9/11 plus 15
Fifteen years ago today, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four American planes, used them as guided missiles, brought down the World Trade Towers, severely damaged the Pentagon, and four terrorists were overpowered by Americans over a field in Pennsylvania. The suicide terrorist attacks killed 2,996, caused more than $100 billion in damages and stole America’s innocence.
WATCH KIMBERLY’S CW6 SAN DIEGO TV SEGMENT HERE
According to a new Pew Research Center poll, the 9/11 attacks continue to be a powerful memory for Americans: 91 percent of adults remember exactly where they were or what they were doing when they heard about the terrorist attacks.
So how has the 15–year “war on terror” changed America? Looking back and forward, can Americans really believe they are safer?
First a bit of history, the “war on terror” rightly started in the tribal nation of Afghanistan. Brand-new President George W. Bush summoned his top advisors to the Oval Office and chose Cofer Black, former CIA whiz, to implement a devastating retaliation for the nearly three thousand deaths. Black offered no mercy and told the rookie president that this effort required a few hundred specially trained military forces, 110 CIA officers, direct firepower, a bunch of money and his plan would end with what Black called – using an old Angola War expression – “when this is all over, the bad guys are going to have flies walking across their eyeballs.”
After 10 weeks, Black and his stealth-fighting machine proclaimed victory. All the Taliban cities, as well as their government, had been toppled.
In a 2013 Men’s Journal interview Black was asked if he briefed the Russians about the impending attack and how the Ruskies responded to his plan. They said, “You’re really going to get the hell kicked out of you.” Black replied, “We’re going to kill them – we’re going to put their heads on sticks… and you know what, the Russians loved it! After the meeting was over, two senior Russian officials, whom I will not name, said to me, ‘Mr. Black, finally America is acting like a superpower!’”
The follow through earned Black and the US the respect that had been sorely lacking.
The success should have ended there. But as we know, it didn’t. Bush ensnared the country into an ill-defined and ill-conceived “war on terror” that continues today.
Whether you agree with the “war on terror” or not, the consequences are very real and very alarming. With the advent of comprehensive counterinsurgency, COIN or nation-building, thanks General Petraeus, the taxpayers have spent trillions of dollars in a region made up of tribal nations.
Case in point, in a recent interview, Commander of Afghanistan US and NATO Forces, General John Nicholson told PBS the war’s progress is tedious. “We’re trying to build an airplane while in flight, OK? So they’re fighting a war while we’re trying to build an army. This is very hard,” he explained.
It must be said that the “war on terror” falls under the asymmetrical category. The sneaky “stateless” armies must be defeated with clear goals and end-state solutions. It’s here where the most powerful armed forces on the planet have stumbled.
In his book the Field of Fight, retired Army three-star General Mike Flynn describes the best way to defeat marauding radical Islamic terrorists. Flynn says to win the battle against radical Islam we must destroy the jihadi armies, kill or capture their leaders, discredit their ideology, create a 21st-century alliance and must hold countries, like Saudi Arabia, accountable for supporting terrorism.
“The best plan gives you the most options at the last possible minute. Right now we don’t have the best plan. A real strategic discussion about what it is that we are trying to achieve. Is it the defeat of radical Islam? It has to be beyond that and that’s where an alliance of nations has to get it together,” Flynn said.
It cost Osama bin-Laden roughly $500,000 to bring down the Twin Towers and Pentagon. In return, the US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties and flushed away trillions of dollars into the Middle East black hole. Plus, hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners have died and more than 12 million of refugees are now stateless. Newt Gingrich said this week the US has failed so badly in the Middle East that we are giving the number one state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, $1.7 billion in cash, just like a drug cartel.
“So 15 years after 9/11, we’re not winning. We’re not winning in Afghanistan. We’re not winning in Iraq. We’re not winning in Syria. We’re not winning in Libya. We’re not winning in Yemen,” Gingrich emphasized (mimicking Donald Trump). He’s right.
One reason for the protracted war may be the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. American arms and technology companies export, firearms, fighter jets, tanks, as well as Patriot Missile batteries.
The big winner in the Department of State’s 2017 budget includes $5.7 billion for Foreign Military Financing. The main recipients of the proposed budget will be Israel ($3.1 billion), Egypt ($1.3 billion), Jordan ($350 million), Pakistan ($265 million), and Iraq ($150 million).
While the Middle East tops the list, funding for Africa in 2017 will double from last year. Due to ISIS’ expansion into Africa, countries like Mali, Somalia, and Nigeria will see an influx of American weaponry. But why do American leaders want to militarize the African continent? Of course, the prominent argument is; “if the US doesn’t do something then other countries will do it.” However, no other country on the planet finances military sales like the US.
The US and its band of misfit coalition partners have implemented a massive military build-up on the Arabian Peninsula and Israel. Let’s take a look at the military arsenal provided to a few coalition partners, most of which are also classified as human rights violators according to the State Department (link to other FMS article).
For the last three years, the US has provided tens of billions of dollars in military weaponry through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE); population 5.6 million, Qatar; population 2.1 million, Kuwait; population 2.7 million and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA); population 27.3 million.
The US has also provided both offensive and defensive weapon systems – some are designed to protect against airborne missile retaliation and air attacks. For example, the US supplied Qatar ($9.9B), Kuwait ($4.2 billion), and UAE ($1.1B) with Patriot anti-missile systems and UAE also acquired a $6.5B theater anti-air defense (THAAD) system. This type of weaponry typically protects against missile attacks from such weapons as SCUDs and the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket Systems) like the 880 launchers the Islamic Republic of Iran operates. The MLRS has a range of approximately 300 kilometers, making it easily capable of reaching any of the Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and even KSA.
America also sold KSA $6.7 billion worth of KC-130 aerial refueling tankers, the UAE $4 billion and KSA $6.8 billion of munitions including “bunker buster bombs,” (typically used to attack harden targets like nuclear facilities); Qatar a $1.2 billion early warning radar suite; KSA $1.3 billion for 30 patrol boats for use in the Gulf of Hormuz; KSA $4 billion to upgrade its national guard; Qatar spent $3 billion on Apache Longbow attack helicopters used for special operations insertions. The list also includes the Globemaster long-range air transport planes, Javelin missiles, F-18’s and F-16’s, and Sidewinder anti-air missiles.
Also for last few years, the US has been quietly aiding the rebel insurgency in Syria trying to overthrow the Iranian-backed government of Bashir al-Assad. There have been multiple news reports, (including this report) that the US provided weapons collected from deposed Libyan Dictator Qaddafi and moved them through its CIA clearinghouse in Turkey to supply al-Qaeda-linked extremist groups opposing the Assad regime. It’s worth pointing out that both Qatar and KSA have been major supporters of the anti-Assad insurgency that evolved from a national rebellion and morphed into a major jihadi operation.
Details of this massive military build-up can be found on the Department of State (DoS) website. The DoS oversees Government-to-Government defense transfers through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and is implemented through DoD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Interestingly, “(I)n addition to FMS, the Department of State also issues export licenses to US companies providing defense articles and services through our Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) efforts, usually after an intensive interagency review to ensure that exports further US foreign policy and national security interests,” a State Department official said. However, “Export license information is not disclosed by the Department due to restrictions under the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations, but general information is released from DCS.”
According to the State Department, in the case of either FMS or DCS, the United States takes into account political, military, economic, arms control, and human rights conditions in making decisions on the provision of military equipment and the licensing of direct commercial sales to any country, in accordance with the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, the Arms Export Control Act, and relevant international agreements
“Review and monitoring are an integral component of the process for US- origin defense articles delivered to any recipient nation. This is to make sure that those articles are being used in the manner intended and are consistent with our legal obligations, foreign policy goals, and values,” a Senior State Department official said.
And both State and Defense argue that Middle Eastern countries have agreed to work toward US security interests and abide by President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine.
However, looking at the current Middle East conflicts finds every country focused on sectarian protectionism, especially since the Obama administration has seemingly checked out. It is essential that this high-tech arsenal provided to foreign nations by US defense contractors be carefully monitored. The consequences of equipment falling into the wrong hands can be deadly, as it was for flight MH17 in Ukraine.
As the impact of ISIS’ offensive continues to sink in, US intelligence officials contend ISIS did not just randomly explode on the scene in 2014, they claim to have been reporting to high-level government officials the rise as well as the expansion of ISIS since 2012. This murderous organization is largely fueled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk testified before a Committee claiming, “The ISIS’ operations are calculated, coordinated and part of a strategic campaign led by its Syria-based leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”
“This was a very clear case in which the US knew what was going on but followed a policy of deliberate neglect,” said Vali Nasr, the Dean of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department adviser for the Middle East. During its assault in the region, ISIS received protection from KSA and Qatar. Both nations warned the US not to interfere with ISIS’s march to conquer northwestern Iraq and its turn west toward Syria and Jordan. America obeyed and ISIS gobbled up the region and spoils of war that included American tanks, helicopters, and artillery.
Many military experts said the opportunity to strike ISIS came and went when the 7,500-man Islamic Army crossed the wide-open Damascus-Baghdad Highway.
Military generals said the terror group was vulnerable to air attack with minimal collateral damage concerns. In the end, ISIS got its free passage from Mosul to eastern Syria with US inaction, which was tantamount to acquiescence.
“We oppose all foreign intervention and interference. There must be no meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, not by us or by the US, the UK or by any other government. This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves,” Saudi Prince Mohammed told the UK Telegraph. Just in case that bad intel was on the horizon, the Saudis immediately moved 30,000 combat troops to protect its border with Iraq.
Many Middle East policy experts say the Sunni’s view of ISIS as an Iraqi Sunni revolution against their Shiite oppressors is myopic and portends a broader Islamic war between Sunnis and Shiites.
From the US perspective, the ISIS campaign presents a myriad of conflicts. Qatar and KSA are major recipients of billions of dollars worth of US weapons through FMS, yet their direct support of ISIS, a terrorist group, means Qatar and KSA meet the definition of state sponsors of terrorism and should be banned from participation in the military program. Nevertheless, the end user certificates and export licenses are routinely approved by the State and Defense Departments, including an $11 billion sale to Qatar. (The Pentagon has refused multiple efforts to release the end-user agreements to this reporter as requested under FOIA.)
Furthermore, Qatar, KSA, and Kuwait are listed as Tier 2WL (Watch List) and Tier 3 under U.S. anti-trafficking in humans reports, which require a waiver by President Obama stating the sale is in national security interests. To the outside world, the US ostensibly appears to be violating its own anti-terrorism and anti-trafficking laws to provide sophisticated weapons systems to these human rights violators.
The infusion of military-grade weapons in the region only portends much more war. The war between the Sunnis and Shiites has grown more contentious due to the dysfunction of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916. Essentially the Agreement drew a twentieth-century map that granted control of Syria, Lebanon and Turkish Cilicia to the French and Palestine, Jordan and areas around the Persian Gulf, Baghdad to the British. That was followed by the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that outlined a “Kurdistan” as an entity by Şerif Pasha, who represented the Society for the Ascension of Kurdistan (Kürdistan Teali Cemiyeti). That promise was never kept and it’s doubtful the Kurds, who are Caucasian or Indo-European and not Arab, will wait another 100 years to establish their own country, one that will control its destiny through its own oil and revenues from oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea.
The complexity of the middle east today reflects Winston Churchill’s description of Russia in October 1939: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” Perhaps Russia is the key to the Middle East today.
Neither agreement ever took into account the tribal nature of the region that will continue to dog the Middle East until new maps emerge, or complete Armageddon is achieved. Until that day, America will continue to find itself under the threat of attack from a region that really doesn’t offer the US much. So are we safer after 15 years of war? Stay tuned!
© Copyright 2016 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved
Afghanistan War- Operational deception or political hoodwink?
“I suggest the White House spokesman Jay Carney join the military and see what it’s like himself before he condemns our troops,” Last week, The Los Angeles Times posted graphic pictures taken by service members two years ago in an effort to disparage the troops. Predictably, the liberal politicos went bananas. White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, demonstrated his naiveté regarding the ugliness of war, and daily threats U.S. soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan (many are on third or fourth deployment) encounter each day by making the following comment.
“[The] conduct depicted in those photographs is reprehensible and does not in any way represent the high standards of the US military,” Carney woefully said aboard Air Force One. “The president certainly shares in the defense secretary’s opinion (Leon Panetta) that this should be investigated and those held responsible will be held accountable.
”Wow, military enlistees must feel completely appreciated by those in DC who travel first class, react with distain to a Los Angeles Times story that showed U.S. service members posing with body parts of a terrorist who just blew himself up trying to kill Americans two years ago, and gauge foreign policy by the political winds in the nation’s Capitol.Army LTC Ralph Peters (ret) angrily responded on Fox News. “I’m especially appalled that those in uniform, General [John R.] Allen, our commander in Afghanistan, just jumped to trash our troops.”
Here’s a news flash for those drinking martinis and smoking cigars in Washington DC, “War is hell.”
Far to often coverage of the Afghanistan War by U.S. journalists is strictly packaged by military leaders to propagandize the message “they” want ordinary Americans to read with their morning “cup of Joe.” The real stories are generally left in the “classified” reports. In other words, if the media wants continued access to military leaders in DC and Afghanistan, they must “sell” the story officials are feeding them.
Lucky for Americans there’s a new political wind blowing in the Pentagon and it’s in the form of bucking the military brass.
After a year stint in Afghanistan compiling the details, observing the successes and failures, Army Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Daniel Davis, discovered a stark difference in the news being reported to Americans and the reality on the ground. The Army Colonel did something few military leaders do—he broke his silence.
LTC Davis paints a different picture
LTC Davis is a 17-year Army veteran who served multiple tours in the Middle East and was tasked with information gathering on his most recent (and most likely final) tour to Afghanistan. He saw the troops on the ground achieving extraordinarily compassionate feats with the Afghan tribes, but acknowledged that most of the good work would be unraveled by the time with the next military unit that rotated into the region arrived.
After a year, 9,000 zigzagging miles in the tribal nation, LTC Davis began to assemble the puzzle pieces and what he learned was shocking. Once he arrived home to Washington, LTC Davis agonized about his sworn duties as a military officer and his compelling need to set the record straight. He decided to write two reports, one document archived “classified” details for Pentagon leadership, and the other included “unclassified” information detailing the conditions service members described to the colonel during his year long observations.
Up first, misinformation fed to Congress
LTC Davis highlighted four years of noteworthy statements made by General Petraeus that the fighting was “going to get worse before it gets better.” However, LTC Davis demonstrates the war “has only gotten worse, each and every year.”
Davis questioned the Afghanistan War military strategy and wondered when someone in a senior leadership position would demand an explanation as to why the casualties and violence have continue on the same arc of destruction and death that began in 2005. The annual deployment of thousands more troops, despite Petraeus’ claim made every year since 2008, things aren’t getting better. By using news stories and testimony from those in charge Davis compiled a litany of falsehoods fed to members of the media as well as Congress.
From The New York Times, October 1, 2008, U.S. General urges troop surge in Afghanistan. “After quoting General McKiernan as saying he needed another 10,000 troops, the article said, “McKiernan’s comments came after General David Petraeus, who is preparing to take up his new post to; head of the U.S. Central Command, said in an interview in London this week that he also expected the fight against the insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get worse before it gets better.”
The Boston Globe, April 22, 2009,Military Situation in Afghanistan will get worse, Petraeus says. Cambridge: “General David Petraeus, architect of the US military surge credited with dramatically reducing violence in Iraq, told a forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government yesterday that the military situation in Afghanistan will probably deteriorate in the near term. ‘We do believe we can achieve progress, but it’s going to get worse before it gets better,’ said Petraeus, the leader of the US Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ‘When you got into the enemy’s sanctuaries, they will fight you for it. There will be tough months ahead, without question’ he said.”
General David H. Petraeus, Commander ISAF, Senate Armed Services Committee, June 29, 2010.During his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus said, “Recent months in Afghanistan have, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, seen tough fighting and tough casualties. This was expected. Indeed, as I noted in testimony last year and again earlier this year, the going inevitably gets tougher before it gets easier when a counterinsurgency operations tries to reverse insurgent momentum. My sense is that the tough fighting will continue; indeed, it may get more intense in the next few months. As we take away the enemy’s safe havens and reduce the enemy’s freedom of action, the insurgents will fight back.”
The Associated Press, March 9, 2011, with General David Petraeus, Petraeus Says Tough Summer Ahead. “Explaining that he has made progress since last year, the progress was ‘fragile and reversible.’ But in terms of expectations in the near term: As Taliban fighters start trying to take back southern strongholds during the traditional spring and summer fighting season, violence may spike considerably, he said. Many intelligence estimates say that it will be as violent or perhaps with even more violence than 2010, Petraeus said in an interview at his office in Kabul. They will come back in force. There is some concern that there will be sensational attacks that could be indiscriminate in nature,” he warned.
Further, during this year in command of ISAF General Petraeus frequently cited a number of Taliban senior leaders killed, sanctuaries taken away, capturing “birth places” of certain Taliban leaders, huge caches of weapons seized and its untold numbers of insurgent foot soldiers tiring of the fight, putting aside their weapons and reentering Afghan society. This was allegedly done during the same time when ISAF troops increased by almost 40,000 and Afghan troops and police increased by a reported 70,000.
Shortly before taking American’s top spy job, General David H. Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 15 March 2011 providing Congress with his update on the Afghanistan surge.
His opening statement read in part, “While the security progress achieved over the past year is significant, it is also fragile and reversible. Moreover, it is clear that much difficult work lies ahead with our Afghan partners to solidify and expand our gains in the face of the expected Taliban spring offensive. Nonetheless, the hard-fought achievements in 2010 and early in 2011 have enabled the Joint Afghan-NATO Transition Board to recommend initiation this spring of transition to Afghanistan lead in several provinces. The achievements of the past year are also very important as I prepare to provide options and a recommendation to President Obama for commencement of the drawdown of the U.S. surge forces in July. Of note, as well, the progress achieved has put us on the right azimuth to accomplish the objective agreed upon at last November’s Lisbon Summit, that of Afghan forces in the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014.”
After researching the U.S. military propaganda inside the beltway, Davis offered some theories of his own. “How is it, then, that with the addition of over 100,000 troops allied with the ISAF team and apparently significant reductions in the Taliban fighters, was there not a massive reduction in enemy attacks as we saw in 2007 Iraq? By any rational accounting, there ought to have been a significant drop of enemy capabilities. Instead they continued to increase their capability throughout the tenure of General Petraeus and have only started to slightly drop at the same time the number of American and Allied troops have begun to drop. If that hard-to-follow logic weren’t enough, there’s this; even though this massive infusion of troops has been proven incapable of bring the Taliban neither to its knees nor to the negotiating table with hat in hand? We now project we’re going to accomplish our objectives over the next three years as we remove all these combat troops who have been incapable of succeeding.”
Davis challenges the military leadership’s logic as optimistic at best and asinine at worst.
“You are being told to believe that the best of the combined armies of the Western World have proven incapable of beating the Taliban, that even the surge of almost 40,000 of them, equipped with the most modern arms and technology known to man will succeed after drawing down the troops?”
The next senior leadership assessment came in April 2011 from the DoD. “Since the last Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and its Afghan partners have made tangible progress, arresting the insurgents’ momentum in much of the country and reversing it in a number of important areas. The coalition’s efforts have wrested major safe havens from the insurgents’ control, disrupted their leadership networks, and removed many of the weapons caches and tactical supplies they left behind at the end of the previous fighting season. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) continued to increase in quantity, quality, and capability, and have taken an ever-increasing role in security operations. Progress in governance and development was slower than security gains in this reporting period, but there were notable improvements nonetheless, particularly in the south and southwest. Over all, the progress across Afghanistan remains fragile and reversible, but the momentum generated over the last six months has established the necessary conditions for the commencement of the transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces in seven areas this summer.”
“I quantitatively demonstrate that much of the two public statements above are either misleading, significantly skewed or completely inaccurate,” LTC Davis asserts. “Also, I’ll demonstrate how this pattern of overt and substantive deception has become a hallmark of many of America’s most senior military leaders in Afghanistan.”
In his opening statement, General Stanley McChrystal, Commander ISAF told the Senate Armed Services Committee on December 8, 2009, the benefits of the new surge of troops: “We also have greater clarity on the way forward. Additional forces will begin to deploy shortly and by this time next year new specific indicators will illuminate security gains, and it will be clear to us that the insurgency has lost the momentum. By the summer of 2011 it will be clear to the Afghan people that the insurgency will not win, giving them the chance to side with their government.”
However, LTC Davis’ contends General McChrystal cited the rising violence statistics in the summer of 2009 as evidence that ISAF was in of danger losing the Afghanistan War. “ He suggests by the summer of 2011 – which has now passed – it would ‘be clear’ the insurgency had lost momentum. But in July 2009 when his assessment was made there were attacks, which represented an increase from 2008 – but a year later (July 2010) the violence had increased to (redacted) attacks. General Petraeus is warning now that July 2011 will be even higher. By any assessment, our situation has not improved.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael C. Mullen, also explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December 2, 2009 explaining why we needed to surge 30,000 troops: “Their (Taliban) fighters are better organized and better equipped than they were just 1 year ago. In fact, coalition forces experienced record-high violence this past summer, with insurgent attacks more than 60 percent above 2008 levels.”
However, Davis proves otherwise. “Interestingly, when Admiral Mullen made this statement, the violence in 2009 had increased 53 percent over 2008 levels. But one year later – a full year after surge forces went in – the violence in 2010 had increased over 2009 levels. Doubly important to point out is the very increase he cited was precisely in response to the previous troop increase, just as every year since 2005 the level of violence and troop casualties mirrors the increase in the number of troops. Yet when this exact same cycle continued on after this 2009 surge decision, it was claimed by all these same leaders that it was not an indication of increased insurgent capability, but merely the expected result of the surge troops, moving into areas where we hadn’t been before to ‘take away’ their safe havens.”
To put it even more simply, the more soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan equated to more targets for the insurgents.
92 percent of Afghans never heard of know 9/11
September of last year, the International Council on Security and Development (ICSD) reported some astonishing numbers concerning Afghanis on the ground in the tribal nation- 92 percent had no idea what the war was about and never heard of 9/11.
The ICSD study of 1,000 Afghan men was taken by the International Council on Security and Development in the Southern districts of Kandahar and Helmand to find out if Afghanis knew why they were fighting a war. A brief summary found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had no clue what 9/11 represented.
“The survey showed that nobody has bothered to actually explain to Afghans why British and U.S. soldiers are there,” said Norine MacDonald, president of the International Council on Security and Development. “There is a vacuum, and it’s being filled by Al Qaeda and Taliban propaganda claiming that we are here to destroy Islam.”
Another poll was conducted by the Department of Defense publication “Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” on 28 April 2010. The executive summary (p.7) concluded that the Afghan population that supports its government is only 24 percent.
That sentiment is echoed in the United States.A recent CNN poll also reflects 75 percent of the American people do not support a sustained war effort in Afghanistan. “We cannot fight wars by polls,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implored. “If we do that we’re in deep trouble. We have to operate based on what we believe is the best strategy to achieve the mission that we are embarked on. And the mission here is to safeguard our country by ensuring that the Taliban and al Qaeda never again find a safe haven in Afghanistan.”
This argument is markedly harder to defend with only 25 percent of Americans supporting the decade-long wars. However, the commitment to further military action takes more twisted turns since the recent Quran burnings and the alleged Afghan massacre by a U.S. soldier. Now, U.S. appointed Afghan President Hamid Karzai called American warriors murderers, demons, and demanded American soldiers return to their bases. (Reported in previous story)
More fabrications
In all probability, Davis says military leaders do not consider what they are saying, “to be lying,” but an effective part of military “Information Operations (IO)” is designed to protect the support of the American people for our troops.
An example of this is General Petraeus’ comments regarding iCasualties.org. “U.S. casualties from January to September 2010 were 4,155 killed and wounded, while the same frame in 2011 saw 4,662 U.S. troops killed or wounded; an increase of over 500. General Petraeus had claimed in his 10 July 2011 interview with Carlotta Gall that casualty rates were falling and that the insurgency had been ‘degraded somewhat.’ But my cursory examination of the publicly available casualty data reveals total US casualties were up, not down.”
Defense Secretary Panetta also publically told the troops in Afghanistan “that all the sacrifices made by those in uniform “were paying off and that we are moving in the right direction. We’re winning this very tough conflict.”
Where’s the moral outrage?
As the U.S. winds down its 10-year war, TV military pundits are using fiery rhetoric to describe leadership’s failure to lead American soldiers forward. Last week, Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters (ret) unleashed his fury on Fox News. “I’m furious. Not at the troops that did something dumb. But I’m furious at the moral cowardice of military leaders who never stick up for our troops but protect their own careers. The reflex action of our generals is always to leap out and say, oh ‘my gosh,’ our troops are so awful. They’re so wicked. This isn’t us. This isn’t us.The real scandal is that the establishment media leaps on another chance to trash our troops. The worst of the scandal is that our leaders in and out of uniform rush to condemn our troops. No explanation. No context.”
“The Greatest Generation sent Japanese skulls home to their girlfriends,” said Peters. “I’m not condoning it, but I’m trying to make the point that our soldiers out on the front line and our marines are under tremendous stresses. War is not a ladies auxiliary tea party, and it’s all too easy for people comfortable in Los Angeles, or New York or the White House to condemn the troops without context.”
Anytime a member of the uniformed American military makes a mistake, President Obama, Pentagon officials and the liberal media, condemns it. Where’s the outrage for America’s brave men and women who are brutally attacked by suicide bombers or IED attacks? Where’s the outrage for former Marine Iraq War veteran and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder by drug smuggler ‘rip crews’ in Arizona?
“If our strategy and doctrine is so pathetically weak that it can be derailed, destroyed, shattered, by a few burning Koreans or a few photographs – the dead body parts of terrorists – well that’s not much of a strategy or doctrine,” Peters finished. (Link here)
Conclusion
The Middle East is mired in death, uncertainty, corruption and specifically no verifiable foreign policy mission moving forward. Considering the substantial blood and treasure expended by Americans would suggest that safety on U.S. soil could be guaranteed. Atlas, it doesn’t appear to be the case. An upcoming NATO summit in Chicago is forecasting violence and strongly advising residents to leave their homes (apartments located near the summit location).
Combine homeland security with an increasing international hostility from “so-called” partner in Afghanistan (President Karzai has renewed pressure for U.S. Allied troops to leave earlier than the planned 2014 withdrawal) and it’s no wonder an overwhelming number of Americans want American troops home.
At the end of the day however, the final military action will lie with the battlefield commander. It’s a grueling task, but great leaders weigh the risks against the objectives and rely on the conscience of his/her leadership and not yield to vainglorious impulses and political pressures.
The percolating tribal hostilities in Afghanistan and the politicization of military leaders in Washington DC are set to collide in the form of an angry U.S. citizenry in November. While politicians may worry about their livelihood, strong military leaders must not follow the path of least resistance. Extraordinary leaders encourage open discussion while thoughtfully weighing all wartime contingencies.
The last American General who became president, Dwight Eisenhower summed it up this way;
“Leadership cannot be exercised by the weak. It demands strength—the strength of this great nation when its people are united in purpose, united in a common fundamental faith, united in their readiness to work for human freedom and peace: this spiritual and economic strength, in turn, must be reinforced in a still armed world by the physical strength necessary for the defense of ourselves and our friends.”––GEN Dwight Eisenhower, Department of the Army PAMPHLET 360–50, August 1982.
Update: Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis will receive the Ridenhour Prize, which honors acts of truth telling that protect the public interest and illuminate a more just vision of society. The prize memorializes Ron Ridenhour, who blew the whistle on the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War and went on to become an award-winning investigative journalist. He died in 1998 at the age of 52. LTC Davis will receive $10,000, and will be honored at the National Press Club in Washington DC on April 25th.
To read more about Afghanistan:
Afghanistan War lingers- military deception for political expediency (Link here)
Afghan War ain’t about hearts and minds- ‘just win baby’ (http://www.examiner.com/article/afghan-war-ain-t-about-hearts-and-minds-just-win-baby-1
Part one-http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/u-s-troops-fight-and-die-to-preserve-shariah-law-afghanistan
Part one-http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/u-s-troops-fight-and-die-to-preserve-shariah-law-afghanistan
Part five -http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/obama-begins-to-wind-down-the-costly-war-afghanistan-final-a-series
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
War is definitely hell- A U.S. veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes
While the public focus in Afghanistan is the killing of civilians by an American soldier, little is reported on the toll this war is taking on veterans and their families.
The never-ending war in the Middle East has consequences, serious consequences. According to an October 2011 policy brief the U.S. Armed Services are losing the suicide battle on the home front.
The report concludes that a U.S. veteran kills himself every 80 minutes while Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom service members is committing suicide every 36 hours. These statistics are staggering in light of the fact that only one-percent of the American population serves in the military, yet the military accounts for roughly 20 percent of the national suicide rate.
Veterans and service members report substantial paperwork and even longer wait times as one reason they don’t get the proper treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).
Another challenge military personnel face is the stigma attached to the term PTSD. Many service members can be ridiculed by fellow soldiers, told to toughen up by superiors or don’t fill out the required paperwork to seek counsel.
The military disconnect regarding the pervasiveness of PTSD within the military is a contributing factor to suicide. If the military leadership wants to turn the suicide numbers around, mental health care providers must work in concert with commanders to enforce guidelines for PTSD/TBI diagnosis and treatment.
“The responsibility inherent in military service, the importance of tasks assigned to relatively junior personnel and the high level of interaction among unit members establish the importance and usefulness of each unit member, particularly in an operational environment. In contrast, the experience of living in a garrison environment (for active component personnel) or returning to a civilian job (for Guardsmen, Reservists and veterans) or, worse, unemployment, can introduce feelings of uselessness. Individual accounts of military suicide both in the media and in interviews with us echo this sentiment. Over and over, these accounts show that individuals withdrew, felt disconnected from their units and their families, and perceived themselves as a burden,” Dr. Margaret Harrell and Nancy Berglass cited in their study.
While senior military leaders at the Department of Defense say they are exerting more energy than ever before to prevent the skyrocketing suicides, the dysfunctional relationship between DOD and the Veteran Affairs does little to provide adequate treatment options for veterans suffering from PTSD/TBI.
The DOD touts its “Never Let Your Buddy Fight Alone” program as a successful deterrent to suicide. And the VA’s Veterans Crisis hotline said their efforts to recognize the seriousness of suicide prompted nearly 150,000 hotline calls. The VA claims they saved 7,000 “actively suicidal veterans.” Yet, suicides remain alarmingly high.
The military must protect and care for those who voluntarily serve the country and return home with PTSD/TBI injuries. Suggestions made by this report includes; unit cohesiveness (returning soldiers should remain together as a group for at least 90 days after deployment), ensuring the military either has access or hires enough mental health providers to meet the needs of returning soldiers, and Congress needs to establish a federal pre-emption of state licensing, so providers can be treated across state lines.
Another area the military hierarchy must improve is dramatically changing the questions contained in the “Post Deployment” questionnaire.
“As service members return home from deployment, they complete a post-deployment health assessment (PDHA). As part of this assessment, they are asked questions about their physical and mental health, such as, “Did you encounter dead bodies or see people killed or wounded during this deployment?” and “During this deployment, did you ever feel that you were in great danger of being killed?” There
are also self-evaluative questions, such as, “Are you currently interested in receiving information or assistance for a stress, emotional or alcohol concern?” While we do not question the contents of the assessment, its administration has been problematic,” the report explained.
According to a 2008 study (Christopher H. Warner et al., Importance of Anonymity to Encourage Honest Reporting in Mental Health Screening After Combat Deployment), when Army soldiers completed an anonymous survey, the reported rates
of depression, PTSD, suicidal attempts and an interest in receiving care were two to four times higher than the current PDHA test used by military personnel.
“Likewise, our interviews with veterans uncovered numerous accounts of returning service members whose
unit leaders advised them to fabricate answers. Individuals across all services have been told, ‘If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are not going home to your family tomorrow.’” This may be factually correct, but it neglects to inform service members of the implications of answering untruthfully – namely, that they will have difficulty receiving treatment or compensation for mental health problems that appear after their service.
As an improvement, the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act requires trained medical or behavioral health professionals to conduct the PDHA evaluations individually and face-to-face, in the hope that service members will respond honestly to a trained health professional. PDHA evaluations individually and face-to-face, in the hope that service members will respond honestly to a trained health professional.”
In conclusion, the study outlined the military’s vulnerabilities concerning the treatment of PTSD/TBI. “Although a goal of no suicides may be unachievable, the increasing number of suicides is unacceptable. Additionally, although benefits and services available from the Veterans Health Administration will likely remain the best system of care for veterans, the DOD has a moral responsibility to acknowledge and understand former service members,” researchers said.
“America is losing its battle against suicide by veterans and service members. And, as more troops return from deployment, the risk will only grow.
To honor those who have served and to protect the future health of the all-volunteer force, America must renew its commitment to its service members and veterans. The time has come to fight this threat more effectively and with greater urgency.”
The real question Americans need to ask, “is the 10-year Middle East War worth the cost in blood and treasure? And if so, how do military personnel intend to care for those who suffer the invisible PTSD/TBI wounds?
The clash in Afghanistan is between cultures, religions, and political institutions. Returning warriors continue to complain that Afghanistan will never be molded into a “state” with the ability to be a productive member of the world community. Its tribal tendencies will always shift with opportunities from religious zealots. Bush was wrong to “nation-build” in Afghanistan, and Obama is wrong to continue to feed the corruption and profiteering of Afghan President Karzai’s sect at the expense of American warriors. How do the military/civilian leaders intend to care for soldiers with visible or invisible wounds?
Yes, war is hell, but unless U.S. soldiers are authorized to “win” all Americans should stand together and demand an end to a seemingly endless war.
Following are links to four stories written by this reporter last year questioning the continuation of military/political actions in Afghanistan. The staggering levels of corruption alone should jolt Americans from their complacency; especially since the U.S. debt surpasses $16 trillion.
Part one; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/u-s-troops-fight-and-die-to-preserve-shariah-law-afghanistan
Part two; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/us-payments-to-taliban-afghan-warlords-threaten-american-nato-troops
Part three; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/billion-dollar-corruption-within-the-u-s-picked-afghan-regime
Part four; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/terrorism-s-down-payment-the-form-drugs-and-u-s-aid-money-part-4
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Obama begins to wind-down the costly war in Afghanistan (Final in a series)
For antiwar groups, the President’s address to the nation was somewhat welcome news; the ever-increasing unpopularity of the war opened the door to common sense. On the other hand, critics called Obama’s speech a road map for insurgents to plan their takeover of the Afghan government.
The dilemma for commanders on the ground centers on the classification of the 10-year war. A mission change is in the works and military leaders will now shift the counterinsurgency strategy to a more stealthy counter-terrorism position.
Afghanistan’s corrupt government, lack of infrastructure and tribal tendencies have met a predictable ending- a U.S. troop departure, a small victory toppling the Taliban and killing Osama bin Laden.
General David Petraeus outlined the requirements for a successful counterinsurgency strategy in a 2006 military handbook. “As the counterinsurgent gains success, offensive and defensive operations become more in balance and eventually diminish in importance compared to stability operations.”
It has been five years since Petraeus wrote the Manual on Counterinsurgency and Afghanistan remains in the hands of corrupt leaders who provide economic and security failures for its people. Afghan President Hamid Karzai continues to swindle the American people by requesting billions of dollars for nation building; however, there has been little progress with building infrastructure in the past 10 years.
According to the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Afghanistan, the foreign aid dispensed to Afghanistan amounted to $320 million each month and the monthly military tab is approximately $10 billion. Other money earmarked for the corrupt Karzai government is a $19 billion slush fund that is included in the U.S. aid package, most of it coming under the Obama Administration for its counterinsurgency approach.
America’s love affair with exporting democracy has sent the nation into an economic abyss. In the case of Afghanistan, a 2003/04, a plan hatched by Army Lt. COL Anthony Shaffer could have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. His book entitled “Operation Dark Heart,” reported that Pakistan officials were meddling in the Afghan War and were not friends of the U.S. “They were playing both sides of the war efforts,” COL Shaffer said. Had COL Shaffer’s intelligence of the Afghan War effort been heeded by military leaders at the top, U.S. troops could have shifted their tactics and avoided a troop surge.
Evidence that the Department of Defense did not want COL Shaffer’s 2003/04 plan to find its way into civilian ranks came in the form of the heavily-redacted book “Operation Dark Heart.” The tell-all book chronicled gritty details regarding Pakistan’s and U.S. complicity with insurgents.
Many lawmakers as well as, Johnny Come Lately politicians, are arguing that the Afghan War’s focus should be on Pakistan’s unsavory alliance with the Taliban and al Qaeda. By focusing on terrorist organizations, the U.S. can unleash special op teams, and reduce the number of boots on the ground.
“There cannot be a gradual drawdown of troops without a change in mission objectives,” said Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA), a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Successfully implementing a counterinsurgency strategy is near impossible without enough Marines and soldiers to see it through. On the other hand, counterterrorism operations linked to a more simplified set of objectives is sustainable with a significantly smaller force size.”
Hunter continues to explain that a drawdown is on the horizon, and the military must narrow its objectives in Afghanistan. “These objectives should consist of making sure the enemy cannot get back on its feet, strengthening the Afghan military and stabilizing Pakistan. We can do all of this with a much smaller footprint, utilizing special operations forces, intelligence gathering capability and air assets.”
Hunter contends the situation on the ground has changed and, “what might have seemed like a good strategy years or even months ago is not showing the level of success that justifies continuing the mission with such a large troop presence. The time has come for a change in strategy that begins with a departure from nation-building and counterinsurgency operations – the centerpiece of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office.”
Corruption fuels instability
Afghanistan’s corruption is legendary. The war-torn tribal nation provides fertile fields for training terrorists and growing poppies, is home to al Qaeda, and is where the 9/11 plotters hatched their terrorist attack on America. But sadly, in the worst kept secret in Central Asia, the U.S. condones and encourages the growing of poppies (the base ingredient for heroin and cocaine) paying billions to Taliban insurgents and warlords for convoy protection. We do so, not to keep the poor farmers happy, but to line the pockets of the Taliban, warlords, and the Karzai government. In other words, Americans are fighting and dying protecting the poppy fields.
Advertisement
“More declared cash flies out of Kabul each year than the Afghan government collects in tax and customs revenue nationwide. It’s not like they grow money on trees here,” said one U.S. official investigating the corruption and Taliban. “A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen. And opium (poppies), of course.”
President Hamid Karzai sees the money changing hands differently. “Making money is fine and taking money out of the country is fine. The relatives of government officials can do this, starting with my brothers. But there’s a possibility of corruption.”
If this is true why does America/NATO continue to send billions of dollars to such a corrupt country? This scenario implies the American government chose its political elites poorly and the continuation of business as usual will only leave disenfranchised Afghan civilians inflamed at the U.S.
According to separate Congressional and Senate reports, the American government pays more than $2 billion for Host Nation Trucking (HNT) or in layman’s terms, private security firms that protect U.S. military convoys and materials in dangerous tribal areas.
A report titled “Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan” was published by Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) in June of last year. The report detailed the billions of dollars spent to protect U.S. military supply convoys in Afghanistan- the majority of the money is paid by the DOD through defense contractors and finds its way into the hands of Taliban leaders and warlords.
The Senate Armed Services Committee also sent staffers to investigate the “convoy protection” issue. Their report titled, “Inquiry into the Role and Oversight of Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan” concluded the U.S. pays trucking contractors billions of dollars a year, much of it ends up in the hands of local warlords.
Two U.S. administrations have now promised a “hearts and minds” and “nation building” campaigns and to date both have subverted the ability to impose a military solution. This role is fraught with disappointments since it implies that the U.S. and allied forces will provide the Afghan people with an effective government, root out corruption, create a westernized Afghan military, value women’s rights and ensure fair elections.
It has been 10 years since America waded into the Middle East Wars, and the ability to achieve victory continues to be nothing more than a pipe dream.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama begins to wind-down the costly war in Afghanistan (Final in a series) – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/obama-begins-to-wind-down-the-costly-war-afghanistan-final-a-series#ixzz1Q9m8JYNF
Terrorism’s down-payment in the form drugs and U.S. aid money (part 4)
Afghanistan’s corruption is legendary (see Part 3 in this series). The war-torn tribal nation provides fertile fields for training terrorists and growing poppies, is home to al Qaeda, and is where the 9/11 plotters hatched their terrorist attack on America. But sadly, in the worst kept secret in Central Asia, the U.S. condones and encourages the growing of poppies, the base ingredient for heroin and cocaine. We do so, not to keep the poor farmers happy, but to line the pockets of the Taliban, warlords, and the Karzai government. In other words Americans are fighting and dying protecting the poppy fields.
According to Colonel (ret) Eugene Khrushchev (son of the former Soviet Premier) writing for the Salem-News.com, “What Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton) called the ‘best decision in the face of an array of less-than-perfect options’ has set in motion the worse-case nightmare scenario- a boon for the drug lords, a bane for the drug busters.” Colonel Khrushchev contends that America’s drug eradication policy is nothing more than a ruse. Instead it supplies criminal elements with the means to destabilize the Afghan government while destroying the tribal population to ensure terrorists sympathy in the region forever.
The incentive for narcotic trafficking is the $2.7 billion in annual sales, according to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). And in Afghanistan, the drug trade accounts for more than half the country’s entire GDP.
Making matters worse is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government’s involvement. Afghan Parliament member, Amanullah Paiman has studied the illicit drug-trade and claims the government runs approximately 70 percent of the narco-fields. “The chain of narco dollars goes from the districts to the highest levels of government.”
Perhaps the most well-known trafficker is President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. A Newsweek article described it this way; “He (the president’s brother) is the unofficial regional governor of southern Afghanistan and leads the whole trafficking structure,” said a senior Interior Ministry official. However, Ahmed Karzai flatly denies any involvement in the drug trade.
One US argument for letting the farmers grow their lucrative poppy crops rings hollow. Skeptics point out that those farmers could turn to insurgents to earn a living without the poppies. The second focuses economic hardship farmers would suffer if they were forced to grow another crop. Both arguments are false.
The New York Times reported in July of 2008 that Afghanistan was already a narco-state. “Karzai had long opposed aerial eradication. Why? More than 95 percent of the residents of the poppy growing provinces of Helmand and Kandahar- voted for Karzai.”
“Poppy cultivation was becoming limited to the south, more associated with the insurgency and disassociated from poverty…UNODC convincingly demonstrated that poor farmers were abandoning the crop and that poppy growth was confined to the wealthiest parts … ‘poverty doesn’t appear to have been the main driving factor in the expansion of opium poppy’,” according to the NYT.
Advertisement
“UNODC shattered the myth that poppies are grown by destitute farmers…Eighty percent of the land under poppy cultivation in the south had been planted with it only in the last two years …these farmers didn’t need an alternative livelihood. They had abandoned their previous livelihoods…to take advantage of the security vacuum [which coincides with the UK military presence] to grow a more profitable crop: opium…Yet Afghan officials continued to say that poppy cultivation was the only choice for its poor farmers,” the UNODC states. The truth is the insurgents pay the poppy farmers an advance in pay to plant poppies, according to the latest 2011 report.
“The ‘starving farmer’ was a convenient myth. [NATO] …wanted to avoid any uptick in violence from [counternarcotics] strategy; even if the strategy would result in long-term success…the Taliban loved it because their propaganda campaign consisted of trotting out farmers whose fields had been eradicated and having them say that they were going to starve.”
The question of what to do with the poppy fields has plagued every commander in the now 10-year-war. A Newsweek article describes the fear of Afghan officials who fear, “We are losing the fight against drug traffickers. If we don’t crack down on these guys soon, it won’t be long until they’re in control of everything.”
The question remains will the program that started under the Bush Administration and continues with the Obama Administration be the albatross that sinks the war effort? Or does President Obama realize his mistakes and correct them before the American people cry foul?
Part five; Afghanistan- the counterinsurgency- will it work?
Part three; Billion-dollar corruption within the U.S. picked Afghan regime
Part two; U.S. payments to Taliban & Afghan warlords threaten American/NATO troops
Part one; U.S. troops fight and die to preserve Sharaih Law in Afghanistan
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Terrorism’s down-payment in the form drugs and U.S. aid money (part 4) – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/terrorism-s-down-payment-the-form-drugs-and-u-s-aid-money-part-4#ixzz1K6S2Zm9J
US payments to Taliban & Afghan warlords threaten American/NATO troops
(Part two of the series on Afghanistan)
According to separate Congressional and Senate reports, the American government pays more than $2 billion for Host Nation Trucking (HNT) or in layman’s terms, private security firms that protect U.S. military convoys and materials in dangerous tribal areas.
Currently the HNT contracts are a $2.16 billion dollar boondoggle that provides indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts ground transportation in Afghanistan for over 70 percent of Department of Defense goods and materiel, including food, water, fuel, equipment, and ammunition.
A report titled “Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan” was published by Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) in June of last year. The report detailed the billions of dollars spent to protect U.S. military supply convoys in Afghanistan- the majority of the money is paid by the DOD through defense contractors and finds its way into the hands of Taliban leaders and warlords.
According to the comprehensive report, the principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority in the region.
“Providing ‘protection’ services for the U.S. supply chain empowers these warlords with money, legitimacy, and a raison d’être for their private armies. Although many of these warlords nominally operate under private security companies licensed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, they thrive in a vacuum of government authority and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government,” the Congressional inquiry explains.
The large infusion of U.S. cash into Afghanistan should raise eyebrows because a good number of these warlords and Taliban fighters are also connected to the production of poppies (the illicit opium trade). And according to recently leaked documents from WikiLeaks there are billions of dollars flowing out of Afghanistan that remains unaccounted for due the country’s rudimentary banking practices. (See part three of this series)
The eye-opening report comes at a time when Afghan President Hamid Karzi is stirring anti-American passions about U.S. private contractors operating in the warzone and deadly Afghani rioting over the burning of the Quran by a Florida pastor.
The dilemma for both sides regarding the use of private contractors is that U.S. and NATO members operating in Afghanistan, as well as civilian organizations and news media, need private contractors to get around a country with little to no infrastructure.
Taliban fighters and tribal leaders look to the supply line convoys as a source of income; however, the outsourcing of these contractors has significant unintended consequences.
Advertisement
The HNT contract fuels warlordism, extortion, and corruption, and it may be a significant source of funding for insurgents. In other words, the logistics contract has an outsized strategic impact on U.S. objectives in Afghanistan, according to the Congressional report.
Congress also contends that the “Department of Defense has been blind to the potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided. When HNT contractors self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were ‘funding the insurgency,’ they were largely met with indifference and inaction.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee also sent staffers to investigate the “convoy protection” issue. Their report titled, “Inquiry into the Role and Oversight of Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan” concluded the U.S. pays trucking contractors billions of dollars a year much of it ends up in the hands of local warlords.
Another concern the Senate report highlighted that the U.S. seemed to be unknowingly fostering the Taliban and other militias when the country is struggling to build its own security forces.
“Almost all are Afghans, almost all are armed,” Senior Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) explained. “We need to shut off the spigot of U.S. dollars flowing into the pockets of warlords and power brokers who act contrary to our interests and contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government.”
Like the Congressional Report, the Senate oversight testimony concluded that private security contractors suffered from systematic failures with management and widespread failures in vetting or training armed-security personnel.
Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton acknowledged the supply line corruption activity during a December, 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting when she said, “One of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”
Up next, part three “Billion dollar corruption within the U.S.-picked Afghanistan government.”
Read part one of the series; US troops fight and die to preserve Shariah Law in Afghanistan
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Drug addiction in Afghanistan brings shame- especially for women
It’s no secret that Afghanistan is a focal point in the War on Terror and the world’s leader in producing heroin, but there are unintended consequences of these two facts specifically the increasing number of Afghani women and children who are addicted to drugs.
According to a new study from the Afghan government in coordination with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan, the female population, inside the Afghanistan warzone is turning to illegal drugs and alcohol to overcome disparity of life in the religious tribal nation.
Mohammad Ibrahim Azhar, Afghanistan’s Deputy Counter-Narcotics Minister says there are more than one million Afghans, including women and children, who have succumbed to the addiction of heroin.
The Afghanistan narcotics minister reports that the increase in addiction rates stem from the rise in products made from the opium poppies grown in the economically poor war-torn nation.
The current nine-year war has driven many Afghanis into poverty. Couple that with the social pressures of strict religious beliefs and forced marriages (often at very young ages) has pushed many women to use illicit drugs as a form of escapism, Azhar said.
Also, many women who live in Afghanistan are refused medical treatment for various illnesses and turn to heroin as a painkiller; however once they embark down this road the addiction becomes difficult to kick.
One woman told Radio Free Europe, on condition of anonymity, that she turned to heroin because her husband refused her medical care.
“I was ill for a long time,” she said. “My husband didn’t care. He didn’t bother to take me to a hospital. I went to a local man to get a powder to kill the pain. I only found out later that it was morphine, but by then I was addicted to it. That led to me taking heroin. I am so ashamed of that. Every one in the family and the local community who knows I am addicted hates me. I want to get rid of this shame as soon as possible.”
There are a number of free drug treatment centers in Afghanistan, according to the Health Ministry, but only a small number of women seek treatment because of the country’s conservative Islamic beliefs.
Due to Afghanistan’s strict religious laws, many women are forced to conceal their addiction in order to prevent bringing shame to their family that leads them to be branded as sinners. Also, seeking treatment for drug addiction problems is prohibited by Islamic law.
It’s clear that the 10-year-Russian war and the U.S. led nine-year- War on Terror have certainly left their impetuous marks on a broken tribal nation struggling to finds its identity.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/kimberly-dvorak
Warlords and Taliban fighters earn money from U.S. in the form of protection
A new report titled “Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan” was published by Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) in June. The report details the millions of dollars spent to protect U.S. military supply convoys in Afghanistan- the majority of the money is paid out from the Department of Defense through the use of defense contractors and often finds its way into the hands of shady characters.
The eye-opening report comes at a time when Afghan President Hamid Karzi is making a stink about U.S. private contractors operating in the warzone and has now set a four-month timetable for their withdrawal.
The dilemma for the private contractors is that U.S. and NATO members operating in Afghanistan, as well as civilian organizations and news media, use private contractors to get around a country with little infrastructure.
But according to the Congressional report, there are only 114 U.S. citizens (Department of Defense Private Contractors) inside Afghanistan – the remaining private contractor personnel is 13,916 from local or host country and 409 are various third country nationals.
If the Karzi government really wants the U.S. contractors out of the country they could load them up on a single plane in a couple of hours, says a former DoD contractor. Karzi complains that private contractors travel throughout the country with guns prominently displayed and disrupting traffic, yet the majority of the security detail comes from Afghanis the president is complaining about.
One must also look to the reason why U.S. and NATO allies require protection in the first place. Taliban fighters and tribal leaders look to the supply line convoys as a source of income; however outsourcing to these contractors has significant unintended consequences.
The Host Nation Trucking (HNT) contract fuels warlordism, extortion, and corruption, and it may be a significant source of funding for insurgents. In other words, the logistics contract has an outsized strategic impact on U.S. objectives in Afghanistan, according to the Congressional report.
The report also contends that the “Department of Defense has been blind to the potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided. When HNT contractors self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were ‘funding the insurgency,’ they were largely met with indifference and inaction.”
Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton acknowledged the supply line corruption activity during a December, 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting and said, “One of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”
According to the report, the principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority.
“Providing ‘protection’ services for the U.S. supply chain empowers these warlords with money, legitimacy, and a raison d’etre for their private armies. Although many of these warlords nominally operate under private security companies licensed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, they thrive in a vacuum of government authority and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government,” the Congressional inquiry explains.
Currently the HNT contracts are a $2.16 billion dollar boondoggle that provides indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide ground transportation in Afghanistan for over 70 percent of Department of Defense goods and materiel, including food, water, fuel, equipment, and ammunition.
The large infusion of U.S. cash into Afghanistan should raise eyebrows because a good number of these warlords and Taliban fighters are also connected to the production of poppies (the illicit opium trade). And according to recently leaked documents from WikiLeaks there are billions of dollars flowing out of Afghanistan that remains unaccounted for due the country’s rudimentary banking practices.
This reporter will begin a series of stories delving into the black-ops, shady bookkeeping and misused money the war in Afghanistan is guilty of and hopes to shed some light on a very unpopular war.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego
thekdreport 