According to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, U.S. and Allied forces have killed and injured more civilians than have the insurgents during Operation Moshtarak. Incredibly, the Pentagon continues to insist that this operation "protects the people." AIHRC's Feb. 23 press release reports [h/t Josh Mull, our new Afghanistan blog fellow]:
"AIHRC is concerned at the loss of life and civilian harm already caused by this operation. AIHRC found that in the first 12 days of Operation Mushtarak 28 civilians, including 13 children, were killed and approximately 70 civilians, including 30 children, were injured.
"Witnesses suggested the majority of the casualties were caused by PGF artillery and rocket-fire."
Late last year, just after the President announced his escalation, I wrote:
The president’s decision to add more troops is a mistake that will result in deep costs which we cannot afford; increased U.S. casualties; and increased civilian casualties as our troop increase further raises the temperature in the conflict.
“In terms of raw violence, the situation is at a historic worst level, with early 2010 levels of various types of attacks much higher than even last year at this time. Much of that is due to the recent Marja campaign and, more generally, the deployment of additional U.S. (and Afghan) troops to parts of the country where they have not been present before.”
War does not protect civilians. War doesn't make us safer. The Afghanistan war needs to end, now.
I keep running into decent liberals who are great on every issue and who still hate Bush and Cheney for attacking Iraq but who almost blindly defend the Pentagon/Obama war agenda in Afghanistan. They’re making a big mistake on many levels. The only outcome in Afghanistan, short of utterly destroying it– something not even the Soviets seriously contemplated– is leaving that hellhole to work out– or not– its own prehistoric problems. Here in the U.S., Afghan policy is destined to wreck Obama’s presidency and help turn that which so recently looked so promising into a runner-up with Bush as the worst presidency in American history. And, as with all wars, the mass media is the cheering squad.
In a condescending article in today’s Washington Post, Perry Bacon dismisses an attempt to make Congress live up to its constitutional obligations in regard to war as “venting.” Isn’t that funny and snarky? I bet Perry Bacon doesn’t have a relative on duty or shipping out to the great metropolis of Marja– a scattered collection of rural mud-baked family compounds far from any real roads and as far as you can get from the 21st Century on this planet (unless you count the modern weapons). “Liberals in the House,” he writes with contempt, “who have spent much of the past year complaining that other congressional Democrats and the White House are insufficiently progressive, will get a chance this week to vent about one of their biggest concerns: the war in Afghanistan.” I wonder if Bacon is aware that the move to bring Afghan policy under constitutional purview is a bipartisan goal and that some very unlikely Republicans– so beyond Ron Paul– are as disturbed by the pointless and bloody occupation of Afghanistan as are the progressives he loathes. I doubt it. More likely he’s tuned into the same cookie cutter Establishment Republicans Beltway journalists always count as “serious.” Like the clownish Miami Republican who serves as the GOP’s ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, whose response to the debate is summarized in a talking points memo she sent out to her fellow Republicans this week:
That’s what passes for “serious” to the Villagers, who are already denigrating the debate Kucinich and 16 co-sponsors are forcing on House leadership tomorrow. They’re demanding Congress pass a law that would bring all U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by the end of the year. Hoyer and Pelosi have grudgingly granted them 3 hours of debate.
The resolution will invoke the 1973 War Powers Act, which Congress passed in protest of the escalation of the Vietnam War by a series of presidents without formal congressional authorization. It requires congressional approval for a president to put troops in a military conflict for more than 90 days. Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan in 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, and some congressional scholars doubt Congress can invoke the act now to force changes to President Obama’s war policy.
Whether or not it would have any legal force if enacted, the resolution has almost no chance of being approved in the House, where nearly all Republicans and many Democrats support maintaining or increasing troop levels.
…”We haven’t had a real debate,” Kucinich said in explaining why he was pushing the resolution. “We want to light the fire of the American peace movement.” (And, he added, “get out of there!”)
Democratic leaders support bringing the measure to a vote to give antiwar lawmakers an opportunity to register their frustration with Obama’s decision to increase troop levels by 30,000 before Congress approves the funding for the surge.
The administration has requested $33 billion to boost the U.S. force in Afghanistan from about 70,000 to 100,000, a request that could be debated and approved by Congress as soon as next month. A $96.7 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drew 60 “no” votes in the House last year, 51 of them from Democrats.
“There are many members in the caucus who are eager to have a vote soon on Afghanistan,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said when Kucinich proposed the measure. “This may satisfy that need.”
The vote will be a measure of the depth of opposition to Obama’s war policy, because it is not tied to troop funding, which lawmakers in both parties are loath to vote against.
Reading deeper into Ros-Lehtinen’s instructions for Republican “talkers,” one has to wonder if someone in the White House didn’t help her get them together!
• It is rarely a good strategy to advise retreat during a war, but it is strange indeed to do so when the war is being won.
• The new strategy in Afghanistan being implemented by General McChrystal is already producing dramatic successes, including the capture of key Taliban leaders, the routing of Taliban forces, and the liberation of key areas of the country.
• A winning strategy should be supported, not undermined.
• This resolution is an effort to snatch a shameful defeat from the hard-won jaws of victory. In recent months, working with the Government of Pakistan, U.S. and NATO efforts have helped lead to:
• the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second in command of the Taliban and the director of the Taliban council; • the capture of Maulvi Abdul Kabir, the leader of the Taliban’s Peshawar Regional Military Council; • the capture of Mullah Abdul Salam, the Taliban shadow governor of Kunduz; • the killing of Mullah Mir Mohammed, the Taliban shadow governor of Baghlan province; • the capture of Mohammed Younis, the former Taliban shadow governor of Zabul province; • the killing of Maulvi Faqir Mohammed, a top Pakistani Taliban commander; • the capture of Agha Jan Mohtasim, the former Finance Minister during the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the son-in-law of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar; and • the reported killing of Baitullah Mehsud, a senior Pakistani Taliban leader.
• This resolution would provide the Taliban leaders and fighters with a shield against U.S. forces they otherwise cannot stop.
• This legislatively mandated retreat would dramatically undermine the safety of the American people because the revived Taliban would quickly turn Afghanistan into a protected base of operations for al Qaeda and other enemies of the United States.
• In their hiding places in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban leaders and fighters are closely following our debates here even as they plan their next assaults on us and our forces.
• They are strengthened and encouraged by every word spoken in favor of this resolution.
• Anything less than absolute repudiation of this resolution will provide aid and comfort to the Taliban.
• This House would far better serve the American people by focusing its energy and attention on reviving the economy, creating jobs, cutting the deficit, and strengthening our defenses against attack than to undermine the security of our nations through resolutions such as this one.
I wonder how Ros-Lehtinen and her zombie squad of “talkers” would answer this ad from a veterans’ group pointing out the relationship between the energy policies she supports and the war policies she supports:
And who are the Members of Congress trying to end this war– for real? Well, there were 32 courageous Democrats who voted against Obama’s supplemental war funding last June. And these are the members who immediately signed on to Kucinich’s resolution that will be debated tomorrow: John Conyers (D-MI); Ron Paul (R-TX); José Serrano (D-NY); Bob Filner (D-CA); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Danny Davis (D-IL); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Timothy Johnson (R-IL); Yvette Clarke (D-NY); Eric Massa (D-NY); Alan Grayson (D-FL); and Chellie Pingree (D-ME). Eric Massa will be sorely missed from this debate.
(IPS) -
WASHINGTON, Mar 8, 2010 (IPS) – For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a “city of 80,000 people” as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marja was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centres in Helmand.
It turns out, however, that the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict.
Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers’ homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.
“It’s not urban at all,” an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted to IPS Sunday. He called Marja a “rural community”.
“It’s a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds,” said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.
Richard B. Scott, who worked in Marja as an adviser on irrigation for the U.S. Agency for International Development as recently as 2005, agrees that Marja has nothing that could be mistaken as being urban. It is an “agricultural district” with a “scattered series of farmers’ markets,” Scott told IPS in a telephone interview.
According to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, U.S. and Allied forces have killed and injured more civilians than have the insurgents during Operation Moshtarak. Incredibly, the Pentagon continues to insist that this operation “protects the people.” AIHRC’s Feb. 23 press release reports:
“AIHRC is concerned at the loss of life and civilian harm already caused by this operation. AIHRC found that in the first 12 days of Operation Mushtarak 28 civilians, including 13 children, were killed and approximately 70 civilians, including 30 children, were injured.
“Witnesses suggested the majority of the casualties were caused by PGF artillery and rocket-fire.”
Late last year, just after the President announced his escalation, I wrote:
The president’s decision to add more troops is a mistake that will result in deep costs which we cannot afford; increased U.S. casualties; and increased civilian casualties as our troop increase further raises the temperature in the conflict.
“In terms of raw violence, the situation is at a historic worst level, with early 2010 levels of various types of attacks much higher than even last year at this time. Much of that is due to the recent Marja campaign and, more generally, the deployment of additional U.S. (and Afghan) troops to parts of the country where they have not been present before.”
War does not protect civilians. War doesn’t make us safer. The Afghanistan war needs to end, now.
For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a “city of 80,000 people” as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marja was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centres in Helmand.
It turns out, however, that the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict. ~ Gareth Porter
They are a secret tribal militia, the controversial creation of US commanders in Afghanistan eager to buttress local opposition to the Taliban. So clandestine are the units formed to protect villages in a critical valley in southern Afghanistan that US officials and special forces commanders in Kabul refuse to discuss them.
But the Guardian has learned that in one important regard, the Local Defence Initiative forces are not so secretive after all. As they patrol villages close to the key southern city of Kandahar, the fighters are being forced to wear bright yellow reflector belts so that their special forces mentors do not mistake them for Taliban.
please check comments for updates and related articles
In Baghdad, mortar rounds mark Iraq election day
Dozens of mortar rounds thudded across Baghdad on Sunday morning and at least 12 people were killed as Iraqis went to the polls in an election testing the stability of the country’s still-fragile democracy.
Insurgents had vowed to disrupt the elections — which they see as validating the Shiite-led government and the U.S. presence — with violence in order to increase uncertainty over a looming U.S. troop drawdown and widen still jagged sectarian divisions.
As the polls opened at 7 a.m., bombs began exploding and mortar rounds landing across the city.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad travels to neighboring Afghanistan on Monday for talks with his counterpart Hamid Karzai, an Iranian news agency reported on Sunday.
The semi-official Mehr news agency said the one-day trip to Kabul would be Ahmadinejad’s first visit to Afghanistan since both he and Karzai were re-elected last year.
Karzai had invited Ahmadinejad and the visit was aimed at expanding bilateral ties, Mehr added. They would also discuss “solutions for settling the problems” in Afghanistan.
Thank you for calling your Representative urging them to support the Kucinich resolution for a withdrawal timetable from Afghanistan, H. Con Res. 248.
Let us know how your call went by submitting a comment below. Sharing your Representative’s name, whether you were successful in reaching their office, and any feedback you received from staffers would be especially helpful.
In Baghdad, mortar rounds mark Iraq election day
Dozens of mortar rounds thudded across Baghdad on Sunday morning and at least 12 people were killed as Iraqis went to the polls in an election testing the stability of the country’s still-fragile democracy.
Insurgents had vowed to disrupt the elections — which they see as validating the Shiite-led government and the U.S. presence — with violence in order to increase uncertainty over a looming U.S. troop drawdown and widen still jagged sectarian divisions.
As the polls opened at 7 a.m., bombs began exploding and mortar rounds landing across the city.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad travels to neighboring Afghanistan on Monday for talks with his counterpart Hamid Karzai, an Iranian news agency reported on Sunday.
The semi-official Mehr news agency said the one-day trip to Kabul would be Ahmadinejad’s first visit to Afghanistan since both he and Karzai were re-elected last year.
Karzai had invited Ahmadinejad and the visit was aimed at expanding bilateral ties, Mehr added. They would also discuss “solutions for settling the problems” in Afghanistan.
We’ve been having a tough time finding even very progressive candidates willing to think for themselves on Afghanistan and not just go along with Obama and the Pentagon. Bill Hedrick, as you can see from the above video, is not one of those. Maybe it’s because so many of his children are or have been serving in the military overseas, but Bill has a very clear vision of America’s role in Afghanistan– and it sure isn’t as an occupier or as a nation-builder. We’ll talk with Bill about that at Crooks and Liars today at 11am (PT) when Blue America formally endorses him in his race for the congressional seat currently held by one of the most corrupt men– according to, of all sources, Fox News– in the U.S. Congress, Ken Calvert.
Bill Hedrick has been a public school teacher in Riverside County, California for 35 years. And his wife is a public school teacher too. Bill is also serving his 5th term as president of the Corona-Norco School Board, one of the biggest in the state, responsible for over 50,000 children. In 2008 he stepped up and ran against Calvert. But a school teacher running against an entrenched favorite of Wall Street? The DCCC had no interest in helping– and they didn’t. Outspent 5-1, Bill ran an effective grassroots campaign and came closer to dislodging a Republican incumbent than any other Democrat in the country who didn’t actually do it. Bill spent $191,461 and Calvert spent $1,150,432. Bill received 123,890 votes and Calvert edged him with 129,937.
This year is different… kind of. Sensing a winner, the DCCC has given Bill their blessing– but not much else– any certainly no money. So for Bill it’s all about volunteers and grassroots tactics again. But that makes sense for someone with deep roots in the community anyway. He told me that the big issue in CA-44, a Republican-leaning district that Obama won in 2008, is jobs and that almost all the other issues flow from that overarching one. Sometime he seems frustrated that the Democratic Party, Inc in Washington isn’t getting it when it comes to the pain real people are feeling in the heartland.
The national Democratic Party needs to focus more on stimulus that supports small business recovery and job creation. In a region like this small businesses are the economic engines of recovery and job growth. The big banks aren’t lending. I think the president is moving in the right direction but what we need is an infusion of money for community banks with an obligation that they will make loans to small, local businesses. Calvert voted for Bush’s massive Wall Street bailout twice, a bailout with no accountability. I opposed that last time and, believe it or not, found some commonality– on that– with the Ron Paul folks who were also opposed.
Calvert has also been a big supporter of so-called “free trade,” which is not how I see the economic future of this country and is exceedingly unpopular in this district. We’ve been hemorrhaging jobs. This district used to be a manufacturing area– steel, light industry… but no more. NAFTA and policies like that sent the jobs overseas and those jobs never came back. Many in the Tea Party movement out here have stopped talking about all that anti-immigrant stuff and started focusing on the real problem: the old fashioned extreme greed that maximizes profits no matter what the cost to everyone else. People are starting to wake up to the fact that companies that became successful in America and because of America have been off-shoring jobs and have no loyalty to our country, our workers or our interests.
Calvert always claims to be an “independent voice for Riverside County;” it’s baloney. He never differs from his party. I will do what’s best for my constituents even if it’s at odds with party policy. We need an emphasis on community banks, not Wall Street. We need job creation here and we seem to be stuck in policies that create jobs in China. We need policies that encourage manufacturing in the United States.
That’s why Blue America is so enthusiastic about Bill’s campaign. No one has to twist his arm to do the right thing. He decided to get into national politics because he sees the need to do the right thing. He’s like the polar opposite of a Blue Dog. He has every intention of joining the Congressional Progressive Caucus and when he talks about being at odds with his party, it isn’t because their policies aren’t conservative and special interest-oriented enough; it’s because they’re too conservative and too oriented towards special interests. Bill has been and continues to be a man who analyzes the problems this country is facing through the eyes of everyday American working families, not through the eyes of the political and business elites that run both parties in DC. We need more Democrats like Bill Hedrick. Please consider contributing to his campaign, volunteering here and getting the real story on Ken Calvert (and by all means examine the official police report on his arrest for lewd conduct with a prostitute in a public park). In fact, if you have some time, here’s the Fox News special on corruption in Congress, well worth watching beginning to end. Calvert’s astounding section begins at around 25 minutes in.
A new report from the New America Foundation states that one of every three people killed in the U.S.'s not-so-secret drone war in Pakistan is a civilian. The report also discloses that none of the strikes in 2009 targeted Bin Laden, and that they have had little impact on the Taliban's ability to plan operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To the contrary, the drone strikes serve as a powerful recruiting tool for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Our study shows that the 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to the present have killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, of whom around 550 to 850 were described as militants in reliable press accounts, about two-thirds of the total on average. Thus, the true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 percent.
The authors note that the rapidly escalating use of drones by the Obama Administration far exceeds the rate of use by the Bush Administration, with 2009's 51 strikes exceeding the total number of strikes under the entire Bush Administration.
The report is worth excerpting at length regarding the effect of drone strikes on al Qaeda and the Taliban. In short, they're not working:
None of the reported strikes has appeared to target America’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.
…[T]he U.S. drone strikes don’t seem to have had any great effect on the Taliban’s ability to mount operations in Pakistan or Afghanistan or to deter potential Western recruits, and they no longer have the element of surprise.
…After around 18 months of sustained drone strikes, many of Pakistan’s militants have likely moved out of their once safe haven in the FATA and into less dangerous parts of the country, potentially further destabilizing the already rickety state.
…[A]lthough the drone strikes have disrupted militant operations, their unpopularity with the Pakistani public and their value as a recruiting tool for extremist groups may have ultimately increased the appeal of the Taliban and al Qaeda, undermining the Pakistani state. This is more disturbing than almost anything that could happen in Afghanistan, given that Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons and about six times the population.
Incredibly, after this litany of negatives, the report's authors conclude that drone strikes are "a critical tool." Their conclusion doesn't seem to follow from their premises. What they seem to mean instead is that "we're all out of other ideas."
I’ve been astounded at the number of otherwise thoroughly progressive Democratic candidates who seem to be telling me something to the effect of “well, I do want peace and Bush and Cheney were assholes and Iraq was terrible but let’s leave it to Obama to figure out how to get us out of Afghanistan.” Fortunately, not all Democrats running for Congress have that mentality. It’s refreshing to hear House candidates Marcy Winograd (D-CA), Regina Thomas (D-FL) and Bill Hedrick (D-CA) and Senate contenders Jennifer Brunner (D-OH) and Elaine Marshall (D-NC) as eager to hold Obama’s feet to the fire as they would be Bush’s and Cheney’s; maybe not as eager but definitely as willing.
And as I’ve mentioned many times before, there were 32 courageous Democrats who voted against Obama’s shameful supplemental war appropriations bill last June. Yesterday one of those courageous Democrats, Cleveland’s Dennis Kucinich, introduced H.Con.Res. 248, a privileged resolution that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Next Wednesday, March 11th will probably be the day this is debated. So far there are 16 co-sponsores: John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Ron Paul (R-TX); José Serrano (D-NY); Bob Filner (D-CA); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Danny Davis (D-IL); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Timothy Johnson (R-IL); Yvette Clarke (D-NY); Eric Massa (D-NY); Alan Grayson (D-FL); and Chellie Pingree (D-ME).
This is what Dennis said yesterday on the House floor when he introduced the resolution:
“There is a new way to fight war in Afghanistan. U.S. Commanders are publicly telling the Taliban when we are coming and where we are going to wage war. This while Karzai tries to cut a deal with the Taliban!
“Meanwhile a large offensive is being mounted– an assault on Kandahar. The U.S. is going to have 100,000 troops ready for a big battle by autumn and logistical problems abound. Here is a quote from the February 20th National Journal, “So, despite the immense effort to push out supplies, the front-line fighters sometimes don’t even have the minimum they need. ‘We had guys out there at outposts in my area of operations starving because we couldn’t get resupply in to them,’” said one Major.
“What is this all about? To strengthen corrupt central government officials building villas in Dubai? I am introducing a privileged resolution to get us out of Afghanistan and I urge your support,” Kucinich added.
And, as I said, not all Democratic candidates for Congress have been snowed by Obama and the Pentagon. President Obama needs to start thinking about what he’s going to do when this sort of thing starts happening– as it inevitably will– here in the U.S. Marcy Winograd is running against one of the worst of the corporate war-mongers, Jane Harman. Marcy has never wavered, regardless of which party controlled the White House:
I support Congressman Kucinich’s resolution to force debate on the war and carnage in Afghanistan. Why are we still there? To prop up a permanent war economy here? Now is the time to transition to a new Green economy, to forsake weapons manufacturing for infrastructure repair in America. In order to realign our priorities, to make security at home a top concern, we need our congress to lead the way out of Afghanistan. When elected, I am prepared to do that.
As Robert Naiman wrote yesterday at Just Foreign Policy, “The Pentagon doesn’t want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.”
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging fire.
So it’s a great thing that Rep. Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress would be urged by their constituents to support Kucinich’s resolution. That would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
CREDITS Director: Robert Greenwald - Executive Director: Jim Miller - Producer: Jason Zaro - Associate Producer: Dallas Dunn, Jonathan Kim, and Kim Huynh - Researcher: Greg Wishnev - Editor: Phillip Cruess - Political Director: Leighton Woodhouse - VP Marketing & Distribution: Laura Beatty - Production Assistant: Monique Hairston
LEGAL Anyone is allowed to post content on this site, but Brave New Foundation 501(c)(3) is not responsible for that content. We will, however, remove anything unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, racist, or that contains other material that would violate the law. By posting you agree to this.
Brave New Foundation | 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
