SECURITY WITHOUT EMPIRE: NATIONAL ORGANIZING CONFERENCE ON FOREIGN MILITARY BASES

There is a sense of relief that many here in the U.S. feel after the presidential election, but we understand this is a time to step up our organizing for peace and economic justice - including the growing movement to close and withdraw the nearly 1,000 U.S. military bases located in foreign nations.

American University, Washington, D.C.

Feb. 27-Mar. 2, 2009

From Okinawa and Guam to Honduras, Germany, Iraq, and beyond people who have suffered from the abuses inherent to foreign military bases have been calling for their withdrawal. People in the U.S. have joined this call, outraged by the damage done by U.S. bases abroad and by their expense, which diverts $138 billion a year from addressing human needs and revitalizing our economy. Representatives of 13 organizations have come together to organize a national conference or the closing and withdrawal of military bases. The goals of the conference are:

• Share information about U.S. foreign mlitary bases and resistance;
• Develop new strategies and expand the U.S. anti-bases movement;
• Integrate anti-bases organizing into a more coherent movement;
• Raise the visibility of the U.S. and international anti-bases movements;
• Apply pressure on Congress;
• Close and reduce the number of foreign bases.

The conference will feature base opponents from many "host" nations and will include leading activists as keynote speakers, panelists and workshop facilitators.

Monday, March 2, will be a lobbying day on Capitol Hill, in which we encourage as many conference attendees as possible to participate.

> read more

Forgotten Victims: Inside Kandahar's Main Hospital

Civilians in Afghanistan have paid the heaviest price for the conflict in their country, caught up almost daily in both Taliban attacks and air raids by US force.

Al Jazeea's David Chater has been to the main hospital in the Afghan city of Kandaha , where he heard some of their stories.

 

Theater of War: Portrait of a Homeland Security State

Nina Berman is an award-winning documentary photographer with a keen interest in America's social and political landscape. Her first book, Purple Hearts: Back From Iraq, is a collection of portraits and interviews of wounded soldiers who have returned home. Her photograph of a severely disfigured Iraq veteran and his bride on their wedding day won the World Press Photo competition for portraiture in 2006.

Berman's new book, Homeland, depicts the evolution of the "American security state" from 2001 to 2007. Berman traveled around the country, photographing gun shows, SWAT team training, a public military academy for juvenile delinquents and endless drills and simulations designed to prepare Americans of all ages to respond to someone's idea of a terrorist attack. Berman began the project after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"I started shortly after 9/11, (after I) started seeing things that struck me as odd -- examples of security -- and not knowing whether this was a rational response to a real threat or whether it was all theater."

Berman started shopping the book around in 2003, but soon realized it wasn't ready. Setting the project aside, she turned her attention to reporting on wounded soldiers. When she returned to her Homeland series, she had renewed energy. "One reason I thought it was important was because many of the soldiers I interviewed said they thought war was going to be fun," Berman explains. "This book is about how we visualize war."

A lot of "homeland security" requires us to imagine what a terrorist attack would be like. As we are continually reminded by authorities, we don't know what the terrorists might do next. So, how do you educate and train people to respond to a hypothetical threat? And to what extent do terror-readiness exercises provide a stage to act out our fantasies about war, rather than provide reality-based simulations of known threats?

Fantasy isn't just for domestic consumption. Berman visited a military training facility at Fort Polk, La., known as The Box. The Box is a simulated Iraq, set on 100,000 acres, populated with Arabic-speaking Iraqi employees. The facility has 18 mock villages populated by 1,000 role-players who simulate Iraqi civilians and insurgents.

Many of the simulated Iraqis are, in fact, Iraqi immigrants. Berman explains that play-acting as insurgents can be a full-time job. You don't have be an immigrant or an Arabic speaker to play a role in the Fort Polk drama. Plenty of Anglophone locals consider it their patriotic duty to simulate terrorists to educate the troops about the real Iraq.

Army recruits go into The Box to train for their deployment to Iraq. One of Berman's photos taken at Fort Polk shows a cinderblock box with a sign, in Arabic and English, that reads "Freedom School."

"You go [to The Box] for a couple weeks; you're supposed to learn about the culture," says Berman. "This is where I step back and say 'what's really going on?' It's one thing to build an Iraqi village for training and say, 'OK, this might happen' … But once you start building Freedom School, what are you really making? Who's imagination is this? Is this supposed to be someplace in Iraq? (Or) is this someone's fantasy of what Iraq is?"

As Berman demonstrates, sometimes reality intrudes in unexpected ways, like in the case of GI Goat, a rust-colored baby goat who is shown in the book standing sleepily next to a military vehicle. At Fort Polk, Berman noticed an area full of farm animals. The public affairs officer explained that GIs encounter farmers during some training scenarios; someone decided that the faux farmers needed real livestock -- but real animals brought real complications.

"The animals were reproducing, especially the goats. You had all these baby goats, so they had to hire people to look after the animals," Berman explains. "All of the goats are government property. According to the 'farmer,' if one of them dies there's a lot of paperwork.

"It seemed like a good idea. Who wouldn't want training? If it's going to resemble what they would encounter, that could be a good thing. But there are no boundaries. It's an opportunity for fantasies to just rage. A public affairs officer said they thought it would be helpful to simulate the smell of Iraq. So they tried that in a small part of village. It didn't really work. But it wasn't a joke, it was a serious discussion."

There's nothing imaginary about the money that goes into these exercises. Berman's photographs underscore the fact that counterterrorism is big business.

"[The staff of Fort Polk] are looking for more work; anything goes. The point I'm trying to make is that it has become a real business."

Indeed, there's a lot of money available for homeland security, so many people have a vested interest in dramatizing the threat -- and many of the subjects in Homeland have a vested interest in maximizing their drama, whether it's the officers at Fort Polk sniffing out funding opportunities, a local police department beefing up its SWAT teams, or a Neighborhood Watch captain writing grants to hire his friends to patrol his small town for terrorists.

Berman recalls a conversation she had with a gun dealer in Orlando, Fla., who was trying to sell very long sniper rifles to a civilian police department in the name of counterterrorism. She asked why the police would need such a weapon. The gun dealer responded by presenting a highly complex scenario involving terrorists on a boat filled with explosives in the river preparing to ram into some seaside structure. In that case, he asked Berman, wouldn't she want the police officers to have extra-long sniper rifles?

"How do you answer that question? You've got to answer, 'I want one weapon; I want five weapons!' If the answer no, you're a traitor. The point is why ask that question? Is that a valid question?"

Of course, if you're going to simulate terror, it's important to document the artifice exhaustively, to convince everyone that more money is needed to simulate bigger threats.

"The military was photographing everything," Berman says of another training exercise she photographed for the book. "They had crews with really good video cameras and really good still cameras photographing everything so they could show Congress -- this is what they told me -- to get more money for training."

The book also shows how homeland security is blurring the lines between the military and the police. A number of photographs show police officers participating in exercises that seem more suited to the Special Forces than to civilian policing.

"The SWAT units look like, and are armed like and behave like, paramilitary forces," Berman says. Even police dogs are getting makeovers. In the book, we see a Florida women's group beaming at K-9 unit "Santo," resplendent in his new Kevlar body armor emblazoned with the word "SHERIFF."

There's a harrowing sequence of photos showing police SWAT recruits barely keeping their nostrils above flowing water in an agility exercise -- images that invoke waterboarding.

Ultimately, Homeland traces the logic of a massive positive feedback loop in which fear spurs performance and performance spurs fear. Fear of a terrorist attack spurs ever more elaborate simulations of doomsday scenarios in the name of practice and preparation. These massive public spectacles dramatize the threat and make relatively unlikely events hyper-salient in people's minds. Participating in, or just paying for, ever more elaborate practice exercises is one way to temporarily assuage the anxiety.

Berman argues that the security theater overkill is part of a culture where everything seems to exist for our entertainment. There are many images in the book of Americans at the park and the beach gaping at the spectacle of a military fly-by. They could be watching a summer blockbuster movie.

"There's some added value in seeing yourself as a target," says Berman. "If you feel like a terrorist is trying to kill you all the time, you must be a very important person."

MI5 said Iraq “exacerbated the threat from international terrorism”

By David Morrison | Stella Rimington, the last but one head of MI5, was interviewed by Decca Aikenhead in The Guardian on 18 October 2008. She asked her about the effect of Britain’s invasion of Iraq on the terrorist threat to Britain:

I ask Rimington what importance she would place on the war, in terms of its impact on the terrorist threat. She pauses for a second, then replies quietly but firmly: ‘Look at what those people who’ve been arrested or have left suicide videos say about their motivation. And most of them, as far as I’m aware, say that the war in Iraq played a significant part in persuading them that this is the right course of action to take. So I think you can’t write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we’re looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading. [1]

Decca Aikenhead seemed to be surprised at this forthright assertion by an ex-head of MI5 of a causal connection between Britain’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and the heightened terrorist threat to Britain. She commented:

These might not be unremarkable views for most Guardian readers - of whom Rimington is one. But according to Rimington, they are widely held within the intelligence service - much more so than most members of the public, and perhaps particularly Guardian readers, ever suspect.

Official MI5 view

In fact, it is the official view of MI5, and has been for several years, that such a causal connection exists. I know that because I read it on MI5’s website in July 2005, at the time of the London bombings. There, on a page entitled Threat to the UK from International Terrorism, I read:

In recent years, Iraq has become a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.

I was astonished to read this since it acknowledged that al-Qaeda activity was, at least in part, a reaction to Western interference in the Muslim world, rather than driven by an evil ambition to destroy our way of life in the West, as our political leaders kept telling us.

At that time, Prime Minister Blair was (understandably) trying to deny the existence of a connection between the invasion of Iraq and the bombings in London on 7 July 2005, lest somebody accuse him of having blood on his hands. That was not an unreasonable accusation, given that, having been warned in advance by the intelligence services that the threat from al-Qaida “would be heightened by military action against Iraq” (see Intelligence & Security Committee report of 11 September 2003 [2], Paragraph 126), he chose to make Britain a less safe place by invading Iraq in March 2003.

I made considerable efforts to draw the attention of The Guardian and other newspapers to the extraordinary fact that the words coming out of the Prime Minister’s mouth were at variance with what was published on the MI5 website. This seemed to me to be newsworthy. But to no avail. To the best of my knowledge, this plain, publicly stated, view of MI5 was never quoted in the columns of The Guardian, until a letter by me was published on 3 July 2007 [3]. That Guardian readers are ignorant of MI5’s view on the issue is due to the failure of Guardian journalists to bring it to their readers’ attention.

International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq

Lest there is any doubt that the intelligence services have long held the view that invading Iraq increased the terrorist threat to Britain, listen to this from a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq dated April 2005, extracts of which were published in The Sunday Times on 2 April 2006:

Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.

There is a clear consensus within the UK extremist community that Iraq is a legitimate jihad and should be supported. Iraq has re-energised and refocused a wide range of networks in the UK.

We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.

Some jihadists who leave Iraq will play leading roles in recruiting and organising terrorist networks, sharing their skills and possibly conducting attacks. It is inevitable that some will come to the UK. [4]

Blair’s blowback

Even Tony Blair eventually acknowledged that his military adventures in the Muslim world had produced “blowback”. Here’s is what he said in his resignation speech in Sedgefield on 10 March 2007:

Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since, from global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. [5]

The Guardian has yet to report this confession by the former Prime Minister that he has made Britain a less safe by his military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and, in the process, he has caused the deaths of around 400 British soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis.

Crucial point erased

Today, the MI5 website still has a page about “international terrorism” [6], but you won’t find a word about Iraq on it. The previous plain statement by MI5 that there was a causal connection between Iraq and the risk of terrorism in Britain was removed some time since June 2007, when I last saw it there. Now al-Qaeda’s motivation is described in the following terms:

The terrorists draw their inspiration from a global message articulated by figures such as Usama bin Laden. The message is uncompromising and asserts that the West represents a threat to Islam; that loyalty to religion and loyalty to democratic institutions and values are incompatible; and that violence is the only proper response.

It doesn’t quite go so far as to say that al-Qaeda is out to destroy our way of life in the West, but the crucial point – that al-Qaeda terrorism in the West is a response to Western interference in the Muslim world – has been erased.

Jacqui Smith speaks
Fresh from her ignominious defeat in the House of Lords on 42-day detention on 13 October 2008, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, made a major speech on “the threat of international terrorism” to Britain on 15 October 2008 [7]. Like the MI5 website today, her speech omits to mention British intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq as a motivating force for al-Qaeda activity in Britain. In a 3,000-word speech, she provided the following penetrating analysis of what drives al-Qaeda to commit terrorism: “They want a reordering of global political structures and a separation of faith groups …. and to subvert our institutions.”

Most of her speech was taken up with detailing the measures she was taking to counter al-Qaeda in Britain. Four regional counter-terrorism policing hubs, in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds have been established and a fifth one is on the way on the M4 corridor. These are tasked “not only to investigate conspiracies and terrorist operations but to understand radicalisation and radicalisers and to tackle them effectively”.

Several Government departments are also involved in countering “radicalisation”: the Department for Children Schools and Families in providing advice to teachers on how to deal with signs of radicalisation; the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills in working with student bodies and higher and further education to do something rather similar; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in considering what impact the issue of counter radicalisation should have on their programmes; ditto the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health; the Department of Justice is addressing the problem of radicalisation in prisons; and, last but not least, the Department for Communities and Local Government is working on the Preventing Violent Extremism plan. And she holds “a Weekly Security Meeting with senior representatives from each of these Departments and others across Whitehall to discuss their work and the current threat with the police and the security and intelligence agencies”.

How any of this is meant to reduce or prevent “radicalisation” in circumstances in which the main driver – the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq – is still going on is not clear. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly diminish, and perhaps eliminate, the threat to Britain from al-Qaeda. In other words, if we ceased spending money and blood invading Muslim countries, we wouldn’t need to spend money protecting the British homeland from terrorism emanating from the Muslim world in response – and blood would not be spilled on our streets when the protection proves to be fallible.

Notes
[1] The Guardian
[2] Intelligence & Security Committee (pdf)
[3] The Guardian
[4] The Times
[5] Labour website
[6] MI5
[7] Home office.

Pakistan calls for halt to U.S. spy plane cross-border attack

ISLAMABAD, Nov. 19 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has urged, in his address to top NATO military generals, for a halt to U.S drone missile strikes within the Pakistani territory.

Kayani made the appeal while addressing the military committee of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Brussels at the invitation of Admiral Giampaolo Di Paolo, Chairman of NATO's Military Committee, according to a statement issued by the Pakistani army Wednesday.

The statement came a few hours after a U.S. drone fired missiles in Pakistan's district of Bannu bordering Afghanistan, killing at least five people.

Pakistani officials said that the U.S. has fired some 20 missiles in the tribal region since August.

Kayani highlighted the need to reinforce Pakistan's effort and operate in a coordinated manner within respective national boundaries, the statement said.

"He urged a halt to unarmed combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) within Pakistan's territory," it said.

In his address, Kayani apprised the NATO military committee of the overall security situation in the region. He focused on Pakistan's perspective on the obtaining environment, operational issues and the way forward.

Kayani clearly spelt the need for security and stability in the region through a comprehensive approach.

Editor: Yan

Do You Want to See What War Looks Like?

"We have an entire generation of people in their twenties and thirties who have never gone through a warthe media and government have gotten so good at the creation of messages, people don't know the reality" -- Casey J. Porter

Army Sergeant Casey J. Porter has many battles to fight, and unlike the dramatizations of politicians and media commentators, his battles are concrete, real, and hard fought. During his time as an enlisted soldier deployed in Iraq, Casey has undergone an evolutionary process, one that has taken him from warrior to peace activist. His talent and passion for filmmaking have given him the perfect medium for his personal expression. Utilizing his current circumstances and natural talent as a filmmaker to speak out against the war, Casey's films have turned the heads of people like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and filmmaker Michael Moore.

I was fortunate enough to spend some time with Casey recently. Phoning from Iraq, his soft-spoken voice was not quite what I expected -- his intellect, courage, and tenacity are apparent, even from three thousand miles away.

"Most Americans are not affected on a daily basis by this war; it is not personal for themI can tell you for example, that what is happening in Iraq is always in the daily thoughts of my mother."

After serving one tour of duty in Iraq, and completing his voluntary commitment to the military, Casey found himself entangled in the controversial military policy, "stop-loss." The "Backdoor Draft" as some have called it, is the means by which the United States Military may extend the terms of service of a United States soldier to retain them longer than the period for which they volunteered. Critics of "stop-loss" say the policy hurts troop moral and unnecessarily places the burden of war on relatively few families, shielding the majority of Americans from any real sacrifice during wartime.

Shortly before his second deployment to Iraq, Casey became a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and helped found its Fort Hood chapter. For Casey, the decision to join the anti-war group was natural. As he experienced the plight of the Iraqi people and the injury and loss of friends who served, his opposition and activism grew into an all out personal mission. Casey has taken his misfortune as a "stop-loss" soldier and turned it into an opportunity to make a difference in how the occupation of Iraq is perceived by Americans. Unwittingly, he is humble about his activism. While discussing his films, Casey says, "most importantly, this is not about me at all, but the soldiers around me and those who continue to deploy year after year. This has been, and will always be about them."

To watch his films, What War Looks Like and Deconstructed (see below), one cannot help but feel an intimate connection to the reality in Iraq. Images of dead bodies, blown-out Humvees, and services for soldiers who have lost their lives challenge the myths, sound bites, talking points, and infotainment created by politicians and media pundits. "The photos you see of soldiers' services in What War Looks Like were taken by me," Casey explains. "Standing there and watching fellow soldiers experience such loss changes you. Watching Iraqi children dig through landfills for food changes you. Seeing the senselessness of it all compels me to speak outI know that I am not the only soldier who feels this way about the continued occupation of Iraq. Whether they're soldiers who have been stop-lossed or this is their first time over here -- they are seeing the truth for themselves."

Casey cites the stark contrast between his daily experiences in Iraq and what is reported in US media as an important reason for taking action. By keeping the truth from the American people, he says they are unable to make sound decisions about the continued occupation of Iraq. Crucial details are kept from view -- details that dramatically influence the daily lives of thousands of Americans and their families. The hardship of these families, which goes largely unrecognized except for the splattering of yellow ribbon magnets on cars, is the main reason Casey finds himself motivated to act. "I could not live with myself if I kept my head down and went into another deployment without taking any actionthe hardest stand to take is from within," he says.

After the creation of What War Looks Like and the subsequent Internet stir it caused, Casey realized the potential he had to make a difference with what he calls "guerrilla-style filmmaking." Casey's vision for telling the truth and reaching large audiences is slowly gaining momentum on YouTube; his short films continue to garner support from thousands of activists, fellow soldiers, and concerned Americans.

Before we hung up, I asked Casey to comment on the recent lull in the violence in Iraq, which has been credited to "the surge" of forces injected by the Bush Administration in 2007. Casey points to the stifling heat, the re-organization of resistance fighters and the continued construction of walls throughout Iraq's cities. The effects of walls and checkpoints, he notes, rarely make it into US media headlines or political talking points. But one recent report by AP writer Hamza Hendawi supports Casey's assertion: similar to the walls and checkpoints constructed by Israel throughout the West Bank, Baghdad's walls lead to gridlock, rising prices for food and homes, and complaints about living in what feels like a prison.

Casey points out that the construction of these walls brutalizes an already brutalized population. "The look on the faces of the Iraqi people shows just how angry and worn out they feeland I apologize every chance I get." As long as these walls and checkpoints remain, Casey says Iraqis have no real hope of rebuilding a strong stable economy. This is hardly the free and democratic society promised by the Bush administration.

The continued contradiction between the reality of the war and deliberately inaccurate rhetoric has compelled this soldier to turn his personal misfortune into a source of hope. Casey believes a populace armed with knowledge will act to end the unjustified occupation of Iraq. It is here that Casey has placed his hope for a safe return and an end to this war. And it is in Casey that many have placed their hope for humanity.

>

Lebanon: Spy for Israel 'admits' scouting Mughniyeh hit site

Friday, November 14, 2008

 Listen to the Article - Powered by

BEIRUT: A security source said Ali Jarrah, charged with espionage for Israel, has confirmed to investigators that he was assigned earlier this year to scout the Kfar Soussa district in the Syrian capital of Damascus where senior Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated in February, As-Safir newspaper reported on Monday. As-Safir also quoted an unidentified security source as saying Jarrah testified to have scouted "certain points" in the coastal town of Tartous in northern Syria, where Syrian General Mohammad Suleiman was assassinated. Jarrah, who was allegedly recruited by Israeli intelligence in 1982, said he was not aware of the targets that Israeli intelligence wanted to strike.

Asharq Al-Awsat: Shiite Leaders Demand Changes to Iraqi School Curriculum

13/11/2008

By Qassim al-Kaabi

Najaf, Asharq Al-Awsat- The religious authority in Najaf, Iraq, renewed its objection to the current educational curriculum (which was created under the Saddam Hussein regime) demanding it be changed. Sheik Khalid Al Numani, Vice-President of the Najaf Municipal Council said that 'the religious community has made its objections known repeatedly regarding this issue, the current Minister of Education has heard our demands and yet no change has occurred'

Sheik Al Numani told Asharq Al-Awsat that 'the Iraqi people have sacrificed everything for a change in regime and ideas, this includes a change in the educational curriculum which was written during that unjust time and to which more than 35 percent of Iraqi youth study under, and it is they who are calling for this change'

He added that six years after the fall of the previous regime 'we are still studying under the same education curriculum, and is within the Minister of Education's power to change this curriculum, yet he has not done so'.

Al Numani went on to say 'We have Shiite schools, why should we abolish its ideas? It is our right to study these ideas; this is not sectarianism, for it is the right of each community in Iraq to study the ideas of its own community. The study of the historical curriculum of the previous regime should not be imposed on us' adding 'what is the value in reconstruction and development if you do not change anything in education?'

Munther Al Hatimi, a member of the Najaf provincial council added 'It is a human right to study one's own heritage and religious, but under the previous regime there was an intellectual, scientific, and cultural besiegement, especially with regards to anything Shiite. We are not talking about sectarianism, but it is our right to study our own history, as it is the right of others to do the same'.

The Director of Education in Najaf Majid Sudani told Asharq Al-Awsat that 'When we visited the senior Shiite cleric in Iraq Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani last year he reaffirmed to us that changing the educational curriculum would be complementary to the colors of the Iraqi rainbow, and that he is against a separate educational curriculum for Sunnis or Shiites, but rather desires a unified curriculum for all religious sects'. He added 'The Ministry of Education is serious about changing the educational curriculum, but has resolved to do so gradually, towards Islamic education, research, reading, and history'.

Unite against Nato expansion and war

With conflict spreading across the globe, April’s protest in Strasbourg will be a key focus for the anti-war movement, writes Chris Nineham

The European anti-war movement is calling for mass protests at next year’s Nato summit in Strasbourg, France, including an international demonstration and a counter-summit.

This is a key opportunity for the anti-war movement.

The reason is simple.

Nato has become the main vehicle for the imperial strategy of the US and its allies. And the timing is perfect – the mood for change that swept Barack Obama to office coincides with deep problems for the US’s imperial project.

Nato’s actions are destabilising much of Europe and Asia.

Nato controls the 47,000-strong “International Security Assistance Force” that fronts the disastrous occupation of Afghanistan.

Rather than accepting defeat in the face of growing opposition, Nato leaders are now contemplating a military “surge” in Afghanistan and more cross-border attacks in Pakistan.

The US’s two most senior military figures, General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Mullen, are currently reviewing their Afghanistan strategy and planning on how to deal with “safe havens for terrorists” in Pakistan.

Incursions

There have been 17 bloody incursions into Pakistan since the beginning of September. Western powers have given the Pakistani government a choice – crack down on the so-called “tribal areas” on the Afghan border or Nato may take the situation into its own hands.

The assumption is that the resistance in Afghanistan is growing because of these “terrorist bases” in Pakistan.

In fact the opposite is the case – the growing instability in Pakistan is a direct consequence of the brutal Nato occupation of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Nato’s plans for eastward expansion in Europe risks confrontation with Russia.

The day after Obama’s election, Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev announced he would move nuclear warheads to Kaliningrad on the border with Poland, and point them west.

He said this was to “neutralise” the so called “missile defence shield” that the US has been throwing up around Russia.

But it is also a sign of Russia’s defiance in the face of its war with Georgia in the summer and attempts by Nato to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into its orbit.

Though the US is still the most powerful country in the world, economic crisis and the fact that its armies are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan make challenges to US power more likely.

US military chiefs recently repeated calls for Nato countries to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Obama himself has said he wants to see more concerted action. But tensions are emerging in the Nato coalition.

Britain’s most senior soldier warned this week that Britain should not redeploy its troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

General Jock Stirrup told the BBC, “The British armed forces are stretched. It’s crucial we reduce the operational tempo for our armed forces.

“It cannot be just a one-for-one transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan.’’

The statement from the chief of defence staff is a signal to the US that Britain is not prepared to endlessly ramp up the number of troops.

We cannot be complacent, however, as the US is likely to use the Nato summit to pressure countries to contribute more troops.

Millions

The Strasbourg protests give us a chance to push for the changes that millions are looking for.

They can be a launchpad for a global campaign against the occupation of Afghanistan.

They can also force the warmongers onto the defensive.

Anyone who remembers Genoa in 2001 will know that huge international protests can have an electrifying effect on activists round the world.

Remembering The Victims of Those Who Profit From War:

November 11, 2008 "Chycho" - -Remembrance Day (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom), also known as Poppy Day (Malta and South Africa) and Armistice Day (France, New Zealand, and many other Commonwealth countries; and the original name of the day internationally) "is a day to commemorate the sacrifices of members of the armed forces and civilians in times of war, specifically since the First World War. It is observed on 11 November to recall the end of World War I on that date in 1918.”

How unfortunate that we have a need for such a day, especially since “War is a racket It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” So stated Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, the most decorated Marine in US history.

Today, and every day, we should remember why we have sent our children to die, and to kill. We should remember that war is meant to consolidate assets for the oligarchy. We should also remember that the majority of casualties of every War have been civilians. That not only soldiers, but countless innocents have been caught in the line of fire between warring corporations to increase the wealth of the privileged few.

One of the best summations of war that I have ever found is given by Major General Butler in his book, WAR IS A RACKET:

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

The above book should be mandatory reading and part of every curriculum, in every school, in every country around the world.

Today we should remember that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in over 1.2 million civilian deaths as well as creating over 4 million refugees. We should remember that our present wars are expanding beyond the boundaries of containment.

We should also remember our recent history and the legacy of war, maybe then we can prevent it from repeating itself. The following websites contain images that will be a part of our history for future generations to come, after all what better way to remember history then with photos:

- Hiroshima, the pictures they didn't want us to see and why

- Photo journal of a German soldier on the Eastern Front

- The Iraq War as a Trophy Photo

- "War against Terrorism" in Afghanistan

- A Vietnam Photo Essay

- The War to End All Wars: World War I

And with all wars there is genocide, so we must also remember the end result of war:

- The Canadian Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples

- Native American Genocide in the United States

- Armenian Genocide

- Rwandan Genocide

- Genocide in progress: Darfur

The above is just a sample of our deeds and why it is important to have a ‘Remembrance Day’. But today should not be just about our children that we have turned into killers, it should also be about the innocent civilian victims created due to our ignorance as to the true cause and cost of war. We have sacrificed millions so that we can remain apathetic.

We should remember that war is neither about honor, duty, justice or peace. War is about money, greed, power, and death and destruction. It is about sacrificing our children to propagate fear.

We should also remember that we have the power to stop Preemptive Wars of Aggression that are being waged in our name and with our children’s innocence and blood - after all, there are over 6.7 billion of us... for now.

Russia: Czech mayors oppose U.S. missile shield plans

MOSCOW, November 10 (RIA Novosti) - Mayors of 15 Czech cities are to ask U.S. president-elect Barack Obama to abandon the Bush administration's plans to place a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic, a member of the European parliament said on Monday.

The agreement to station a U.S. radar near a military area about 90 kilometers (55 miles) southwest of Prague was signed on July 8 by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

"Heads of local administrations [near the proposed radar site] are planning to ask Obama to pay attention not only to the position of the central government of this country, but also to the opinion expressed by local residents," said Giulietto Chiesa, who is visiting the Czech Republic on behalf of another 18 European MP who oppose U.S. missile shield plans for Central Europe.

According to recent public opinion polls, two-thirds of Czechs are against the planned stationing of a U.S. missile defense radar base on Czech soil.

The radar is part of a planned missile shield system that would also include the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The U.S. says it needs the Central European shield to protect against attacks by "rogue states" such as Iran.

The plans are fiercely opposed by Russia, which sees the missile shield as a threat to its national security.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on November 5 that Russia would deploy high-precision Iskander-M guided missile systems in its westernmost Kaliningrad exclave "to neutralize, if necessary, the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe."

His speech came the day after U.S. presidential elections.

Kaliningrad borders Poland and Lithuania, both NATO member states. The deployment of Iskander systems with a range of 500 km (310 miles) would allow Russia to target almost all territory of Poland and also parts of Germany and the Czech Republic.

For more information in Russian

Tearful tribesmen bury more bodies US strikes in Waziristan leaves 14 dead Monitoring Desk

Miranshah: American drone has killed 13 in an attack in the northern Waziristan early on Friday morning, officials said. The attack was carried out at a house in Janikhel area of the region, said an officials. Maulvi Abdullah, a regional Taliban militant has also confirmed to Pajhwok News Agency that at least 13 fighters in the early morning attack. Militants have rented the house for training their fellows, the self proclaimed militant said. Bombing by American pilotless drone in the tribal region bordering the neighbouring Afghanistan has increased despite the disagreement of Pakistani authorities. Four missiles were fired at the camp, in Kumsham village, some 35 kilometres south of Miranshah in North Waziristan province. Security sources said the village is dominated by Wazir tribes and is near the border with South Waziristan. "Between 11 to 14 militants, mainly foreigners, were killed in the strike," a senior military official told media on condition of anonymity. Local official Attiq-ur Rehman also confirmed the strike but gave a different death toll. "There was a missile strike in the Kumsham village and it destroyed a compound, 13 people were killed," he said. An intelligence official added: "The strike successfully destroyed the camp." "The militants were using the facility for training," another said. Maulvi Abdullah, a regional Taliban militant has also confirmed killing of 13 fighters in the early morning attack. Militants have rented the house for training their fellows, the self proclaimed militant said. Bombing by American pilotless drones in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan has increased despite the disagreement of Pakistani authorities. Meanwhile, sixteen militants were killed on Friday as PAF planes bombarded several suspected Taliban hideouts in a restive northwest tribal region, officials said. Jets pounded the towns of Damadola, Sewai and Sipra in Bajaur district where forces have clashed with Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants for the past three months, local administration official Jamil Khan told media. Another security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 16 Taliban militants were killed. The toll may rise as the jets repeatedly bombed the suspected bases, he added. Fourteen people were killed in air strikes in Bajaur on Thursday and 15 extremists died in similar raids on Wednesday, according to local officials. Security officials said the bombing campaign has been stepped up as land forces were planning a ground offensive in these towns where militants are said to have underground bunkers. In another tragic incident, the unidentified armed men fired three missiles at an army camp in Wana from nearby mountains on Friday. Security forces retaliated with automatic and heavy weapons. The firing between the security forces and the militants continued for an hour, however no report of loss of life has been received so far. Political administration while confirming the incident said that investigation is in progress. In Swat, the security forces are continuing operation against the militants and sporadic firing is still going on. The administration has imposed an indefinite curfew in the area. The people are leaving the homes in Matta tehsil, Kabal and Chahar Bagh. Ttwo tribesmen sustained critical injuries when one of them hit a landmine at Shahshu village in Lower Kurram Agency on Friday. An official of political administration said that Sultan Khan and Zahoor were coming from fields as one of them laid foot on roadside landmine. Resultantly, both sustained injuries and were rushed to hospital. President Asif Ali Zardari while condemning the missile attack in North Waziristan expressed grief and sorrow over the loss of life. In North Waziristan on Friday, at least ten people were killed and five others injured in the US spy planes missiles attack in Qamasham area of Razmak Tehsil. The missiles also destroyed two houses whereas all the dead and injured were local people.

Now he must declare that the war on terror is over

By Jonathan Steele

Obama’s preference for diplomacy can help to forge new, individual relationships with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan

A day of joy but also another day of horror. Even as American voters were giving the world the man whom opinion polls showed to be the overwhelming favorite in almost every country, his predecessor’s terrible legacy was already crowding in on the president-elect.

Twenty-three children and 10 women died in the latest U.S. air strike in Afghanistan, a failed war on terror that has only brought worse terror in its wake. In Iraq, explosions killed 13 people. Obama’s stand against an unpopular war was the bedrock of his success on Tuesday, even though the financial meltdown sealed his victory. Now he must make good on his promises of withdrawal.

On Iran, the last of the toughest three issues in his foreign in-tray, his line differed sharply from McCain’s. In contrast to the Republican’s call to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”, Obama offered dialogue. Though he qualified his initial talk of having the president sit down with his Iranian counterpart, he remains wedded to engagement rather than boycott.

In this arc of conflict -- Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan -- Obama’s approach is preferable to Bush’s or McCain’s. The century-old paradigm of Republicans as the party of realism and the Democrats as the party of ideologues was turned upside down by the neocons. Bush led an administration of crusaders and took the country to disaster. Obama offers a return to traditional diplomacy.

Nevertheless, his position contains massive inconsistencies. While his instincts are cautious and pragmatic, he has not repudiated the war on terror. Rather, he insists that by focusing excessively on Iraq, the Bush administration “took its eye off the ball”. The real target must be Afghanistan and if Osama bin Laden is spotted in Pakistan, bombing must be used there too.

This is a cul-de-sac. If the most important single thing that Obama should do quickly is to announce the immediate closure of Guantánamo Bay, the corollary has to be a declaration that the war on terror is over. Accept that terrorism is a technique. It is not an ideology. The west faces no global enemy, no worldwide ‘Islamofascist’ conspiracy. Foreign crises should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Their roots lie in the complex interplay of local tensions, social grievances, economic inequalities, unemployment, food and water shortages and cultural prejudice that plagues so many countries. If fundamentalists of this ideology or that religion try to exploit that, they only scratch the surface. Don’t hand them the gift of overreaction.

In Afghanistan that means separating the issue of the Taliban from that of al-Qaeda. NATO’s tentative new policy of talking to the Taliban should be expanded, so that foreign troops can be withdrawn from the south. The trend should be to bring troops out, not send more in. Erratic air strikes only enrage the population and foster the Pashtun resistance that is the foundation of the Taliban’s support. Similarly in Pakistan Obama should forge stronger ties to the new government and give it funds to bring development to the North-West Frontier Province. Let Pakistani politicians take the lead in working with tribal authorities.

In Iraq the contradictions in Obama’s policy centre on his plans to keep a “residual force”. His promise to withdraw all combat troops by June 2010 will be welcomed by a majority in Iraq’s parliament, which has been refusing to accept Bush’s draft agreement, partly in the expectation that Obama would offer terms that better respected Iraq’s sovereignty. But what does Obama mean by a residual force? He says it would hunt al-Qaeda militants, protect the vast U.S. embassy, and train the Iraqi army. Officials on his team say it could number as many as 50,000 troops. Even if much of this force remains on bases and is barely visible to Iraqi civilians (much as the 4,500 British at Basra airfield are), it cannot avoid symbolizing the fact that the occupation continues. Obama should seize the opportunity to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq with dignity. Only a total pull-out can remove the anger over the U.S. occupation felt by most Arabs throughout the Middle East.

Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will resist this. They will tell Obama that a U.S. retreat hands victory to a resurgent Iran and Shias everywhere. But it is not a U.S. withdrawal that will help Iran. Bush’s war has already done that, since it was bound to empower Iraq’s majority community. The best way to prevent Iran’s strong relationship with the government in Baghdad from becoming a regional threat is for the U.S. to engage with Iran and forge a new relationship.

Of course, that is easier said than done. By coincidence, American voters elected Obama on the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. American attitudes are still distorted by feelings of anger, humiliation and revenge going back 29 years. Iranian leaders are also wary, assuming reasonably enough that Bush was bent on “regime change” and Obama’s softer policy may contain the same sting.

In his anniversary speech, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, praised the hostage seizure, as usual, as a blow against “global arrogance” -- the shorthand now used for the U.S. instead of the “Great Satan”. But the Supreme Leader raised the stakes by insisting the U.S. must apologize for Bush’s efforts to undermine Iran. He attacked what he called “the various plots the U.S. government has hatched against Iran for the past five years”. “Americans have not only refused to apologize for their acts but have also continued with their hegemony,” he continued. “We are for safeguarding our identity, independence and dignity.”

Nevertheless, most analysts in Tehran believe Iranian politicians want a new start. “The only opponents of dialogue with the U.S. are hardliners in the conservative camp,” Dr. Hossein Adeli, a former ambassador in London who heads the Ravand thinktank, told me last week. “They’re scattered among various factions. The mainstream of the conservatives favor dialogue with the U.S., as long as they conduct it themselves. Only if the reformist were running the dialogue might the conservatives oppose it.”

In spite of his preference for dialogue, Obama refers to Iran’s government as a “regime”, and calls it “a threat to all of us”. He also favors sanctions as long as Iran fails to suspend its uranium enrichment program. But Iranians say the basis for compromise exists. The challenge for Obama is to show the world whether he is ready to offer Tehran a grand bargain rather than a big bang.

(Source: The Guardian)

Despite the Threat of Harsh Punishment, Soldier Says "No" to Deployment in Afghanistan

By Sarah Lazare

How 21-year-old soldier Blake Ivey came to see war as "flat-out murder."

"I believe war is the crime of our times," Blake Ivey, a specialist in the U.S. Army, said over the phone in a slow, deliberate voice.

Ivey, currently stationed in Fort Gordon, Ga., is publicly refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. The 21-year-old soldier filed for conscientious objector status in July but was ordered to deploy while his application was being processed. He is determined not to go, and as of our last phone call, was still actively serving on his base, weighing his options for refusal.

Ivey joins what appears to be a growing number of troops refusing to fight in the so-called Global War on Terror. While there is no way to tell the exact number of resisters, military statistics indicate that resistance is on the rise. Since 2002, the Army has court-martialed twice as many soldiers for desertion and other unauthorized absences per year than for each year between 1997 and 2001. The Associated Press reports AWOL rates in the Army at its highest since 1980, with the desertion rate (defined as 30 or more days of unauthorized absence) having jumped 80 percent since the start of the Iraq War. More than 150 soldiers have publicly refused to fight in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an estimated 200 war resisters are living in Canada.

Many war resisters are conscientious objectors (C.O.s) who were deterred at early stages of the C.O. application process or ordered to deploy before their C.O. paperwork went through. Just last week, 19-year-old conscientious objector Tony Anderson at Fort Carson, Colo., publicly shared his experience. Anderson had been discouraged by his commanding officers from applying for C.O. status, and he disobeyed orders to deploy to Iraq. He now faces steep punishment at the hands of the military.

Ivey, who grew up in Augusta, Ga., just a few miles from the Fort Gordon base where he is now stationed, joined the Army willingly. After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, he felt that it was "his generation's time to stand up in defense of the country." He states, "I went to the recruiter myself. No one approached me." So, in 2005 he joined the service out of high school, despite his mother's pleas that he take more time to think it over.

Yet once Ivey was in the military, his feelings about war changed. He found it unsettling to chant "Blood, blood, blood makes the grass grow" in basic training, and he wrote a letter home to his mother describing his discomfort. When he was deployed to Korea in 2006, he started questioning the value of military service. Halfway through his yearlong deployment, he began studying anarchist philosophers and nonviolent thinkers such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

The refusal of close friend Ryan Jackson to deploy to Iraq led Ivey to re-evaluate his own situation. They got to know each other in Advanced Individual Training in 2005 and were in the same unit together in Fort Gordon after Ivey's return from Korea. They discussed at length their reluctance to go to war. Ivey provided simple advice to Jackson: "I told him, you've got to do what you believe in." So, Jackson decided not to go. He attempted to gain administrative leave, but when his paperwork failed to go through, he decided to go AWOL rather than face deployment. Ivey remained close with Jackson throughout the process, giving him emotional support when he went AWOL in 2007 and was court-martialed and sentenced to 100 days of confinement. "When I talked to Jackson before he went to court-martial, that's when I decided I was going to start on my conscientious objector paperwork," says Ivey.

Meanwhile, Ivey continued to research alternatives to war, immersing himself in the texts of nonviolent philosophers. He also got involved in his local community, helping start a chapter of Food Not Bombs, a collective movement to serve free food, mostly vegan and vegetarian, to others. "I want to make a difference in people's lives," he says.

While his conscientious objector paperwork was being processed, Ivey was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan. Application for C.O. status cannot forestall deployment, but applicants are supposed to be assigned tasks that do not conflict with their C.O. convictions. However, this military directive is subject to ambiguous interpretation, and the commanding officer has considerable discretion in determining appropriate assignments. Furthermore, many conscientious objectors consider deployment to a combat zone by definition ethically compromising.

If Ivey refuses to deploy, he could be charged with "Missing Movement" -- Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- by a general court martial, punishable by up to two years in the stockade, loss of pay and a dishonorable discharge. There is also the danger that the military might try to pile on charges against him, such as Article 90, "willfully disobeying superior officer," and General Article 134, which covers all conduct "unbecoming" a service member.

Ivey is determined not to go to Afghanistan, and he is working with a civilian lawyer to explore his options. He has also enlisted the support of Courage to Resist, an organization that supports the troops who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and has worked with several GIs in similar situations, including Anderson and Jackson.

Ivey's mother, who lives in Augusta a few miles from where Ivey is stationed, is supportive but worried about her son. "I am concerned because any time someone you care about is in a situation that could cause them turmoil in their life or legal charges, whether they are right or wrong, I am going to worry," she says. "But I would in no way encourage him to do anything different. He is following his moral beliefs, and he has to do that."

Despite the threat of steep punishment, Ivey remains steadfast in his commitment to nonviolence. "I am against organized war," he says. "It is flat-out murder."

See more stories tagged with: afghanistan, war resisters, courage to resist, blake ivey, conscientious objector st

Sarah Lazare is the project director of Courage to Resist, an organization that supports military war resisters.

Peace activists demand Canada leave Afghanistan

OTTAWA — Precious lives and scarce dollars are being wasted on the futile war in Afghanistan, peace activists cried out during marches and rallies across the country on Saturday.

Dozens of anti-war activists paraded onto Parliament Hill to demand an end to Canada's Afghan mission, part of a national day of action organized by peace groups that object to the human and financial costs of the bloody conflict.

Khalid Nasery was born in strife-torn Afghanistan and now calls Canada home.

The 28-year-old Ottawa student said it's time for Canadian soldiers to leave his native country, painting the troops as pawns of U.S. foreign policy.

"They should pull out of Afghanistan," he said. "It's not the soldiers' fault. I'm not against the soldiers, because they just follow orders. It's the politicians who want to please the Bush administration."

Among Canadian ranks, the effort has claimed the lives of 97 soldiers, a diplomat and two aid workers.

Nasery said that for every soldier who dies, many more civilians perish. "So on both sides, it's a lose-lose situation."

A report on the cost of the Afghan mission released earlier this month said that taxpayers will shell out between $14 billion and $18 billion - and possibly more - by the time troops are withdrawn in 2011.

"What we've seen is billions provided to the military and only a small amount to the local needs of Afghanistan," said Dylan Penner, an organizer with the Ottawa Peace Alliance. "And the reality is that what little does go beyond the military is going to a select few."

Sophie Harkat, whose husband Mohamed faces deportation on a national security certificate, was emcee of the Parliament Hill rally.

Demonstrations are being held this weekend in about 15 cities.

A few dozen protesters held signs with slogans like Aid not Arms for Afghanistan and Afghanistan is Bleeding in Edmonton's Churchill Square as they listened to speakers from the Edmonton Coalition Against War and Racism, the Council of Canadians and the Alberta Federation of Labour.

"We feel that the Canadian people have been lied to by the government as to the purpose and goals over there," said protester Paula Kirman.

"Taxpayers' money is being wasted and there's not a lot of progress going on over there."

Edda Loomes, 67, a member of the Raging Grannies protest group, said she doesn't think Canada is helping the average Afghan. "I think what they need in Afghanistan is schools and support. Many, many private citizens are getting killed and Canadians are getting killed."

She said Canada is only interested in preserving oil interests in the region and that's why it has sent soldiers.

Protester Greg Farrants called the war in Afghanistan a "never-ending venture" and said peace rallies are a way for average Canadians to support the troops.

"I feel the support-the-troops campaign has been co-opted by warmongers," he said.

Protesters in St. John's, N.L., met in Bannerman Park and marched through the downtown area.

Demonstrator Samantha Mills-Wiseman said the war has been a failure, resulting in greater support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In Montreal, hundreds turned out to demand Canadian troops come home and shine a light on the dollars-and-cents costs of a growing defence establishment.

"The majority of the population does not support any increases in military spending," said Raymond Legault, a spokesman from Quebec anti-war organization Echec a la guerre.

"This message is addressed to all political parties in Canada," Legault said. "We want the silence around military spending to end."

Legault said the protesters were not just a small group of people against the war. "We're the majority."

"Who are our governments serving?" he asked. "Is it NATO, the military industrial complex? Or are they there to answer to the Canadian people?"

Your famous military liberating the oppressed Iraquis

Here's the video on that friendly fire incident in Iraq. Take a look at your "boys" (or is it "Bozos?") at work...

How To Win Afghanistan's Opium War

The best way to deprive the Taliban of drug profits? The United States should buy Afghanistan's poppy crop instead of trying to eradicate it.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 6, 2008, at 1:31 PM ET

I used to know Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Her Majesty's ambassador in Kabul, and I have no reason to doubt that he was quoted correctly in the leaked cable from the deputy French ambassador to Afghanistan that has since appeared in the Parisian press. I think that he is right in saying that while there cannot be a straightforward "military victory" for the Taliban and other fundamentalist and criminal forces, nonetheless there is a chance that a combination of these forces can make the country ungovernable by the NATO alliance. He may also be correct in his assertion that an increase of troops in the country might have unwelcome and unintended consequences, in that "it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets" for the enemy.

If Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated one point over another, it is that the quantity theory of counterinsurgency is very unsoundly based. If a vast number of extra soldiers had been sent to Baghdad before the disastrously conducted war had been given a new strategy and a new command, then it would have been a case of staying in the same hole without ceasing to dig (and there would have been many more "body bags" as a consequence of the larger number of uniformed targets). As it is, we have learned so many lessons in Iraq about how to defeat al-Qaida that we have the chance to apply them in Afghanistan. This is exactly the reverse of the glib and facile argument that used to counterpose the "good" Afghan war to the evil quagmire in Mesopotamia.

Speaking of quagmires, here are a few admittedly quantitative figures (taken from the testimony before Congress of Mark Schneider of the well-respected International Crisis Group). He quoted Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying that suicide bombings in Afghanistan were up 27 percent in 2007 over 2006, commenting that Mullen "should have added that they are up 600 percent over 2005, and that all insurgent attacks are up 400 percent over 2005." To darken the statistical picture further—this testimony was given last spring—one must also count the number of attacks on World Food Program convoys, on relief workers, and on prominent Afghan women. All of these show a steady upward curve, as does the ability of the Taliban to operate across the Pakistani border and to strike in the middle of the capital city as well as other cities, most notably its old stronghold of Kandahar. The final depressing figure is the index of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombardment from NATO forces: This year will show a large increase in these, as well, and that is one of the chief concerns underlying Sir Sherard's bleakly expressed view that the current U.S.-led strategy is "destined to fail."

Innumerable factors combine to constitute this depressing assessment, and many of them have to do with the sheer fact that Afghanistan, already extremely poor, scorched its own earth further in a series of civil wars and ethnic rivalries. I remember flying from Herat to Kabul on a U.N. plane a few years ago and being depressed by the rarity of even a splash of greenery in the mud-colored landscape. Thirty years ago, what was Afghanistan's most famous export? It was grapes, usually made into exceptionally fine raisins that were esteemed throughout the subcontinent. It was a country of vines and orchards. Now, even the vines and trees have mostly been cut down for firewood. Iraq could well be immensely rich in a decade or less: Afghanistan will be well-down even in "Third World" economic terms for a very long time to come.

This is why it is peculiar of us, if not bizarre and quasi-suicidal, to insist that its main economic lifeblood continues to be wholly controlled by our enemies. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime tells us that last year Afghanistan's poppy fields, on 193,000 hectares of land, produced 93 percent of all the world's opium. The potential production could be as high as 8,200 metric tons. And, unsurprisingly, UNODC also reports that the vast bulk of the revenue from this astonishing harvest goes directly to the Taliban or to local warlords and mullahs. Meanwhile, in the guise of liberators, NATO forces appear and tell the Afghan villagers that they intend to burn their only crop. And the American embassy is only restrained by the Afghan government from pursuing a policy of actually spraying this same crop from the air! In other words, the discredited fantasy of Richard Nixon's so-called "War on Drugs" is the dogma on which we are prepared to gamble and lose the country that gave birth to the Taliban and hospitality to al-Qaida.

Surely a smarter strategy would be, in the long term, to invest a great deal in reforestation and especially in the replanting of vines. While in the short term, hard-pressed Afghan farmers should be allowed to sell their opium to the government rather than only to the many criminal elements that continue to infest it or to the Taliban. We don't have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage. (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) Why not give Afghanistan the contract instead? At one stroke, we help fill its coffers and empty the main war chest of our foes while altering the "hearts-and-minds" balance that has been tipping away from us. I happen to know that this option has been discussed at quite high levels in Afghanistan itself, and I leave you to guess at the sort of political constraints that prevent it from being discussed intelligently in public in the United States. But if we ever have to have the melancholy inquest on how we "lost" a country we had once liberated, this will be one of the places where the conversation will have to start.

Standard Warfare May Be Eclipsed By Nation-Building

By Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page A16

The Army on Monday will unveil an unprecedented doctrine that declares nation-building missions will probably become more important than conventional warfare and defines "fragile states" that breed crime, terrorism and religious and ethnic strife as the greatest threat to U.S. national security.

The doctrine, which has generated intense debate in the U.S. military establishment and government, holds that in coming years, American troops are not likely to engage in major ground combat against hostile states as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead will frequently be called upon to operate in lawless areas to safeguard populations and rebuild countries.

Such "stability operations" will last longer and ultimately contribute more to the military's success than "traditional combat operations," according to the Army's new Stability Operations Field Manual, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.

"This is the document that bridges from conflict to peace," said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, commander of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where the manual was drafted over the past 10 months. The U.S. military "will never secure the peace until we can conduct stability operations in a collaborative manner" with civilian government and private entities at home and abroad, he said.

The stability operations doctrine is an engine that will drive Army resources, organization and training for years to come, Caldwell said, and Army officials already have detailed plans to execute it. The operations directive underpinning the manual "elevated stability operations to a status equal to that of the offense and defense," the manual reads, describing the move as a "fundamental change in emphasis" for the Army.

Yet the concept has drawn fire from all sides: Military critics say it will weaken heavy war-fighting skills -- using tanks and artillery -- that have already atrophied during years of counterinsurgency campaigns. For their part, civilian officials and nongovernmental groups with scarce resources say armed forces are filling the gap, but at the cost of encroaching upon their traditional overseas missions.

Military advocates argue that the Army has long been called upon for peacekeeping and rebuilding in unstable areas, but that it has conducted those operations an ad hoc fashion because of an excessive focus on combat. "Contrary to popular belief, the military history of the United States is characterized by stability operations, interrupted by distinct episodes of major combat," states the manual, saying that, out of hundreds of U.S. military operations since the American Revolution, only 11 were conventional wars.

From Panama in 1989 to Haiti to the 1991 Persian Gulf War to Iraq in 2003, Caldwell said he has seen the Army "confronted with having to conduct stability operations woefully unprepared."

In 1989, for example, Caldwell was the chief of a military planning team preparing for the 82nd Airborne Division's role in the invasion of Panama. "We never once talked about once we took down [Gen. Manuel] Noriega, what then," he said. "We only thought about the clenched fist, and someone else would get the trash picked up and get the water plants working." After Noriega's power structure fell, Caldwell's superiors ordered him to put police back on the streets. "We all panicked," Caldwell recalled.

Today, such fragile states, if neglected, will pose mounting risks for the United States, according to Lt. Col. Steve Leonard, the manual's lead author. Weak states "create vast ungoverned areas that are breeding grounds for the threats that we fear the most, criminal networks, international terrorists, ethnic strife, genocide," he said. "The argument against it is: Forget all that; you still have . . . near peer competitors who are on the verge of closing the superpower gap."

The new manual aims to orchestrate and plan for a range of military tasks to stabilize ungoverned nations: protecting the people; aiding reconstruction; providing aid and public services; building institutions and security forces; and, in severe cases, forming transitional U.S. military-led governments.

In doing so, the manual adds to a growing body of doctrine focused on the military's nontraditional skills, most notably the Army's 2006 counterinsurgency manual, overseen by Gen. David H. Petraeus, Caldwell's predecessor at the Fort Leavenworth command. "It's certainly going to shape how we will allocate resources and how we direct training," said Col. Mike Redmond, director of the Army's stability operations division, who is executing an action plan to implement the doctrine with 157 different initiatives, such as directing the Army's medical command to develop plans advising foreign health ministries.

But as the Army struggles to define its long-term future beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, some critics within the military warn that the new emphasis on nation-building is a dangerous distraction from what they believe should be the Army's focus: strengthening its core war-fighting skills to prepare for large-scale ground combat.

The critics challenge the assumption that major wars are unlikely in the future, pointing to the risk of high-intensity conflict that could require sizable Army deployments to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere. "All we need to do is look at Russia and Georgia a few months ago. That suggests the description . . . of future war is too narrow," said Col. Gian P. Gentile, an Iraq war veteran with a doctorate in history who is a leading thinker in the Army camp opposed to the new doctrine.

"I don't think the Army should transform itself into a light-infantry-based constabulary force," Gentile said. Instead, he said, "the organizing principle for the U.S. Army should be the Army's capability to fight on all levels of war."

Civilian officials and nongovernmental groups voice a different concern: that the military's push to expand its exercise of "soft power," while perhaps inevitable, given the dearth of civilian resources, marks a growing militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

"When the military is handed the task of stabilizing an area, that means doing everything. That's not really what we want to have happen," said Beth Ellen Cole, a senior program officer at the Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations of the U.S. Institute of Peace who worked on the manual. However, she said, "we are in an unfortunate situation where the civilian side is not resourced or equipped to do these things."

Some nongovernmental organizations raised concerns about the potential blurring of roles when the military carries out relief operations, saying it could compromise their independence and impartiality in the eyes of local citizens, and make relief workers targets of attack.

The organizations also objected to early drafts of the manual that suggested the military had an obligation or right to intervene in fragile states. "They referred to humanitarian NGOs as partners of the military," said James Bishop, vice president of Humanitarian Policy at InterAction, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations. "We said we did not want to be described as such."

Nonetheless, civilian government officials and NGO representatives including Cole and Bishop credit the Army for inviting them to take part from the beginning in shaping the doctrine, and for incorporating their suggestions. "They left the pen up to us for key sections," said Matthew A. Cordova, deputy director for civil-military affairs at the State Department's reconstruction and stabilization office.

Michael Hess, assistant head of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, said, "The military understands and we understand that if we don't work together, your chances of achieving success are diminished."

Still, bureaucratic unrest surrounded the writing of the Army stability manual, Leonard said, pointing to disputes over questions such as whether to the document should enshrine "democracy" as a goal of stability operations, a move that was ultimately rejected. "It was constant debate and argument," he said.