YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS

.
SUPERMOM REPORTS FOR DUTY WITH THE LITTLE SOLDIERS, TOO

ARMY STOP-LOSS KEEPS COMBAT VET & FAMILY ON CALL FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS

It's Not Just A Job. It's More Like Slavery. With Kids.

I guess this "Army of One" thing is literally true. Apparently, there is no one else in the whole country who can be depended upon to defend us from the imminent danger posed by destroying somebody else's country for no reason, six thousand miles away. Unh-hunh. So they just had to drag Mrs. Soldier back to Fort Benning, despite all her appeals for clemency. Convicted murderers get more consideration from the system.

See, the thing is, none of those conservative Republican blow-hards wants to go fight the wars they start. Like Dubya and Dick, Gingrich and Armey, they're much too busy and far too valuable serving their country at the Chicago Board of Trade or the New York Stock Exchange or in the Awl Bidness or Warshenden DEE-cee to waste their time or their blood defending their country. Besides, that's what poor people are for. And now the Middle Class, too.

(continued)
.

.

Seven years in, Obama says, "Oops, my bad, we're not leaving after all." In fact, we're staying in Iraq, doubling our forces in the black hole of Afghanistan, and bullying our way into Pakistan on the sly, too. So we're going to be needing every last Mommy to stand in for those loud but cowardly Republican males hiding in the business districts.

Of course, with the Republicans putting the whole world economy in the sh*tter, and doing their goddamnedest to keep it there, there should be lots more economic draftees pretty soon. Millions of people have lost their jobs, and millions more will lose theirs before the Bush Depression is over. That's your ideal cannon-fodder, right there. Recruiters say business is picking up for them, after a few slow years when everybody realized the war was bullsh*t, nothing to do with Osama, 9/11 or WMDs. I mean, even a right-tard doesn't want to die for oil, right? But he might have to take a chance on dying to keep his family fed. Or to satisfy a stop-loss order.

Well, apparently, the economy isn't getting bad enough fast enough for the Generals. They're still using the "unlimited commitment" in the fine print of everybody's enlistment contracts to keep dragging our citizen-soldiers back into the worst Hell-holes on Earth. In the past, this meant Daddy was going to be away for a while, and he might not come home. Now it means Mommy might not come home, either. Does anyone care?

Does anyone care?

Does anyone care?


Hello?



YAHOO NEWS
"NC military mom arrives at Fort Benning with kids"

' A North Carolina mother who reported for Army duty with her two young children in tow is waiting to see what happens next. Lisa Pagan, who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged, drove nearly 400 miles and braved a Southeastern winter storm to report for duty Sunday at Fort Benning, Ga. She says she has no one to take care of son Eric and daughter Elizabeth, so she brought them with her. She has reserved a motel room for a week and doesn't plan to stay in the barracks. "Them being away from me is not an option," she said. Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, an Army spokesman in St. Louis, said earlier that the commander at Fort Benning will decide how to handle the situation. "The Army tries to look at the whole picture and they definitely don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the family or jeopardizes the children," O'Donnell said. "At the same time, these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country." '

(Cross-posted at blog me no blogs by cosanostradamus.)
.
.

There's more: "YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS" >>

THE SECRET WAR

.
US "ADVISORS" "TRAINING" PAKISTANI TROOPS

US "ADVISORS" "TRAINED" SOUTH VIETNAMESE TROOPS, IN THE BEGINNING

YOUTUBE: CBS: THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS COMEDY HOUR [1968]
"Pete Seeger: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy"
Pete tried to warn us.


Before You Knew It, We Were Ass-Deep In The Big Muddy. And The Big Fool Said To Push On.

Certain terms will stick in the mind, intended though they are to avoid our attention altogether, or confuse it. "Terminate with extreme prejudice" turned out to mean "kill," in plain English. "Extraordinary rendition," is kidnapping on an international scale. "Advisors" are combat troops we don't want to acknowledge sending into situations where they don't belong.

The United States had "advisors" in Vietnam in the 1950's. Evidently, their advice wasn't very good. In 1965, we sent the whole First Marine Division in to "advise" the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army out of existance. Nine years later, we got our asses kicked out of there, with 58,000 dead, 300,000 wounded, and untold thousands of mentally disabled and drug-addicted Americans, some of whom are still homeless today, to show for our "advice." The war put us into a decade-long recession, and sidetracked progressive programs for forty years. Vietnam was left a bloody mess, from which they are only just starting to recover. They lost millions of souls, men and women, children and old people, civilian and military. Their country was destroyed. We dropped more bombs on them than on Germany & Japan combined in WWII. That was Nixon's "secret plan for peace": Bomb them back to the Stone Age, as the Air Force gleefully put it. It didn't work.

(continued)
.

.

No one knows what the secret plan is now. It's a secret. One wonders if our new President has been fully informed. Once they get rolling, our military seems to just keep rollin' along, no matter who is the putative CIC, or what new policies are put in place. Obama did promise to move the "War on Terror" to Afghanistan, and to pursue Al Qaida into Pakistan "if necessary." So, maybe he did order these "advisors" in. Maybe he is the one planning a major long-term commitment in South-West Asia, or maybe he's just going along with his generals, like LBJ did in Vietnam. But we don't know, do we? It's a secret. From us, the taxpaying voters of the United States.

Maybe we should ask. Yeah, we'd like to crush Al Qaida and capture Bin Laden. Yeah, we have to straighten out the messes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we voted to end the war, not to extend or expand it. We don't want to start another mess in Pakistan. After all, they have nukes, and missiles to deliver them. And they're chronically corrupt and unstable, with the constant threat of war with India, and terrorism from within. They make their other neighbors, like Iran and China, very nervous too. It might not be such a good idea to start another Vietnam in Pakistan, from which we might have to run away with our tail between our legs because it just ain't do-able, no way, no how, any more than Vietnam ever was. Except we'd be leaving behind a nuclear-missile-armed potential Islamic fundamentalist State that would have very good reason, as Iran does, to be hostile to the West. Especially toward us, the tax-paying voters of the United States.

So, hey, advisors. Let's think about this. Before we get ourselves ass-deep in another Big Muddy. A radioactive one.


ABC NEWS WWSB TV7 SARASOTA, FL
"US advisers training Pakistani troops"
They're admitting to 30, multiply by a Military Bull Sh*t Factor of ten, so that's at least 300. And now it's escalating.

' A U.S. effort to train Pakistani troops in their fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban is larger than previously acknowledged. The New York Times reports the task force of about 70 advisers is helping the Pakistanis with intelligence and advises them on combat tactics. But it isn't taking part in any fighting. The Times report cites U.S. military officials. Most of the advisers are Army Special Forces soldiers. They include combat medics and communications specialists. Last year, Pakistani army officers said about 30 American advisers were training troops in northwest Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. '

NY TIMES
"Secret U.S. Unit Trains Commandos in Pakistan "
Not so secret any more. Let's see, official Army body count of 60, divided by an MBS Factor of ten, so we got six guys. Oh, and we're running Pakistani Air Force operations out of the U.S. embassy in Islamabad. Spooky.

' They make up a secret task force, overseen by the United States Central Command and Special Operations Command. It started last summer, with the support of Pakistan’s government and military, in an effort to root out Qaeda and Taliban operations that threaten American troops in Afghanistan and are increasingly destabilizing Pakistan. It is a much larger and more ambitious effort than either country has acknowledged. Pakistani officials have vigorously protested American missile strikes in the tribal areas as a violation of sovereignty and have resisted efforts by Washington to put more troops on Pakistani soil. President Asif Ali Zardari, who leads a weak civilian government, is trying to cope with soaring anti-Americanism among Pakistanis and a belief that he is too close to Washington. Despite the political hazards for Islamabad, the American effort is beginning to pay dividends. A new Pakistani commando unit within the Frontier Corps paramilitary force has used information from the Central Intelligence Agency and other sources to kill or capture as many as 60 militants in the past seven months, including at least five high-ranking commanders, a senior Pakistani military official said. In addition, a small team of Pakistani air defense controllers working in the United States Embassy in Islamabad ensures that Pakistani F-16 fighter-bombers conducting missions against militants in the tribal areas do not mistakenly hit remotely piloted American aircraft flying in the same area or a small number of C.I.A. operatives on the ground, a second senior Pakistani officer said. '

OLIVE DRAB.COM
"Vietnam: U.S. Advisors 1955-1965"
A little parallel history: Advisors on the march.

' The U.S. military advisory effort in Vietnam had a modest beginning in September 1950, when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), Vietnam, was established in Saigon. Its mission was to supervise the issuance and employment of $10 million of military equipment to support French legionnaires in their effort to combat Viet Minh forces. By 1953 the amount of U.S. military aid had jumped to over $350 million and was used to replace the badly worn World War II vintage equipment that France, still suffering economically from the devastation of that war, was still using.
. . .
By 1961 the steady progress of the insurgency was near crisis levels. The new Kennedy administration increased American support for the Diem regime to prevent a collapse. By December of 1961, 3,200 U.S. military personnel were in Vietnam as advisors, supported by $65 million in military equipment and $136 million in economic aid. Military assistance was reorganized as the United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), formed under the command of General Paul D. Harkins in February 1962. MACV was there to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) to defend the country. MACV included Army Special Forces (Green Beret) instructors and CIA personnel organizing the Montagnards in the mountains.
. . .
South Vietnam was going to fall to the Communists unless the U.S. intervened, but Pres. Johnson hesitated to increase the commitment of troops, trying to balance his interest in big domestic programs against the mounting crisis in Southeast Asia. Then came an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, 2 August 1964. '

DIGITAL HISTORY
"Learn About the Vietnam War"
A majority of the Vietnamese people just didn't want us there. But their corrupt, incompetent, hated US puppet government couldn't live without us.

' To support the South’s government, the United States sent in 2,000 military advisers, a number that grew to 16,300 in 1963. The military condition deteriorated, and by 1963 South Vietnam had lost the fertile Mekong Delta to the Vietcong. In 1965, Johnson escalated the war, commencing air strikes on North Vietnam and committing ground forces, which numbered 536,000 in 1968. '

GLOBAL SECURITY.ORG
"‘Big Red One’ Takes on Iraq Military Advisor Training Mission"
Advisor = Advance Man. Iraqi Security Forces = ARVN. "War On Terror" = Vietnam.

' An entire Army combat division has been given the mission of training U.S. military advisors for duty within Iraqi army and police units, a senior U.S. military officer in Baghdad said yesterday. The U.S. Army’s 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., is now responsible for training U.S. advisors for service in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Advisory Group, told reporters at a news conference in the Iraqi capital city. The change represents “a huge investment,” Pittard said, noting two brigade combat teams based at Riley also are committed to training advisors. Pittard said he works in tandem with Army Brig. Gen. Terry Wolff, commander of the Coalition Military Assistance and Training Team. Pittard and Wolff, who also attended the press briefing, have oversight over military advisors that support the Iraqi army, the national police, as well as the Department of Border Enforcement. “We really cover two different areas, but have very, very similar goals, and that is to support the Iraqi security forces,” Pittard said. '

YAHOO NEWS
"US, Iraqi forces launch anti-al-Qaida offensive"
"Support" only. So, nobody is at risk? MBSF is off the charts!

' The offensive comes more than a year after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised a "decisive" battle in Mosul against al-Qaida in Iraq. But Iraq's third-largest city has continued to face violence, particularly against Iraqi security forces. Al-Jubouri said American troops were only providing support, if needed. '

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
"Sunni lawmaker wanted in connection for Green Zone attacks"
And this guy is IN the government. He shoulda heard about the Surge by now. This is not going well.

' A Sunni Arab lawmaker is wanted in connection for a string of retaliation attacks and mortar strikes on the fortress-like Green Zone compound after a pair of his senior bodyguards stepped forward with incriminating confessions, a military official said Sunday. The two ex-bodyguards said Sunni parliament member Mohammed al Dayni ordered them to carry out a 2007 attack on a Green Zone cafeteria in which a suicide bomber blew up his explosive vest. One lawmakers died and 22 others were wounded. '

(Cross-posted at blog me no blogs.)
.
.

There's more: "THE SECRET WAR" >>

THE SURGE, PART DEUX

.
OBAMA DOES BUSH

FROM THE GENERALS WHO BROUGHT YOU 50 YEARS IN IRAQ,
HERE'S 50 MORE IN AFGHANISTAN

(click to enlarge maps)
Former Soviet Republics Bordering Afghanistan


Waziristan


Swat Valley


Meanwhile, Back In Babylon, Things Fall Apart; And In Pakistan, A Fundamental Deal

The first Marines went over the wall, parlez-vous. Hm. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, in the "War To End All Wars," almost a hundred years ago. Think how many died believing their sacrifice might end war forever. Makes you wonder if we're not always delusional, going into a war.

You'd think, after seven years in Iraq, the scales would have fallen from our eyes. Anyone who believes that we can ever leave there without sizable portions of whatever is left of it falling into chaos, civil war and terrorism is plainly delusional. And now we're going to do the same thing in Afghanistan. Why? Because the very same generals who managed the mess in Mesopotamia are insisting upon it. And if they don't get their way, again, they're going to try to overthrow Obama in the corporate media. So, what choice does Obama have but to do their bidding? Grow a pair?

(continued)
.


.

He's pretty much doing what the new Pakistani PM is doing: Giving in to the other side. Yousuf Raza Gilani just did a deal with the Pakistan version of the Taliban to give them official control of their breakaway region on the border of Afghanistan, Shariah Law and all. (Not exactly Ladies Night in Pakistan tonight.) This region is next door to the home base of Al Qaida and much of the Afghan Taliban. So, here we are reliving the Cold War, where the worst people on both "sides" of an imaginary conflict pretty much ran the show. That put us all under "nuclear umbrellas" for almost fifty years, until the financial weight of it brought down both sides. Hmmmm.

Of course, both sides are already down, financially, in this new "drole de guerre." So, what, exactly, is going to bring about glasnost and perestroika this time? You could try asking Vladimir Putin, the ex(?)-KGB agent & FSB chief in Soviet Russia. He recently outmaneuvered the U.S. in Kyrgyzstan, bribed them to kick us out, then offered to let us use Russian territory as our sole northern access to the territory of his old buddies, the Afghans. They're probably thrilled. But why would the Rooskies want to help us build a natural gas pipeline to compete with their European lines? Are they trying to sabotage the pipe, or are we going to end up finishing the Russians' drive for a warm-water port in the Indian Ocean or the Arabian Sea for them? Cuz, you know, I think our troops deserve to know which country they're going to die for. I'm just sayin'.


EMAIL THE PRESIDENT


EMAIL THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER


EMAIL THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE


EMAIL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN



MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
"Dozens of Shiite pilgrims die in resurgent violence in Iraq"
"The Surge is working! The Surge is working! The Surge is BOOOM!!!

' More than three dozen Shiite Muslim pilgrims were killed Friday when a suicide bomber blew herself up at a crowded roadside tent in central Iraq , marking the first time in more than a month that a suicide bomber carried out such a deadly attack. The blast — the third straight day of intense violence — threatens to set back the security gains Iraq has made in recent months as Washington prepares to draw down U.S. troop levels. In the past three days, car bombings, political assassinations and suicide attacks — including Friday's — have claimed the lives of at least 72 people. The climb in violence comes after a stretch of relative calm following five years of sectarian warfare. Much to the relief of many Iraqis, the Jan. 31 election passed without major violence. However, the vote's pending outcome — results should be released next week — could be exacerbating tensions among rival sects and politicians. Despite a heightened security presence in Karbala and beyond, attacks on Shiite Muslim pilgrims have persisted. The attacks targeting Shiite Muslim pilgrims coincide with a spate of attacks directed at Sunni politicians and others in the north. In Mosul , a volatile city to the north where Iraqi security forces have yet to secure control, sectarian tensions between Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds have intensified. In the past few days, Mosul has seen a mounting death toll. Among the dead: Four policemen, one Sunni politician, one civilian, and an Iraqi soldier. And on Monday, four American soldiers and their interpreter were killed at a checkpoint when a vehicle with a makeshift explosive blew up nearby. '

AUSTRALIA.TO
"Troop Increase in Afghanistan Differs from Iraq Surge "
Permanent "surge"?

' When discussing an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautions that it won't be a carbon copy of the troop surge that proved so successful in Iraq. "I actually don't use the term 'surge,' and I don't think it's right, because the 'surge' term has an implication that it is going to go up, then come down," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters returning with him today after a two-day trip to Fort Drum, N.Y., and Ottawa. That's what happened during the troop surge in Iraq, when 33,000 additional troops began deploying in early 2007 to boost security in Baghdad and Anbar province. Violence quickly decreased, and the last of the five original surge brigades redeployed in July 2008 after a 13-month deployment. But Mullen has made no secret of the fact that he considers Afghanistan a tougher mission than the one in Iraq, and the challenges more daunting. As a result, he said there's no set timetable anticipated for the additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has requested to improve security there, Mullen said. "I don't know how long it is the troops will be there," Mullen said. "I think we will keep troops there long enough to provide the security and sustain it at a time when we will continue to build the Afghan security forces." '

YAHOO NEWS
"First wave of U.S. troops in Afghan surge engages in combat"
Giving in to the bad guys I.

' LOGAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan – Close to 3,000 American soldiers who recently arrived in Afghanistan to secure two violent provinces near Kabul have begun operations in the field and already are seeing combat, the unit's spokesman said Monday. The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan. U.S. commanders have been contemplating sending up to 30,000 more soldiers to bolster the 33,000 already here, but the new administration is expected to initially approve only a portion of that amount. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday the president would decide soon. Militant activity has spiked in Logar and Wardak over the last year as the resurgent Taliban has spread north toward Kabul from its traditional southern power base. Residents say insurgents roam wide swaths of Wardak, a mountainous province whose capital is about 35 miles from Kabul. Haight said he believes the increase of militant activity in the two provinces is not ideologically based but stems from poor Afghans being enticed into fighting by their need for money. Quoting the governor of Logar, the colonel called it an "economic war." Logar Gov. Atiqullah Ludin said at a news conference alongside Haight that U.S. troops will need to improve both security and the economic situation. "There is a gap between the people and the government," Ludin said. "Assistance in Logar is very weak, and the life of the common man has not improved." Ludin also urged that U.S. forces be careful and not act on bad intelligence to launch night raids on Afghans who turn out to be innocent. It is a common complaint from Afghan leaders. President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with U.S. forces not to kill innocent Afghans during military operations and says he hopes to see night raids curtailed. Pointing to the value of such operations, the U.S. military said Monday that a raid in northwest Badghis province killed a feared militant leader named Ghulam Dastagir and eight other fighters. Other raids, though, have killed innocent Afghans who were only defending their village against a nighttime incursion by forces they didn't know, officials say. Haight cautioned last week that civilian casualties could increase with the presence of his 2,700 soldiers. "We understand the probability of increased civilian casualties is there because of increased U.S. forces," said the colonel, who has also commanded Special Operations task forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. '

TIME MAGAZINE
"Will Pakistan's Shari'a Pact Calm or Inflame the Tribal Regions?"
Giving in to the bad guys II.

' In a desperate move to deal with an intractable radical insurgency, the Pakistan government says it will impose a form of Islamic law in the area of Swat Valley in the northwestern corner of the country. As a result, Islamabad's faltering military campaign there has been put on hold, and the militants have agreed to a tentative ceasefire. But many observers fear that, far from calming the conflict, the government has capitulated to the Islamist guerrillas and has set a worrying precedent — one that will surely displease some U.S. officials who want the government to take a harder line against militants. It is, however, a highly controversial and risky course. A previous peace deal failed within months, after giving the militants the space to regroup and sweep away earlier military gains. "It is an attempt on the part of the government to win over a section of religious extremists," says Hasan Askari-Rizvi, a military analyst. "The idea is that if they are pulled out of the struggle, they will cooperate with the government and help isolate the militants. It may have been a good idea if the Taliban were on the run, but they're well entrenched." It is unclear what Sufi Mohammed's precise role will be, or how much leverage he has in Swat. The militant leader emerged as a force in the mid-1990s, when his loyalists, sporting black turbans, seized control of buildings and courthouses before the government of then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was able to tame the revolt and sign a truce. In late 2001, Sufi Mohammed led thousands of young men — including Fazlullah — to Afghanistan to fight western forces who had invaded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Upon their return, he was arrested and imprisoned. His release last year was contingent on his disavowal of militancy and an agreement to cooperate with the government. '

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
"Is the U.S. repeating Soviet mistakes in Afghanistan?"
Those who do not remember the past...

' Some Afghan experts are worried that the United States and its NATO allies are making some of the same mistakes that helped the Taliban's forerunners defeat the Soviet Union after a decade-long occupation that bled the Kremlin treasury, demoralized Moscow's military and contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. Among the mistakes, these experts said, are relying too heavily on military force, inflicting too many civilian casualties, concentrating too much power in Kabul and tolerating pervasive government corruption. Violence and ethnic tensions will worsen, they warned, absent a rapid correction in U.S.-led strategy that improves coordination between military operations and stepped up reconstruction, job-training and local good governance programs. "We have not justified democracy. We have not justified human rights. We have not justified liberalism," said Azziz Royesh, a political activist, educator and former anti- Soviet guerrilla. "Afghans don't like the Taliban . But we haven't shown them a better option." "I see a time when again there could be thousands of unorganized insurgencies around the country," he cautioned. "The foreigners are the ones who will be targeted. If we don't bring change here, these kinds of incidents will add to the Taliban insurgency." Previously secret Soviet documents made public in English for the first time on Saturday reveal that Obama is facing some of the same problems that compelled former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to order a withdrawal from Afghanistan. The documents, posted on the George Washington University's National Security Archive Web site, show that Gorbachev decided in 1985 to end the Soviet occupation after realizing that Moscow couldn't win a military victory, a point that Obama and senior U.S. commanders repeatedly stress. '

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
"Moscow again eyes Afghanistan 20 years after retreat"
They're B-A-A-A-A-A-C-K ! ! !

' "The consensus of Russian experts is that there is no winning strategy for the US and NATO in Afghanistan," says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a top Moscow-based foreign policy journal. "Most believe that, sooner or later, Afghanistan's neighboring countries will face serious challenges from a possible revived Taliban. It means we need to work with the Americans, and find common approaches, but we need to make our own preparations, too." Last week, after receiving a $2.3 billion package of loans and aid from Moscow, Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev ordered the US to vacate Manas, the last of the military bases on former Soviet territory that Russia had acquiesced to following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Also last week, Russia pushed its regional alliance, the six-member Collective Security Treaty Organization, to beef up its joint rapid reaction force to 10,000 men aimed at combating terrorism and drug trafficking. And next month, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional alliance led by Russia and China, will convene a special conference on Afghanistan to explore ways to strengthen the group's relations with Kabul, which could include Russian arms sales and military advice for the first time since the Soviet withdrawal, experts say. Cooperating with the US may, in the future, take a back seat to Moscow's own regional offensive, some say. "Russia urgently needs to create friendly regimes in central Asia and a strong, unified border defense," says Alexei Mukhin, director of the independent Center for Political Information in Moscow. "We're very willing to work together with NATO against our common enemy, the Taliban, but we've seen from past experience that this does not produce positive or lasting results for us. The Kremlin is certain that Russia needs to act decisively on its own" to ensure Russia's security if Afghanistan collapses again, he says. '

.
.

There's more: "THE SURGE, PART DEUX" >>

POLLING THE VICTIMS OF GAZ WARFARE

.
AFGHANS DON'T LIKE BEING BOMBED
(JUST FOR A GAS PIPELINE?)

THEY'RE STARTING TO LIKE IT WHEN WE GET BOMBED

How Long Before A "Surge" Drives Them All Back Into The Arms Of The Taliban?

A surge is what Dubya's advisers, er, I mean Obama's advisers, er, oh, well, they're the same people, pretty much, and they're recommending the same thing they recommended in Iraq. Iraq, now there's a model to emulate. Recent elections showed a trend toward just what we were warned about, before we went in there: Fragmentation of Iraq into three rump States: One controlled by Iran, one in a perpetual destabilizing war with Turkey, and, caught in the middle, one mightily pissed off and oil-free home base for Sunni terrorism, like Al Qaida. That's pretty much how the election results played out this week.

Afghanistan could be split in nine ethnic pieces: Aimaq, Baluch, Hazara, Kirghiz, Nuristani, Pashtun, Tajik, Turkmen and Uzbek. There's no oil there, so you think there'd be less to squabble about. But there may be a pipeline from the Caucasus running through Afhganistan to the Arabian Sea or the Indian Ocean off Pakistan someday. That's why we're there, according to some people. The pipeline can't be built until it's safe enough to carry out a massive construction project, though. So we're going to be there for quite a while. We might even end up catching Osama, if he doesn't die of old age first. But that's kind of a side effect.

(continued)
.

.

Things have not been going all that well in Afghanistan. You've gotta wonder how they managed to conduct an opinion survey in a place like Afghanistan in the middle of a war. Did they round up the usual suspects and have them fill out questionnaires? Go from bread line to bomb shelter to refugee camp asking questions in five different languages while under heavy guard? Did they ask women, or only men? Wait till they hear that we may be working with the Russians now. Poll that. Ah, Afghanistan!


INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
"Election results spur threats and infighting in Iraq"
So, the surge is working, hunh? Define "working."

' RAMADI, Iraq: The post-election curfew has been lifted and the threats of violence have been muted after the intervention of envoys from the Iraqi Army, the central government and the U.S. Marines. A cacophonous bustle has returned to the filthy, shattered streets of this provincial capital, once a base of the Sunni insurgency. And still Faris Taha, one of the election's victors, according to preliminary results, is too fearful to return to the region he will soon represent. "I cannot go back," he said, having retreated from his hometown east of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, to a hotel in Baghdad's Green Zone. "I am afraid." '

MOTHER JONES
"Partition in Iraq: A Serious Problem With Biden as VP?"
A "secret plan for peace" in a divided Iraq?

' When Biden, who initially supported the war, was running for president, he repeatedly insisted he was the only candidate with a workable plan for ending it. His campaign created a video, featured in the YouTube debate, that said, "Joe Biden is the only one with the experience and the plan to end this war responsibly so our children don't have to go back." That plan was widely seen as calling for the partition of Iraq. It read, in part, "The United States should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based on the final provisions of the Constitution that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions, consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their leaders." Despite Biden's occasional objections, that wording was read by other politicians and the media as calling for the division of Iraq into three regions, one for Sunnis, one for Shiites, and one for Kurds. For that perception, Biden has himself to blame. An op-ed Biden wrote in 2006 described his plan this way: "The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.... The first [point of the plan] is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues." The Biden Plan, as it was called, proved remarkably popular in the Senate — in September 2007 it faced a Senate vote and passed with the support of 75 senators, including 26 Republicans. The non-binding measure did not compel the President to act, only expressed the will of the Senate. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted with Biden; Obama and McCain did not vote at all. '

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
"Survey: US, allies losing ground in Afghanistan"
Change they can believe in? Not so much.

' A survey among Afghans indicates support is plummeting for the Kabul government and the United States and European troops trying to bolster it against insurgents, according to a report Monday. The decline is striking particularly in the last year, the poll shows, even as the Obama administration and NATO allies weigh moves to strengthen forces in the struggle with Taliban and other radical groups. President Barack Obama has assigned high priority to the conflict, and the administration is weighing whether to send another 30,000 U.S. troops, almost doubling the 32,000 present. Few Afghans felt encouraged by Obama's election, however: Two in 10 said they thought he would make things better for the Afghan people, and nearly as many said they thought he would make things worse. The rest either expected no change or were waiting to see. The poll — commissioned by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV — found that the number of Afghans who say their country is headed in the right direction has dropped to 40 percent, from 77 percent in 1995 when the survey was first conducted. '

TREND NEWS AGENCY
"Angry civilians protest civilian deaths in Afghanistan"
Maybe this has something to do with those poll numbers.

' Angry civilians in Laghman are protesting military operations that resulted in civilian deaths. The protestors are demonstrating against the deaths of 21 civilans killed in a U.S. air strike on Jan. 23. The U.S. military refused responsibility for the bombing and claimed that it did not target civilians. However, 15 insurgents may have been killed during the attack. Many Afghan civilians and the government condemn what they consider the indiscriminate use of arms by the allied forces. '

AFP
"Afghan official beheaded by 'guests' "
Another way of taking a head count.

' The Taliban, who control several districts of Helmand, have previously beheaded other people, including hostages, in a campaign of intimidation and fear that targets Afghans working for the government or international groups. Ethnic and tribal rivalries and crime, including that associated with Helmand's booming opium trade, also play a part in the wave of violence that has engulfed the country. '

THE STATE
"US supply routes in Afghanistan squeezed 2 ways"
Bit of a cock-up in the Khyber, I'm afraid...

' U.S. troops in Afghanistan saw their supply lines squeezed from the north and east Tuesday after militants blew up a bridge in Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan's government said it would end American use of a key air base following Russia's announcement of new aid. Securing efficient and safe supply routes into Afghanistan has become a top priority for U.S. officials as the Pentagon prepares to send in up to 30,000 more American soldiers this year. Some 75 percent of U.S. supplies travel through Pakistan, where militants have stepped up attacks on truck convoys destined for U.S. bases. Attackers on Tuesday blew up a bridge in northwestern Pakistan in a fresh salvo in an escalating campaign seeking to cripple Washington's war effort in Afghanistan. Islamist militants blew up a bridge in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, cutting a major supply line for Western troops in Afghanistan in the latest in a series of attacks on the Khyber Pass by insurgents seeking to hamper the U.S.-led mission against the Taliban. A NATO spokesman in Afghanistan confirmed that supplies along the route had been halted "for the time being," but stressed the alliance was in no danger of running out of food, equipment or fuel. The U.S. and NATO fly ammunition, weapons and other sensitive supplies into Afghanistan, but it would be too costly to ship everything that way. '

CNN
"Kyrgyzstan cites slaying, finances in closing of U.S. base"
Gee, wonder how this happened?

' U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the decision to close Manas Air Base "regrettable." Just a few weeks ago, during a visit to the region, Gen. David Petraeus -- who oversees U.S. operations in the Middle East and Central Asia -- talked about how important the base is. Closing Manas base would not affect only the United States. Petraeus said the site "plays an important role" in the deployment of Spanish and French soldiers into Afghanistan, in addition to U.S. troops. Sultangaziev rejected any suggestions that Russia may have pushed for the closure of the U.S. base. He said the announcement of Russia's aid package was a coincidence. The mountainous former Soviet republic is Central Asia's second poorest country. The U.S. base has been in operation since December 2001 under a U.N. mandate. Kyrgyzstan also is home to a Russian military base, at Kant, that officially opened in 2003. The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Tuesday that Russia would offer Kyrgyzstan a $300 million, 40-year loan at an annual interest rate of 0.75 percent and write off $180 million of Kyrgyzstan's debt. Clinton said Thursday, "It's regrettable that this is under consideration by the government of Kyrgyzstan, and we hope to have further discussions with them. But we will proceed in a very effective manner no matter what the outcome of the Kyrgyzstan government's deliberations might be." '

YAHOO NEWS
"Russia denies influencing Kyrgyzstan on US base"
So, the Russians had nothing to do with it... ?

' A senior Russian envoy says Moscow did not influence Kyrgyzstan's decision to end American access to a base used to resupply U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The decision was announced several days ago as Kyrgyzstan's president was visiting Moscow after securing more than $2 billion in loans and aid from Russia. Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says "there is no correlation" between the Russian aid offer and the Kyrgyz decision. '

REUTERS
"U.S. diplomat holds Afghan supply talks in Moscow"
Suddenly, Russia to the rescue. Well played, Vladi!

' A senior U.S. diplomat will hold talks with Russian officials on Tuesday about opening up new supply routes across Russian territory to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. embassy said. The talks come less than a week after Kyrgyzstan announced it will close a U.S. airbase on its territory that provides logistical support by air to U.S. troops fighting the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan. Russia has signalled readiness to expand cooperation in supplying non-military equipment to U.S. forces and other NATO contingents in Afghanistan. Such shipments would also have to pass through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to reach the conflict zone. Supply routes through Pakistan have become increasingly vulnerable to militant attacks over the last year. '

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
"Beware of energy’s robber barons"
Russia, India, the U.S. This is getting complicated.

' In early January, Russia’s giant energy company Gazprom suddenly cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine. As a result, much of Europe shivered without heat because pipelines through Ukraine supply most of their gas. Moscow exercised its gas clout in 2008 as well, ostensibly over pricing and transit fees, but more likely as an assertion of its readiness to wield energy as a weapon. The Russian act has implications for two gas pipelines that concern India: TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) and IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India).
At issue is the stranglehold both monopoly suppliers and transiting countries may have over energy security. Given that TAPI and IPI would transit through rough terrain with restive populations such as Afghanistan and Baluchistan, the chances of disruption are high, whether via blackmail by the Pakistani government or due to physical damage by insurgents. '

AFGHANA.COM
"Provinces of Afghanistan"
On the road to Kabul.

' Interactive Map: Badakhsan - Badghis - Baghlan - Balkh - Bamian - Farah - Faryab - Ghazni - Ghowr - Herat - Helmand - Jowzjan - Kabul - Kapisa - Konar - Kondoz - Laghman - Logar - Nangarhar - Nemroz - Oruzgan - Paktia - Paktika - Parwan - Qandahar - Samangan - Sar-e-pul - Takhar - Wardak - Zabol '

PBS
"Interactive Map: Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups"
The many tribes of Afghanistan.

' Map: Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups - In-depth Coverage of Afghanistan and the War on Terror by the Online NewsHour. '

(Cross-posted at blog me no blogs.)
.
.

There's more: "POLLING THE VICTIMS OF GAZ WARFARE" >>

Iraq Moratorium: Now more than ever

Sometimes we think we should just call it the War Moratorium.

We all want to end the war and occupation of Iraq -- but not to free up more troops for Afghanistan.

Violence continues to rage on a daily basis in both of those war-torn countries.

And now Gaza has been added to the mix, with innocents dying on both sides.

A new president takes office in less than two weeks -- someone whose candidacy was launched and sustained in its early stages by his opposition to the Iraq war.

He, and other policy makers, need to hear from us, loudly and clearly, that we elected them to follow a path to peace -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Gaza, and around the globe.

What better time than Friday, Jan. 16, Iraq Moratorium #17, four days before the inauguration?

The Moratorium offers a chance for people across the country to speak out for peace with a united voice, in their own communities, all across the country. Since it began in September 2007, it has sparked more than 1,500 local events in 43 states and 260 communities.

Please join us this month. It's easy. You simply have to disrupt your regular routine and do something on January 16 to call for peace in Iraq. The Moratorium is a big umbrella. You decide what to do -- as an individual or with a group. Aside from unity on Iraq, there is plenty of room for other messages -- to convert military spending to health care or other urgent needs, for example, or to stop the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Gaza.

The main thing is that we all do something -- and that we share that information with others, so that it can inspire them and let them know that they are not alone, but truly part of a national grassroots movement that is mobilizing in local communities.

Please check our website to see if there's an event listed in your community. Here's the list.

If not, please send us the information on any group or individual action you're planning for January 16. Just use this form.

Afterward, we hope you'll share your experience by sending us a short report, with photos or video if possible.

This is not a time to relax our efforts. It is a time to renew and redouble them, knowing that we're no longer trying to speak to a President and Congress with deaf ears on this issue. There is a lot of talk about hope these days, and we should be hopeful, too -- but take nothing for granted.

Thanks for all of your efforts to date, and for whatever you can do this month in the cause of peace.

There's more: "Iraq Moratorium: Now more than ever" >>

Obama Talks War on Meet the Press

Meet the Press highlights from President-elect Obama's appearance on Sunday ranged from "Obama won't smoke in the White House" to "Obama warns economy will get even worse" to my favorite, Obama says there will be science lectures in the White House. That would be fantastic and a real change from the science-phobic President Bush. In fact, some of my personal hopes for Obama involve his approach to climate change and science. I don't have a lot of hope that he will be unbiased about Palestine or Afghanistan because his own words show his agenda supports fighting a so-called "War on Terror" as defined by the "West" -- which somehow includes Israel. Unfortunately, the "War on Terror" is a mythological beast. It's like a war on bad dreams.

The most disturbing statements that Obama made during the Meet the Press Interview (transcript here) are about continuing the war in the "region" of Afghanistan. It seems as though he is trying to make us believe that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, and therefore, we still have to keep fighting in Afghanistan. That sounds good to people who aren't paying attention, in large part because this is what Obama has been saying his whole campaign. The following is what he said during Meet the Press.

"The second thing is that we need a strategic partnership with all the parties in the region--Pakistan and India and the Afghan government--to stamp out the kind of militant, violent, terrorist extremists that have set up base camps and that are operating in ways that threaten the security of everybody in the international community. And, as I've said before, we can't continue to look at Afghanistan in isolation. We have to see it as a part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, includes India, includes Kashmir, includes Iran. And part of the kind of foreign policy I want to shape is one in which we have tough, direct diplomacy combined with more effective military operations, focused on what is the number one threat against U.S. interests and U.S. lives. And that's al-Qaeda and, and, and their various affiliates, and we are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come."

There are a few disturbing things in that paragraph. The first is the leading us to believe that al Qaeda is all over Afghanistan. According to Professor Juan Cole of the Informed Comment website, there is no Al Qaeda in Afganistan. There is the Taliban, but the Taliban didn't attack us. Depending on who you ask, the Taliban may be, or may not be, a terrorist group. At one point they reportedly joined forces with Al Qaeda, but it appears those days are long over. Would we Americans be a terrorist group if we tried to fight invaders to get them to leave our country? Would it be similar, if not the same? Regardless, the Taliban did not attack the U.S. and we seem to be fighting them in order to impose "freedom" on the civilians there, including the ones we are still bombing.

The Taliban members are called "insurgents" only because we are fighting them, and we are only fighting them because they want us, the occupiers, out of their country. Like I've said before, I still don't understand what we're doing in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai wants us out. We have no business imposing our form of government on anyone, especially since it's based on an economic system that is causing terrible financial problems in the entire world right now. "Freedom" to the Bush administration equals unregulated capitalism. It has, and had, nothing to do with civil rights or the Constitutuion, or actual "freedom", all of which Bush and his cohorts have frequently and happily crapped on.

Juan Cole wrote:

"Obama, who is retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, said he would give him a new mission, of getting out of Iraq and combatting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (I don't think there is any al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; at least, no captures there have been announced to my knowledge since 2002)."

So . . . . . if there are no al Qaeda in Afganistan, and we are only fighting the locals now, it stands to reason that will change when Obama actually becomes president, because as a policy, that makes no sense. Can we presume a new policy means we will be fighting al Qaeda where they actually are -- in the mountains on the north edge of Pakistan? In Pakistan? In India? Keep in mind, he mentioned all these countries, and in the two where al Qaeda probably lurks, there are also quite a few nuclear weapons. This is not a good mix.

Obama also said, "We are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come." Years to come. It is unacceptable to me and many other peace-loving people that we will be at war in that "region" for years to come. These wars have to end and they have to end soon.

I don't know if this will make any difference, but it's worth a try: There is a website besides change.gov where you can weigh in on what you want Obama to do on "Day One". You can vote on the ideas that have been proposed already, many of which are very hard to choose between because they are nearly the same. President Obama may or may not see these answers but it's fun to pretend we have a say in things anyway. Vote here on: On/Day/1.

It is a "Contest of Ideas" I wish I'd known about a month ago, because I would have certainly submitted different ideas than I see there, but some of them are close enough.

Hopefully I'm misinterpreting everything Obama is saying about the "War on Terror". Obama also said we need to fight militarily in the region, and do it more strongly, so I doubt we are misinterpreting anything. The rest of the world's leaders are not too eager to stop these wars either. After all, we are having an economic crisis, and there is nothing for an economic crisis (so goes the conventional wisdom) like a long war. Except in this case, these wars will bankrupt us instead of helping the economy. The time to pressure the new administration to listen to the peace movement is now.

Cross-posted at Civilianism

There's more: "Obama Talks War on Meet the Press" >>

"Coming Home" 2008: Iraq and Afghan Vets Return

WHAT SORT OF PEOPLE ARE THEY, NOW?

HOW HAS THE WAR AFFECTED OUR PEOPLE?

YouTube: IAVA "Community of Veterans"

More Importantly, How Are Our Vets Being Treated?

TV has recognized our vets. Well, a soap opera hired one, anyway. Obama may hire one, too: Hawaii's own Major Tammy Duckworth, the Army's female helicopter pilot who lost both legs fighting for her country, might be our next Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. As for the rest of those coming home, it's not a happy time.

Unemployment in parts of the States has hit double digits. State, County, City and private colleges are cutting back their financial aid and their enrollments. The credit crunch is hitting kids who grew up on plastic especially hard: Can't even afford a Slurpee at the 7-11 now that the VISA-card is canceled. And that dream home the military bonus was supposed to buy? It's a bit beyond the means of most enlisted personnel and lower-ranking officers, even if they could get a mortgage these days. Just getting a loan for a new car might be a problem for many. And let's not talk about the price of gas, "down" to $2.50/gal! Welcome home, soldier!

[continued]

The nation's financial crunch is taking its' toll. Already majorly stressed-out after repeated deployments to urban, mountain & desert guerrilla wars in hostile nations whose very culture rejects us, our troops are suffering psychological problems in record numbers. Whole combat units have suffered suicides, family killings, and other acts of violence on the home-front. The Department of Defense and Veterans' Affairs have been slow to address the problems, starting out with the usual bureaucratic defense of denial. Hell, they only just recognized the effects of Gulf War Syndrome, after seventeen years. But that's faster than they recognized Agent Orange problems, I guess.

VA Hospitals are not what they once were, or what they were meant to be, after WWII. They means-test and narrowly define "service-connected" medical problems, discouraging vets from seeking treatment. The whole system has been hanging by a thread for decades, eyed for possible conversion to Medicare or Medicaid facilities, or privatization. Some entire States only have one VA Hospital. And there is little or no outreach to the new generation of veterans.

The problem is compounded, ironically, by the advances in battlefield medicine: Wounded soldiers who might never have made it to an aid station are now whisked off to state-of-the-art hospitals in time to save their lives. But many of them are so grievously wounded or mutilated that they will require major rehab and/ or medical attention for the rest of their lives. The system is just not set up for that. Even wounded vets with much less serious problems are finding that the DOD and VA are not able, or not willing to help them out, Stateside. We've all seen the pictures of those run-down military hospitals and barracks for the casualties of war who made it home. Did we care?

Public sentiment is another problem. Sure, every SUV had a "9/11" sign, a yellow ribbon that said "Support Our Troops," and a "BUSH-CHENEY" bumper-sticker. But what is the attitude toward the men and women going off to war, and then bringing it all back home with them? We haven't heard those apocryphal stories of "hippies" spitting on returning soldiers at the airport this time. But we haven't seen a lot of ticker-tape parades on national TV, either, except for sports teams.

Given the fact that this was an all-volunteer effort, drawing largely upon our National Guard and Reserves, with their older personnel, constantly rotated in and out of two war zones, the effect of the war on the larger population has been minimized. At the same time, while none of the rest of us was at risk, we all knew somebody who was at risk. The shipping clerk or his wife. The corner druggist or her husband. The mailman, fireman, policeman or woman we used to see almost every day. The boy next door. The girl you sat next to in school. Women. Lots of women in this one, in combat for the first time, despite the regulations against it. Well, they're back, mostly intact. They look the same, sort of. A little older. A little haggard, maybe. Probably lost a few pounds. Kinda tired around the eyes. Sometimes they just stare off into space. We all do that, sometimes, right? But we did not choose to go to war. And they did.

So what's the difference? Are they angry at us? Are they hurt that we didn't join them, and haven't much recognized them for what they did? Do they find it hard to understand that we don't understand what they did, or what they think they did? To many of them, their actions "in-theater" mattered, to themselves and their comrades, and to many locals over there. They could see the chaos, which we created, coming under control, thanks to their own efforts. They saw the remains of the old Saddam and Taliban regimes, and they knew that there had been major improvements.

After many months inside the military propaganda machine, they might have come to accept the official line on the war's effectiveness and on the Iraqi and Afghan people's gratitude, and on how we succeeded in bringing democracy to the Middle East. All that stuff which the rest of us don't even consider real, for the most part; don't even think about, ever: All of us among whom the returning warriors-triumphant now have to live as shipping clerks and insurance salesmen. How's that working out for them, I wonder?

CBS NEWS
"Vets' Suicide Rate "Stunning""

' Some of America's 25 million veterans face their biggest fight when they return home from the battlefield -- when they take on mental illness. And, a CBS News analysis reveals they lose that battle, and take their own lives, at a clip described by various experts as "stunning" and "alarming," according to Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian. One called it a "hidden epidemic." He says no one had ever counted just how many suicides there are nationwide among those who had served in the military -- until now. The five-month CBS News probe, based upon a detailed analysis of data obtained from death records from 2004 and 2005, found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 as non-vets. A recent Veteran Affairs Department estimate says some 5,000 ex-servicemen and women will commit suicide this year, largely as a result of mental health issues, and Keteyian says, "Our numbers are much higher than that, overall." '

THINK PROGRESS.ORG
"VA Conceals Vet Suicide Figures From CBS To Downplay ‘Epidemic In Suicide’»"

' Yesterday marked the opening day of a class action lawsuit brought by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), arguing “that failure to provide care is manifesting itself in an epidemic of suicides” among veterans. The VA denies the charges, pointing to increased resources devoted to mental health. Today, CBS News reports that the VA apparently concealed veteran suicide statistics, and fed the news organization faulty data for a story on the issue. The VA told CBS that there were 790 attempted suicides in all of 2007. Yet shortly after, the VA’s head of Mental Health, Dr. Ira Katz, wrote in an e-mail to the VA’s top media adviser that there were “about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our medical facilities.” Suicide among veterans — even those who seek help from the VA — continues to be a huge problem. Just last week, the VA Medical Center in Dallas, TX, officially closed its psychiatric ward after a fourth veteran this year took his own life. Often veterans cannot get help right away: According to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, “The average wait-time for a disability claim” — including mental health problems — “is 183 days, or about six months.” '

NEWSWEEK
"New Ad Tells Vets They're Not Alone, Offers Social Networking "

' Sometimes one needs to restate the obvious to point out what's right in front of us. Herbert was discussing the launch of a major new ad campaign by the advocacy group, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, that aims to send a message to returning vets: you are not alone. The ad touts an online social networking Website called communityofveterans.org which not only provides useful information (such as how to navigate the VA), but also gives vets a chance to correspond with each other. Because the site was designed by veterans, attention is paid to aspects of veteran life the general public may not be aware of, such as an excellent portion that deals with homecoming. Put simply, the site got it absolutely right: It’s good to be home. Or is it? '

NY TIMES
"Help Is on the Way"

' Returning to civilian life from combat is almost always a hard road to run. Studies have shown that a third or more of G.I.’s returning from the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan — more than 300,000 men and women — have endured mental health difficulties. Many have experienced the agony of deep depression, and alarming numbers have tried or succeeded in committing suicide. A CBS News study found that veterans aged 20 to 24 were two to four times as likely to commit suicide as non-veterans the same age. The advertising campaign, initiated by the advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, was designed to increase the number of veterans seeking treatment for their mental health difficulties. Many are embarrassed to speak about their problems or are unaware that help is available, or even that they need help. As Bryan Adams told me, “I didn’t know anything about these symptoms. I didn’t know what post-traumatic stress disorder was.” '

IAVA
"Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America"

' Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the civilian supporters of those Troops and Veterans. IAVA is an independent organization and is not affiliated with any groups other than our sister (c)4, IAVA Action Fund. '

IAVA: COMMUNITY OF VETERANS.ORG
"Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans Social Networking Site"

' Join our veterans-only online community to connect with people who know where you're coming from. Share your experiences and help others make the transition to civilian life. Stronger Together. '

[Cross-posted at blog me no blogs by cosanostradamus.]

There's more: ""Coming Home" 2008: Iraq and Afghan Vets Return" >>

The War on People

This is about collateral damage, aka the killing of civilians during war. The "war on terror" is really a war on people. Those people are not easily categorized, but I know who they aren't. They aren't white, they aren't rich, they aren't American, and they don't usually speak English. The exception to this are the few accused 'leaders' of terrorism which the U.S. says it wants to capture; bin Laden is presumably wealthy but the hunt for bin Laden has been declared phony more than once recently. (They need a Bad Guy or the war on terror itself is phony). So if the war on terror is phony, that means the war on terror is really a war on people who are "Other" than American. That's like our government saying, "World, watch your back!"

The following is a good book review for a new book on collateral damage. I heard the two authors discuss this last week on CSPAN for the Miami Book Fair. (You can watch the whole panel here). It's written by Chris Hedges (a pro-peace independent journalist) and Laila Al-Arian. From their discussion of their book, and what I have read in the last 4 years, it's obvious to me that the 'war on terror' has desensitized the American people to conclude that killing people in far-away countries in order to keep us safe, whatever that means, is perfectly OK. Proof of anything about their threat to our safety is optional. And unfortunately, this war on people is not going to end with a new administration.

Obviously the war-keeps-us-safe point of view overlooks the fact that we have never been, and will never be, "safe". We could cross the street and be hit by a car, or our house could be burglarized tomorrow, or a neighbor's dog could attack us. We could lose our jobs and our health insurance. Surely these situations all threaten peoples' safety. Women in the U.S. know they are never safe, and never will be, as domestic violence and rape and dying in childbirth are always a threat. So a war to keep us safe seems as ridiculous as promising us "heaven" or 72 virgins after we die. It's a fantasy.

There's more: "The War on People" >>

Will Afghanistan Be Obama's Iraq?

Now that it seems hostilities are simmering down in Iraq, we will be paying more attention to Afghanistan. Readers will remember Afghanistan, it is, after all where the United States first struck back in the War on Terror. We were successful back then in overturning the Taliban led government and routing the Taliban, who were known to have provided a safe haven to Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts. Then George W, Bush took his eye off the ball and headed out to Iraq for his next conquest.

Barack Obama, during the campaign season told us that one of his priorities will be to get back in to Afghanistan and finish the job that George W. Bush bungled. So as we draw down troops from Iraq, we will be sending replacement troops (likely troops currently recovering back home from their last deployment in Iraq) back in to the fray in Afghanistan.



Just so everyone reading along here can get up to speed on Afghanistan, and what we are in for, here are some of the recent headlines that were likely overlooked during all of the recent political coverage in the media (each of the headlines below are links to full aritcles):

G.I.'s in Remote Afghan Post Have Weary Job, Drawing Fire

War Casualties

Obama Administration Likely To Deploy Tens Of Thousands Of Troops To Afghanistan

Record opium harvest in Afghanistan threatens new heroin crisis in Britain

Afghan aid to insurgents alledged in attack on U.S. troops

Karzai Demands Obama End Civilian Deaths

Army Social Scientist Set Afire in Afghanisgan

Afghan war to loom large for Obama

Gunmen kidnap French aid worker in Kabul

More Troops Are Nice, but More Intlligence Needed to Save Afghan War

As Taliban Overwhelm Police, Pakistanis Strike Back

A Warning, a Blast, a Fight to Save an Afghan Life

Rudderless in Kabul

Airstrikes kill 27 in Pakistan

Suicide bomber attacks Afghan ministry

Gunfire brings down U.S. helicopter in Afghanistan

Neighbours meet to discuss how to tackle Taliban violence

Murdered aid worker buried in Kabul

US Commandos Rescue American Hostage Near Kabul

If the articles linked to above don't get readers worried, then I suggest they take a gander at the PBS Frontline documentary titled The War Briefing. A Frontline news documentary unit was embedded with U.S. troops deployed at an isolated outpost on the Afghan frontier, and the film clearly brings home the fact that we are barely surviving in a holding operation in the country, we are not wining hearts and minds, we are not routing the Taliban and we are not capturing or killing Al Qaeda. The central government in Kabul has virtually no power to protect the people of Kabul or in the countryside, and the Taliban has regrouped and is intent on taking back control of the country.

Having lived through the war in Vietnam, observing the history of the Russians in Afghanistan, having lived through the war in Iraq, it gives one pause to contemplate just what kind of a quagmire are we getting ourselves in to in Afghanistan? And after viewing the entire Frontline documentary, one wonders when we will find our military forces drawn in to full scale hostilities in Pakistan.

I believe that president-elect Obama is an intelligent person, he is pragmatic, calculating and deliberate in his thought processes. I hope that some of the rhetoric that he used during the campaign was calculated to demonstrate his bonafides in terms of being a strong leader and commander-in-chief when necessary, but I am more hopeful that he will rely on his intelligence, his pragmatic and calculating mind and also listen to all voices that he can bring together who will present him with all facets of the issues, and only then will he and his staff and advisors and his subordinates think strategically and will act with all appropriate caution and deliberation, as they address the issues facing us in the region.

I am not ready for us to simply move our base of operations from Iraq to Afghanistan, I am not ready to see more of our blood and treasure expended because we have failed to learn from the past.

There's more: "Will Afghanistan Be Obama's Iraq?" >>

MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA

WHAT'S MILITARY ABOUT IT? SOUNDS GODD*MNED UNMILITARY TO ME

IS THE DOD INSTITUTIONALIZING RAPE, MOLESTATION, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT AS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE"?


Conduct Un-Becoming Is Becoming A Pretty Big Statistic

Over 15% of all women serving in the US armed forces in the Middle East have been subject to military sexual trauma, which, in English, means sex-crimes perpetrated by fellow servicemen and/ or women. More than one seventh, or a company out of every battalion, have been victimized because of their gender.

[continued]
.

.

THIS SUCKS!!! THIS IS UNAC-F*CKING-CEPTABLE PEOPLE!!! YOU'D BETTER JUST STAND THE F*CK BY!!!

Sorry, troopers & marines, that's my impression of a righteous, righteously pissed-off Gunny/ Master Sergeant/ or CO or XO, reaming out the formation. If there is any so righteous. There had f*cking well better be. Because our goddam sisters in arms are our g*ddam BROTHERS-IN-ARMS YOU F*CKING ASSHOLES!!!


NEWSWISE
"Substantial Proportion of Female Veterans Report Military Sexual Trauma; Military Sexual Trauma Is Associated with Higher Rates of Mental Health Problems"

' According to preliminary research results from the Department of Veterans Affairs, approximately 15 percent of recently returned female veterans utilizing the VA health care system report experiencing sexual trauma during military service. The cross-sectional study, presented at the American Public Health Association’s 136th Annual Meeting & Exposition in San Diego, examined health care screening data of over 100,000 veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) who utilized medical care at any Veterans Health Administration facility during a six-year period. Along with the more than one in seven women, 0.7 percent of males also reported having experienced military sexual trauma (MST). Both males and females reporting MST were more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health condition than patients who did not report MST. '

USA TODAY
"15% of female veterans tell of sexual trauma"

' "There is concern about the number of sexual assaults, and we're working very hard to prevent them," says Kaye Whitley, who heads an office created by the Pentagon in 2005 to prevent and respond to the incidents. All service branches are expanding their prevention programs, and her office will launch a prevention effort next year focused on educating 18- to 24-year-old men, she says. A General Accounting Office report in July said training to prevent military sexual assaults isn't consistently effective, some commanders don't support the programs and more than half of victims don't report the incidents. Many women are afraid to report the assaults, says Anita Sanchez of the Miles Foundation, a non-profit that provides services to victims of military-related trauma. Fewer than a third of women who come to Miles for help after sexual assaults say they've told the military, she says. "A typical scenario is it's either a supervisor or someone at her level, in the same military unit. If you come forward, you're tattle-telling on a comrade. Women have told me about the sneers, the sarcastic comments. They can find themselves ostracized," says Sanchez, and when other women see this, the lesson isn't lost on them. '

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
"Evans Releases Military Sexual Trauma Report Suppressed by Administration "

' Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, today decried the Bush Administration for attempting to hide a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) study and report on military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reserve forces. Despite the Bush Administration’s refusal to release it, Evans obtained the long overdue report that was originally due by March 2001. Evans has repeatedly requested the report and had been told it is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. The VA report indicates that across National Guard and Reserve components the estimated prevalence of any military sexual trauma (MST) among females is 60% and among males is 27%. MST includes sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. The report also states the estimated prevalence for rape among females is 11% and among males is 1.2%. '

PBS: "NOW"
"Military Sexual Trauma"

' Roughly one in seven of America's active duty military soldiers is a woman, but a NOW investigation found that sexual assault and rape is widespread. One study of National Guard and Reserve forces found that almost one in four women had been assaulted or raped. Last year alone, almost 3,000 soldiers reported sexual assault and rape by other soldiers. In one of the only national television broadcasts of the issue, NOW features women who speak out for the first time about what happened. One woman recounts her ordeal of rape by her superior officer. Many more don't report the incidents for fear of how it will affect their careers. The shocking phenomenon has a label: military sexual trauma, or MST. NOW meets women courageously battling to overcome their MST, bringing light to an issue that's putting the Army in shame. '

(Cross-posted on blog me no blogs.)

There's more: "MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA" >>

Real News: Obama sells Europeans on Afghan war

August 4, 2008 - 6 min 27 sec - Obama sells Europeans on Afghan war

European public hails Obama as the anti-Bush, but politicians cool to idea of more troops in Afghanistan

The Guardian headline said “Obama gets rock star welcome” One Berliner called it “an Anti-Bush rally”, and the Financial Times Deutshland called it an “ad for the war on terror “. In a speech laden with cold war rhetoric, Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama stood before more than 200,000 people in Berlin on thursday and summoned Europeans and Americans to work together on many issues, from Iraq and Afghanistan to the “War on Terror” and climate change. Andreas Zumach of Die Tageszietung: European politicians are somewhat glad about the general statements Obama made on the need for improving the Euro-Atlantic alliance again. They have read about what he said on more cooperation on global issues like climate change, on the US in the future more obeying international law. They are very wary, especially the ones in Germany, France, and the other big European countries, about the clear message he sent on Afghanistan, where he very clearly and undiplomatically said, "We need more of your troops in Afghanistan," which means more war fighting done by the Europeans in a war that's bound to be lost.

There's more: "Real News: Obama sells Europeans on Afghan war" >>

Obama, Rice Team Up on Foreign Policy?

Hat tip to Jeralyn Merritt at Talkleft for this:

If you had to guess which presidential candidate was consulting Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on foreign affairs would you pick the one from her party -- a party which has frequently suggested she be added to the ticket as the VP candidate -- or the candidate from the other party? The Aspen Daily News, citing a new Time Magazine article, says it's Obama who has been consulting Condi Rice on foreign affairs.

From the Time article:

A few days before he left on his eight-country world tour, Barack Obama wanted to discuss the trip with an old contact in Washington: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Obama's phone call was in part a courtesy, but over three years of occasional phone conversations, the two have quietly discussed everything from foreign aid to the Middle East and nuclear proliferation. Obama and Rice have come to have a certain respect for each other, says an Obama aide familiar with their conversations, because both take an intellectual, sober view of foreign affairs. "They've had good exchanges," the aide says. "Does he treat her as someone whom he has respect for? Absolutely. Does he listen to her on occasion? Absolutely."

The little-known Rice-Obama link is just the latest surprise in a summer of unexpected shifts in American foreign policy.
...
It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue.

There's more: "Obama, Rice Team Up on Foreign Policy?" >>

Afghanistan is Not the "Good War"

Is the war in Afghanistan any more justified than the occupation of Iraq? Not in my opinion. More civilians and soldiers are dying in Afghanistan recently than since the war began. Lately, American politicians are talking of withdrawing troops from Iraq to put them into Afghanistan. This is a bad idea for several reasons, the main one being that force and the use of the military is not the recommended way to fight terrorism. The most recent conclusion on this was reached by a RAND study that found:

"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts. The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa’ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

So, increasing the amount of soldiers, death and destruction in Afghanistan is exactly the wrong way to fight the terrorism we supposedly are trying to eliminate. Yet the opposite is happening, and both major parties seem to favor this wrong approach. In addition, there has been a barrage of articles lately explaining how increasing the violence in Afghanistan is wrong and might even make things worse, despite the political and media concensus. The following is from one of the most recent articles, from Anti-war.com:

" . . the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Our old ally, Osama bin Laden, did. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same organization (if one can really call al-Qaeda an "organization"), and no one seems to be listening to the Afghans. We should be.

A recent poll of Afghan sentiment found that, while the majority dislikes the Taliban, 74% want negotiations and 54% would support a coalition government that included the Taliban.

. . . . the Taliban appears to be evolving from a creation of the U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani intelligence agencies during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union, to a polyglot collection of dedicated Islamists to nationalists. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar told the Agence France Presse early this year, "We're fighting to free our country. We are not a threat to the world."

As our air and ground attacks increase, so do civilian deaths. We are not winning "hearts and minds" as this terrible outcome increases.

"As the United States steps up its air war, civilian casualties have climbed steadily over the past two years. Nearly 700 were killed in the first three months of 2008, a major increase over last year. In a recent incident, 47 members of a wedding party were killed in Helmand Province. In a society where clan, tribe, and blood feuds are a part of daily life, that single act sowed a generation of enmity."

It's hard to see any reason to continue this fiasco when things are just going from bad to worse and there is no progress being made. Let's hope our political candidates don't really mean what they are saying on this subject. To increase something disastrous only increases the disaster.

Read more of the article here.

There's more: "Afghanistan is Not the "Good War"" >>

National Assembly offers antiwar action blueprint

This report on the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation held June 28-29 in Cleveland is overdue, but was delayed to await an official summary of the actions taken there. Unless you were in the room almost all of the time for the debate and votes, it was impossible to know exactly what decisions the 400-plus participants made. And I confess to spending a good chunk of time "networking" and kibitzing in the halls.

Now the organizers have produced their summary and evaluation, which you can read it its entirety here.

The Assembly urged united and massive mobilizations on both coasts in the spring to end the war, while also endorsing demonstrations at the Republican (Sept. 1-4) and Democratic (Aug. 25-28) conventions, local actions on October 11 -- the date Congress passed the resolution authorizing the Iraq war -- and proposing Dec. 9-14 as dates for local actions across the country demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The group also voted almost unanmously to endorse local Iraq Moratorium actions on the Third Friday of every month, although that is not specifically mentioned in the organizers' report. That's disappointing to me, as part of the group who worked to make that part of the action agenda passed by the participants. But in the grand scheme of things, as one of my compatriots said, "This is just one document, produced by some exhausted folks in the aftermath of a complex event." The proof, as usual, will be in the pudding.
Organizers believe the Dec. 9-14 actions provide the best potential for uniting the entire movement in the months ahead:

ANSWER and the Troops Out Now Coalition have endorsed them and the hope is that United for Peace and Justice will do the same. The need now is to take these proposed dates to local antiwar coalitions; labor groups, especially U.S. Labor Against the War; veterans and military families organizations: the faith community; Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Muslim and other nationalities, racial and ethnic groups; students; women’s peace organizations; the Iraq Moratorium; and other social forces that can be drawn into antiwar activities. All actions are viewed as springboards for building massive, united, independent and bi-coastal Spring 2009 demonstrations against the war.

In other action, the Assembly:

-- Expressed its strong opposition to attacks against Iran, as well as sanctions and other forms of intervention into that country’s internal affairs; registered determination to join other antiwar forces in massive united, protest actions in the event that the U.S. or its proxy, Israel, bombs Iran; and urged that if this occurs an emergency meeting of all the major antiwar forces be called to plan such actions.

-- Added Afghanistan to the name of the Assembly because the U.S. is fighting two unjust, illegal and brutal wars simultaneously and both must be opposed. We are now the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations.

-- Voted to integrate the issue of Palestine into the broader antiwar struggle and to challenge U.S. support for the Israeli occupation.

It's hard to judge the Assembly's real impact, but just getting activists from a wide variety of groups and causes to spend the weekend in the same room, operating in a civil fashion and emphasizing their unifying beliefs rather than their differences, is an accomplishment in itself.

As one of my Wisconsin friends put it, "The hollering was at a minimum, the crowd lively, (if a bit unfocused), the tone was upbeat."

The Assembly adopted the Big Tent philosophy, and was happy to keep enlarging the tent to make room for everyone. Oppose the war in Afghanistan, too? Come on in. Palestine's your main focus? No problem, there's plenty of room.

While that may have built a broader coalition, it seems like that message may be a harder sell when it comes to trying to mobilize massive numbers of regular folks to act against the war -- and that must be the ultimate objective. With a single focus on Iraq, which two-thirds of Americans think was a mistake, it has still been hard to get people to translate their feelings into action. Adding more issues to the pot will not make it easier, but more difficult.

The group's five points of unity are: (1) “Out Now!” as the movement’s unifying demand, (2) mass action as the central strategy, (3) unity of the movement, (4) democratic decision making, and (5) independence from all political parties. Steps were taken to make the Assembly an ongoing organization, "a network with its mission intact and continuing: to be a catalyst and unifier, striving always to unite the movement in the streets."

There are certain to be some bumps in the road. The one-person, one-vote rule worked in Cleveland, but that meant that Ohio participants had 140 votes while Texas had one. Twenty-five states had no representatives at all. While geography may not be important -- this is an antiwar coalition, not the Electoral College -- it also means that some of the bigger organizations were under-represented. At some point that may become an issue.

But, big picture, was it worth doing? Was it energizing? Am I glad I went?

Yes, yes, and yes.

There's more: "National Assembly offers antiwar action blueprint" >>