Peace Pundit

Questions and Answers about the Afghanistan War

peacepundit — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:58:51 +0000

How long have we been fighting in Afghanistan? The war has ground on for over ten years now. Longer than WWI and WWII combined.

When will it end? According to the Obama administration, we will start withdrawing troops in September of 2012 and end our combat involvement there by 2014. However, few Americans believe that, least of all senior military officials, who argue that US and NATO troops should remain until Afghanistan is stable. Never mind that Afghanistan never has been stable and is unlikely to become so in this century.

How is it going? If you ask the US military command, it is challenging, but we are gradually winning the war against the enemy. Never mind that the number of US and NATO troops killed in the first three months of 2012 is about equal to the number killed in the first three years of the war, 2001-2003.

Who is the enemy? Al Qaeda, of course, ever since they attacked us on 9/11/2001. Never mind that Al Qaeda has had no significant presence in Afghanistan since 2001.

Who are we are fighting, then? A subsitute enemy: the Taliban. Never mind that the Taliban did not attack us, know almost nothing about the world outside of their country, and therefore pose no international threat.

But didn’t the Taliban harbor the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us? Perhaps, but it is customary in Afghanistan to feed and harbor anyone who comes to your door. Also, the people who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks lived in Saudi Arabia, Germany, Canada, Florida, and Massachusetts. After the attacks, Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden and his clan for many years. So those locations also harbored the terrorists, yet we haven’t gone to war with them.

OK, but the Taliban regime was hell for Afghan women, wasn’t it? Maybe Western intervention can help bring about a better life for women there. Yes, it was. But again, regimes all over the world repress women, and the US hasn’t invaded them.

Does the Afghan government want us to stay? No. They want us out, ASAP. In late 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that the US military strategy in Afghanistan is counterproductive. Last Thursday, after a series of incidents in which US troops pissed on Taliban corpses, shot and killed unarmed Afghan women and children while they were sleeping, and posed with Taliban body parts, Karzai said that he wants Western forces to speed-up their departure. Bottom line: we aren’t there because the Afghans want us there.

So why are we still there? Countries north of Afghanistan — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan — have oil reserves. The US wants access to that oil. Obtaining secure access will require pipelines running south, through Afghanistan. The alternative pipeline routes go east, to China, or north, to Russia. The US doesn’t like those alternatives. Therefore, US neo-conservatives (and neo-liberals) consider Afghanistan a strategic piece of territory to control.

What can we do to help bring an end to the Afghanistan war? Join the Campaign for New Priorities, and donate to help the Campaign publish advertisements. Write or call your congressional representatives, Senators, President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and ask them. Get their phone numbers and addresses via Google.

Obama: Time to wind down Afghanistan War?

peacepundit — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:11:30 +0000

US President Barack Obama indicated in his first major press conference on the year that he considers it time to end the US-led war in Afghanistan. It is of course high time that the President arrived at that conclusion. However, Obama did not announce any acceleration of US plans to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by 2014. Therefore it is unclear what the purpose of his statement was.

Perhaps it was meant as a warning to Afghans. If so, it could backfire. Afghans — particularly President Hamid Karzai — are sure to notice that Obama labels as “unacceptable” attacks on US troops in Afghanistan in retaliation for the US military’s accidental burning of Korans, but never said anything similar about repeated Afghan civilian deaths resulting from US or NATO airstrikes. Afghans could get the message that six US troop deaths are unnacceptable to Obama while thousands of US/NATO-caused “collateral” Afghan civilian deaths are acceptable.

Enough editorializing. Here’s the news report (excerpted):

Obama: Time has come to wind down Afghan war

March 06, 2012 6:20 PM EST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Amid fresh concerns over the safety of American forces, President Barack Obama on Tuesday said the accidental burning of Qurans in Afghanistan and the retaliatory killings of US troops gave new credence to the need to end the war.

“I think that it is an indication of the challenges in that environment, and it’s an indication that now is the time for us to transition,” Obama said during a White House news conference.

Obama announced no speeding up of the NATO-backed plan to end combat missions in Afghanistan at the end of 2014, saying “that continues to be the plan.” But he said the violence aimed at Americans in Afghanistan that followed the accidental burning of Qurans on a US base was “unacceptable.”

Six Americans were killed in retaliatory violence. Obama offered his apologies to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a move that was roundly criticized by his Republican presidential rivals as weak and unnecessary.

From Congress, Obama was getting tugged from another direction. A letter calling for Obama to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan had the backing of 23 senators, mostly Democrats but including two conservative Republicans, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who circulated the letter with Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement that there “something fundamentally wrong with spending $88 billion for national building in Afghanistan while we’re asking Americans to make tough cuts here at home.”

…

Addressing another international crisis in Syria, Obama said the violence there was “heartbreaking” but he showed no new willingness for military involvement in that Mideast country.

Obama said unilateral military action by the United States against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad would be a mistake. And he rejected a comparison to Libya, where the United States and allies did intervene last year, saying the situation in Syria is more complex. … Assad’s military is better equipped and more powerful than the Libyan force.

…

[Read entire story]

Senator Barbara Boxer: End Afghanistan War

peacepundit — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:10:10 +0000

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

Eight Afghan Teenagers Killed in NATO Airstrike

peacepundit — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:01:33 +0000

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]

Truth, Lies and Afghanistan

peacepundit — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:33:06 +0000

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]

Drone Strikes are Error-Prone

peacepundit — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:06:12 +0000

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

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.]

Cut the Military Budget; Support the People’s Budget

peacepundit — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:24 +0000

The US Congressional “supercommittee” charged to produce a workable federal budget deadlocked, as many predicted it would. The supercommitee’s failure means that large automatic across-the-board budget cuts to all US government programs and departments, including the military, will be triggered in 2013 unless Congress somehow pulls an agreeable compromise budget out of a hat in 2012. But Congress already showed that it cannot pass a budget. That’s why it instead created the supercommittee, with the threat of automatic budget cuts — called “sequestration” — as a backup plan. Well, the backup plan is now in effect, and we all get to watch the sequestration train as it approaches the budget schoolbus stuck on the tracks.

How is the Pentagon, facing the possibility of an automatic $500 billion reduction in its budget, reacting? “Panic” is the best word to describe it. Some analysts have called the looming automatic budget cuts the “Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare“. Sharing the Pentagon’s nightmare are the many defense contractors who profit from excessive military spending: no one wants their weapons program to be cut, whether the country actually needs it or not.

Threats and fear mongering are the tactics that the Pentagon and its money-guzzling suppliers are using to tilt public opinion away from deep military budget cuts.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (formerly CIA Director) calls large cuts to the military budget “completely unacceptable to me” and has vowed to “fight to make sure that hopefully some common sense prevails”.

However, what common sense dictates is that the US military budget be cut, soon, drastically, and permanently. Even the New York Times argues for reducing the military budget drastically.

Contrary to what the fear-mongers argue, cutting the military budget will not put US troops at risk, because their mission will be drastically reduced. They will actually be safer than they now are because they will be brought home in large numbers — home from fruitless and counterproductive wars, and home from unnecessary, imperialistic overseas bases. Fewer troops will die, fewer will be wounded, and fewer will suffer psychological trauma.

Military leaders such as Panetta and his generals have no say in the matter. Contrary to what Panetta may say, the leaders of the US military, including him and others in the Pentagon, are not policymakers. They only carry out policies. They don’t get to decide when and where the US wages war or establishes and maintains bases. Congress and the President decide that. The military’s role is simply to carry out policies and military campaigns that they are directed to carry out.

If we ask them to do a lot, they need a big budget to do it. If we don’t ask them to do much, then a small budget is enough. Our national goal should be to rely on the military as little as possible.

Finally, military contractors — companies that supply arms, equipment, and services to the military — have no legitimate standing whatsoever in policy discussions. They have a vested interest in huge military budgets and in having the US wage perpetual war on much of the rest of the world. Their judgement is heavily biased, rendering their advice unreliable.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has produced a “People’s Budget” that resolves all of the issues that the Congressional Supercommittee was supposed to resolve. It cuts the military budget and redirects the savings toward domestic needs. It is supported by many leading political figures and economists. Former President Bill Clinton called it “The most comprehensive alternative to the budgets passed by the House Republicans and recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission”.

Similarly, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, together with the National Priorities Project, produced a report on how the US can have a sustainable defensive (not offensive) program at an affordable cost: “Debts, Deficits, and Defense: A Way Forward“.

If we can convince policymakers that The People’s Budget and the FCNL/NPP report have broad support, provisions from them could be included in whatever budget compromise Congress hammers out, even if they don’t adopt them in full.

Here are five things you can do in 2012 to support reducing the military budget:

Read the FCNL/NPP report: “ Debts, Deficits, and Defense: A Way Forward“
Read the “People’s Budget (summary)” [or the complete budget document (PDF)]
Voice your preference for the “People’s Budget” in an online poll
Write your Sentators and congressional representatives, urging them to support the People’s Budget and the FCNL/NPP report
Write letters to the editor of your local paper, supporting the People’s Budget and the FCNL/NPP report

SF Supervisors Pass Resolution to Bring War-Dollars Home

peacepundit — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:25:54 +0000

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

peacepundit — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:40:56 +0000

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.

SF Supes Consider Resolution to Bring War Dollars Home

peacepundit — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:41:25 +0000

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.

Peace Pundit

Questions and Answers about the Afghanistan War

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Obama: Time to wind down Afghanistan War?

Obama: Time has come to wind down Afghan war

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Senator Barbara Boxer: End Afghanistan War

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Eight Afghan Teenagers Killed in NATO Airstrike

NATO regrets air strike killed 8 Afghan civilians

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Truth, Lies and Afghanistan

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Drone Strikes are Error-Prone

US Deaths in Drone Strike Due to Miscommunication, Report Says

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Cut the Military Budget; Support the People’s Budget

Related PeacePundit Posts

SF Supervisors Pass Resolution to Bring War-Dollars Home

Call Your Senators: Support Merkley Amendment to End Afghanistan War

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts

SF Supes Consider Resolution to Bring War Dollars Home

Related Previous Peace Pundit Posts