Top Secret America | washingtonpost.com
anti war is conservative- got it?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe
One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe
Kristof goes on to point out "For the cost of just one soldier in Afghanistan for one year, we could start about 20 schools there." And as Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea
, has shown, those schools have a far more beneficial effect that the combat troops.
Nick Kristof on the true legacy of the Afghanistan War.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service finds that the war on terror, including Afghanistan and Iraq, has been, by far, the costliest war in American history aside from World War II. It adjusted costs of all previous wars for inflation.Those historical comparisons should be a wake-up call to President Obama, underscoring how our military strategy is not only a mess -- as the recent leaked documents from Afghanistan suggested -- but also more broadly reflects a gross misallocation of resources. One legacy of the 9/11 attacks was a distortion of American policy: By the standards of history and cost-effectiveness, we are hugely overinvested in military tools and underinvested in education and diplomacy.
Kristof goes on to point out "For the cost of just one soldier in Afghanistan for one year, we could start about 20 schools there." And as Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea
, has shown, those schools have a far more beneficial effect that the combat troops. I may be wearing rose-colored glasses, but it seems to me that the issue I have been haranguing you with for two years, The Cost of Empire, is finally penetrating into the national discussion.
The American Conservative � Coming Home at Last?
The American Conservative � Coming Home at Last?: "Patrick J. Buchanan"
Asked if the United States might send still more troops to Afghanistan, if the Obama surge is not succeeding by year’s end, Vice President Joe Biden answered, “I do not believe so.”
So, that is it. Biden is saying the 100,000 U.S. troops in theater or on the way is our limit. If Kabul and the Afghan army fail with this investment of American forces, they will be permitted to fail. All the chips we are going to commit are now on the table.
And a series of critical deadlines is approaching.
By the end of August, all U.S. combat troops are to be out of Iraq. Only 50,000 “training troops” are to remain, but all U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of 2011.
In December, a review takes place of Afghan war strategy. Next July, U.S. withdrawals are to begin, though, since naming Gen. David Petraeus as his field commander, President Obama and his cabinet have emphasized that the withdrawals will be “conditions-based.”
We will walk, not run, to the exit.
But if we are topping out in Afghanistan, and the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is already less than half of the 170,000 after the surge of 2007, it seems America is on her way out of both wars.
What did they accomplish — and at what cost?
Saddam and his Baathist regime were overthrown, the dictator was hanged, elections were held, and a government that reflects the will of a majority of Iraqis put in its place.
Cost to the United States: More than 4,200 U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk. In the Islamic world, the Iraq War led to pandemic hostility toward America. At home, the war led to the rout of the Republicans and the election of an anti-war liberal Democrat.
If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit.
And what is the cost to the Iraqi people of a U.S. invasion and occupation and seven-year war, the end of which is nowhere in sight?
Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.
Four months after elections, they have no government, and bombs that kill dozens still go off daily. And, when the Americans leave, a civil and sectarian war may return. The breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines remains a possibility. The price of liberation is high.
And what did the Iraqis do to deserve this? Did they attack us?
No. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and had complied with the U.S. demand to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S. Army stormed in to discover and destroy those weapons.
And we wonder why these ungrateful people hate us.
The Afghan War was, at its inception, a just war.
If the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden and those who plotted the mass murder of 3,000 Americans, we had a right to go in after him, as Woodrow Wilson had a right to send Gen. John Pershing into Mexico to find and kill Pancho Villa after he murdered Americans in New Mexico.
But after the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, the overthrow of Mullah Omar and our failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, we decided to stay on and convert the most tribalized and xenophobic land on earth into an Islamic democracy and strategic ally.
We will soon enter the 10th year of this war. And though 100,000 U.S. and 50,000 NATO troops are committed, the Taliban are winning — because they are not losing. They are more numerous, more deadly and more resourceful than they have been since their ouster in 2001.
Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the war was a draw. And Biden says we have reached the limit of our commitment.
Thus, what we are looking at is endless bleeding, now running at 60 dead U.S. soldiers a month, with no American military or political leader willing to say when the bleeding will stop or the war will end.
And the home front is visibly eroding. A majority of Americans now believe the war is unwinnable or not worth the cost, and a growing minority in Congress wants out. Some NATO allies are departing. Others are setting deadlines for withdrawal.
As for the Afghans we leave behind, who committed themselves to America’s war, they will, when we depart, suffer the fate of the “harkis” in Algeria, the South Vietnamese army and boat people, and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.
Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?
Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war — with Iran.
Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback. COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM.
So, that is it. Biden is saying the 100,000 U.S. troops in theater or on the way is our limit. If Kabul and the Afghan army fail with this investment of American forces, they will be permitted to fail. All the chips we are going to commit are now on the table.
And a series of critical deadlines is approaching.
By the end of August, all U.S. combat troops are to be out of Iraq. Only 50,000 “training troops” are to remain, but all U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of 2011.
In December, a review takes place of Afghan war strategy. Next July, U.S. withdrawals are to begin, though, since naming Gen. David Petraeus as his field commander, President Obama and his cabinet have emphasized that the withdrawals will be “conditions-based.”
We will walk, not run, to the exit.
But if we are topping out in Afghanistan, and the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is already less than half of the 170,000 after the surge of 2007, it seems America is on her way out of both wars.
What did they accomplish — and at what cost?
Saddam and his Baathist regime were overthrown, the dictator was hanged, elections were held, and a government that reflects the will of a majority of Iraqis put in its place.
Cost to the United States: More than 4,200 U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk. In the Islamic world, the Iraq War led to pandemic hostility toward America. At home, the war led to the rout of the Republicans and the election of an anti-war liberal Democrat.
If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit.
And what is the cost to the Iraqi people of a U.S. invasion and occupation and seven-year war, the end of which is nowhere in sight?
Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.
Four months after elections, they have no government, and bombs that kill dozens still go off daily. And, when the Americans leave, a civil and sectarian war may return. The breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines remains a possibility. The price of liberation is high.
And what did the Iraqis do to deserve this? Did they attack us?
No. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and had complied with the U.S. demand to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S. Army stormed in to discover and destroy those weapons.
And we wonder why these ungrateful people hate us.
The Afghan War was, at its inception, a just war.
If the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden and those who plotted the mass murder of 3,000 Americans, we had a right to go in after him, as Woodrow Wilson had a right to send Gen. John Pershing into Mexico to find and kill Pancho Villa after he murdered Americans in New Mexico.
But after the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, the overthrow of Mullah Omar and our failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, we decided to stay on and convert the most tribalized and xenophobic land on earth into an Islamic democracy and strategic ally.
We will soon enter the 10th year of this war. And though 100,000 U.S. and 50,000 NATO troops are committed, the Taliban are winning — because they are not losing. They are more numerous, more deadly and more resourceful than they have been since their ouster in 2001.
Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the war was a draw. And Biden says we have reached the limit of our commitment.
Thus, what we are looking at is endless bleeding, now running at 60 dead U.S. soldiers a month, with no American military or political leader willing to say when the bleeding will stop or the war will end.
And the home front is visibly eroding. A majority of Americans now believe the war is unwinnable or not worth the cost, and a growing minority in Congress wants out. Some NATO allies are departing. Others are setting deadlines for withdrawal.
As for the Afghans we leave behind, who committed themselves to America’s war, they will, when we depart, suffer the fate of the “harkis” in Algeria, the South Vietnamese army and boat people, and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.
Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?
Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war — with Iran.
Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback. COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM.
Afghan President Karzai Says NATO Rocket Attack Killed 52 Civilians Friday - Bloomberg
Afghan President Karzai Says NATO Rocket Attack Killed 52 Civilians Friday - Bloomberg
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said NATO forces were responsible for the deaths of 52 civilians in an attack on a village in the southern province of Helmand.
Afghan women and children were among those killed on July 23 when North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led troops launched a rocket attack on a house in the village of Rigi in the Sangin district of Helmand, Karzai said in a statement issued by his office in Kabul today. He cited reports by the National Directorate of Security for the incident.
Lt Comdr. Katie Kendrick, a spokeswoman for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, rejected Karzai’s version of events. While ISAF forces did conduct an operation in Sangin district, it was “far from the village,” where ISAF had “no operational activity,” Kendrick said in an interview.
ISAF is investigating the alleged civilian deaths, Carmen Romero, a spokeswoman at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said by phone. She said she had nothing to add to a statement issued by NATO on July 24 disputing “media allegations” of civilian deaths, saying that it had “no operational reporting that correlates to this alleged incident.”
President Barack Obama took office last year vowing to reduce civilian deaths in Afghanistan even as he committed more troops to the fight against Taliban insurgents in what is now the longest U.S. war in history. Afghan police said July 7 that at least five Afghan soldiers died in a “friendly fire” strike by NATO aircraft, as the troops were preparing to ambush Taliban guerrillas.
The July 23 incident also involved combat between NATO forces and Taliban fighters, Shamsullah Sarayee, a tribal elder in Sangin district, said by telephone today.
People in the village “tried to save their lives” by sheltering in a house, he said. More than 50 civilians died when a rocket struck the building in which they were taking cover, he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Eltaf Najafizada in Kabul, Afghanistan at enajafizada1@bloomberg.net
Afghan women and children were among those killed on July 23 when North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led troops launched a rocket attack on a house in the village of Rigi in the Sangin district of Helmand, Karzai said in a statement issued by his office in Kabul today. He cited reports by the National Directorate of Security for the incident.
Lt Comdr. Katie Kendrick, a spokeswoman for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, rejected Karzai’s version of events. While ISAF forces did conduct an operation in Sangin district, it was “far from the village,” where ISAF had “no operational activity,” Kendrick said in an interview.
ISAF is investigating the alleged civilian deaths, Carmen Romero, a spokeswoman at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said by phone. She said she had nothing to add to a statement issued by NATO on July 24 disputing “media allegations” of civilian deaths, saying that it had “no operational reporting that correlates to this alleged incident.”
President Barack Obama took office last year vowing to reduce civilian deaths in Afghanistan even as he committed more troops to the fight against Taliban insurgents in what is now the longest U.S. war in history. Afghan police said July 7 that at least five Afghan soldiers died in a “friendly fire” strike by NATO aircraft, as the troops were preparing to ambush Taliban guerrillas.
The July 23 incident also involved combat between NATO forces and Taliban fighters, Shamsullah Sarayee, a tribal elder in Sangin district, said by telephone today.
People in the village “tried to save their lives” by sheltering in a house, he said. More than 50 civilians died when a rocket struck the building in which they were taking cover, he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Eltaf Najafizada in Kabul, Afghanistan at enajafizada1@bloomberg.net
In Midterm Elections, Afghan War Barely Surfaces - NYTimes.com
In Midterm Elections, Afghan War Barely Surfaces - NYTimes.com
BENSALEM, Pa. — Asked what he considers the major issues in this year’s midterm Congressional elections, Claude Nicolas, 24, paused from munching on a sushi roll and crisply ticked off three: jobs, the economy and immigration.
The war in Afghanistan? “Wow, I didn’t think of that,” he replied, almost sheepishly. “That’s definitely a factor of how not on the public radar it is. It’s gone on so long people are tired of it.”
Virtually since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the nine-year war in Afghanistan has largely been an afterthought in American politics. Though public interest has risen somewhat in recent months amid national debate over strategy, the firing of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and higher casualty counts, Afghanistan remains well down the list of voter concerns, polls show.
And interviews with voters, elected officials and political strategists this week suggest that the publication this week of thousands of classified battlefield reports will not substantially change that status.
The classified documents, which paint a grim picture of the war, have clearly bolstered antiwar activists who have been trying, without much success, to pressure Congress to curtail war spending and set timetables for troop withdrawals.
The documents also seem to be fueling widespread unease among voters who were already concerned about the war’s progress, a group that has grown substantially in the past year, according to many polls.
But there is a perception shared by many strategists in both parties that the leaked reports will not propel Afghanistan to the forefront of voter concerns, unless the economy improves drastically or the war itself takes a startling turn for the worse.
Representative Joe Sestak, a Democrat who is in a tight race for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, said it was not a top-of-mind issue for voters he meets.
“The way people have been slammed by the economy, the documents might cause the war to move from the fifth or sixth question I get to the fourth,” he said.
But Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral, said he hoped the leaks would prod the Obama administration to do a better job of explaining its goals in Afghanistan and to establish benchmarks for progress.
“The public does have doubts about the strategy,” he said. “Let’s answer their questions.”
Norman Stellander, a resident of this Philadelphia suburb who usually votes Republican, exemplifies the general lack of interest in the war. Mr. Stellander lost his job with a medical publishing company in June, and the only issue that really matters to him is the economy.
The leaked military documents, while troubling in their revelations about civilian casualties, simply underscore the confusion of war, he said. “To me, it isn’t that big a deal.”
Both parties have political and ideological reasons for not raising questions about the war, party strategists acknowledge.
Though the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to the war, many Democratic candidates are still hesitant about criticizing President Obama’s strategy.
Moreover, many Democrats won election in 2006 by arguing that the United States should get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. Those incumbents cannot now easily call for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, said Jon Soltz, chairman of Vote Vets, a liberal group that supports veterans running for Congress.
“There’s always been a belief that we were justified in our intervention in Afghanistan and have to give it time,” he said.
Republicans, on the other hand, have for years supported the war and now find themselves uncomfortably aligned with a Democratic president they oppose on almost every other issue. Though Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama’s setting a timetable of mid-2011 for starting a drawdown in Afghanistan, they have largely supported his sending 30,000 additional troops.
And many Republican candidates express faith in Mr. Obama’s decision to replace General McChrystal as the top commander in Afghanistan with Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“People are very, very comfortable with General Petraeus,” said Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri. “And because of that confidence, it’s not the top issue that they’re talking about.”
By almost every measure, public interest in the Afghanistan war has been relatively low. A July poll by CBS News showed that 7 percent of Americans considered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the most important problems facing the country, compared with 38 percent who answered jobs and the economy. (The poll, of a random sample of 966 adults nationwide, had a margin of error of three percentage points.)
An analysis of major news reports between January 2007 and July 2010 by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Afghanistan ranked sixth in total coverage by print, online, television and radio outlets, well behind the presidential campaign, the economic crisis, the health care debate and Iraq.
“Unfortunately, most Americans aren’t paying attention,” said Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “Which I think is a testament to the fact that 1 percent of us are fighting these wars.”
Mr. Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, won election in 2006 arguing that the United States should withdraw from Iraq and devote its resources to Afghanistan. Though he says he is “frustrated” by the Karzai government in Afghanistan, he supports the Obama administration’s policies there.
There are a few exceptions to the reticence of many candidates on Afghanistan. In Missouri, a former Green Beret and Iraq war veteran, Tommy Sowers, a Democrat running for Congress, has questioned why the United States is training thousands of Afghan security forces when the Afghan government cannot afford to pay their salaries.
And in the Albany area, Chris Gibson, a retired Army colonel with multiple combat deployments who is running as a Republican, has criticized the military’s restrictive rules of engagement, which are intended to avoid civilian casualties.
But Mr. Gibson said, “Generally speaking, I support the administration” on Afghanistan. Both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Sowers said the economy was the major focus of their campaigns.
Even in a Congressional race in the Fayetteville, N.C., region, which includes Fort Bragg and many veteran voters, the subject of Afghanistan rarely arises, said Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, a group supporting conservative Iraq and Afghan war veterans running for Congress.
“It almost feels like both sides are willing to call a truce and not talk about it until the November elections are over,” Mr. Hegseth said.
BENSALEM, Pa. — Asked what he considers the major issues in this year’s midterm Congressional elections, Claude Nicolas, 24, paused from munching on a sushi roll and crisply ticked off three: jobs, the economy and immigration.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, shown this spring in Washington, says Afghanistan is not a top issue for voters.
Virtually since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the nine-year war in Afghanistan has largely been an afterthought in American politics. Though public interest has risen somewhat in recent months amid national debate over strategy, the firing of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and higher casualty counts, Afghanistan remains well down the list of voter concerns, polls show.
And interviews with voters, elected officials and political strategists this week suggest that the publication this week of thousands of classified battlefield reports will not substantially change that status.
The classified documents, which paint a grim picture of the war, have clearly bolstered antiwar activists who have been trying, without much success, to pressure Congress to curtail war spending and set timetables for troop withdrawals.
The documents also seem to be fueling widespread unease among voters who were already concerned about the war’s progress, a group that has grown substantially in the past year, according to many polls.
But there is a perception shared by many strategists in both parties that the leaked reports will not propel Afghanistan to the forefront of voter concerns, unless the economy improves drastically or the war itself takes a startling turn for the worse.
Representative Joe Sestak, a Democrat who is in a tight race for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, said it was not a top-of-mind issue for voters he meets.
“The way people have been slammed by the economy, the documents might cause the war to move from the fifth or sixth question I get to the fourth,” he said.
But Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral, said he hoped the leaks would prod the Obama administration to do a better job of explaining its goals in Afghanistan and to establish benchmarks for progress.
“The public does have doubts about the strategy,” he said. “Let’s answer their questions.”
Norman Stellander, a resident of this Philadelphia suburb who usually votes Republican, exemplifies the general lack of interest in the war. Mr. Stellander lost his job with a medical publishing company in June, and the only issue that really matters to him is the economy.
The leaked military documents, while troubling in their revelations about civilian casualties, simply underscore the confusion of war, he said. “To me, it isn’t that big a deal.”
Both parties have political and ideological reasons for not raising questions about the war, party strategists acknowledge.
Though the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to the war, many Democratic candidates are still hesitant about criticizing President Obama’s strategy.
Moreover, many Democrats won election in 2006 by arguing that the United States should get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. Those incumbents cannot now easily call for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, said Jon Soltz, chairman of Vote Vets, a liberal group that supports veterans running for Congress.
“There’s always been a belief that we were justified in our intervention in Afghanistan and have to give it time,” he said.
Republicans, on the other hand, have for years supported the war and now find themselves uncomfortably aligned with a Democratic president they oppose on almost every other issue. Though Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama’s setting a timetable of mid-2011 for starting a drawdown in Afghanistan, they have largely supported his sending 30,000 additional troops.
And many Republican candidates express faith in Mr. Obama’s decision to replace General McChrystal as the top commander in Afghanistan with Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“People are very, very comfortable with General Petraeus,” said Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri. “And because of that confidence, it’s not the top issue that they’re talking about.”
By almost every measure, public interest in the Afghanistan war has been relatively low. A July poll by CBS News showed that 7 percent of Americans considered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the most important problems facing the country, compared with 38 percent who answered jobs and the economy. (The poll, of a random sample of 966 adults nationwide, had a margin of error of three percentage points.)
An analysis of major news reports between January 2007 and July 2010 by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Afghanistan ranked sixth in total coverage by print, online, television and radio outlets, well behind the presidential campaign, the economic crisis, the health care debate and Iraq.
“Unfortunately, most Americans aren’t paying attention,” said Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “Which I think is a testament to the fact that 1 percent of us are fighting these wars.”
Mr. Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, won election in 2006 arguing that the United States should withdraw from Iraq and devote its resources to Afghanistan. Though he says he is “frustrated” by the Karzai government in Afghanistan, he supports the Obama administration’s policies there.
There are a few exceptions to the reticence of many candidates on Afghanistan. In Missouri, a former Green Beret and Iraq war veteran, Tommy Sowers, a Democrat running for Congress, has questioned why the United States is training thousands of Afghan security forces when the Afghan government cannot afford to pay their salaries.
And in the Albany area, Chris Gibson, a retired Army colonel with multiple combat deployments who is running as a Republican, has criticized the military’s restrictive rules of engagement, which are intended to avoid civilian casualties.
But Mr. Gibson said, “Generally speaking, I support the administration” on Afghanistan. Both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Sowers said the economy was the major focus of their campaigns.
Even in a Congressional race in the Fayetteville, N.C., region, which includes Fort Bragg and many veteran voters, the subject of Afghanistan rarely arises, said Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, a group supporting conservative Iraq and Afghan war veterans running for Congress.
“It almost feels like both sides are willing to call a truce and not talk about it until the November elections are over,” Mr. Hegseth said.
The Hindu : News : Thousands of more classified documents missing: Gates
The Hindu : News : Thousands of more classified documents missing: Gates
"It could be a substantial additional number of documents. And we have no idea what their content is, either," The U.S. Defense Secretary said.
Days after the WikiLeaks went onto release more than 92,000 classified documents pertaining to the war against terrorism, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that thousands of such classified papers are missing from the Department of Defense.
"At least from my perspective, it has only been very recently that I was aware of the magnitude of the number of documents that had been leaked," Mr. Gates said at a joint Pentagon news conference with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"The reality is, at this point, we don't know how many more there are out there. It could be a substantial additional number of documents. And we have no idea what their content is, either," Mr. Gates said.
The WikiLeaks - a whistleblower website - has acknowledged that it has more documents in this regard.
"My impression is that the head of WikiLeaks has acknowledged that he has thousands of additional documents that he has not yet posted. So we have his own statement to that effect," Mr. Gates said.
Responding to media questions, the Defense Secretary replied in negative if there has been any official attempt to reach out to WikiLeaks.
"Not that I'm aware of (having any kind of dialogue with WikiLeaks). I'm not sure why we would. Do you think he's going to tell us the truth?" he asked.
"I have no idea. The investigation should go wherever it needs to go," Mr. Gates said when asked if Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder faces criminalThe American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's | Books | TomDispatch
The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's | Books | TomDispatch
Tom Engelhardt, creator of the vital website TomDispatch.com, takes a scalpel to the American urge to dominate the globe. Tracing developments from 9/11 to late last night, this is an unforgettable anatomy of a disaster that is yet to end.
Since 2001, Tom Engelhardt has written regular reports for his popular site TomDispatch that have provided badly needed insight into U.S. militarism and its effects, both at home and abroad. When others were celebrating the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, he warned of the enormous dangers of both occupations.
In The American Way of War, Engelhardt documents Washington's ongoing commitment to military bases to preserve and extend its empire; reveals damning information about the American reliance on air power, at great cost to civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan; and shows that the US empire has deep historical roots that precede the Bush administration--and continue today in the presidency of Barack Obama.
Tom Engelhardt created and runs TomDispatch.com, a project of The Nation Institute, where he is a fellow. He is the author of a highly praised history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture, and of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing, as well as a collection of his TomDispatch interviews, Mission Unaccomplished.
The American Conservative � The End of Military History
The American Conservative � The End of Military History
Washington has failed to learn from Israel’s mistakes that the Western way of war finished, argues American Conservative contributing editor Andrew Bacevich in this essay courtesy of TomDispatch.com.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
“In watching the flow of events over the past decade or so, it is hard to avoid the feeling that something very fundamental has happened in world history.” This sentiment, introducing the essay that made Francis Fukuyama a household name, commands renewed attention today, albeit from a different perspective.
Developments during the 1980s, above all the winding down of the Cold War, had convinced Fukuyama that the “end of history” was at hand. “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea,” he wrote in 1989, “is evident… in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.”
Today the West no longer looks quite so triumphant. Yet events during the first decade of the present century have delivered history to another endpoint of sorts. Although Western liberalism may retain considerable appeal, the Western way of war has run its course.
For Fukuyama, history implied ideological competition, a contest pitting democratic capitalism against fascism and communism. When he wrote his famous essay, that contest was reaching an apparently definitive conclusion.
Yet from start to finish, military might had determined that competition’s course as much as ideology. Throughout much of the twentieth century, great powers had vied with one another to create new, or more effective, instruments of coercion. Military innovation assumed many forms. Most obviously, there were the weapons: dreadnoughts and aircraft carriers, rockets and missiles, poison gas, and atomic bombs — the list is a long one. In their effort to gain an edge, however, nations devoted equal attention to other factors: doctrine and organization, training systems and mobilization schemes, intelligence collection and war plans.
All of this furious activity, whether undertaken by France or Great Britain, Russia or Germany, Japan or the United States, derived from a common belief in the plausibility of victory. Expressed in simplest terms, the Western military tradition could be reduced to this proposition: war remains a viable instrument of statecraft, the accoutrements of modernity serving, if anything, to enhance its utility.
Grand Illusions
That was theory. Reality, above all the two world wars of the last century, told a decidedly different story. Armed conflict in the industrial age reached new heights of lethality and destructiveness. Once begun, wars devoured everything, inflicting staggering material, psychological, and moral damage. Pain vastly exceeded gain. In that regard, the war of 1914-1918 became emblematic: even the winners ended up losers. When fighting eventually stopped, the victors were left not to celebrate but to mourn. As a consequence, well before Fukuyama penned his essay, faith in war’s problem-solving capacity had begun to erode. As early as 1945, among several great powers — thanks to war, now great in name only — that faith disappeared altogether.
Among nations classified as liberal democracies, only two resisted this trend. One was the United States, the sole major belligerent to emerge from the Second World War stronger, richer, and more confident. The second was Israel, created as a direct consequence of the horrors unleashed by that cataclysm. By the 1950s, both countries subscribed to this common conviction: national security (and, arguably, national survival) demanded unambiguous military superiority. In the lexicon of American and Israeli politics, “peace” was a codeword. The essential prerequisite for peace was for any and all adversaries, real or potential, to accept a condition of permanent inferiority. In this regard, the two nations — not yet intimate allies — stood apart from the rest of the Western world.
So even as they professed their devotion to peace, civilian and military elites in the United States and Israel prepared obsessively for war. They saw no contradiction between rhetoric and reality.
Yet belief in the efficacy of military power almost inevitably breeds the temptation to put that power to work. “Peace through strength” easily enough becomes “peace through war.” Israel succumbed to this temptation in 1967. For Israelis, the Six Day War proved a turning point. Plucky David defeated, and then became, Goliath. Even as the United States was flailing about in Vietnam, Israel had evidently succeeded in definitively mastering war.
A quarter-century later, U.S. forces seemingly caught up. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm, George H.W. Bush’s war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, showed that American troops like Israeli soldiers knew how to win quickly, cheaply, and humanely. Generals like H. Norman Schwarzkopf persuaded themselves that their brief desert campaign against Iraq had replicated — even eclipsed — the battlefield exploits of such famous Israeli warriors as Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin. Vietnam faded into irrelevance.
For both Israel and the United States, however, appearances proved deceptive. Apart from fostering grand illusions, the splendid wars of 1967 and 1991 decided little. In both cases, victory turned out to be more apparent than real. Worse, triumphalism fostered massive future miscalculation.
On the Golan Heights, in Gaza, and throughout the West Bank, proponents of a Greater Israel — disregarding Washington’s objections — set out to assert permanent control over territory that Israel had seized. Yet “facts on the ground” created by successive waves of Jewish settlers did little to enhance Israeli security. They succeeded chiefly in shackling Israel to a rapidly growing and resentful Palestinian population that it could neither pacify nor assimilate.
In the Persian Gulf, the benefits reaped by the United States after 1991 likewise turned out to be ephemeral. Saddam Hussein survived and became in the eyes of successive American administrations an imminent threat to regional stability. This perception prompted (or provided a pretext for) a radical reorientation of strategy in Washington. No longer content to prevent an unfriendly outside power from controlling the oil-rich Persian Gulf, Washington now sought to dominate the entire Greater Middle East. Hegemony became the aim. Yet the United States proved no more successful than Israel in imposing its writ.
During the 1990s, the Pentagon embarked willy-nilly upon what became its own variant of a settlement policy. Yet U.S. bases dotting the Islamic world and U.S. forces operating in the region proved hardly more welcome than the Israeli settlements dotting the occupied territories and the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) assigned to protect them. In both cases, presence provoked (or provided a pretext for) resistance. Just as Palestinians vented their anger at the Zionists in their midst, radical Islamists targeted Americans whom they regarded as neo-colonial infidels.
Obama Is a Threat to National Security
Obama Is a Threat to National Security: "The war in Afghanistan is a disaster"
This week, when whistleblower website Wikileaks released over 90,000 classified documents portraying a dismal war in Afghanistan, the White House called Editor Julian Assange and his organization a threat to national security. But it is this White House that is a threat to national security. Wikileaks simply helped prove it.
The war in Afghanistan is a disaster, something President Obama refuses to acknowledge and insists on continuing for no discernible reason. Afghanistan’s top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal voiced his frustration with the mindlessness of our mission and lost his post. His replacement, Gen. David Petraeus isn’t any clearer about our prospects than his predecessor or the president. Who truly puts the nation’s security more at risk? A government that continues to put soldiers in harm’s way with no clear mission or strategy, as the bodies, dollars and questions continue to pile up, or a website that insists the general public should know what their government is up to?
What was it specifically that the Obama administration found among some 90,000 documents that compelled the White House to declare Wikileaks a security risk, mere hours after their release? Did Obama hire an army of speed readers? Or how about the most significant stories to come out of the Wiki-leak: That we pay Pakistan $1 billion a year to help the Taliban; that drone attacks are far less effective than portrayed; that significant civilian deaths are being covered up. Which of these is truly a massive security risk, domestically or abroad? Or do these stories simply “risk” damaging this president’s reputation, or perhaps simply the administration’s preferred war narrative?
Truth be told, the real “risk” is that Wikileaks dared to report the actual news, or what the New York Times calls, “an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.” Ironically, the pro-war, any war hawks in both parties who still refuse to believe that Islamic terrorists target the United States not for our “freedom,” but for what we do in their homelands, are now warning of potential blowback over what Wikileaks has done. You see, dropping bombs and occupying countries for years could never incite hatred—but actually reporting the truth about the war could spark a jihadist revolution, as if jihadists don’t already know what’s going on in their own backyard, something an organization like Wikileaks simply believes everyone else should know about too.
Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has it right: “WikiLeaks has yet again proven itself to be one of the most valuable and important organizations in the world… there is no valid justification for having kept most of these documents a secret. But that’s what our National Security State does reflexively: it hides itself behind an essentially absolute wall of secrecy to ensure that the citizenry remains largely ignorant of what it is really doing.” The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson writes, “What does it mean to tell the truth about a war? Is it a lie, technically speaking, for the Administration to say that it has faith in Hamid Karzai’s government and regards him as a legitimate leader—or is it just absurd? Is it a lie to say that we have a plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense at all? If you put it that way, each of the WikiLeaks documents… is a pixel in a picture that does, indeed, contradict official accounts of the war, and rather drastically so.”
It is no secret that that telling lies to make sure the “citizenry remains largely ignorant” of what its government “is really doing” is standard operating procedure for Washington, DC. Many Americans rightly see disingenuousness in their government’s selling of programs like, oh, I don’t know, the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)—something Obama originally told us would cost $700 billion but is now reaching $3.7 trillion due to housing rescue efforts—but it should also be stressed that such duplicity is just as regularly used in foreign policy. Granted, waging war is not identical to domestic politics, but the degree to which government uses supposed “national security” to deceive the public about what is truly happening overseas is something the mainstream media largely ignores. Wikileaks claims it went to great lengths to make sure nothing that might genuinely compromise national security was included in their release, and given that the White House can’t cite any specific risks and only issue blanket condemnations, it is reasonable to assume that Wikileaks has simply released information the administration would rather the public not know—not necessarily for safety reasons, but to save face.
Wikileaks or any other organization that knowingly releases classified information that might actually harm the soldier on the battlefield or compromise war strategy should be held accountable—but so should a government that continues to harm soldiers by putting them on the battlefield with no war strategy, clear mission or definable victory. Wikileaks has tried to hold the government accountable by more accurately informing the public about what’s really going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hopefully the mainstream media will now follow suit. Our national security depends on it.
The war in Afghanistan is a disaster, something President Obama refuses to acknowledge and insists on continuing for no discernible reason. Afghanistan’s top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal voiced his frustration with the mindlessness of our mission and lost his post. His replacement, Gen. David Petraeus isn’t any clearer about our prospects than his predecessor or the president. Who truly puts the nation’s security more at risk? A government that continues to put soldiers in harm’s way with no clear mission or strategy, as the bodies, dollars and questions continue to pile up, or a website that insists the general public should know what their government is up to?
What was it specifically that the Obama administration found among some 90,000 documents that compelled the White House to declare Wikileaks a security risk, mere hours after their release? Did Obama hire an army of speed readers? Or how about the most significant stories to come out of the Wiki-leak: That we pay Pakistan $1 billion a year to help the Taliban; that drone attacks are far less effective than portrayed; that significant civilian deaths are being covered up. Which of these is truly a massive security risk, domestically or abroad? Or do these stories simply “risk” damaging this president’s reputation, or perhaps simply the administration’s preferred war narrative?
Truth be told, the real “risk” is that Wikileaks dared to report the actual news, or what the New York Times calls, “an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.” Ironically, the pro-war, any war hawks in both parties who still refuse to believe that Islamic terrorists target the United States not for our “freedom,” but for what we do in their homelands, are now warning of potential blowback over what Wikileaks has done. You see, dropping bombs and occupying countries for years could never incite hatred—but actually reporting the truth about the war could spark a jihadist revolution, as if jihadists don’t already know what’s going on in their own backyard, something an organization like Wikileaks simply believes everyone else should know about too.
Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has it right: “WikiLeaks has yet again proven itself to be one of the most valuable and important organizations in the world… there is no valid justification for having kept most of these documents a secret. But that’s what our National Security State does reflexively: it hides itself behind an essentially absolute wall of secrecy to ensure that the citizenry remains largely ignorant of what it is really doing.” The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson writes, “What does it mean to tell the truth about a war? Is it a lie, technically speaking, for the Administration to say that it has faith in Hamid Karzai’s government and regards him as a legitimate leader—or is it just absurd? Is it a lie to say that we have a plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense at all? If you put it that way, each of the WikiLeaks documents… is a pixel in a picture that does, indeed, contradict official accounts of the war, and rather drastically so.”
It is no secret that that telling lies to make sure the “citizenry remains largely ignorant” of what its government “is really doing” is standard operating procedure for Washington, DC. Many Americans rightly see disingenuousness in their government’s selling of programs like, oh, I don’t know, the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)—something Obama originally told us would cost $700 billion but is now reaching $3.7 trillion due to housing rescue efforts—but it should also be stressed that such duplicity is just as regularly used in foreign policy. Granted, waging war is not identical to domestic politics, but the degree to which government uses supposed “national security” to deceive the public about what is truly happening overseas is something the mainstream media largely ignores. Wikileaks claims it went to great lengths to make sure nothing that might genuinely compromise national security was included in their release, and given that the White House can’t cite any specific risks and only issue blanket condemnations, it is reasonable to assume that Wikileaks has simply released information the administration would rather the public not know—not necessarily for safety reasons, but to save face.
Wikileaks or any other organization that knowingly releases classified information that might actually harm the soldier on the battlefield or compromise war strategy should be held accountable—but so should a government that continues to harm soldiers by putting them on the battlefield with no war strategy, clear mission or definable victory. Wikileaks has tried to hold the government accountable by more accurately informing the public about what’s really going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hopefully the mainstream media will now follow suit. Our national security depends on it.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, speaks with The Washington Post's Rocci Fisch and answers reader questions on just released secret Afghan war documents published by the web site.
The U.S. military's top officer charged Thursday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in releasing tens of thousands of secret documents, had endangered the lives of American troops and Afghan informants who have assisted U.S. forces.
"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."
A Washington Post search of the 76,000 reports released by WikiLeaks turned up at least 100 instances dealing with Afghan informants. In some of the reports the informants' names and villages are listed along with the names of the insurgent commanders that they had discussed with U.S. and Afghan officials. The secret reports also include the name of at least one U.S. intelligence operative.
Founder's response
Assange has denied that the release of the classified reports endangered U.S. troops or Afghan civilians. "None of the information released by WikiLeaks has ever led to physical injury of any person as far as can be ascertained, and we try hard to ascertain that fact," Assange said in an online interview Wednesday in which he answered questions from readers of The Washington Post.
WikiLeaks is withholding 15,000 reports that it plans to release after they are reviewed by its staff.
Senior defense officials said the Pentagon only recently became aware of the size and scope of the classified trove that was given to WikiLeaks. "We don't know how many more there are out there," said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "It could be a substantial additional number of documents. And we have no idea what their content is, either."
He dismissed the idea of opening a dialogue with Assange to learn more about the information the group was planning to release. "I'm not sure why we would," he said. "Do you think he is going to tell us the truth?"
The U.S. military's top officer charged Thursday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in releasing tens of thousands of secret documents, had endangered the lives of American troops and Afghan informants who have assisted U.S. forces.
"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."
A Washington Post search of the 76,000 reports released by WikiLeaks turned up at least 100 instances dealing with Afghan informants. In some of the reports the informants' names and villages are listed along with the names of the insurgent commanders that they had discussed with U.S. and Afghan officials. The secret reports also include the name of at least one U.S. intelligence operative.
Founder's response
Assange has denied that the release of the classified reports endangered U.S. troops or Afghan civilians. "None of the information released by WikiLeaks has ever led to physical injury of any person as far as can be ascertained, and we try hard to ascertain that fact," Assange said in an online interview Wednesday in which he answered questions from readers of The Washington Post.
WikiLeaks is withholding 15,000 reports that it plans to release after they are reviewed by its staff.
Senior defense officials said the Pentagon only recently became aware of the size and scope of the classified trove that was given to WikiLeaks. "We don't know how many more there are out there," said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "It could be a substantial additional number of documents. And we have no idea what their content is, either."
He dismissed the idea of opening a dialogue with Assange to learn more about the information the group was planning to release. "I'm not sure why we would," he said. "Do you think he is going to tell us the truth?"
Taliban stymie NATO push to bolster government - San Jose Mercury News
Taliban stymie NATO push to bolster government - San Jose Mercury News
ARGHANDAB VALLEY, Afghanistan—This strategic valley on the outskirts of Kandahar is on its third government boss in eight months. The first quit out of fear and frustration. The Taliban assassinated the second.
ARGHANDAB VALLEY, Afghanistan—This strategic valley on the outskirts of Kandahar is on its third government boss in eight months. The first quit out of fear and frustration. The Taliban assassinated the second.
Now the militants send threatening letters to district chief Shah Mohammad Ahmadi and his team: Quit your job or else.
As a result, about 15 of the district's 20 or so senior staff positions have not been filled. Most of those who do take jobs are too afraid to work much. And a judge assigned to Arghandab earlier this summer has yet to show up—even though he's already drawing a salary of $800 a month.
The difficulty of finding and keeping government workers in areas like Arghandab is undermining the U.S. strategy of improving public services to win over the Afghan people—part of a carrot-and-stick approach that also involves thousands of NATO troops.
Establishing a functioning government is considered key to securing Arghandab, a lush farming valley that is a longtime haven for Taliban fighters. Breaking the insurgent grip here is vital to an even greater prize: nearby Kandahar, the major city of southern Afghanistan.
Last year, U.S. troops replaced the Canadians, who had tried for two years to subdue the Taliban here. One of the U.S. units—the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment—lost 22 men before their one-year tour ended, most of them in the valley.
"It's hard to get people to fill these jobs.
Obama Is Preparing to Bomb Iran
Obama Is Preparing to Bomb Iran
After about two and a half years during which the danger of war between the United States and Iran was at a relatively low level, this threat is now rapidly increasing. A pattern of political and diplomatic events, military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-American ruling circles, acting through the troubled Obama administration, are currently gearing up for a campaign of bombing against Iran, combined with special forces incursions designed to stir up rebellions among the non-Persian nationalities of the Islamic Republic. Naturally, the probability of a new fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American war party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.
 | |
 | |
| The failure of the CIA’s Green Movement in Iran gives rise to the tendency to fall back on the previous neocon plan for some combination of direct military attack by Israel and the United States. | |
The moment in the recent past when the US came closest to attacking Iran was August-September 2007, at about the time of the major Israeli bombing raid on Syria.1 This was the phase during which the Cheney faction in effect hijacked a fully loaded B-52 bomber equipped with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and attempted to take it to the Middle East outside of the command and control of the Pentagon, presumably to be used in a colossal provocation designed by the private rogue network for which Cheney was the visible face. A few days before the B-52 escaped control of legally constituted US authorities, a group of antiwar activists issued The Kennebunkport Warning of August 24-25, 2007, which had been drafted by the present writer.2 It was very significant that US institutional forces acted at that time to prevent the rogue B-52 from proceeding on its way towards the Middle East. The refusal to let the rogue B-52 take off reflected a growing consensus in the US military-intelligence community and the ruling elite in general that the Bush-Cheney-neocon policy of direct military aggression towards all comers had become counterproductive and very dangerous, running the risk of a terminal case of imperial overstretch.
A prominent spokesman for the growing disaffection with the neocons was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been a national security director in the Carter administration. Brzezinski argued that no more direct military attacks by the United States should be made for the time being, and that US policy should rather focus on playing off other states against each other, while the US remained somewhat aloof. Brzezinski’s model was always his own successful playing of the Soviet Union against Afghanistan in 1979, leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire a decade later. A centerpiece of Brzezinski’s argument was evidently the claim that color revolutions on the model of Ukraine 2004 were much a better tool than the costly and dangerous US bombing and US invasion always championed by the monomaniacal neocons. There was clearly an implication that Brzezinski could deliver a color revolution in Iran, as he had done in Ukraine.
Top Secret America - A question from Dana: intelligence agencies and al-Qaeda
Top Secret America - A question from Dana: intelligence agencies and al-Qaeda
As Top Secret America wraps up its first week, I wanted to join in here with an observation and a question.
Over the past two years, one of the most thought-provoking observations I have heard from both military and intelligence folks is this: There are probably 500 al-Qaeda members left in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. At most, the organization may have a couple thousand people worldwide.
Why do we need such a large intelligence effort---the 1,300 agencies we identified that are a part of this effort--- to defeat a couple thousand people? And why haven't our efforts been even more focused on the al-Qaeda network in the last nine years?
"Mission creep" seems to have triumphed in all but the most disciplined of organizations. These are taboo subjects for officials to discuss in public because it can so easily be interpreted as minimizing the threat (although notice that CIA director Leon Panetta said as much on a recent Sunday talk show.)
Can anyone help me out here? Is this a valid way to look at things? And why not focus almost exclusively on al-Qaeda?
I am told that the other side of the coin is getting Americans, Congress and the media (yup, that's me) to have a more realistic reaction to near-misses and even attacks as well. What do you think?
I'm looking forward to your responses in the comments section. We're seeking debate and information here, not ranting and politicizing.
ISI behaviour towards Afghanistan changing: US
ISI behaviour towards Afghanistan changing: US
WASHINGTON: US Vice-President Joe Biden said in an interview aired on Thursday that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was “changing” its behaviour towards Afghanistan.
Mr Biden downplayed leaked documents which suggested that between 2004 and 2009, elements of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), armed, trained and financed the Taliban despite Islamabad’s anti-terror alliance with Washington.
“I’m getting very close to what I shouldn’t be talking about in terms of classification,” said Mr Biden on NBC’s “Today” show.
“But what was talked about in those leaks were the intelligence community within the ISI. That is the sort of the CIA of Pakistan.
“That has been a problem in the past. It is a problem we’re dealing with and is changing.”—AFP
WASHINGTON: US Vice-President Joe Biden said in an interview aired on Thursday that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was “changing” its behaviour towards Afghanistan.
“I’m getting very close to what I shouldn’t be talking about in terms of classification,” said Mr Biden on NBC’s “Today” show.
“But what was talked about in those leaks were the intelligence community within the ISI. That is the sort of the CIA of Pakistan.
“That has been a problem in the past. It is a problem we’re dealing with and is changing.”—AFP
Soldiers' Suicide Rate Tied to Access to Problems at Home - WSJ.com
Soldiers' Suicide Rate Tied to Access to Problems at Home - WSJ.com
A sharp increase in U.S. Army suicides is likely due to an increase in a range of stresses on soldiers both at home and in war zones, a top Army officer said Thursday.
A 15-month-study on the rise in suicides over the last two years found 160 suicides among active-duty personnel, 1,713 suicide attempts and 146 deaths from high-risk behavior, such as drug abuse, in the year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
A sharp increase in U.S. Army suicides is likely due to an increase in a range of stresses on soldiers both at home and in war zones, a top Army officer said Thursday.
A 15-month-study on the rise in suicides over the last two years found 160 suicides among active-duty personnel, 1,713 suicide attempts and 146 deaths from high-risk behavior, such as drug abuse, in the year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The number of suicides has been climbing since 2005 when there were 87 confirmed and unconfirmed suicidGen. Peter Chiarelli, the vice-chief of staff of the Army who has led the effort to reduce suicides, said that 79% of suicides were soldiers who had one deployment or had yet to be deployed.But Gen. Chiarelli said it wasn't just the stress of war that weighed heavily on soldiers, but also stresses from back home"For us
Obama with an eye to the women appears on daytime TV chat show - The Irish Times - Fri, Jul 30, 2010
Obama with an eye to the women appears on daytime TV chat show - The Irish Times - Fri, Jul 30, 2010
BARACK OBAMA was the American housewife’s dream yesterday when he made the first ever appearance on a daytime television chat show by a serving US president.
Mr Obama’s interview on ABC’s The View was interpreted as an attempt to win back women voters at a time when his approval ratings are falling.
Mr Obama kissed all five hostesses, including the show’s creator and executive producer, Barbara Walters, (80), who has just returned from heart surgery, and comedian Whoopi Goldberg.
He was relaxed and humorous, but also serious and eager to defend his record.
He spoke fondly of his wife and daughters, mocked his own poor grasp of pop culture and three times criticised America’s “24/7 media cycle”.
Yet some found fault with the appearance. “I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor Ed Rendell said on MSNBC.
Ms Walters remarked that Mr Obama had taken “a little bit of a beating over the last month.”
“The truth is, it’s not tough for me,” Mr Obama said. But life was difficult for Americans who’ve lost jobs and and seen the value of their homes and pensions shrink. “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about me. I spend a lot of time worrying about them,” he said.
Mr Obama castigated “the media culture [which] right now loves conflict” and accused the media of generating “a phoney controversy” in the case of Shirley Sherrod, the African-American official who was last week falsely reported to have made racist comments against whites.
Ms Walters asked Mr Obama why, with a white mother, he did not describe himself as bi-racial.
When he was young, he said, “I realised that if the world saw me as African-American . . . that was something I could go ahead and embrace. We are sort of a mongrel people. We are all kind of mixed up. That’s actually true for white America as well. I am less interested in how we label ourselves. I’m more interested in how we treat each other . . .”
The unauthorised publication this week of 92,000 classified reports on the war in Afghanistan “just confirmed what I was saying”, Mr Obama said. “From 2004 onwards, Afghanistan was under-resourced. We took our eye off the ball.”
The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains “the epicentre of terrorism targeting the US”. A year from now, he promised to “start thinning out our troops . . . I’m not interested in an open-ended commitment”.
The president laid to rest rumours that he will attend Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in upstate New York tomorrow. “I was not invited because I think Hillary and Bill properly want to keep this a thing for Chelsea and her husband,” he said.
Defending his own record, the president noted that all Americans will soon be eligible for health insurance, “even those with pre-existing conditions. Tobacco companies can’t market to kids. We have a credit card law with no hidden fees, the toughest financial regulation reform law since the Great Depression, a whole range of reforms on education . . .”
Commentators have repeatedly urged Mr Obama to display more emotion, for example, anger in the case of the Gulf oil spill. “The reason I seem calm all the time, even if we are going through some turbulence, is I try to take the long view,” he said. “I try to say, if I wake up today and I’m doing a good job, somewhere down the road, that’s going to pay off. People will be able to look back and say, ‘He made that decision based on what’s good for the country as opposed to short-term politics.’ I think that’s the way to govern.”
Mr Obama’s interview on ABC’s The View was interpreted as an attempt to win back women voters at a time when his approval ratings are falling.
Mr Obama kissed all five hostesses, including the show’s creator and executive producer, Barbara Walters, (80), who has just returned from heart surgery, and comedian Whoopi Goldberg.
He was relaxed and humorous, but also serious and eager to defend his record.
He spoke fondly of his wife and daughters, mocked his own poor grasp of pop culture and three times criticised America’s “24/7 media cycle”.
Yet some found fault with the appearance. “I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor Ed Rendell said on MSNBC.
Ms Walters remarked that Mr Obama had taken “a little bit of a beating over the last month.”
“The truth is, it’s not tough for me,” Mr Obama said. But life was difficult for Americans who’ve lost jobs and and seen the value of their homes and pensions shrink. “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about me. I spend a lot of time worrying about them,” he said.
Mr Obama castigated “the media culture [which] right now loves conflict” and accused the media of generating “a phoney controversy” in the case of Shirley Sherrod, the African-American official who was last week falsely reported to have made racist comments against whites.
Ms Walters asked Mr Obama why, with a white mother, he did not describe himself as bi-racial.
When he was young, he said, “I realised that if the world saw me as African-American . . . that was something I could go ahead and embrace. We are sort of a mongrel people. We are all kind of mixed up. That’s actually true for white America as well. I am less interested in how we label ourselves. I’m more interested in how we treat each other . . .”
The unauthorised publication this week of 92,000 classified reports on the war in Afghanistan “just confirmed what I was saying”, Mr Obama said. “From 2004 onwards, Afghanistan was under-resourced. We took our eye off the ball.”
The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains “the epicentre of terrorism targeting the US”. A year from now, he promised to “start thinning out our troops . . . I’m not interested in an open-ended commitment”.
The president laid to rest rumours that he will attend Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in upstate New York tomorrow. “I was not invited because I think Hillary and Bill properly want to keep this a thing for Chelsea and her husband,” he said.
Defending his own record, the president noted that all Americans will soon be eligible for health insurance, “even those with pre-existing conditions. Tobacco companies can’t market to kids. We have a credit card law with no hidden fees, the toughest financial regulation reform law since the Great Depression, a whole range of reforms on education . . .”
Commentators have repeatedly urged Mr Obama to display more emotion, for example, anger in the case of the Gulf oil spill. “The reason I seem calm all the time, even if we are going through some turbulence, is I try to take the long view,” he said. “I try to say, if I wake up today and I’m doing a good job, somewhere down the road, that’s going to pay off. People will be able to look back and say, ‘He made that decision based on what’s good for the country as opposed to short-term politics.’ I think that’s the way to govern.”
Pakistan poll finds Taliban support
Pakistan poll finds Taliban support
The US polling group, Pew Research Centre, has done a survey in Pakistan to determine how Pakistanis view the Taliban and other terrorist groups.
While the general public still views the Taliban as a threat, the survey found, they are regarded more favourably than last year.
The results indicated that US drone strikes had caused resentment and most Pakistanis want the US to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
Just 15 per cent of Pew's respondents approved of the Taliban but 18 per cent expressed favorable views of al-Qaeda.
Last year, ten per cent of respondents approved of the Taliban and nine per cent approved of al-Qaeda.
The poll, which was taken in main urban areas, discovered that the number of Pakistanis calling the Taliban and al-Qaeda a serious threat had declined.
Fifty-one per cent of respondents said they were worried or very worried about extremist groups having control of the country, down from 69 per cent last year.
More than half of respondents called India their greatest threat.
The poll did not involve residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which have seen most of the fighting between the government and armed groups from the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
While the general public still views the Taliban as a threat, the survey found, they are regarded more favourably than last year.
The results indicated that US drone strikes had caused resentment and most Pakistanis want the US to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
Just 15 per cent of Pew's respondents approved of the Taliban but 18 per cent expressed favorable views of al-Qaeda.
Last year, ten per cent of respondents approved of the Taliban and nine per cent approved of al-Qaeda.
The poll, which was taken in main urban areas, discovered that the number of Pakistanis calling the Taliban and al-Qaeda a serious threat had declined.
Fifty-one per cent of respondents said they were worried or very worried about extremist groups having control of the country, down from 69 per cent last year.
More than half of respondents called India their greatest threat.
The poll did not involve residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which have seen most of the fighting between the government and armed groups from the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Dangerous Theories, Real Conspiracies
WASHINGTON — The general chosen to lead U.S. Central Command said
Tuesday that victory in Afghanistan was possible and expressed optimism
that troops would start coming home in a year.
Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, the tough-talking Marine who helped lead the invasion of Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he supported the strategy in Afghanistan laid out by President Obama and Army Gen. David Petraeus.
If confirmed as expected, Mattis would replace Petraeus at Central Command and oversee U.S. military operations across the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. Petraeus left the plum assignment to take over combat in Afghanistan after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired.
“We will have some bad days ahead, but so long as we hold fast and
adapt faster than the enemy, the enemy’s situation will continue to
worsen,” Mattis told lawmakers.
Mattis defined success in Afghanistan as propping up an Afghan government that is stable enough to keep “extremists” from using the country as a terrorist base.
Republicans used the confirmation hearing to press Mattis on Obama’s decision to begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan next year. Mattis said he supported the decision because the deadline is contingent upon security conditions at the time.
“It’s a date when a process begins,” Mattis said. “It’s not a hand-off of a hot potato.”
Mattis also defended the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Internal military documents leaked this week suggest that U.S. officials have long regarded Pakistan as an untrustworthy partner against militants who use the country as a safe zone.
Mattis called the leak “grossly irresponsible” and said he believes that cooperation with Pakistan on counterterrorism is at an “all-time high.”
The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is “trending in the right direction,” he said.
Mattis said he is probably most concerned about Iran, including its desire to enrich uranium that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, the tough-talking Marine who helped lead the invasion of Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he supported the strategy in Afghanistan laid out by President Obama and Army Gen. David Petraeus.
If confirmed as expected, Mattis would replace Petraeus at Central Command and oversee U.S. military operations across the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. Petraeus left the plum assignment to take over combat in Afghanistan after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired.
Mattis defined success in Afghanistan as propping up an Afghan government that is stable enough to keep “extremists” from using the country as a terrorist base.
Republicans used the confirmation hearing to press Mattis on Obama’s decision to begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan next year. Mattis said he supported the decision because the deadline is contingent upon security conditions at the time.
“It’s a date when a process begins,” Mattis said. “It’s not a hand-off of a hot potato.”
Mattis also defended the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Internal military documents leaked this week suggest that U.S. officials have long regarded Pakistan as an untrustworthy partner against militants who use the country as a safe zone.
Mattis called the leak “grossly irresponsible” and said he believes that cooperation with Pakistan on counterterrorism is at an “all-time high.”
The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is “trending in the right direction,” he said.
Mattis said he is probably most concerned about Iran, including its desire to enrich uranium that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
Ed cetera | RESET 2010 I WHO GETS IT? | Seattle Times Newspaper
Ed cetera | RESET 2010 I WHO GETS IT? | Seattle Times Newspaper
“After spending nearly $350 billion on this war, I have not seen nearly enough progress and will not support simply intensifying an approach that has produced few results. The responsibility for building a stable Afghanistan ultimately lies with the Afghan people, and we must pursue a much broader and more comprehensive strategy to support them. While this appropriations bill contained funding for several programs that I steadfastly support, I cannot in good conscience vote to send soldier after soldier into a battle I do not believe we can ever win.”
The Seattle Times editorial page’s Reset 2010 project examines how to set a new path for our communities, the state and the nation in the face of daunting economic challenges. This space highlights who gets it, and who doesn’t.
GETS IT: Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee, both Democratic Congressmen from Washington state, voted against a war funding bill for the war in Afghanistan. McDermott said, “It doesn’t matter if we commit 30,000 or 300,000 additional troops, I do not believe the U.S. military alone can bring about the change necessary to stabilize Afghanistan. American troops have now been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade and have been doing a magnificent job of what’s being asked of them. But U.S. and NATO forces are not equipped to solve the kinds of problems facing the nation. I believe that if we really want to help the Afghan people form a functioning government that serves its people and respects human rights, we must do it with additional aid and support—not with more troops.“After spending nearly $350 billion on this war, I have not seen nearly enough progress and will not support simply intensifying an approach that has produced few results. The responsibility for building a stable Afghanistan ultimately lies with the Afghan people, and we must pursue a much broader and more comprehensive strategy to support them. While this appropriations bill contained funding for several programs that I steadfastly support, I cannot in good conscience vote to send soldier after soldier into a battle I do not believe we can ever win.”
US military deaths in Afghan region at 1,122 - Forbes.com
US military deaths in Afghan region at 1,122 - Forbes.com
As of Thursday, July 29, 2010, at least 1,122 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to an Associated Press count.
At least 890 military personnel have died in Afghanistan as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers. The Defense Department's tally was last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.
Contractors, Afghan recruits in deadly training dispute - Washington Times
Contractors, Afghan recruits in deadly training dispute - Washington Times
CAMP SPANN, Afghanistan | A training exercise this month erupted into a deadly gunfight between Afghan and U.S. instructors, illustrating the problems officials face in preparing the Afghan soldiers and police officers for the drawdown of U.S. troops next year.
What's more, the July 20 incident at the Regional Mass Training Center at Camp Shaheen, about 10 miles east of Mazar-e Sharif, was the second fatal shooting this month of Westerners by their Afghan counterparts.
According to Afghan armyLt. Col. Mohammed Naem, the media officer at Camp Shaheen, Afghan army recruits were participating in a training exercise when an argument erupted between an Afghan enlisted man named Jafar and a U.S. contractor who worked for Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI).
The men were skilled weapons trainers and friends, said Col. Naem, who works frequently with NATO public affairs personnel.
"The MPRI guy raised his fist and was yelling obscenities at [Jafar]," he said. "Jafar steps back, and his sidearm ... accidentally falls to the ground."
A U.S. soldier standing nearby witnessed the quarrel and, thinking Jafar was reaching for his pistol to harm the MPRI instructor, "unloads a magazine" into Jafar, killing him and wounding another, Col. Naem said.
An Afghan recruit saw the U.S. soldier shoot Jafar and, in retaliation, shot the soldier and another MPRI contractor, the media officer said. Other trainees rushed to the area and, seeing the Afghan recruit standing amid the carnage, drew their weapons and opened fire, killing the recruit.
In the end, two American contractors and two Afghans were killed, and one U.S. soldier and one Afghan were wounded.
Leaked documents detail attacks by Turkish militants – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Leaked documents detail attacks by Turkish militants – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
U.S. forces stationed near the Afghan-Pakistani border were subject to repeated attacks from Turkish militants in 2007, according to reports included among the tens of thousands of American military documents leaked this week.
Turkey, a NATO ally, has contributed peacekeepers to Afghanistan, but the documents describe attacks on NATO positions at or around Forward Operating Base Bermel. The attacks listed in these documents all failed, and in many cases the insurgents gave away their plans or position to the U.S. military because of insecure radio communications.
The reports were among the massive cache of U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan published by the online whistleblower site WikiLeaks earlier this week. The Turkish Embassy in Washington did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer Mike Mount was at FOB Bermel, a post near the rugged frontier with Pakistan, from September to October of 2006. Mount was present during several insurgent rocket attacks on the base, including two in which a rocket landed on the base grounds.
In one, the rocket hit a dirt barrier near a cannon, sending shrapnel near an observation post and wounding a soldier. During a separate incident, Mount says a rocket hit an unoccupied space of the base, sending shrapnel throughout the base, hitting the plywood living quarters and shower facilities where Mount and CNN's team were staying. There were no injuries during the second incident, because everyone had taken cover in a bunker. But military officials told Mount that Turkish insurgents were responsible for the attacks.
"For a number of weeks, they had picked up intelligence that there were Turkish insurgents firing these rockets at the base," Mount said. "They picked up on their communications that they were Turkish fighters and they were having trouble isolating them, finding them when they were firing the rockets, because they were putting the rockets on timers and hiding in ravines to give themselves plenty of time to escape before the rockets fired at the base." The 2006 incidents that Mount experienced do not appear in any of the WikiLeaks documents reviewed by CNN.
A few days before Mount and his CNN team left, the base commander told them that they had killed two Turkish insurgents believed to be responsible for firing the rockets at the base, but the documents published by WikiLeaks show that the rocket attacks continued in 2007.
The first documented attack took place in May of 2007. "Todays (sic) single rocket was the first involvement of Turkish fighters in directly attacking [coalition forces]," after spending about two weeks observing coalition forces and how they responded to ambushes, an unidentified analyst wrote. U.S. forces did not suffer any casualties or damages during this incident.
Less than a week later, Turkish fighters attempted a second attack on FOB Bermel, firing two rockets from a different position. An analyst speculated that the intent of the attack was to get a better sense of the range of fire for their weapons. "The Turkish fighters appeared to use this indirect fire incident to gather knowledge on range from a previously unused [Point of Origin]," the report says.
The Turkish fighters stepped up their efforts in July of that year, attempting to ambush two platoons returning to FOB Bermel from a patrol. There were no American casualties, but the commander assessed that "it was most likely initiated by Turkish fighters." He also said, "The ambush fire was accurate and the [exfiltration] by the enemy was disciplined."
And they tried again in September, when four rockets were launched at a company of U.S. forces stationed at the Malekshay Combat Outpost near FOB Bermel. The document indicated that U.S. forces overheard communications throughout the day indicating that "Turkish fighters were preparing to fire rockets at the [Combat Outpost]." The four rockets missed their target, but the U.S. forces were able to pick up on insurgent communications to track the location of Turkish observers.
The insurgents began fleeing toward the border to cross into Pakistan. According to the record, the company notified Pakistani military officials that insurgents had fired rockets at them and were heading for the border. They also warned that they would be firing artillery shells in that general area, and suggested that the Pakistanis take cover. A total of ten shots were fired from FOB Bermel and the company. After repeated attempts to contact Pakistani military, the company received a message from them which only said, "Please wait."
Twenty minutes after the rounds were fired, the company picked up communications chatter indicating the rounds had hit their intended target. The gist of that chatter: "Nasrat, do you hear me? I hear somebody is injured. You don't hear anything else but this voice. This means everybody is hurt. (W)hen we arrive we can tell you the story." The name Nasrat appears several times in the documents. In one report dated October 2007, he is described as "a Taliban commander overseeing Turkish foreign fighters repeatedly involved in initiating attacks against Task Force Eagle forces in southern Bermel district." The same report indicates he has been under communications surveillance for some time. "TF Eagle has monitored Nasrat on numerous [signals intelligence] gists since July involving attacks on coalition forces."
In October of 2007, radio transmissions gave away the position of a group of at least 14 Turkish insurgents to U.S. forces. A Predator drone confirmed their location, and two A-10 attack jets were deployed after the insurgents were "declared imminent threat," according to the document. The jets dropped a bomb on the fighters, and continued their assault with rockets, bombs, and chain guns. A patrol sent to the site an hour later found a blood trail, part of a head, six dead bodies, and a wounded insurgent. The report also notes that based on the blood trails at the scene, an estimated 15 to 20 Turkish fighters were suspected to have been injured or killed.
A few days later, U.S. forces at FOB Bermel picked up Turkish chatter saying, "Brother, we are leaving. It's got 15 minutes on it." After that time period elapsed, the base was attacked by three rockets, all of which missed their intended target. There were no U.S. casualties in this attack, and subsequent Turkish chatter was picked up indicating their acknowledgement that the rockets had missed. But the insurgents would suffer their biggest loss a month later.
U.S. forces picked up communications indicating there were plans to attack Malekshay Combat Outpost from two different positions. The local company commander devised a fire response to complement mortar and artillery rounds that would be fired from nearby U.S. bases against the insurgents. Once the firefight began, more than 40 insurgents were observed to "wildly flee the area after indirect and direct fire began." F-15 and A-10 jets and AH-64 Apache helicopter gunships were called in to the area to bomb and strafe the insurgents. The report from the incident says that after the final smart bomb was dropped, U.S. forces picked up insurgent chatter saying, "We are lost." "My friend was taking me to Afghanistan," the report quoted one of the insurgents as saying. "Only two of us are left. I don't know where we could go. Now the other guy is lost. We are separated. I am disappointed we could not fight back."
The post-action report indicated that 30 insurgents were killed and an additional five were wounded. An intelligence source cited in the document said that two of the dead were Turkish fighters. The final reference to Turkish insurgents in the WikiLeaks documents is from November 2009, when a security patrol came under fire. When the patrol went to the compound to investigate the source of the fire, they found a dead body and an undisclosed amount of Turkish money among the weapons and supplies that had been left behind by the insurgents.
Sen. Fritz Hollings: The Bottom Line in Afghanistan
Sen. Fritz Hollings: The Bottom Line in Afghanistan
At last! The best excuse for the mistaken "war" in Afghanistan is "nation building." Rick Stengel, editor of Time, finally identified nation building as the strategy or goal this morning on Morning Joe. Defending Time's cover article of the wonderful rights given some women in Afghanistan during the past nine years and insisting that we couldn't leave now for fear that they would go back to selling their daughters, Stengel gave approval to the policy of nation building or force feeding democracy in Afghanistan. This morning's argument never got to the bottom line question: "Can you ask GIs to give their lives for nation building?" My answer is no. When we failed to commit the troops in August of 2004, I stated in the United States Senate that the effort in Afghanistan was no longer worth the life of an additional GI. And we ought to get out. President Eisenhower noted that democracy was not a hundred yard dash but an endurance contest. Bottom line: We can't ask GIs to get killed as we endure for democracy in Afghanistan.
After nine years the counterinsurgency strategy or nation building strategy is for a Marine not to instantly return fire coming from a row of houses as he moves forward. He is supposed to stop and call headquarters to get permission to return fire -- all the time praying that he doesn't get killed while headquarters makes up its mind. GIs and Marines are taught for war -- to continue going forward under fire. We're killing less civilians, but more GIs, under this strategy. But we're ruining our armed forces. Killing is the policy of the Pentagon. Bottom line -- we shouldn't change Dale Carnegie's field manual of "lavishing praise" to make friends to "getting killed" to make friends.
Stengel assumes that Afghanistan is now a democracy, and extending women's rights for a few more years will stabilize the country. We've already given up the North. We've already given up trying to change most of the warlords, and are only nation building in the populace South. We could stay in Afghanistan ten more years, giving women their rights, and the warlords and culture would immediately take over when we left. We can't understand that we're trying to change a culture in Afghanistan. I learned sixty-seven years ago liberating Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia that there are ideas more valued in the Muslim world than freedom and democracy. After sixty-seven years, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia have yet to opt for democracy. Nor have any of the other Muslim countries. The only exception, Turkey, is constantly having its democracy restored by the military. Bottom line: You can't ask GIs to die to force feed democracy; you can't ask GIs to get killed to force feed a cultural change.
Everything in Afghanistan is corrupt. The election was corrupt, the President is corrupt, the warlords are corrupt, the Taliban is corrupt, and we are corrupt. We've had Karzai's brother, a warlord in Kandahar on the CIA payroll, and we still bribe to get our convoys through. Bottom line: You can't ask GIs to get killed waiting for Afghanistan to go honest.
General Petraeus can write all the books on counterinsurgency he wants, but for counterinsurgency to work it takes time, money and casualties. The United States will take the time; the United States will borrow the money, but the United States will not take the casualties to make counterinsurgency work. Nor should we. I can see the thousands of Chinese spilling over the Yalu River in the Korean War. We withdrew to the 38th Parallel where we could take the casualties and get a peace agreement. After ten years in Vietnam, we proved that more were willing to die for communism than were willing to die for democracy. We killed more Vietnamese than we suffered casualties, but we properly withdrew. I have been to Hanoi and the people are happy. I saw the lake where John McCain landed, his old French prison, and that evening I walked around the streets unescorted, unprotected, which I wouldn't dare do in parts of Washington, D. C. We can't get it through our heads that there is a better way to influence people than employing the military to spread freedom and democracy. Spreading democracy in Afghanistan, we have created as much terrorism and as many terrorists as we have eliminated. The build and destroy policy in Vietnam changed in Afghanistan to kill and make friends. We now call it counterinsurgency. Bottom line: We are not willing to take, and we shouldn't be willing to take, the casualties necessary for counterinsurgency to work in Afghanistan.
We are now arguing about whether a certain date next year for withdrawal was a good strategy or not. It doesn't make any difference. Earlier this year we withdrew from a valley that we had been trying to take for five years. The Taliban took over. The Taliban had victory. The United States wasn't willing to take the necessary casualties for victory. So the Taliban already knew, as they have known each day, that they were willing to take more casualties than the United States. After all, they were fighting for their country, and we were fighting for a country thousands of miles away. We learned in Charlie Wilson's war that Afghans do not like foreigners and were willing to fight to the last man against foreigners in their country. Bottom line: There's no education in the second kick of a mule.
Read more commentary by Senator Hollings at www.citizensforacompetitiveamerica.com.
After nine years the counterinsurgency strategy or nation building strategy is for a Marine not to instantly return fire coming from a row of houses as he moves forward. He is supposed to stop and call headquarters to get permission to return fire -- all the time praying that he doesn't get killed while headquarters makes up its mind. GIs and Marines are taught for war -- to continue going forward under fire. We're killing less civilians, but more GIs, under this strategy. But we're ruining our armed forces. Killing is the policy of the Pentagon. Bottom line -- we shouldn't change Dale Carnegie's field manual of "lavishing praise" to make friends to "getting killed" to make friends.
Stengel assumes that Afghanistan is now a democracy, and extending women's rights for a few more years will stabilize the country. We've already given up the North. We've already given up trying to change most of the warlords, and are only nation building in the populace South. We could stay in Afghanistan ten more years, giving women their rights, and the warlords and culture would immediately take over when we left. We can't understand that we're trying to change a culture in Afghanistan. I learned sixty-seven years ago liberating Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia that there are ideas more valued in the Muslim world than freedom and democracy. After sixty-seven years, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia have yet to opt for democracy. Nor have any of the other Muslim countries. The only exception, Turkey, is constantly having its democracy restored by the military. Bottom line: You can't ask GIs to die to force feed democracy; you can't ask GIs to get killed to force feed a cultural change.
Everything in Afghanistan is corrupt. The election was corrupt, the President is corrupt, the warlords are corrupt, the Taliban is corrupt, and we are corrupt. We've had Karzai's brother, a warlord in Kandahar on the CIA payroll, and we still bribe to get our convoys through. Bottom line: You can't ask GIs to get killed waiting for Afghanistan to go honest.
General Petraeus can write all the books on counterinsurgency he wants, but for counterinsurgency to work it takes time, money and casualties. The United States will take the time; the United States will borrow the money, but the United States will not take the casualties to make counterinsurgency work. Nor should we. I can see the thousands of Chinese spilling over the Yalu River in the Korean War. We withdrew to the 38th Parallel where we could take the casualties and get a peace agreement. After ten years in Vietnam, we proved that more were willing to die for communism than were willing to die for democracy. We killed more Vietnamese than we suffered casualties, but we properly withdrew. I have been to Hanoi and the people are happy. I saw the lake where John McCain landed, his old French prison, and that evening I walked around the streets unescorted, unprotected, which I wouldn't dare do in parts of Washington, D. C. We can't get it through our heads that there is a better way to influence people than employing the military to spread freedom and democracy. Spreading democracy in Afghanistan, we have created as much terrorism and as many terrorists as we have eliminated. The build and destroy policy in Vietnam changed in Afghanistan to kill and make friends. We now call it counterinsurgency. Bottom line: We are not willing to take, and we shouldn't be willing to take, the casualties necessary for counterinsurgency to work in Afghanistan.
We are now arguing about whether a certain date next year for withdrawal was a good strategy or not. It doesn't make any difference. Earlier this year we withdrew from a valley that we had been trying to take for five years. The Taliban took over. The Taliban had victory. The United States wasn't willing to take the necessary casualties for victory. So the Taliban already knew, as they have known each day, that they were willing to take more casualties than the United States. After all, they were fighting for their country, and we were fighting for a country thousands of miles away. We learned in Charlie Wilson's war that Afghans do not like foreigners and were willing to fight to the last man against foreigners in their country. Bottom line: There's no education in the second kick of a mule.
Read more commentary by Senator Hollings at www.citizensforacompetitiveamerica.com.
Gates says war documents leak dangerous to troops, allies
Gates says war documents leak dangerous to troops, allies
WASHINGTON, July 29 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday said the leaking of over 90,000 classified documents in website Wikileaks is "dangerous to troops" stationed in Afghanistan, and promised an aggressive investigation.
Speaking to reporters at a Pentagon briefing, Gates said the leak could be dangerous for the United States and its allies in Afghanistan.
"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies, and Afghan partners," he said.
The leak involved reports written by U.S. soldiers and intelligence officers in Afghanistan mainly describing lethal military actions involving the U.S. military. Put together, they amount to a blow-by-blow account of the war over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 1,000 U.S. troops. But they also contain identities of some Afghans who have given information to U.S. forces.
Pentagon spokesman David Lapan said Wednesday that the department is reviewing the files, and the naming of individuals could put them in harm's way, or dampen their willingness to work with the United States or Afghan government.
Gates also warned the leak "may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," as Afghans and others may no longer trust the United States to keep their secrets safe.
Speaking to reporters at a Pentagon briefing, Gates said the leak could be dangerous for the United States and its allies in Afghanistan.
"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies, and Afghan partners," he said.
The leak involved reports written by U.S. soldiers and intelligence officers in Afghanistan mainly describing lethal military actions involving the U.S. military. Put together, they amount to a blow-by-blow account of the war over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 1,000 U.S. troops. But they also contain identities of some Afghans who have given information to U.S. forces.
Pentagon spokesman David Lapan said Wednesday that the department is reviewing the files, and the naming of individuals could put them in harm's way, or dampen their willingness to work with the United States or Afghan government.
Gates also warned the leak "may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," as Afghans and others may no longer trust the United States to keep their secrets safe.
On WikiLeaks scandal, hacker says he didn't want to be a 'coward' - CNN.com
On WikiLeaks scandal, hacker says he didn't want to be a 'coward' - CNN.com
(CNN) -- A California hacker said he doesn't regret going to federal officials to show them alleged confessions an Army private made about leaking more than 90,000 documents that reveal secret information about U.S. war strategy.
Adrian Lamo spoke to CNN from the Sacramento Public Library, where he was trying to get away from reporters and a throng of people who, he said, are angry with him. He says he has received death threats in person and on his Facebook page and Twitter messages from people who feel like he betrayed Pfc. Bradley Manning.
"I went to the right authorities, because it seemed incomprehensible that someone could leak that massive amount of data and not have it endanger human life," Lamo said. "If I had acted for my own comfort and convenience and sat on my hands with that information, and I had endangered national security ... I would have been the worst kind of coward."
Manning, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst based near Baghdad, Iraq, had top-secret security clearance to sensitive information about the war, officials have said. The U.S. military is holding Manning in a Kuwait jail, suspected in the leak of a helicopter gunship attack video from Iraq.
Military investigators also suspect he accessed a military classified internet and e-mail system to download tens of thousands of documents, according to a Pentagon official who did not want to be identified because of the ongoing criminal investigation of the soldier. The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org posted more than 75,000 secret military documents on Sunday.
Manning has been charged with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code, including allegedly illegally transferring classified data.
The Army is considering whether Manning should face the military equivalent of a trial over the charges. He has not yet entered a plea, since there has not been a decision about whether he should face trial, Army Maj. Bryan Woods told CNN. Military lawyers for Manning referred CNN questions about him to Woods.
Lamo said he strongly suspects that Manning did not act alone.
"As far as I know, he conducted the database himself but got technical assistance from another source," Lamo said. "[Manning] was aware of one other person in military engaged in accessing databases without authorization."
Lamo refused to elaborate on why he believed this.
Video: Pentagon has 'main suspect' in leak
A superstar in the hacking world, Lamo was convicted in 2004 on one count of computer crimes after breaking into the New York Times, Microsoft and Lexis-Nexis computer systems. Lamo has also reportedly breached Excite@Home's company network and broken into the internal networks of Yahoo! and MCI WorldCom. Wired magazine wrote that after Lamo would crack their security, he would tell the companies about their vulnerabilities, free of charge.
Lamo's boyish, soft mug makes him look a decade younger than his 29 years. A Wired magazine profile this year focused on his struggles with Asperger's Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism.
Lamo gave the full transcipts of his purported instant message chats with Manning to Wired magazine. It's unclear whether they have been edited.
Lamo declined to provide CNN with the complete instant message logs, citing three reasons. He said they contain personal information he doesn't want exposed, the messages contain information that could compromise national security, and, simply, he doesn't have them all anymore.
"I gave my hard drive to the Department of Defense," he said.
Lamo said he isn't sure why Manning would have reached out to him on the Web. He theorizes that Manning might have seen the Wired profile and recognized a nerdy, kindred spirit.
According to Wired, the messenger suspected to be Manning introduces himself to Lamo by saying, "I'm an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for 'adjustment disorder.' "
Manning allegedly goes on to say that he feels "isolated." His messages explain in detail his disillusionment with the way the U.S. was waging the Afghan war.
The person alleged to be Manning wrote to Lamo: "i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore... i only a plethora of states acting in self interest... with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless "
According to Wired, on May 22, Manning told Lamo that he had provided WikiLeaks with 260,000 classified State Department diplomatic cables.
Lamo also told Salon in an interview that he had told Manning he was an ordained minister. He said he could treat Manning's talk as a confession.
In another chat, the person believed to be Manning writes about Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks.
The message reads: "im a source, not quite a volunteer ...i mean, im a high profile source... and i've developed a relationship with assange... but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little"
Lamo said he thinks Manning was flattered.
"[He] was made to feel important with his ongoing contact with Assange and special link to WikiLeaks, jumping ahead in the queue of people who were also leaking," Lamo claimed.
According to the a version of the chats published in the Washington Post, the messenger believed to be Manning seems despondent, lonely and frustrated. Manning allegedly wrote: "my family is non-supportive . . . im losing my job . . . losing my career options . . . i dont have much more except for this laptop, some books, and a hell of a story."
Manning also is thought to have written: "i mean, i was never noticed ...regularly ignored... except when i had something essential... then it was back to "bring me coffee, then sweep the floor...i never quite understood that...felt like i was an abused work horse..."
Lamo said he felt sympathy for Manning, calling him a "genuine, nice boy."
"He struck me as someone who was easily led," Lamo said. "And I think others took advantage of that idealism and naïvete."
When Lamo was Manning's age, he was in trouble for hacking, scared of facing years in prison.
"I got the same chance to reinvent myself that I hope Bradley Manning gets," Lamo said, adding that he hoped the world would see Manning one day and not immediately think about the WikiLeaks fiasco.
Lamo said he's ready to testify in court if that's necessary.
Born: Feb-1981 [1]
Birthplace: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Bisexual
Occupation: Hacker
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: So-called homeless hacker
[1] Some sources claim that Lamo was born on February 20th, a date which he has neither confirmed nor denied.
Father: Mario Lamo
Mother: Mary Atwood
Wife: Lauren (m. 6-Sep-2007)
High School: (dropped out, GED)
University: American River College
Hacking pled guilty to federal charges (8-Jan-2004)
Institutionalized Woodland Memorial Hospital, Woodland, CA (Apr-2010)
Risk Factors: Depression
Adrian Lamo spoke to CNN from the Sacramento Public Library, where he was trying to get away from reporters and a throng of people who, he said, are angry with him. He says he has received death threats in person and on his Facebook page and Twitter messages from people who feel like he betrayed Pfc. Bradley Manning.
"I went to the right authorities, because it seemed incomprehensible that someone could leak that massive amount of data and not have it endanger human life," Lamo said. "If I had acted for my own comfort and convenience and sat on my hands with that information, and I had endangered national security ... I would have been the worst kind of coward."
Manning, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst based near Baghdad, Iraq, had top-secret security clearance to sensitive information about the war, officials have said. The U.S. military is holding Manning in a Kuwait jail, suspected in the leak of a helicopter gunship attack video from Iraq.
Military investigators also suspect he accessed a military classified internet and e-mail system to download tens of thousands of documents, according to a Pentagon official who did not want to be identified because of the ongoing criminal investigation of the soldier. The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org posted more than 75,000 secret military documents on Sunday.
Manning has been charged with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code, including allegedly illegally transferring classified data.
If I had acted for my own comfort ... I would have been the worst kind of coward.
--Adrian Lamo
--Adrian Lamo
Lamo said he strongly suspects that Manning did not act alone.
"As far as I know, he conducted the database himself but got technical assistance from another source," Lamo said. "[Manning] was aware of one other person in military engaged in accessing databases without authorization."
Lamo refused to elaborate on why he believed this.
Video: Pentagon has 'main suspect' in leak 
Lamo's boyish, soft mug makes him look a decade younger than his 29 years. A Wired magazine profile this year focused on his struggles with Asperger's Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism.
Lamo gave the full transcipts of his purported instant message chats with Manning to Wired magazine. It's unclear whether they have been edited.
Lamo declined to provide CNN with the complete instant message logs, citing three reasons. He said they contain personal information he doesn't want exposed, the messages contain information that could compromise national security, and, simply, he doesn't have them all anymore.
"I gave my hard drive to the Department of Defense," he said.
Lamo said he isn't sure why Manning would have reached out to him on the Web. He theorizes that Manning might have seen the Wired profile and recognized a nerdy, kindred spirit.
According to Wired, the messenger suspected to be Manning introduces himself to Lamo by saying, "I'm an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for 'adjustment disorder.' "
Manning allegedly goes on to say that he feels "isolated." His messages explain in detail his disillusionment with the way the U.S. was waging the Afghan war.
The person alleged to be Manning wrote to Lamo: "i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore... i only a plethora of states acting in self interest... with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless "
According to Wired, on May 22, Manning told Lamo that he had provided WikiLeaks with 260,000 classified State Department diplomatic cables.
Lamo also told Salon in an interview that he had told Manning he was an ordained minister. He said he could treat Manning's talk as a confession.
In another chat, the person believed to be Manning writes about Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks.
The message reads: "im a source, not quite a volunteer ...i mean, im a high profile source... and i've developed a relationship with assange... but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little"
Lamo said he thinks Manning was flattered.
"[He] was made to feel important with his ongoing contact with Assange and special link to WikiLeaks, jumping ahead in the queue of people who were also leaking," Lamo claimed.
According to the a version of the chats published in the Washington Post, the messenger believed to be Manning seems despondent, lonely and frustrated. Manning allegedly wrote: "my family is non-supportive . . . im losing my job . . . losing my career options . . . i dont have much more except for this laptop, some books, and a hell of a story."
Manning also is thought to have written: "i mean, i was never noticed ...regularly ignored... except when i had something essential... then it was back to "bring me coffee, then sweep the floor...i never quite understood that...felt like i was an abused work horse..."
Lamo said he felt sympathy for Manning, calling him a "genuine, nice boy."
"He struck me as someone who was easily led," Lamo said. "And I think others took advantage of that idealism and naïvete."
When Lamo was Manning's age, he was in trouble for hacking, scared of facing years in prison.
"I got the same chance to reinvent myself that I hope Bradley Manning gets," Lamo said, adding that he hoped the world would see Manning one day and not immediately think about the WikiLeaks fiasco.
Lamo said he's ready to testify in court if that's necessary.
"I'm not going to run out on this process," he said. "I know what Mr. Manning did, and actions have consequences. Mine do. His do. I've accepted mine, and in time, he will accept his."
Adrian LamoBorn: Feb-1981 [1]Birthplace: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Bisexual
Occupation: Hacker
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: So-called homeless hacker
[1] Some sources claim that Lamo was born on February 20th, a date which he has neither confirmed nor denied.
Father: Mario Lamo
Mother: Mary Atwood
Wife: Lauren (m. 6-Sep-2007)
High School: (dropped out, GED)
University: American River College
Hacking pled guilty to federal charges (8-Jan-2004)
Institutionalized Woodland Memorial Hospital, Woodland, CA (Apr-2010)
Risk Factors: Depression
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)