Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) has not reached a consensus on the U.S. Milit

By
Robert L. Hanafin
-
0
872

Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) has not reached a consensus on the U.S. Military Role in Afghanistan.

Sean Donahue on the Headquarters Staff of MFSO wrote that, "MFSO does not have a position on the U.S. military role in Afghanistan, primarily because it is an issue around which our membership has historically been greatly divided. With so many members’ loved ones being sent to Afghanistan the issue has become much more pressing lately and I know our Board of Directors will be meeting soon to discuss how to best engage in a discussion of Afghanistan with MFSO members."

wotlogo_web_01

Though not on the National Board of Veterans for Peace (VFP) or Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), I receive this response from passionate anti-Iraq War writer/activist Ward Reilly from Baton Rouge, Louisiana:

"Bobby you asked "for the official response from leaders in THE ANTI-IRAQNAM WAR MOVEMENT." Then you said, "I personally have and see nothing wrong with Senator Obama retaining a policy of "Win the war on terrorism/redeploy (or deploy) troops from Iraq to Afghanistan" as long as Senator Obama makes it CLEAR to the American people that he expects WE THE PEOPLE to make all out sacrifices (including THE DRAFT) in order to sustain, let alone win, any War on Terror.

No offense, and with all respect intended, but exactly how do you "win a war on terror"? It’s impossible. The moment you (militarily) invade an innocent nation, you have lost the moral high ground, any local support, and the "war"…especially when you kill hundreds of thousands in the process.

More to follow, but suffice it to say that those most ACTIVE in the anti-Iraq War movement since the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq way back in 2003 are divided on just how to deal with Afghanistan and any politicians plans to divert attention from Iraq to Afghanistan.

The next post AFTER this one will hopefully make using military operations to fight the War on Terror obsolete. It is a defense report from RAND Corporation that questions the phrase "War on Terror," instead calling it what it is – Counter-Terrorism.

Bobby Hanafin, The Mustang Major

     IS THERE REALLY A WAR ON TERROR?

SHOULD WHAT THE U.S. IS DOING IN BOTH IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE, AND WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM?

These are questions that I hope will be addressed in the next two posts.

"Exactly how do you "win a war on terror"? It’s impossible. The moment you (militarily) invade an innocent nation, you have lost the moral high ground, any local support, and the "war"…especially when you kill hundreds of thousands in the process." Ward Reilly, Veterans for Peace (VFP) and writer/activists for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

_graphics_logo_400_02"Terror" is an ideal, and it’s not a thing you can "defeat". Our "War on Terror" is a war OF terror, for all involved, Middle Easterners, and for our troops. Our troops are being used as occupational-oppressors and policemen, not as soldiers. They are sitting targets fighting an invisible enemy.

Although not a member of the VVAW board, I am heavily involved "in the streets" in the movement, and the Veterans on the street say "U.S. out of Afghanistan and Iraq, now". We have to save THIS country, and we will never be able to export to other countries what we don’t practice here (democracy). Our Constitution has been shredded by criminals in Congress and the White House. Bush and Cheney need to be in jail, for committing Constitutional crimes AND invading 2 innocent nations. You know what we all swore a blood oath to; "….to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC". Bush and Cheney lied us into both "wars".

2401_01

If it is truly necessary to take out "evil terrorists", such as bin Laden, then it should be done by assassination of single targets, with NO casualties to any innocent citizens, and done by our incredible Special Forces, who can easily kill any single man with proper planning. In and out, game over. The neocons want the "wars" to continue, in occupation form, because war is a money-making monster for them, especially with our new "privatized" army.

I don’t speak for the organization as an officer, but most of our members feel this way, in my opinion. Afghanistan IS NOT "the good war". It’s the same as Iraq. Illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and criminal.

No Draft. The people of this country will defend it if we are attacked by any invading military.

U.S. Military COMPLETELY out of Afghanistan and Iraq, yesterday.

The real questions are, can we force Obama to act on the will of the Majority of our citizens (70%) who want us out of both countries, NOW, and can we save the Constitution peacefully, or not?

(Sp4) Ward Reilly, SE national contact, VVAW
Veterans For Peace
IVAW Advisory Board member
11c40 C 1/16 1st ID 71-74
Selective Service Board member

************************************************************************

A DIVERSE VIEW ON BEHALF OF BARACK OBAMA

This feedback was sent to me by Brother Stephen Noetzel of California, who I’ve known since 2003 and personally met in March 2005 at the first formulating meeting of the democrat party leaning Veterans and Military Families for Progress in Wisconsin. I frankly disagree with the views of many moderates to right of center Veterans and Military Families who met there; however their opinions are to be just as respected as mine or Stan Goff’s.

Steve called his feedback, "My Dissenting view on Afghanistan," and despite his title, he in reality is defending and promoting Senator Obama’s position on Afghanistan (or SW. Asia).

For those not familiar with the seed of discussion, I sent out a request for feedback from folks within the Peace Movement whose views I respect even if I do not agree with them. My promise was to put together an article that expressed all opinions among those who find consensus on but one decision: NONE OF THE FOLKS THAT I CONTACTED WILL BE VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

That said, if someone expressed an opinion or promoted a position on any Independent Presidential Candidate, I will also share their views. The only restriction I place on my reporting is that no opinions in support of John McCain will be articulated for fear that I or others be labeled a McCain supporter. My intent was NEVER to write a long winded pro or anti-McCain campaign ad, but to LEGITIMATELY QUESTION those WE were seriously considering VOTING FOR!

Stephan says that, "I have been reading the interesting posts on Peace Movement Policy on Afghanistan. I wasn’t going to ring-in on this but [my name was mentioned]. May as well offer my two cents, some of you know of my history with VVAW. I go back to the Original Crew in NYC. I was an active member and organizer as early as ’69 & ’70. I testified at the original WSI in Detroit, and I testified w/ Kerry in congress. I traveled on speaking tour w/ Jane. TV appearances regarding my testimony on war crimes I observed as a Green Beret in ‘Nam. I worked w/ Bobby Muller [founder of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and former VVAW member] on Long Island to organize a mini-WSI at the Garden City Hotel in Republican Nassau County the summer after the original. I ran an activist VVAW chapter @ Queens College. [Count] me [among] the ‘originals’ Jan, Urgo, Bangert, hell, even Al H. Ditto with the Citizens Commission, ask Rifkin, Uhl, Todd. Ask all the old saints. I mention all this not because I think my view on Afghanistan has any more validity than yours, but simply to establish that I have been in lock-step with liberal/progressive (even) radical political views, lo these many years. I then got bitten by the Political Bug and been there ever since.

I worked in the Allard Lowenstein ‘comeback’ campaign – till he got shot. Would have worked in the Bobby Kennedy Campaign, but he got shot. His older bro sent me to ‘Nam, then got shot while I was there. [NOTE: Steve’s positon IS NOT to be taken as any OFFICIAL position of the Obama Campaign only one among thousands of campaign volunteers. Bobby Hanafin]

When I started working in the Obama campaign over a year ago, I never told them these things. Remember why the Spinal Tap guys couldn’t find a new drummer? That’s right, a Jinx, six previous drummers died on the job.

The thing is, though I say ‘lock-step’. I was never into Group-think. I marched in step because I was in full agreement. When I disagreed, I simply didn’t march. I don’t march with the Replace Israel with Palestine crowd. It’s WAY more complicated than that.

I don’t march with the Hands Off Afghanistan crowd. It’s a bit more complicated than that. Not a lot, but a bit. Lot’s of people know I’m no Hawk. Fewer know I’m also not a pacifist. I ‘cherry pick,’ that’s why I like the name VVAW better than VFP.

Though I moved out of NYC in the mid-70s and now feel perfectly at home here in the land of fruits and nuts, I still get highly pissed when I see occasional film of the Towers coming down. My ‘New Yorker’ patriotism kicks in. I’m not yet evolved to the point where I’m ready to let bygones be bygones around 9/11/01. I want justice. Hell I’m baser than that. I want revenge. But revenge against the perpetrators and that doesn’t rule out GW Bush and his henchmen as far as I’m concerned. I long for the day when there’s a crack in that insulation. But I sure as hell did enough homework to know who the ‘rag head’ scumbags are. That’s why I got so pissed (with barrack Obama and 30-million other Americans.), when King George told me we’ll get our revenge by attacking…Iraq?

No sale douche-bag. Not for a minute. That’s why I started working with OIF vets to start Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) here in the Bay Area as early as 2003 – a full year before the finally evolved at the VFP convention in ’04.

But Afghanistan, that’s where that OBL (Osama Bin Laden) bastard was hiding. IS hiding, and continues to hide.

What also starts to ‘kick-in’ is the old ‘Mission Mentality’ of my Sneaky Pete training. That’s why NONE of the arguments against going after that bastard make a lick of sense to me.

Let’s talk ‘Mission’. Though I knew from the very start of ‘Shock and Awe’ that the ‘mission’ that Bush conjured up to invade IRAQ (f’gadsake) was outrageous (whatever it was)…Once it got started I was SURE he had enough experienced military people advising him to insure that there was a clear MISSION to this bombastic excuse for a war. I’ll be honest. If the Bush Mission turned out to be revenge against Hussein for trying to kill papa Bush, I would have begrudgingly even given him that. Had he ‘pulled out’ (like poppa did) after clumsily accomplishing his ‘mission, (i.e. Topple Hussein) I could have held my nose and swallowed that. Under two conditions, first, that they

destroyed/secured the WMDs, and second, that they (re-) turned IMMEDIATELY to the primary mission (that being) full force deployment to the capture of the Bastard OBL.

That Mission, I insist is viable. Don’t tell this old Green Beanie it’s not. The Israeli Special Forces used to excel at this. Until they started taking lessons from Rumsfeld & Co. on How to [Screw] Up a Perfectly Good War.

The mullahs, sheep-herders, and poppy-farmers in Afghanistan are bigger Ho’s than Ho Chi Minh and his Charlie’s ever were. They had a lot of True Believers. Of COURSE the Russians got their ass kicked when they tried a conventional war in Afghanistan. Same-same the French at Dien Bien Phu, and same-same ‘Hello Marines -Welcome to our Tet Celebration!’. Of course if the Mission is not clear and concise, and if the Strategy is

CFM (Clear as Mud remember?) there will be "Instant Afquagimire" (This coinage with apology to [Bobby] Hanafin who long has touted his appropriate "Iraqinam" term).

I insist that with a disciplined effort and a rigorously controlled MISSION, there are poppy-farmers and Mullahs that will give up OBL and his hole-in-the-wall gang (for the right price), and Sneaky Pete can get in there and Spirit him Out. Yes, there may be some collateral damage – as the slime-ball insulates him self with civilian hostages, but if the MISSION is right the job can be done with minimal civilian loss – less than a hundred souls. Maybe even less than the number of souls who jumped from the 110th floor to avoid live cremation. Maybe it would get messy enough so that the Bastard OBL might not make it out alive. Choy Oi. Or even ‘sin loi’. Or whatever is the equivalent in Arabic.

swat_special_tactical_counter_terrorism_unitThe Taliban can be broken beyond repair within two months – no longer. Not mopped up to the last Al Qaida True Believer, but enough to break their back. Enough to convince the poppy farmers and sheep herders (who like the Taliban about as much as the Rice Farmers of Tan Phu liked the occupiers of the NVA or the USA!) that they don’t need this trash in their ‘hood either!

Mission Accomplished. Neat and relatively clean. Then we go back to defending our borders and paying attention to waz happnin’ in our own ‘hood. THEN, and only then, I go back to being a Peacenik.

That’s my view guys. I don’t know what kind of Mission Barack Obama has in mind for Afghanistan – but I know he has good sense. Tell you what. I’ll take my chances with his version of the Afghanistan Mission over that of the dim bulb McCain. I think he’ll be happy enough to have the history books read "It took Obama to get Osama".

He was smart enough to see that Iraqinam was bullshit, and he’s smart enough to avoid ‘Afquagimire’.

But we have a job to do there first. He knows it, I know it, and I’m confident that a lot of peace-loving vets know it as well.

That’s my view comrades, and the best evidence I have for it is when Obama speaks perceptively about ‘not just ending the war, but starting to end the War Culture’ that America has become during the nightmare of Iraqinam.

And as a final note to Bobby Hanafin. When the Afghanistan Mission has been accomplished (about a year from right now), I agree that to rebuild the security of our Republic, we need to institute the "oblitunity’ of an organized system of Mandatory National Service for every single young person living in the US…male or female, citizen or no, handicapped or no, gay or straight, rich or poor.

All sincere replies sincerely appreciated.
Yours for an America to Love again,
Steve Noetzel, Co-Director, California Veterans for Obama
(Former) San Francisco Co-coordinator – Veterans for Kerry
Nigh-unto 40 year member, VVAW and
5-year mentor to IVAW

************************************************************************

I believe it is safe to say that the most active or "have been in the streets Veterans and Military Family organizations who have QUESTIONED the Iraq War have pretty much the same divided position on the role of U.S. Military in Afghanistan. From feedback I have received and consider the most reasonable and realistic, I conclude that much of the division within those groups and organizations that QUESTION the Iraq War, much less OPPOSE it, revolves around how the rank and file has either been sold on the concept of a Global War on Terror (GWOT) or don’t buy it. On that note I continue with an intellectual discussion of the GWOT by long time Peace Activist Stan Goff. Stan has been part of and with those folks who QUESTION and OPPOSE the Iraq War BEFORE day one of the Invasion of Iraq. After digesting the political games being played with what it takes to be Commander-In-Chief, Stan goes on to insightfully take issue with the same political gamesmanship being played with the Global War on Terror (GWOT) by both established political parties and Presidential campaigns trying to outdo themselves on not only continuing to promote and sell the GWOT myth but to compete with each other on which political party can best deal with the GWOT.

************************************************************************

On Commanding-in-Chief by Stan Goff
Or, Welcome to Global War On Terror (GWOT) world.

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/07/21/on-commanding-in-chief/

This analysis was submitted by William Terry Leichner, RN, a Denver member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), USMC combat infantryman – 5th Marines….Dec 1967-Feb 1969. Brother Leichner posted this excellent commentary by fellow military retiree, and Peace Activist, Stan Goff. Stan has been instrumental in the Anti-Iraqnam War movement even before the Invasion of Iraq began in 2003 (along with most of the folks I’ve received feedback from). With the exception of a non-committal statement from Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) due to the different views on Afghanistan within that organization and lacking an annual meeting to reach any consciences, NONE of the feedback that I quote in this article is to be perceived as an OFFICIAL policy, views, or opinion of VVAW, Veterans for Peace, or any other organization with "AGAINST," or "PEACE" in their logos and/or banners.

To make my intent clear, the mainstream media interviewed and quoted so-called anti-Iraqnam War groups or organization members who are NOT Veterans or Military Family Members. I’m not degrading the contributions of non-Veteran or non-Military Family focused peace groups in anyway, but the American public should not be given the illusion that groups such as Moveon.org. United for Peace and Justice, and such SPEAK for or on behalf of America’s Veterans and Military Families who QUESTION, let alone OPPOSE the Iraq War or HAVE QUESTIONS or CONCERNS about escalating WAR in Afghanistan without the full commitment and burden sharing of the American people. WE THE PEOPLE look at war beyond our shores as divorced from the U.S. economy, as WE focus on the economy or are distracted by politicians and the media to GET OFF focus on just HOW prosecuting any war and our national economy cannot be separated.

Extracted below is what Peace Activist Stan Goff had to say about the War on Terror and Afghanistan in his commentary, "On Commanding-in-Chief," on his outstanding blog The Feral Scholar. Thanks Stan for this insightful, thought provoking insight.

Bobby Hanafin
The Mustang Major

PS: For every view and opinion, I intend posting an opposite or diverse opinion from folks that I sincerely and passionately RESPECT. I more than adequately express our military families’ opinion in the first half of my commentary.

FROM "ON COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF," Stan Goff says, "The media focus…cops to the most dangerous accomplishment of the Bush administration: the publicly-accepted idea of a "global war on terror."

2198782713_ab006428d4_o_400_02There is no such thing, of course. There is a war to control Southwest Asia and its strategic resources. The "global war on terror" (GWOT) is a legal pretext that apparently slipped right past all those fine lawyers in Congress.

What GWOT does is consolidate US executive control over both domestic and foreign policy, by redefining the entire planet as a battlefield. This "global battle space" justifies actions that are only sanctioned by international law on the battlefield.

 

fraud2_400_01"The whole world" cannot be shoehorned into any definition of a "battlefield" embodied in international law on the issue of war. That’s one of several reasons the US won’t sign onto the International Criminal Court.

The GWOT is simply rhetorical cover for a naked political power-grab. And this suits a Democratic executive just as nicely as it does a Republican one as Congress has demonstrated in its perpetuation by word and deed of the GWOT myth.

That is why – even though it’s not a sexy issue – debunking the GWOT assumption of a "global battle space" is one of the most crucial debates we can have about the war. It goes way beyond just Iraq, and set the stage for Guantanamo, rendition, et al.

The lawyer running against McCain (Obama) is play-acting at having missed this pre-textual fiction, too; because he talks about winning this GWOT himself. That commits him whether he likes it or not.

That is why after he wins the Presidency, Barack Obama – our new commander-in-chief – will find himself becoming the Lyndon Johnson of Afghanistan. and the US will continue sending troops to die for control of strategic resources through his entire term.

Meanwhile, the world and the nation will grow poorer and meaner. It may even be during Obama’s first term that the debt ledge, public and private, snaps off (catastrophically). As the ledge plummets into the abyss with all of us tumbling behind, so his popularity will plunge down with us as inexorably as Bush’s has. The war didn’t destroy Bush’s ratings; losing it did.

Obama will not only be caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of Wall Street and a pissed-off public; he will be trying to win an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and Iraq. All he will do is shift the center of gravity from Iraq to Afghanistan, which is already shifting as the Taliban expands its power into the interstices of the current NATO occupation.

I know, I know. You’ve heard the media say Obama wants to leave Iraq. That’s because they don’t listen and don’t want you to.

Obama has never called for a withdrawal from Iraq. He talks the al-Qaeda-babble just as enthusiastically as Dick Cheney, in fact, and has called for a permanent US occupation of Iraq, linguistically disguised as "over watch" with Special Operations on call.

Any withdrawal (that is, troop draw-downs) remains contingent on "the Iraqis." This means the squabbling cliques inside the Green Zone, not most Iraqis.

The trigger for discontinuing the occupation, then, is the "government of Iraq" taking measures that they are unlikely to take, and over which the US has nearly no control. meaning these redeployment triggers will never be pulled.

This bait-and-switch worked for Bush, and it will work for Obama until our sheer exhaustion with the war and the domestic economic crisis force a change on the Obama administration.

Obama started his campaign for commander-in-chief with the easy – and false – critique that the Bush administration was killing the wrong people. It’s not Iraqis we need to kill, but Afghans. His popular deception is not that Iraq is responsible for 9-11. His implication is that Afghanistan did 9-11because bin Laden was there.

Again, not true, but why let that hold you back. The Taliban government of Afghanistan tried to give the US Osama bin Laden before 9-11. Since the US had invasion plans on the table, they didn’t want to lose the bin Laden pretext, and they refused. The attacks of 9-11-01 were conducted by 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, and two citizens of the United Arab Emirates. No Afghans. No Iraqis.

Here is something that is true about Afghanistan though. Guerrilla war against outsiders has always succeeded there. And it is succeeding now against the US and NATO. The loss of a US perimeter base near the Pakistani border last week is just a foreshadowing of where the war there is headed. This is the war that Obama wants to fight?

Yet he seems to have trapped himself in it already. He says that Afghanistan is being lost because there are too many US troops tied down in Iraq. Does he propose then that the current institutional trend lines in the military be maintained? More expensive recruitment and lower recruitment standards, falling morale, an unsustainable operations tempo, the reward of criminality and incompetence in the leadership, and reliance on $180,000-a-year mercenaries to take up the slack?

Obama claims that he is going to fight terrorism by attacking Afghans instead of Iraqis, as well as maintain an "over watch" presence of tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Where will the troops come from?

Well, he has stated that he wants to expand the ground forces by 93,000 (both Army and Marines).

Lyndon Johnson started out like this, nickel-diming, and eventually found himself with 500,000 American troops occupying Vietnam. Several years later, the last US troops were literally driven out of Vietnam at gunpoint. Johnson didn’t run that war; the war ran him.

That’s where Obama is headed right now; and for the record, that does not mean there is no difference between him and McCain, or that I am encouraging electoral abstinence. Those are red herrings. It means the war has in many respects escaped the calculable control of the American state no matter who the President is.

Obama will be the next chief executive of the American state – a state by, for, and of the business class. That’s the job description. That business class depends on the larger economy which is materially dependent on massive and unceasing throughputs of fossil hydrocarbons. That same economy has been overrun by rentier capitalists who have driven the global economy over a cliff.

Competitors are on the horizon, China, Russia, India, Brazil, but mostly Western Europe. The war is one central drama in a multiply-determined crisis that also includes immanent food shortages, water famines, radical climate shifts, and the general decay of inter-class stability.

 

�71808_big_400Obama did not inherit Bush’s war, except in the details. He inherited a business class’s war that was inevitable (though not in its present form).

The United States was going to reposition its international military after the Cold War in any case; the old disposition for "containing" the Soviet Union was obsolete after all. And given the most obvious of considerations, the place to seek permanent and fully operational military bases abroad was in Southwest Asia. That’s where the hydrocarbons are; and when you have the hydrocarbons, you have the competition on a nose ring. Following through with this is Obama’s job after the election. (We get to participate in the elections for which wealth-selected candidate will be the CEO; but we are not, alas, on the board of directors.)

Obama is a very smart guy – a genuine intellectual – who has jumped through a rare political window of opportunity, but there’s a punji-pit on the other side.

Bush’s approval numbers are abysmal in the face of a four-sided crisis: a bursting bubble of fictional value, skyrocketing fuel prices, an interminable unpopular war, and the collapse of ecosystems. Bush (a historically) gets all the blame. That’s the window of opportunity.

Obama has also run a brilliant and even technically audacious campaign (his policy pronouncements are anything but audacious).

I suspect he is going to win, and win big.

In other circumstances, he might win to become a brilliant CEO for the business class, and even make enough of the rest of us comfortable enough to remain complacent. But he is inheriting problems that are already – as they have been for the Bush administration – supra-political, impermeable to intervention by the actually-existing political system in which we live. He is inheriting a complex and world-historic impasse for the world and the US state. And he will be the commander-in-chief for the United States Armed Forces.

He has already committed himself to the emergent consensus of that system. Southwest Asia [Afghanistan/Pakistan] will be secured for the US, by military force if necessary; or there will be a phase shift in American economics and politics that will sideline the entire system (and consensus).

There is not a shred of evidence (except in the public’s ever-hopeful imagination) that he intends to be anything more or less than other commanders-in-chief. Like the others, he will bend the military to the emergencies of empire – that is, secure the continuity of the existing system.

Maybe McCain will win, and none of this will matter to Obama. It will go the same way for McCain and worse still if he elects to vicariously relive the pre-capture glory days by ordering bombing runs over Qom. He’d be the commander-in-chief. He can do that as commander-in-chief. And Congress will not stop him. Neither will us.

The "antiwar movement" has always been more an anti-Bush movement and an anti-defeat movement (nudged along by competing leftist cadres without their own popular bases); and it has shown no ability to employ anything except 60s-70s tactics and techniques, even though the ruling class has long ago adapted to them.

Neither Congress nor the people-at-large will stop McCain or Obama from war-mongering. That’s one reason there has been so much emotional investment in Obama’s change rhetoric. A general election (a new king) is the current limit of our cultural imagination and the limit of our collective political will. This in no way means the system will continue along. It simply means that these creatures of the system will not be the agents of its undoing.

The weeds have been in the wheat for quite some time now, but pulling the weeds will kill the wheat. The harvest has to come before we can winnow and start fresh.

Making McCain out a devil does not make Obama a rescuing angel. Obama’s mature, articulate confidence is certainly reassuring after eight years of a Yalie frat-rat smirking in the foreground of serial disasters; but there is such a thing as misplaced confidence, even feigned confidence.

Obama’s foreign policy is likely to be warmed-over Brzezinski-ism; and it was Brzezinski who was the architect of the conditions that put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the first place. Brzezinski, paradoxically, is warning Obama of exactly what’s been said here, citing the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. "We have to be careful." Brzezinski warns Obama, ".not to overestimate the appeal of the democratic Afghan elite, because we run the risk that our military presence will gradually turn the Afghan population entirely against us.

"I realize that in an electoral campaign you don’t want to antagonize large groups which are highly motivated. This is a very dangerous period of time with very unpredictable consequences. You have three countries [Iran, Israel and the U.S.] doing a kind of death dance on the basis of confusion, division and fear.

"If we end up with war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, [and] Iran at the same time, can anyone see a more damaging prospect for America’s world role than that? That’s the fundamental foreign policy dilemma at the back of this election. A four-front war would get us involved for years . . . It would be the end of American predominance."

In fact, a two-front war is already contributing to the same thing.

What’s a commander-in-chief to do?

Welcome to GWOT world. Want that catastrophe with one lump or two?

On Commanding-in-Chief by Stan Goff
Or, Welcome to Global War On Terror (GWOT) world.

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/07/21/on-commanding-in-chief/

************************************************************************

VIEW IN LINE WITH STAN GOFF’S GWOT THE MYTH

I received this feedback from Brother Dave Collins, a regional leader of VVAW and member of VFP from Texas. It was in response to Lane Anderson’s post in favor of Independent Candidate Ron Paul.

 

there_is_no_war_on_terror_400 The "war on terrorism" or "Global war on terrorism” is the Big Lies of this era. As you point out, one can no more wage a war on the tactic of terrorism than on blitzkrieg. But those who coined the slogans and promoted them with a mountain of deceit know that as well and do not care one whit.

That the Big Lie now permeates all foreign and military policy discussion, from all sides of the political spectrum, is testimony to its effectiveness. It has become an accepted "truth and given" of US politics and as such sustains the imperialistic, neo-con wet dream beyond any single politician or junta. Unless and until the Big Lie is exposed, it will continue to dominate and drive the foreign policy of this country – drive it, and us, right into the ground.

Dave Collins
Hill Country contact – VVAW

Dave also noted concerns about, Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch, an article from Information Clearing House – Regarding Afghanistan.

"For those who believe the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was a justified military action to capture and bring to justice 9/11/01 perhaps I would offer this reminder. When the junta came to power in January, 2001 long standing negotiations with the Taliban for the surrender of bin Laden had reached a very mature state. The primary sticking point, one easily resolved were a nation really keen to bring the criminal to heel, was how the turn over would be accomplish. The junta discontinued the talks as an early foreign policy action.

Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch, By John Pilger

"John Pilger describes the denigration of the of civilian casualties in colonial wars, and the anointing of Barack Obama, as he tours the battlefields, sounding more and more like George W. Bush.

On 12 July, The Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the "high drama" and "meticulously practiced routine" of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, "Saving a life took precedence over [their] security". Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that "47 civilians, most of them women and children were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday". Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the [Western] public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no "enemy" nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another "precision" bomb. Inside were nine people, his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband.

Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes, “Nothing ever happened, even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest."

A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while The Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at the wedding party. Wedding parties are a "coalition" specialty. At least four of them have been obliterated at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.

The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007.

"The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided…" Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America’s and Britain’s puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA’s payroll.

The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush’s former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers," journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the blood fests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.

In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, and more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power, because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same willful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to ‘values’… there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilized limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain…"

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum Majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article, nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

************************************************************************

DIVERSE VIEWS

Lane Anderson wrote that at "an [local] Obama platform meeting…we eliminated "Win the war on terrorism/redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan" from the platform by consensus. The meeting was attended by a range of democrats and progressives. The only opposition was based on political realities in swing states….none spoke to the need to win a war on a tactic or put troops where jihadists can get to them. I hope the VVAW and VFP follow suit!

************************************************************************

A DIVERSE VIEW – SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST!

Brother Horace (I believe he also survives in California) says, "I think I know American racism, belligerence, global provincialism, greed and desire and ability to dominate the world fairly well. Iraq was a mistake from the day we walked in until the day we walk out (if we should do so within the next 20 years). We knew bin Laden and al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan and had the seal of approval of the Taliban to do so.

Bush, some political hard liners and ass kissing generals wanted to get Hussein and supposed he had WMDs and bad intentions toward folk outside Iraq.

When we invaded and didn’t get hot with WMDs–or find any–we should have pulled everything out of there and gone to Afghanistan and left the Iraqis an 800 number to call to negotiate the damages. The only thing a dictator is "good" for is keeping his own people down to a dull roar. When they can’t do that, they get overthrown from within or without.

The "surge" was about putting almost as many people in the field as it would take to do the job right. Generals who said it would take more troops than we were using were fired or shuffled off to oblivion. What should have been the primary target was turned into the back burner. Pakistan is politically unstable and its own radical Moslems are acting up. Afghanistan is full of opium poppies, poorly governed and corrupt. We can occupy but all that will get you is some surface un tension and a low grade, long lasting guerilla war – a war of troop assassination and sabotage

We don’t have enough troops in either country. The ones we do have are racking up more combat time than people did in WWII. The last time we fought any one close to being in our weight class was the North Koreans / Chinese.

We could catch bin Laden tomorrow and it would be of little consequence? Why? He’s put the idea out there and shown how global terrorism can be set in motion. We should have treated him and al Qaeda like the criminals they are. If we wanted to get military, it should have been Delta Force, Special Ops, SEALs, CIA all the way–after we had good, solid Intel and assets in place.

The draft: If this shit was really important, we would have risen draft age to 50 and every swinging…and hanging…that could pass a physical–including politicians at all levels–would be in it. Take the oldest first. No hardships. Senators and members of the House would serve in the same proportion as the general population. [Being 56, I say raise the draft age to 60, that’s the average age of most pro-war zealots. Bobby Hanafin].

The cost: This overpriced mess is outrageously expensive. And, some one should go to jail for some serious time. There are a couple of articles about cost and the shortage of Majors [Field Grade Officers in the Army] in the body of this post. We’re about out of money and people to field. As our economy softens and more banks and corporations fail, the public will start screaming. Just in time for the resource wars to really kick in–oil, food, and water. There will be so many varlets in so many places and the global flow of illegal immigrants will increase greatly.

As long as Canada is in the same war we are, it’s not going to give U.S. AWOLS / draftees asylum.

–Horace Coleman

On a side note it is THE ECONOMIC COSTS of Iraq AND Afghanistan that will bring an end to any so-called War on Terror:

[Washington Post] Iraq war’s total cost nearing Vietnam’s price tag

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502863.html

Extract: The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War’s expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it. The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world. All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don’t include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.

[USA Today] Report: Iraq war cost approaches total bill for Vietnam

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-iraq-war.html?csp=34

Spending on the Iraq war is approaching the total cost of combat in Vietnam, according to a new report written by the Congressional Research Service and distributed by the Secrecy News blog. When you convert the budgets to constant dollars, CRS says the Pentagon spent $686 billion in Vietnam between 1965 and 1975. The military has spent $648 billion in Iraq since 2003, according to the report. (They caution readers that such comparisons are "problematic" given the "difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another.")

"Almost as soon as the next Administration takes office, the military services are expected to submit requests for additional funds – quite possibly $100 billion or more – to cover costs of overseas operations and of repairing and replacing worn equipment through the remainder of the fiscal year," the analysts tell Congress.

Vietnam consumed a much higher percentage of the nation’s GDP, according to CRS.

The Army is facing a shortfall of thousands of Majors [Field Grade Officers]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502976.html

[Washington Post] EXTRACT: The Army is facing a shortfall of thousands of Majors — critical mid-grade officers whose ranks are not expected to be replenished until at least 2013, according to Army data. The gap in Majors represents about half of the Army’s overall shortage of more than 4,000 officers, according to Army personnel figures. Caused by the Army’s ambitious growth plan through 2012, a historical downsizing in the 1990s, and exacerbated by the demanding pace of war-time operations, there are no easy solutions for filling the deficit, according to Army experts.

"We need more officers, and we are pulling every lever we can," said Col. Paul Aswell, chief of the Army’s personnel division for officers. The Army’s plan to grow permanently by 65,000 soldiers is increasing the demand for captains and Majors by 7,512 officers from January 2004 compared with September 2012. The Army is currently short about 15 percent of Majors, a percentage that is projected to rise to over 20 percent in 2012, according to Army data. The Army is also short about 10 percent of captains. While the Army projects that it will fill the captain shortage by 2011, it will continue to be short thousands of Majors each year for the foreseeable future, according to Aswell. "We do not anticipate having grown all the Majors until about 2013," he said.

Majors fill key positions on the staffs of Army battalions, which usually consist of about 800 soldiers. The shortage of Majors is forcing the Army to promote captains faster, x xx x (overall rate up) In the next two weeks, the results are expected from the first Army promotion board to reach into the ranks of captains and promote the most qualified candidates to Major two years earlier than the norm. Such two year "below the zone" promotions of captains to Major – the first since the Vietnam era – are designed as "an incentive for our highest performing officers to stay on active duty," Aswell said. Captains are also serving in jobs normally performed by Majors one rank above them. In other cases, Majors who have already been promoted to lieutenant colonel must stay in their jobs longer, Aswell said.

Some Majors predict that the gap could widen as the heavy pace of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan forces Majors to deploy frequently away from their families and curtails their job choices and opportunities for schooling, leading them to decide to retire at higher rates. The Army says its data does not currently show Majors leaving the force at accelerated rates, but a recent survey of more than 400 Army Majors at the Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, predicts that could change in coming years.

"There is a tipping point that we have started to reach," said Maj. George B. Brown III, who conducted the survey and has discussed the problem with Army officials. "There is a much larger percentage of officers who is planning to get out right at 20 years, and once they are gone, they are gone," said Brown, a master’s degree student at the college.

— Anecdotes from Majors interviewed – and details from the survey

"A lot of my retirement plans hinges on the deployment cycle and the war on terror as it exists today," said Maj. James Blanton, an infantry officer who returned in 2007 from a 15-month deployment to Iraq. "Now I am doing about one year over there and 18 months out," said Blanton. "If that continues on to 2012, we would be leaning to getting out," he said, adding that whether he is able to remain stationed at his long-time base at Fort Lewis, Washington, is also a factor he and his wife are weighing.

The withdrawal of five combat brigades from Iraq allowed the Army to announce that as of next month, Army combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan would be reduced from the current 15 months to 12 months, with 12 months at home between rotations. However, the Pentagon’s plan to surge U.S. ground forces into Afghanistan to deal with an escalation of violence there will limit the Army’s ability to increase the time soldiers have at home between tours.

Other Majors said the shortage of their rank [O4 – Field Grade Officers] means they are continually pulled into war fighting jobs and have less opportunity to attend schools required for promotion or take jobs that expand their horizons.

"As I look to the future, I see the choices I am offered narrowing and the freedom of decision I had start to go away because of the shortages," said Maj. Kim Nash, a transportation officer. "I was originally scheduled to get my masters and go teach, and that was derailed by deployments, that window is gone for me now," she said.

The Army’s transportation branch suffers the greatest shortage of Majors of any Army field, with less than 50 percent of Majors required. Brown’s survey found that 92 percent of transportation Majors tended to [leave] the service after completing 21 years of service or less.