Peace » peoplesworld

New U.S. military strategy: concerns and a ray of hope

Marilyn Bechtel — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:58:00 -0500

The Defense Department's new strategic guidance, "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21^st Century Defense," released this month offers a modest foothold in the struggle to reverse the ever-upward swing of U.S. military spending. It takes into account new realities at home and abroad.

Those who believe U.S. security can be best won through a foreign policy of peace and cooperation will use these changes to work for a much more profound downsizing of our country's military footprint and a shift of resources to civilian needs.The document unveiled Jan. 5 by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Obama moves away from long boots-on-the-ground wars and from earlier U.S. administrations' emphasis on Europe and Russia. It somewhat moderates earlier documents' aggressive tone.

Along with a cutback in military forces, it moves away from the idea that the U.S. can fight two wars at the same time. (It projects instead one war and smaller operations.) Cuts may take place in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But it also confirms developments that have been in the works for some time. Along with a shift toward greater use of "special operations," drones and similar means, a move is taking place toward a new cold war with China. Citing a "changing geopolitical environment" and "our changing fiscal circumstances," the document sets out the "projected security environment and the key military missions" as a "blueprint for the Joint Force in 2020."

U.S. military forces are to "protect" a "global commons" of sea, air and space - "those areas beyond national jurisdiction that constitute the vital connective tissue of the international system"- where goods must circulate freely to ensure "global security and prosperity."
The new focus is on the Asia-Pacific region and most especially the South China Sea, the transit route for most oil going to Asian nations.
U.S. influence in the area is to be a top priority in the face of "China's emergence as a regional power."

Calling China - and Iran - "sophisticated adversaries" who will seek to counter U.S. global reach with electronic and cyber warfare and other "asymmetric" means, the document calls for better missile defenses, a new stealth bomber, and gaining "critical space-based capabilities."
The Chinese weren't slow to respond. In an editorial the next day,the government publication People's Daily Online said, " The U.S. must realize that it cannot stop the rise of China and that being friendly to China is in its utmost interests."
Citing "economic competition" as the arena in which the two nations should engage, People's Daily said, "China should try to avoid a new cold war with the U.S., but by no means should it give up its peripheral security in exchange for the U.S.' ease in Asia."
Indeed, the intertwining of the two economies - and the unwisdom of the U.S. stirring up a hornet's nest with China - is shown by the fact that China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. government securities, now holds one-eighth of all U.S. public debt.

Some commentators have also wryly noted that if deprived of Chinese-made components, much U.S. high tech equipment would quickly become non-functional.

Of course, the interest in the Asia Pacific region isn't new. As international affairs commentator Conn Hallinan notes, the U.S. has been engaged in the area for over a century, and has a broad network of bases and more military personnel there than any nation except China.
Another noteworthy aspect of the new defense guidance is its emphasis on space-based and cyber capabilities.

The document says "reliable information and communication networks and assured access to cyberspace and space" are vital to modern armed forces, and investment in "advanced capabilities" is essential for "resiliency in cyberspace and space."

A rising tide of allegations has focused on Chinese cyber attacks. But in another article,Hallinan suggests the issue may be reminiscent of the "bomber gap" and "missile gap" of old U.S.-Soviet Cold War days, that served to fuel up U.S. military industries.

In other areas, the guidance says U.S. will partner with Gulf Cooperation Council countries including Saudi Arabia to keep Iran from getting nuclear arms and destabilizing the region, and of course will support Israel's "security."

The U.S. will work with NATO on a "Smart Defense" cooperative approach to "21^st century challenges."

Though military and diplomatic efforts will seek to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the document doesn't talk about nuclear disarmament, which Washington has long pledged to pursue.

The practical implications of all this will be seen in 2013 budget projections to be unveiled later this month.
But expected cutbacks, compared to earlier projections, come to $450 billion over the next decade, with another $500 billion called for under last summer's Budget Control Act.
Critics from the right say they fear deteriorating U.S. capabilities. At the same time, many experts say the cuts are far smaller than those many other government programs face, and much smaller than 20^th century military cutbacks.

And in fact, President Obama acknowledged last week that while growth will be slower, the military budget will still grow over the next decade. Even with the cuts, he said, U.S. military spending will still be greater than that of the next 10 countries combined.
These are contradictory developments, but they hold new possibilities to work for real security at home and abroad.

Photo: A US flag is flown at half staff behind a Navy memorial statue of a homecoming in Virginia Beach , Va., Aug. 8, 2011. Navy Seal Team Six whose team members were involved in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan, is based in Virginia Beach. Steve Helber/AP

Postal union workers to stage hundreds of rallies Sept. 27

John Wojcik — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:15:00 -0400

SEATTLE - In every congressional district across America postal workers will rally with their allies on Tuesday, September 27 in a fight to save the nation's mail delivery service.

The unprecedented actions are the result of close collaboration among the National Association of Letter Carriers, the American Postal Workers Union, the National Postal Mailhandlers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, according to Bob James, president of the Washington State Letter Carriers.

"We're rallying in every single district to make the point that only Congress can fix the difficulties facing the U.S. Postal Service," James said.

Postal workers expect wide support in what they see as a battle to save a national treasure that serves every American and every business. Private corporations interested in getting their hands on this national treasure, according to James, are behind the claims that the Postal Service is broke, that it loses billions of dollars a year delivering the mail and that it will require a huge taxpayer bailout. "The privatizers would love to chop this all up and grab whatever they can," he said.

He sees proposals to slash services, close thousands of post offices and fire hundreds of thousands of postal employees as the first step in this process. "These types of measures," James said, "will weaken communities, hurt our economy and could even destroy altogether our only universal communications and delivery network."

James said the national "day of action" on Sept. 27 will get the word out on several important facts. "The truth," he said, "is nothing like what so many people have been led to believe."

The first myth that has to be dispelled, according to James, is that the Postal Service is somehow draining taxpayers. "The Postal Service hasn't used a dime of taxpayer money in 30 years," he said.

James also takes issue with those who disparage the quality of work done by postal employees. "Customer satisfaction and on-time deliveries are at record levels," he said, "labor productivity has doubled and, for six years running, the American people have named postal employees as the most-trusted federal workers.

Fact checks corroborate James' claims.

Despite the worst recession in 80 years, the Postal Service has, over the last four years, earned a $611 million net profit delivering the mail.

James said the $20 billion in postal losses Republicans in Congress have been talking about has "nothing to do with the mail but is the result of a 2006 congressional mandate that the Postal service pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years and do so within ten years - a burden no other agency or company in the world must face."

He said the cost of that mandate accounts for 100 percent of the agency's so-called red ink.

James warns that if a "dysfunctional" Congress fails to take the steps necessary to correct the problem, service cuts will be forced on everyone.

He said he was calling on "all Americans, including small business owners, the elderly, rural residents and those in need of medicine" to turn out for the rallies.

"We cannot afford at this time to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs," he said, "and a network that links the entire country and supports communities in so many ways."

He said no one should buy into talk about the inevitability of cuts. "It's not too late. Despite those who say the cuts are inevitable, we can still save the Saturday deliveries and so much more. Congress has within its power to fix this problem so let's make sure they do."

Photo: Creative Commons 2.0

Sept. 11, 2001 archives: Coalition develops to protect civil liberties

Judith Le Blanc, Teresa Albano — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:00 -0400

On Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, only a few members of the then-People's Weekly World staff were in the lower Manhattan editorial office when the airplanes hit the Twin Towers at 8:46 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. They worked under extraordinary conditions to meet the Wednesday deadline and produce a newspaper that week. It was a four-page edition that contained a statement from the Communist Party USA condemning the terrorist attacks, and praising the first-responders and their heroism. Despite attempts to locate that issue, it is lost to history, a much lesser victim of the aftermath of 9/11.

In the following People's Weekly World issues, reporters worked to gather responses to the crisis by the people who rushed to help at New York City's Ground Zero, as well as at the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa. Many of the people interviewed urged a firm response to the culprits behind the terrorist attacks, but not for the "war on terror" advocated by the Bush administration. PeoplesWorld.org republishes these stories here as part of commemorating the 10^th anniversary of that tragic day.

(Sept. 29, 2001) - As a part of the "war on terrorism" Attorney General John Ashcroft has proposed sweeping changes for law enforcement and the intelligence agencies, allowing them more power at the expense of hard-won democratic and Constitutional rights.

Ashcroft's proposed legislation comes after the Senate's hasty passage of the "Combating Terrorism Act" on the evening of Sep. 13 with less than 30 minutes of consideration on the Senate floor.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) responded to this fast tracking of proposals on the floor of the Senate this week. "Do we really show respect to the American people by slapping something together, something that nobody on the floor can explain," he asked, and say we are changing the duties of the attorney general, the director of the CIA, the U.S. attorneys ... we are going to change your rights as Americans, your right to privacy?" Leahy said. "We are going to do it with no hearings, no debate."

More than 150 national organizations and 300 law professors have come together to urge Congress to slow down this legislative process in order to guarantee democratic and civil liberties. The coalition, initiated by the Center for Democracy and Technology, endorsed a 10-point statement entitled, "In Defense of Freedom at a Time of Crisis."

"We need to consider proposals calmly and deliberately with a determination not to erode the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the American way of life," the statement said. "We should resist the temptation to enact proposals in the mistaken belief that anything that may be called anti-terrorist will necessarily provide greater security."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged Ashcroft's proposals in a Sept. 25 statement, saying he "has asked Congress to adopt far-reaching legislation that would include provisions to vastly expand federal law enforcement authority without demonstrating how such laws would make us safer."

Ashcroft is asking Congress to allow governmental powers that many claim are in direct contradiction to basic privacy rights, civil liberties and the Constitution.

These would include increases in electronic surveillance, holding immigrants suspected of terrorism for an indefinite period without charges and seizure of property suspected in terrorist activity. These measures are without judicial oversight.

The coalition statement also reflects the concerns many have about the targeting of immigrants, especially Arab Americans, that might come out of Ashcroft's initiatives.

"We affirm the right of peaceful dissent, protected by the First Amendment, now, when it is most at risk," the coalition statement said. "We must have faith in our democratic system and our Constitution, and in our ability to protect at the same time both the freedom and the security of all Americans."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, responded to Ashcroft's requests in a Washington Post article. "The keys to success in developing anti-terrorism legislation will be balance and prudence," Conyers wrote.

"History has taught us that we should not use the threat of violence as an excuse to suppress legitimate constitutional rights and liberties."

Conyers warned against a "slow burn" that would do "what the fires of the World Trade Center and Pentagon could not - subversively destroying the foundation of our democracy."

Many groups are urging people to contact their Congressional representatives to insist they slow down and evaluate such legislation with "cooler heads" and ensure democratic rights.

Faxes can be sent to representative through the ACLU's website at www.aclu.org. Sample letters are available on the Electronic Frontier Foundation at www.eff.org

Photo: Numerous signs dotted Manhattan's walls, bus stops and subway entrances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. (Israel Smith/PW)

Sept. 11, 2001 archives: Anthrax puts spotlight on health care crisis

Judith Le Blanc — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:30:00 -0400

(October 2001) The deaths of U.S. postal workers in Washington, D.C. and this week's discoveries of anthrax in locations around the country have set off a debate about the threat and the role the government should play in handling the crisis. The New York Times characterized the situation as a 'tangible fear of a mysterious germ.'

The growing numbers of people exposed and the lack of a coherent plan by federal and local governments to address people's concerns expose the fact that the richest nation in the world does not have an adequately funded, staffed or equipped public health system to respond to the threat of biological terrorism.

The Bush administration is asking for $300 million for local and state emergency bioterrorism response efforts out of a $1.6 billion emergency package being proposed to Congress. Unfortunately, the majority of the $1.6 billion is directed towards stockpiling Cipro, smallpox vaccine and other antibiotics.

At an Oct. 23 Congressional hearing, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., challenged the Bush proposal during Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson's testimony. Lantos challenged the idea that the $300 million was an inadequate response to the health crisis. "In a $10-trillion economy, haven't we the resources to protect the health of the people? Three hundred million amounts to $1.10 per person."

Lantos said a gradual increase in funding is not responsive to the crisis the people are facing.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, questioned the reasoning for not pursuing the five companies who are ready to produce the generic version of Cipro at 20 cents per tablet, compared with the $2 price from the Bayer Company, citing the laws that make it possible to do.

'You don't know me very well,' Thompson responded. 'I'm a very tough negotiator.'

Profits remain the bottom line in a time of crisis. The Bayer Company has been running full-page ads in The New York Times that say, 'We stand ready to support the U.S. government in providing Cipro to meet emergency needs.'

Mustering the necessary response to the anthrax threat and the dangers of bioterrorism is almost impossible, given the lack of long-term funding for public health needs. Some 43 million people without medical insurance, public hospital shutdowns and the privatizing of public clinics leave every community vulnerable.

The Washington Post reported that at the American Public Health Association's (APHA) annual meeting this week there was widespread criticism of the Bush administration response.

"Antibiotics and vaccine without staff and basic infrastructure is like putting Band-Aids on a huge wound," said Karen Krause, an Ohio health-care consultant and former public health officer.

"You can't just rent some people and drop them into a department' that does not have the training or technology to handle a biological or chemical attack," Krause said.

APHA Executive Director Mohammad Akhter said the administration's proposals are not adequate. "Of the nation's 3,000 public health agencies, at least 10 percent do not have e-mail; only 20 percent have developed plans to deal with a biological assault, and the vast majority are closed nights and weekends ... We need a billion dollars."

Not only is the health threat being mishandled, but the criminal investigation has not been a major factor in the response. Kucinich questioned Thompson on whether any anthrax was stolen in the last few weeks from government laboratories or were there other episodes that have not been reported. The response was typical of Congressional hearings: "To the best of my knowledge, it is not widespread, but the information is classified."

What has been painfully obvious is the lack of public statements by the Justice Department and the FBI voicing a commitment to finding those who sent anthrax through the mail as well as perpetrators of the hoaxes.

The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have reported that 90 abortion clinics nationally have received envelopes with powder. Six of those clinics in Washington, D.C. had notes signed by the anti-abortion terrorist group, the Armies of God. The bioterrorism threat is both a domestic and an international issue.

The Bush administration has been making some statements that link the anthrax crisis with bin Laden and Sept. 11. The Wall Street Journal theorizes, 'It's clear that it's being produced by someone with more advanced technology and skills than originally estimated.' Justice Department officials called it 'professional grade' anthrax.

No matter who is conducting terrorism - domestic or international - it is a crime against humanity. The full weight of the rule of law must be utilized to bring an end to the fear and uncertainty. National security will largely be determined by finding those who are guilty for Sept. 11 and for the anthrax attacks. We need to know by whom and how these criminal acts were carried out.

War can't solve the threat of terrorism alone. What people need is a coordinated response by the government that will guarantee health and safety and provide the funding for it and the assurance that law enforcement agencies will pursue those who are committing these acts, whether pranks or real anthrax episodes.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, at an Oct. 18 roundtable at the White House, said, 'We are going to go after these people ... and I hope we get a ton of them. I hope we throw them in jail, and we ought to throw away the key.' This crisis should not be used as an excuse to toss out our civil liberties and the laws that govern the prosecution of those who commit criminal acts.

Kucinich summarized the approach needed during the subcommittee hearings on bioterrorism. 'The country needs joint efforts by all the government agencies. We need to give a sense of security by having disaster plans. We need to give peace of mind that the government is working to deal with events,' said Kucinich.

'We need money immediately to have the capacity to respond to the crisis,' Akhter told MSNBC, 'to think in a forward [way] to deal with the health needs of the people.'

Sept. 11, 2001 archives: Facing the future from Ground Zero

Judith Le Blanc — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:07:00 -0400

NEW YORK CITY - In moments of natural disaster people come together to respond. Yet the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) is not a natural disaster, like a tornado or earthquake. It is a political disaster, an international disaster, a human tragedy that moves people to respond. Many are worried about where humanity will go from here.

"I live in Brooklyn Heights and saw the whole thing. It was horrible," said Dina, a volunteer at the Armory at 26th Street and Lexington Ave., where the families of the missing are gathering.

"I had to come in and help. I want to try to do some translation work. I speak Spanish. There's a lot of Spanish-speaking people there but they could use some French, Italian and Filipino translators because there are all nationalities."

Around the city, flags are flying from windows, in storefronts, on cabs and trucks. U.S. flags are flying side by side with Puerto Rican, Mexican and Irish flags.

On street corners and doorsteps in neighborhoods around Manhattan burning candles stand as small monuments to hope and peace. Tens of thousands have participated in candlelight vigils. It's a city coming to terms with one of the most horrific events in U.S. history.

The crowds that gather at "command central" at the Jacob Javits Center are Latino, Black and white, Arab, Asian and American Indian, immigrants and citizens. Many are skilled workers wearing T-shirts of the Electrical workers, Ironworkers or Laborers unions. They have the skills to excavate the ruins of the WTC.

Firefighters, police emergency technicians, doctors and nurses are also there. Many are young, looking for a way to share the burden of this atrocity by doing the small tasks of handling donated supplies and cooking food. All volunteers are wearing pieces of tape as makeshift name tags. There is a sense of community here.

Bucket brigades of 20-30 people move shovels, socks, bottled water and paper towels into piles. Bags of dog food are a reminder of the continuing hope that search dogs will find survivors under the rubble.

Workers in hardhats stand in the middle of the West Side Highway directing the traffic of trucks and heavy equipment. Food and drink are being served up and down the sidewalks to the thousands of volunteers.

"I'm an electrician - jack of all trades, master of none - like everybody else," said Lee, a member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 3 from Queens. "We're just here to help and do whatever we can. Move rubble and whatever else they need us to do. It's a little frustrating ..."

"My friend James has been down there for three days. It's ugly, it's like a war, just be prepared," he continued. "You gotta go down there to save some people you hope."

"This is the most horrendous thing I've seen in my life, just unnecessary carnage and pain," said Barry, a laborer from Manhattan.

"We've got to stop passing the pain around. We've got a history full of this. All throughout time," he said.

"We don't have to wait around for the next species of man to show up, we can do it now! Really! Same old stuff, different century."

"Yesterday, [seeing] the fire trucks come by here with the firemen in them, people were applauding and screaming and waving the flags ... My skin just got goose bumps," Jimmy, a laborer from Elizabeth, N.J., said.

"The firemen were just covered with ash," Jimmy continued. "And you had firemen from Michigan, and everywhere ... they couldn't fly, so they drove. People from Oklahoma, California, all ethnic backgrounds - not one problem. If anything, it's been very uplifting, to help bring back some solidarity to this country." (Story continues after slideshow.)

The sense of urgency and frustration about whether they get to use their skills to help could be seen on their faces as they anxiously wait for their name to be called for assignments at Ground Zero. Many have set aside their own lives and made tremendous sacrifices to fight for the chance to save lives.

"You can't even talk about it, it's bad," one of the millwrights told us as he walked away, head down and covered in soot. "You don't see half of it on the news."

Urban search and rescue teams have come from 15 countries. Teams have also come from places like Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. One of them was Wendell, who had organized an American Indian team made up of police officers, EMTs and firefighters.

"We had a big disaster down in our town a couple of years ago. A lot of people came to help out from different areas, so we decided to give something back ... People are willing to help out any way they can with this," Wendell said.

"None of this racism and stuff should be going on. Look how much people are helping each other," he said. "Nobody even cares what color you are anymore when something like this happens."

People of all races and nationalities were in the WTC when the planes hit. Some 700 Arabs are believed to be among the missing, according to some reports.

"My biggest fear ... is all the ethnic attacks on the Muslim community and also the southeast Asian community ... it's a tragedy what's happened in the World Trade Center, but this could escalate [into] other incidents of human rights violations," said one volunteer from New York City.

The most important message for the American government to give its people "is that we need to stand strong and unite," another worker said.

The world and our country will never be the same. As each day passes, new thinking about the whys and hows will emerge. The volunteers' dramatic response will be recorded, especially as a part of a massive upsurge of social action, which is the essence of democracy and empowerment.

A week after the attack, many of the skilled volunteer workers were being utilized as support personnel as larger heavy equipment construction companies with union employees are brought into the search and rescue area. The disaster is far from over, with more than 5,000 still missing and presumed dead, but life in Manhattan is struggling towards normalcy.

The New York Times interviewed CEOs to capture what they termed "their wisdom" on how to handle this catastrophic event. It reported, "Four basic truisms: be calm, tell the truth, put people before business, then get back to business as soon as possible."

The volunteers shared their wisdom with the World this week. Their basic truisms: Unity and solidarity can make us stronger. Mourning is not a cry for vengeance. Together we have to find a way out of the crisis. The Ground Zero solidarity can be turned toward the problems we will face in the days to come.

"The president said we're at war now. We don't want to become the people that we're dealing with now," said Nancy, who was holding a sign of appreciation for the Ground Zero crew.

A student from Oakwood College in Huntsville, Ala. said, "Yes, we believe that justice should be served, but you can't shed innocent blood because if we do, we become just like them. And if we become like them, then they are the ones that win."

Hector, a laborer from the Bronx, said, "Well, if I had the power, first [I'd] find out who did it and have sanctions against them - not go and bomb - because innocent people are going to die. Two wrongs don't make a right."

Photo: New Yorkers light candles for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. (Israel Smith/PW)

Edie Fishman: Lifelong fighter for the working class

Special to the World — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:58:00 -0400

Baub Bidon wrote the poem, "Edie," for Edie Fishman on the occasion of her 90th birthday. Bidon performed the poem (see below) at her party, which was attended by sixty people including elected officials, union leaders, Young Communist League and Communist Party comrades from Connecticut and New Jersey.

Edie was born on July 22, 1921 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the daughter of immigrants. She joined the Young Communist League at age 14 during the height of the Great Depression. She remains an active member and leader of the Communist Party to this day. She was a "Rosie the Riveter," working in the shipyard in Camden, New Jersey during WW II. Her recollections are represented in the Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in California. She later completed her education and became a high school art teacher in New Jersey. She also received a congressional citation for her work with her students for peace. She received over 5,000 votes as a candidate for Freeholder. She and George, her husband of 67 years until his passing in 2009, moved to New Haven's Wooster Square neighborhood in 1995. Edie carries on their lifelong commitment and contribution to equality, peace and social justice.

Edie

By Baub Bidon

Her sincere eyes smile at the rivers of

people holding hands to the union of one song

Singing...

we are the union, the mighty mighty union...

no justice! no peace!

Her peaceful feet marched out the belly of nineteen-twenty-one,

born to rally, she organized, helped to unionize for social change,

changing the conditions of yesterday,

to make our fight today a bit more easier,

she ought to know, how far her ripples in those puddles flowed

the storm in her sneakers shouted loud in New York

to end the war in Iraq, and bring the troops back

she... did that

fighting for the rights of the working class

si se puede

and yes we did

Edie...

You beautiful sun flower of a woman

Budding hope from your womb

Like tulips

Giving birth to revolution

You are the move in our movement

Humble enough to not want this poem to be about you

But the truth is... had there been an absence of you

There would be no Joelle,

no Weekly World,

no Amina Baraka at the Peoples Center,

no me passing a letter, to recite poetry

no New Haven YCL

no free 2 spit

your fight was worth the struggle

that makes this poem relevant

so sit back and enjoy the ride like freedom

like Selma's passion

at a Montgomery speech

or the walk on Washington...

Like the sit ins

The boycotts

Brown versus the board of education

like Ruby Bridges escorted to her classroom

with police bodyguards

the first person of color integrated into the curriculum

justice for Sacco and Vanzetti

like free the Cuban 5

free Huey

free Mumia

and hands off Assata

sit back and enjoy your smile

...enjoy it like we do

pat yourself on the back

and continue,

to let that sun shine from your eyes

who we are... so we tell them

no justice, no peace

no racist police

let freedom ring, let freedom ring

thank God all mighty, we are free at last

Photo: Edie Fishman, left, with her daughter Joelle.

Members of Congress say: Leave Iraq this year

Marilyn Bechtel — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:35:00 -0400

Ninety-three members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to President Obama urging complete withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq by the end of this year, as pledged in the Status of Forces Agreement signed with Iraq's government during the Bush administration.

The letter, dated July 27, was initiated by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. Three of Jones' Republican colleagues - Reps. Jimmy Duncan, Tenn., Tim Johnson, Ill., and Ron Paul, Texas - are among the signers.

The letter reads, in part:

We are writing to urge you to hold to our nation's Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq that commits our nation to bringing all of our troops and military contractors home at the end of this calendar year.

The American people have made it clear that the war in Iraq must end. By wide and overwhelming margins, Americans approve of your plan to remove all the troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

We are deeply concerned to learn that your administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year. Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive - the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq.

Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our country's security interests, it is not in our nation's strategic interests, and it is not in our nation's economic interests.

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) was signed by the Bush administration and the Iraqi government in November 2008. While it commits the U.S. to withdraw all forces by the end of this year, it contains an escape clause: "... subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal ..."

Less than 50,000 U.S. troops now remain in Iraq. The Pentagon has been encouraging the Iraqi government to ask for an extension of their presence.

In May, before leaving the office of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates said he favored extending the U.S. presence. "All I can say is, from the standpoint of Iraq's future but also our role in the region, I hope they figure out a way to ask," he said.

Earlier this month, on his first visit to Iraq, current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared the U.S. would have an "enduring presence" in the Middle East, and said he would like the decision-making process "to move a lot faster here ... Dammit, make a decision!"

Meanwhile, earlier this month 100 Iraqi lawmakers signed a petition to the Iraqi government demanding U.S. troops leave their country by the end of this year, as scheduled.

Photo: U.S. soldier trains Iraqi police, via U.S. Army.

Washington's physics problem in Iraq

Chris Toensing — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:11:00 -0400

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, says its chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, has a "physics problem."

According to a 2008 accord between the United States and Iraq, the U.S. military is to be evacuated from Mesopotamia - down to the last tank mechanic and dishwasher - by the close of the calendar year. Lately there have been hints that Iraq might want a "residual force" of as many as 12,000 troops to stay, but nothing firm.

Hence Mullen's dilemma: How does the Pentagon plan for withdrawing its personnel and equipment when it doesn't know for sure how many soldiers will be leaving? There are only so many C-130s to load and so much time in which to load them.

In Iraq, this question is a burning political issue, one that could threaten the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Maliki has invested major political capital promising to end the U.S. occupation in accordance with the 2008 pact, telling The Wall Street Journal in December, "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed." His ruling coalition is fragile, and key partners intend to hold him to that promise.

But there's precious little debate in Washington on the date for withdrawal. Even though President Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to leave Iraq, his administration isn't telling Maliki that the troops are decamping come what may.

To the contrary, the White House puts out regular signals that thousands of soldiers would stay if Iraq "requests" it. The feelers are so frequent that Obama seems to be asking Iraq to request that Washington extend its military sojourn.

In fact, there's growing bipartisan consensus that a prolonged "residual" occupation of Iraq is a good thing. Republican presidential candidates, eager to attack Obama on Afghanistan and Libya, say next to nothing about Iraq. The unreconstructed neoconservatives quietly advising most of them proclaim in public that departure from Iraq is premature. Most Democrats are content to silently follow the White House.

The Obama administration and the Maliki government, each for its own reasons, are both hedging the bet they made when they signed the withdrawal timetable. Washington wagered that Maliki would widen his coalition to embrace enough political opponents that his government would be stable without an American prop. The Iraqi premier gambled that, with U.S. funding and training, his security forces would grow strong enough to defeat his domestic foes by the end of 2011.

Both bets were foolish, but Washington's was more so. Maliki and his circle have no serious record of conciliatory politics, and indeed have played upon and exacerbated the country's sectarian, ethnic, and ideological divides to remain in office. In such partisan maneuvers, they have felt secure in the knowledge that tens of thousands of heavily armed Americans are their formidable first line of defense. Theirs is a high-risk game, however, and they are giving every indication they still want their praetorian guard.

Ultimately, Obama's vow notwithstanding, neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to say no if Iraqi politicians wish to cling to thousands of American protectors or so for years to come. The reason isn't physics, but geology - the voluminous pools of oil lying underground in Iraq and neighboring countries. American politicians as different as Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney have long believed that the United States must project force in the petroleum-rich Persian Gulf for the sake of the world economy and Washington's superpower status. The costs have been secondary in their calculations, and the mainstream media does not probe too deeply into areas where both major parties concur.

In Iraq, this ill-advised consensus has thus far cost Americans some $780 billion, taken nearly 4,500 American lives, and severely wounded an additional 22,000 men and women - to say nothing of the greatly higher tallies of killed and maimed Iraqis. In 2011 and 2012, it will be up to ordinary Americans to compel, at long last, an honest national conversation about Iraq.

Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published by the Middle East Research and Information Project. This article originally appeared in Other Words, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Photo via the U.S. Army.

From Maine to Cuba, travelers with a purpose

Special to the World — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:28:00 -0400

NORWAY, Maine - People in this central Maine town will be giving a July 1 send-off to three Mainers heading off to Cuba next week. Under the auspices of the Maine group Let Cuba Live and Pastors for Peace, they are taking humanitarian supplies donated from Maine and Quebec.

Two days later another send-off will be held July 3 in the coastal town of Brunswick. Honored guests at the event will be Maria Cron from Portland and her two daughters Heather and Crystal. They will be joining others from throughout the United States traveling to Cuba with the Pastors for Peace Friendshipment Caravan. They will be traveling across the U.S. along several routes aboard trucks and buses to be given to Cuba filled with donated aid material.

Celebrations and send-off events are taking place around the country. For a list, see the Pastors for Peace website.

At the Brunswick event, boxes from Maine and Quebec will be loaded on vehicles for delivery to a converted bus that is heading south to a rendezvous in McAllen, Texas, en route to Cuba. The Brunswick-Trinidad Sister City Association has donated medications, bicycle parts, and tools for the Friendshipment.

The three Maine travelers eventually will arrive in Tampico, Mexico, where they will help put the supplies into a Cuban ship and go on to Cuba for a week of educational and solidarity activities.

Let Cuba Live has supported the caravans ever since they began in 1992. In sending donated humanitarian supplies to the island, the national faith-based organization Pastors for Peace, together with caravan participants, protests the U.S. Cuban economic blockade, in effect now for half a century. Those involved see that policy as immoral and illegal. The Friendshipment Caravans, joined each year by well over 100 supporters, travel to Cuba in the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience. "You don't need to ask permission to help out a neighbor," Pastors for Peace founder Rev. Lucius Walker once remarked.

Let Cuba Live of Maine is sponsoring the July 1 and 3 events. Let Cuba Live is a long-term supporter of the Friendshipments, and members of the Maine group have been gathering donated supplies for this year's effort. On July 2 they will travel to northern Vermont to collect aid material that solidarity activists in Quebec are sending to Cuba with the Friendshipment.

Crystal Cron, who recently graduated from Suffolk University in Boston, says she is also going to Cuba in part to learn about possibly studying at the Latin American School of Medicine in Havana. Presently 125 U.S. students are receiving a free medical education there. Every year, 1,500 new doctors from over 30 countries graduate from the school, established in 1998.

Tom Whitney, local organizer for Let Cuba Live, says the Friday, July 1, event at Christ Church in Norway, Me., is a good way to usher in the holiday weekend. Those on hand for the 6 p.m. celebration will be served a Cuban/Peruvian meal and, significantly, says Whitney, Maria Cron's highly acclaimed flan. A program will follow of music, brief remarks, and a showing of the remarkable Cuban film "People to People." That film documents the work of Pastors for Peace and the history of the Friendshipments.

The Sunday, July 3, Brunswick send-off is set for 2-4 p.m. at the "Gazebo" on Maine Street. Organizers says the gathering will feature music, a short program, refreshments and enthusiasm.

At both events there will be an opportunity to make donations to help with the travelers' expenses and costs of sending aid material.

For information about Pastors for Peace and the Caravans, go to www.pastorsforpeace.org. For more information about the Maine events or Let Cuba Live, call (207) 443-2899.

Photo: Participants in a previous Friendshipment Caravan mingle with Cubans in Havana. IFCO/Pastors for Peace

Real peace and fake doves

PW Editorial Board — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:17:00 -0400

In President Obama's speech Wednesday night, he charted a course to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan over the next three years, beginning next month. He said that starting in July, 10,000 troops will be brought home this year, and another 23,000 by next summer, ending the "surge" that he ordered in 2009. That will leave about 70,000 U.S. troops who, he said, will "continue coming home at a steady pace," with a handover of security responsibilities to the Afghan people "complete by 2014."

The president reportedly was pressed by some within the administration and among the military brass for a smaller, slower troop pullout. The fact that he rejected that pressure is an important step in the right direction.

But the somewhat quicker pace he has announced, in line with his earlier pledges, is cautious indeed, and there will be ongoing pressures to stop or slow even this withdrawal plan. Moreover, he left vague what role the U.S. military will play in Afghanistan once the "security handover" ends in 2014. This reminds us of the situation in Iraq right now. In both cases, public pressure will be essential to ensure that all the troops are brought home, including special forces and the like, and that the mammoth U.S. military bases in those countries are shut down and handed over to the people of those countries.

Meanwhile, with their eyes on 2012, Republicans - the military industrial complex's best friends - are trying to position themselves as peaceniks.

But these Republican wolves in doves' clothing are silent about a key point President Obama addressed in his speech: "Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource - our people."

He spoke of the need to "unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries" and to "rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy."

American taxpayers are spending $120 billion on the Afghanistan war just for this year. With the beginning of the end of that war, how will the billions be used?

On Monday, the nation's mayors called on the president and Congress to "redirect military spending to domestic priorities."

The mayors called for bringing the Afghanistan and Iraq war dollars "home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy and reduce the federal debt."

Will the Republican sudden converts to peace sign on to that?

Most Americans will, if we get the word out. Share this article with others, talk to your neighbor, your co-worker, friends and family, contact your senators and representative, join a group, get involved, build the movement.

Photo: Jayel Aheram CC 2.0

Peace leader: Obama pullout speech a beginning to build on

Tim Wheeler — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:25:00 -0400

Judith LeBlanc, field director of Peace Action, the 100,000-member national peace organization, said President Obama reflected the views of a majority when he called for "nation-building here at home" in his June 22 speech announcing troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

"The withdrawal of troops he announced is a beginning which the peace movement must and will build on," LeBlanc said. "Without our efforts in the last few weeks we may have had only the troop withdrawals the Pentagon is willing to accept, about 5,000 troops."

"Some of the reactions to President Obama's speech have diminished what we have been able to do thus far and what our next steps must be," she added. "Unfortunately too many on the left are carping about the speech as though Obama was the president of the peace movement and disappointed us."

Yet, she added, the president "missed an opportunity" in limiting the withdrawal to only 10,000 troops this year and an additional 23,000 by September 2012. That will still leave 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at a cost of about $100 billion a year, she noted.

"The human and economic cost of this war can no longer be tolerated," she said.

Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is now a clear majority, 56 percent in the most recent poll, she added. Twenty-seven U.S. senators signed a letter to the president urging a speedy exit from Afghanistan. The House of Representatives cast the largest number of votes yet for a rapid troop withdrawal. Those calling for a quicker withdrawal include prominent liberal and centrist Democrats. They also include Republicans, some of whom seem to think they can make an election issue out of it.

LeBlanc noted that the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Baltimore, June 20, just two days before the president's speech, approved overwhelmingly a "Bring the troops home! Bring the war dollars home" resolution. The mayors urged that the $126 billion spent in Afghanistan be redirected to U.S. cities hammered with double-digit joblessness and devastating budget cuts.

In his speech last night, Obama acknowledged the frustration among taxpayers that the U.S. is building schools, hospitals, and bridges in Kandahar but not in Baltimore.

"We have spent a trillion dollars on war at a time of rising debt and hard economic times," the president said. "America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home."

LeBlanc noted that continuing a large troop presence for another few years will make that focus difficult. "If we are paying $10 billion a month for war, it will be impossible to create jobs and fund our communities," she said. She noted that Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, has announced plans to introduce a bill to defund the war in Afghanistan when the House returns from its July 4 recess.

LeBlanc debunked the line of Republican - and some Democratic - deficit hawks who want to slash Social Security, Medicare, and other safety net programs in the name of deficit reduction, leaving military spending uncut.

"We don't have a deficit crisis," she said. "We have a revenue crisis. A majority of the people think the deficits were created by the wars and by tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, and they are right!" In addition to stopping the war drain on our nation's budget, she said, it's time to increase taxes on the corporations and the wealthy."

In addition to the "Bring the troops and war dollars home" resolution, the mayors approved a nuclear non-proliferation resolution urging Congress to terminate funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, urging passage of the two resolutions, told the mayors the "road to peace goes through cities and towns around the world."

"It was an historic action by the mayors" LeBlanc said, pointing out that it is the first stand on a foreign policy issue by the U.S. Conference of Mayors since 1971, when the mayors called for an end to the war in Vietnam.

It shows how important it is to have the peace movement and members of Congress speaking out against the war, she said. "Without our efforts in the last few weeks we may have had only the troop withdrawals the Pentagon is willing to accept, about 5,000 troops. We're claiming this as a victory but we've got to work even harder to get a even more substantial withdrawal and even more robust support for a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan."

Troop withdrawals are one side of the story, she said. "The other side is that without reconciliation there will be no end to this war. That means drawing in the countries of the region" to seek a negotiated end to the war.

"At this point, the Pentagon believes more casualties, more combat, strengthens the U.S. negotiating position. It means that more Afghan people, more U.S. soldiers will die, when in fact there is no military solution in Afghanistan."

Turning to the U.S. political scene, LeBlanc said the 2012 elections, including President Obama's campaign, "offer opportunities to educate and work with folks to raise the volume on the problem of wars and war spending," and to link it to funding human needs, jobs creation and a green economy.

"The peace movement has the best environment in a long time to organize a peace vote in the 2012 elections," she said. "The worst thing we could do would be to sit on the sidelines. Voter registration and education, issue forums with candidates, Democratic Party delegate briefings - there are huge opportunities to go beyond our choir."

Photo: President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden hold an economic meeting with senior advisors in the White House, June 21, the day before the president's speech on Afghanistan. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Bring them home, for Afghans' future and ours

Marilyn Bechtel — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:01:00 -0400

As the world awaits President Obama's June 22 announcement about withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, an intense debate is taking place within the administration about how, and how quickly, to start the drawdown.

But developments at home and in Afghanistan point in one direction: the urgency of making a significant down payment on the troops' safe return home. Opposition is escalating to a conflict that has already cost the lives of over 1,500 U.S. troops and countless civilians, and has a $100 billion-per-year price tag.

The weekend saw a diplomatic firestorm. Afghan President Hamid Karzai lashed out at the foreign troop presence in his country. As he confirmed for the first time long-persistent reports of Afghan and U.S. meetings with the Taliban, he declared, "The nations of the world which are here in our country are here for their own national interests. They are using our country."

Departing U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry slapped back, expressing anger that U.S. forces were being "compared to occupiers" and claiming the U.S. "has never sought to occupy any nation in the world."

Karzai has become more and more outspoken with such denunciations. Late last month, after an airstrike killed 14 civilians including children, he warned that with more such incidents, foreign troops would be seen as "a force that is fighting against the people of Afghanistan." "And in that case," he said, "history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers."

Meanwhile, despite the presence of 140,000 foreign troops - 100,000 of them from the U.S. - the military situation remains highly unstable, with gains in one area offset by losses in others, and Afghan forces far from ready to take the lead.

While the U.S. military claims success for its counterinsurgency campaign in southern Afghanistan, it is careful to call the gains "fragile and reversible."

Armed insurgents are able to mount attacks even in Kabul, the capital city, and incidents continue of Afghan soldiers and police turning on their mentors with deadly results.

At home, opposition to the war continues to grow. A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed 62 percent of Americans opposing it, and nearly three-quarters wanting some or all troops withdrawn.

Following up the U.S. House of Representatives' near-passage last month of a bipartisan amendment for a pull-out timetable and completion date, in mid-June a bipartisan group of 27 senators called on Obama to start a major pullout of troops. The group included 24 liberal and centrist Democrats - 10 of them committee chairs - along with two Republicans and one independent. Among them were Democratic Caucus leaders Dick Durbin, Ill. and Charles Schumer, N.Y., along with fellow Democrats Max Baucus, Mont. and Kent Conrad, N.D. Republican signers were Mike Lee, Utah and Rand Paul, Ky.

"We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011," they said. "There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counterinsurgency and nation-building effort. This is misguided."

Speculation is rampant about the size of the withdrawal Obama will announce. Predictions range from a Pentagon proposal of 5,000 to withdrawal of the 30,000 "surge" troops within a year.

But even the higher guesstimates are far too low for many. In a letter, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., last week said withdrawing even 30,000 would not be enough.

"A more 'significant' and reasonable goal would be the withdrawal of 50,000 combat troops," she wrote. "Delaying a significant and sizable reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would be unacceptable and would not reflect the will of the people."

Reflecting the dire predicament of the nation's cities after rampant federal and state funding cuts for human needs, the U.S. Conference of Mayors June 20 adopted a "Bring Our War Dollars Home" resolution calling for a quick end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a shift of funds to domestic needs. Organizers said the conference had not urged an end to a military engagement since the Vietnam War.

So what would follow the exodus of foreign military forces from Afghanistan?

One thing everyone agrees on is the need for all-around support for the troops when they come home. This must include many-sided help for victims of post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as traumatic brain and other injuries. The Obama administration has significantly improved the treatment of veterans; they will need much more help in coming years.

As for Afghanistan itself, that part of the insurgency that primarily opposes the foreign troop presence is likely to fade significantly. Withdrawal of foreign troops will be essential to successful talks with the armed insurgency.

As conflict recedes, help in rebuilding a shattered economy, bringing displaced people home and helping them reconstruct their lives, and needed security assistance, will best come from international organizations including the United Nations.

Afghans themselves will have to curb the destructive power of warlords and corrupt political leaders, and decide how to rebuild their shattered land. In many places civil society is ready to take on those roles - to engage in real nation-building - as armed conflict recedes.

Photo: Afghan children play soccer in front of the war-damaged Darul Aman Palace in the suburbs of Kabul, Afghanistan, June 8. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP

Mayors call for quick end to Afghan war

Jim Baldridge — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:15:00 -0400

BALTIMORE - The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved a resolution June 20 calling for a quick end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and transfer of the $129 billion spent on those wars each year to job-creating domestic programs in the nation's cities.

The vote came at the end of the mayors' 79th annual meeting here, dominated by deep concern at the steep downward economic spiral of the nation's cities with lower revenues forcing disastrous budget cutbacks and mass layoffs. The mayors warned of a "lost decade" for the cities with recovery from double-digit unemployment not expected "until 2020 at the earliest."

As they met, close to a hundred Maryland activists rallied, sang, and marched in the Baltimore heat June 18 to bring home the message to the mayors: "Bring the war dollars home to our cities and communities."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, newly elected Conference of Mayors president, endorsed the antiwar resolution during an appearance June 19 on "Meet the Press."

"There are some cities that are not going to recover ... for another 20 years," Villaraigosa said. "The impact of this recession is real." Villaraigosa said something is out of kilter when "we build bridges in Baghdad and Kandahar and not in Baltimore and Kansas City."

Charlottesville, Va, Mayor Dave Norris praised the resolution after it was overwhelmingly approved. "It is our constituents who are sent off to fight and die in these wars, who are asked to fund these wars with their tax dollars," he said. "And it is our communities that struggle when huge sums are being diverted from local priorities to military adventures and ‘nation building' abroad... It is time to do some nation-building here at home."

Kittie Piercy, mayor of Eugene, Ore., said the resolution calls on the mayors to "begin the journey of turning war dollars back into peace dollars, of bringing our loved ones home and focusing our national resources on building security and prosperity at home."

Muhammad Younis Nawandish, mayor of Kabul, Afghanistan, expressed reservations about a quick U.S. troop withdrawal, telling a luncheon of the mayors, June 18, that it may open the way for the Taliban.

Jacquiline Cabasso, U.S. coordinator of Mayors for Peace, spoke to Nawandish after his speech, showing him material from her organization. He promptly signed up to be a member, charging that decades of war have destroyed "90 percent" of Kabul just as atomic bombing destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The grassroots events outside the conference were organized by the Fund Our Communities, Bring The War Dollars Home Coalition. It includes Veterans For Peace, Peace Action, the Algebra Project, AFSC, Full Employment Baltimore, the Communist Party of Maryland, the Green Party, Generations for Peace and Democracy, Code Pink, Baltimore ANSWER and others.

The opening rally, held at the St. Vincent de Paul church parking lot across from Baltimore's fabled Shot Tower, and next to a small park populated by homeless people, heard from various speakers as well as the Charm City Labor Chorus before the marchers took off for the hotel where the conference was being held.

Chanting and carrying colorful flags, banners and signs, the marchers went through downtown Baltimore and Baltimore traffic. Along the march route, Maria Allwine, one of the coalition organizers, told the People's World, "I've talked to six mayors in the past few days. The mayors get it. They're in the trenches. They're on the front lines. They're the ones trying to provide more services with ever-dwindling resources. We expect them to pass the Mayors for Peace resolution, and hope they will use their bully pulpit to take it to the U.S. Congress and make an issue of it."

Tim Wheeler contributed to this article.

Photo: Maryland peace activists' march June 18 urges the nation's mayors to call for "bringing the war dollars home to our cities and communities." PW/Jim Baldridge

Who should pay for the Iraq war?

Susan Webb — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:19:00 -0400

On a trip to Baghdad last week, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., enraged Iraqi officials by saying that Iraq should repay the U.S. for the cost of the war and occupation launched by President George W. Bush in 2003.

"Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country ... we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years," Rohrabacher told journalists at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Friday, Agence France Press reported.

"We were hoping that there would be a consideration of a payback because the United States right now is in close to a very serious economic crisis and we could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs," Rohrabacher said.

He may have been channeling billionaire Donald Trump, who back in April said the U.S. should stay in Iraq and "keep the oil ... take what's necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more."

The National Priorities Project estimates the U.S. cost of the Iraq war at over $783 billion. Others, including economist Joseph Stiglitz and public policy expert Linda Bilmes, put the real cost at $3 trillion and more.

Estimates of the Iraqi cost of the war could not be found on the web. Iraq Body Count has documented more than 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths because of the war. The cost to Iraq of rebuilding the massive social and infrastructure wreckage is certain to be enormous.

Perhaps Rohrabacher should look closer to home for help with replenishing the U.S. pocketbook.

It seems that top U.S. military contractors made out like bandits during the Iraq war.

In 2005, two years into the war, CorpWatch reported that top defense contractors "Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Honeywell and United Technologies have all done well in the first half of this year and have a huge backlog of orders." In subsequent years, their profits kept on climbing. A 2008 Reuters report showed rising profits for Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Boeing's military division. And so it went.

Boeing has been among Rohrabacher's top 20 contributors (just above the National Rifle Association) since he was first elected to Congress in 1988. Boeing was number 2 in a 2006 list of the top 100 Defense Department contractors.

Honeywell was Rohrabacher's top campaign contributor during the 2009-2010 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. Honeywell was number 22 on that top-100 military contractor list.

Other U.S. war profiteers include Halliburton spinoff KBR, which in 2007 reported "a surge in profits boosted by its war-related business," according to the UK Times. The next year, its profits nearly tripled, and despite numerous charges of fraud and incompetence in its work in Iraq, it received a new $150 billion 10-year Pentagon contract.

Perhaps these corporations and their CEOs should be asked to reimburse the U.S. and Iraq for the crushing costs of the war.

Photo: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., speaks at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Feb. 12. Gage Skidmore CC 2.0

Time to come home from Iraq

PW Editorial Board — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:03:00 -0400

With Libya and Afghanistan dominating headlines these days, it's been hard to focus on Iraq. But the death of five U.S. soldiers in a rocket attack in Baghdad June 6 has galvanized our attention again.

Well over 4,400 U.S. troops have died there since President Bush launched a totally unjustified invasion and occupation over eight years ago. Civilian casualties may be in the hundreds of thousands, and millions more have been driven from their homeland or have become internal refugees.

And with all that, as the recent deaths remind us, Iraq is far from a country at peace. Nor has the U.S. occupation brought reconstruction. Unemployment reaches as high as 60 percent, over a quarter of children are chronically malnourished, and homes are deprived of electricity for most of each day.

Though the U.S. combat mission in Iraq officially ended nearly a year ago, some 46,000 U.S. troops are still there. The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces agreement calls for their withdrawal by the end of this year.

Speculation is rampant about whether a significant number - perhaps 10,000 - might remain, if the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki "requests" them to stay.

But even if all the troops go, the American presence will continue to be huge. On Oct. 1, the State Department is set to take over, with the world's largest embassy and some 17,000 personnel at 15 sites around the country. Nearly one-third of these will be armed contractors, charged with "protecting" the U.S. installations.

It's time and long past time to end this counterproductive occupation, which is increasingly unpopular in Iraq and here at home.

Iraq's civil society, with its active trade union movement and political parties including the Iraqi Communist Party, can then get about the business of rebuilding the country along peaceful and democratic lines.

If there is one lesson the Arab Spring should teach us, it is that ordinary people, whether in Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or elsewhere, have the courage and the ability to set about building vibrant societies in a world at peace - if only we will let them.

Photo: A boy carries a tray of sweets at a market in central Baghdad, Iraq. (Karim Kadim/AP)

House votes on Libya are mixed bag

Susan Webb — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:43:00 -0400

A peculiar set of House votes on Libya last Friday showed Republican maneuvering and Democratic divisions.

The typically hawkish Republicans pushed a resolution introduced by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticizing President Obama for continuing U.S. military involvement in Libya without the specific consent of Congress, and telling the president to provide the House with detailed information about the cost, security interests, objectives and activities of U.S. armed forces there.

The resolution, which passed 268-145, is nonbinding and does not actually require the president to do anything. Forty-five Democrats, mostly Blue Dogs, joined nearly all Republicans in voting for this measure.

The fact that no liberal or progressive Democrat who has questioned the U.S. Libya intervention voted for Boehner's resolution suggests they saw it as a Republican political ploy.

The New York Times reports Boehner submitted his resolution "to siphon off swelling Republican support" for another resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, which directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya within 15 days after passage of the resolution. That bill was defeated 148-265.

Eighty-seven Republicans joined 61 Democrats in voting for Kucinich's resolution. Republicans voting for the bill included extreme right-wingers like Michele Bachmann, Minn., and Allen West, Fla.

Liberal and progressive Democrats were divided. Some prominent anti-war lawmakers like Barbara Lee, Calif., Raul Grijalva, Ariz., Lynn Woolsey, Calif., and John Conyers, Mich., voted for the Kucinich bill, while others like Keith Ellison, Minn., Donna Edwards, Md., Jan Schakowsky, Ill., and Jim McDermott, Wash., voted against it.

The Republicans' moves on Libya undoubtedly reflect their hope to use the U.S. involvement there as a presidential campaign issue. Conversely, many Democrats are undoubtedly reluctant to set up a confrontation with President Obama over Libya during the 2012 campaign that is already under way.

But from the start of the U.S. military involvement in Libya on March 19, Democrats themselves criticized the president for not seeking authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution. That measure, passed overwhelmingly in 1973 during the Vietnam War, says the president can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. The 60-day deadline for Libya was May 20.

The White House says it has complied with the War Powers Resolution by consulting with Congress throughout. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told the New York Times. "We've been engaged in that consultation all along - as I mentioned, three separate briefings have been held just this week for members of Congress."

Public opinion seems somewhat ambivalent about the U.S. role in Libya. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted May 24-26 showed 45 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved of the way President Obama is handling the Libya situation. At the same time, 54 percent supported "the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations resolutions," with 43 percent opposed.

But asked "who should have the final authority for deciding whether the United States should continue its use of military force in Libya: Congress or President Obama?" 55 percent said Congress should have the final authority, while 42 percent said the president should.

Pressure on Obama over Libya is likely to build as reports quote top U.S. and British officials saying they have no idea how long the military operations there could last.

Counter-terrorism: the new face of war

Conn Hallinan — Tue, 31 May 2011 09:59:00 -0400

The assassination of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden did more than knock off America's Public Enemy Number One, it formalized a new kind of warfare, where sovereignty is irrelevant, armies tangential, and decisions are secret. It is, in the words of counterinsurgency expert John Nagl, "an astounding change in the nature of warfare."

It is also one that requires a vast intelligence apparatus, one that now constitute almost a fourth arm of government that most Americans are almost completely unaware of. Yet, according to the Washington Post, this empire includes some 1, 271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies in more than 10,000 locations across the country, with a budget last year of at least $80.1 billion.

"At the heart of this new warfare," notes the Financial Times," is high-tech cooperation between intelligence agencies and the military" that blurs the traditional borders between civilians and the armed forces. And it fits with the U.S.'s penchant for waging war with robots and covert Special Forces.

But, by definition, the secrecy at the core of the "new warfare" removes decisions about war and peace from the public realm and relegates them to secure rooms in the White House or clandestine bases in the Hindu Kush. When the Black Hawk helicopters slipped through Pakistani airspace, they did more than execute one of America's greatest bugbears; they essentially said another country's sovereignty was no longer relevant and consigned Congress to the role of spectator.

Over the past several decades U.S. military theorists have clashed over how to use the armed forces, though it is a debate that gets distorted by the requirements of industry: the U.S, does not really need 11 immense Nimitz class aircraft carriers, but the Newport News Shipbuilding Company - and the aerospace giants that fill the flattops with fighter bombers - do.

The arguments have revolved around three different approaches, the Powell Doctrine, the Rumsfeld Doctrine, and the Petraeus Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine is essentially conventional warfare a-la World War II: massive firepower, lots of soldiers, clear goals. This was the formula for the first Gulf War, which, after a month of bombing, lasted only four days. But it is a very expensive way to wage war.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine merged high tech firepower and Special Forces with a minimal use of Army and Marine units. It also relies on private contractors to do much of what was formerly done by the military. The doctrine routed the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and quickly knocked out the Iraqi Army in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Once the shock and awe wore off, however, the Doctrine's weaknesses became obvious. It simply didn't have the manpower to hold the ground against a guerilla insurgency. The 2007 "surge" of troops in Iraq, like last year's surge in Afghanistan, was an admission that the doctrine was fundamentally flawed if the locals decided to keep fighting.

The Petraeus Doctrine is old wine in a new bottle: counterinsurgency. In theory, it is boots on the ground to win hearts and minds. It draws heavily on intelligence - what Gen. David Petraeus calls "bandwidth" - to isolate and eliminate any insurgents - and attempts to establish trust with the locals. It is cheaper than the Powell and Rumsfeld doctrines, but it also almost never works. Eventually the locals get tried of being occupied, and then counterinsurgency turns nasty. Building schools and digging wells give way to night raids and targeted assassinations that alienate the local population. According to U.S. intelligence, the current counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan is failing.

So, what is this "astounding change" that Nagl speaks of? If you want to put a name to it, "counter-terrorism" is probably the most descriptive, although with a new twist. Like counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism has been around a long time. The Phoenix Program that killed some 40,000 South Vietnamese was a variety of the doctrine. Phoenix, too, paid no attention to sovereignty. During the Vietnam War, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols secretly went into Cambodia and Laos.

In recent years, the U.S. clandestinely sent Special Forces into Syria and Pakistan in a sort of shadow war against "insurgents." A number of other countries have done the same.

But the Obama administration openly admits to sending a Special Forces SEAL team into Pakistan to assassinate bin Laden, and it was prepared to fight Pakistan's armed forces if they tried to intervene. And when Pakistan asked the U.S. to curb its use of armed drones in Pakistani airspace, the Central Intelligence Agency said it would do nothing of the kind.

It is as if counter-terrorism reconfigured that classic line from the movie "Treasure of the Sierra Madre": "We don't need no stinkin' badges, we got drones and SEALs."

The principle behind counter-terrorism is eliminating people you don't like. There is no patina of "hearts and minds," and the new strategy makes no effort to practice the subterfuge of "plausible deniability" that has deflected the ire of target countries in the past.

While clandestine warfare is not new, the boldness of the bin Laden hit is. Certainly the people who planned the attack wanted to make a statement: we can get you anywhere you are, and impediments like international law, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter be damned.

"Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law," says law professor Marjorie Cohn. "Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict."

From the U.S.'s point of view, the doctrine has a number of advantages. It is cheaper, and its expenses are generally hidden away in a labyrinth of bureaucracy. For instance, the $80.1 billion figure is only an estimate and does not include the cost of the CIA's drone war in Pakistan, or Homeland Security.

Recent moves by the White House suggest the administration is putting this new strategy in place. "Petraeus's appointment to head the CIA is an important indication that the U.S. wants to fuse intelligence and military operations," a "senior figure" at the British Defense Ministry told the Financial Times.

In the past the division between military and civilian intelligence agencies allowed for a range of opinions. While the U.S. military continues to put a rosy spin on the Afghan War, civilian intelligence agencies have been much more somber about the success of the current surge. That division is likely to vanish under the new regime, where intelligence becomes less about analysis and more about targeting.

The new warfare opens up a Pandora's box, the implications of which are only beginning to be considered. What would be the reaction if Cuban armed forces had landed in Florida and assassinated Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch, two anti-Castro militants who were credibly charged with setting bombs in Havana and downing a Cuban airliner? Washington would treat it as an act of war. The problem with a foreign policy based on claw and fang is that, if one country claims the right to act independently of international law and the UN Charter, all countries can so claim.

In the end, however, the biggest victims for this "new" warfare will probably be the American people. Once an enormous intelligence bureaucracy is created - there are some 854,000 people with top-secrecy security clearance - it will be damned hard to dismantle it. And, since the very nature of the endeavor removes it from public oversight, it is a formula for a massive and uncontrolled expansion of the national security state.

Originally published at Dispatches From the Edge.

Photo: A counter terrorism unit demonstrates tactics in Baghdad, 2007. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Michael B.W. Watkins)

House almost passes Afghanistan pullout call

Marilyn Bechtel — Fri, 27 May 2011 13:39:00 -0400

With a 204 to 215 vote on a bipartisan amendment by Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. and Walter Jones, R-N.C., the U.S. House of Representatives May 26 came closer than ever before to calling for an end to the Afghanistan war.

The proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act called on President Obama to prepare a plan "with a timeframe and completion date" to speed up transfer of military operations in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities. The amendment was backed by 178 Democrats and 26 Republicans; eight Democrats and 207 Republicans opposed it.

Though the measure was narrowly defeated, the vote represents a significant advance over previous tallies: last summer, a similar amendment received just 162 votes.

The amendment was backed by three Republican members of the Armed Services Committee, and got significant support from new Republican House members.

Obama has set July 1 to start the drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, but the amendment's supporters fear that as few as 5,000 troops may be withdrawn initially.

An Associated Press-GfK poll earlier this month found 59 percent of Americans opposing the war, with substantial backing for the July start of troop withdrawal.

"Today's strong bipartisan vote represents a huge step forward in the effort to bring the war in Afghanistan to a close," McGovern said after the vote. "I hope the president recognizes that there is a growing consensus in Congress and the country that our policy needs to change."

In the end, the National Defense Authorization Act passed, 322-96. It authorizes military spending of $690 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Over 1,500 U.S. troops and many thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed in the nearly ten-year-old war, which is now costing the U.S. at least $10 billion monthly.

Before the vote, McGovern told his fellow legislators, "This is the longest war in our nation's history. It's no longer about al-Qaeda.

"President Obama has promised a drawdown of U.S. troops in July," he added. "Now we hear that might just be a token drawdown... Help him do what the American people want him to do - bring our troops home, and invest in America."

Also May 26, the House voted overwhelmingly to bar the sending of U.S. ground troops to Libya.

On the same day the House vote took place, eight U.S. soldiers were killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.

Photo: DVIDSHUB // CC 2.0

Libya ceasefire, not another endless war

Sam Webb — Tue, 17 May 2011 12:25:00 -0400

This article was originally published May 17, 2011. We are reprinting it now as a House vote on the Libyan conflict looms.

It seems like every time I look at the New York Times or Washington Post, an article appears suggesting that the rebel forces in Libya are making progress. But upon reading the article I can't help thinking that the progress is more a mirage than a reality.

As far as I can see, the war in Libya is a stalemate.

The only option that makes any sense in these circumstances is a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement that hopefully brings both peace and democratic openings to the Libyan people.

Last week United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a call for an immediate ceasefire. He said that he would send a special envoy to Tripoli "as soon as possible."

This is a welcome development.

From some news reports it appears that the Gaddafi government is ready to enter into talks with its opponents.

The same can't be said about the opposition or its NATO supporters. The opposition seems to believe it can oust Gaddafi with a continued NATO air assault - despite the growing potential for terrible civilian casualties. For NATO, regime change, from all indications, remains the objective.

The danger in this situation is that steps will be taken to escalate the fighting in order to break the impasse.

Three options are available. NATO could commit ground forces, which is very unlikely. It could intensify the bombing attacks, which is already happening. And finally it could undertake a large-scale effort to train and arm the anti-Gaddafi movement.

This is a prescription for a long, drawn out war. It is hard to see how this is in the interest of the Libyan people or their understandable desire for democratic renewal.

Nevertheless, it could well be the option pursued.

Gaddifi, after all, is considered to be an unreliable steward of oil interests and a loose cannon in a region and on a continent whose geopolitical and geo-economic value to the powerful imperial states - first and foremost the U.S. - is inestimable.

And this is likely to remain so as long as the economies of the world are dependent on the oil that this part of the world is so rich in.

But are unending wars and occupations what we want in this region? Is that the best way to make us safe and keep the oil flowing? Is it the best way for peace and democracy to take root in the Middle East?

The answer, obviously, is no.

Two occupations - one hopefully winding down, one that should wind down - as well as an undefined "war on terror" and a seemingly endless conflict between Israeli government intransigence and the Palestinian struggle for statehood - all these have brought neither stability nor peace nor democracy to this region, nor have they made the world any safer.

A ceasefire and negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya along with a pullout of troops in Afghanistan, a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an end to the military "war on terror," would immeasurably help Libya and the rest of the Middle East become a new birthplace for peace, democracy, stability, and independent development.

Photo: A U.S. guided missile destroyer, part of the U.S. Africa Command task forces, launches a Tomahawk missile against Libya, March 19. DoD photo by Interior Communications Electrician Fireman Roderick Eubanks, U.S. Navy/Released

Bin Laden, Pakistan and the Great Game’s new clothes

Conn Hallinan — Tue, 10 May 2011 11:16:00 -0400

According to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, the U.S. never informed Pakistan about the operation to assassinate al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden because it thought the Pakistanis could "jeopardize the mission" by tipping off the target.

Maybe, and maybe not. This is, after all, the ground over which the 19th century "Great Game" was played, the essence of which was obfuscation. What you thought you saw or knew was not necessarily what was.

The "official" story is that three CIA helicopters - one for backup - took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and flew almost 200 miles to Abbottabad, most of it through Pakistani airspace. Pakistan scrambled jets, but the choppers still managed to land, spend 40 minutes on the ground, and get away.

Is it possible the helicopters really did dodge Pakistani radar? During the Cold War a West German pilot flew undetected through the teeth of the Soviet air defense system and landed his plane in Red Square, so yes. Choppers are slow, but these were stealth varieties and fairly quiet. But at top speed, the Black Hawks would have needed about an hour each way, plus the 40 minutes on the ground. That is a long time to remain undetected, particularly in a town hosting three regiments of the Pakistani Army, plus the Kakul Military Academy, the country's equivalent of West Point. Abbottabad is also 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad, and the region is ringed with anti-aircraft sites.

Still, it is possible, except there is an alternative scenario that not only avoids magical thinking about what choppers can do, but better fits the politics of the moment: that Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) knew where Bin Laden was and fingered him, estimating that his death would accelerate negotiations with the Taliban. Why now? Because for the first time in this long war, U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide.

Gen. Hammad Gul, former head of the ISI, told the Financial Times on May 3 that the ISI knew where he was, but regarded him as "inactive." Writing in the May 5 Guardian (UK), author Tariq Ali says that a "senior" ISI official told him back in 2006 that the spy organization knew where bin Laden was, but had no intention of arresting him because he was "The goose that laid the golden egg." In short, the hunt for the al-Qaida leader helped keep the U.S. aid spigot open.

Indeed, bin Laden may have been under house arrest, which would explain the absence of trained bodyguards. By not allowing the al-Qaida leader a private militia, the ISI forced him to rely on it for protection. And if they then dropped a dime on him, they knew he would be an easy target. As to why he was killed, not captured, neither the U.S. nor Pakistan wanted him alive, the former because of the judicial nightmare his incarceration would involve, the latter because dead men tell no tales.

As for the denials: the last thing the ISI wants is to be associated with the hit, since it could end up making the organization a target for Pakistan's home-grown Taliban. If the ISI knew, so did the Army, though not necessarily at all levels. Did the Army turn a blind eye to the U.S. choppers? Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that there is a shift in Pakistan and the U.S. with regards to the Afghan war.

On the U.S. side, the war is going badly, and American military and intelligence agencies are openly warring with one another. In December the U.S. intelligence community released a study indicating that progress was minimal and that the 2009 surge of 30,000 troops had produced only tactical successes: "There remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency." The Pentagon counter-attacked in late April with a report that the surge had been "a strategic defeat for the Taliban," and that the military was making "tangible progress in some really key areas."

It is not an analysis agreed with by our NATO allies, most of which are desperate to get their troops out of what they view as a deepening quagmire. A recent WikiLeaks cable quotes Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, saying "No one believes in Afghanistan anymore. But we will give it 2010 to see results." He went on to say Europe was only going along "out of deference to the United States." Translation: NATO support is falling apart.

Recent shifts by the administration seem to signal that the White House is backing away from the surge and looking for ways to wind down the war. The shift of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA removes the major U.S. booster of the current counterinsurgency strategy, and moving Panetta to the Defense Department puts a savvy political infighter with strong Democratic Party credentials into the heart of Pentagon. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war but could never get a hearing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican.

The last major civilian supporter of the war is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Gates, her main ally, will soon be gone, as will Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The shuffle at the top is hardly a "night of the long knives," but the White House has essentially eliminated or sidelined those in the administration who pushed for a robust war and long-term occupation.

A surge of sanity? Well, at least some careful poll reading. According to the Associated Press, six in 10 Americans want out of the war. Among Democrats 73 percent want to be out in a year, and a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans want Congress to address an accelerated withdrawal. With the war now costing $8 billion a month, these numbers are hardly a surprise.

Pakistan has long been frustrated with the U.S.'s reluctance to talk to the Taliban, and, from Islamabad's perspective, the war is largely being carried out at their expense. Pakistan has suffered tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties in what most Pakistanis see as an American war, and the country is literally up in arms over the drone attacks.

The Pakistani Army has been deployed in Swat, South Waziristan, and Bajaur, and the U.S. is pressing it to invade North Waziristan. One Pakistani grumbled to the Guardian (UK), "What do they [the U.S.] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?" For the 30 million Pashtuns in the northwest regions, the Pakistani Army is foreign in language and culture, and Islamabad knows that it will eventually be seen as an outside occupier.

A poll by the New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan's northwest - home and refuge to many of the insurgents fighting in Afghanistan - found some 80 percent oppose the U.S. war on terror, almost nine in every 10 people oppose U.S. attacks on the Taliban, and three quarters oppose the drone attacks.

The bottom line is that Pakistan simply cannot afford to continue the war, particularly as they are still trying to dig themselves out from under last year's massive floods.

In April, Pakistan's top military, intelligence and political leadership decamped to Kabul to meet with the government of Harmid Karzai. The outcome of the talks is secret, but they appear to have emboldened the parties to press the U.S. to start talking. According to Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban" and "Descent into Chaos," the White House is moving "the fledgling peace process forward" and will "push to broker an end to the war." This includes dropping "its preconditions that the Taliban sever links with al-Qaida and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks."

Given that in 2008 the Taliban agreed to not allow any "outside" forces in the country and pledged not to pose a danger to any other country, including those in the West, this demand has already been met. As for the constitution, since it excluded the Taliban it will have to be re-negotiated in any case.

While there appears to be a convergence of interests among the major parties, negotiations promise to be a thorny business.

The Pentagon will resist a major troop drawdown. There is also opposition in Afghanistan, where Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities are deeply suspicious of the Taliban. The Karzai government also appears split on the talks, although recent cabinet shuffles have removed some of the more anti-Pakistan leaders.

Then there is the Taliban, which is hardly a centralized organization, especially since U.S. drone attacks and night raids have effectively removed more experienced Taliban leaders, leaving younger and more radical fighters in charge. Can Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliver his troops? That is not a given.

Both other insurgent groups - the Haqqani Group and Hizb-i-Islami - have indicated they are open to negotiations, but the Americans will have a hard time sitting down with the Haqqanis. The group has been implicated in the deaths of numerous U.S. and coalition forces. To leave the Haqqani Group out, however, will derail the whole process.

The U.S. would like to exclude Iran, but as Rashid points out, "No peace process in Afghanistan can succeed without Iran's full participation." And then there is India. Pakistan sees Indian involvement in Afghanistan as part of New Delhi's strategy to surround Pakistan, and India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists who attack Indian-controlled Kashmir and launched the horrendous 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Murphy's Law suggests that things are more likely to end in chaos than reasoned diplomacy. But self-interest is a powerful motivator, and all parties, including India, stands to gain something by ending the war. India very much wants to see the 1,050-mile TAPI pipeline built, as it will carry gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Fazilka, India.

A lot is at stake, and if getting the peace process going involved taking out Osama bin Laden, well, in the cynical world of the "Great Game," to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.

Back in the Victorian era the British Army marched off singing a song:

"We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do/
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too"

But in the 21st century most of our allies' armies don't want to fight, ships are useless in Afghanistan, there aren't enough men, and everyone is broke.

For 33 years the people of Afghanistan have been bombed, burned, shot, tortured and turned into refugees. For at least the moment the pieces are aligned to bring this awful war to an end. It is time to close the book on the "Great Game" and bring the troops home.

Originally published at Dispatches From the Edge.

Photo: Afridi picket near Jumrood, Khyber & Rotass in distance, 1878. With the spread of Russia's sphere of influence in Central Asia, British foreign policy in the 19th century was motivated by fears of their Indian Empire being vulnerable to Russian moves southwards. The Anglo-Russian rivalry in Asia, termed the Great Game, precipitated the Second Afghan War. The British were trying to establish a permanent mission at Kabul which the Amir Sher Ali, trying to keep a balance between the Russians and British, would not permit. The arrival of a Russian diplomatic mission in Kabul in 1878 increased British suspicions of Russian influence and ultimately led to them invading Afghanistan.

The Afridis were a powerful, independent Pashtun tribe inhabiting the Peshawar border of the North West Frontier Province, who defended their mountainous strongholds with tenacity and courage, impressing the British who took them on as troops. They had a reputation for being first rate soldiers and particularly good skirmishers. The Afridi soldiers are pictured with their jezails, long and heavy Afghan muskets, with which they were excellent sharpshooters. (John Burke/Wikimedia Commons/British Library)