Get Rethink Afghanistan Updates
Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter Get E-Mail Updates
Join Us on Facebook

Vote tomorrow: call to end the war in Afghanistan

Posted by Peace Action West on May 16th, 2012

From our partners at Peace Action West

Congress will vote on the Afghanistan war as soon as tomorrow. This will likely be our biggest chance to push for the war’s end this year. These votes come on the heels of President Obama’s announcement of a plan that could keep troops on the ground for the next twelve years. Congress needs to hear from you now.

Thank you to all of you who sent emails last week. Now, I’m asking you to join groups around the country in a national call-in day.

Call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask for your representative’s office. When you’re connected, use this sample message as a guide and add your own words:

My name is [your name] and I live at [your address]. I oppose keeping US troops in Afghanistan for another 12 years. I strongly encourage [your representative's name]  to vote for amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act to speed up military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Then, click here to tell me how your call went.

Thank you for raising your voice.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Pakistan ‘to move on’ over NATO supply routes

Posted by The Agonist on May 14th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

Sajjad Tarakzai | Islamabad | May 14

AFP – Pakistan said Monday it was time to “move on” and repair ties with the United States and NATO, the strongest sign yet that it may reopen supply routes into Afghanistan closed for nearly six months.

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar made the remarks a day before Pakistani leaders are to discuss ending the blockade, and thereby cave in to a key demand from the West in time to attend a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.

Islamabad shut its Afghan border to NATO supplies after US air strikes killed 24 soldiers on November 26, provoking a major crisis in Pakistani-US relations on top of the outcry from the raid that killed Osama bin Laden the previous May.

“It was important to make a point, Pakistan has made a point and we now need to move on and go into a positive zone and try to conduct our relations,” Pakistan’s foreign minister told a news conference.

“We are trying to put this relationship, you know, in a positive zone and I am quite sure that we will be successful in doing so.”

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Tom Engelhardt: Predator Nation

Posted by Tom Engelhardt on May 14th, 2012

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

America as a Shining Drone Upon a Hill
On Staring Death in the Face and Not Noticing

By Tom Engelhardt

Here’s the essence of it: you can trust America’s crème de la crème, the most elevated, responsible people, no matter what weapons, what powers, you put in their hands. No need to constantly look over their shoulders.

Placed in the hands of evildoers, those weapons and powers could create a living nightmare; controlled by the best of people, they lead to measured, thoughtful, precise decisions in which bad things are (with rare and understandable exceptions) done only to truly terrible types. In the process, you simply couldn’t be better protected.

And in case you were wondering, there is no question who among us are the best, most lawful, moral, ethical, considerate, and judicious people: the officials of our national security state. Trust them implicitly. They will never give you a bum steer.

You may be paying a fortune to maintain their world — the 30,000 people hired to listen in on conversations and other communications in this country, the 230,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security, the 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, the 4.2 million with security clearances of one sort or another, the $2 billion, one-million-square-foot data center that the National Security Agency is constructing in Utah, the gigantic $1.8 billion headquarters the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency recently built for its 16,000 employees in the Washington area — but there’s a good reason. That’s what’s needed to make truly elevated, surgically precise decisions about life and death in the service of protecting American interests on this dangerous globe of ours.

And in case you wondered just how we know all this, we have it on the best authority: the people who are doing it — the only ones, given the obvious need for secrecy, capable of judging just how moral, elevated, and remarkable their own work is. They deserve our congratulations, but if we’re too distracted to give it to them, they are quite capable of high-fiving themselves.

We’re talking, in particular, about the use by the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) of a growing armada of remotely piloted planes, a.k.a. drones, grimly labeled Predators and Reapers, to fight a nameless, almost planet-wide war (formerly known as the Global War on Terror). Its purpose: to destroy al-Qaeda-in-wherever and all its wannabes and look-alikes, the Taliban, and anyone affiliated or associated with any of the above, or just about anyone else we believe might imminently endanger our “interests.”

In the service of this war, in the midst of a perpetual state of war and of wartime, every act committed by these leaders is, it turns out, absolutely, totally, and completely legal. We have their say-so for that, and they have the documents to prove it, largely because the best and most elevated legal minds among them have produced that documentation in secret. (Of course, they dare not show it to the rest of us, lest lives be endangered.)

By their own account, they have, in fact, been covertly exceptional, moral, and legal for more than a decade (minus, of course, the odd black site and torture chamber) — so covertly exceptional, in fact, that they haven’t quite gotten the credit they deserve. Now, they would like to make the latest version of their exceptional mission to the world known to the rest of us. It is finally in our interest, it seems, to be a good deal better informed about America’s covert wars in a year in which the widely announced “covert” killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is a major selling point in the president’s reelection campaign.

No one should be surprised. There was always an “overt” lurking in the “covert” of what now passes for “covert war.” The CIA’s global drone assassination campaign has long been a bragging point in Washington, even if it couldn’t officially be discussed directly before, say, Congress. The covertness of our drone wars in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere really turns out to have less to do with secrecy — just about every covert drone strike is reported, sooner or later, in the media — than assuring two administrations that they could pursue their drone wars without accountability to anyone.

A Classic of Self-Congratulation

Recently, top administration officials seem to be fanning out to offer rare peeks into what’s truly on-target and exceptional about America’s drone wars. In many ways, these days, American exceptionalism is about as unexceptional as apple pie. It has, for one thing, become the everyday language of the presidential campaign trail. And that shouldn’t surprise us either. After all, great powers and their leaders tend to think well of themselves. The French had their “mission civilisatrice,” the Chinese had the “mandate of heaven,” and like all imperial powers they inevitably thought they were doing the best for themselves and others, sadly benighted, in this best of all possible worlds.

Sometimes, though, the American version of this does seem… I hate to use the word, but exceptional. If you want to get a taste of just what this means, consider as Exhibit One a recent speech by the president’s counterterrorism “tsar,” John Brennan, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. According to his own account, he was dispatched to the center by President Obama to provide greater openness when it comes to the administration’s secret drone wars, to respond to critics of the drones and their legality, and undoubtedly to put a smiley face on drone operations generally.

Ever since the Puritan minister John Winthrop first used the phrase in a sermon on shipboard on the way to North America, “a city upon a hill” has caught something of at least one American-style dream — a sense that this country’s fate was to be a blessed paragon for the rest of the world, an exception to every norm. In the last century, it became “a shining city upon a hill” and was regularly cited in presidential addresses.

Whatever that “city,” that dream, was once imagined to be, it has undergone a largely unnoticed metamorphosis in the twenty-first century. It has become — even in our dreams — an up-armored garrison encampment, just as Washington itself has become the heavily fortified bureaucratic heartland of a war state. So when Brennan spoke, what he offered was a new version of American exceptionalism: the first “shining drone upon a hill” speech, which also qualifies as an instant classic of self-congratulation.

Never, according to him, has a country with such an advanced weapon system as the drone used it quite so judiciously, quite so — if not peacefully — at least with the sagacity and skill usually reserved for the gods. American drone strikes, he assured his listeners, are “ethical and just,” “wise,” and “surgically precise” — exactly what you’d expect from a country he refers to, quoting the president, as the preeminent “standard bearer in the conduct of war.”

Those drone strikes, he assured his listeners, are based on staggeringly “rigorous standards” involving the individual identification of human targets. Even when visited on American citizens outside declared war zones, they are invariably “within the bounds of the law,” as you would expect of the preeminent “nation of laws.”

The strikes are never motivated by vengeance, always target someone known to us as the worst of the worst, and almost invariably avoid anyone who is even the most mediocre of the mediocre. (Forget the fact that, as Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported, the CIA has recently received permission from the president to launch drone strikes in Yemen based only on the observed “patterns of suspicious behavior” of groups of unidentified individuals, as was already true in the Pakistani tribal borderlands.)

Yes, in such circumstances innocents do unfortunately die, even if unbelievably rarely — and for that we couldn’t be more regretful. Such deaths, however, are in some sense salutary, since they lead to the most rigorous reviews and reassessments of, and so improvements in, our actions. “This too,” Brennan assured his audience, “is a reflection of our values as Americans.”

“I would note,” he added, “that these standards, for identifying a target and avoiding… the loss of lives of innocent civilians, exceed what is required as a matter of international law on a typical battlefield. That’s another example of the high standards to which we hold ourselves.”

And that’s just a taste of the tone and substance of the speech given by the president’s leading counterterrorism expert, and in it he’s no outlier. It catches something about an American sense of self at this moment. Yes, Americans may be ever more down on the Afghan war, but like their leaders, they are high on drones. In a February Washington Post/ABC News poll, 83% of respondents supported the administration’s use of drones. Perhaps that’s not surprising either, since the drones are generally presented here as the coolest of machines, as well as cheap alternatives (in money and lives) to sending more armies onto the Eurasian mainland.

Predator Nation

In these last years, this country has pioneered the development of the most advanced killing machines on the planet for which the national security state has plans decades into the future. Conceptually speaking, our leaders have also established their “right” to send these robot assassins into any airspace, no matter the local claims of national sovereignty, to take out those we define as evil or simply to protect American interests. On this, Brennan couldn’t be clearer. In the process, we have turned much of the rest of the planet into what can only be considered an American free-fire zone.

We have, in short, established a remarkably expansive set of drone-war rules for the global future. Naturally, we trust ourselves with such rules, but there is a fly in the ointment, even as the droniacs see it. Others far less sagacious, kindly, lawful, and good than we are do exist on this planet and they may soon have their own fleets of drones. About 50 countries are today buying or developing such robotic aircraft, including Russia, China, and Iran, not to speak of Hezbollah in Lebanon. And who knows what terror groups are looking into suicide drones?

As the Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it in a column about Brennan’s speech: “What if the Chinese deployed drones to protect their workers in southern Sudan against rebels who have killed them in past attacks? What if Iran used them against Kurdish separatists they regard as terrorists? What if Russia used them over Chechnya? What position would the United States take, and wouldn’t it be hypocritical if it opposed drone attacks by other nations that face ‘imminent’ or ‘significant’ threats?”

This is Washington’s global drone conundrum as seen from inside the Beltway. These are the nightmarish scenarios even our leaders can imagine others producing with their own drones and our rules. A deeply embedded sense of American exceptionalism, a powerful belief in their own special, self-evident goodness, however, conveniently blinds them to what they are doing right now. Looking in the mirror, they are incapable of seeing a mask of death. And yet our proudest export at present, other than Hollywood superhero films, may be a stone-cold robotic killer with a name straight out of a horror movie.

Consider this as well: those “shining drones” launched on campaigns of assassination and slaughter are increasingly the “face” that we choose to present to the world. And yet it’s beyond us why it might not shine for others.

In reality, it’s not so hard to imagine what we increasingly look like to those others: a Predator nation. And not just to the parents and relatives of the more than 160 children the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented as having died in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. After all, war is now the only game in town. Peace? For the managers of our national security state, it’s neither a word worth mentioning, nor an imaginable condition.

In truth, our leaders should be in mourning for whatever peaceful dreams we ever had. But mention drones and they light up. They’re having a love affair with those machines. They just can’t get enough of them or imagine their world or ours without them.

What they can’t see in the haze of exceptional self-congratulation is this: they are transforming the promise of America into a promise of death. And death, visited from the skies, isn’t precise. It isn’t glorious. It isn’t judicious. It certainly isn’t a shining vision. It’s hell. And it’s a global future for which, someday, no one will thank us.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s as well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Afghan peace negotiator Arsala Rahmani shot dead

Posted by The Agonist on May 13th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

Kabul | May 13

BBC – A senior Afghan peace negotiator has been shot dead in Kabul, officials say.

Arsala Rahmani was a former Taliban minister and a key member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, which leads Afghan efforts to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban.

Correspondents say his death is a major blow to President Hamid Karzai as Mr Rahmani was a key figure in reaching out to Taliban commanders.

Last year the chief of the peace council was killed in a suicide attack.

[...]

Police say that Mr Rahmani was shot dead on Sunday morning by an unidentified gunman while on his way to work in western Kabul, in what was described as a carefully planned attack.

Gunmen driving a white Toyota Corolla fired a single bullet using a silencer, the BBC’s Bilal Sarwary in Kabul reports.

“Mr Rahmani was shot in his heart and died instantly. His nephew, who was also his driver, didn’t even realise he had been shot,” Kabul police chief Gen Ayub Salangi told the BBC.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

12 more years?

Posted by Peace Action West on May 11th, 2012

From our partners at Peace Action West

Will our troops in Afghanistan see their children serve there 23 years after the war began?

Last week, President Obama announced an agreement with the Afghan government that could mean thousands of troops on the ground until 2024.

Congress must tell the president that twelve more years is twelve too many. Tell your representative to vote for a swift end to the war in Afghanistan.

The House will vote on amendments calling for a quicker end to the war in Afghanistan next week. This is Congress’s chance to send a message to NATO countries gathering this month in Chicago to talk about commitments to Afghanistan’s future.

The administration is already responding to the drumbeat of pressure from Congress and the public. Now let’s show him it’s not going away until we get a real plan to end the war.

In a tough election year, President Obama recognizes that it’s smart to sell this agreement as an end to the war. Democrats, Republicans and swing voters alike want our troops to come home.  Hawks who oppose even modest withdrawals won’t stop pushing, and we can’t either.

Thank you for taking action.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Will Congress heed public opposition to 12 more years of war?

Posted by Peace Action West on May 9th, 2012

From our partners at Peace Action West

Last week, President Obama tried to sell the new US-Afghan Strategic Partnership agreement as the beginning of the end of war in Afghanistan to a war-weary public. Contrary to the president’s rhetoric, the plan does not offer details on troop levels after the rest of the “surge” troops withdraw this summer, bringing troops on the ground to 68,000. (Read more in our op-ed outlining problems with the plan and alternative solutions).

One of the president’s justifications for maintaining a military presence is to preserve gains the US has made against the Taliban. However, a new report by the chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees contradicts this assessment, arguing that the Taliban has actually become stronger since 33,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan.

Despite the administration’s effort to sell this deal, it seems Americans aren’t buying it.

By a margin of 63 percent disapproval to 33 percent approval, respondents rejected a description of the deal that will include a US troop presence and billions of dollars in monetary support for Afghan forces in the decade after 2014, according to a Monitor/TIPP poll conducted April 27 to May 4.

Unusually for a key issue facing Americans in an election year, the lack of support was bipartisan, showing only small differences across the ideological spectrum.

The idea of war in Afghanistan for another twelve years does not sit well with the public. How will Congress respond?

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee seem poised to ignore both public opinion and clear evidence that the war isn’t working. In their markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they give lip service to the idea that “combat operations” shouldn’t be indefinite, but push back against significant troop reductions and leave long-term troop numbers open-ended. The bill states that the president should “maintain a force of at least 68,000 troops through December 31, 2014,” contradicting the vague promise President Obama made of steady withdrawals after this summer. It also advises that a “credible force” should be kept beyond 2014, codifying the general commitment in the US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement.

Thankfully, there will surely be pushback from members of Congress who understand the need to change strategy. Next week, the NDAA will come to the House floor, and there are likely to be votes on amendments pushing for a speedier end to the war. Last year, 204 representatives voted in favor of requiring a plan for accelerated withdrawal. The war has only become more unpopular since then. Check back later this week for action alerts to make sure your representative sends a clear message to the president that the war must end sooner.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Bipartisan Majority Of Americans Agree With French President On Afghanistan

Posted by The Agonist on May 8th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

The new French President, Francois Hollande, intends to announce his nation’s accelerated departure from Afghanistan at the upcoming Chicago summit of NATO members on May 20 and 21, withdrawing all French forces by the end of this year. President Obama will meet with him beforehand, presumably to try to change his mind as Obama has said there would be no “rush to the exits” for NATO.

But Obama might instead consider a new poll by the CS Monitor that shows a majority of Americans – even Republicans – disagree with his policy of staying to pay and die for another decade in Afghanistan.

By a margin of 63 percent disapproval to 33 percent approval, respondents rejected a description of the deal that will include a US troop presence and billions of dollars in monetary support for Afghan forces in the decade after 2014, according to a Monitor/TIPP poll conducted April 27 to May 4.

…Respondents in the TIPP poll were asked: “The US plans to remove most American forces from Afghanistan by 2014. To help Afghanistan after 2014, the US will sign a 10-year deal that keeps some US troops there and the US will also spend several billion dollars a year on the Afghan military. Do you approve or disapprove of such US involvement in Afghanistan beyond 2014?”

Among Democrats, 13 percent strongly approved, 17 percent somewhat approved, 19 percent somewhat disapproved, and 46 percent strongly disapproved. Among Republicans, the percentages skewed only slightly more positive, 15, 22, 20, and 38, respectively. For independents, the percentages were 12, 21, 15, and 49.

As America approaches it’s own presidential elections in November, neither Obama nor his opponent are listening to the will of the people. May 20th and 21st are likely to see large protests calling upon them to uphold democracy and change their staid course on Afghan withdrawal. This time, there’s unlikely to be a “freedom fry” anywhere in sight.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Hollande To Carry Through On Afghanistan Exit Promise

Posted by The Agonist on May 8th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

New French President François Hollande is losing no time in keeping at least one of his campaign promises. He’ll announce France’s early exit from Afghanistan at the NATO summit in Chicago later this month.

Manuel Valls, Mr Hollande’s communications director, confirmed that France would use the summit to “announce the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan between now and the end of the year.”

Both NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen and President Obama are expected to try to talk Hollande out of his earlier withdrawal, I suspect not because it would really hurt the mission there but because the optics look bad for the stick-the-coursers.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee say they believe that the Taliban has grown stronger since President Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010. The Surge ™ was a failure and there’s absolutely no argument for staying a moment longer left. Dave Dayen has the details.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Karzai says civilian deaths could hinder US pact

Posted by The Agonist on May 7th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

Kabul | May 7

Reuters – Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Monday that the strategic pact sealed by U.S. President Barack Obama last week was at risk of being “meaningless” if Afghans do not feel safe, according to a statement, which referred to recent civilian casualties by NATO.

Karzai called U.S. General John Allen, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, to the palace on Monday to discuss what he said were dozens of civilian casualties caused by NATO in four provinces since Sunday evening.

“Karzai signed the strategic pact with the United States to avoid such incidents (civilian casualties) and if Afghans do not feel safe, the strategic partnership loses its meaning,” a presidential palace statement said.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share

Army wife Skyping with husband sees him die, bullet hole

Posted by The Agonist on May 6th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

Natalie DiBlasio | May 6

USA TODAY – An Army wife who witnessed her husband’s death during a Skype video chat said she saw a bullet hole in a closet behind him after he collapsed, the (New York) Daily News reported.

Capt. Bruce Kevin Clark, stationed in Afghanistan, fell suddenly on Monday during a routine Skype conversation with his wife, Susan Orellana-Clark, the Daily News reported.

The family released a statement today describing what Orellana-Clark saw in the video feed.

“Clark was suddenly knocked forward,” the statement said. “The closet behind him had a bullet hole in it. The other individuals, including a member of the military, who rushed to the home of CPT Clark’s wife also saw the hole and agreed it was a bullet hole.”

The statement says the Skype link remained open for two hours on April 30 as family and friends in the U.S. and Afghanistan called for help.

“After two hours and many frantic phone calls by Mrs. Clark, two military personnel arrived in the room and appeared to check his pulse, but provided no details about his condition to his wife,” the statement said.

Share this:
Bookmark and Share
Rethink Afghanistan Facebook is leading the charge to end the war. Get breaking news and actions.
FACT SHEETS

FROM DERRICK CROWE'S BLOG
RECENT POSTS

SEARCH THE BLOG
Subscribe via RSS
Become a Peacemaker



Bronze Telly Award
QUESTIONS
For general questions, email us here.
For technical issues regarding this site, contact us here.

PRESS

For Press inquiries, please contact Kim at: bravenewfoundation.press@gmail.com



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