Afghanistan

US to launch Fallujah-style attack in Afghanistan
By Bill Van Auken | WSWS

As US and British troops prepare to attack the town of Marjah in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, military commanders and the media are openly comparing the operation to the November 2004 siege of Fallujah, one of the bloodiest war crimes of the Iraq war.

The operation in central Helmand province, long an area of intense resistance to the US-led occupation, will constitute the largest military offensive since Washington invaded the country in October 2001. At least 15,000 troops are expected to lay siege to the Helmand river valley town, which has 80,000 inhabitants and is said by the US military to be a stronghold of the Taliban.

A total of 125,000 people live in the district around Marjah, which is an agricultural center 350 miles west of Kabul. The population has been swelled by Afghans fleeing villages occupied by US Marines last summer, following President Barack Obama’s order shortly after he took office to send 21,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

US Marines, frustrated and enraged over casualties suffered at the hands of an unseen enemy who is able to attack and then blend back into the local population, will be unleashed against the town in a violent military assault, with predictable results. Read more.

By Dave Lindorff

There were two points in President Obama’s State of the Union address that provoked resounding and universal applause in the chamber from the assembled senators and representatives of both parties. One point was when the president said he wanted to start his job-creation program “in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides its time she became her own boss.” The other point was when he said, “While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”

An Appeal on "Closing Gitmo"

Given that human rights organizations and activist groups want rights restored, not abuses moved from one location to another,

Given that said organizations are independent of and not legally bound in subservience to the Democratic Party,

Given that the funding to close Gitmo and move that particular illegal death camp to Illinois will be included in the "emergency war supplemental",

Given that this will likely lead all the Republicans in the House to vote No on $33 billion for wars, wars that involve murder and torture and lawless imprisonment, all on a larger scale than what happens at Gitmo,

Given that we then need only 40 Democrats to vote No to block the war funding,

Given that with the resources of human rights groups for once turned against the supreme international crime of aggressive war we could win over 40 Democrats,

Given that we had 32 last June and 34 in December and the public is turning further against the wars,

Given that many have publicly committed to voting No already at http://defundwar.org ,

Given that the public is increasingly understanding the need to choose between wars and jobs,

Given that a clean break with imperialism would open many new doors in our struggles for civil rights and the rule of law,

It is at least worth asking:

WILL ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPPOSE TORTURE OPPOSE OR SUPPORT THE $33 BILLION WAR BILL?

In Solidarity,

David Swanson

PS: You can't be neutral on a moving train.

By David Swanson

Last June we were handed an opportunity to block the funding of our illegal, murderous, counterproductive, catastrophic, and hated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president insisted on an off-the-books "emergency supplemental" bill, and the Senate added an IMF bailout to the bill, leading all the Republicans in the House to commit what for years they'd called treason: they all voted No on war money.

So, we only needed 39 Democrats to vote No, and we could have stopped the thing, at least temporarily. We had a week-long knock-down drag-out fight, with the White House telling freshmen Democrats they would be "dead to us" if they didn't vote Yes. And we still persuaded 32 Democrats to vote No.

By David Swanson

Add Congressman Bill Delahunt to the list of misrepresentatives who claim to oppose wars when a Republican is president but agree to support them when a Democrat moves into the White House.

When Bush was president, Delahunt sometimes voted for war funding bills and sometimes voted against them. The inclusion in the bills of lipstick measures, such as relief for hurricane victims, etc., was not a decisive factor. Delahunt appears to have voted No when the Democratic leadership was most accepting of that action. But, with all the Republicans voting Yes, there was never a chance of a No vote actually helping to block funding.

US drones killed 123 civilians, three al-Qaeda men in January
By Amir Mir | The International News

LAHORE: Afghanistan-based US predators carried out a record number of 12 deadly missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan in January 2010, of which 10 went wrong and failed to hit their targets, killing 123 innocent Pakistanis. The remaining two successful drone strikes killed three al-Qaeda leaders, wanted by the Americans.

The rapid increase in the US drone attacks in the Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan can be gauged from the fact that only two such strikes were carried out in January 2009, which killed 36 people. The highest number of drone attacks carried out in a single month in 2009 was six, which were conducted in December last year. But the dawn of the New Year has already seen a dozen such attacks.

The unprecedented rise in the predator strikes with the beginning of the year 2010 is being attributed to December 30, 2009 suicide bombing in the Khost area of Afghanistan bordering North Waziristan, which killed seven CIA agents. US officials later identified the bomber as Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian national linked to both al-Qaeda and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

In a subsequent posthumous video tape released by Al-Jazeera, Balawi claimed while sitting next to TTP Chief Commander Hakimullah Mehsud that he would blow himself up in the CIA base to avenge the killing of former TTP chief Baitullah Mehsud in a US drone attack. The consequent increase in US strikes, first in North Waziristan and then South Waziristan, specifically targeting the fugitive TTP chief Hakimullah Mehsud clearly shows that revenge is the major motive for these attacks. The US intelligence sleuths stationed in Afghanistan are convinced the Khost suicide attack was planned in Waziristan with the help of the TTP. Therefore, it is believed Afghanistan-based American drones will continue to hunt the most wanted al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, especially Hakimullah, with a view to avenge the loss of the seven CIA agents and to raise morale of its forces in Afghanistan. Read more.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

A Resolution in Opposition to the Troop Escalation for Afghanistan.
Source.

Whereas, the United States economy is in the worst condition since the Great Depression with unemployment rising to tragic and dangerous levels.

Whereas, home foreclosures are at record highs and unless the economy improves more Americans will become homeless and forced to live in tent cities.

Whereas, President Obama has decided to escalate the number troops in Afghanistan by 30,000, which is projected to cost $40 to $50 billion, or more, annually.

Whereas, the cost of the escalation alone in Afghanistan could provide more than 500,000 construction jobs in America.

Whereas, the Afghanistan government is in place after a fraudulent election and is rife with corruption and maladministration.

1. TAKE THE PEACE BUSES FROM THE HUDSON VALLEY

The Activist Newsletter and Peace and Social Progress Now have chartered several buses to the nation's capital Saturday, March 20, leaving from Kingston, New Paltz, and Poughkeepsie in the early hours and returning at night. We will consider establishing other pickup locations farther down the Valley if groups of a dozen or more people commit to boarding at a particular location convenient to our buses.

The roundtrip cost is $60 per person. Discounts for students and low-income people will be offered when we receive contributions from readers for that purpose.

By Dave Lindorff

You had to love the headline the Philadelphia Inquirer put on the jump page of columnist Trudy Rubin’s Sunday commentary about word that the Obama administration is hoping to talk with at least some mid-level Taliban leaders about giving up the fight and “coming over” to the “government” side.

“Relax--No deal with Taliban is Imminent,” the headline read. “I suggest everyone take a deep breath,” Rubin wrote. “The US position toward talks with the Taliban has shifted somewhat, but no deal with top Taliban leaders is imminent, or even likely.”

Phew! Thank god for that! Imagine Americans actually sitting down and discussing peace just as we’re getting a good war on!

By David Swanson

Congressman Donald Payne (D., N.J.) has voted against war funding bills for years. Last summer he was one of 32 heroes to vote No under intense pressure from the White House to vote Yes. When I asked him a couple of years ago to sign onto impeaching Bush he immediately said "Sure!" and he did it.

Today I asked him if he would commit to voting No on the next $33 billion for war. I asked him privately, just after he'd given a long speech to a Progressive Democrats of America conference in New Jersey, a speech about how much he opposes the wars.

Payne told me that he didn't want to commit to voting No on the next "emergency war supplemental" because Obama is president, echoing Jan Schakowsky's comments last June when she made a similar reversal.

"Congressman Payne," I said, "aren't the bombs the same? Isn't the dying the same?" He agreed and told me I was preaching to the choir.

Pentagon Master Plan: Super-Size My Drone Fleet
By Nathan Hodge | Wired

The U.S. military already has plans in the works to grow its fleet of Predators and Reapers, the long-loitering, armed surveillance drones that have become a defining feature of the air war over Central Asia and the Middle East. Now, according to a draft version of the Pentagon’s new master strategy plan, the military wants to dramatically up the number of “orbits,” or air patrols, of the unmanned aircraft.
Courtesy of Inside Defense (subscription only), we’ve taken an early look at a “pre-decisional” copy of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, due for release on Monday. According to that draft, the Department of Defense is “is on track” to field and sustain 50 drone orbits by Fiscal Year 2013. What’s more, the Pentagon “will continue to expand the force to at least 65 orbits by FY 15.”

Just to give a sense of how significant this is, some context. On a visit to an “undisclosed location” in Southwest Asia last year, Noah got the inside scoop on current Predator and Reaper operations: The Air Force, he reported, has a total of 39 orbits in the Central Command region. And those orbits include the CIA’s controversial drone operations over Pakistan, which are technically compartmentalized from — but overlap with — the military’s efforts in Afghanistan. (“There are 39 orbits, that’s it. No wink, wink,” a military officer memorably told Noah.) Read more.

Military wants answers about why key torture report was hidden | Google News

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.

In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.

A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

Natynczyk's deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.

The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after. Read more.

When Scholars Join the Slaughter
By Dahr Jamail | Truthout

A core tenet of the Obama administration's plans for "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan is an increased reliance on counterinsurgency.

As previously reported on this web site, the US military has sent shock troops - anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists - with their own troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, who also donned helmets and flak jackets. By the end of 2007, American scholars in these fields were embedding with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a Pentagon program called Human Terrain System (HTS), which evolved shortly thereafter into a $40 million program that embedded four or five person groups of scholars in the aforementioned fields in all 26 US combat brigades that were busily occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The program is currently comprised of approximately 400 employees, and is actively seeking new recruits.

Anthropology, in particular, has been referred to throughout history as the "handmaiden of colonialism," thus putting anthropologists, at least those with a moral conscience, on guard against anything that smells like exploitation or oppression of their subjects. Roberto Gonzalez, an associate professor of anthropology at San Jose State University and a leading member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, told Time magazine that the militarization of anthropology will cause the field to become "just another weapon ... not a tool for building bridges between peoples." Anthropology has core professional ethics standards that require voluntary, informed consent from subjects, and that anthropologists do no harm. How likely do you think these will be adhered to by the flack-jacket-wearing, gun-toting, embedded anthropologists working directly with regimental combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

The two highest ethical principles of anthropology are protection of the interests of studied populations and their safety. All anthropological studies consequently are premised on the consent of the subject society. Clearly, the HTS anthropologists have thrown these ethical guidelines out the window. They are to anthropology what state stenographers like Judith Miller and John Burns are to journalism. Read more.

Aren't we all proud?

Click to take action now, or read the entire bulletin by clicking "Read more".

By Dave Lindorff

President Obama gives a good speech. He's smooth, unruffled by audience response, good at a timely ad-lib remark, and knows how to win over a tough crowd--all skills that were in evidence at last night's State of the Union address. But he's also good at telling whoppers.

Here are a few.

Talking about health care, and the stalled bills in House and Senate which have become so encrusted with pro-industry amendments that the whole process should be referred to as the Health Industry Enrichment Act, Obama said at one point, addressing the doubts many in Congress and among the broader public have about those bills, "If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it."

Since President Obama announced Dec. 1 that he will escalate the Afghanistan war by sending 30,000 additional troops, the disastrous failure of the Administration's war policy is becoming more apparent.

This week, U.S., UK, European, UN, and Afghan leaders will hold an international conference on Afghanistan. The purpose of the meeting is to turn the tide of European and international public opinion which is running strongly against a futile, unwinnable war, and to extract pledges of additional troops. The British antiwar movement will be out in force to blockade it, and we must also keep up the pressure in the U.S.

• Tell your Congressional representative to vote against war funding. Call 202-224-3121.
• Join or organize a Brown Bag Lunch Vigil at your Congressional office Feb. 17 and every month.

Afghanistan cannot be subdued by force. The Taliban showed last week that it can freely strike in the heart of Kabul, only yards from the Presidential palace. It has shadow governors in all but one of Afghanistan's provinces. And the killing of 5 CIA officers, including the agency's leading experts on Al Qaeda, by a double agent at a CIA base in Khost province Dec. 30, illustrates that the U.S. is facing sophisticated and disciplined adversaries.

The war is causing rising civilian casualties and Afghan resentment of foreign forces. 2009 was the worst year since 2001 for Afghan children. Just in the past month, NATO forces killed 10 civilians including 8 schoolboys in Kunar province, 4 civilians in Nangarhar province (arousing a 5,000-person protest), 10 protesters in Helmand province, and 4 people in Ghazni province whom the Americans said were Taliban, but who the local people said were civilians. The UN reported that 2,412 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2009, a 14% increase over 2008.

Pressure is increasing on the U.S. for a diplomatic settlement. An International Herald Tribune op-ed last week joined a growing number of experts calling for restoring Afghanistan's neutrality, including the departure of U.S. forces and bases. And opposition to Obama's war is stirring in Congress, too. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) plans to introduce a privileged resolution repealing Congressional authorization for the war. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) will offer a bill to require an exit strategy. And Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-CA) HR.3699 withholds funds to pay for any increased troop levels.

President Put Politics First on Afghanistan
By Ray McGovern

Nothing highlights President Obama’s abject surrender to Gen. David Petraeus on the “way forward” in Afghanistan than two cables U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, the texts of which were released Tuesday by the New York Times.

No longer is it possible to suggest that Obama was totally deprived of wise counsel on Afghanistan; Eikenberry got it largely right. Sadly, the inevitable conclusion is that, although Obama is not as dumb as his predecessor, he is no less willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for political gain.

Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired Army Lt. General who served three years in Afghanistan over the course of two separate tours of duty, was responsible during 2002-2003 for rebuilding Afghan security forces. He then served 18 months (2005-2007) as commander of all U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan.

Straight Talk

In the cable he sent to Washington on Nov. 6, he explains why, “I cannot support [the Defense Department’s] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here.” His reasons include:

German govt. proposes compromise on troop increase
By Elsa Rassbach

Prior to the Afghanistan Conference in London on Thursday (Jan. 28th), the German government has today announced that it will sending "up to" 500 additional German troops to Afghanistan and also "freeing up" 350 more soldiers as a "flexible reserve." The German troops are to pursue a more "defensive approach" that will focus on protecting civilians and training the local security forces.

The German troop increase is far less than the Pentagon wanted. According to today's Reuters article: "The United States and NATO had pressed Berlin to bolster its military presence in Afghanistan by up to 2,500 troops."