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

Archive for February, 2013

Posted by Peace Action West on February 15th, 2013

From our partners at Peace Action West

Tuesday night, President Obama announced that another 34,000 troops will come home from Afghanistan by this time next year.

This is wonderful news for those 34,000 soldiers and their friends and families. But it’s not enough for the 32,000 troops and the Afghans who will still be mired in this war.

Tell Congress to keep pushing for a quicker end to the war in Afghanistan.

President Obama is moving forward with a withdrawal plan because of the immense pressure you have helped put on the administration over the past few years. We have to remain vigilant, and so does Congress.

Rather than acknowledging the failure of the military strategy and bringing all our troops and tax dollars home, the president is trying to please antiwar voters and the Pentagon at the same time. This halfway strategy means thousands of troops and Afghan civilians will remain in harm’s way for years to come.

Tell Congress the fight to end this war isn’t over.

There are still many decisions to be made, and the Pentagon isn’t going to let up in trying to drag out this war as long as possible. The administration still hasn’t announced what will happen after 2014, but reports indicate they will keep troops on the ground far into the future.  We owe it to the people on the ground in Afghanistan to raise our voices until every soldier comes home.

Take action now.

Share this:
Comments Off
Bookmark and Share
Posted by DownWithTyranny on February 11th, 2013

From our partners at DownWithTyranny!

Saturday we looked at the other nightmare inherent in drone warfare: so-called collateral damage or, less elegantly, technologically indiscriminately slaughtering people’s children and other innocent family members. And so, it turns out, did the L.A. Times in an OpEd by Doyle McManus asking if we’re creating more enemies than we’re killing. He sees the drone policy problem from a perspective more similar– though not identical– to my own:

[P]rotecting the rights of U.S. citizens in Al Qaeda is only part of what is at stake; those cases are unusual. In the long run, a more important question may be whether the drone strikes, which have killed more than 3,000 people, are creating more enemies for the United States than they are eliminating.

Scholars who have studied the political effects of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have argued that even well-targeted raids often claim innocent victims, and the result is a backlash against the U.S. Likewise, Hayden and retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have warned that too many drone attacks– in Pakistan, for example, where the CIA uses “signature strikes” against suspected militants without identifying them individually– can be a bad thing.

“What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world,” McChrystal told the Reuters news agency last month. “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes… is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

During a hearing that lasted more than three hours, only one senator asked about that critical issue– a senior Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

“If you looked at a map back in 2001, you would see that Al Qaeda was mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if you look at a map today, you would see Al Qaeda in all sorts of countries,” Collins said. “If the cancer of Al Qaeda is metastasizing, do we need a new treatment?”

Brennan agreed that the possibility of a backlash against drone strikes was “something we have to be very mindful of,” and that counter-terrorism strategy cannot depend solely on missile strikes. But he insisted that the critics are wrong and that populations terrorized by Al Qaeda “have welcomed the work that the U.S. government has done.”

Congress hasn’t shown much appetite for regulating the U.S. war against terrorism until now. That’s partly because there’s been little public pressure to do so; an ABC News-Washington Post Poll last year found that a whopping 79% of Americans approved of drone strikes, including against U.S. citizens.

The intelligence committees have monitored the drone war and concluded that it’s being conducted with care– although, as Feinstein notes, the evidence has been shrouded in secrecy.

But Collins shined a light on a question that can be debated in public: Are drone strikes effective in the long run, or are they creating more enemies than they kill? That’s a worthy target for Senate and House committees to go after.

The only bone I have to pick with the OpEd is that it doesn’t even bother mentioning the glaring and inherent immorality of murdering thousands of innocent civilians. And to me that’s the number one issue. Call me old fashioned. Call Bill Moyers that too:

This week, the New York Times published a chilling account of how indiscriminate killing remains bad policy even today. This time, it’s done not by young G.I.’s in the field but by anonymous puppeteers guiding drones by remote control against targets thousands of miles away, often killing the innocent and driving their enraged families and friends straight into the arms of the very terrorists we’re trying to eradicate.

The Times told of a Muslim cleric in Yemen named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, standing in a village mosque denouncing Al Qaeda. It was a brave thing to do– a respected tribal figure, arguing against terrorism. But two days later, when he and a police officer cousin agreed to meet with three Al Qaeda members to continue the argument, all five men– friend and foe– were incinerated by an American drone attack.

The killings infuriated the village and prompted rumors of an upwelling of support in the town for Al Qaeda, because, the Times reported, “such a move is seen as the only way to retaliate against the United States.” Our blind faith in technology combined with a sense of infallible righteousness continues unabated. It brought us to grief in Vietnam and Iraq and may do so again with President Obama’s cold-blooded use of drones and his seeming indifference to so-called “collateral damage,” otherwise known as innocent bystanders. By the standards of slaughter in Vietnam the deaths by drone are hardly a blip on the consciousness of official Washington.

But we have to wonder if each one– a young boy gathering wood at dawn, unsuspecting of his imminent annihilation, the student picking up the wrong hitchhikers, that tribal elder standing up against fanatics– doesn’t give rise to second thoughts by those judges who prematurely handed our president the Nobel Prize for Peace. Better they had kept it on the shelf in hopeful waiting, untarnished.

That said, I’m happy to see that Dianne Feinstein wants to do something– unlike Republican House committee chairs Mike Rogers and, worse, Buck McKeon, who just want to sit around collecting legalistic bribes from drone manufacturers. Feinstein and some of her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee are mulling the idea of establishing new FISA-like courts to oversee the use of armed drone strikes against suspected terror targets. It doesn’t solve the most profound problems of U.S. drone policy, but it scratches the surface… a little.

The effort to open the armed drone program to a  FISA-like court came after the unexpected release of a previously confidential Department of Justice white paper justifying U.S. drone operations– even if those strikes target American citizens.

If approved, the FISA-like authority for drone operations would allow lawmakers to directly address some of the perceived problems with the program, without dealing with the issues of classification surrounding the program.

“Right now it is very hard [to oversee] because it is regarded as a covert activity, so when you see something that is wrong and you ask to be able to address it, you are told no,” due the program being steeped in secrecy.

“We know it exists and I think this [program] has gone as far as it can go, as a covert activity, and I think we really need to address it,” Feinstein said.

…[W]ithin that process, there is an “absence of knowing who is responsible for [those] decisions” inside the White House and intelligence community, she added.

A FISA-like court process could go a long way to clearing up that ambiguity that exists within the administration’s system of checks and balances in the drone strike program.

“I think we need to look at this whole process and try to find a way to make it transparent and verifiable,” she said.

A sleazy political operative like Debbie Wasserman Schultz may claim she never heard of Obama’s “kill list”– after all, she intends on being Speaker one day– but everyone else in America has by now. It’s not that anyone can not care about extrajudicial executions of probable terrorists who have U.S. citizenship. We do– and I suspect we’ll care even more once we wind up with a President Rubio, President Ryan or President Huckabee. You think it’s a nightmare under Obama– it is– just imagine if someone without even a shred of a conscience has that kind of power backed up by the “legal” precedent being set now by a Congress too bloated with Military-Industrial Complex bribes to do their job and prevent this kind of grotesque abuse of authority.

Share this:
Comments Off
Bookmark and Share
Posted by DownWithTyranny on February 5th, 2013

From our partners at DownWithTyranny!

Okay, so we see Algeria and Mali over there on the left of the map (which you can click on to enlarge), and Syria is at the upper right, and Afghanistan is way the heck off the map to the right, and the Soviet Union isn’t on the map at all anymore, and Osama bin Laden is, um, still dead. No way they’re connected, is there?

“[I]ncredibly, one [piece] offers an example of what can go wrong when a government — Algeria — cozies up with a bloodthirsty killer and religious fanatic, while the other tells how the US government is in the process of doing exactly the same thing in Syria.”

by Ken

Dave Lindorff has a terrific piece today on his ThisCan’ “news collective” blog: “Links? We Don’t Do No Stinkin’ Links: Cognitive Dissonance at the New York Times,” which I saw via Nation of Change. It’s about two articles from Saturday’s NYT which he eventually characterizes as “two disjointed and poorly written pieces that add little to the readers’ understanding of these latest hotspots in the Middle East”:

Algeria Sowed Seeds of Hostage Crisis as It Nurtured Warlord” by Adam Nossiter and Neil MacFarquhar

[which] reports on how the Algerian government essentially enabled and encouraged the crisis in neighboring Mali by backing — even hosting in Algiers — an Islamic militant leader and local warlord, Iyad Ag Ghali, who then tried to take over Mali by force, including taking Algerians and other foreigners hostage at an oil drilling site, leading to a deadly Algerian battle and now a war in Mali that has drawn in the old colonial powers. The article talked at length about the risks of working with such militants. The risks for Algeria, that is; not the risks in general of such a practice.

A Rebel Commander in Syria Holds the Reins of War

[which is] a glowing paen to Abdulkader al-Saleh, aka Hajji Marea, a rebel leader in the Syrian civil war. The article paints the man whose nom de guerre is comfortingly (and incorrectly) translated as meaning “the respectable man from Marea” (it actually means “the man from Marea who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca”), is clearly aligned with a radical Muslim group, the Al Nusra Front, which the article notes, is “blacklisted” by the US as a terrorist organization.

Already in these capsule descriptions of Dave’s, I think we can see him nudging these pieces together in ways that seem clearly not have occurred to either the NYT writers or their editors. Dave is mightily ticked off because the paper “managed to run two closely related stories making opposite points in Saturday’s paper without referencing each other,” either in the print edition or online.

Typically, when two articles that are clearly related run in a newspaper, they are run side-by-side, with one appearing as a kind of side-bar to the other. In this case, though, the first article, on the warlord Iyad Ag Ghali, ran on page one, jumping to page eight, while the second, on Hajji Marea, ran on page 9, separated by several other articles in the intervening columns of both pages. Even in the Times‘ online edition, where it is easy — and standard procedure — to include links to relevant other articles, there is no link between these two stories.

Dave offers as an additional criticism what I imagine he would agree is at least in part an explanation for his original one: “Nor do the reporters on either piece include any historical background or context in their reports.”

Thus Times readers are left blissfully unaware of the many examples of blowback that the US has experienced from its decades of such faustian bargains. The most damaging of these, of course, was the CIA’s setting up of the Al Qaeda organization during the Jimmy Carter presidency, when he and his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski came up with the brilliant idea of encouraging, funding and arming local and foreign Islamic fanatics to foment a civil war in Afghanistan with the goal of undermining the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul and “bleeding” the Soviet Union. Of course, the US-funded and armed Mujahadeen became the Taliban, and among those foreign Islamic fanatics that the CIA- trained and armed to fight the Soviets was Osama Bin Laden and his merry band.

And we know how that turned out.

Surely at least a paragraph reference to that debacle would be in order when one is writing about the latest disastrous Algerian experience with blowback, or about America’s latest support for religious fundamentalist fighters in its campaign to oust Syria’s current government.

Of course, once you remove this background, the connections between the Algeria-Mali and Syrian-warlord stories are a good deal less clear, and it’s not all that surprising that we wind up with this pair of “disjointed and poorly written pieces that add little to the readers’ understanding of these latest hotspots in the Middle East.”

And yet, incredibly, one offers an example of what can go wrong when a government — Algeria — cozies up with a bloodthirsty killer and religious fanatic, while the other tells how the US government is in the process of doing exactly the same thing in Syria.

Hmm, there just might be a story there, don’t you think? Or maybe at least a link.

Share this:
Comments Off
Bookmark and Share
Peacemakers take action to lead the charge to end the war. Join forces with the over 100,000 people who make a difference.


Subscribe via RSS
Become a Peacemaker

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


For Press inquiries, please contact Kim at:

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

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