http://www.winwithoutwar.org/ en Copyright 2010 2010-09-01T20:45:39+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-surge-worked.-it-might-need-to-again/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/the-surge-worked.-it-might-need-to-again/ While President Obama called on the nation last night to “move beyond our differences” on the disastrous US Iraq policy, the Congressional Republican leadership – John Boehner in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate- were delivering high-octane speeches attacking the president for opposing the military surge of US forces in 2007 that they claim turned the tide in the Iraq war.  In fact a surge did turn out to be a key to changing direction in the catastrophe that followed the US invasion and military occupation in Iraq. But, it wasn’t the surge of military forces that Boehner, McConnell and their fellow Iraq war apologists talk about, but the surge in anti-war sentiment in both the United States and Iraq. Public outrage and opposition to the war drove the mid-term US elections in November 2006 and led to the ouster of the President’s party from control of Congress the following January. As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress pointed out this week on the PBS’ News Hour, it was after Americans sent a clear signal that the days of the US military occupation of Iraq were numbered that the Sunni “Anbar Awakening” turned against al Qaeda. “The thing that motivated them,” Katulis said, “was the sense that the US would not be there forever.” What motivated US politicians in Washington was public sentiment against the war. Bipartisan coalitions in Congress and a bipartisan study group began calling for a change of course. Meanwhile, growing opposition to the American military occupation among Iraqi citizens began to drive politicians in Baghdad. Negotiations with the Americans over a Status of Forces Agreement became more contentious as the Iraqi government position hardened and demanded that a date certain be set for the removal of all US forces. Nothing short would be acceptable to an occupation-weary Iraqi public.  Facing strong and growing opposition both at home and in Iraq, the Bush administration reluctantly signed the Status of Forces Agreement requiring a complete withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2011. As Katulis and Lawrence Korb argued yesterday in Foreign Policy, establishing a firm deadline for the removal of US troops from Iraq – that was demanded by a determined public – was key to making the redeployment of US combat forces out of Iraq possible. It will also be a key to ending US combat operations in Afghanistan.  The good news is that 72% of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was not worth it and a majority now support ending the US combat role in Afghanistan.  The bad news is that pressure is building inside the Washington beltway to eliminate the deadline for the removal of US forces from Iraq and the date to start removing troops from Afghanistan. Increasing numbers of news stories about Iraq now include ominous references to a “growing consensus” among many “experts” and “officials” that after a new Iraqi government is finally formed in Iraq, it is likely that a new Status of Forces Agreement will be negotiated that will include an extension of the presence of US combat forces.  Congressional Republicans are pushing hard against the July 2011 date to begin the removal of combat forces from Afghanistan and Obama administration officials are in retreat, defensively arguing that the deadline actually means little to nothing as they assert that the removal of US combat forces will be “conditions based.” Troops could, in fact, remain in Afghanistan for a very long time.  The great American baseball sage Yogi Berra was right when he once famously noted: “It aint over ‘till it’s over!” No one knows that more about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than our soldiers who remain in harm’s way and their families, regardless of whether or not a president declares an end to combat operations.   Once again, the American public – and anti-war activists both in and out of Congress – will play an important role in determining whether or not all US combat forces are in fact removed from Iraq on schedule and if the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan next July really is the beginning of the end of combat operations there.  A surge in anti-war public sentiment, anti-war activism and Congressional opposition played a decisive role in setting the stage for the milestone declared by President Obama last night about combat operations in Iraq. It will very likely take a similar surge to overcome the fierce opposition that stands in the way of finally getting all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan once and for all.  While President Obama called on the nation last night to “move beyond our differences” on the disastrous US Iraq policy, the Congressional Republican leadership – John Boehner in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate- were delivering high-octane speeches attacking the president for opposing the military surge of US forces in 2007 that they claim turned the tide in the Iraq war.  In fact a surge did turn out to be a key to changing direction in the catastrophe that followed the US invasion and military occupation in Iraq. But, it wasn’t the surge of military forces that Boehner, McConnell and their fellow Iraq war apologists talk about, but the surge in anti-war sentiment in both the United States and Iraq. Public outrage and opposition to the war drove the mid-term US elections in November 2006 and led to the ouster of the President’s party from control of Congress the following January. As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress pointed out this week on the PBS’ News Hour, it was after Americans sent a clear signal that the days of the US military occupation of Iraq were numbered that the Sunni “Anbar Awakening” turned against al Qaeda. “The thing that motivated them,” Katulis said, “was the sense that the US would not be there forever.” What motivated US politicians in Washington was public sentiment against the war. Bipartisan coalitions in Congress and a bipartisan study group began calling for a change of course. Meanwhile, growing opposition to the American military occupation among Iraqi citizens began to drive politicians in Baghdad. Negotiations with the Americans over a Status of Forces Agreement became more contentious as the Iraqi government position hardened and demanded that a date certain be set for the removal of all US forces. Nothing short would be acceptable to an occupation-weary Iraqi public.  Facing strong and growing opposition both at home and in Iraq, the Bush administration reluctantly signed the Status of Forces Agreement requiring a complete withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2011. As Katulis and Lawrence Korb argued yesterday in Foreign Policy, establishing a firm deadline for the removal of US troops from Iraq – that was demanded by a determined public – was key to making the redeployment of US combat forces out of Iraq possible. It will also be a key to ending US combat operations in Afghanistan.  The good news is that 72% of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was not worth it and a majority now support ending the US combat role in Afghanistan.  The bad news is that pressure is building inside the Washington beltway to eliminate the deadline for the removal of US forces from Iraq and the date to start removing troops from Afghanistan. Increasing numbers of news stories about Iraq now include ominous references to a “growing consensus” among many “experts” and “officials” that after a new Iraqi government is finally formed in Iraq, it is likely that a new Status of Forces Agreement will be negotiated that will include an extension of the presence of US combat forces.  Congressional Republicans are pushing hard against the July 2011 date to begin the removal of combat forces from Afghanistan and Obama administration officials are in retreat, defensively arguing that the deadline actually means little to nothing as they assert that the removal of US combat forces will be “conditions based.” Troops could, in fact, remain in Afghanistan for a very long time.  The great American baseball sage Yogi Berra was right when he once famously noted: “It aint over ‘till it’s over!” No one knows that more about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than our soldiers who remain in harm’s way and their families, regardless of whether or not a president declares an end to combat operations.   Once again, the American public – and anti-war activists both in and out of Congress – will play an important role in determining whether or not all US combat forces are in fact removed from Iraq on schedule and if the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan next July really is the beginning of the end of combat operations there.  A surge in anti-war public sentiment, anti-war activism and Congressional opposition played a decisive role in setting the stage for the milestone declared by President Obama last night about combat operations in Iraq. It will very likely take a similar surge to overcome the fierce opposition that stands in the way of finally getting all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan once and for all.      2010-09-01T19:45:39+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/tom-andrews-on-hardball-discussing-petraeus-media-blitz-to-re-sell-the/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/tom-andrews-on-hardball-discussing-petraeus-media-blitz-to-re-sell-the/ Watch Tom debate former Bush White House staffer Dan Senor on Petraeus' media blitz to re-sell the Afghan War:   2010-08-19T15:18:52+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/gen.-petraeus-nation-building-media-tour/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/gen.-petraeus-nation-building-media-tour/ “That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." That was the commitment President Obama made when he announced the military escalation of American troops in Afghanistan before an audience of cadets at West Point last year. That was then, this is now. The media tour that General David Petraeus embarked on this week demonstrates that a withdrawal is, in fact, fully underway – not of US troops from Afghanistan, but rather, of the president’s assurance that we do not have an open ended military commitment to the Karzai government in Afghanistan. The Petraeus media tour is making it crystal clear - July 2011 is more political gesture than time-frame for the withdrawal of US forces.   Times have changed considerably since Vice President Biden put an exclamation point on the administration’s July 2011 withdrawal date when he said that you could “bet on it” that a “substantial” number of US troops would be heading home next July.   “The president did not send me over here to seek a graceful exit”, General Petraeus told the New York Times this week. And, “certainly yes”, he told David Gregory when asked on Meet the Press if he may very well recommend that the president not withdraw a single US soldier in July 2011 if he did not believe that conditions warranted it.   For weeks administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Gates, have marched to Capitol Hill to assure lawmakers that the July 2011 “withdrawal” date is really no such thing. The withdrawal of our forces will be based on “conditions” not a time-frame, they repeated. As long as certain conditions exist on the ground in Afghanistan, we will continue to have troops there. There is no deadline. Our military commitment to Afghanistan is open.   “This is a date when a process begins that is conditions-based”, Petraeus explained to David Gregory on Meet the Press, “And as the conditions permit, we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and the security forces and various governmental institutions, and that enables a, quote, "responsible" drawdown of our forces.”   As he spoke, I began reading a front page story in Sunday’s Washington Post describing how security conditions in the once stable northern Afghanistan are deteriorating rapidly. I thought about the inconvenient truths highlighted by the military documents released by Wikilinks: the poor state of the Afghan army despite a $27 billion US investment in their training; the endemic level of corruption in the Afghan government that costs the citizens of the fifth poorest country on earth one billion dollars per year in bribes; the funneling of US funds to the Taliban via our “allies” in the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI. Not to worry, the General assured the Washington Post, there are “incipient signs of progress” in Afghanistan. Which brought to mind the assurances of another American General, William Westmorland, who told a skeptical American public more than four decades ago that “peace is at hand” in Viet Nam.   Americans are turning against nation building half way around the world at a price of over $100 billion a year and thousands of US soldiers lives. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released last week shows that the number of Americans who have a favorable view of the President’s Afghanistan policy has dropped by nine points since the spring.  A majority of House Democrats voted last month to require that the administration come up with an exit strategy with clear goals, objectives and a specific time-frame. Not a single member of the House Democratic leadership took to the floor to defend the president’s Afghanistan policy during the debate over the administration’s Supplemental Appropriation request of more than $30 billion more for the war in Afghanistan.   General Petraeus has been called upon to divide his time and attention between winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan and winning hearts and minds among the American electorate. It is probably no coincidence that he is doing so in the midst of dropping poll numbers for the administration’s policy and the toughest electoral climate for Democrats since 1994. Unemployment is at 9 ½ percent here at home and last week’s jobless claims spiked upward.   The fact is that you can either have a scheduled withdrawal or a conditions based withdrawal of military forces from Afghanistan. You can’t have both, notwithstanding the parsing of words by General Petraeus and the Obama administration. The president had it right the first time: Close the open ended military commitment to the Karzai government in Afghanistan. Particularly if the nation he is really most interested in building is his own.     2010-08-17T17:44:30+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/senator-obama-vs-president-obama-on-afghanistan-video/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/senator-obama-vs-president-obama-on-afghanistan-video/ Watch President Obama square off with himself. 2010-08-10T17:31:56+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/hamid-karzai-our-unscrupulous-partner/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/hamid-karzai-our-unscrupulous-partner/ In what seems to be almost a weekly occurrence, we are reminded just how corrupt of a partner we have in the Karzai Government.This week is no exception.As reported by the Washington Post, President Hamid Karzai ordered an investigation into the U.S.-backed Major Crimes Task Force, charged with rooting out corruption in the Afghan government. Karzai ordered the probe after a top adviser, Mohammad Zia Saleh, an official in the office of the national security adviser, was arrested by the Task Force for allegedly agreeing to accept a 10,000 dollar car in return for promising to shut down "the investigation of an influential government official for drug smuggling."Displeased that anticorruption efforts are striking so close to home, Karzai's investigation is widely seen as his attempt to undermine one of the few offices capable of checking corruption in his government. Simply put, his buddies are feeling the heat and he wants to let them off the hook.This latest push-back against efforts to increase the transparency and legitimacy of Afghan institutions is not the first, but follows a pattern of Hamid Karzai’s complicity in preventing accountability for the illegal dealings of his hand picked government officials. And in so doing, undermining his and our ability to win the "hearts and minds” of the Afghan people.According to the U.S. Counter-Insurgency Manual, written by current head of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, “A COIN effort cannot achieve lasting success without the HN (host nation) government achieving legitimacy.” Legitimacy is a trait that the Karzai government does not posses, making it difficult to imagine a scenario in which our current strategy of counterinsurgency will be successful. Afghans have felt the impact of their government’s financial malfeasance for years. According to a study by the Pentagon in April, 83% of Afghans reported that corruption affects their lives on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, 59% of Afghans identify corruption as the biggest problem facing the country. This type of activity by the Karzai government only serves to push more Afghans into the arms of the Taliban, as a study by the U.S Army shows that a majority (53%) of citizens believe the Taliban to be “incorruptible.”The Wikileaks' War Logs, confirm that the U.S. military knows how corrupt the Karzai government is. A 2007 report by the U.S Civil Affairs office, shows how dire the situation is, quoting a representative of the locally elected provincial council as saying, “The people of Afghanistan keep loosing [sic] their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials...The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst [sic] than the Taliban.”Although many may not admit it, our current military endeavor in Afghanistan is failing. The Afghan people know that and, increasing, so does the American public. Only when our political leaders can admit that counterinsurgency is the wrong strategy will we begin to see real improvement in Afghanistan. 2010-08-06T18:14:47+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/conversation-with-matt-hoh-video/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/conversation-with-matt-hoh-video/ Former State Department Official Matt Hoh joins Win Without War's Tom Andrews to discuss the WikiLeaks "War Logs," this week's vote on war funding in Congress and the war in Afghanistan.   2010-08-02T13:05:51+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-obey-jim-mcgovern-and-barbara-lee-speak-out-against-war-funding/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/david-obey-jim-mcgovern-and-barbara-lee-speak-out-against-war-funding/ 2010-07-27T17:57:27+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/146-votes-away-from-afghanistan-exit/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/146-votes-away-from-afghanistan-exit/ The secret documents released Sunday by WikiLeaks provide 92,000 additional reasons why Congress should stop the U.S. war in Afghanistan. It will take 146 votes on the floor of the House to do so. Call your Representative now at (888) 493-5443 and tell them to vote no on the war funding bill HR 4899. It was July 1 when 162 Members of the House voted for Congressman Jim McGovern’s amendment requiring an exit strategy with a time certain for U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn.  The leaked documents underscore why the open ended military commitment to the second most corrupt government on earth, the Karzai government, makes no sense. Under the rules of the House, if these 162 House Members hold their ground today and vote against sending an additional $33 billion for this endless war, the motion to pass the appropriation will be defeated. The WikiLeaks documents demonstrate why those 162 Members of the House were so right in casting their vote against an open ended military commitment to the government of Afghanistan. As the New York Times editorial page says this morning: "But the most alarming of the reports were the ones that described the cynical collusion between Pakistan’s military intelligence service and the Taliban. Despite the billions of dollars the United States has sent in aid to Pakistan since September 11, they offer powerful new evidence that crucial elements of Islamabad’s power structure have been actively helping to direct and support the forces attacking the American-led military coalition." And then there is the previously hidden report by the U.S. Civil Affairs Office,  detailing why the insurgency strategy is doomed to fail:  "The people of Afghanistan keep loosing (sic) their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials. The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst (sic) than the Taliban." This makes any counterinsurgency strategy mission impossible to achieve regardless of the number of soldiers who are sent into harm’s way. It is unconscionable to send American men and women to Afghanistan to risk their lives for a strategy that is built on quicksand. It will take one-third of the House to defeat the Supplemental Appropriation under the rules that apply to this vote (it is being brought up through a suspension of the rules which requires the support of at least two-thirds of the Members).  Win Without War has asked its forty member organizations to e-mail their respective members, asking them to contact their Members of Congress and urge them to be one of the 146. If they do, the House will today take the historic step of saying no to the Supplemental Appropriation for Afghanistan and yes to the U.S. soldiers who they have placed in harm’s way. All that is required is 146 of the 162 McGovern amendment allies to hold their ground and stand tall today. 2010-07-27T13:44:41+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/reps.-mcgovern-pingree-on-hardball-video/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/reps.-mcgovern-pingree-on-hardball-video/ 2010-07-26T23:12:21+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/wikileaks-afghan-logs/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/wikileaks-afghan-logs/ UPDATE 10:39 pm EDT: ACT NOW! Oppose the war funding bill in Congress giving the Pentagon another $33 billion. Click Here. UPDATE 11:40 am EDT: The New York Times points out that while the military is increasingly relying on unmanned drone aircraft to strike at enemy targets, leaked documents show that their "performance is less impressive than officially portrayed." **** The whistleblowers at Wikileaks have yet again pulled back the curtain to reveal how the US military is waging war abroad. Revealing 92,000 pages of classified material on the war in Afghanistan, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says the documents "show the true nature of this war." Here's your quick reference guide to all the best coverage as this story unfolds. Wikileaks gave advance access to the documents several weeks ago to three international newspapers who first broke the story yesterday: New York Times - The War Logs: Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents, Reports AssertThe Guardian [UK] - Afghanistan: The War LogsDer Spiegel [Germany] - The Afghanistan Protocol: Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War From Those Fighting It Following their release, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has defended his decision to reveal the documents, which are mostly from the relatively low "secret" classification level. NPR - Leaked Reports Paint 'An Unvarnished And Grim Picture of the Afghan War'Wikileaks - Statement on the Afghaistan Papers The Guardian [UK] - Julian Assange on the Afghan War Logs: "The show the true nature of this war." The White House has unsurprisingly pushed back, issuing a statement from National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones condemning "the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk." The White House - Statement of National Security Advisor General James Jones on Wikileaks Progressive bloggers are starting to point out, however, that much of the information revealed in these documents - Pakistan's alleged support of the insurgency and the high rate of civilian casualties caused by our counterinsurgency operations - isn't new to those of us who have been following the war.  Instead, this story serves, in the words of Matt Yglesias at ThinkProgress, as "a potent reminder that there’s far too much classification and secrecy in the United States government." ThinkProgress - Too Many Secrets 2010-07-26T13:55:47+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/cuts-growth/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/cuts-growth/ There sure is an eye-catching headline on the front page of today's New York Times: "Pentagon Faces Growing Pressure to Trim Budget" Yes! We're finally making real progress toward trimming the defense budget! The crack team at the NYT report that, in the face of calls for deficit reduction, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking to trim Pentagon spending. And the administration is even in the mix, with a great quote from Erskine Bowels, Co-Chair of President Obama's budget commission, who says that "we’re going to have to take a hard look at defense if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction." But then we learn what Secretary Gates is actually proposing: "Mr. Gates is calling for the Pentagon’s budget to keep growing in the long run at 1 percent a year after inflation, plus the costs of the war." So... just to clarify... The roughly $750 billion annual defense budget will continue to grow in real terms. The unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have allready raked up a $1 trillion+ tab  -- that's $1,000,000,000,000 -- will continue to get all the money they need. And that's a "trim." Read the full NYT story here.   2010-07-23T15:33:15+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/grasping-at-turning-points-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/grasping-at-turning-points-in-afghanistan/ A front page story in today’s New York Times threw a bucket of cold water on the Obama administration’s latest attempt to declare yet another “turning point” for US policy in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a font of enthusiasm about prospects in Afghanistan yesterday. As a conference of foreign leaders supporting the US military-led Afghanistan strategy wrapped up in Kabul, Secretary Clinton declared, “Today was a real turning point!” Today the New York Times’ David Sanger writes that support for the strategy among even the President’s Afghanistan allies is withering. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a once reliable supporter of the policy, pointed out the obvious that both the military and civilian missions were “proceeding without a clear definition of success”. A majority of Democrats in the House agree. Earlier this month 153 of them voted for the McGovern amendment to the Afghanistan supplemental appropriation, demanding that the open ended military commitment to the Karzai government be closed. Speaker Pelosi was among them. The President needed the votes of a solid majority of Republican House members to defeat the amendment. Which is why Senator Lugar’s eroding support cannot be good news at the White House. Up to this point, Republicans have been the administration’s bedrock of Congressional support for its Afghanistan policy. It has been the only issue that has been off limits in the daily barrage of Republican attacks against the administration (Chairman Steel’s recent moment of candor on Afghanistan notwithstanding). Now, one of their most respected foreign policy Congressional leaders is abandoning the sinking Afghanistan policy ship. Lugar is not your typical Republican flame thrower. Respected on both sides of the political aisle, Sanger describes Lugar as “one of Mr. Obama’s mentors on foreign policy issues in the Senate.” Still, the administration continues on with its victory-is-at-hand message. Those who have been following the longest war in US history, probably experienced a bit of Déjà vu with Secretary Clinton’s “turning point” declaration in Kabul.   Last December, long before his Rolling Stone moment, General Stanley McChrystal breathlessly described what he called “an inflection point” in Afghanistan: “A tremendous amount of things are going to happen, and they are good things that are going to happen” he enthused. In January, Navy Admiral James Stavridis joined the turning point parade, describing what he considered a “signal change”, a “big shift” and “real progress” with security forces in Afghanistan: “2010 is the year. This is the time!”   Meanwhile, back in reality, 2010 is turning out to be the deadliest year of the almost nine year war. Suicide bombings have tripled since the Obama escalation began. Assassinations of civilians are up 45%. The number of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks rose by 94% in the first four months of 2010. There have been 251 U.S. soldiers killed this year compared to 131 at this time last year. Every month of 2010 turns out to be the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers since the war began. July will be no exception with already 49 deaths, surpassing last year's count of 45. The Afghanistan war “turning point” parade turns out to be a long one. General Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when George W. Bush was Commander-in-Chief, described, “a huge turning point” in Afghanistan: “I’ve seen a remarkable change in Afghanistan in the last year!” The year was 2004. The Obama administration’s credibility erodes every time it dusts off and redeploys the tired “turning point” mantra to describe a war and a strategy that continues to go from bad to worse.  The reality is that a political turning point is taking shape in the House, where a strong majority of Democrats voted to represent the view of a majority of Americans--that the war in Afghanistan is not worth it. And, it is unfolding in the Senate where a respected Republican joined the chorus of criticism against the war. The genuine turning point in Afghanistan will occur when the Obama administration turns its failing military led strategy around. For the hundred thousand US troops on the ground, that turnaround cannot come too soon. 2010-07-22T14:26:18+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/ever-notice-how-the-best-commentary-on-the-war-is-from-comedy-central/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/ever-notice-how-the-best-commentary-on-the-war-is-from-comedy-central/ Colbert Report: Rolling Stone Article on McChrystal - Michael Hastings The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c Rolling Stone Article on McChrystal - Michael Hastings www.colbertnation.com Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News The Daily Show with John Stewart: Steele Crazy After All These Years The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Steele Crazy After All These Years www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party The Daily Show with John Stewart:60 Seconds The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c 7/5/10 in :60 Seconds www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party 2010-07-20T20:08:04+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/picking-up-steam-in-the-house/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/picking-up-steam-in-the-house/ Yesterday Congress moved one step closer to representing the majority of Americans who believe the war in Afghanistan has not been worth the sacrifice of over 1,000 American service members and $1 trillion and voting to end the war. Congressional opposition to our failed strategy in Afghanistan was reflected in growing support for the efforts of leaders like Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) to responsibly bring our troops home. An amendment offered by Reps. McGovern, Obey (D-WI) and Jones (R-NC) compelling the administration to present Congress with an exit strategy and timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was supported by 162 Members of Congress. That is 24 votes more than a less binding amendment introduced by Rep. McGovern a year ago received and represents 60% of the Democratic caucus. Importantly, this amendment was supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker rarely votes on controversial matters and her support here sends a strong signal to the administration that it's time to end the war in Afghanistan. Also gaining increased support in Congress was an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee that would restrict funding to the safe withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. Similar language introduced by the Congresswoman last year to the 2010 Defense Appropriation wasn't allowed out of Committee, but this year gained the support of 100 Members of the House of Representatives. Although these amendments were ultimately defeated by a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats and the Republican minority, two things are clear: Opposition to the war in Congress has grown significantly over the last year, and that is in no small part the result of efforts by thousands of activists from across the country. Dozens of organizations representing millions of Americans have worked over the last year to push Congress to represent a majority of Americans and end the war. The result of that work by citizens like you -- calling, emailing and meeting with their Members of Congress -- is on display in these votes. Thank you!Roll Call vote on the McGovern-Obey-Jones Amendment: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll433.xmlRoll call vote on the Lee Amendment: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll432.xml 2010-07-02T17:18:42+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/antiwar-voices-growing-in-the-house1/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/antiwar-voices-growing-in-the-house1/ Members of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus held a press conference to express their opposition to the war funding. Speaking at the press conference were Rep. John Conyers, Bob Filner, Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, Judy Chu, Sheila Jackson Lee and Mike Honda. Cong. Maxine Waters arrived late and didn’t get a chance to speak. 2010-07-01T16:32:28+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/barbara-lee-david-obey-and-jim-mcgovern-willing-to-take-a-stand-on-afg/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/barbara-lee-david-obey-and-jim-mcgovern-willing-to-take-a-stand-on-afg/ It's refreshing to see members of Congress take a stand for what they believe in. Not content with being a rubber stamp for the Presidents policy on Afghanistan, a group of Democrats in Congress have decided to take their responsibility of oversight seriously. Ratcheting up pressure on President Obama, Democrats in the House of Representatives are expected to offer two amendments to the supplemental war spending bill, which, if passed, would represent a significant step towards ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The first amendment, sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern (MA) and David Obey (WI), would require President Obama to present Congress with a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. The second amendment, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) would remove military funding for Afghanistan from the supplemental. The supplemental is expected to be voted on by the end of this week. Below is the language for each amendment :     McGovern-Obey Amendment: This amendment would require the president to present Congress with 1) a new National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by January 31, 2011 and 2) a plan by April 4, 2011 on the safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment.  The amendment also requires Congress to vote by July 2011 if it wants to allow the obligation and expenditure of funds for Afghanistan in a manner that is not consistent with the president’s announced policy of December 2009 to begin to drawdown troops by July 2011. The amendment also requires quarterly reports to Congress on the status of the plan submitted to Congress and strengthens and expands oversight of private contractors in Afghanistan to deal more effectively with corruption, waste, fraud and abuse.  Last, the amendment clarifies that no part of the amendment shall limit the president’s ability to attack al Qaeda, gather and share intelligence with allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or modify U.S. military strategy on-the-ground over the period of redeployment. Lee Amendment: This amendment would strike military funding for Afghanistan from the Afghan war funding bill.   2010-06-30T18:36:16+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-rep.-barbara-lee-d-ca-on-meet-the-press/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-rep.-barbara-lee-d-ca-on-meet-the-press/ Yesterday, antiwar champion Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) appeared on Meet the Press to discuss the recent firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the future of US policy in Afghanistan. Watch as Rep. Lee faces off with author Sebastian Junger, journalist Tom Ricks, veteran Wes Moore, and retired General Barry McCaffrey. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy 2010-06-28T12:13:22+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-tom-andrews-discusses-future-of-mcchrystal-and-war-on-ccn-with-j/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-tom-andrews-discusses-future-of-mcchrystal-and-war-on-ccn-with-j/ If video above does not play, click here 2010-06-23T19:51:02+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/3-things-you-missed-in-rolling-stones-mcchrystal-profile/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/3-things-you-missed-in-rolling-stones-mcchrystal-profile/ Unfortunately, President Obama missed an opportunity today to not only replace an out-of-control general but an out-of-control and failing strategy in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, mainstream media continue to miss the most serious story contained in the now famous Rolling Stone profile. Michael Hastings' piece is about more than an adolescent general and his buddies' school-yard shenanigans in Kabul and Paris. It was about a failing strategy in Afghanistan and the disconnect between how the administration portrays the war in public and the reality of how the war is actually being waged. Here are three points in the Rolling Stone article that contradict what the White House has presented to Congress and the American people about the war in Afghanistan: "Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further." A senior military official stationed in Afghanistan told Hastings: "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of US forces next summer if we see success here." General McChrystal's Chief of Operations Major General Bill Mayville, described the war in Afghanistan as unwinnable: "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument." "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." This was how a Senior Advisor to General Stanley McChrystal characterizes the war in Afghanistan. While President Obama has been assuring Congress and the American public that US troops will begin leaving Afghanistan next July, his senior military leaders believe that if they are successful, next summer could see a surge of troops, not a withdrawal. And the military should be careful not to reveal what is really going on in Afghanistan because the more Americans know about the war, the more they will be against it. Who is holding these guys accountable? Congress needs to step up now and start demanding answers. Until it gets them, it should refuse to appropriate the $33 billion in new war funding that the Administration has asked them for. This is about more than an out-of-control general in Afghanistan. It's about the strategy, stupid, and the young men and women who are giving their lives to implement it.  Congress needs to send a clear and strong message to the White House using the power that the Constitution provides it - the buck stops here! No answers to these disturbing questions, no more funding for the war in Afghanistan. Period. And, it can send that message now. The House is scheduled to vote on the administration's Afghanistan war supplemental funding request before it leaves next week for the Fourth of July recess. It should refuse to do so. And, when it comes back to work after the fireworks at home, it should do its job and start demanding answers to all of the other disturbing issues and questions raised in the Rolling Stone article. Now that the McChrystal side-show is over, it's time for Congress and mainstream media to focus on the main event: the deteriorating war in Afghanistan. 2010-06-23T18:13:00+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/firing-mcchrystal-is-not-enough/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/firing-mcchrystal-is-not-enough/ It's not enough to fire General McChrystal for his latest public act of insubordination. It's time to fire the entire Afghanistan strategy. How can Congress possibly appropriate an additional $33 billion to a General who does not believe in the mission, the Commander-in-Chief or the administration officials he so obviously holds in contempt? The answer is obvious: it can't. There are two possible explanations for this latest McChrystal rip at the Obama administration in the soon-to-be-released issue of Rolling Stone: either he is out of control, cracking under the pressure of a failure with his name all over it, or he has decided he needs to engage in a new round of media manipulation to weaken the hands of the administration figures he disdains and blames for setbacks to his strategy. Either way, the President needs to fire McChrystal now. But he also needs to recognize that this latest debacle is further evidence that it is time to fundamentally change course. If he is unwilling to do so, Congress needs to say "no" to the administration's $33 billion Supplemental Appropriation request when it hits the floor of the House this week or next. McChrystal's closest advisors speak openly in the article that they do not believe the war in Afghanistan is winnable. Here is how McChrystal's Chief of Operations told Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings that the war in Afghanistan is going to end: "'It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win' said Major General Bill Mayville, 'This is going to end in an argument.'"   As Hastings writes: "So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war." And that is what key figures in the military have in mind, notwithstanding the president's commitment to begin withdrawing US troops in July of next year. According to a senior military official in Kabul: "There is a possibility that we could ask for another surge of US forces next summer if we see success here." Another surge? Without a clear exit strategy from Afghanistan - and 96 Members of Congress are demanding one by co-sponsoring legislation sponsored by Jim McGovern in the House - senior military leaders are conducting operations in Afghanistan as if escalation, not withdrawal, could very well be in the cards. And why not? McChrystal backed the administration down before, why not again? McChrystal began his campaign of public pressure on the Obama administration by leaking his demand for 40,000 additional troops to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post when President Obama was reviewing his war policy. Then there was the public repudiation of Vice President Biden and his preferred strategy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. When asked if he could support a presidential decision to rely on a counterterrorism approach to defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as Vice President Biden advocated, McChrystal replied "The short, glib answer is no." McChrystal publicly threatened insubordination if the Obama administration did not toe the line and give him exactly what he was demanding. It worked: he not only kept his job, he got everything that he wanted. Where has McChrystal's strategy led us? What he once described as a "model" operation in Marja, General McChrystal now describes as "a bleeding ulcer." The Pentagon's latest quarterly report to Congress on the war confirms that the insurgency in Afghanistan is expanding its operations and increasing in sophistication. Efforts to strengthen the Afghan National Army have been stymied by "high attrition and low retention" of recruits. Meanwhile, according to the Pentagon report, the insurgency has a steady and growing supply of fighters: "A ready supply of recruits is drawn from a frustrated population where insurgents exploit poverty, tribal friction and a lack of governance to grow their ranks." McChrystal has become increasingly worried about the consequences of Americans paying attention to the failing war. A Senior Advisor to McChrystal told Rolling Stone, "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." Exactly. Congress needs to pay attention. They can start by heeding the advice of Andrew Wilder of Tufts University, who told Hastings that handing over the cash McChrystal wants for his failing operation in Afghanistan will only make things worse: "Throwing money at the problem only exacerbates the problem."   It's time to stop the manipulation, the insubordination and the military dreams of endless war in Afghanistan. Fire McChrystal and then fire the strategy. 2010-06-22T17:13:21+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-courage-makes-appearance-in-congress/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-courage-makes-appearance-in-congress/ You probably missed it, but General David Petraeus' easy ride through Congress yesterday was interrupted by three members of the House Armed Services Committee: Chellie Pingree of Maine, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire and Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. Fortunately for Petraeus, mainstream media had already fled the committee room before it was their turn to question the General. "I disagree with you, basically, on the premise that our continued military presence in Afghanistan actually strengthens our national security," Congresswoman Pingree told Petraeus. "Since the surge of troops in southern and eastern Afghanistan started, we have seen only increased levels of violence, coupled with an incompetent and corrupt Afghan government. I am of the belief that continuing with this surge and increasing the level of American forces will have the same result -- more American lives lost, and we will be no closer to success." Isn't it great when a member of the House of Representatives is willing to represent the truth - even a politically inconvenient one? At issue for these courageous Members, and now a majority of the American public, are two key questions: When do you accept that your military strategy is not working? At what point do you recognize the evidence before you and change course? When it comes to the US strategy in Afghanistan, these questions are a matter of life and death for our soldiers in harm's way and countless innocent Afghans. It's also the matter of hundreds of billions of US dollars.
 
Here are some of the inconvenient truths that the Pentagon is trying desperately to avoid about its war in Afghanistan: Just over half way through June and already it is the 12th straight month of record-setting casualties in Afghanistan. US casualties in the first six months of this year are more than twice their total in the first six months of 2009, and the peak fighting season has yet to begin. What our top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was once describing as a "model" operation in Marja he now calls a "bleeding ulcer". The Pentagon's most recent quarterly report to Congress on Afghanistan confirmed that efforts to strengthen the Afghan National Army have been stymied by "high attrition and low retention" of recruits. Meanwhile, the insurgency continues to grow: "A ready supply of recruits is drawn from a frustrated population where insurgents exploit poverty, tribal friction and a lack of governance to grow their ranks." The Karzai government remains mired in corruption and incompetence under its mercurial and less than stable leader. After threatening to join the Taliban this spring, this week we learned that President Karzai "has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect this country" and "that he can't trust the Americans to fix the situation" in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies refuse to provide the military trainers they once promised as opposition to the war among their citizenry climbs ever higher. Canada and the Netherlands begin to pull their troops out of Afghanistan in a few months. Here at home, polls now show that a majority of Americans do not believe the US military campaign in Afghanistan is worth it. Still, as was the case in Vietnam, Pentagon officials trooped up to Capitol Hill yesterday to ask for more time, money and patience. And despite growing public opposition to the failed escalation strategy, pro-war hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) were joined by none other than Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI), in challenging not the failures of our current strategy, but the Administration's increasingly thin promise to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. According to Gen. Petraeus and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Planning Michelle Flournoy, who also testified, those who favor our unending commitment to Afghanistan have little to fear from that date. It is simply "an inflection point" at which time "a process begins." 

 Bottom line: How many more soldiers need to die during that "process" and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars wasted before reality trumps the hope-based US strategy in Afghanistan? Thank you, Congresswomen Pingree, Shea-Porter and Tsongas. Now it's time for your colleagues to join you. For our soldiers in harm's way, it is literally a matter of life and death. 2010-06-17T19:52:41+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/keeping-an-eye-on-the-surge-at-home-abroad/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/keeping-an-eye-on-the-surge-at-home-abroad/ Two reports this week have confirmed - yet again - that the Pentagon’s much touted, new and improved surge strategy in Afghanistan is failing to have the desired effect. Much like the silent-surge of 2009 that saw our troop strength increase from 34,600 to 68,000 by the end of that year, this latest surge has so far has only managed to increase violence and decrease public support for the US and NATO forces. No wonder a majority of Americans and an increasing number of Congressmen now oppose the war. Rajiv Chandrasekaran reported in yesterday’s Washington Post that violence is again on the rise in Marja, where “firefights between insurgents and security forces occur daily, resulting in more Marine fatalities and casualties over the past month than in the first month of the operation, which began in mid-February.” This, of course, coming after Gen. Stanley McChrystal commented that after three and half months of occupation by the U.S. military, Marja is “a bleeding ulcer.” And after Maj. James Coffman, civil affairs leader for the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, reported in late March that the Taliban in Marja had “reseized control and the momentum in a lot of ways.”This failure of the surge to create security in Marja - itself only a precursor to the Pentagon’s much more difficult goal of creating a stable and effective government there - is already having an impact on how the military plans to sell the planned surge in the much more populous home of the Taliban, Kandahar.  As one NATO official put it, “I’m not sure exactly what happened at the political level above us, but the very name of the thing changed.” Rod Nordland of the New York Times reports: ... the very word “offensive” has been banished. “We cannot say the term offensive for Kandahar,” said the Afghan National Army officer in charge here, Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai. “It is actually a partnership operation.” The commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, insisted that there never was a planned offensive. “The media have chosen to use the term offensive,” he said. Instead, he said, “we have certainly talked about a military uplift, but there has been no military use of the term offensive.” This, however, will prove cold comfort to Kandaharis - 94% of whom prefer negotiating with the Taliban over our military surge - who nonetheless will see thousands of new foreign troops on their streets this summer. Maybe. Originally slated to begin this month, Nordland reports conflicting sources that the military surge has been delayed and could begin anywhere from as early as July to as late this winter. Domestically, opposition to the war has delayed the House of Representatives from voting on the supplemental bill to fund the surge. As Win Without War’s National Director Tom Andrews noted in the Christian Science Monitor Wednesday, “Some two-thirds of Democrats who supported the president in 2008 now oppose the president's Afghan policy. The base that was so important to victories in 2008 and 2006 [is] going to be critically needed in 2010 and may not be there.” Already pushed back from March to a deadline for completion by Memorial Day, Independence Day is now the latest moving target date for passage. All of which suggests it’s time for a Plan B. The “showcase” offensive of our new strategy is failing. The local population - whose “hearts and minds” we’re trying to win - are so uniformly opposed to this strategy that it would be laughable if this wasn’t a matter of life and death for both those civilians and our own soldiers. And the next offensive, far more difficult and far more “important” to the success of that strategy, is being delayed for some significant rebranding. It’s time for the president to listen to the majority of Americans and find a way to end, not escalate, the war in Afghanistan.   2010-06-11T15:54:57+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/move-the-movement/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/move-the-movement/ Pressure from military circles, the right wing, Congressional Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats has set the political stage for a national security policy that includes the largest defense budget in our nation’s history and two major escalations of the war in Afghanistan. And that’s just in the last year. It’s time for the progressive movement to rise to this challenge and counter this pressure from conservatives to set our foreign policy on a new path -- starting with the escalating war in Afghanistan. Congress is poised to approve a major supplemental funding bill to provide another $33 billion for the war. With unemployment the highest its been in decades and millions of taxpayers forced out of their homes by forclosure this money is desperately needed for nation-building here at home. And even as the war in Afghanistan officially becomes the longest war in US history this week, we still have no commitment from the President on when the last of our troops will come. It's time for progressive voices to be heard in this debate. Call your Representative now at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to: 1. Vote NO on the 2010 War Supplemental 2. Co-Sponsor Rep. McGovern's bill, HR 5015, requiring a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Beating the powerful forces in Washington calling for more troops and more war won't be easy, and we need all the help we can get. Ask your friends to help "move the movement" by tweeting this message and making it our status on Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites: #MoveTheMovement and end the #Afghanistan war! Tell Congress NO MORE WAR $$$ http://bit.ly/cxJ0kX #p2 #afn10 Pls RT! Be sure to sign up for our email list at right and follow us on twitter, @winwithoutwar, for up-to-date info on how we can end the war in Afghanistan! Why We Need to End the War: •       This week, the war in Afghanistan officially surpassed the Vietnam War as the longest war in US history. •       A recent poll by ABC News / Washington Post showed that 52% of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan has not been worth it. •       On May 27, Marine Cpl. Jacob C. Leicht became the 1,000th American serviceman killed in Afghanistan. He was only 24 years old. •       The direct cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now exceeds $1 trillion dollars. For the same cost, the United States could transition to a clean energy economy so we could solve global warming, pay the salaries of 2 million teachers for a decade, or give $1,000 to every one of the billion children around the world living in poverty. •       Spending over $100 billion this year alone sending nearly 100,000 troops half-way around the world to defend against what the President's National Security Advisor Jim Jones admitted is less than 100 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan doesn't make any sense and it doesn't make America any safer. 2010-06-08T23:16:42+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-little-common-sense-in-the-senate/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/a-little-common-sense-in-the-senate/ Finally, some common sense seems to be taking root in the U.S. Senate. Eighteen members of the Senate, including the 2nd and 3rd ranking Democrats in the chamber, voted yesterday in favor of an amendment to the supplemental war spending bill that would have marked an important step in ending our military commitment in Afghanistan. Introduced by Senator Feingold, the amendment would have required the President to submit a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan: After almost a decade of war, our service members deserve to know how much longer our military operations in Afghanistan are expected to continue.  And so do the American people.  We have many priorities and many pressing needs, both domestically and abroad.  The American people deserve more information about the administration’s plans in Afghanistan so they can evaluate those plans and weigh them against other priorities, including the need to target growing al Qaeda affiliates around the world. Although falling short of the necessary votes to pass, this vote was the Senate’s first clear referendum on the Pentagon’s new strategy in Afghanistan and shows growing opposition to the war in that chamber. Two supporters of the amendment, Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are second and third in the Democratic Leadership and it is widely believed that one of them will be Majority Leader in the next Congress should Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) lose his bid for reelection. Their votes in favor of a timeline for withdrawal sends a clear signal to the Administration of the growing opposition they face. This vote will also help to build support for withdrawal on the other side of Capitol Hill. As Reuters reported, “Their support could encourage other liberal Democrats who are pushing for a similar proposal in the House of Representatives, where many lawmakers are also under pressure before congressional elections in November.” Members of both Chambers would be good to take note of a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, which found 52% of citizens in the U.S. think the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. With that number likely to grow as violence increases this summer, it’s time for Members to start listening to their constituents and end the war in Afghanistan.  This vote comes on the heels of reports that the operation in Marja--recently described as “bleeding ulcer” by our top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal--is far from succeeding. For what was supposed to be a test case and a “model for the future” of the surge, it has been the exact opposite, increasing support for the Taliban, quickly becoming a prime example of the military's misguided policy in Afghanistan. As Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who voted in favor of the withdrawal timeline amendment, said earlier this week, it’s “time to start thinking about a different approach.” Little by little, our voices are being heard and those in power are rethinking their support for current policy. They realize, as a majority of Americans do, that our current policy only continues to entangle the US in a quagmire with no foreseeable end in site. It is time for Members of Congress to do what is right and end the war in Afghanistan. 2010-05-28T19:08:40+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/who-needs-a-constitution-anyway/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/who-needs-a-constitution-anyway/ In response to the failed Times Square bombing, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) had this great wisdom to contribute: "If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship." And he's not alone. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) both think he shouldn't have been read his Miranda warning. But, to be fair, that only means they think he shouldn't know what his rights are, not that he shouldn't have them. WHAT!? This whole line of "reasoning" by "conservatives" like Lieberman and McCain is so infuriating, so un-American and so incredibly contrary to what at one time were basic principles of conservatism that I don't know where to begin. As the rest of us know, the founding fathers, in composing the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights (collectively called the "Charters of Freedom" by the National Archives) had a pretty radical idea for their time: the rule of law. Rather than be a nation ruled by a monarch who would serve as the sole source of power and authority, the United States would be a nation of laws designed to protect the "inalienable rights" of our citizens. Not only would those laws protect us from each other, but most importantly, they would protect us from our own Government. The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent the very thing Joe Lieberman is proposing. But of course anyone over the age of 12 can tell you this, and if Lieberman, McCain and King need a refresher they can always go read Dennis Kucinich's copy of the Constitution. The real question here isn't whether American citizens who are suspected of terrorism should keep their Constitutional rights - of course they should. But what does this say about the state of the conservative movement? There was a time when conservatives wanted to "get government out of our lives" and keep it from interfering in the exercise of our freedoms. But now it looks like Glenn Beck of all people is the one defending intellectual conservatism from the crass politicking of our elected officials, arguing on Fox and Friends earlier this week that "He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution." I definitely didn't see that one coming. And if, as President Bush so eloquently put it, they "hate us for our freedom," then Lieberman, McCain and King essentially hand those terrorists a "win" by suggesting we throw out those freedoms and our Constitution every time someone straps defective firecrackers and bags of the wrong fertilizer to some jugs of gasoline. Then there's that quintessential American elephant in the room: race. Last February, Joseph Stack successfully flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, "attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans" in what was clearly an act of terrorism. Yet the response from conservatives wasn't condemnation, but thinly veiled praise. Rep. Steven King (R-IA) offered his sympathy at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC): I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America. You see, when the terrorist is white and his grievance is paying taxes, it's something we can let slide. Pro forma statements that violence isn't the answer aside, we all hate the IRS and if we'd gotten rid of it years ago this wouldn't have been a problem. It's OUR fault for not abolishing the IRS. But, when the terrorist is non-white, and he's retaliating for drone attacks in Pakistan, well it's a whole different ballgame isn't it? 2010-05-05T16:50:06+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/peter-galbraith-time-to-withdraw/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/peter-galbraith-time-to-withdraw/ In what amounts to a shocking degree of candor for a high-level diplomat, Peter Galbraith, a former UN envoy to Afghanistan, continues his criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai today with an OpEd in the Washington Post on "Why Hamid Karzai Makes a Bad Partner for the U.S." After detailing how Karzai's ineffective governance has earned Afghanistan the honor of being ranked the second most corrupt nation in the world, how Karzai himself managed to steal 1 million votes in the latest Presidential election - fully 1/3 of his vote total, and how he recently told Afghan parliamentarians that he might join the ranks of the Taliban, Galbraith concludes: President Obama should halt the surge in Afghanistan and initiate a partial withdrawal -- not as a means to pressure Karzai but because Karzai's government is incapable of becoming a credible local partner. Galbraith, you may remember, has already been in the news this week for suggesting that Karzai might have a problem with drug abuse, telling MSNBC's program "The Daily Run Down": "There are reports to that effect. But whatever the cause is, the reality is that he is — he can be very emotional." Read Gailbraith's full editorial here and coverage of his accusation that Karzai might have a drug problem here and here. 2010-04-08T17:15:59+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/where-military-victory-is-an-oxymoron/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/where-military-victory-is-an-oxymoron/ When it comes to Afghanistan, “military victory” is an oxymoron.  Even President Obama and his Defense Secretary Robert Gates say so. Repeatedly. The only path to peaceful resolution to the Afghanistan conundrum, they point out, is by winning the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people. That is why the grim news from Afghanistan about the cover up of the a botched US military raid of a baby shower near Gardez is so devastating. Unfortunately, the public response to-date from US and NATO officials in Kabul has been dreadful. It turns out that the Obama administration’s Afghanistan strategy is being defeated by self-inflicted wounds, and it is unclear that US officials over there even have a clue that they continue to inflict them. This is why a truly independent investigation of what happened is so critical to the President’s strategy in Afghanistan. Please join our campaign calling on the president to investigate the baby shower raid that resulted in the killing of innocent Afghans, including two pregnant women. If you haven’t read about this horrendous incident, and the US response to it, brace yourself. Afghan investigators are claiming that US Special Operations forces tried to cover up the horrific killing of five Afghan citizens in February following a raid of what turned out to be a baby shower.  Three women were killed. Two of them were pregnant. Also killed was a police commander and his brother, a government prosecutor. As if this wasn't bad enough, military officials went about fueling Taliban claims about how barbaric the foreign military occupation is by immediately putting out false information about the raid.  They claimed that NATO soldiers had stumbled upon the “bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed” after the raid was over.  According to the New York Times, military officials also claimed at the time that the bodies showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife and appeared to have died several hours before the raid.  They went on to imply that the women had been killed by their own families. CNN reported the story under the headline: “Bodies Found Gagged, Bound after Afghan ‘Honor Killing’” . Now it turns out that the claims by the US military were false.  The London Times and New York Times reported this week that Afghan investigators have determined that American forces tampered with evidence at the scene and even “dug bullets out of their victims bodies” after the killing. The US led military command finally admitted on Sunday night that their previous denials of any involvement in the killing of the women were false.  Special Forces had, indeed, killed them.  Still, they denied any cover up. A US military official declared: “We strongly deny having dug any bullets out of bodies. There is simply no evidence.” While denying any tampering with evidence, he went on to say that the military is “further investigating” the incident. Who else might possibly have had a motive to cover up the evidence at the scene was left to the imagination. The Taliban could have hardly made this up to fuel their campaign against the foreign invaders and military occupiers. Don’t get me wrong – I think that the current US strategy in Afghanistan is a grave mistake and cannot be set right by correcting the Pentagon’s botched reaction to a horribly botched raid. But, this incident is one more illustration of why a military led strategy in Afghanistan – that is tone deaf to the damage that something like this does to its own cause – is doomed to failure. Nothing short a complete demilitarization of US Afghanistan policy is required. But, while no one his holding their breath that this is in the cards, at the very least the administration can take steps to deal responsibly with this horror. And stop the damage that it continues to inflict on its own cause. A thorough and truly independent investigation of the baby shower killings is required NOW. Justice and accountability demand it. So does a strategy that is dependent on winning “hearts and minds”. 2010-04-07T15:11:50+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/kandahars-sitting-ducks-video/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/kandahars-sitting-ducks-video/ From Al Jazeera English: Much of the day-to-day security in Kandahar falls on the shoulders of Afghanistan's police force.The government has just announced that it will send a thousand more officers to help drive out the Taliban from the southern province by August. As Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, seeks help in tackling the Taliban, it is the police in Afghanistan that are bearing the brunt of the casualties, with an average of six officers getting killed each day.Stanley McChrystal, the US general commanding Nato forces, has called for an increase in the number of Afghan police recruits from 84,000 to 160,000.Brigadier-General Anne Macdonald, the deputy commanding general for police development at the Nato training mission in Kabul, told Al Jazeera: "We have a very challenging mission to ensure that police are trained and that they understand what their roles and responsibilities are."But as Al Jazeera's David Chater found out, the job of the Afghan police is being made more difficult by a shortage of equipment and resources.Taliban fighters have increased their attacks against force, who are often dangerously ill-equipped, under-resourced and poorly trained. Little wonder why more than 1,000 police officers died in attacks last year alone. 2010-04-01T12:34:01+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-president-obama-visits-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-president-obama-visits-afghanistan/ Read more about the visit here. 2010-03-30T13:46:36+00:00 http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-why-are-we-in-afghanistan/ http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/video-why-are-we-in-afghanistan/ Why Are We In Afghanistan? Full Version from Why Afghanistan? on Vimeo. 2010-03-26T14:08:19+00:00