Afghanistan

Washington, D.C.– Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Members of Congress from both political parties will hold a press conference in support of expedited withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. EST.  As President Obama prepares to address the NATO summit, Members will address the growing opposition among Americans and announce the opening of a letter to be delivered to the President urging expedited withdrawal.  Seventy nine Members of the House have signed the letter, including 4 Republicans. 

WHO:              U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)

                        U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)

                        U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)

U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

U.S. Rep. Janice Hahn (D-CA)

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

U.S. Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL)

                        U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)

                        U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

                        U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)

WHAT:             Press Conference

WHEN:             Wednesday, May 16, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. EST

WHERE:           HVC-117, Studio B, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

###

Copy of the letter, signed by 79 Members of the House including 4 Republicans:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Obama:

Earlier this month you visited Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement.  As you stated at Bagram Air Base, “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.” The core of al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in size and ability to attack Americans. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked of them. With over 17,000 dead and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, and long term costs estimated at $4 trillion for the past decade of unfunded wars, the overwhelming majority of American people want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an expedited end.

While many of us would prefer an immediate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is broad, bipartisan consensus in Congress and across America that it is time to accelerate the transition from U.S. to full Afghan control.  We also remind you that any agreement committing U.S. troops to Afghanistan must have congressional approval to be binding.

Therefore, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, we ask that you announce an accelerated transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces and the expedited withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as these can be safely and responsibly accomplished.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

By: Philippe Duhart

It seems to be almost a historical inevitably: American military leaders and government officials cannot help themselves when it comes to optimistic statements about “progress” in a war zone. We saw it in Vietnam and in Iraq; and we’re witness to it time and again concerning Afghanistan.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General John Allen are currently tasked with selling progress in a shitty situation. The Independent:

By John Grant

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic and a killer.
- D.H. Lawrence

The realist in murder writes of a world in which gangsters can rule nations … where a judge with a cellar full of bootleg liquor can send a man to jail for having a pint in his pocket … where no man can walk down a dark street in safety because law and order are things we talk about but refrain from practicing.
- Raymond Chandler
 
 
American pop culture is certainly not unique in having a love affair with killers. Since the first cave man cracked his neighbor’s head open to control a water hole, eliminating others has been top on the list of problem-solving techniques.

By AP

WASHINGTON -- Support for the war in Afghanistan has reached a new low, with only 27 percent of Americans saying they back the effort and about half of those who oppose the war saying the continued presence of American troops in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good, according to an AP-GfK poll.

In results released Wednesday, 66 percent opposed the war, with 40 percent saying they were "strongly" opposed. A year ago, 37 percent favored the war, and in the spring of 2010, support was at 46 percent. Eight percent strongly supported the war in the new poll.

A large majority of Americans disapprove of a new strategic partnership with Afghanistan that will keep US troops on Afghan soil beyond 2014, according to a Monitor/TIPP poll.

By Ben Arnoldy, Christian Science Monitor

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

By The Afghan Peace Volunteers

There is no U.S. troop withdrawal in 2014.

We are ordinary Afghans wishing for peace, and we have eyes and ears and feelings of love and despair, so please read on.

The Washington Post, in reporting the recent signing of the "U.S. Afghan Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement", stated that U.S. trainers and Special Operations troops that remain beyond 2014 will live on Afghan bases.”

by Democracy Now!

From the Associated Press

DALLAS — An Army nurse showed no alarm or discomfort before suddenly collapsing during a Skype video chat with his wife, who saw a bullet hole in a closet behind him, his family said Sunday.

Capt. Bruce Kevin Clark’s family released a statement describing what his wife saw in the video feed recording her husband’s death.

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

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

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

From CNN:

Editor's note: Scott Camil is president of the Gainesville, Florida, chapter of Veterans for Peace, a veterans' organization that aims to raise awareness about the costs of war. He is a former sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps and served four years in Vietnam; his decorations include two Purple Hearts, a Combat Action Ribbon, two Presidential Unit Citations and Good Conduct Medal.

(CNN) -- As a veteran of combat in Vietnam, I am often asked about current wars. Recently I have been asked about soldiers posing with corpses or urinating on corpses in Afghanistan. The "patriotic" media wants us to understand what it is like to be a soldier in war, not to condone the conduct but to ask "who are we to judge?" They want to know about rules of war: "Are there rules about taking pictures with dead bodies?"

READ THE REST AT CNN

By Dan De Walt

“This is not a reflection of who we are or what we stand for.” 

       -- Jeff Gearhart, Wall-Mart general counsel, on the firm’s Mexico bribery 

[Torture] “is not the norm.” 

       -- Mike Pannek, Abu Ghraib prison warden.

“This is not who we are.” 

       -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the US massacre of 16 Afghan villagers.

“This is not who we are.” 

Tuesday's highly secretive, midnight meeting between US President Obama and Afghan President Karzai was spun by the administration as somehow being about the end of US occupation of Afghanistan. The furtive, hurried, vague agreement signed by a deeply unpopular puppet government isolated inside multi-billion dollar US protection makes both sides look only more desperate for legitimacy.

We've recounted since 2009 the story of the NATO/US "surge" of troops and cash which Obama threw at the people of Afghanistan, leading to a surge in civilian deaths, further assaults on women's rights, more night raids and anger among the people at the occupiers. This agreement extends all that until 2024!

  Afghanistan: Permanent Occupation Planned

by Stephen Lendman

Replicating post-WW II occupations is planned. Sixty-seven years after war's end, US troops still occupy Germany, Japan and Korea. They're part of America's growing empire of bases. 

Status of forces (SOFA) agreements establish the framework under which US forces operate abroad.

From: The Honorable Barbara Lee
Date: 5/2/2012

Dear Colleague,

The American people have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that our brave men and women in uniform have accomplished all that we have asked of them and it is time to bring them home from Afghanistan.

Members of Congress need to stand with seven out of ten Americans (including 52% of GOP voters) who oppose the war in Afghanistan.

We invite you to sign on to the letter below which closes on May 10, 2012 (ahead of the NATO Summit in Chicago).  The letter calls on the President to expedite our troops’ return and speed up the transition to having Afghans in charge of Afghanistan.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee                                        Walter Jones

Member of Congress                     Member of Congress

Current Co-Signers (49): Adam Smith, Baldwin, Bass, Capps, Chu, Yvette Clarke, Clay, Cohen, Conyers, Costello, John Duncan, Edwards, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank, Grijalva, Hahn, Alcee Hastings, Heinrich, Hinchey, Holt, Honda, Jackson Jr., Tim Johnson, Kucinich, Lewis, Lofgren, Maloney, McCollum, McGovern, Michaud, George Miller, Moore, Nadler, Olver, Pingree, Polis, Rangel, Richardson, Loretta Sanchez, Serrano, Slaughter, Stark, Mike Thompson, Tonko, Frederica Wilson, Woolsey, Yarmuth.

May 10, 2012

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Obama:

           Last week you visited Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement.  As you stated at Bagram Air Base, “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.” The core of al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in size and ability to attack Americans. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked of them. With over 17,000 dead and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, and long term costs estimated at $4 trillion for the past decade of unfunded wars, the overwhelming majority of American people want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an expedited end.

           While many of us would prefer an immediate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is broad, bipartisan consensus in Congress and across America that it is time to accelerate the transition from U.S. to full Afghan control.  We also remind you that any agreement committing U.S. troops to Afghanistan must have congressional approval to be binding.

            Therefore, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, we ask that you announce an accelerated transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces and the expedited withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as these can be safely and responsibly accomplished.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

By Leah Bolger and David Swanson

"We did not choose this war.  This war came to us on 9/11.  We don't go looking for a fight.  But when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do." 

These are the words that President Obama used on Tuesday to describe the Afghanistan war, but they would have been more appropriately said by any Afghan citizen.

Coming out of the mouth of the President of the United States, these words are nothing more than nationalistic propaganda — designed to justify an aggressive war of choice launched against a sovereign nation.  Somebody chose this war, and it certainly wasn't the Afghan people — 92% of whom have never even heard of the events of 9/11.

###

On Proposal to Fund Military With Cuts to Food Stamps, Kucinich Asks “What Kind of Country Do We Want to Live In?”

 

Food For Hungry Americans or Wars Abroad?

Washington D.C. (May 2, April 2012) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today asked Americans to consider what kind of a country they want to live in – a country where our friends and neighbors have enough food to eat or a nation that wages unending warfare. The question comes as recent news reports point to a proposal to cut food assistance for hungry families to fund the Department of Defense.

Click on the image to see the video.

“What are our national priorities? This is not an abstract question. What kind of a country do we want to live in?

“We spend about $115 billion a year for the war in Afghanistan alone. By comparison, since the Wall Street financial disaster of 2008, the down economy has resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes to foreclosure. Tens of millions can’t find jobs. Five-point-five million people have not been able to find work in more than 27 weeks.

“Last year alone, nearly 45 million Americans needed help to simply have enough food to eat. For those not qualified through other programs, a family of four would need to survive on less than $29,055 a year in order to be eligible for this assistance. In the United States of America, nearly 1 in 6 Americans needed help just to put food on the table.

“Now, because of two wars fought on our nation’s credit card, the Bush tax cuts and a slow economy, our government is currently operating at a deficit. Economists encourage government to spend more to spur economic growth, but Congress has called for austerity instead. Because of the Budget Control Act passed last summer, we need to cut $1.2 trillion over 10 years beginning in 2013, with half the cuts coming from the Department of Defense.

“Despite the years of massive growth and well-documented inefficiency, many people in Washington think it’s unacceptable to cut the Pentagon’s budget. Instead, they are trying to find other places to make the cuts.

“Where do Washington politicians want to make cuts to protect the war budget? You guessed it: food assistance for hungry Americans.

“This is what it means to consider our national priorities. Do we want to live in a country where our friends and neighbors have enough to eat? Or a country that wages unending wars abroad?”

Is staying in Afghanistan OK with you as long as we call it leaving?

President Obama has signed an agreement with President Karzai to keep a major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (currently about three times the size Obama began with) through the end of 2014, and to allow a significant unspecified presence beyond that date, with no end date stipulated.  Obama stresses that no permanent U.S. bases will be involved, but his agreement requires Afghanistan to let U.S. troops use "Afghan" bases.

Obama forgot to provide any reason not to withdraw from Afghanistan now, given majority U.S. desire to end the war.  Like Newt Gingrich promising to quit campaigning before actually doing so, Obama is promising to leave Afghanistan, but not yet -- except that he isn't promising to ever leave at all.  The agreement is open-ended.

Obama spoke on Tuesday of a transition to Afghan control, but we've heard that talk for a decade.  That's not some new bright idea that requires two-and-a-half more years to develop.

Obama talked of fighting al Qaeda, but the U.S. has not been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has admitted for years that there is virtually no al Qaeda presence there.  That's not the two-year project, and it's not the reason to remain indefinitely after 2014.

The agreement requires that all "entities" involved in a peace process renounce violence, but the Taliban will no more do that while under foreign occupation than the United States will do so while occupying.  This is not a serious plan to leave.  Nor is it a plan based on Afghan sovereignty, numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding.  This is a treaty for more years of war, on the model of the Bush-Maliki treaty for Iraq, but with the difference that theirs included an end date.

The agreement says it enters into force when "the Parties notify one another, through diplomatic channels, of the completion of their respective internal legal requirements."  The U.S. Constitution requires ratification by the Senate of all treaties.  Congress could insist on its right to approve or reject this, just as the Afghan Parliament will be permitted to do.  Or Congress could require withdrawal now, as does bill HR 780, which has 70 cosponsors.

The written agreement doesn't mention it, but Obama said on Tuesday that he would withdraw 23,000 troops by the end of the summer, after which reductions would continue "at a steady pace."  Assuming 90,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan, a steady pace would get them all home by about a year from now, not two-and-a-half years from now.  But Obama says that it will be the end of 2014, not when the last troop leaves, but when a significant number of troops remain, as Afghans become "fully responsible for the security of their country" -- except for whatever it is that the U.S. troops will do.

Obama is full of praise for U.S. troops, as if they've benefitted Afghanistan.  And he's full of concern for the suffering of U.S. troops and U.S. citizens.  When he mentions Afghans, at best he equates their suffering under U.S. bombs, drones, night raids, and prison cells, to the suffering of Americans scared by their television sets and forced to over-eat to relieve their stress.  "Neither Americans nor the Afghan people asked for this war," Obama said, forgetting that one of those two countries had invaded the other one and occupied it for over a decade.  "The reason America is safe is because of you," Obama told U.S. troops, forgetting that the war has made our nation more hated around the world.

This agreement is inexcusable.  It's also vague and preliminary.  A more detailed treaty will be worked out on May 20th when NATO meets in Chicago.  We need to be there en masse in protest. 

##

David Swanson's books include "War Is A Lie." 

Here: PDF.

And remember, some or all of those 10 years will likely be BAD war years, because the president will be a Republican.

By Dave Lindorff

As we slog towards another vapid, largely meaningless exercise in pretend democracy with the selection of a new president and Congress this November, it is time to make it clear that the current president, elected four years ago by so many people with such inflated expectations four years ago (myself included, as I had hoped, vainly it turned out, that those who elected him would then press him to act in progressive ways), is not only a betrayer of those hopes, but is a serial violator of his oath of office. He is, in truth, a war criminal easily the equal of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and perhaps even of Bush’s regent, former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Let me count the ways:

By Afghan Peace Volunteers

"Today, Afghanistan and the U.S. initialed and locked the text of the strategic partnership agreement," said Karzai's spokesman, Aimal Faizi. "This means the text is closed…”

Why ‘lock’ or ‘close’ the future of Afghanistan to 30 million ordinary Afghan citizens?

While the world may accept that the U.S. and Afghan governments have some ’state’ or ‘noble’ considerations for not revealing the contents of the U.S. Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement, how about the democratic consideration of involving Afghans in their own future?

Even the Afghan Parliament was in the dark and uninvolved until they were recently given a peek when Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, read ‘portions’ of the Agreement to assembled parliamentarians on 23^rd April, saying that the U.S. will defend Afghanistan from any outside interference via "diplomatic means, political means, economic means and even military means.”

The U.S. has said it expects to keep about 20,000 troops in the country after 2014.

What IS the Afghan public opinion regarding the U.S. Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement?

Does anyone know?

In an article dated 11^th July 2011, Iman Hassan of ‘The News’ wrote:

 “… the Afghan public has outrightly rejected the US plans as the results of a survey conducted by UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) suggest. UNAMA with its 23 offices in Afghanistan conducted the survey across the country some two months back and hasn’t published it. Although, the survey’s findings are widely known. If published the stark survey results will undermine the US’ future strategic plans.”

Out of curiosity, the Afghan Peace Volunteers pursued the question of whether the UN had actually conducted such a survey.

We sent emails to friends with the Fellowship of Reconciliation U.S.A who have correspondence and contact with the UN. Below was the reply that was forwarded to us.

14^thApril 2012

Dear XXX,

I sent an email inquiry to the UN Coordinator in Afghanistan to ask about the survey.

As I suspected, I did not receive any response. It seems they are not willing to talk about it.

But I will keep watching for any future publications. 

Best,

XXX

We also asked a staff member at McClatchy Newspapers in Kabul if he could ask some questions at the UN office in Kabul. We have not heard any news from the McClatchy staff.

So, we still don’t know if there was ever such a survey conducted by the UN office in Kabul.

We feel that even if there was no such survey, then a survey should be conducted under the auspices of the UN, and its results made known before the signing of the agreement, to rebuild trust in the UN, U.S. and Afghan governments’ democratic processes.

The contents of the U.S. Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement should be ‘unlocked’ to the American and Afghan public, and the survey conducted among Afghans in every province, particularly in the provinces where the joint military operations of the Strategic Partnership Agreement will continue to be launched beyond 2014.

Has the UN silenced the Afghan public?

But perhaps, participation in today’s democracy is designed to be ‘locked’ away.

We, the Afghan Peace Volunteers, respectfully ask for the key.

29^th April 2012

This article is an update to previous "MSNBC: Evidence of Multiple Shooters, Night Raid in Sgt. Bales Case"

In a striking omission to mainstream coverage of the Afghan massacre which took the lives of 17 Afghans including many children, one as young as two, the AP has reported that US soldiers came to their villages after a roadside bombing two days before and promised retaliation.   The Pentagon has denied that any bombing took place, putting it in direct contradiction to the attorney for Sgt. Robert Bales, who alone is being accused of the rampage.

AP said on March 23d:

Here's an Associated Press story on an agreement for another decade of U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, an agreement between two governments that do not represent their peoples, a story that was clearly translated from the language of some foreign planet.  I'll help out with improving the translation a bit below:

"By HEIDI VOGT, Associated Press

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. and Afghanistan reached a deal Sunday on a long-delayed strategic partnership agreement that ensures Americans will provide military and financial support to the Afghan people for at least a decade beyond 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw."

The first story was shaky from the start, that Sgt. Robert Bales "sneaked" off a combat outpost into hostile, landmined territory in the middle of the night, walked north a little over a half mile to a village, engaged in bloody murder, then walked back that half mile, past the base, and another mile south, killed more people, then turned himself in at the gate, all within an hour.  Sharp-eyed bloggers did the math and recalled from other reports that Bales has part of a foot missing from a wound in Iraq, making the feat all the more remarkable.  

Among the dead were a number of children, including a two-year-old.

Scott Camil, a veteran of the second-longest U.S. war in history, that on Vietnam, radically changed a discussion of the longest war in U.S. history, that on Afghanistan, on CNN on Sunday.

CNN's Don Lemon tried repeatedly to explain troops posing with body parts as an inscrutable result of war, without questioning the justification of that war.  Repeatedly, Lemon instructed viewers not to judge soldiers. 

A guest to whom Lemon devoted a great deal of time, Dr. Terry Lyles, followed Lemon's leads and was praised by Lemon as the best guest he'd heard from on the topic.  Lyles suggested the problem was one of public relations: "We need to do a better job," he said, "you know, with them psychologically to help them understand that the world is watching.  Be careful about what you do and what you capture while what you're doing every day is very difficult."

Scott Camil took a different tack, saying: "Well no we don't know what it's like to be in combat unless you've been in combat, but I think the real question is: you're nit picking when you're talking about things like people posing with bodies.  The real question should be why are we at war in the first place? Why are we killing so many people in the first place? The concern over posing with someone that's dead, it seems to me the fact that that person is dead and that we're killing people is more important than what happens after they're dead." 

Camil's comment was so effective that the next panelist to speak shifted to his topic.  Holly Hughes remarked: "Scott hit the nail on the head because now we've opened a dialogue.  What are we talking about now?  Shouldn't we be more upset that we're out there killing people? . . . Maybe we need to assess why we're there in the first place." 

Camil continued: "What I understand is what it's like to be in a war zone and I understand the behavior in a war zone.  And I would say that, first of all, that war is really an institution made up of criminal behavior.  When we as civilians want to solve our problems, we're not allowed to murder people and burn their houses down.  I don't see why war is an acceptable means of conflict resolution.  And furthermore, the majority of people that die are innocent civilians."

Some fundamental truths are rarely spoken on television.

Watch the video:

Scott Camil was honorably discharged with 13 medals including 2 purple hearts following 20 months voluntarily spent as a Marine in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967.  He testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation in 1971, and was a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War Inc. He is an active member of Veterans For Peace and serves as the President of Chapter 014 in Gainesville, Florida.

Veterans for Peace was founded in 1985 and has approximately 5,000 members in 150 chapters located in every U.S. state and several countries.  It is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the United Nations, and is the only national veterans' organization calling for the abolishment of war.

By HEIDI VOGT, Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. and Afghanistan reached a deal Sunday on a long-delayed strategic partnership agreement that ensures Americans will provide military and financial support to the Afghan people for at least a decade beyond 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw.

The pact is key to the U.S. exit strategy in Afghanistan because it establishes guidelines for any American forces who remain after the withdrawal deadline and for financial help to the impoverished country and its security forces.

For the Afghan government, it is also a way to show its people that their U.S. allies are not just walking away.