ASG Blog
-
The Afghanistan Weekly Reader – May 6, 2011. Can we leave Afghanistan Now?
Published: May 6th, 2011
As Washington bathes in the afterglow of Sunday night’s success, there has been a marked change in perspective on the war in Congress. Members from both parties have begun to question the rationale for maintaining the presence of over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at a cost of $120 billion a year while the U.S. is mired in recession and the real threat to national security lies across the border in Pakistan and in other areas of the world. However, instead of seizing the political opportunity presented by Bin Laden’s death and re-aligning America’s involvement with its interests through an accelerated drawdown of troops that would save lives and billions of dollars, the Obama administration and congressional leaders in both parties maintained their stubborn allegiance to the counterproductive status quo.
Their intransigence raises the question of whether bin Laden’s goal of crippling the United States economically by engaging it in endless war might still be achieved even after his death. Thankfully, there are those who correctly assess the threat and the strategy, ending the war in Afghanistan, required to avoid it. You can find their perspectives in this week’s Reader.
From the ASG Blog
10 years into the longest war in U.S. history: Is it too much to ask for a plan?
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
On Thursday, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced new legislation that would require the Obama administration to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan. You heard right.Articles
A ‘Radical’ Plan To Cut Military Spending
NPR by NPR Staff
Ret. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor says there are ways to reap major savings when it comes to defense. He recently wrote about the subject in an article titled “Lean, Mean Fighting Machine” for Foreign Policy magazine. He tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered, that the U.S. simply cannot afford “wars of choice.”
World War II was the last military event that really had a strategic global impact, he says. “Americans need to understand that these wars of choice, these interventions of choice, have been both unnecessary, counterproductive, strategically self-defeating and infinitely too expensive for what we can actually afford.”Costly Afghanistan Road Project Is Marred by Unsavory Alliances
New York Times by Alissa J. Rubin and James Risen
The money paid to Mr. Arafat bought neither security nor the highway that American officials have long envisioned as a vital route to tie remote border areas to the Afghan government. Instead, it added to the staggering cost of the road, known as the Gardez-Khost Highway, one of the most expensive and troubled transportation projects in Afghanistan. The 64-mile highway, which has yet to be completed, has cost about $121 million so far, with the final price tag expected to reach $176 million — or about $2.8 million a mile — according to American officials. Security alone has cost $43.5 million so far, U.S.A.I.D. officials said.For U.S. Troops in Afghanistan, bin Laden’s Death Changes Nothing
TIME by Jason Motlagh
Osama bin Laden’s death is making waves around the world. But among U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan, the country from which the al-Qaeda chief and 9/11 mastermind once declared war on the United States, there was barely a ripple. At a large recreational facility on Kandahar Air Field, about three dozen troops gathered around a pair of big-screen televisions Monday morning to tune into President Barack Obama’s announcement. There were no impromptu cheers or chatter to be heard, just crossed arms and blank expressions. Nearly as many troops continued shooting pool and playing video games in background, nonplussed by the news.
“It’s not like we’re gonna get up and leave right away,” says Sgt. Scott Willoughby. “[Bin Laden] is dead, but we’re still here.”
Himes Sours On Afghanistan War: ‘I’m Done’
The Huffington Post by Amanda Terkel
WASHINGTON — As public frustration with the war in Afghanistan grows, Rep. Jim Himes has reached a tipping point. The Connecticut Democrat has concluded that the war cannot be won. “I am increasingly adamant that we are not going to change the country,” said Himes at a town hall meeting hosted by the local League of Women Voters in on Monday, according to the Greenwich Patch.Ron Paul’s Call For Afghanistan Withdrawal Draws Cheers At Fox News GOP Debate (VIDEO)
HuffPost Politics by Amanda Terkel
WASHINGTON — With the death of Osama bin Laden dominating the news cycle and captivating the public this week, the five Republican presidential hopefuls who showed in South Carolina Thursday for the Fox News debate were asked to explain their position on the war in Afghanistan. Fox News host Brett Baier brought up the issue in one of the first questions of the night, asking former senator Rick Santorum about his claim that President Obama has made America less safe.Opinion
Getting the transition right
Boston.com by John F. Kerry
IN TWO months, the Obama administration will announce critical choices about the next phase of its Afghanistan strategy: how to begin drawing down US forces so Afghans can assume greater responsibility for their own country. We know the transition will take time, and many believe it won’t be finished by 2014, the date President Hamid Karzai says he wants full control of his country.It’s time to pull out of Afghanistan
CNN Opinion by Jason Chaffetz
At the conclusion of the decade-long manhunt for the world’s most notorious terrorist, U.S. military forces are receiving well-deserved credit for a mission accomplished. The elimination of Osama bin Laden was made possible by a strong intelligence operation and well-trained special forces units under the Joint Special Operations Command.Times change
TRIBLIVE by George Will
Osama bin Laden’s death was announced by the president on May 1, a date that once had worldwide significance on the revolutionary calendar of communism, which was America’s absorbing national security preoccupation prior to Islamic terrorism. Times change.The President Has an Opportunity on Afghanistan. Will He Use It?
Cato@Liberty by Justin Logan
There are not going to be many better opportunities to change course in Afghanistan than the one presented by the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. It may be worth highlighting how ripe an opportunity this is:Time to change course in Afghanistan
Chicago Sun-Times by Steve Huntley
Aman, they say, is known by the company he keeps. I usually keep intellectual company with the likes of the Heritage Foundation, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Republican master strategist Karl Rove and other icons of mainstream conservatism. With Tuesday’s column, I found myself going against the tide of conservative opinion in advocating a course change in Afghanistan. -
10 years into the longest war in U.S. history: Is it too much to ask for a plan?
Published: May 6th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
On Thursday, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced new legislation that would require the Obama administration to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
You heard right.
It’s not a demand that all troops be brought home tomorrow. It’s not a call for the U.S. footprint to be removed from particular districts and provinces of Afghanistan where it has provoked resentment and increased instability. It’s not a “thousand-mile screwdriver” wielded by meddling congressmen in Washington D.C. attempting to micro-manage a war on the other side of the planet.
It simply asks that the Obama administration provide a clear plan to end the war in Afghanistan.
The fact that the United States has bled and spent for over a decade without one is a tragedy.
Specifically, the “Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act” would:
“1. Require the President to transmit to Congress a plan with a timeframe and completion date on the transition of U.S. military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.”
That’s the “Exit” part. Here’s the “Accountability”:
“2. Require the President to report quarterly (i.e. every 90 days) on the status of that transition, and the human and financial costs of remaining in Afghanistan, including increased deficit and public debt; and
3. Included in those quarterly reports, the President must disclose to Congress the savings in 5-year, 10-year and 20-year time periods were the U.S. to accelerate redeployment and conclude the transition of all U.S. and military and security operations to Afghanistan within 180 days (i.e. 6 months).”
Sounds downright reasonable…practical even.
Especially for a war that has dragged on for over a decade without an exit strategy or much accountability. A war that began before the first iPod was released(!). A war that will cost almost $120 billion this year and over $1 trillion in the coming decades as the country fulfills its obligation to care for returning veterans. A war in which progress is always “fragile and reversible” and in which goals are defined by ethereal words like “significant” and “sustainable” that are always just out of reach.
But the proposed bill is not all a gentle prodding of the administration to do the right thing. A political dare is embedded in the text of the legislation. The McGovern/Jones bill challenges the Obama administration to make plain the human and financial costs of the war in comparing the short, medium, and long-term costs of maintaining the status quo versus the money and lives that could be saved by bringing the troops home. Rep.’s McGovern and Jones know that a true understanding of the enormous costs of the war among the American public would bring a quicker drawdown than any timeline proposed in Washington.
The death of Osama bin Laden has provided a historic political opportunity to bring the war to a close. In one of the most divided Congresses in history, the bill has already gathered a significant number co-sponsors from both parties:
Republicans:
Walter B. Jones (NC)
Jason Chaffetz (UT)
Ron Paul (TX)
Jimmy Duncan (TN)
Tim Johnson (IL)
Justin Amash (MI)
Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD)Democrats:
Jim MccGovern (MA)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
Dave Loebsack (IA)
John Garamendi (CA)
John Lewis (GA)
David Cicline (RI)
Louise Slaughter (NY)
Peter Welch (VT)
Jim Moran (VA)Don’t see your representative’s name? Give their office a quick call or email and urge them to support the “Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act.” For ten years Congress has failed to pass a bill demanding a plan to end this counterproductive war, so they clearly could use some guidance and support from their constituents.
As Rep. McGovern noted Thursday morning:
“For too long, Congress has ducked its proper oversight responsibilities when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. We’ve avoided meaningful debate and discussion and have chosen to simply ‘go along to get along.’ Today we – in a bipartisan way – plan to force an end to that pattern.”
It’s not too much to ask.
Update: To contact your congressman go to www.contactingthecongress.org
-
DoD Afghanistan Report Card: True, but…
Published: May 4th, 2011
Edward Kenney Afghanistan Study Group
Amidst the coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death, little attention has been paid to the latest Department of Defense Progress Report. From the Pentagon’s perspective, this may not be a bad thing, as their claims of progress are not borne out by the facts.
The Department of Defense (DoD) depicts an insurgency in its death throes:
“The increased pace and scope of operations, and the expansion of the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program and Village Stability Operations have, together, placed unprecedented pressure on the insurgency. Together these efforts have driven insurgents out of key population centers in the south, cleared safe havens that the enemy possessed for years, and disrupted its networks and plans.”
This analysis is shallow. Its conclusions elicit a response of “sounds great, but…” from even those with the most basic understanding of Afghanistan.
According to the DoD we should:
Celebrate that “Kabul has continued to enjoy a relatively high level of security.” True, but Kabul was never the epicenter of the insurgency, and violence has always been low there.
Be happy that Kandahar City has made “noticeable security gains.” True, but Kandahar Province as a whole has seen violence spiral upwards. This is cherry picked data at its finest.
Not worry about the increase in violence because it is “to be expected” with the increase in troops. True, but the surge is scheduled to be ramped down in two months time. When does the Pentagon envision security gains to actually materialize?
Assume the surge is working because the Taliban is incredibly unpopular. True, but the Taliban was really unpopular before the 2009 surge. A 2006 poll showed that less than 20% of Afghans supported the insurgents.
Tout the Afghan National Army’s 36,000 man increase in the Afghan National Security forces over the last six months. True, but the ANA is almost entirely dependent on U.S. funding, and cannot be sustained by the Afghan government. In fact in order to rectify this dependency problem, Karzai is considering a military draft.
Luckily for the DoD, bin Laden’s death has completely overshadowed the release of this report. -
What the death of bin Laden Means for the War in Afghanistan
Published: May 3rd, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group A Washington
The death of Osama bin Laden represents an enormous opportunity for President Obama to bring America’s commitment to Afghanistan back into alignment with its vital strategic interests there. The United States has two core interests in Afghanistan:
1.) preventing the country from becoming a base that could significantly enhance AQ’s ability to conduct attacks on the U.S.
2.) stabilizing the conflict in Afghanistan so that it does not threaten neighboring states
The lack of focus on these two core goals has resulted in America’s counter-productive entanglement in a decade-long, $120 billion-a-year war with no clearly defined exit strategy. And a reliance on military escalation has brought the U.S. further from achieving these strategic goals than ever before. But bin Laden’s death (and the manner in which he was finally brought to justice) points the way toward a sound and rational policy that brings America’s involvement in the region back into balance with its core interests.
The lessons:
1.) The large U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan wasn’t the key to eliminating bin Laden. The leader of al Qaeda was finally brought down by a well-run counter-terror operation involving intelligence, law enforcement, and special operations assets. According to the RAND Corporation, only 7% of terrorist groups are defeated through military means. The vast majority of terrorist groups have been dismantled either through negotiated settlements or through police action. The “surge” of 50,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan was the wrong weapon to use in the effort to degrade al Qaeda’s ability to attack the United States and it has cost our country dearly. The counter-terror operation that eliminated bin Laden shows the way forward.
2.) The fact that bin Laden was found in a million dollar compound just a few miles from Pakistan’s premier military academy is just one more sign that the real threat to American interests emanates from that country and not Afghanistan. Again, the presence of 110,000 American troops in Afghanistan has had no strategic effect in either degrading the capabilities of Pakistan-based transnational terrorist groups or stabilizing the nuclear-armed Pakistani state.
The opportunities:
1.) The death of bin Laden shows that well-coordinated counter-terror operations work in advancing vital U.S. security interests. There are highly effective tools at hand for the U.S. to utilize in protecting the homeland and they don’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars or the lives of thousands of servicemembers.
2.) This is a tremendous victory for the United States and a testament to President Obama’s leadership. Obama should seize the opportunity that this victory represents to bring much needed focus to American engagement in the region. The American public is jubilant and their attention is focused on the success of a counter-terror approach. The political space has opened for President Obama to begin de-escalating the conflict in Afghanistan that has limited, rather than leveraged, America’s ability to protect itself from terrorist attacks.
The first step is to order a truly “significant” drawdown of 32,000 U.S. troops beginning in July. Another 35,000 troops should return home by July of 2012. This would leave 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to train Afghan security forces, block a Taliban takeover and conduct operations against Al Qaeda cells leading up to the 2014 full transfer of security responsibilities to the Afghan government.
-
The Afghanistan Weekly Reader – April 29, 2011
Published: April 29th, 2011
The week began with some 500 Taliban detainees escaping from the Sarposa prison in Kandahar. Afghanistan’s Minister of Justice stated the Taliban had help from police and officials inside the prison and pointed fingers at ISAF as well as Afghan security forces for failing to disrupt the plot. While the spectacular jailbreak garnered the lion’s share of media attention an even bigger scandal involving Afghan security forces slipped under the radar. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction released an audit which found that nobody knows exactly how many police are in the country and that a lack of oversight may allow millions in donor funds to be diverted into Afghan officials’ pockets.
The “significant risk of fraud, waste and abuse” found in the SIGAR audit appears to apply to a sizable chunk of contracting in the Global War on Terror. A report of the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting found that the U.S. has lost roughly $177 billion in taxpayer dollars to fraudulent and wasteful spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also notable this week, a new poll found that a record 69% of Republicans disapprove of the handling of the war in Afghanistan and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) continued to ignore their demands for a troop drawdown. Though conservatives that question the wisdom of a $120 billion a year war that fails to secure America’s vital interests lost a champion when Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour withdrew from the 2012 presidential race, they gained another with the candidacy of New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. And the 72% of Americans that want a faster troop withdrawal show that there’s plenty of room for all the candidates on a platform that brings America’s strategic interests and its commitments to Afghanistan back into balance.
From the ASG Blog
New Poll Finds Record # of Americans Against War in Afghanistan: Obama and Boehner Still Leading from the Rear
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
A Washington Post / ABC News poll released this week found that a record 49% of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. Opposition to American involvement in the conflict is increasing more rapidly than ever before. Public disapproval has shot up 8 points since the previous WaPo / ABC poll was taken just three months ago.Growing List of Conservatives including Coulter and Norquist Oppose War in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group
Please help us by forwarding this email to your conservative friends.
Last week, unfortunately, House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama to “explain” how withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July would not “undermine the tenuous progress we’ve made thus far.” Speaker Boehner also asserted that “[a]ny draw-down of U.S. troops must be based on the conditions on the ground, not on political calculations.”Budget deal will only save a fraction of promised $38B
Afghanistan Study Group by Edward Kenney
The supposedly “historic” 2011 budget deal, which barely avoided a federal shutdown, will only save a fraction of the promised $38 billion. Once defense spending and funding for the wars are included in this calculation, federal spending will have actually increased this year. That’s right, defense spending plus the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya will cause federal spending to go up in 2011. Keep this in mind when assessing the 2012 budget proposals on defense.Articles
In an Afghan Village, Living in Fear of Both Sides
The New York Times by Ray Rivera
TOWDABAY KALAY, Afghanistan — The American soldiers knew little about this farming village in the rugged foothills of Paktika Province in eastern Afghanistan, but they were told the Taliban moved through regularly. When the soldiers, part of the First Battalion, 506th Infantry, arrived on foot one morning, hiking along terraced fields carved into the steep hillsides, they found the villagers fearful. Not just of the Taliban, but of NATO forces as well.New Low for Obama on Afghanistan
ABC News by Gary Langer
A record 49 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan, up 8 points since January. And those who disapprove “strongly” outnumber strong approvers by nearly a 2-1 margin.As Petraeus exits, US interests in Afghanistan far from secured
The Christian Science Monitor by Dan Murphy
General David Petraeus is leaving the field of battle. He’s seen in some circles as having turned around the Iraq war, and was brought in to shore up the flagging NATO effort in Afghanistan last July. Now he is leaving to become chief of the CIA at a time when the theory of warfare he’s put into practice in Afghanistan is coming under heavy strain from insurgents and an Afghanistan that grows ever more weary of foreign troops. The task his replacement will take up is looking as difficult as ever.Report: U.S. millions spent on Afghanistan police poorly tracked
Washington (CNN) by Charley Keyes
Despite the U.S. spending more than half a billion dollars to build an Afghanistan police force, it is impossible to know how many police are on the job and whether the right people are getting paid, according to a new report.Recaptured Afghan insurgents tell of tunnel escape
Reuters Africa by Rob Taylor
KABUL (Reuters) – Recaptured Taliban fighters who escaped from one of Afghanistan’s most secure prisons during a mass breakout have described how insurgent comrades outside built a sophisticated tunnel with lighting and piped air to take them to freedom.Opinion
Lean, Mean Fighting Machine
Foreign Policy by Douglas MacGregor
Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, said it best, “When waves of change appear, you can duck under the wave, stand fast against the wave, or, better yet, surf the wave.” Today, the same tsunami-like wave of debt that threatens to sweep away American economic prosperity is headed for America’s defense establishment. President Barack Obama signaled as much with his April 13 budget address, in which he warned: “Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense.”A Very Spinny North
Registan.net by Joshua Foust
Dear Diary,I was all set to enjoy a nice quiet Easter, until I opened my web browser. Something on the news page caught my attention. “NATO, Afghan Forces Make ‘Huge’ Gains in North,” the headline says. My stomach dropped. What could they possibly be on aboutA space for Republicans on Afghanistan
The Washington Post by Rachel Weiner
With Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s departure from the presidential field comes a chance for another Republican contender to take up his unusual cause — the war in Afghanistan.Why Afghanistan could upend Obama’s reelection strategy
The Washington Post by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The outlines of President Obama’s reelection strategy are becoming more distinct. He’ll bet that the faltering recovery has enough momentum to sell, particularly to college-educated suburban independents. He’ll find a way to cut a deal with Republicans on deficits that doesn’t completely derail the recovery. -
New Poll Finds Record # of Americans Against War in Afghanistan: Obama and Boehner Still Leading from the Rear
Published: April 29th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
A Washington Post / ABC News poll released this week found that a record 49% of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. Opposition to American involvement in the conflict is increasing more rapidly than ever before. Public disapproval has shot up 8 points since the previous WaPo / ABC poll was taken just three months ago.
These numbers highlight the sentiment of an American public that is connecting the dots between a strategically aimless war that will cost taxpayers almost $120 billion in its tenth (and most violent) year and a grinding economic recession at home. Two-thirds of Americans say the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth this cost in dollars and lives. And they’re right.
The poll numbers also represent an enormous opportunity for President Obama to lead. If Obama orders a truly “significant” withdrawal of troops in July he won’t be pandering to public opinion. On the contrary, Obama would be living up to the promise he made to the American public in December of ‘09 when he announced the troop surge.
And the political winds are at Obama’s back if he follows through. In February, the Democratic National Committee adopted a resolution which cited the 72% of Americans who want to speed up the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in calling for a “significant and sizable reduction” in U.S. forces no later than July 2011. The DNC is responsible for getting Democrats, most notably President Obama himself, elected to office. They’ve read the tea leaves and recognize that the American public wants a focus on job creation and economic growth. These goals don’t jibe with the prosecution of trillion dollar land wars in Central Asia that produce no measurable improvements in national security. (Economic vitality, on the other hand, is the foundation of national security.)
Two weeks ago, Obama was quoted saying that this summer’s drawdown in troops would be significant and “not just a token gesture.” The Afghanistan Study Group has outlined what a significant reduction in troops would look like:
- a decrease of 32,000 troops by October of this year
- another decrease of 35,000 by July 2012
- leaving some 30,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces, block a Taliban takeover and conduct operations against Al Qaeda cells leading up to the 2014 full transfer of security to Afghan control
- which will save taxpayers $60 – $80 billion a year while securing America’s vital national interests
To those who doubt this can be done while still achieving our core goals: please direct your attention to the withdrawal of US forces from the Pech Valley in eastern Afghanistan earlier this year. Also, note that former President Bush pulled out the 20,000 “surge troops” from Iraq within 18 months of announcing their deployment (this withdrawal was accomplished while Iraq was still extremely violent and far from stable). It has now been 24 months since the first surge of 20,000 troops was sent to Afghanistan.
What will Obama’s definition of “significant” look like? Matt Southworth of the Friend’s Committee on National Legislation put his training as a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst to work compiling a list of planned troop deployments for 2011. The number his research produced: somewhere between 9,000 – 12,000.
Obama could find a way to increase these numbers on the military’s planned re-deployment schedule. His recent shake-up of top national security officials might, if read in the most optimistic light, point in this direction. But as of now the summer drawdown looks as if the only “significant” thing it will provide is further evidence of Obama’s inability to counter the voices calling for an open-ended commitment to the war in Afghanistan.
In failing to bring America’s commitment to Afghanistan back into balance with its interests there, Obama will risk further alienating his already disaffected political base and will be handing Republicans an enormous opportunity in the 2012 elections.
This is evidenced by the WaPo / ABC poll numbers, which found that the spike in disapproval of the war is almost entirely due to a drop in support among conservatives. The poll found that disapproval is up 21% among Republicans, 12% among conservatives, and 11% among Tea Party supporters.
If Obama offers a token drawdown in Afghanistan he will be handing Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) a shiny new gift horse with a bow tied around it for 2012.
Leave it to Rep. Boehner to look a gift horse in the mouth…and then kick it in the teeth.
Upon returning from a two-day public relations junket to Afghanistan Boehner told Obama that, “Any drawdown of U.S. troops must be based on the conditions on the ground, not political calculations.”
Such statements showcase the distinctive leadership style of those who make political calculations from the safety of the rear echelon. Oblivious both to the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan and the demands of the public at home to begin a withdrawal and put the full weight of our presence behind finding a political solution to this political conflict.
Political hopefuls for 2012 take note of the leadership vacancy. The American public is now accepting applications.
-
Growing List of Conservatives including Coulter and Norquist Oppose War in Afghanistan
Published: April 27th, 2011
Please help us by forwarding this email to your conservative friends.
Last week, unfortunately, House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama to “explain” how withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July would not “undermine the tenuous progress we’ve made thus far.” Speaker Boehner also asserted that “[a]ny draw-down of U.S. troops must be based on the conditions on the ground, not on political calculations.”
The war in Afghanistan is a threat to conservative values. The Afghanistan war is fiscally irresponsible, wasteful of taxpayer dollars, and American lives are being lost in pursuit of a strategy that is not in our national interest. Even though the war in Afghanistan is a disaster for conservative values, the Republican leadership continues to support endless military involvement in Afghanistan.
It just so happened that on the same day that Speaker Boehner made his comments, the Afghanistan Study Group sponsored a conference featuring key note speaker Ann Coulter along with highly regarded conservative, Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. Contrary to Speaker Boehner’s statement, Ms. Coulter said that the war in Afghanistan is going “to bleed us and bleed us with no purpose”.
To view Ann Coulter’s two minute key argument, click here: Coulter Key Argument
To view her entire speech, click here: Coulter Entire Speech
To view a clip of Grover Norquist’s key argument click here: Norquist Key Argument
To view Grover Norquist’s entire speech click here: Norquist Entire Speech
Become a part of the conversation at afghanistanstudygroup.org.
We also had two additional panels, which featured such foreign policy luminaries as Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas R. Pickering, Dimitri K. Simes, President of the Center for The National Interest, and author Peter Bergen.
To view panel with Elise Labott, The Hon. Thomas Pickering, Paul Pillar, James Clad, Richard Vague, and Joshua Foust click below:
Panel 1: “The Afghanistan War: Reviewing America’s Strategic and Economic Position”
To view panel with Susan Glasser, James Dobbins, Christine Fair, Brian Katulis, Peter Bergen, and Matthew Hoh click below:
Panel 2: “Next Steps in Afghanistan: What are the Options?”
To view presentation by Dimitri Simes, click here
Please note Mr. Simes’ presentation begins at 0:00:43 and ends at 0:29:32
-
Budget deal will only save a fraction of promised $38B
Published: April 27th, 2011
Edward Kenney Afghanistan Study Group
The supposedly “historic” 2011 budget deal, which barely avoided a federal shutdown, will only save a fraction of the promised $38 billion. Once defense spending and funding for the wars are included in this calculation, federal spending will have actually increased this year. That’s right, defense spending plus the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya will cause federal spending to go up in 2011. Keep this in mind when assessing the 2012 budget proposals on defense.
With the President’s speech last night, there are now three major debt plans on the table, one by Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, a less heralded proposal by the House Progressive Caucus, and of course the President’s second attempt at a 2012 budget presented on Wednesday. The Ryan budget makes grading the three plans difficult. Remember the super-smart math whiz that would mess up the grading bell curve; well Ryan’s plan is the opposite of that. He relies on over-optimistic growth projections, “voodoo” economics that suggest cutting taxes raises revenue, and cuts from programs that overwhelmingly favor the middle class, the poor and the elderly while letting the wealthy off the hook. As bad as this sounds, the worse part of Ryan’s budget is that he does absolutely nothing to reign in defense spending.
Afghanistan Study Group member Gordon Adams explains:
Last Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) proposed a 2012 budget that caves to the Pentagon bureaucracy and spares the Department of Defense from fiscal discipline. Ryan’s spending plan mimics Defense Secretary Robert Gates’, which is more about the pretense of savings than actual prudence. It calls for $178 billion in reductions over the next five years, but most of these reductions are illusory and none of them lower the budget. Instead, they merely slow the growth that the department has said it would prefer.
Congressman Ryan should be ashamed.
The President’s plan is marginally better than the Ryan “joke” budget, but it is still pretty terrible. He correctly blames the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on contributing significantly to the deficit and debt problem, and he promises to “conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities and our role in a changing world”. But like Ryan, the specifics of his plan are pretty weak. He promises to save $400 billion from the trillion dollar defense budget. Sounds like a lot of money, but as with Ryan a lot of all of these savings will come in the form of slowing the growth of the Pentagon’s budget to the rate of inflation. As Gordon Adams suggests $400 billion is a really trivial sum:
And, frankly, a $400 billion reduction from defense over ten years is also trivial. The Department plans to spend more than $6 trillion over those years; $400 billion is less than 7% below that projection. A good comptroller can find about $40 billion a year to save with his or her eyes closed. And it is less than half the defense reductions the President’s own deficit commission proposed last December. And less than half the proposed defense reductions contained in the Bipartisan Policy Center’s debt commission (Rivlin-Domenici) proposal of November 2010. Odd that the White House did not back up the views of its own commission.
The only budget plan that takes defense spending seriously is the one proposed by the progressive caucus. It’s the only budget which actually commits to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also make real cuts in the defense budget of $1.7 trillion, over four times what the president is proposing. As Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs put it, “The public says that we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and reduce Pentagon spending.” The progressive budget does just that. At least in terms of military spending and the war in Afghanistan, the progressive caucus has the right approach.
-
Jackson Diehl’s Afghanistan and the State of Journalism Today
Published: April 26th, 2011
Edward Kenney Afghanistan Study Group
Jackson Diehl’s Op-Ed Sunday morning deserves a comprehensive critique, but for now let us focus on his opening statement:
“As warmer weather brings back both the war and the debate over policy in Washington, the starting point could be summarized this way: Thanks to the U.S. military, the Taliban has been driven out of most of its southern strongholds since last summer.”
It is absolutely astonishing that the media continues to trumpet this Defense Department sound bite. The reality is that the security situation in Afghanistan has continued to deteriorate over the last 12 months. This April is on pace to be the most violent in terms of coalition fatalities since the war began. Civilian casualties—what many experts consider the most important metric for counter-insurgency—were highest in 2010, and increasingly Taliban are able to attack government and civilians with impunity.
What’s going on here? Partly, the pro-surge “Coinistas” have done a good job hoodwinking members of the media with selective data points. A village in Helmand that used to be controlled the Taliban and is now controlled by international forces. Naturally these are the places where the military takes members of the media who then extrapolate the security situation for Afghanistan from this one data point. Basically, the equivalent would be to claim global warming is a myth by pointing to below average temperatures last winter in Duluth. Does this make sense? No. Does it happen? All the time.
The second problem with coverage on Afghanistan has to do with journalistic bias. By this, I don’t mean the media has a liberal or conservative bent. The entire profession has a bias towards sexy sources (usually unnamed Military, Pakistani or Afghan officials) over working with tedious data points or laboriously analyzing publicly available documents. This approach produces more exciting stories, but human sources have their own agenda and can’t be easily fact checked. Data and analysis on the other hand doesn’t lie, and can be easily verifiable by independent sources.
Taking this analysis a step deeper, take a look at the New York Times article that Diehl cites. First, the article doesn’t say what Mr. Diehl claims it does; that the “Taliban has been driven out of most of its southern strongholds”. The article contends that insurgents have been forced “underground” due to sustained casualties in the past year. The focus of the article is on body-counts not territory controlled. In fact, if anything the news article suggests the opposite: “[The Taliban] still control a number a remote districts and in those areas the insurgents can still muster forces to storm government positions”. Very bad, Mr. Diehl!
Second, notice how the “experts” reconcile the apparent security gains with increased violence:
“Insurgents have already switched tactics to suicide attacks on soft targets – such as recent attacks on a bank, an army recruitment center and a construction company that all caused high casualties – because they are not capable of confronting American and NATO forces in conventional battles, said Samina Ahmed, director of the International Crisis Group”
So Counter-Insurgency, whose principal aim is to protect populations, is succeeding based on evidence that it has failed to protect civilians? To be fair to Samina Ahmed, this same argument was used in the White House Progress Report published two weeks ago: “With more limited influence and freedom of movement[1], the Taliban increased the use of IED attacks and high profile attack such as suicide bombings”. Maybe there is some logic here that I just don’t get, but at the very least it is incumbent on our press corps including opinion writers like Diehl to ask these seemingly obvious questions. The failure of the press corps to do its basic job, in my opinion, says a lot about the sorry state of journalism today.
[1] We clearly have not stopped the Taliban’s freedom of movement from even inside Kandahar prison. Who are we kidding here?
-
The Sarpoza Redemption?
Published: April 25th, 2011
Edward Kenney Afghanistan Study Group
So the Blogosphere is atwitter over the escape of almost 500 prisoners from a Kandahar prison. Naturally this has led to a lot of finger pointing. How could prisoners tunnel out in such massive numbers without being caught? How did the prisoners hide the entrance of the tunnel? My theory is that the tunnel was hidden under posters of burqa clad starlets.[1]
But joking aside, pro-surge coinistas always claim that the Taliban has increasingly limited “freedom of movement”. If these people had any credibility at all, it’s gone now. This latest episode has shown that we can’t even limit freedom of movement for Taliban inside a prison, let alone in the rugged countryside.
[1] go to 12:45.
