In 2002, the Senate vote was 77-23. The vote in the House was 296-133 where only 126 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted NO. In the Senate it was 21 Dems. 1 Rep and one Ind. who voted NO. The Joint Resolution on which the vote was taken, #114, was also known as the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq).
Just a week after President Obama recently addressed the nation about the threat posed by Islamic State militants and asked Congress to approve arming and training Syrian rebels to fight them, lawmakers gave him what he wanted Thursday evening. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi backed the House measure, which passed on a 273-156 vote. Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell both supported Thursday’s vote which ended up 78-22 in favor.
As pointed out by RealClearPolitics.com, "the action was quick, by this Congress’ standards, and bipartisan, featuring the formation of atypical alliances -- but not without due drama and reservations. The 78-22 tally included nine Democrats and 12 Republicans voting no (along with independent Bernie Sanders). The Senate action follows House passage on Wednesday. Left largely unresolved, however, is the delicate issue of war. Congress’ authorization of aid to the vetted Syrian opposition expires on Dec. 11 along with the budget resolution, which means lawmakers must revisit the issue again.
In a four-minute speech immediately after the Senate vote, President Obama thanked Congress for "strong bipartisanship" that he said sends a message to "barbaric" ISIL terrorists that Americans, to be joined by France in air strikes in Iraq, stand united. He also repeated his assertion that the presence of more than 1,600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq is not a violation of what he called a "key principle of our strategy" that American forces in Iraq “do not and will not have a combat mission." The administration has maintained that it already has the authority it needs for air strikes inside Syria.
"But beyond this first partial measure, Congress still needs to grapple with the larger implications of military action. Pelosi said the president already has the authority he needs to move ahead with the rest of the ISIL plan, but the House minority leader was firm in saying she and her caucus would not support putting U.S. combat troops “in any of these engagements.” (RealClearPolitics.com).
It was good that Congress debated the matter. It was interesting that the Senate vote in 2002 and 2014 was so similar, except that more Republicans and fewer Democrats voted NAY in 2014. Many inferences can be drawn, but my one point is that nothing much changes when it comes to war. This was the one thing that both the Congress and the President could point to as a matter for agreement and bi-partisanship. In my mind, that's a sad commentary.
Nonetheless, it is clear that we are going after ISIL, and that is probably a necessary evil, because they promote murder of innocents, rape and selling of female children as sex slaves, and many other atrocities that will be in the news for whatever time it takes to deflate or destroy them.
In this Part III, I have just one more thing to say about the new warfare: it is our supposedly "lead from behind President" who has been using this method of warfare whenever it is necessary, along with coalition building, sanctions and infiltration into the secrets of the militants and terrorists. It is one more charge against this President that makes no sense unless it is combined with a hatred for the man, and with a bias and prejudice that is all-encompassing.
While Congress dawdles over every small or false issue it can find, the President has been taking bold action in many parts of the world that either goes unnoticed, or is ignored. Here are some examples from ThinkProgress.com that you probably heard about but then laid aside:
1) Hunted down and executed Osama bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda. The GOP refused to credit the Obama administration with planning and executing the raid and baselessly claimed the Bush administration’s torture program led to the killing of Bin Laden. Outcome: Bin Laden’s death brought an end to a nearly decade long manhunt. No civilians or U.S. military personnel were killed.
2) As CAP’s Brian Katulis and Peter Juul note, “the Al Qaeda network over the past three years suffered its greatest losses since the United States and its allies evicted the terrorist organization from Afghanistan in 2001.” One example: a drone attack that killed al Qaeda propagandist Anwar Al Awlaki, a U.S.-Yemeni dual citizen.
3) The Obama administration, led by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton pulled together an international coalition to approve and successfully execute a no-fly zone over Libya to protect anti-Qaddafi rebels.
4) In just seven months and spending only $1 billion, coalition forces helped the rebels successfully overthrow the Qaddafi regime on October 20, 2011.
5) Early in his presidency, President Obama promised that U.S. troops would end combat missions by late summer 2010. Combat missions formally ended on August 31, 2010. On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Of course the GOP response was negative despite the fact President Bush signed an agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2012, and despite once hailing the agreement signed by the Bush administration, Republicans called Obama's decision an “astonishing failure” and claimed Obama “lost the war in Iraq.”
6) The Obama administration has worked to tighten and enforce sanctions against Iran and on June 9, 2010, the U.N. Security Council, with the Obama administration’s encouragement, passed a new round of multilateral sanctions. Obama’s push on Iran at the United Nations has isolated the Islamic Republic internationally and the administration’s diplomats persuaded Russia and China to abstain from vetoing U.N. sanctions.
7) Supported pro-democracy groups in Egypt and told Mubarack to pack up and leave. He did so on Feb. 11, 2011
8) Strengthened US-Israeli relationship
Then, of course, there are a few things that have gone by the boards rather quickly, without much mention, but still with Republican criticism unabated:
1) Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
2). Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent. (Washington Monthly)
3) Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
4) Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.
5) Achieved New START Treaty: Signed with Russia (2010) and won ratification in Congress (2011) of treaty that limits each country to 1,550 strategic warheads (down from 2,200) and 700 launchers (down from more than 1,400), and reestablished and strengthened a monitoring and transparency program that had lapsed in 2009, through which each country can monitor the other.
6) Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense: Cut the Reagan-era “Star Wars” missile defense budget, saving $1.4 billion in 2010, and canceled plans to station antiballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of sea-based defense plan focused on Iran and North Korea.
7) Began Post-9/11 Military Builddown: After winning agreement from congressional Republicans and Democrats in summer 2011 budget deal to reduce projected defense spending by $450 billion, proposed new Defense budget with cuts of that size and a new national defense strategy that would shrink ground forces from 570,000 to 490,000 over the next ten years while increasing programs in intelligence gathering and cyber-warfare.
8) Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Appointed two envoys to Sudan and personally attended a special UN meeting on the area. Through U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, helped negotiate a peaceful split in 2011.
9) And, perhaps most importantly, after decade-long misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama announced an end to those wars and began reorienting U.S. interests away from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. The move was designed to acknowledge the strategic economic importance of our Asian trading partners, develop ties with emerging powerhouses like Indonesia, and provide a counterweight to China's growing military strength in the region. As Asia's importance and influence grow in the coming years, this might go down as one of Obama's most important accomplishments (The Week.com)
10) By the way, headlines of late have indicated an interest in Iran of talking with the U.S. administration about sanctions, about ISIL, and about Iraq and Syria. Amazing what a bit of strong action plus some patience can accomplish in foreign diplomacy, as contrasted with the all-out preemptive strike diplomacy of Republican hawks!
President Obama never gets the credit he deserves for the many accomplishments of his administration in both the domestic and foreign policy spheres. It's a shame, because he has actually accomplished a great deal of change for the better. I predict we will as a country begin to wish in the future that we had paid more attention to what he did, but moreover, to what he could have done if the voters had been more careful in their selection of Senators, Representatives, and Governors. Hopefully, the electorate will not make the same mistake in November 2014 that it did in 2010!
We began today's post with reference to something President Obama said at a news conference. When asked: "Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?" President Obama responded that he has "consulted with Congress throughout this process." Then he said the words that at least in the short-term posed a problem from those extremist war hawks on the right like Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Renee Ellmers, Sen. Jeff Flake.
"We don’t have a strategy yet," said President Obama. What President Obama said next was ignored by the extremist war hawks on the right. "I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are."
Obama added, 'And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.'
Sen. Rand Paul has separated himself from the mainstream war hawks in the Republican Party in discussing Iraq, saying to NBC News last June, "I don't blame President Obama." Sen. Paul says many critics who blame the president for the ferocious Islamist insurgency there, like former Vice President Dick Cheney, should take a look in the mirror. Sen. Paul questioned, "Were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? Was the war won in 2005, when many of those people said it was won?" "They didn't, really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out," Sen. Paul said.
Rest assured Obama will be more thoughtful on the question of military action, in contrast to the thoughtlessness of the Bush administration, owing to their shoot-from-the hip foreign policy of preemptive strikes. "(DigitalJournal.com)
A fair conclusion to our discussion was found at Foreignaffairs.com:
"The Obama approach has been relatively non-ideological in practice but informed by a realistic overarching sense of the United States' role in the world in the twenty-first century. The tone has been neither that of American triumphalism and exceptionalism nor one of American decline. On balance, this approach has been effective, conveying a degree of openness to the views of other leaders and the interests of other nations while still projecting confidence and leadership.
Judged by the standard of protecting American interests, Obama's foreign policy so far has worked out quite well; judged by the standard of fulfilling his vision of a new global order, it remains very much a work in progress."
Publius Speaks
Become A Follower
9/15/2014
The War Plan, Part II
I wrote last week about what I consider the real plan of War with ISIL that exists behind the scenes. Based on the President's speech, one would tend to think that the U.S. doesn't have large numbers of special ops forces stationed all over the Middle East and part of Africa. Moreover, it sounds as though we have not used thousands of drone attacks to take out the leadership of Al Qaeda. On the other hand, because these are all fundamentally "secret" operations, one might expect to hear very little about them.
What we did hear about is a strategic plan not unlike those used before in Desert Storm (George H.W. Bush), and to a lesser extent in Iraq and Afghanistan (George W. Bush and President Obama). Now to be used mostly in Iraq, but also aimed at ISIL within Syria, a similar 4-point Plan seems to be the best we can do without putting regular combat forces on the ground.
#1 -- air strikes (150 over the past month); there is no safe haven because Syria is not off limits
#2 -- increase support of troops on the ground by depending on other countries to provide them; perhaps even Arab countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia
#3 -- counter terrorism measures will be used, such as cutting off funding, or stemming their advances, improving our intelligence; training national armies and groups
#4 -- humanitarian support to communities at risk; to refugees driven from their homelands including Sunni & Shia Muslims and religious minorities
The key to it all, of course, is the support of other countries, and the build-up mainly of the Iraqi national military. Today the latest news from MSN includes the following:
"With memories of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq still fresh, the U.S. has so far been alone in carrying out air-strikes and no country has offered ground troops. But French reconnaissance jets made their first sorties on Monday, French officials said. An American official said several Arab countries had offered to conduct air-strikes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive issues.
"The terrorist threat is global and the response must be global," French President Francois Hollande said, opening a diplomatic conference Monday intended to come up with an international strategy against the group. 'There is no time to lose'."It is obvious that this will be a slow process that cannot happen overnight . The President said we have the capacity to lead against this uniquely brutal force, and that we must do so. He also said we should welcome the responsibility to lead toward justice, freedom and peace , as we did on that Iraqi mountain- Mt. Sinjar - where civilians who were trapped were evacuated and saved from being massacred. He also said he needs the support of Congress in funding this Plan.
Although I support the President in his difficult role as Commander-in-Chief, I am very uneasy with the process we employ to choose the war option, and I feel obliged to raise some fundamental questions in regard to this Plan:
1) Where does the obligation come from? On what do we base that belief that we have a responsibility to lead the world toward democratic ideals and constitutional government. It's just a bit too evangelical for me.
2) Why is War now treated as a non-negotiable action that can be made by the President without a congressional Declaration of War? Have we gone too far away from the Constitution's vision that Congress must share the burden of this major decision? The War Powers Act may have denuded one of the basics of our Constitution: that of checks and balances. There should always be a debate about going to War, and a declaration from Congress that they have debated it and are behind it.
3) The Middle East is a quagmire. The issues there have persisted for thousands of years. What makes us think that we can resolve problems between various factions and make everything right? We can't...and we shouldn't be attempting to do so.
4) Is it enough to declare war on the basis of vague threats against our homeland that may or may not be possible, and because ISIL beheaded two American journalists and threatens more such killings? Or, is it because ISIL believes they have a mission to build a new Caliphate that stretches across the borders of several Arab countries, and a mission to attack certain countries, including our own? This sounds vaguely familiar. Remember the concept of the Sudetenland - the German Nazi equivalent of territories that stretched across national borders into several European countries like Austria-Hungary, Southern Bohemia and Czechoslovakia? This uber-nationalistic fervor may be the real threat for it ignores the sovereignty of nations, the protection of innocents and minority populations while rolling over and devastating certain populations (like the Kurds, Christians, the Shia or Sunnis).
Even though we continue to use weapons and tactics and strategies that mimic the wars of the past between nations, we are not fighting the same kind of war. We are now involved (as many think we should be) in a long-term ideological, counter-terrorist, containment-type series of confrontations with a foe that will at times change or morph into another group or unit.
And what we have here is a reality that will not go away anytime soon. The United States is hated by these terrorist groups and our destruction is one of their primary goals. Given that bellicose stance, many voices say there is little we can do but to seek to prevent these militant faux Islamists from getting anywhere near our shores. We are thus involved in a war of self-defense and of pro-active offense at the same time. Unless moderate Muslims decide to arm themselves and fight for their religious beliefs and for the safety and security of their own nations, there will be no easy peace, and no backing off from constant war.
Had we not gone to Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, we would not be in the untenable situation in which we find ourselves. In other words, we chose two wars of the type with which we were familiar, in order to seek "justice" for the attacks and deaths of 9/11. What we wanted was "revenge" not justice, and we did get it somewhat in Afghanistan by destroying Taliban cells, and by taking out the leader of Al Qaeda (Osama bin Laden; albeit in Pakistan!), as well as many in their leadership.
It took us over ten years of war at a cost of too many young lives. As of August 4, 2014, there have been 2,201 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan and additional 134 fatalities in the broader Operation Enduring Freedom outside Afghanistan. 1,819 of these deaths inside Afghanistan have been the result of hostile action. 19, 964 American service members have been wounded in action during the war. In addition there are 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities (reported by Wikipedia from other sources).
The Congressional Research Service reported to Congress on March 29, 2013 the following costs of the War on Terror since 9/11:
"With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.
48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Of this $1.283 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $806 billion (63%), OEF $444 billion (35%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (2%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans." (emphasis mine)
We are still paying in more than money for the veterans who were physically and mentally maimed and disfigured. Ten years, and all that money, mayhem and maiming to produce what in the end? The dismantling, perhaps, of a terrorist group - the Taliban - that at its zenith may have numbered around 25,000. The training of Afghan forces to fight their own battles? That's ironic, since the Mushahadeen had fought off Britain, France and Russia before us. Once again, we should never have gone there to fight a conventional war, but it appears we were not ready for a new kind of warfare.
Iraq was a huge mistake from the very beginning. It was not a war for justice, but for revenge upon Saddam Hussein who threatened the life of our 41st President and felt the vengeful wrath of his son, #43. But I have written on that subject before, and do not feel obliged to repeat what I have said. The question is: what did we get out of ten years of war in Iraq? What did we accomplish of a lasting nature that will enable Iraqis to lead better lives? What did we win? I truthfully do not know. We killed Saddam. We trained some troops (many of whom ran away in the face of ISIL), and now we are sending some more "advisors" to re-train them. (Does this sound familiar: that's how we got embroiled in Viet Nam!). We got rid of al-Maliki as Prime Minister, but what difference does that make if Sunni and Shia can not find common ground or common cause?
What does it all mean to the thousands (no, millions) of Iraqi citizens killed or wounded and to the Iraqi refugees who have fled from their devastated homeland? Here are a few statistics from Brown University's research in 2013: There have been at least 133,000 civilians killed by direct violence since the invasion. The actual number is unknown but likely much higher. Approximately 1.5 million people are still displaced from their homes.
5) Are we hailed as conquering heroes? Not so much -- more as conquerors and invaders. The only good thing about the war in Iraq is that we finally made up our minds to leave! Too bad we can't leave well enough alone, withdraw all Americans troops and civilians, and let the Iraqis find a way out of their ancient (religious and secular) disagreements and bellicose entanglements. We can provide humanitarian and other help as required.
6) Have we, as in our past, chosen to fight because of a need for revenge? What we seem unable to learn is that revenge or vengeance or honor or national pride are all cyclical in their nature. They can never be satisfied, because one side or the other must always seek to avenge that wrong that they perceive coming from the other side. Look briefly at Israel and the Palestinians. They have been going at this for thousands of years, and there is no end in sight because revenge and vengeance can never be satisfied. One side has to be willing to lay on the table another way to relate, a way to seek common benefits and common ground, and common cause. One side has to lay aside the past atrocities; one side has to say "enough". We must find a way out of killing, of grabbing land, of building enmity instead of peace. One side has to say, let us put the past behind us and move together into the future. They are not ready to do so. Are the Kurds and the Afghans ready to do so? Are the Shia and the Sunnis ready to do so? Not likely...
So here is my take on the 4-point war plan in relation to what I have just said. A substantial and familiar Plan, except it leaves out one large caveat -- we cannot re-solve the enmities, the hatreds, the flaws of other cultures.
We continue to make a basic mistake that is made by many nascent counselors -- you cannot solve the problems of other people for them! You can offer suggestions in the form of options, you can offer support for positive behaviors, you can offer personal empathy for pain and hurt that the patients manifest, you can listen and offer your concern. But, you can't solve their problems for them, and the worst thing you can do is to be drawn into their problems by being manipulated, challenged or belittled. The wise counselor learns at some point that the patient owns the problem and must take responsibility for that problem. It will not be solved by the counselor's personal intervention or by confrontation or even by bribery! The person who owns the problem must address the problem and utilize the resources offered as aids in that process. He or she must find the way out, hopefully with the expert guidance and coaching of the counselor, and others.
We have not, as a nation, learned that lesson. We allow ourselves to be drawn into the problems of other countries who manipulate us into giving them money, weapons, trainers and other personnel. We give in as well to our own mythologies of honor on the battlefield, of pride in our status, of revenge not only as a viable human trait but as a virtue we should pursue. We as a nation are trapped by our "exceptionalism", believing that we have a manifest destiny to lead the world in the true paths of education, democracy and freedom, while at home we struggle mightily with our own flaws in these areas. We have the false perception that without us, there is no answer. That is why "isolationism" has such a bad reputation. Staying out of other peoples' business is not seen as a virtue, but as a sign of weakness. A strange twist. We have people like John McCain who can't seem to see anything amiss in the world without wanting us to become militarily involved.
And finally, we are betrayed by our own sense of mission. We think it incumbent upon us to spread the good news of democratic values and institutions to all nations so that the people of the world can all have the possibility of reaping the benefits of democracy (and capitalism). It is reminiscent of the evangelical fervor of certain early Christian missionaries who belittled, negated and destroyed the native cultures of so many around the globe in the name of a sacred mission. As one who knows that side of Christianity first hand, I take no pride in the missionary spirit that negated the positives of certain cultures in order to gain converts to their churches that then discriminated against the very people they had baptized into their Faith.
We are not the saviors of this world. There are other ways to bring our successes to others. There are other ways to aid those in need. There are other ways to interact with countries, and even with cells of enemies. But just as the Middle East is not ready to find new ways to act toward other nations, so we too are failing in our interactions. We must get forces out of the Middle East and out of Africa and send in mentors, advisors and teachers. We must stop giving weapons to nations and groups just because they want them, or just because we need to bribe them to be "on our side." Can we not approach nations from the standpoint of peace and ask, what can we do together to promote peace, prosperity, education and health in your country (but no weapons). Can't we begin to contract with governments and groups around the world in mutual attempts at finding creative ways to combat the real enemies of disease, hunger, and ignorance? Must we always be forming military or economic alliances? What about alliances for peace and good will?
The President's four-point Plan for devastating the ISIL forces is indicative of where we are in our defining moments. We are at war, again. Sometimes we have tried to break out of old patterns. The Peace Corps was an example. The Gates and Clinton international Foundations are examples. The Carter foundation has made peaceful contributions throughout the world. Why must our government display only its military might and prowess, when we have so much to give in the pursuit of peace and human development? If we must be at war, can we not also find ways to be pursuing peace?
There was a moment in time when the ISIL organization was rumored to be a group delivering services like garbage collection and food distribution. Perhaps we needed right then to offer to join in humanitarian efforts with them, and others, to meet the needs of many of those caught up in the exigencies of war. We are, and have been, neglectful of our peaceful humanitarian side of this equation of approaches to what many consider militant and flawed nations and groups. It is time for us to catch up with our better angels.
Could President Obama's 4-point plan contain a fifth point that emphasizes a new approach to militancy? I don't have a definitive answer, but we might find out something if we made negotiations and good will gestures a part of our overall strategy. Oh gosh, I forgot -- it's another sign of weakness to talk with enemies -- it borders on appeasement. Remember Andrew Young and the Palestinians - fired as UN ambassador because he wanted to hold talks with the likes of Yassir Arafat. Remember Yitzhak Rabin - shot dead by a countryman because he wanted to offer an olive branch (even land, God forbid) to the Palestinians. Remember Nelson Mandela - excoriated by some for pushing an agenda of reconciliation. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. jailed more than once by the white establishment for his actions of non-violent protest, and yet he always held open the possibility of negotiations and peaceful means of advancing the cause of Civil Rights for African Americans.
I have no doubt that the President is talking and negotiating behind the scenes as he has done with Putin of Russia, Musharraf of Pakistan, with Mubarak of Egypt and probably with some of the leaders of Iran. But peaceful means of resolving tense problems did not make it into the Plan, and we all know why. The forces of vengeance and revenge are not tolerant of what they perceive as appeasing the enemy. They want none of it. And that is why we remain mired in a part of the world in which we have no business being present as a military force.
We are the victims of our own militant mythologies. We struggle with peace because we cannot shake the concepts of the Wild West, rugged individualism, the survival of the mightiest or the fittest (Social Darwinism), and the ever-present belief that violence is the only way to approach threats or insults. War is at the heart of many of our celebrations and national holidays because war is where we believe true valor and comradeship are found. We are the bearers of an enormous burden because we believe it is necessary to use violence to back up our myths founded on the concept of dominance. (Even in domestic relationships, we find that myth is all too prevalent). We have never resolved our deep-rooted folklore about strength and weakness, nor about the beguiling conundrum of Power. We confuse power with dominance and weakness with grace and humility when the religious documents that underlay our culture say exactly the opposite. We tell our young men to "stand up to that bully" or "shake it off and act like a Man" or "Man Up." We tell our young women to be strong at the same time that we teach them, and legally force upon them, an attitude of compliance, and too often, that of inferiority.
We are not ready to be the saviors of anybody's country, or anyone's culture, or anyone's political structure until we have resolved our own flaws and short-comings. We are strong militarily but not so strong a moral force for openness, good will, cooperation, acceptance of differences, self-sacrifice for the good of the many. While we are known for humanitarian efforts to other countries, we do not know how to approach enemies with olive branches and gifts of reconciliation. In fact, we eschew the very idea because it smacks of surrender or appeasement or self-deprecation. What we constantly overlook and ignore is the power of peaceful interactions and the positive power of our humanitarian services and our abundant technological and sociological resources. The war option is not the only means at our disposal for resolving international issues.
What we did hear about is a strategic plan not unlike those used before in Desert Storm (George H.W. Bush), and to a lesser extent in Iraq and Afghanistan (George W. Bush and President Obama). Now to be used mostly in Iraq, but also aimed at ISIL within Syria, a similar 4-point Plan seems to be the best we can do without putting regular combat forces on the ground.
#1 -- air strikes (150 over the past month); there is no safe haven because Syria is not off limits
#2 -- increase support of troops on the ground by depending on other countries to provide them; perhaps even Arab countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia
#3 -- counter terrorism measures will be used, such as cutting off funding, or stemming their advances, improving our intelligence; training national armies and groups
#4 -- humanitarian support to communities at risk; to refugees driven from their homelands including Sunni & Shia Muslims and religious minorities
The key to it all, of course, is the support of other countries, and the build-up mainly of the Iraqi national military. Today the latest news from MSN includes the following:
"With memories of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq still fresh, the U.S. has so far been alone in carrying out air-strikes and no country has offered ground troops. But French reconnaissance jets made their first sorties on Monday, French officials said. An American official said several Arab countries had offered to conduct air-strikes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive issues.
"The terrorist threat is global and the response must be global," French President Francois Hollande said, opening a diplomatic conference Monday intended to come up with an international strategy against the group. 'There is no time to lose'."It is obvious that this will be a slow process that cannot happen overnight . The President said we have the capacity to lead against this uniquely brutal force, and that we must do so. He also said we should welcome the responsibility to lead toward justice, freedom and peace , as we did on that Iraqi mountain- Mt. Sinjar - where civilians who were trapped were evacuated and saved from being massacred. He also said he needs the support of Congress in funding this Plan.
Although I support the President in his difficult role as Commander-in-Chief, I am very uneasy with the process we employ to choose the war option, and I feel obliged to raise some fundamental questions in regard to this Plan:
1) Where does the obligation come from? On what do we base that belief that we have a responsibility to lead the world toward democratic ideals and constitutional government. It's just a bit too evangelical for me.
2) Why is War now treated as a non-negotiable action that can be made by the President without a congressional Declaration of War? Have we gone too far away from the Constitution's vision that Congress must share the burden of this major decision? The War Powers Act may have denuded one of the basics of our Constitution: that of checks and balances. There should always be a debate about going to War, and a declaration from Congress that they have debated it and are behind it.
3) The Middle East is a quagmire. The issues there have persisted for thousands of years. What makes us think that we can resolve problems between various factions and make everything right? We can't...and we shouldn't be attempting to do so.
4) Is it enough to declare war on the basis of vague threats against our homeland that may or may not be possible, and because ISIL beheaded two American journalists and threatens more such killings? Or, is it because ISIL believes they have a mission to build a new Caliphate that stretches across the borders of several Arab countries, and a mission to attack certain countries, including our own? This sounds vaguely familiar. Remember the concept of the Sudetenland - the German Nazi equivalent of territories that stretched across national borders into several European countries like Austria-Hungary, Southern Bohemia and Czechoslovakia? This uber-nationalistic fervor may be the real threat for it ignores the sovereignty of nations, the protection of innocents and minority populations while rolling over and devastating certain populations (like the Kurds, Christians, the Shia or Sunnis).
Even though we continue to use weapons and tactics and strategies that mimic the wars of the past between nations, we are not fighting the same kind of war. We are now involved (as many think we should be) in a long-term ideological, counter-terrorist, containment-type series of confrontations with a foe that will at times change or morph into another group or unit.
And what we have here is a reality that will not go away anytime soon. The United States is hated by these terrorist groups and our destruction is one of their primary goals. Given that bellicose stance, many voices say there is little we can do but to seek to prevent these militant faux Islamists from getting anywhere near our shores. We are thus involved in a war of self-defense and of pro-active offense at the same time. Unless moderate Muslims decide to arm themselves and fight for their religious beliefs and for the safety and security of their own nations, there will be no easy peace, and no backing off from constant war.
Had we not gone to Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, we would not be in the untenable situation in which we find ourselves. In other words, we chose two wars of the type with which we were familiar, in order to seek "justice" for the attacks and deaths of 9/11. What we wanted was "revenge" not justice, and we did get it somewhat in Afghanistan by destroying Taliban cells, and by taking out the leader of Al Qaeda (Osama bin Laden; albeit in Pakistan!), as well as many in their leadership.
It took us over ten years of war at a cost of too many young lives. As of August 4, 2014, there have been 2,201 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan and additional 134 fatalities in the broader Operation Enduring Freedom outside Afghanistan. 1,819 of these deaths inside Afghanistan have been the result of hostile action. 19, 964 American service members have been wounded in action during the war. In addition there are 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities (reported by Wikipedia from other sources).
The Congressional Research Service reported to Congress on March 29, 2013 the following costs of the War on Terror since 9/11:
"With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.
48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Of this $1.283 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $806 billion (63%), OEF $444 billion (35%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (2%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans." (emphasis mine)
We are still paying in more than money for the veterans who were physically and mentally maimed and disfigured. Ten years, and all that money, mayhem and maiming to produce what in the end? The dismantling, perhaps, of a terrorist group - the Taliban - that at its zenith may have numbered around 25,000. The training of Afghan forces to fight their own battles? That's ironic, since the Mushahadeen had fought off Britain, France and Russia before us. Once again, we should never have gone there to fight a conventional war, but it appears we were not ready for a new kind of warfare.
Iraq was a huge mistake from the very beginning. It was not a war for justice, but for revenge upon Saddam Hussein who threatened the life of our 41st President and felt the vengeful wrath of his son, #43. But I have written on that subject before, and do not feel obliged to repeat what I have said. The question is: what did we get out of ten years of war in Iraq? What did we accomplish of a lasting nature that will enable Iraqis to lead better lives? What did we win? I truthfully do not know. We killed Saddam. We trained some troops (many of whom ran away in the face of ISIL), and now we are sending some more "advisors" to re-train them. (Does this sound familiar: that's how we got embroiled in Viet Nam!). We got rid of al-Maliki as Prime Minister, but what difference does that make if Sunni and Shia can not find common ground or common cause?
What does it all mean to the thousands (no, millions) of Iraqi citizens killed or wounded and to the Iraqi refugees who have fled from their devastated homeland? Here are a few statistics from Brown University's research in 2013: There have been at least 133,000 civilians killed by direct violence since the invasion. The actual number is unknown but likely much higher. Approximately 1.5 million people are still displaced from their homes.
5) Are we hailed as conquering heroes? Not so much -- more as conquerors and invaders. The only good thing about the war in Iraq is that we finally made up our minds to leave! Too bad we can't leave well enough alone, withdraw all Americans troops and civilians, and let the Iraqis find a way out of their ancient (religious and secular) disagreements and bellicose entanglements. We can provide humanitarian and other help as required.
6) Have we, as in our past, chosen to fight because of a need for revenge? What we seem unable to learn is that revenge or vengeance or honor or national pride are all cyclical in their nature. They can never be satisfied, because one side or the other must always seek to avenge that wrong that they perceive coming from the other side. Look briefly at Israel and the Palestinians. They have been going at this for thousands of years, and there is no end in sight because revenge and vengeance can never be satisfied. One side has to be willing to lay on the table another way to relate, a way to seek common benefits and common ground, and common cause. One side has to lay aside the past atrocities; one side has to say "enough". We must find a way out of killing, of grabbing land, of building enmity instead of peace. One side has to say, let us put the past behind us and move together into the future. They are not ready to do so. Are the Kurds and the Afghans ready to do so? Are the Shia and the Sunnis ready to do so? Not likely...
So here is my take on the 4-point war plan in relation to what I have just said. A substantial and familiar Plan, except it leaves out one large caveat -- we cannot re-solve the enmities, the hatreds, the flaws of other cultures.
We continue to make a basic mistake that is made by many nascent counselors -- you cannot solve the problems of other people for them! You can offer suggestions in the form of options, you can offer support for positive behaviors, you can offer personal empathy for pain and hurt that the patients manifest, you can listen and offer your concern. But, you can't solve their problems for them, and the worst thing you can do is to be drawn into their problems by being manipulated, challenged or belittled. The wise counselor learns at some point that the patient owns the problem and must take responsibility for that problem. It will not be solved by the counselor's personal intervention or by confrontation or even by bribery! The person who owns the problem must address the problem and utilize the resources offered as aids in that process. He or she must find the way out, hopefully with the expert guidance and coaching of the counselor, and others.
We have not, as a nation, learned that lesson. We allow ourselves to be drawn into the problems of other countries who manipulate us into giving them money, weapons, trainers and other personnel. We give in as well to our own mythologies of honor on the battlefield, of pride in our status, of revenge not only as a viable human trait but as a virtue we should pursue. We as a nation are trapped by our "exceptionalism", believing that we have a manifest destiny to lead the world in the true paths of education, democracy and freedom, while at home we struggle mightily with our own flaws in these areas. We have the false perception that without us, there is no answer. That is why "isolationism" has such a bad reputation. Staying out of other peoples' business is not seen as a virtue, but as a sign of weakness. A strange twist. We have people like John McCain who can't seem to see anything amiss in the world without wanting us to become militarily involved.
And finally, we are betrayed by our own sense of mission. We think it incumbent upon us to spread the good news of democratic values and institutions to all nations so that the people of the world can all have the possibility of reaping the benefits of democracy (and capitalism). It is reminiscent of the evangelical fervor of certain early Christian missionaries who belittled, negated and destroyed the native cultures of so many around the globe in the name of a sacred mission. As one who knows that side of Christianity first hand, I take no pride in the missionary spirit that negated the positives of certain cultures in order to gain converts to their churches that then discriminated against the very people they had baptized into their Faith.
We are not the saviors of this world. There are other ways to bring our successes to others. There are other ways to aid those in need. There are other ways to interact with countries, and even with cells of enemies. But just as the Middle East is not ready to find new ways to act toward other nations, so we too are failing in our interactions. We must get forces out of the Middle East and out of Africa and send in mentors, advisors and teachers. We must stop giving weapons to nations and groups just because they want them, or just because we need to bribe them to be "on our side." Can we not approach nations from the standpoint of peace and ask, what can we do together to promote peace, prosperity, education and health in your country (but no weapons). Can't we begin to contract with governments and groups around the world in mutual attempts at finding creative ways to combat the real enemies of disease, hunger, and ignorance? Must we always be forming military or economic alliances? What about alliances for peace and good will?
The President's four-point Plan for devastating the ISIL forces is indicative of where we are in our defining moments. We are at war, again. Sometimes we have tried to break out of old patterns. The Peace Corps was an example. The Gates and Clinton international Foundations are examples. The Carter foundation has made peaceful contributions throughout the world. Why must our government display only its military might and prowess, when we have so much to give in the pursuit of peace and human development? If we must be at war, can we not also find ways to be pursuing peace?
There was a moment in time when the ISIL organization was rumored to be a group delivering services like garbage collection and food distribution. Perhaps we needed right then to offer to join in humanitarian efforts with them, and others, to meet the needs of many of those caught up in the exigencies of war. We are, and have been, neglectful of our peaceful humanitarian side of this equation of approaches to what many consider militant and flawed nations and groups. It is time for us to catch up with our better angels.
Could President Obama's 4-point plan contain a fifth point that emphasizes a new approach to militancy? I don't have a definitive answer, but we might find out something if we made negotiations and good will gestures a part of our overall strategy. Oh gosh, I forgot -- it's another sign of weakness to talk with enemies -- it borders on appeasement. Remember Andrew Young and the Palestinians - fired as UN ambassador because he wanted to hold talks with the likes of Yassir Arafat. Remember Yitzhak Rabin - shot dead by a countryman because he wanted to offer an olive branch (even land, God forbid) to the Palestinians. Remember Nelson Mandela - excoriated by some for pushing an agenda of reconciliation. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. jailed more than once by the white establishment for his actions of non-violent protest, and yet he always held open the possibility of negotiations and peaceful means of advancing the cause of Civil Rights for African Americans.
I have no doubt that the President is talking and negotiating behind the scenes as he has done with Putin of Russia, Musharraf of Pakistan, with Mubarak of Egypt and probably with some of the leaders of Iran. But peaceful means of resolving tense problems did not make it into the Plan, and we all know why. The forces of vengeance and revenge are not tolerant of what they perceive as appeasing the enemy. They want none of it. And that is why we remain mired in a part of the world in which we have no business being present as a military force.
We are the victims of our own militant mythologies. We struggle with peace because we cannot shake the concepts of the Wild West, rugged individualism, the survival of the mightiest or the fittest (Social Darwinism), and the ever-present belief that violence is the only way to approach threats or insults. War is at the heart of many of our celebrations and national holidays because war is where we believe true valor and comradeship are found. We are the bearers of an enormous burden because we believe it is necessary to use violence to back up our myths founded on the concept of dominance. (Even in domestic relationships, we find that myth is all too prevalent). We have never resolved our deep-rooted folklore about strength and weakness, nor about the beguiling conundrum of Power. We confuse power with dominance and weakness with grace and humility when the religious documents that underlay our culture say exactly the opposite. We tell our young men to "stand up to that bully" or "shake it off and act like a Man" or "Man Up." We tell our young women to be strong at the same time that we teach them, and legally force upon them, an attitude of compliance, and too often, that of inferiority.
We are not ready to be the saviors of anybody's country, or anyone's culture, or anyone's political structure until we have resolved our own flaws and short-comings. We are strong militarily but not so strong a moral force for openness, good will, cooperation, acceptance of differences, self-sacrifice for the good of the many. While we are known for humanitarian efforts to other countries, we do not know how to approach enemies with olive branches and gifts of reconciliation. In fact, we eschew the very idea because it smacks of surrender or appeasement or self-deprecation. What we constantly overlook and ignore is the power of peaceful interactions and the positive power of our humanitarian services and our abundant technological and sociological resources. The war option is not the only means at our disposal for resolving international issues.
9/07/2014
A NEW WAR PLAN IN EFFECT: Can strategies be far behind?
As of last Friday, John McCain and Lindsey Graham wanted more decisive action taken against ISIS; the Senators said in a statement:
“The President is right to provide humanitarian relief to the Iraqi civilians stranded on Mount Sinjar and to authorize military strikes against ISIS forces that are threatening them, our Kurdish allies, and our own personnel in northern Iraq. However, these actions are far from sufficient to meet the growing threat that ISIS poses. We need a strategic approach, not just a humanitarian one. We need to get beyond a policy of half measures. The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS.”
I'm sorry. Where in that carefully crafted statement is a real strategy from them? Thank your lucky stars that these two are not running our Executive Branch of Government! They can't even articulate one plausible action to take against ISIS. Their statement contains nothing but code words for "Obama is a failure at foreign policy." "Authorize military strikes" is not a strategy; "far from sufficient" tells us nothing concrete; "growing threat" - reminds us of similar fear tactics used in the past - remember when they said the same thing about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden? "half measures" - better half than nothing like what they have; "devise a comprehensive strategy" - they know its being devised right now!
Since they already know what that strategy is (as Senator Barbara Boxer explained in an interview on TV a few nights ago), they are either being disingenuous, or they are trying to hurt the President and his Party politically; OR, they are anything but patriots as they make up untruths about the leaders of our armed forces. It is important to remember that the President is not the one mapping military strategy -- the Pentagon and its military Brass map it out and the President gets to question, debate, discuss, ask for more information, and then approve or disapprove what comes before him. I would be willing to bet, however, that because of his intellectual prowess and his ability to absorb information and facts on any issue or problem (like healthcare) that the President is not just a passive player in military strategizing.
Please follow me now on a brief "tour" of the Plan that is in place, and that is already operating as we speak. And by the way, a Plan is like broad-based Goals that set a direction for strategy. "Strategy" is like action steps or objectives, encompassing actual concrete steps to be taken as to how and when to utilize the resources one has or the information (intelligence) one has gathered. When the President said "we don't have a strategy yet" he didn't mean there is no Plan. He meant, in my estimation, that the actual steps for how to implement that Plan were still being discussed and debated by the military and intelligence people. This is not at all unusual in any situation that demands careful planning rather than precipitous action similar to what got us involved in a war in Iraq in the first place (see my Blog of June 22, 2014).
Special Ops Forces
Militant terrorist forces (or "guerilla" forces, as we used to call them) that cross borders, hide out in caves, strike at night, terrorize and use local populations as defensive shields, and who have secret backing from some nations and rich "friends," have never been that easy to counteract. However, we have learned some things from our past, and are currently engaging forces of our own that are, shall we say, clandestine in their efforts. Keep in mind just one operation that everyone knows about: the tracking down and killing of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of that other terrorist group, Al Qaeda. If you stop at Bin Laden, you have missed an important point: the leadership of Al Qaeda has been devastated by our pursuit of them. And now, Al Qaeda must endure the spectacle of another group getting all the attention they used to be able to command.
Here's part of the story we keep forgetting or over-looking, summarized by The Nation.com:
"U.S. Special Operations Command was established in 1987. Made up of units from all the service branches, SOCOM is tasked with carrying out Washington's most specialized and secret missions, including assassinations, counterterrorist raids, special reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, psychological operations, foreign troop training and weapons of mass destruction counter-proliferation operations.
"In the post-9/11 era, the Command has grown steadily. With about 33,000 personnel in 2001, it is reportedly on track to reach 72,000 in 2014. (About half the numbers are called, in the jargon of the trade, "badged operators - SEALs, Rangers, Green Berets-- while the rest are support personnel). Funding for the Command also jumped exponentially as SOCOM's baseline budget tripled from $2.3 billion to $6.9 billion between 2001 and 2013. If you add in supplemental funding, it has actually more than quadrupled to $10.4 billion.
"(As of 2013) about 11,000 special operators are now working abroad at any one time and on any given day, they are in 70-80 countries, though The New York Times reported that, according to statistics provided to them by SOCOM, during one week in March 2013 that number reached 92." (see Map below)
SOCOM has command of the following Special Ops forces:
Army: Rangers (Tan Berets)
Special Forces (Green Berets)
Delta Force
2 National Guard Special Forces
Navy: SEAL Teams
Air Force: Air Force Special Ops
Marines: Special Ops Command
2 Special Ops Battalions
Each group apparently has their "specialties" for which training is beyond rigorous. For example, Rangers generally specialize in parachuting into combat action to perform strikes and ambushes and to capture enemy airfields. They gain special proficiency for operating in a mountainous environment. Navy SEALs operate on the seas, and use clandestine methods against targets that larger forces cannot approach undetected.
"Last year, Admiral McRaven, who previously headed the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC—a clandestine sub-command that specializes in tracking and killing suspected terrorists—touted his vision for special ops globalization. In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee, he said: 'USSOCOM is enhancing its global network of SOF to support our interagency and international partners in order to gain expanded situational awareness of emerging threats and opportunities. The network enables small, persistent presence in critical locations, and facilitates engagement where necessary or appropriate…'
"In translation this means that SOCOM is weaving a complex web of alliances with government agencies at home and militaries abroad to ensure that it’s at the center of every conceivable global hot spot and power center. In fact, Special Operations Command has turned the planet into a giant battlefield, divided into many discrete fronts.
Not content with a global presence in the physical world, SOCOM has also taken to cyberspace where it operates the Trans Regional Web Initiative, a network of ten propaganda websites that are run by various combatant commands and made to look like legitimate news outlets. These shadowy sites—including KhabarSouthAsia.com; Magharebia, which targets North Africa; an effort aimed at the Middle East known as Al-Shorfa.com; and another targeting Latin America called Infosurhoy.com—state only in fine print that they are 'sponsored by' the US military."
Here is a map of where our Special Ops Forces have been stationed:
Key to the Map of US Special Operations Forces around the world, 2012-2013
Red markers: US Special Operations Forces deployment in 2013.
Blue markers: US Special Operations Forces working with/training/advising/conducting operations with indigenous troops in the U.S. or a third country during 2013.
Purple markers: US Special Operations Forces deployment in 2012.
Yellow markers: US Special Operations Forces working with/training/advising/conducting operations with indigenous troops in the US or a third country during 2012.
"Today, Special Operations Command finds itself at a crossroads. It is attempting to influence populations overseas, while at home trying to keep Americans in the dark about its activities; expanding its reach, impact, and influence, while working to remain deep in the shadows; conducting operations all over the globe, while professing only to be operating in “a number of locations”; claiming worldwide deployments have markedly dropped in the last year, when evidence suggests otherwise." (based on an original piece from TomDispatch.com).
So there you have an overview of the Plan already in place. We have troops on the ground. We have special operations being planned continuously. And, what's more, Senators McCain and Graham know all this, yet they persist in betraying their President by shoddy rhetoric when all along they know they are covering up what is really going on in terms of a global strategy. They are the problem because they do not speak the truth, nor do they dare sponsor a war resolution because they know what that will unleash in terms of special ops. They are the deceivers and the obstructionists, along with all their Republican colleagues who are engaged in taunting rhetoric, but not in honest dialogue with the voting public, or with the President. There's another part to this global plan. We know something about it, but not a lot.
Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes
by Cora Currier, ProPublica
Jan. 11, 2013, 1:14 p.m.
"You might have heard about the "kill list." You've certainly heard about drones. But the details of the U.S. campaign against militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia -- a centerpiece of the Obama administration's national security approach remain shrouded in secrecy. Here's our guide to what we know and what we don't know.
Where is the drone war? Who carries it out?
Drones have been the Obama administration's tool of choice for taking out militants outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. By one estimate, 95 percent of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones.
The first reported drone strike against Al Qaeda happened in Yemen in 2002. The CIA ramped up secret drone strikes in Pakistan under President George W. Bush in 2008. Under Obama, they have expanded drastically there and in Yemen in 2011.
The CIA isn't alone in conducting drone strikes. The military has acknowledged "direct action" in Yemen and Somalia. Strikes in those countries are reportedly carried out by the secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command. Since 9/11, JSOC has grown more than tenfold, taking on intelligence-gathering as well as combat roles. (For example, JSOC was responsible for the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden.)
The drone war is carried out remotely, from the U.S. and a network of secret bases around the world. The Washington Post got a glimpse through examining construction contracts and showing up uninvited at the base in the tiny African nation of Djibouti from which many of the strikes on Yemen and Somalia are carried out. Earlier this year, Wired pieced together an account of the war against Somalia's al-Shabab militant group and the U.S.'s expanded military presence throughout Africa.
Such strikes have also been quite common in the country of Afghanistan. Jack Serle, a reporter at The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports: "It's our understanding that Afghanistan is the most drone-bombed country in the world...we understand there have been more than 1,000 drone strikes there since the war began."
A few more comments from the ProPublica article are important for us to consider:
How are targets chosen?
The CIA and the military have reportedly long maintained overlapping "kill lists." According to news reports last spring, the military's list was hashed out in Pentagon-run interagency meetings, with the White House approving proposed targets. This year, the process reportedly changed, to concentrate the review of individuals and targeting criteria in the White House. According to the Washington Post, the reviews now happen at regular interagency meetings at the National Counterterrorism Center.
How many people have been killed in strikes?
The precise number isn't known, but some estimates peg the total around 3,000, (in 2013)
and a number of groups are tracking strikes and estimating casualties.
How many of those killed were civilians?
It's impossible to know. Columbia Law School conducted an in-depth analysis of what we know about the U.S.'s efforts to mitigate and calculate civilian casualties. It concluded that the drone war's covert nature hampered accountability measures taken in traditional military actions.
When does the drone war end?
The administration has reportedly discussed scaling back the drone war, but by other accounts, it is formalizing the targeted killing program for the long haul.
(Indeed, a U.S. air strike last week in Somalia killed at least six members of the Islamic extremist group al-Shabab, including its leader, Ahmed Abdi Godane, who was in the car that was hit by a drone attack.)
What can we conclude from what we know? A few thoughts:
1) Republican Senators and Congressmen know what the Plan is for both drones and covert Special Ops Forces. They have passed legislation to support, or to change, portions of the Plan. For instance, they thwarted President Obama's proposal for returning drone operation from the CIA Special Activities Unit to the Defense Department. Their public pronouncements do not coincide with their private classified knowledge!
2) If Republicans want the President to "get tough" why don't they pass a War Resolution declaring their support for a War against ISIS? Because they know that such a war is already being fought, and they don't want any part of it, especially in light of judicial questioning of the legality and the constitutionality of parts of the overall project, and in light of mid-term elections coming up. They are hypocrites, pure and simple, mostly simple. TIME magazine weighs in on this:
“Congress does not have the political will to approve a War Powers Resolution when the American people have very little appetite for war,” said Ron Bonjean, a former senior Republican congressional aide. “Getting the approval of Congress before the November elections to bomb ISIS targets in Iraq would likely require an attack on American soil or a very imminent threat of danger. Members of Congress want to secure their own re-elections and this type of vote could be the defining factor in several tight Senate races across the country.
Thus far, the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees in the House and Senate, which would have jurisdiction over a War Powers Resolution, have been waiting to hear what Obama wants to do. Congress has a spotty history of authorizing hostilities under this President. On Syria, both chambers balked at authorizing hostilities after Obama asked for support in the wake of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. When congressional support disappeared, Obama was forced to make a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to rid Syria of chemical weapons, rather than using force against Assad.
Few Republicans, a Senate Republican aide told TIME, want to vote to support the President, especially in election season. If Obama were to ask for money for his actions — a back-door way of showing congressional support for military action without having to outright condone it — that vote would be easier as it would be a vote for the troops, the aide said.
The most likely path here is that Obama will continue to do what he’s been doing, and probably expand attacks into Syria, using the Article II justification. As the White House has argued, he’s protecting Americans in Erbil, the Kurdish capital in northern Iraq. By that measure, wherever America has an embassy or citizens in peril, Presidents in the future will now have the precedent to engage in hostilities to protect them."
It is my understanding that the President has already informed Congress that he has invoked the provisions of the War Powers Act against ISIS. What they won't tell us is that the President has thereby acted decisively, and continues to do so.
It might seem, from my reporting on these matters that I am saying that I endorse war by Special Ops and Drones; that I favor the new secrecy, or that I think ISIS leadership should simply be assassinated. Not necessarily so. All I have done today is to provide needed (and overlooked) information on a military Plan, and defend the President from unjust criticism, without making a judgment on what already exists. However, there is more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)