, causing cuts to essential city services and programs, such as food banks, adult daycare centers, city college, schools, and libraries.

Passing the resolution requires the SF government to urge California’s federal legislators to end the wars, provide jobs and adequate care for returning war veterans, reduce the military budget, and refocus national priorities on domestic job-creation and rebuilding national infrastructure. Copies of the resolution will be sent to President Barack Obama, the California Congressional delegation, the Governor of California, and the California State Legislature.

[See full text (PDF) of resolution]

[See Anti-Afghanistan-War resolution the SF Supervisors passed in 2009]

Call Your Senators: Support Merkley Amendment to End Afghanistan War

November 28, 2011

Quoting from an action-alert email from Credo Action:

“Almost all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. But even with the death of Osama bin Laden, and in the face of brutal budget cuts at home, we’re scheduled to have troops in Afghanistan until at least 2014.

With a major defense spending bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA), scheduled for a vote this week, Senator Jeff Merkley has offered an amendment that asks the president to come up with a more rapid timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

The Merkley amendment has bipartisan support, but many Senators are not on board. With a vote coming this week, we all need to urge our Senators to support it.

Please call your Senator ASAP and ask that they co-sponsor or support the Merkley amendment. [Senate Contact Information]

If you live in or near San Francisco, please note that on Monday Dec 5 the SF Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing on a resolution to end the wars and bring the war dollars home. The hearing will be at 10 am in City Hall, room 250.

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

SF Supes Consider Resolution to Bring War Dollars Home

November 10, 2011

The SF Bay Area New Priorities Campaign (NPC) has been working to get SF Bay Area city councils and county boards of supervisors to pass resolutions condemning the high costs of the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and calling for the wars to be ended and the funding redirected to US domestic needs.

One such resolution, drafted by members of the NPC, is being considered by the San Francisco (city and county) Board of Supervisors. The resolution was introduced by Supervisor John Avalos, co-sponsored by Supervisor Eric Mar.

Briefly, the SF resolution enumerates the costs of the wars, with particular attention to the cost to San Francisco and its residents, lists similar resolutions passed by local governments around the US, and puts SF on record as supporting quick termination of war-funding and refocusing resources toward creating jobs and addressing domestic problems. [View full text of resolution and supporting references (PDF)]

The resolution will be discussed in a public hearing of the City Operations Committee, to be held on Monday Dec 5, at 10 am in SF City Hall, Room 250. San Francisco residents who want to testify are invited. Each person gets 2-3 minutes (max) to present their argument for or against the resolution. The committee will then vote on the resolution, and if they pass it, it goes to the full Board for consideration followed by a vote. Please come and be heard.

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

Photos from Afghan War 10th Anniversary Anti-War Rally, San Francisco 10.6.11

October 10, 2011

Below are photos from an anti-war and other-99% rally in San Francisco on Oct 6 2011, on the tenth anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan War. The main purpose of the rally/march was to protest the continuation of the Afghanistan war (as well as the Iraq War and military actions elsewhere), but speakers also connected the war with the economic recession and other issues.

The rally started at 3 pm at 7th and Mission Streets, in front of the Federal Bldg. Janet Weil (Code Pink) and Art Persyko served as emcees for a series of speakers, including Fr. Louie Vitale, Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Eisenscher, and representatives from the OccupySF movement. Open-mike periods were provided for audience members to offer proposals for action. Then some of the crowd walked down to the Financial District to support the OccupySF effort, while others walked to Koret Auditorium at the SF Public Library to discuss next steps.

Click on photos to see them larger.

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

Afghanistan War 10th Anniversary: Protests, Vigils, Exhibits

October 1, 2011

Express your opposition to the continuing Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq, Libya, and Yemen) at the peace rallies and marches to be held around the US this coming week. [See financial cost of wars.]

!0th Anniversary Afghanistan War Events

  • Albuquerque, NM, Sat Oct 8, 11 am, UNM Bookstore, Anti-war protest, sponsored by ANSWER Coalition.
  • Boston, MA, Sat Oct 15, 4:30 pm, Park Street Station at Boston Common (Park & Tremont), Ant-war rally. [More info]
  • Los Angeles, CA, Fri Oct 7, 4:30 pm, Westwood Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles 90024, vigil, die-in, march, sponsored by Answer Coalition. [More info]
  • Minneapolis, MN, Fri Oct 7, 4:30 pm, Anti-war vigil, Hennepin/Lyndale Ave. at Vineland & Oak Grove, Minneapolis, sponsored by Minneapolis Peace Action Coalition. [More info]
  • NY City, NY, Fri Oct 7, all day, Outreach and Flyering, sponsored by ANSWER Coalition. [Sign up online]
  • San Francisco, CA, Thu Oct 6, 3 pm, Federal Bldg plaza, 7th & Mission, Anti-war sponsored by October2011 coalition. Speakers include Kevin Danaher (co-founder Global Exchange); Michael Eisenscher (Nat’l Coordinator, US Labor-assemblies Against the War); Henry Clark (Executive Director, West County Toxics Coalition); Ed Holmes (SF Mime Troupe actor, AKA “Dick Cheney”); Patty Bennett (Military Families Speak Out); Carol Denney (Berkeley singer/songwriter). Afterwards, convene at SF Public Library, Koret Aud, for discussion. [Email for more info]
  • San Francisco, CA, Thu Oct 6, 5 pm, University of San Francisco, “Windows and Mirrors: Reflections on the War in Afghanistan”, Interfaith peace vigil 5 pm in Kalmanovitz Amphitheater, followed by Opening Night Reception 5:50 – 7 pm in McLaren 251, sponsored by AFSC, Islamic Culteral Center of N. CA, and USF. [More info]
  • San Francisco, CA, Fri Oct 7, 4:30 pm, Federal Bldg plaza, 7th & Mission, vigil, die-in, march, sponsored by ANSWER Coalition. [More info]
  • Seattle, WA, Fri Oct 7, 4:30 pm, Seattle Central Community College, Broadway and Pine, vigil and march to Westlake, sponsored by ANSWER Coalition.
  • Trenton, NJ, Fri Oct 7, 12 noon – 1 pm, Statehouse Steps, 125 W. State Street , followed by vigil on Morrisville side of the Trenton Makes Bridge, sponsored by Coalition for Peace Action. [More info]
  • Washington, DC, Thu Oct 6, 9 am, Freedom Plaza, Anti-war rally, sponsored by October2011 Coalition. [More info]
  • Washington, DC, Thu Fri 7, War Voices Art Show, sponsored by United for Peace and Justice. [More info]

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

Cost of US Wars is Unknown

August 23, 2011

Congress appointed a “super-committee” that is charged with figuring out how to balance the budget, by early December, or else significant percentage cuts across the board will supposedly be triggered. Obviously, the US military budget should be cut, but by how much? It is hard to know, when much of the actual cost of fighting at least three wars in the middle-east and Central Asia is unknown, according to a Brown University study published recently.

True Cost of US Wars Unknown

Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, 16 Aug 2011

When congressional cost-cutters meet later this year to decide on trimming the federal budget, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could represent juicy targets. But how much do the wars actually cost the US taxpayer?

Nobody really knows.

… Congress has allotted $1.3 trillion for war spending through fiscal year 2011 just to the Defense Department. … In a recent speech, President Barack Obama assigned the wars a $1 trillion price tag.

But all those numbers are incomplete. Besides what Congress appropriated, the Pentagon spent an additional unknown amount from its $5.2 trillion base budget over that same period. According to a recent Brown University study, the wars and their ripple effects have cost the United States $3.7 trillion, or more than $12,000 per American.

Lawmakers remain sharply divided over the wisdom of slashing the military budget, even with the United States winding down two long conflicts, but there’s also a more fundamental problem: It’s almost impossible to pin down just what the US military spends on war.

According to Defense Department figures, by the end of April, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan … had cost an average of $9.7 billion a month, with roughly two-thirds going to Afghanistan. That … is roughly the entire annual budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.

… NASA could have launched its final shuttle mission in July, which cost $1.5 billion, six times for what the Pentagon is allotted to spend each month in those two wars.

What about Medicare Part D, … which cost a Congressional Budget Office-estimated $385 billion over 10 years? The Pentagon spends that in Iraq and Afghanistan in about 40 months.

In Afghanistan … the US military spent $1.5 billion to purchase 329.8 million gallons of fuel for vehicles, aircraft and generators from October 2010 to May 2011. That’s a not-unheard-of $4.55 per gallon, but it doesn’t include the cost of getting the fuel to combat zones and the human cost of transporting it through hostile areas, which can hike the cost to hundreds of dollars a gallon.

Just getting air-conditioning to troops in Afghanistan, including transport and maintenance, costs $20 billion per year, retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson told National Public Radio recently. That’s half [of what] the federal government has spent on Amtrak over 40 years.

In the early years of the wars Congress didn’t even demand a true accounting of war spending, giving the military whatever it needed. Now, at a time of fiscal woes and with the American public weary of the wars, the question has become how much the nation’s largest bureaucracy should cut.

“It used to be that asking how much the wars cost was unpatriotic. The attitude going into the war is you spend whatever you cost. Now maybe asking is more patriotic.”

Still, deep cuts to the Pentagon remain unpalatable to many lawmakers. The debt limit deal that Congress passed earlier this month calls for $350 billion in “defense and security” spending cuts through 2024, but that’s expected to be spread across several government agencies, sparing the Pentagon much of the blow.

However, if the 12-member bipartisan “super-committee” of lawmakers can’t agree on further federal budget cuts later this year, the law mandates across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, with half of that coming from the Pentagon. The prospect of such deep defense cuts is thought to provide a strong incentive for deficit hawks to compromise and spread the pain more broadly.

… Reducing troop levels doesn’t necessarily yield commensurate cost reductions, given the huge amount of infrastructure the military still maintains in each country.

In Afghanistan, the cost per service member climbed from $507,000 in fiscal year 2009 to $667,000 the following year, according to the Congressional Research Service. Fiscal year 2011 costs are expected to reach $694,000 per service member, even as the US military begins drawing down 33,000 of the 99,000 troops there.

In Iraq, even with the overall costs of the war declining and the US military scheduled to withdraw its remaining 46,000 troops by the end of this year, the cost per service member spiked from $510,000 in 2007 to $802,000 this year.

In fiscal year 2011, Congress authorized $113 billion for the war in Afghanistan and $46 billion for Iraq. The Pentagon’s 2012 budget request is lower: $107 billion for Afghanistan and $11 billion for Iraq.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the national debt the biggest threat to US national security. Before leaving office last month as defense secretary, Robert Gates ordered his department to find ways to cut $400 billion from the defense budget over 12 years, under Obama’s orders.

“The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated,” wrote a team of Brown University experts who authored a June report called “Costs of War.”

[Read Entire Article]

Related News Article: US Troops May Stay in Afghanistan Until 2024.

Related PeacePundit Posts


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.