US Military Industrial Complex

Share119

de Rugy writes: "Today we are living Ike's nightmare. Defense spending is not just one of the most sacrosanct parts of the budget but also one of the largest and most inscrutable. Adjusting for inflation, military spending has grown for an unprecedented 13 consecutive years and is now higher than at any time since World War II."

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower makes his farewell address, Jan. 17, 1961. (photo: AP)

The Invincible Military-Industrial Complex

By Veronique de Rugy, Reason

18 February 12

uring his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the American people that one of the greatest threats to freedom came not from enemies abroad but from "the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry," which over time would lose sight of defending the United States and become devoted only to its own perpetuation. "In the councils of government," said the man who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Today we are living Ike's nightmare. Defense spending is not just one of the most sacrosanct parts of the budget but also one of the largest and most inscrutable. Adjusting for inflation, military spending has grown for an unprecedented 13 consecutive years and is now higher than at any time since World War II. Even excluding war costs, the military baseline budget has grown by about 50 percent during the last decade.

Yet the faintest suggestion of a plan to reduce the rate of the defense budget's growth inevitably triggers dire warnings that Americans will soon be speaking Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or the mother tongue of whoever is deemed the most powerful adversary of the moment. Consider the Pentagon's reaction to the recent threat of defense spending reductions following the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (popularly known as the "supercommittee") to find deficit savings of $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The lack of a deal triggered an alternative path to those savings: a sequestration that would cut projected overall spending by $1.2 trillion between 2013 and 2021. Half of those savings are to come from the defense budget - an annual hit of about $54 billion compared to current administration plans.

But don't confuse that $54 billion with reductions from current spending levels. In August 2011, the Congressional Budget Office projected that discretionary national defense spending (96 percent of all military spending), excluding the wars, would cost $5.3 trillion between 2013 and 2021. After sequestration, that spending will instead total $4.8 trillion, or $500 billion less. That's 10 percent less than otherwise projected (see the chart) but still 10 percent higher than current defense spending.

How did apologists for the military-industrial complex react to the possibility of an increase of just 10 percent rather than 18 percent? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in a November letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), warned that if "maximum sequestration" goes into effect in 2013, "these cuts would be devastating for the Department." One of Panetta's deputies colorfully described the cuts as a form of "self-castration." Former Defense Secretary William Cohen characterized the possible cuts as "draconian" and "calamitous," Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz fretted that his branch "may not be able to overcome dire consequences," and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared that trimming the rate of military spending growth would do nothing less than "destroy the Department of Defense."

There is no basis in reality for such hyperbole. Adjusting for inflation, sequester cuts would freeze the military's budget at its level in 2007 - a year in which America was ably defended, and plenty of cash flowed to the armed forces.

All these numbers underestimate the growth of defense spending. The data for 2013­­–21 exclude war spending, which will add roughly $400 billion during that period, even if the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan proceed as planned. It also excludes mandatory spending, which adds another $6 billion a year on things like military retirement benefits.

When U.S. defense spending is placed in a global context, flipping out over "cuts" becomes even stranger. A country's defense budget should be a function of its security needs - the cost to guard against the threats it faces. Secretary Panetta has noted that "threats to national security would not be reduced" in the face of budget cuts. But it's far from clear that current spending is commensurate with the dangers the U.S. faces.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's military expenditure database show that the United States spent $728 billion on its military in 2010, or about 45 percent of the world's $1.6 trillion total, more than the next 14 largest military spenders combined and nearly six times more than the next biggest spender, China. Most of the other countries at the top of the list are American allies. With or without the automatic cuts to defense from the Budget Control Act of 2011, the United States will remain the biggest global military power for at least a generation.

Defense hawks may have some legitimate gripes about sequestration: Since 42 percent of the cuts in the budget deal come from military spending, defense, which accounts for about 20 percent of annual spending, is being targeted disproportionately. Furthermore, Cato Institute research fellow Benjamin Friedman argues that sequestration is an inefficient method for resizing government. When it comes to military spending, the process doesn't allow for prioritization - cutting less important missions and programs to fully fund more critical ones. As written, the law applies equally to all military accounts. The president can choose to exclude only personnel spending.

Overreliance on across-the-board defense cuts was meant to maximize the pain of sequestration. The idea was to encourage each side of the supercommittee to sacrifice in order to reach a deal, meaning tax increases for Republicans and domestic spending cuts for Democrats. The committee's failure doesn't end those negotiations; it broadens and extends them.

Defense hawks, however, should be careful what they wish for. Unless Congress changes current law, New Year's Day 2013 will bring both sequestration cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, two outcomes Republicans wish to avoid. By exaggerating the impact of defense "cuts," conservatives are giving President Obama important leverage to win revenue increases in exchange for overturning sequestration.

It doesn't have to be this way, Friedman notes. Rather than bellyaching about a somewhat smaller spending increase, Panetta could offer an alternative that allows the Pentagon to choose more wisely among its priorities while bringing spending levels down to a level compatible with adequate national defense. That option would relieve pressure for tax increases while allowing the American people to enjoy the dividends from winding down two expensive wars. But if Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex's insatiable need to keep increasing its budget, size, and influence, it is foolish to expect any defense secretary to propose wiser spending, let alone agree to spend less.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

 

Drones Newsletter #3

Civilian Victims of US Wars #4

OMNI Afghanistan-Pakistan Newsletter #15

OMNI NEWSLETTER ON AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN #15, February 14, 2011, Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace  (#8 April 15, 2011; #9 June 10, 2011; #10 July 3, 2011; #11 July 13, 2011;  #12 Sept. 5, 2011; #13 Oct. 2, 2011; #14 Oct. 15, 2011)

Here is the link to all the newsletters archived in the OMNI web site.

http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ For information not found in the mainstream media

Instead of Defense Department, Say War Department

Instead of Taliban, Say Afghan Resistance to Occupation

Contents of #15

Taliban Peace Talks

Rolling Stone:  McChrystal, Petraeus

Rolling Stone:  Full Report

Chomsky: World Militarism

Voices for Creative Nonviolence:  Women and Children

PBS Film: We Take Our Stand

Merkley Afghan Withdrawal Amendment Passes Senate

Cortright, Ending Obama’s War

Pakistan After NATO Attack

Protest New Military Budget

Petitions

Afghans Hungry This Winter

US Torture (3)

To End War Free 5 Prisoners

IED Soldiers’ Deaths

Dear Dick,

“Tell your representatives to support peace talks to end the war in Afghanistan.”  JustForeignPolicy.

Take Action  The Obama Administration has been working to initiate peace talks with the Afghan Taliban. Such talks could be critical to ending the war in Afghanistan, which is what the majority of Americans want. But Mitt Romney and some in Congress are trying to undermine the prospects of peace talks to end the war.

Will you join us in pressing Congress not to sabotage the peace talks?

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/romneypeacetalks

A key element of the Administration's plans to initiate peace talks is a proposal to transfer Afghan Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo to another country, probably Qatar. But Reuters recently reported that some in Congress have attacked the idea of transferring the prisoners out of Guantanamo, and threatened to try to block the transfer. [1] Meanwhile, Romney has attacked the Administration for talking to the Taliban, even though, as David Ignatius noted in the Washington Post, two of Romney's key foreign policy advisers have long advocated for exactly the policy of talks that the Obama Administration says it is pursuing. [2]

Romney's attack might be mostly campaign posturing, but because it is so prominent, it can still have an effect on Members of Congress, especially if they aren't hearing from anyone that they support peace talks to end the war. The longer peace talks are delayed, the more American soldiers and Afghan civilians will die needless deaths.

Join us in pressing Congress to back peace talks to end the war in Afghanistan by using the link below.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/romneypeacetalks

Thank you for all you do to help bring about a more just foreign policy,

Sarah Burns, Chelsea Mozen, Megan Iorio and Robert Naiman   Just Foreign Policy

References:

1. "Lawmakers may seek to block Taliban transfer," Mark Hosenball and Missy Ryan, Reuters, Fri, Jan 6 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-afghanistan-transfer-idUSTRE80524I20120106

2. "Romney's misfired zinger on Taliban talks," David Ignatius, Washington Post, 01:01 PM ET, 01/17/2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/romneys-misfired-zinger-on-taliban-talks/2012/01/17/gIQAgYpq5P_blog.html

“McChrystal, Petraeus and Afghanistan, the Inside Story” by Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone, January 8, 2012, RSN

Intro: "In April 2010, Rolling Stone contributing editor Michael Hastings spent a month with Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Europe and Afghanistan, reporting on a profile of the supreme commander of all NATO forces in what had become America's longest-running war. To Hastings' astonishment, McChrystal and staff had plenty to say about the White House and its handling of the war - none of it complimentary, much of it contemptuous, and almost all of it on the record."

READ MORE   http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/309-13/9334-focus-mcchrystal-petraeus-and-afghanistan-the-inside-story

Michael Hastings,”The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read” by Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone, Feb. 13, 2012, RSN

Excerpt: "Rolling Stone has now obtained a full copy of the 84-page unclassified version, which has been making the rounds within the US government, including the White House. We've decided to publish it in full; it's well worth reading for yourself. It is, in my estimation, one of the most significant documents published by an active-duty officer in the past ten years."

READ MORE   http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/323-95/9959-the-afghanistan-report-the-pentagon-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Noam Chomsky, “A Global Program of World Militarization”

 Noam Chomsky, “Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers,” RSN, Dec. 16, 2011

Intro: "This is a transcript of a conversation between members of the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers and Noam Chomsky, which took place on September 21, 2011. Each question was asked in Dari and translated by Hakim."

READ MORE   http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/9264-a-global-program-of-world-militarization

Whatever Happened to Women and Children First? (guest post)   November 4, 2011 by Mickie Lynn

By Johnny Barber
http://warisacrime.org/content/what-ever-happened-women-and-children-first

“All wars, whether just or unjust, disastrous or victorious, are waged against the child.” Eglantyne Jebb, founder of Save the Children, 1919.

In Kabul, the children are everywhere. You see them scrounging through trash. You see them doing manual labor in the auto body shops, the butchers, and the construction sites. They carry teapots and glasses from shop to shop. You see them moving through the snarled traffic swirling small pots of pungent incense, warding off evil spirits and trying to collect small change. They can be found sleeping in doorways or in the rubble of destroyed buildings. It is estimated that 70,000 children live on the streets of Kabul.

The big news story on CNN this morning [October 16, 2011] is the excitement generated as hundreds of people line up to buy the newest iphone. I can’t stop thinking of the children sitting in the dirt of the refugee camp, or running down the path pushing old bicycle tires, or the young boy sitting next to his overflowing sacks of collected detritus. He has a deep infection on the corner of his mouth that looks terribly infected. These images contrast with an image of an old grandfather, dressed in a spotless all white shalwar kameez squatting on the sidewalk outside a huge iron gate, embracing his beautiful young grand daughter in a huge hug, each smiling broadly, one of the few moments of joy I have witnessed on the streets of Kabul.

In Afghanistan, one in five children die before their 5^th birthday, (41% of the deaths occur in the first month of life). For the children who make it past the first month, many perish due to preventable and highly treatable conditions including diarrhea and pneumonia. Malnourishment affects 39% of the children, compared to 25% at the start of the U.S. invasion. 52% don’t have access to clean water. 94% of births are not registered. The children are afforded very little legal protection, especially girls, who are stilled banned from schools in many regions, used as collateral to settle debts, and married through arranged marriages as young as 10 years old. Though not currently an issue, HIV/AIDS looms as a catastrophic possibility as drug addiction increases significantly, even among women and children. Only 16% of women use modern contraception, and children on the streets are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. This is why the “State of the World’s Mothers” report issued in May 2011 by Save the Children ranked Afghanistan last, with only Somalia providing worse outcomes for their children.

Retired Army Col. John Agoglia said, “A key to America’s long-term national security and one of the best ways for our nation to make friends around the world is by promoting the health of women and children in fragile and emerging nations”–in Afghanistan, this strategy is failing. Not a single public hospital has been built since the invasion. It is not an impossibility; it is a matter of will. Emergency, an Italian NGO, runs 3 hospitals and 30 clinics throughout Afghanistan on a budget of 7 million dollars per year. This is ISAF’s (NATO’s International Security Assistance Force) monthly budget for air-conditioning.

Polls have consistently shown that over 90 percent of Americans believe saving children should be a national priority. Children comprise 65% of the Afghan population. Afghanistan was named the worst place on earth to be a child. In Afghanistan children have been sacrificed by the United States, collateral damage in our “war on terror”.

The mothers of these at risk children are not faring any better. Most are illiterate. Most are chronically malnourished. 1 woman in 11 dies in pregnancy or childbirth, this compares to 1 in 2,100 in the US (the highest of any industrialized nation). In Italy and Ireland, the risk of maternal death is less than 1 in 15,000 and in Greece it’s 1 in 31,800. Skilled health professionals attend only 14% of childbirths. A woman’s life expectancy is barely 45 years of age.

Women are still viewed as property. A law has been passed by the Karzai regime that legalizes marital rape, and requires a woman to get the permission of her husband to leave the house. Domestic violence is a chronic problem. A women who runs away from home (even if escaping violence) is imprisoned. Upon completion of her sentence she is returned to the husband. Self-immolation is still common as desperate women try to get out of impossible situations.

Shortly after the U.S. invasion, Laura Bush said, “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.” President Bush said, “Our coalition has liberated Afghanistan and restored fundamental human rights and freedoms to Afghan women, and all the people of Afghanistan.” Actually, the former warlords responsible for the destruction, pillage, and rape of Afghanistan were ushered back into power  by the United States. In 2007, these very same warlords, now Parliamentarians, passed a bill that granted amnesty for any killings during the civil war. A local journalist said, “The killers are the ones holding the pens, writing the law and continuing their crimes.”

When Malalai Joya addressed the Peace Loya Jirga convened in December, 2003, she boldly asked, “Why are we allowing criminals to be present here?” She was thrown out of the assembly. Undeterred, she ran for Parliament, winning in a landslide. She began her maiden speech in Parliament by saying, “My condolences to the people of Afghanistan…” As she continued speaking, the warlord sitting behind her threatened to rape and kill her. The MP’s voted her out of Parliament and Karzai upheld her ouster. In hiding, she continues to champion women’s rights. She has stated that the only people who can liberate Afghan women are the women themselves. When we spoke briefly to her by phone, she stated that she was surprised to still be alive, and needed to cancel our meeting, as it was too dangerous in the current security situation. The Red Cross states that the security situation is the worst it has been in 30 years.

In America, as our total defense budget balloons to 667 billion dollars per year, women and children are faring worse as well. In the “State of the World’s Mothers” report, America has dropped from 11^th in 2003 to 31^st of the developed countries today. We currently rank behind such luminaries as Estonia, Croatia, and Slovakia. We fall even farther in regards to our children, going from the 4^th ranked country to the 34^th. Poverty is on the increase with an estimated 1 child in 5 living in poverty. More than 20 million children rely on school lunch programs to keep from going hungry. The number of people living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months.

Dear reader, I hesitate to bother you with so many statistics, I eliminated the pie charts and graphs, and this report is still dull. After all, the new iphone has Siri, a personal assistant that understands you when you speak. You can verbally instruct it to send a text message, and it does! Now that’s excitement! CNN states there is no need to panic; the Atlanta store has plenty of phones to fill the demand.

Looking only at numbers it is easy to avoid the truth of the enormous amount of human suffering they envelop. Drive through the streets of any American city and these statistics come alive in the swollen ranks of the homeless. Drive through the streets of Kabul and these statistics come alive in the forms of hungry children begging for change.

It is difficult to ascertain what benefit America is deriving from our continued military presence in Afghanistan, though exploitation of natural resources certainly plays a role. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent in a military strategy that is failing by all indicators. Yet the politicians in this country continue to back this strategy. Arms dealers and contractors, like G.E. and Boeing, all with lobbyists on Capitol Hill, continue to reap big financial rewards and in turn reward politicians with financial support. Our politicians claim to be “tough on terror” and profess we are “winning”. But by what measure do they ascertain this? The only Afghan people benefiting from our presence are the people supporting the occupation forces, the warlords, and the drug lords. As the poppy fields produce record yields “poppy palaces” are springing up all over Kabul, ostentatious signs that someone is benefiting from our interference.

One measure to judge the success of a nation is its ability to protect its most vulnerable populations. America is not succeeding. The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is still a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control. When will our politicians hear the desperate cry of the street children of Afghanistan, who, with all the incense in the world, simply can’t ward off the evil of our occupation?

To support the vital work of Voices for Creative Non-Violence please see  http://www.vcnv.org

Posted in Afghan Peace negotiations, Afghan women, Afghanistan, Cost of war, Women's issues, children's issues, human rights, maternal health and reproductive rights | 3 Comments

AFGHAN/IRAQ WARS FILM

PBS broadcast of This is Where We Take Our Stand

Dwayne Knox 12-12-11    dwayne@ritternet.com   

 Dear Friends,

I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that This is Where We Take Our Stand, the film about the Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier/Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation, has now been distributed to every PBS station in the country for broadcast in January and February. Funded by the Independent Television Service (ITVS) and distributed by the National Educational Television Association (NETA), the film finally has the chance to be seen by people all across the country.

The bad news is that every individual PBS station can choose whether or not they will air the film. And in today's political climate, we know that many, even most stations will not want to touch this compelling, vital film about the reality of America's wars in the Middle East. We need your help to convince them that they must show this film.

CONTACT PBS LOCAL STATION AND URGE THEM TO SHOW THE FILM,

Also, please forward this email to your list and to everyone you know.

As we wrote in a letter to PBS programmers,

These aren't political or theoretical arguments, but the eyewitness accounts of men and women who thought they were fighting for their country and learned that, as Jason Washburn, a Marine veteran with three tours in Iraq put it,  "We were on the bully's team, and that's not what I signed up for." It is a wrenching, painful, and necessary story.

This film reminds us that nothing is over. And it asks us to question what has changed. Certainly not the war in Afghanistan, which has expanded in the past three years, and not the killing and misery in Iraq, unleashed by 8 years of military occupation.

This is Where We Take Our Stand is the story of hundreds of Iraq War veterans who risked everything to publicly tell their stories of killings of civilians, torture, and the widespread degradation and destruction of Iraq that was brought on by the policies of their government. And it is a story that needs to be told especially today. These brave soldiers and veterans are challenging a complacency that runs very deep underscoring a willingness to accept unspeakable horrors committed in our name-as long as we don't know about them.

Go to http://www.thisiswherewetakeourstand.com to watch episodes of the web series that the film is based on, and http://ivaw.org  for information about Winter Soldier.

Thank you for your help. In the coming weeks we will send out announcements of where and when This is Where We Take Our Stand will be broadcast.

David Zeiger and Bestor Cram

Co-Producers

AFGHANISTAN

Merkley Amendment Passes Senate by Voice Vote

In a stunning development, the Senate today approved the Merkley Amendment to the NDAA, calling for an expedited military withdrawal from Afghanistan, by voice vote. Previously, 27 was the high water mark of Senators urging a speedier withdrawal.   JustForeignPolicy 11-30-11

On a voice vote.  How did Pryor and Boozman vote?

PAKISTAN

Washington Frets Over Pakistan Response to Soldiers’ Deaths

Jim Lobe, News Report, NationofChange, Nov. 29, 2011: “As the Pentagon scrambled Monday to satisfy Pakistani demands for a full accounting of Saturday's lethal air attack on two border posts, official Washington expressed hope that Islamabad's retaliation will be limited in both time and scope. Whatever actually took place, however, the attack appears to have brought relations between Washington and Islamabad – already badly battered by a series of incidents earlier this year – to a new low.” READ  |  DISCUSS  |  SHARE   http://www.nationofchange.org/washington-frets-over-pakistan-response-soldiers-deaths-1322582891

Cortright, David.  Ending Obama’s War.  Paradigm, 2011.

Home ›› Research ›› Faculty Books ›› Ending Obama's War: Responsible Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Ending Obama's War: Responsible Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan

From Paradigm Publishers (2011)

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly criticized the Bush administration’s policy of invading and occupying Iraq, but he was equally firm in declaring his support for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan.

In his widely quoted speech at a Chicago antiwar rally, Obama declared, “I’m not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.” It was thus no surprise that President Obama expanded the U.S. military commitment in March and then again in December 2009. And now, smart or not, Afghanistan is Obama’s war.

When Obama announced his intention to begin military withdrawals from Afghanistan just 18 months after sending more troops to the country, the reactions ranged from ridicule to disbelief. Why send tens of thousands of additional troops only to remove them soon afterward? To many critics, the announcement seemed to continue the folly of Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq.

In these pages, David Cortright offers a critical analysis of U.S./NATO military policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and examines alternative strategies for preventing terrorist insurgency and advancing development and human rights. He critiques the strategic and political assumptions undergirding military surge policies and illuminates the worsening security situation and growing influence of the Taliban.

Cortright pays particular attention to the status of women and shows how responsible military withdrawal enhances their chances instead of risking them as often disingenuous critics contend.

Cortright’s goal is not only to hold Obama to his stated intention to withdraw from Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011, but to do so in a way that yields true human security—better political leaders, more aid workers, and many more educated Afghans, women as well as men. As a longtime peace activist and advocate of diplomatic alternatives, Cortright speaks with a moral authority unrivalled among the chorus of commentators castigating Obama’s policies.

Reviews:
"In his new book, David Cortright makes a compelling case for a comprehensive calibrated strategy of military disengagement that offers the U.S. and its partners the most realistic chance of achieving their objectives in Afghanistan and the region in a cost effective and timely manner.”  — Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense  

"A balanced, well-documented critique of the war in Afghanistan combined with a thoughtful plan for reducing our military footprint responsibly. Essential reading for those seeking a new way forward in Afghanistan." — Lt. General (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Ph.D.

Pakistan Stops Supplies After Deadly NATO Attack

Shams Momand, Reuters, Nov. 26, 2011, RSN

Momand reports: "NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing as many as 28 troops and plunging US-Pakistan relations, already deeply frayed, further into crisis. Pakistan retaliated by shutting down vital NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, used for sending in almost half of the alliance's non-lethal material."

READ MORE   http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/421-national-security/8590-pakistan-stops-supplies-after-deadly-nato-attack

Not Thankful for the 2012 Defense Budget! Call Your Senators Today !   11-21-11   From Historians Against the War

While the “Super” Committee works on the federal budget for FY 2013 and beyond, under the radar the Congress is moving forward with another huge Defense budget for FY 2012. When it returns from Thanksgiving break, the Senate will be voting on a $682.5 billion Defense Authorization bill.

This continues the war in Afghanistan and wastes unconscionable amounts of money at a time when there are massive cutbacks in domestic programs at the federal, state and local levels.

Senator Jeff Merkley (OR) has just introduced Amendment No. 1174, requiring the President to present a plan “for an expedited withdrawal from Afghanistan prior to 2014.” Co-sponsors are Senators Brown, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harkin, Lee, and Udall. For complete text

http://fcnl.org/issues/afghanistan/Afghanistan_Amendment_to_NDAA_DAV11E52.pdf

If your Senators are not on this list, please call them today and ask them to co-sponsor Amendment No. 1174 to the 2012 Defense Authorization bill. Remind them squandering billions of dollars on a failed war is against the best interest of American and Afghan people. Use the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) toll free number 1-877-429-0678 to call the congressional switchboard and ask to be connected to your Senators

While on the phone, it would be great if you could also urge your member of Congress to co-sponsor Rep. Barbara Lee’s excellent bill: HR 780 Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act, which specifies that funding for US armed forces in Afghanistan shall be limited to the “safe and orderly withdrawal” of all US troops and Defense Department contractors. List of co-sponsors (65):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00780:@@@P

Please send any helpful feedback to hiscze@aol.com .

Carolyn Eisenberg on behalf of Historians Against War Steering Committee

The Next Wars to End

Petitions for Diplomacy Now!

"This may definitely not be over, and it may not be over for a long time. Nine-and-a-half years later, it is most definitely not over. So, what we have to do is I think demonstrate the strategic patience that is necessary to win a long war." 

~US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker on the Long War (September 5, 2011)

While monitoring possible deception during the Iraq pullout, it is important for the peace movement to engage in the effort to end the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Experience shows that a vibrant anti-war movement is a necessary element in ending these wars. Here are some steps:

1. Out of Afghanistan: 33,000 US troops by next year, the rest by 2014. Demand the end of torture, and advocate peace diplomacy now. Sign and circulate this petition:  Prevent Afghan Torture, Enforce Leahy Law. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/prevent-afghan-torture-enforce-leahy-law.html

2. Pakistan, where the immediate issue is to block a further US escalation of ground troops, as well as the rising number of drone attacks. Please sign and circulate this petition: No US Escalation in Pakistan. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-u-s-escalation-in-pakistan.html

 

Continue reading... http://tomhayden.com/home/the-next-wars-to-end.html

AFGHANS HUNGRY WINTER 2011-2912

“2 Million Afghans Face Hungry Winter.”  ADG (11-19-11).  The UN is trying to raise $142 million for them.  The peace movement might reply with a statement and a question:   End the war and convert the killing money to food money.  The famine is mainly in Tajik north Afghanistan.  What about the Pashtuns, the main ethnic group and source of the Taliban?

“The UN Torture Report

Stirring Pressure for Congressional Response”

Ten years after promising that human rights would be protected in Afghanistan, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has verified "systemic torture" by Afghan security forces trained and funded by the United States.

  

The UN report, described in a lead New York Times story on October 10, is triggering calls once again for enforcement of the so-called Leahy Law, passed in the 1990s, which prohibits any US funding, weapons or training to security force units in other countries committing gross human rights violations. A loophole in the Leahy Law, however, allows Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to waive the ban by issuing a finding that the Afghan government is taking remedial measures, including bringing responsible members of the torture units "to justice," and that "all necessary corrective steps have been taken."

 Continue reading...

Sign the petition against torture in Afghanistan...

(See: Tom Hayden, Peace Exchange Bulletin, October 21, 2011

Prevent Afghan Torture:  Enforce the Leahy Law

A recent United Nations report suggests that the United States and NATO allies are outsourcing torture and human rights violations in Afghanistan. The report concludes that there is a continuing pattern and practice of "systematic" torture in spite of repeated efforts at reform. (UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, October 2011)

Current US policy violates the Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act and Defense Appropriations Act (Sec. 563, P.L. 106-429 and Sec. 8092, P.L. 106-259, 2001).

To Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Patrick Leahy:

We, the undersigned, call on you to immediately invoke the Leahy Amendment to end funding or training for units of the Afghanistan National Security Directorate, armed forces, and police engaged in torture or gross violations of human rights until all necessary corrective steps have been taken, including steps to bring those responsible to justice.

Sign the petition against torture in Afghanistan...

From Tom Hayden, The Peace Exchange Bulletin, Oct. 21, 2011

“UN Finds 'Systematic' Torture in Afghanistan”

Alissa J. Rubin, The New York Times October 10, 2011   RSN

Alissa J. Rubin reports: "Detainees are hung by their hands and beaten with cables, and in some cases their genitals are twisted until the prisoners lose consciousness at sites run by the Afghan intelligence service and the Afghan National Police, according to a United Nations report released here on Monday."

READ MORE   http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/309-13/7826-un-finds-systematic-torture-in-afghanistan

The Guantanamo Roach Motel

Paul R. Pillar, The National Interest

Pillar writes: "If the prospect of a settlement to end the war in Afghanistan is not worth letting five detainees out of Gitmo, then what ever would be worth it?"

READ MORE   http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/424-national-security/9925-the-guantanamo-roach-motel

IED Improvised Explosive Device Weapon of Iraq and Afghan RESISTANCE

       Cockburn, Andrew.   “Search and Destroy: The Pentagon’s Losing Battle Against IEDs.”   Harper’s Magazine (Nov. 2011).   The Pentagon by 2008 had spent “at least $60 billion to combat IEDs” and in 2012 it “plans to spend at least $10.1 billion” more—and the results have been “dismal.”    By May 2007 “nearly 70,000” IEDs had been planted in Iraq by an enemy consisting of “’multiple small independent groups” able to adapt rapidly to changed tactics.  And many of these groups “were bitterly antagonistic—Shia, Sunni, Al Qaeda, and so forth”—yet they shared information about  IED techniques within “days or even hours.”      What does work technically is the skill of low-tech bomb specialists,     Much of the article is about Master Sergeant Tano Chavez, a brilliant specialist in disarming IEDs.  But the attacks continue, and Sergeant Chavez, who suffered several severe concussions and other wounds, returned home suffering from many maladies (traumatic brain injury TBI, PTSD, hearing loss), and now “non-deployable.”     Assassinations of High Value Targets, “the ultimate objective of our entire counter-IED strategy,” also have not worked against IEDs, but have even increased them.  After assassinations, “IED attacks did not go down” in the vicinity; rather, “They went up—by a lot.”   This article damns indirectly the occupation and directly “the techno-war that keeps the money flowing.”

END OF NEWSLETTER #15 ON AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

US Civilian Not Military Rule

Reclaiming Civilian Control: How to Keep Generals as Warriors, Not Politicians

Thursday 9 February 2012

by: Dina Rasor, Truthout | Solutions

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

Do you support Truthout's reporting and analysis? Click here to help fund it.

Sometimes history and circumstances offer us solutions to centuries-old problems and tensions within our long-lasting government. Even though we feel like a young nation, our Constitution is one of the oldest in history. One of the most original parts of our Constitution is that we made the president the chief of the executive branch, commander of chief of the military. Ultimate civilian control over the military has the goal of keeping the military from running the government, taking control through a coup or pushing us into wars that should not be fought.

Even so, our history is replete with generals working to push presidents into troop commitments and money that, in hindsight, could have been disastrous for the country. In this day of instant media and numerous outlets, it is much easier for the commanding generals to push back politically through selective secret leaks of documents. These leaks are fashioned to make a president look "weak on defense" and force their hand politically to make the commitment to war or to increase the troops and money for the war. It often works and the president weakens his own political power to control the Pentagon. One only has to revisit President Lyndon Johnson's acquiescence to the military to escalate the war in Vietnam and the destruction of his presidency after embracing that losing proposition that took over 50,000 lives. (Johnson did fire warmongering Gen. Curtis LeMay, but continued to listen to other generals to escalate the war.)

A few presidents in history have pushed back on the military and gone as far as relieving a commanding general of his duty. Ironically, at the time, many were seen as new and weak presidents, and their dramatic pushes to assert control over the military surprised the military brass. In recent history, these generals have been nailed for leaking counter information to the press, often because they perceive that the president was weak and would be forced to go along with their military plans once they were made public.

These factions of generals who have pushed the envelope to manipulate presidents into war are also usually larger-than-life personalities (think Gen. Douglas MacArthur) who have visions of grandeur of their mission in the world. The most recent story of President Obama's firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the subject of a new book by Rolling Stone's reporter Michael Hastings called "The Operators: the Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan." In a peak of confidence and arrogance, General McChrystal's aides allowed Hastings to have on-the-record and unfettered access to McChrystal during crucial decision points in the Afghanistan war. They also let him party with them and, while well lubricated with booze, let him know what they really thought about their civilian bosses from Richard Holbrooke of the State Department; Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan; Vice President Joe Biden; and President Obama himself.

When Hastings' story appeared in Rolling Stone, McChrystal had already leaked reports to get his way for a troop surge in Afghanistan, setting the stage for Obama to relieve him from duty within days after the article appeared.

I remember those earlier leaks from McChrystal and others early into the Obama administration while it was clear that major troops decisions were being made in this war. I also remember feeling uneasy about these generals using back-door leaks to politically manipulate this new president into a corner to do their bidding and send in more troops into a dubious military situation. According to Hastings book, McChrystal and others thought Obama was weak and unschooled in foreign policy so they could pressure him in the press through leaks and get what they wanted. At first, Obama seemed to be going along with the gag, but then they pushed too far.

President John Kennedy was also seen as a young president who could be pushed around by the military when he came into office. He was seen as a rich kid whose "appeasement" former ambassador father bought him the election. One of his very first tasks of his presidency was to execute the "Bay of Pigs" invasion of Cuba that had been planned by the previous administration. The top military brass insisted that it was all planned and pushed the new president into approving it. According to Chris Matthew's new book on Kennedy, "Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero," Kennedy realized his mistake in the middle of the mess:

To his credit, Kennedy kept disaster from becoming calamity. He decided at the most critical moment to cut his losses, refusing to send in U.S. forces and that may have been the crucial decision of the entire episode. He took charge - far too late, admittedly - but with executive firmness ...

The American people decided they liked the fact that Kennedy, whatever his failings heading into the disastrous mission, had acquitted himself as the true commander in chief at its conclusion. The record shows that he gained his highest job approval rating - scoring 83 percent in a Gallup pool - in the weeks thereafter.

This unfortunate foreign policy debacle helped set the stage for Kennedy to overrule the aggressive generals, especially Gen. Curtis LeMay, from going over the brinkmanship of war in the Cuban missile crisis. LeMay and many of the civilian advisers who went along with him tried to manipulate Kennedy to do an airstrike against those Cuban missiles, an act that could have started a nuclear war.

Matthews wrote that this was a crucial decision to be made by a civilian commander in chief:

Here was a perfect affirmation of the Founding Fathers' reasoning, which had led them to place ultimate constitutional authority in the hands of the person elected by the American people. As French statesman George Clemenceau more recently had observed, "War is far too important to be left to the generals." Thus, even after hearing the expert arguments, Kennedy rejected the air-attack option, ordering instead a blockade on all offensive weapons headed to Cuba, a suggestion earlier made by Dean Rusk.

Kennedy didn't relieve any general from his command, but by his civilian actions and his stern pushback on them in meetings, he let the generals know that there was real civilian control over the military. He prevailed despite their attempts to manipulate the system not from a military view, but from a political view.

From accounts in Hastings' book and other news accounts, the top generals didn't have much respect for Obama when he first came into office. What probably made that situation worse was that they were so used to President George W. Bush's rubber stamp of what they wanted in the war, once the war started. (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pushed back hard and severely before the Iraq war when some generals were concerned that we didn't have enough troops and no exit strategy. But once we were in the war, Bush claimed that he was going to listen to the generals on the ground.)

In the end, the generals underestimated Obama's civilian resolve, which was hardened like Kennedy's when he saw that they were trying to undercut and go around his authority. Jonathan Alter's book, "The Promise," illustrates Obama's first round of attempted hazing by the military brass. Hastings describes in his book the contempt that the top generals had when Obama said that he was going to honor the troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq and have troops leave at the end of 2011. (There is plenty of controversy surrounding the State Department's 5,000-person army of hired mercenaries, but they are small compared to the troops that Obama pulled out.) The generals and some hawks in the administration leaked like crazy to the press that this was a "soft" date and insisted on the caveat that it depended on the old phrase of "the situation on the ground," as the date neared.

But Obama prevailed despite the leaks, most likely helped by his firing of McChrystal and overruling his generals on the Bin Laden raid by insisting that there were backup helicopters.

Part of this story is how these presidents and other presidents stuck to the Constitution and insisted that the generals were there to lay out military options, and not tolerate the generals inserting themselves into the politics and foreign policy part of the system. As I have mentioned in the past, one of the ways that these top generals curry favor in the press and the public is by sticking like glue to the "troops" so that any criticism of them is considered an attack on the troops. Knowing the military as I do, I am sure that some of the top brass are infuriated that Obama and his wife are seen as big supporters of the troops, their families, their well-being and mental health while going so far as to fire generals for leaking to the press.

But the other part of this story is the concern that I have that these generals continue to try to take advantage of a new president, or any president, manipulate the facts to their liking, and when that doesn't succeed, leak to the press. Political leaking is sport in Washington among politicians in all branches, but it becomes a dangerous game when the generals assert themselves into what should be a uniquely civilian political game. I have seen this leaking to save unworkable weapon systems and to manipulate civilian and political decisions on war. The generals have used their lofty positions to protect themselves from attack from Congress and play upon their special position with the public. While these generals bureaucratically mess up the same as other bureaucrats running departments in the federal government, they use their rank to warn members of Congress from sternly questioning them in public.

As a person who has helped military and other whistleblowers for years, I am not against members of the military speaking up or even leaking information about bad acts going on in wars or in the Pentagon. Right now, Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is speaking out about the lack of candor on how the Iraq war is going. The military so far has restrained from direct retaliation for him speaking to the Congress and the public, but he has realistically stated, "I'm going to get nuked," to a reporter last month. I myself have even advised lower-level military men to anonymously leak to the press to prevent fraud or malfeasance.

But Davis is not a top general who is presenting options to a decision-making president and then leaking to the press when they don't like the answers. These generals have to be pressured or even brought up on charges when they step out of their warrior role and work the system to get their way. It has been going on for years, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted. Obama and Kennedy helped the country by showing that behavior would not be tolerated, but the examples are too few and too many decades apart. Unfortunately, the generals who are the best at politically manipulating the system are the same generals who use that system to get promoted to the top. Hastings' book is full of this type of political intrigue, and this should be a wake-up call to anyone who values civilian rule to start drawing lines in the sand.

Here are several solutions to start this process that will ultimately only change when the politicians and public become intolerant of generals acting like politicians to get their way:

• If a general and his close aides are caught leaking reports or information to undercut a policy choice that should be left to civilian control, whether it is about war or a poorly functioning weapon system, these officers should be brought up on charges in civilian, not military courts (which would have the immediate bias of protecting their own). The generals should know that, in this system of government, they will face the same peril as their civilian counterparts running other parts of the government. They should be accountable to the system as warriors who are laying out options for national security, not playing political games. President Truman sent one general to jail for going along with a defense contractor who was degrading their weapons, but based on what I have seen in the system, there should be dozens and dozens more that should have met that same fate since World War II.
   
• If a general truly believes that the civilian leadership is doing something disastrous for the country and especially the troops, he should warn the civilians about how strongly he feels. If he believes that the ultimate decision is dangerous to our national security, he should publicly resign and state his reasons in his resignation letter. I am not saying that generals should resign easily if they can live with the civilian decision and carry it out. But it is a coward's errand to disagree with a decision and then secretly leak it out to put political pressure to change the decision. If these generals are people of honor, they will know when it is time to resign or carry out the civilian will.
   
• The president or a commander above him should fire a general if he has a public relations campaign with the press to portray himself as a warrior hero. Hastings' book has several disgusting exposés of generals, including McChrystal, working to make themselves legends similar to Patton or McArthur. The other downside of this is that they begin to believe their own propaganda and become legends in their own mind and lose perspective as a warrior. Their self-aggrandizement is dangerous to the country.
   
• Washington should resist having top generals move on to top civilian jobs. If they have spent their entire careers thinking like a military man (as they should instead of being politicians), they are not suitable to be in top civilian power. General Petraeus recently was sent to the CIA, a sensitive post that should not be commingled with military thinking. There is also a trend in the Pentagon to replace civilian decision makers with retired military. That blurs the wall of thinking by civilians and by military, and we need perspectives from each side not to be confused by hybrids - it doesn't work and we need to bolster true civilian control of the Pentagon. A good example of this problem was pulling Gen. Colin Powell from the top military position to being secretary of state. Powell was well meaning, but when he thought that the invasion of Iraq and the planned execution of the Iraq war would be disastrous for the country and the troops, he just told President Bush that if he broke it he would own it. He said that it was his job to salute and execute the president's orders. That would have been true if he were still operating in a military capacity, but he was then the civilian secretary of state, who could have resigned and laid out why the war would not work and thereby prevent a monumental presidential mistake. If we want our generals to be true warriors and carry out the civilian orders, we can't then expect them to recreate that role in the civilian world. It won't work and the line needs to be drawn clearly.

It would be hard to try to legislate a solution to this. I believe that it has to be a cultural change in the governance of our country to have no tolerance at all for military men who play the political game to get what they want. If enough of them are discovered, punished and made into a dishonorable outcast, the rest will think twice before following in their footsteps. And the younger officer corps, often disillusioned by their politicking superiors, will learn a newer and more honorable way to become a general.
 

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.