ASG Blog
-
The War in Afghanistan Comes Home to Camden
Published: April 7th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
Camden, NJ
Marjah, Helmand province, Afghanistan
The United States is just days away from the first shutdown of its federal government in more than 15 years. Democrats and Republicans in Congress remain deadlocked over proposed spending cuts after months of political posturing and stopgap measures that have temporarily allowed the ship of state to steam ahead without an agreed upon budget. But the clock runs out this Friday at midnight and the prospects of a compromise being reached by that time look grim. Some economists are warning that a shutdown could jeopardize the country’s fragile economic recovery and increase the odds of a “double-dip” recession.
(Message to countries the United States lectures about good governance: Please ignore this blatant display of dysfunction. Do as we say, not as we do.)
Over the past two weeks intensive negotiations between the House Republican leadership and Senate Democrats have centered around a proposed $33 billion reduction in federal spending. Those talks broke down Tuesday when House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) declared the figure was “not enough” and demanded $40 billion in budget cuts. In February, House Republicans had gone even further by passing a bill with $60 billion in proposed spending reductions.
What all these budget proposals have in common is a focus on painful cutbacks in funding for environmental protection, health care, and education that will touch the lives of all Americans. What the proposals don’t touch is funding for a war in Afghanistan that a majority of Americans believe isn’t worth fighting and whose $119 billion price tag this year dwarfs the proposed savings put forward by both political parties.
It is a glaring omission. As William Hartung of the Center for International Policy notes:
“The tax dollars being spent on Afghanistan are enough to offset the $100 billion per year that House Republicans are seeking to cut from next year’s budget, or enough to fill the projected budget gaps of the 44 states that expect to run deficits in 2012. In other words, if the Afghan war ended and the funds allocated for it were returned to the states, no state in America would run a deficit next year.”
The fiscal impact of the war in Afghanistan has been devastating for states facing one of the most difficult budget years on record. New Jersey, for example, is facing an $11 billion deficit and will, should the worst come to pass on Friday, have no federal government to turn to for help. Meanwhile, New Jersey residents will shell out $4.9 billion in taxes in 2011 to continue the war in Afghanistan.
Gov. Christopher J. Christie has proposed drastic cuts to the state budget to make up the shortfall, including “…the layoffs of 1,300 state workers, closings of state psychiatric institutions, an $820 million cut in aid to public schools, and nearly a half-billion dollars less in aid to towns and cities.”
Among the cities that will be left to fend for themselves under these cuts is Camden, New Jersey. In 2010, Camden was ranked as the second most dangerous city in America with a violent crime rate five times the national average. Yet a $26 million budget gap forced the mayor to lay off half of the city’s police force in December. The result: crime has increased 20% compared to the same period last year. As this excellent report from PBS’ Need to Know shows, the economic crisis has left Camden unable to meet the basic needs of its citizens and with nowhere to turn for assistance. One father whose oldest son was lost to the city’s violence tells his interviewer that life in Camden is “…a never-ending battle…it’s like a warzone.”
Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.
The distorting effect of the war in Afghanistan comes into focus when one compares the “warzone” that is Camden with the never-ending battle waged by U.S. forces for the town of Marjah in Helmand Province. Though they are both beset by violence and are close in terms of population (Camden = 80,000; Marjah = 50-60,000) that is where their similarities end.
- While Camden’s police department struggles to protect its citizens with 204 officers, Marjah’s security is maintained by the presence of 2,000 Marines.
- At the same time that Camden was forced to lay off half of its police force because of a $14 million hole in the police department’s budget, Camden’s taxpayers were pitching in for their part of the $2 billion that it will cost to garrison Marjah with U.S. troops this year.
-Camden struggles with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and 53% of its population lives in poverty. Meanwhile the U.S. is hiring hundreds of men in Marjah to serve in local militias that many worry will prey upon the very people they are meant to protect at a cost of $500,000 every ten days in salary payments and development projects.
And while Camden’s streets are unsafe because of the absence of police officers, Marjah’s residents find themselves living in a warzone because of the presence of US troops. Which begs the question, why is the United States spending billions of dollars on a counterproductive strategy that is increasing instability in Afghanistan when those funds are so desperately needed to provide security and economic opportunity at home?Rutgers University history professor Howard Gilette told Need to Know, “We have a standard of life that we consider to be American. It’s not met in Camden.” That standard won’t be met in Camden, or in any of the other cities where it is under threat, so long as basic services for American citizens are subject to the budget axe while wasteful $119 billion wars are spared.
-
The Century Foundation Report: Optimistic about Reconciliation
Published: April 6th, 2011
Edward Kenney
Afghanistan Study Group BloggerThe Century Foundation International Taskforce on Afghanistan has produced the most comprehensive document yet on the prospects of reconciliation in Afghanistan. Their conclusion: a political process should be implemented immediately to end the conflict. In order to sustain this peace process, political reforms, regional diplomacy and economic development are needed.
As Afghanistan Study Group (ASG) Director Matt Hoh puts it, if the ASG report that was published in August were expanded by about 100 pages, it would look remarkably similar to the Century Foundation Report. The main difference is the tone of the Century Foundation document, which remains strikingly optimistic, despite the myriad of challenges facing coalition forces. Here are some highlights:
There is a consensus that some sort of political process is needed
“The war in Afghanistan may already be settling into a stalemate: Neither ISAF nor the Afghan government is likely ever to subdue the insurgency in the Pashtun heartland or indeed in other areas of the country. Neither side can expect to vanquish the other militarily in the foreseeable future. This growing sense of stalemate helps to set the stage for the beginning of a political phase in the conflict.”Although it is true that the current “stalemate” has created seemingly ideal conditions for a negotiated settlement , several challenges to reconciliation remain, including a lack of trust between the major participants, lack of coordination and control within and among insurgent groups, and perhaps most critically a lack of experience at negotiation among pro-government and pro-insurgent groups alike.
On a similar note the Century Report reaches the right conclusion that now is the optimal time for negotiations, but they gloss over the negative effects that our current strategy has on the prospects for peace. As several analysts have noted, the COIN strategy is killing off the more moderate leaders who are then replaced with younger, more radical insurgents making successful negotiations less likely as well as undermining any ability among insurgent leaders to enforce peace agreements.
There is a difference between reintegration and reconciliation
“Reintegration—understood as the effort to bring Taliban defectors, individually or in small groups, out of the insurgency and back into normal society, with jobs, income and security—is an important tactical tool in a military campaign, but is not in itself a political strategy.”The Century Report notes that reintegration programs are more successful once a peace settlement has been reached. For obvious reasons, armed combatants are reluctant to throw down their weapons and re-enter society when there remains a strong chance they will be shot at.
A Detailed Blueprint for Reconciliation
“A More Promising option, and one that in the past quarter century has had the most successful track record in bringing long standing conflicts to a negotiated end, is reliance on an internationally designated facilitator.”Unlike the ASG Report, the Century Reports draws up a specific blueprint for how to achieve reconciliation, first by with feelers using current communication networks, an international mediator (preferably the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan*) and finally a peace conference to settle outstanding issues. They point out the need for confidence building measures such as a ceasefires or partial withdrawals.
They also discuss the roll of including regional players, but seemingly miss the crucial need manage the role of spoilers. As the Mullah Baradar saga illustrates, the Pakistani military will do everything in its power to scuttle negotiations—including the arrest and capture of high-level Taliban leaders—if it feels it is not being included in the peace process.
In sum, of all the policy papers which have been produced since last August, the Century Foundation Task Force Report hues closest to the Afghanistan Study Group Report. Both their interpretation of the likelihood of reconciliation and their detailed description of a potential mediation process is optimistic, nevertheless it provides a useful guide to policymakers.
*It might be appropriate to point out that the Century Foundation Task Force Co-Chair Lakhdar Brahimi, the Former United Nations Special Representative for Afghanistan, would be a natural choice to lead mediation if the UN takes this role.
-
The Afghanistan Weekly Reader – April 1, 2011
Published: April 1st, 2011
At the beginning of the week attention shifted from the U.S. mission to protect civilians against atrocities in Libya to the atrocities committed by a platoon of U.S. soldiers against unarmed villagers in southern Afghanistan. While the focus returned to the new war in Libya shortly thereafter, stories describing the bloody stalemate in America’s longest conflict continued to trickle into the news. Commentators from across the political spectrum voiced concern that the military and the budget were being pushed to the breaking point, some also questioned whether the fighting in Libya would cause Afghanistan to once again slip beneath the radar as it had after the invasion of Iraq with consequences that are felt to this day.
In Afghanistan, corruption cases open and close at the whim of the Karzai administration, the line between anti-government insurgent and pro-government militia member continues to blur, and millions of dollars in U.S. aid is going to the Taliban instead of the impoverished communities it is intended to benefit. A growing consensus that a negotiated settlement and de-escalation of the conflict are the only way to end the stalemate in Afghanistan ran headlong into this week’s report that the the White House and the Pentagon remain deadlocked over the July deadline to begin troop withdrawals with a showdown looming. While it is understood that painful concessions will have to be made to end the war in Afghanistan, President Obama’s promise to the American public to start bringing the troops home is one condition he must not compromise on.
Articles
Libya action has GOP rethinking nation-building
3/27/11
Washington Times by Ralph Z. Hallow
“What are we doing in Libya?” Mr. Barbour, a former national party chairman, said last week. “I mean, we have to be careful in my mind about getting into nation-building exercises, whether it’s in Libya or somewhere else. We’ve been in Afghanistan 10 years.” …“We can save money on defense, and if we Republicans don’t propose saving money on defense, we’ll have no credibility on anything else,” he told an Iowa audience.
The Year at War: The Endgame in Afghanistan
3/26/11
The New York Times by James Dao
“KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — The general arrived late, but in style, bursting into a meeting with American commanders dressed in leather bomber jacket, riding boots and creased corduroys. To his critics, he was a warlord in uniform. But on this February day, he radiated the sly charisma of a congressman on the stump.”Comedy of Errors in Kabul as Karzai Aide is Arrested, Then Released
3/29/11
The New York Times by Rod Nordland
The release capped a comedy of errors in which the attorney general’s office first announced the arrest of the official, Noorullah Delawari, on corruption charges, then convened a news conference to detail the charges against him. By the time the news conference took place, however, the office’s spokesman, Amanullah Eman, said that the announcement had been a “misunderstanding” and that Mr. Delawari had been questioned rather than chargedWithin Obama’s war cabinet, a looming battle over pace of Afghanistan drawdown
3/30/11
The Washington Post by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
“Military leaders and President Obama’s civilian advisers are girding for battle over the size and pace of the planned pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer, with the military seeking to limit a reduction in combat forces and the White House pressing for a withdrawal substantial enough to placate a war-weary electorate.”The Nation: Taking Aim At The Military Budget
3/31/11
PR story on The Nation article by Robert Dreyfuss
“For the first time since the end of the cold war, there’s a real possibility that the post-9/11 fever that sent U.S. military spending shooting upward will break and that the Pentagon’s budget will fall sharply. But it won’t be easy.” Western aid lines Taliban pockets in Afghanistan
3/31/11
AFP by Emmanuel Duparcq
“As the United States and its Western allies ramp up development in Afghanistan ahead of a planned military withdrawal, a significant proportion of the money spent is going to the very organisation they are here to defeat.”In Afghan info war, being first trumps being right
3/30/11
Stars and Stripes by Nancy Montgomery
“In the intensive information war that U.S. forces are waging against the Taliban in Helmand province, getting the message out first — before insurgents provide their own version — can trump getting the message out accurately.Studies done in Afghanistan and the United States have shown that people believe and remember the first reports they hear, not corrected versions, even when clear evidence shows initial reports to be wrong.”
Opinion
Is the U.S. ready to Negotiate with the Taliban?
3/29/11
The Atlantic by Joshua Foust
“Western diplomats, Taliban leaders and the Afghan government,” The New York Times recently explained, “have begun to take a hard look at what it would take to start a negotiation to end the fighting.” The details of what they report — about the demands of both sides, about preconditions for talks to happen, and about necessary outcomes once talks are concluded — are the subject of much discussion in Washington’s foreign policy circles this week, including a major report released by the Century Foundation.”Afghanistan war, forgotten again?
3/31/11
by Jeffrey Laurenti (Century Foundation)
So you may not have known that, just in the past few days, Taliban fighters had seized a district capital in Afghanistan’s bitterly contested Nuristan province. Or that two former senior officials of the Kabul government had been charged with corruption and embezzlement. Or that Taliban fighters had kidnapped 50 police recruits and sent suicide bombers to kill 24 Afghan civilians. Or that they killed another five Western soldiers, bringing the month’s NATO fatalities to 30.The Kill Team Scandal: A Symbol of Fundamental Rot in the War in Afghanistan
3/29/11
The Afghanistan Study Group – Will Keola Thomas
Western officials hope that the swift prosecution of the accused soldiers will show the Afghan public that justice will be served and that the U.S. military is doing its part to combat impunity in Afghanistan. However, as was noted on this blog last week, these actions might not be enough to convince the Afghan public of the United States’ good intentions. Despite fears voiced by both NATO officials and members of the Karzai administration, massive protests have not erupted in the wake of the “Kill Team” photos’ publication. The relative quiet of Afghanistan’s streets points toward a tragic loss of faith in the foreign troops risking their lives to provide the Afghan public with security. -
From Kabul to Islamabad
Published: March 30th, 2011
Esha Mufti – Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
A continued military-focus in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will further destabilize civilian-military relations in neighboring Pakistan.
Drone strikes in Pakistani territory are an obvious and visible part of U.S. Af-Pak strategy. The recent and most notorious strikes that killed 40 in mid-March flared up tensions between Pakistan and the U.S. that had never really died down from the Davis affair. Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Kayani immediately strongly condemned the attacks. Notably but not surprisingly, his condemnation was visibly more important than Prime Minister Gilani’s own remarks against the strikes.
Another part of the Af-Pak strategy, more subtle but with more important long-term implications, is the militarization of the power structure in the Pakistan. The military focus of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has further fortified the Pakistani Army against the civilian government that is supposed to be in charge.
Pakistanis view their civilian government as a U.S. and NATO puppet in a war that has claimed the lives of 3570 civilians in Pakistan in 2010 alone—870 more than the number of civilian lives lost in Afghanistan during the same time. In stark contrast to President Zardari’s 20% domestic approval rating, the Pakistani Army continues to fare impressively with a 94% favorability rating.
But it is the army that gets U.S. money: the U.S. has poured almost $13 billion in military aid into Pakistan since FY 2002 to ensure the army’s help against al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and the Pakistani Taliban, which didn’t come into existence until 2005 or so. The massive international troop deployment in Afghanistan also requires logistics lines flowing through Pakistan, which basically makes the U.S. and the international community hostage to the Pakistani Army’s whims.
A diplomacy-focused U.S. strategy in Afghanistan would not tip the balance towards civilian power in Pakistan overnight. Still, abandoning a primarily military focus and pushing for internationally-backed regional diplomacy in Afghanistan would decrease the disproportionate clout and influence of the Pakistani Army. The Pakistani civilian government would have a chance to save face and reassert itself domestically and internationally. Kayani would obviously still be a major player in any regional talks, but at least the army wouldn’t be holding all the cards.
-
“Brother, can you spare a loan?”: Afghan Elites Rob the National Piggy Bank
Published: March 30th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
Another installment in the scandalous fleecing of the American (and Afghan) taxpayer from The New York Times:
“When a brother and a nephew of an Afghan vice president wanted to build up their fuel transport business, they took out a $19 million loan from Kabul Bank. When a brother of the president wanted to invest in a cement factory, he took out a $2.9 million loan; he also took out $6 million for a townhouse in Dubai. When the bank’s chief executive wanted to invest in newly built apartments in Kabul, he took almost $18 million.
The terms were hard to beat: no collateral, little to no interest. And no repayment due date.”
Must be nice. Back on the home front, small and medium businesses continue to struggle in a troubled economy as lending contracted for the 10th quarter in a row. The chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Sheila Bair, is practically begging banks to issue the loans that American businesses need in order to resume hiring. If only Chairman Bair was better connected in Kabul…
The enormous fraud perpetrated at Kabul Bank, Afghanistan’s largest and previously considered one of the most successful institutions in the country, was outlined in February in what remains a must-read investigation by Dexter Filkins for the New Yorker. Filkins found that $900 million of the bank’s deposits are presently lost or missing with little hope of the funds ever being recovered. A huge amount of this missing money came from the U.S. Embassy, which moved hundreds of millions of dollars through the bank in order to pay the salaries of Afghanistan’s government employees, soldiers, and policemen.
In many cases, the money disappeared into the accounts of fictional people and companies. In others, loans went to very real people who have no intention of repaying their debts. For example, “…Mahmoud Karzai, the president’s brother…has agreed to pay back only a sliver of some $18 million he borrowed without interest,” according to an investigation by Afghanistan’s Central Bank obtained by the New York Times. That’s far from the only connection to the U.S.’s “critical partner”, Hamid Karzai. The former C.E.O. of Kabul Bank told Filkins that the bank “gave” Pres. Karzai’s re-election campaign $4 million dollars, though there are no records of the transaction. Afghanistan’s political elite involved in this massive fraud were apparently aware of the benefits of the “private piggy bank” as financial institution: no paper trails.
The lack of documentation may mean that much of the money will never be recovered. However, what solid evidence of fraud exists should lead to prosecutions, no matter how powerful or connected the individual suspect may be. Unfortunately, it appears that up to this point Kabul Bank’s ties to the Karzai administration protected it from scrutiny while millions of dollars disappeared. Jean MacKenzie notes in The Global Post that Wikileaks cables revealed that US diplomats were aware of “most of the worst abuses” at the bank as early as 2009. Some fear that the Obama Administration won’t go after corruption at the highest levels of the Afghan government because, “We have to work with these people,” as a senior NATO officer told Dexter Filkins.
It is essential for corruption in the Afghan government to be investigated and prosecuted. Ending impunity in the looting of funds meant to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans is every bit as important for Afghanistan’s future stability as denying impunity to the war criminals who have made their way back into positions of power in the government. In both cases, the Afghan public is watching. The predatory behavior of their government, and complicit involvement of the foreign powers that allow such behavior to continue, will further undermine the legitimacy of that government which is so critical for the establishment of Afghan sovereignty and the long-awaited withdrawal of foreign troops.
-
The Kill Team Scandal: A Symbol of Fundamental Rot in the War in Afghanistan
Published: March 29th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
Rolling Stone has the deeply troubling backstory on the US Army infantry platoon implicated in the murder of unarmed civilians in Kandahar province last year. The “Kill Team” story made headlines around the world after Der Spiegel published leaked photos of the accused soldiers posing with the bodies of dead Afghans.
Western officials hope that the swift prosecution of the accused soldiers will show the Afghan public that justice will be served and that the U.S. military is doing its part to combat impunity in Afghanistan. However, as was noted on this blog last week, these actions might not be enough to convince the Afghan public of the United States’ good intentions. Despite fears voiced by both NATO officials and members of the Karzai administration, massive protests have not erupted in the wake of the “Kill Team” photos’ publication. The relative quiet of Afghanistan’s streets points toward a tragic loss of faith in the foreign troops risking their lives to provide the Afghan public with security.
Sadly, this loss of faith hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. Take the case of Afghan National Police Commander Azizullah in Paktika province.
From The Independent (with follow-up reports here and here):
“An Afghan warlord backed by US special forces faces persistent allegations that he launched a two-year spate of violence involving burglary, rape and murder of civilians, desecration of mosques and mutilations of corpses. Yet, despite repeated warnings about the atrocities Commander Azizullah is alleged to have committed, he has remained on the payroll of the US military as an ‘Afghan security guard,’ a select band of mercenaries described by some as ‘the most effective fighting formation in Afghanistan.”
It bears repeating: “…on the payroll of the US military…”
While Congress is paralyzed over $30 billion in proposed spending cuts, the $14 trillion dollar national debt groans under the weight of the $119 billion spent annually on the war in Afghanistan, and almost 14 million Americans are unemployed, an alleged war criminal has a steady paycheck courtesy of American taxpayers.
The allegations against Azizullah were first raised in a UN report provided to NATO’s deputy commander US Lieutenant-General David Rodriguez in February of 2010 and include information provided by religious leaders, tribal elders, villagers, contractors, and Western and Afghan officials as well as members of a range of tribes from different areas in Paktika. However, a cursory investigation by NATO concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated and the matter was dropped. This appears to be the unfortunate norm for coalition investigations as Erica Gaston, a human rights lawyer with the Open Society Institute, told The Independent, “As often as I’ve heard ISAF officials say they take accountability seriously, I’ve heard them describe commanders with serious credibility concerns as ‘Afghan good enough.’”
The ongoing calls from across Afghan society to end impunity show that keeping warlords being investigated for war crimes on the U.S. payroll is not “Afghan good enough.” Nor is it good enough for American taxpayers who are footing the bill.
And it is even more disheartening to note that unlike millions of those taxpayers trying to make ends meet in uncertain economic times, Commander Azizullah has found some job security in Afghanistan’s counterproductive “security racket.” Rather than weakening the Taliban, Azizullah’s exploits drive victimized villagers into the arms of the insurgency. As one interviewee from Pirkoti village in Paktika province told investigators, “Of course people turn towards the Taliban if he acts like this.”
This short-term strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan through the employ of local warlords has long-term consequences for Afghanistan’s security and the New York Times’ James Dao reports that it isn’t just confined to the restive south and east of the country.
In the northern province of Kunduz, Dao describes a program that pays village militias to shore up uncertain government forces in their fight against the Taliban. But the lines distinguishing the militias from the insurgency are far from clear.
“Many of the militias are controlled by strongmen who traffic in drugs and weapons and pay their soldiers by taxing the locals, as the Taliban do. Indeed, several militias in Kunduz fought alongside the Taliban before switching to the government’s side.”
And when the money stops flowing?
“‘If they do not have income, they will return to their old bosses,’ the mayor of Imam Sahib, Sufi Manaan, warned American officers in February. He should know. Some American commanders believe that he has links to a militia that fought against their soldiers last fall.”
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Taliban Cuts off Cell Phones in Helmand; New Report Offers Way Out
Published: March 25th, 2011
World attention shifted this week to Libya and coalition involvement in establishing the no-fly zone. At a cost of $100 million per day to the U.S., it raised anew questions as to whether our ten-year involvement and $330 million per day investment in Afghanistan will once again be overshadowed by a different conflict.
New, moderate voices are continuing to emerge as skeptical of our continued involvement, including Democrats like Heath Shuler, who voted last week for the resolution to bring American troops home by the end of the year.
The most important development of the week, however, was the plan for a potential Afghanistan settlement put forth by highly respected policy veterans Thomas Pickering and Lakhdar Brahimi, which was announced this Wednesday as part of the Century Foundation’s International Task Force Report. Pickering, a former ambassador and under secretary of state, and Brahimi, a former United Nations special representative for Afghanistan, have the experience and insight on this issue to warrant Washington’s most serious consideration.
Articles
Could Tea Party Reshape the Afghanistan Debate?
ABS News by Huma Khan
“Tea Party activists have remained quiet on the foreign policy front, but with budget cuts under the limelight, the war in Afghanistan could fracture Republicans at a time they’re already struggling to come to a consensus on what the budget cuts should entail.”Taliban Stop Cell Phone Signals in Key Afghan Province
Reuters by Ismail Sameem
“KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Mobile phones have fallen silent in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province on the orders of the Taliban, telecoms engineers said, a potent reminder of insurgent power in an area chosen as the showcase for a transition to Afghan security.”How to End the War in Afghanistan?
Foreign Policy by Matthiew Aikins
“Today, the New York-based Century Foundation International Task Force has released its final report on political negotiations in Afghanistan. While on the surface much of it seems relatively anodyne, it goes further than other prominent reports in describing the outlines of a potential settlement, and proposes a high-level peace process lead by a neutral party.”Opinion
Settling the Afghan War
The New York Times by Lakhdar Brahimi and Thomas Pickering
“DESPITE the American-led counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, the Taliban resistance endures. It is not realistic to think it can be eradicated. Efforts by the Afghan government, the United States and their allies to win over insurgents and co-opt Taliban leaders into joining the Kabul regime are unlikely to end the conflict.”Conservatives Got Us Out of Vietnam and Korea
Campaign for Liberty by Richard Vague
“Our conservative politicians are letting us down. At a time when we desperately need to cut the deficit, they are standing by while the Obama administration spends $119 billion per year in Afghanistan, which is a country with a GDP of only $16 billion per year.”Wake-Up! End the Silence on Afghanistan
The Nation by Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting, almost 75 percent want “a substantial number” of US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan this summer, and yet Congressional staffers widely report that Members do not hear from their constituents about this war.”On Libya, Obama Forgets his own advice
Philadelphia Inquirer by Matthew Leatherman
In June 2008, candidate Barack Obama offered a searing critique of the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq and its neglect of the effort in Afghanistan. “This war,” Obama said of Iraq, “distracts us from every threat that we face, and so many opportunities we could seize.”From the Blog
“The Kill Team” Photos: the Potential Fallout and The Brutal Reality of War
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
“Five American soldiers are facing murder charges for their roles in the deaths of three civilians in Afghanistan’s Kandahar Province last year. The men are accused of deliberately killing unarmed civilians and then faking combat situations in order to make the murders look like acts of self-defense.”Taliban To U.S.: “Can You Hear Me Now?”
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
“As signs of progress in the fight against the Taliban, U.S. officials offer metrics of success ranging from small arms seizures and the capture of opium shipments to body counts. But the most accurate measure of progress may be the number of bars on the screens of Helmand province’s cellphones.” -
Taliban to U.S.: “Can You Hear Me Now?”
Published: March 25th, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
As signs of progress in the fight against the Taliban, U.S. officials offer metrics of success ranging from small arms seizures and the capture of opium shipments to body counts. But the most accurate measure of progress may be the number of bars on the screens of Helmand province’s cellphones.
Cell networks in the province were shut down Sunday on the orders of the Taliban, who claimed that mobile phones were being used to track their communications. Mobile companies who violate the orders risk having their towers destroyed (two have been burned already), and at present, none of the companies are trying their luck. It is not known when the ban might lift.
It’s completely understandable if it comes as a shock that the Taliban would be able to unilaterally enforce a communications blackout in a province that is a focal point of the 30,000 troop / $36 billion “surge” initiated last year. For months military officials have been claiming “significant progress” in the fight against the insurgency in the Taliban heartland of southern Afghanistan as a result of this escalation. British and American officials recently went so far as to declare that the insurgent leadership in Helmand had been “decimated.”
Some gains in security have been made in Helmand. But those gains are isolated geographically, disconnected strategically, and have come at a tremendous cost in dollars and lives. For example, the rural town of Marjah, a Taliban stronghold once called a “bleeding ulcer” by former NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is now a favorite stop on the itineraries of congressional delegations eager for a photo-op with the backdrop of success. But as ASG director Matt Hoh points out, that success comes at an enormous price disproportionate to its strategic value:
“The U.S. currently garrisons Marjah with two battalions of Marines and Sailors. Two battalions form more than 2,000 men and women. Utilizing the White House’s standard of $1 million per service member in Afghanistan per year, the U.S. has now spent and continues to spend at least $2 billion dollars a year to garrison, i.e. police, Marjah, a rural Afghan hamlet of 50-60,000 Afghan farmers.”
Obviously the U.S. can’t provide Marjah-like levels of security to all of Afghanistan at the cost of $2 billion dollars per farm town, and even a “secure” Marjah is a deadly place. Last Sunday, Marine Corps Staff Sgt. James M. Malachowski, 25, was killed by an IED while on patrol there.
And despite two battalions of Marines and Sailors, a newly stood-up local defense force, $2 billion dollars a year, a government in a box, and all the assertions of progress General Petraeus can muster, the Taliban were able to shut down Marjah’s cell phones, along with those in the rest of Helmand Province, at will.
-
“The Kill Team” Photos: The Potential Fallout and the Brutal Reality of War
Published: March 23rd, 2011
Will Keola Thomas – Afghanistan Study Group
Five American soldiers are facing murder charges for their roles in the deaths of three civilians in Afghanistan’s Kandahar Province last year. The men are accused of deliberately killing unarmed civilians and then faking combat situations in order to make the murders look like acts of self-defense.
The revelation that American soldiers had plotted the cold-blooded murder of unarmed Afghans was shocking on its own, but Der Spiegel’s recent release of three photographs (warning: graphic) of the accused soldiers posing with the bodies of dead Afghans threatens to ignite the already volatile relationship between the U.S. and Afghan governments over civilian casualties. U.S. officials have been scrambling to limit the public relations damage while preparing for the possibility of massive protests in Afghanistan. One of the accused, Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock, is on the record admitting to three counts of murder and will plead guilty in a court martial hearing this week.
On Tuesday, ASG director Matt Hoh appeared on RT’s Alyona Show to discuss the potential fallout from the publication of the photographs. When asked whether such damning evidence of crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan should be released by the media, Hoh offered this sobering analysis: “…this documents war. And people have to understand what war is like.”
Perhaps even more sobering is this piece in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh, reminding us that there is a tragic historical precedent for atrocities like the murder of unarmed civilians and the taking of “trophy photos” in Afghanistan. A precedent that stretches from Abu Ghraib to My Lai and before:
“In long unsuccessful wars, in which the enemy – the people trying to kill you – do not wear uniforms and are seldom seen, soldiers can lose their bearings, moral and otherwise. The consequences of that lost bearing can be hideous. This is part of the toll wars take on the young people we send to fight them for us. The G.I.s in Afghanistan were responsible for their actions, of course. But it must be said that, in some cases, surely, as in Vietnam, the soldiers can also be victims.”
However, the most damning revelation to come out of the publication of these horrific photographs may be the relative quiet of Afghanistan’s streets. While a NATO official told Der Spiegel that “…it might take a couple of days, but then people’s anger will be vented,” and others noted that the Nowruz (Persian New Year) holiday on Monday could have kept people from marching, so far there are no reports of major protests.If the quiet continues, or if only small demonstrations are held, it may mean that photographs of American soldiers posing with the bodies of murdered civilians is not news to the people the United States has pledged to protect. And whether that is a matter of the Afghan public’s perception of the occupation or its reality, it would be more damning of the United States’ ongoing involvement in the war than any photograph.
-
The Afghanistan Weekly Reader – March 18, 2011
Published: March 18th, 2011
The big news of this week centered around the testimony of General Petraeus—in town for his annual appearances before Congress. His testimony was utterly unsurprising—progress is being made, we can’t afford to threaten that progress by pulling out now, this year will be difficult. In fact, it’s testimony that’s very similar to that of last year. Petraeus’ testimony went largely unchallenged. The House resolution calling for withdrawal of all troops by the end of the year did earn 28 additional votes over last year, including a small but growing number of Republicans.
In part because of the huge disconnect that we now see with the American public on the war (the latest Washington Post poll found that 75% want a significant number of troops home this summer on schedule, which is not what Petraeus testified to). The Afghanistan Study Group organized a call on Thursday with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to talk about his reasons for voting to end the war this year, which we have blogged on and included in this wrap-up.
Articles
Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say Afghan War Isn’t Worth Fighting
The Washington Post by Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen
3/15/11
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. he finding signals a growing challenge for President Obama as he decides how quickly to pull U.S. forces from the country beginning this summer. After nearly a decade of conflict, political opposition to the battle breaks sharply along partisan lines, with only 19 percent of Democratic respondents and half of Republicans surveyed saying the war continues to be worth fighting.”Sen Kristen Gillibrand Presses Administration for Clear Withdrawal Plan from Afghanistan
The Huffington Post by Amanda Terkel
3/15/11
“WASHINGTON — While President Obama has said that U.S. combat forces will begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011 and be fully out by 2014, the pace of that withdrawal is still up in the air. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is now pressing the administration for a clear redeployment plan so that the American public receives a degree of certainty regarding how much longer the war will last. Her announcement comes on the same day that Gen. David Petraeus will be testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which Gillibrand is a member.”Petraeus Tells Panel July Drawdown in Afghanistan May Include Some Combat Troops
New York Times by Elisabeth Bumiller
3/16/11
Gen. David H. Petraeus told Congress on Wednesday that some American combat troops might be included in an initial withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan in July, but he said that he was still preparing options for President Obama and that no final decision had been made.Pressure Mounts on all Parties in Afghan War to Begin Talks
New York Time by Alissa J. Rubin
3/16/11
“KABUL, Afghanistan — As American troops press the Taliban in their desert and mountain redoubts, Western diplomats, Taliban leaders and the Afghan government have begun to take a hard look at what it would take to start a negotiation to end the fighting.”Cut Pentagon’s Budget, Reduce Afghan Forces
Politico by Kasie Hunt
3/15/11
“DAVENPORT, Iowa — America should slash defense spending — and consider shrinking its presence in Afghanistan, Haley Barbour said Monday night. Barbour, a likely candidate for president in 2012, told Iowa county leaders and activists here that the GOP won’t have any credibility on cutting spending if they’re not willing to trim the defense budget — often considered sacrosanct for Republicans.”Who is Winning Afghanistan War? US Officials Increasingly Disagree
Christian Science Monitor by Anna Mulrine
3/16/11
“Gen. David Petraeus travels to Capitol Hill this week, eager to convince an increasingly skeptical American public that the Afghanistan war is worth the effort – and that it is going well, too. s he appears in Washington, nearly two-thirds of Americans no longer believe that the Afghanistan war “has been worth fighting,” according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.”Opinion
Afghanistan’s Many Annual Turning Points
Registan by Joshua Foust
3/15/11
“With the war in Afghanistan, there is something of an annual tradition in the news analysis and pundits who write about it: declare that year, no matter the circumstances, plans, or context, a turning point in the war. This year is, obviously, no exception:”Obama weighs talking to the Taliban, Hezbollah
Washington Post By David Ignatius
3/17/11
“In the case of the Taliban, the administration has repeatedly stated that it is seeking a political settlement of the war in Afghanistan rather than a military one. That formula sometimes seems hollow when more than 100,000 U.S. troops are in combat. But it got more definition last month from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who opened the doors wider for dialogue.”The Inertia of Intervention
Philadelphia Inquirer by Matthew Leatherman
3/10/11
“After he was dismissed for attempting to escalate the Korean War into a ground invasion of China, Gen. Douglas MacArthur opined that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.” That may be true of soldiers, but not of the wars they fought. Any of the 130,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea could tell you that. Today, Congress and President Obama must determine whether our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will be similarly open-ended.”From the Blog
Quagmires make for Strange Bedfellows
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
3/18/11
“Some might say that it would take a particularly cold day in political hell (or Washington D.C. for that matter) for conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46) and progressive Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) to seek warmth under the legislative covers with one another. Well, it was a balmy 63 degrees on Thursday in our nation’s capital and yet the two congressmen did it anyway in voting together on a resolution calling for all U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of the year.”#WINNING in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Will Keola Thomas
3/16/11
“Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings on the parallels between the PR campaign of a self-destructive major drug-consuming Hollywood star and General Petraeus’ publicity tour for a self-destructive policy in major drug-producing Afghanistan: “This is the Charlie Sheen counterinsurgency strategy. Which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network saying you’re winning and hope the U.S. public actually agrees with you.” But the public isn’t buying the spin in either case…
