Afghanistan_june3

Site of a suicide attack that killed 10 children in Afghanistan this week Credit : AP

I received a sad missive from a friend who has been working in Kabul as a civilian teacher on behalf of the U.S aid effort on and off for the last 11 years. A staunch believer in the inevitable triumph of democracy over the Taliban and Afghanistan’s brutal warlordism, her hope, it would seem, is running out.

“I think we have got another 18 months here, maybe less before all hell breaks loose frankly,” she wrote. “And then if all of Kabul is blown up again in internecine conflict, what did we spend billions on?”

It’s a question that I think most people who spent the better part of the last decade thinking and talking and speculating about Afghanistan are clearly avoiding these days. It’s a practical question and it’s an existential one, too. It’s symbolic: after Iraq, Afghanistan was supposed to be the war in which America had a pure mission. Instead it is where America found its superpower status was a Potemkin Village.

The Washington think tank club has been pretty quiet. the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which is like that one cheerleader who refuses to give up the spirit even when the team on the field is getting clobbered to death, recently released this report, aptly entitled “Toward a Successful Outcome in Afghanistan,” led by former commander of U.S forces in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen, Michele Flournoy and Michael O’Hanlon, based on a recent fact finding mission. This likely means the report is how the military that courted these three Washington insiders inside the country wants us to think about Afghanistan: forever on the verge of democracy, and only if we hold out for longer, the 2014 elections go off right, women get integrated into the system, our European allies kick in more money and trainers, the Afghan military can perform without us, etc., will things go off as planned. Where they ever got that poll saying Hamid Karzai enjoys 60 to 70 percent approval ratings is beyond us.

Frankly, if what they say is true, that the Afghan Army is now leading 85 percent of its security missions and responsible for 87 percent of the population’s security — 312 out of 400 districts countrywide — then that is a good thing, at least American blood and treasure counts for something. But it would be good to get an independent assessment. After 11 years of the Pentagon spin machine at work, forgive us for wanting a second opinion. Plus, one of the key recommendations to jump out of the CNAS report is to leave behind a “bridging force” of “several thousand” beyond the already reported “enduring force” (estimated 8,000- to 12,000 NATO troops) for “two to three years after 2014… to help the Afghans finish building their air force, their special operations forces and certain other enablers in medical realms, in counter-IED capability and in intelligence collection.” So what really goes on over there we can’t say with any conviction.

We do know, outside of the Beltway Bubble, there doesn’t seem to be a lot to smile at (even if, as CNAS suggests, the “good news” is not getting through the Western media). The headlines just aren’t good. I opened the paper yesterday to one blaring the worst of tragedies: “Suicide blast kills 10 Afghan children,” plus, the subhead noted, two NATO troops and an Afghan police officer. The children had just been dismissed from school for lunch and were in the way of an attack on a coalition convoy. At the same time, a land mine claimed the lives of seven Afghan civilians – four women, two children and their driver – after driving home from a day of collecting fire wood in the Hills.

This week, the Red Cross was forced to scale back its own operations after a brazen attack in which a staffer was killed, as well two other people and an Afghan guard, at their headquarters in Jalalabad. Other international staff members had to be rescued as the attackers went on a rampage, according to reports.

Meanwhile, the Army announced Tuesday that two U.S soldiers, ages 20 and 23, were killed by an IED while serving in Tsamkani, Afghanistan. While tens of thousands of their counterparts will be coming home from college this month, they’ll be coming home in a box.  That brings the total to 2,235 U. S killed since the war began.

They say America is war-weary and it is.  For good reason. There seems to be no good answers. Leaving the country to the Taliban seems to be a cruel way to go – we are already hearing that the number of attacks on girls’ schools is increasing. And did you hear more women in Afghanistan are in prison for “moral crimes” now than at any point since the Taliban was kicked out of Kabul 11 years ago? The old warlords are eager to re-impose their own brutal control, too. Yet leaving U.S Special Forces in the country to shadow local Afghan security forces in counter-terror operations seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Protests again erupted in Wardak this week with charges that U.S Special Forces played a hand in disappearing and torturing local young men to death, a charge flatly denied by American officials.

There are pockets of hope, however. The front page of The Washington Post Monday featured Farhad Akbari, 33, who in revenge of the death of his mother by the Taliban, has raised a local vigilante force to keep them out of Kolangar, “a quiet farming region” in Logar province. This local milita has kicked the Taliban out of a number of local hamlets and it doesn’t work with the Americans, which might be their secret.

Of course, the Americans don’t believe so much in small crusades, do they? My aforementioned friend felt she was part of something much bigger and to hear her angst about the failure of the endeavor is a blow. I’ll take her view from Kabul over the think tankers every time.

 

From Frank Brodhead’s Iran War Weekly:

Negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program remain on hold, awaiting the outcome of Iran’s presidential election, which will take place on June 14th. But the related issue of Iran-Syria and Syria’s civil war threatens to boil over, expanding into Lebanon amidst claims by the French government that they have obtained “proof” that Syria used chemical weapons. Meanwhile the hoped-for peace negotiations initiated by the United States and Russia (“Geneva II”) may not happen at all, largely due to the disarray in the anti-Assad armed opposition. Now the $64 question is, What is the US strategy for the region? For the past year, the ruling views on both Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear program have been those of Dickens’ Mr. Micawber: to await the future in the confidence “that something will turn up.” But what seems to be “turning up” are a string of false starts and disasters.

Towards Iran, over the last four years, the Obama administration has built its strategy around comprehensive economic sanctions (with several more rounds added this week). While sanctions have caused distress for ordinary Iranians, there has been no apparent weakening of the Iranian political elite’s determination to continue their nuclear program, and none of the candidates running for president have made the nuclear program/economic sanctions an issue. Though US intelligence reports and IAEA inspection reports are clear that Iran is not making and does not seem to want to make nuclear weapons, the US political and media elite has persuaded itself otherwise. There is no sign that, when nuclear negotiations are re-started after Iran’s presidential election, the Obama administration will significantly change its bargaining strategy that has so far proved useless. What then?
Continue

The sharpest minds and most dedicated activists in the progressive mold will gather under a single roof for the annual Left Forum this coming weekend (June 7-9) at Pace University in NYC. But even amongst this select assemblage, one panel will stand out. For it features a stout band of Libertarians and Leftists determined to trespass beyond the bounds set by gatekeepers on both sides. Their hope is to continue discussion of an antiwar movement “with American characteristics.” If you can be in NYC or its environs on Saturday morning, June 8, be sure to clear your schedule so that you can get to Pace University at 10 am when the discussion begins.

All the details are here: http://www.leftforum.org/content/us-war-policy-how-it-destroys-environment-kills-local-economies-drains-natural-and-human-res

The discussion will be in the proud tradition of the Anti-imperialist League which opposed the war in the Philippines over 100 years ago and which counted among its members Mark Twain, a man deeply sympathetic with revolutionary change, and Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in America at the time.

The discussion will take account of the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the Ron Paul libertarian movement which has been steely in opposing Empire and war. It will take into account the enthusiasm of youth for the Ron Paul endeavor. And it will be a step to prevent Right and Left from being divided, then conquered, by the imperial elite in Washington and on Wall Street.
Join us.
And again all the info is at:

http://www.leftforum.org/content/us-war-policy-how-it-destroys-environment-kills-local-economies-drains-natural-and-human-res

The court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning on charges that could land the celebrated Army whistleblower in prison for life, enters Day Two at the Fort Meade courtroom in Maryland on Tuesday.

Credit: William Hennessy/AP

Credit: William Hennessy/AP

Check in with Kevin Gosztola and Alexa O’Brien, who are both covering the proceedings, for regular updates and commentary.

According to Gosztola, here and here from Day 1 of the trial, it is clear that the government will be painting Manning as an arrogant, small man who “dumped” a load of classified info on the Internet, despite being trained on the consequences of allowing such information to get into the wrong hands.

Gosztola describes the Army’s opening salvo:

[Military prosecutor Capt. Joe Morrow] declared, “This is not a case about a government official” making discreet disclosures. It is a case about a soldier who “literally dumped” information on the Internet “into the hands of the enemy.” It is a case about “what happens when arrogance meets access to information.”

Morrow added that Manning’s training repeatedly had warned him of the “enemies’ use of the Internet writ large.” He had conducted research that warned him of the “enemies’ use of WikiLeaks.” He knew the dangers of “unauthorized disclosure to an organization like WikiLeaks and he ignored that evidence.”

Manning violated superior officers and engaged in an act to the “aid of our adversaries.” He used his military training to “gain notoriety.” He “knew the consequences of his actions and disregarded that for self-interest…(clip)

Manning, the military prosecutor argued, knew there was a “great value to our adversaries and in particular our enemies.”

 

Most interestingly — though not surprising — it appears the government will spend the next 12 weeks trying to convince the jury that not only was Manning fully cognizant that his actions would “aid the enemy” — the “enemy” being al Qaeda — but that he conspired with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to do it.

The leitmotif in this ongoing tragedy is that the government is looking for a way to finally prosecute Assange, who is living under Ecuadoran asylum in that country’s embassy in London. WikiLeaks in currently under investigation by the U.S Justice Department. Many believe the government is trying to prove that Assange helped Manning obtain, store and release the documents, which would make him a co-conspirator rather than merely the recipient of more than 700,000 classified U.S documents. Manning has adamantly denied this co-conspiracy scenario, but has admitted handing the files to WikiLeaks after being turned down by major American newspapers. WikiLeaks has neither confirmed nor denied it got the documents from Manning.

The government argued that a “pressassociation” account on Jabber was used by WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange himself and seemingly suggested that Manning had been “enlisted” to “help” WikiLeaks obtain copies of documents on the “Most Wanted” list (something the defense heavily disputed prior to Morrow’s opening argument).

Though no proof has been presented that Assange was actually using the “pressassociation” account, the government appears prepared to go forward and argue this as fact during the trial.

Also, the government claimed that chat logs showed Manning had “enlisted Assange’s help in figuring out a way to browse” the secret network with information “anonymously.” The government also suggested that Manning had helped WikiLeaks edit the “Collateral Murder” video.

The government’s argument went witness by witness and through each set of documents chronologically detailing all that the government plans to show over the course of the trial. It was a broad overview of what can be expected.

For their part, Manning’s defense posed the 25-year-old Manning as naive yet determined to do the right thing, according to Gosztola’s reporting. It was his experience in Iraq — which has been well documented as Manning’s initiation into civilian killing, U.S-condoned torture, the dehumanizing ritual of watching Collateral Murder-like videos over and over in the intelligence centers for which he worked:

[Defense attorney David] Coombs described Manning as “not the typical soldier.” He had custom dog tags that said on the back “Humanist,” a “religious belief he ascribed to and those values are placing humans first, placing value on human life.” …(clip)

Coombs said Manning struggled not only with his obligation and duty to people but also with an internal struggle. This led him to decide he “needed to do something to make a difference in the world. He needed to do something to help improve what he was seeing .”

He began to select info that he believed “the public should hear and should see.” As Coombs said, “If public,” it would “make the world a better place.” And he specifically selected documents he believed could not be used “against the United States” and “could not be used” to the advantage of a foreign nation.

Manning has already pled guilty to 10 lesser charges, but the government in its infinite zeal to make an example of the young man, is going for the one that brings with it the life sentence — aiding the enemy. It will call 141 witnesses for the prosecution, many testifying behind closed doors. In a statement, Assange suggested it was nothing more than a kangaroo court:

This is not justice; never could this be justice. The verdict was ordained long ago. Its function is not to determine questions such as guilt or innocence, or truth or falsehood. It is a public relations exercise, designed to provide the government with an alibi for posterity. It is a show of wasteful vengeance; a theatrical warning to people of conscience.

Conspiracy to commit journalism.

Everybody the world over knows that drones are the next big thing militarily, so it probably seemed like a safe bet when German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere signed off on investments in the “Euro Hawk” drone. That’s just the sort of thing a DM, especially one who’s been tapped as the next Chancellor, would do.

Five years and €600 million later, de Maiziere’s ministry, as well as his political future look to be in serious jeopardy because the Euro Hawk is ridiculously unsafe, even by the standards of robotic planes that routinely careen out of the sky. The opposition has called the investment a waste “to an unimaginable degree” after it was revealed that the EU had announced the thing was so unsafe that they couldn’t legally fly it in European airspace.

De Maiziere’s problem goes even deeper, because apparently his reaction to learning about this potential embarrassment was to order all data on the Euro Hawk “classified” and then order the German Army’s testing complex to destroy all the files detailing the failure.

From R Street’s Andrew Moylan:

As lawmakers begin discussing the National Defense Authorization Act in earnest this week, many in Washington are wondering, is it possible to defend America’s national interests and defend taxpayers’ wallets at the same time? According to a joint report from the National Taxpayers Union and the R Street Institute, the answer is an emphatic “Yes.”

Tomorrow the two free-market groups will provide an overview of their study, which highlights a menu of 100 Pentagon savings recommendations (some of which would overlap or conflict with each other) totaling nearly $1.9 trillion in coming years. The paper also briefly recounts the history of conservative involvement in military spending restraint, and provides seven suggestions to help conservatives “move beyond occasional success and become an ongoing influence” in Pentagon budgeting decisions.

WHO: NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp & R Street Institute Outreach Director and Senior Fellow Andrew Moylan

WHAT: Media teleconference and overview of the study, “Defending America, Defending Taxpayers: How Pentagon Spending Can Better Reflect Conservative Values.” An advance copy of the report, which will be released 12 noon ET, June 4, may be viewed here.

WHEN: Tuesday, June 4, 2013, 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET.

CALL IN: (877) 642-4202. PIN # 91370297.