Missing the point entirely

A little bit over a week ago Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports that humanized the victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. The reports presented case studies of the people who were victimized by the "surgical strikes" carried out by unmanned drones flying high overhead.

The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?

With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.

Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.

The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?

Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.

This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War on Everything Terror is the ultimate example of hubris.

The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.

But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.

Book review: The Operators - The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan

It's America's longest running war. It's the war that most folks have either forgotten about or never paid attention to. It's our turn to get stuck in a quagmire that has gotten the best of the British and the Soviets before us. It's the never-ending war in Afghanistan.

Michael Hastings' new book The Operators gives us an up close and personal view of the people responsible for it. On assignment for Rolling Stone, Mr. Hastings was sent to do a feature article on General Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

McChrystal had just been named as the replacement for General David McKiernan and he was being treated as a rock star by the media. He carefully cultivated an image of himself as a dedicated patriot who was willing to do what it took to win the war.

McChrystal was also an acolyte of the counter-insurgency school of military thought. Put in simple terms, counter-insurgency isn't so much fighting a war as it is building a nation. The war in Afghanistan was a civil war between the government forces of Hamid Karzai and everyone else. According to the counter-insurgency theory, the path to victory is to convince the folks caught up in the middle of the war that the government is legitimate and that the only way out of war is to shore it up.

It's the old "hearts and minds" argument.

Now while there's a good amount of truth behind the general idea, the problem is insurgencies surface when governments become corrupt and oppressive. And no amount of sugar-coating or whitewashing the fences can change that. It also means that we're getting caught up in yet another country's civil war. And for what?

In his travels with General McChrystal, Mr. Hastings observed, shall we say, quite a bit of questionable behavior.  He also witnessed the utter contempt in which the general held President Obama. He gives us a portrait of a man, and his inner circle, who did their best to short-circuit civilian control of the military. No matter how much General McChrystal disliked it, his boss is the President. He finally understood the dynamic when he was forced to resign his position.

Mr. Hastings also points out the complicity of the media in the war effort. Instead of acting as a check upon the government, the media were cheerleaders for the Pentagon. Correspondents wanted to be "embedded" with combat units. They wanted interviews with the top brass. They wanted access and they wanted publicity. And they were willing to sell their credibility to get it.

The media was critical of the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam War. Beginning with the first Gulf War, the media have been acting as the unofficial public relations firm for the Pentagon. There is very little criticism of the war effort. There is little critical analysis of what's happening on the ground. There is certainly no questioning of the purpose of the war.

Mr. Hastings provides us with a more balanced view of what's really going on in Afghanistan. He is willing to question the rationale for the war. As we begin our second decade fighting a war without purpose, Mr. Hastings' book is a breath of fresh air and perspective.

Shining a light on a dark secret

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.  This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.  It has likely cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars Congress might not otherwise have appropriated had it known the truth, and our senior leaders’ behavior has almost certainly extended the duration of this war.  The single greatest penalty our Nation has suffered, however, has been that we have lost the blood, limbs and lives of tens of thousands of American Service Members with little to no gain to our country as a consequence of this deception. 

-- Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, Dereliction of Duty II

So begins Lt. Col. Daniel Davis' critique of the American war effort in Afghanistan, a ten-year conflict that we have nothing to show for except thousands of American casualties.

According to the government, the war effort has been a success. US forces have weakened the Taliban by eliminating leaders and troops, taking away sanctuaries and disrupting supply lines. But, as Lt. Col. Davis points out, if the enemy has been weakened by the actions of US forces, how do you explain the increase in American casualties in the last year?

The report accuses the military leadership, Gen. David Petraeus in particular, of not just spinning the news, but completely distorting it in order to sell the American people the military's bill of goods when it comes to the sink hole that is the Afghan war.

According to the company line, the number of attacks against American troops increased because the troops were taking the fight to the Taliban in sections of the country that troops hadn't been to previously. As Lt. Col. Davis points out, that excuse only explains the violence at the beginning of the offensive. As the number of US forces in an area increase - and as Taliban forces either stay steady or decrease - the number of attacks against US forces should decrease. That's not what has been happening.

Our government tells us that Afghan security forces are capable to fighting the Taliban and keeping them in check. We are also told that the Afghan government isn't corrupt and is capable of running the country. Lt. Col. Davis claims the truth is the opposite. He cites military sources who have admitted that Afghan security forces aren't at all capable of "holding the fort" and that the government is still very much corrupt.

He questions the ability of local governments and security forces to defend the machinery of the state against the Taliban. If that is the case, then much of the last ten years has been nothing but a futile exercise in sending young men to their deaths in the desert.

The military blames the declining levels of support for the Afghan war on the military's inability to get its message out to the American people. Their myopia prevents them from understanding that the public is tiring of the war because it seems to have degenerated into a quagmire.

In the meantime the media, the so-called check on the government, has completely fallen on its face as a result of kissing every ass they could find to get inside sources on camera and on background. The media long since gave up its role of challenging government assertions during war - they became cheerleaders for the Pentagon during the first Gulf War. Scared of pissing off the people who give them access, reporters gladly relay the company line to the American people.

The war in Afghanistan has been a disaster - as has every other attempted invasion of the country. As Michael Hastings pointed out the other day on Democracy Now!, the Army will soon take aim at Lt. Col. Davis. First will be the smear campaign and then will begin the campaign to tarnish his credibility.

It takes courage to stand up and expose a lie. Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is risking his career to tell the American people the truth about Afghanistan. Lt. Col. Davis should be hailed as a hero.

H/T Democracy Now!

From a field of nightmares to a field of dreams

As we wind down the old year and get ready to crank up the new one, the people in Afghanistan are still trying to extricate themselves from the nightmare that was the Taliban regime. And part of that transformation is taking place inside a soccer stadium.

Ghazi Stadium in Kabul is to be the home of the Afghanistan national soccer team.

During the days of the Taliban, Ghazi Stadium was where the regime carried out public executions.

Daud, 40, a driver who only wanted to give his first name, was at the stadium in 1999 when he witnessed the execution of a woman called Zarmeena, who was accused of killing her husband. 

Dressed in a blue burqa, she was made to kneel on the field. 

"The Taliban got the Kalashnikov, put it behind her head and shot her two times. She fell down on the ground," Daud said. "The crowd went very quiet. It was a strange and dangerous atmosphere. People were shocked and scared. Sometimes I remember that woman — I even dream about it." 

But he said he hoped that the stadium, once dirty and littered with bullets, now would be a symbol of hope in the country 

"Now the stadium is 100 percent changed," he said.

Sports can divide us, but they can also bring us together. Although the reopening of the stadium is more symbolic than tangible, it is a sign that normalcy may be returning to the country.

Play ball!