Certain Doubt

Afghanistan: the Myth of Truth

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

I find the recent release of classified documents about Afghanistan by the independent web site “wiki leaks” fascinating, not for what the documents reveal, but instead for the White House and Pentagon response to their appearance on the world stage.

As reported by the fawning corporate media, the Obama Administration’s comments on the leaked information continue to focus on the legality of the leaks, the possible negative effect on America’s security, and the potential harm they could cause to our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan.

However, nowhere in the government’s response is there any mention of the questions the wiki leaks material raises about the wisdom of a foreign policy that costs billions, puts our soldiers in harms way, and which continues to result in the deaths of countless innocent civilians. The government avers they are sticking by their guns in Afghanistan but no one seems willing to ask the question why.

Recent revelations that US monetary aid to Afghanistan has been winding up in the pockets of the Taliban were embarrassing enough. But add to this wiki leak’s reporting that our own military has concluded the Pakistan security services (the ISI) has been secretly giving aid to the Taliban and a picture emerges of a foreign policy that is dysfunctional if not outright criminal.

Why are we are giving billions in military aid to Pakistan – in large measure to encourage them to fight the Taliban – if we feel the Pakistan secret service is turning around and giving aid the very enemy we are ostensibly trying to defeat? Am I the only one who sees this strategy – of giving aid to our “friends” who turn around and give aid to our “enemies” – as slightly, um, counterproductive?

While we are on this tack, does anyone still believe the Obama Administration’s stated reason why we have 94,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan? You know the argument I’m talking about, right? – That our national security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That the only way for us to be safe is to “…disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” source

According to the party line, we have to stabilize Afghanistan in order to prevent the Taliban from regaining power, from which point they could move on to destabilize and overthrow Pakistan thus gaining access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – which they will, of course, immediately hand over to al Qaeda. (Who will then presumably fashion them into shoe or underwear bombs that can be used by their legions of martyrs to wage radioactive Jihad on American cities.)

The writers of “Ocean’s Eleven,” “Twelve,” and “Thirteen” couldn’t come up with a danger scenario more convoluted, far-fetched, and just plain absurd as this. The administration’s rationale for why we are shelling out 4 billion dollars every month in military hardware and weaponry to “stabilize” a country whose total yearly per capita GDP is only 800 dollars is so laughable that one almost can’t believe the President can say the words with a straight face.

The wiki leaks documents only add to the farce. Are we really to believe that the Obama administration is sending soldiers overseas to fight an enemy who is funded by our own tax dollars?

The significance of the wiki leaks documents is not that the war is going badly; it is not that releasing the material is illegal or that it could endanger our troops. The important thing about the wiki leaks revelations is that they widen the already gargantuan hole in the official cover story as to why the United States continues to wage war in Afghanistan.

It’s patently absurd to claim that we need to exert our military might in places like Afghanistan solely to protect ourselves from terrorism. Obama knows this. General McChrystal and General Petraeus know it. General James “mad dog” Mattis, Obama’s choice as the new CENTCOM commander, definitely knows it.

Everybody knows.

However, if everybody knows that the official reason for continued US military action in Afghanistan is a joke, then like his predecessor, Barrack Obama has taken the country to war based upon a lie.

This is the true danger of the wiki leaks documents. They reaffirm unequivocally the bare naked truth which everybody knows but is afraid to state: the Emperor – indeed the empire itself – is not wearing any clothes.

Seeing an empire parade around butt naked… it’s not a pretty sight.

Tags: afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Empire, foreign policy, government, Obama, pakistan, Policy, wiki leaks, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, warfare | 2 Comments »

Counterinsurgency

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Dr. David Kilcullen is a very intelligent man. The well known consultant to the US military has a firm grasp and control of his field (counterinsurgency): i.e. the history, techniques, and yes , the science of dealing with groups of people who are trying to destabilize and overthrow existing governments. There is every reason why Kilcullen has become a go to guy for advice on counterinsurgency by the U.S. Government – first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

Every reason except for one:

Every pundit who interviews him, every president, General, and government agency who asks for his advice, all accept as a given that counterinsurgency efforts by the United States are both valuable and necessary. On radio and in print the conversation always starts with the assumption that it is the United States job to try and stabilize the world. Discussions with Kilcullen invariably focus on political, strategic, and operational decisions. No one ever challenges him on whether our counterinsurgency efforts are truly necessary or even wanted by the populations of the countries we occupy with our armed forces.

When asked why we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Kilcullen’s standard answer is to repeat Obama’s mantra that we have to stabilize Afghanistan so that it doesn’t fall to groups like the Taliban who might allow safe havens for al Qaeda.

The other pat phrase Kilcullen falls back on is the phantom menace of loose nukes in the hands of al Qaeda. The argument runs something like this:

*Pakistan has nukes.

*Pakistan is unstable.

*One of the reasons Pakistan is unstable is because of the Taliban.

*Afghanistan is unstable too.

*It also has a Taliban problem.

*Therefore, we have to win against the Taliban in Afghanistan so the Taliban in Pakistan don’t overthrow the government there, gain control over their nuclear weapons and give them to al Qaeda terrorists – (who will of course instantly turn around and use them against the United States.)

This kind of reasoning is so convoluted it starts to sound like the famous South Park episode where Johnny Cochran defends O.J. Simpson by unleashing the “Chewbacca Defense.” “This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie…”

As Kilcullen himself admits, military occupation and counterinsurgency efforts by foreign powers are very difficult and the success rate of such endeavors is historically low. For a variety of reasons the chances of our armed forces being successful at nation building in Afghanistan aren’t very good. Add in the fact that our stated rationale for attempting to stabilize the country, borders on the ludicrous and you have a recipe containing all the savory promise of a cow pie.

Trying to bring peace and stability to a place like Afghanistan by pouring billions of dollars worth of soldiers and weapons and ordnance into the country is like trying to make lousy cake batter taste sweeter by adding cilantro, motor oil, and gorgonzola cheese.

David Kilcullen is a very intelligent man. However, consulting him on counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan is a waste of his talents. Asking a great chef to spend his time trying to improve the taste of a lousy soup that someone else has made, is foolish.

Asking him to defend the reason why you have asked him to do such a foolish thing?…

Well, that’s down right criminal.

Tags: afghanistan, Al Qaeda, COIN, counterinsurgency, government, insurgent, Kilcullen, pakistan, Policy, Taliban, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, war
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, humor, warfare | No Comments »

The Drones of War

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

The recent attempt by the Obama administration to justify its policy of drone strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, did little to answer the basic legal questions surrounding the issue.

Speaking before the American Society of International Law, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh cited the right to “self-defense” as a rationale, for the continued use of unmanned aerial drones in targeted killings of Taliban and al Qaeda leaders:

“…[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.

… the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….

[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war…”

The main problem I have with Koh’s defense argument is that it relies on his assertion that we are at war with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Despite President Obama’s parroting repetition that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute war, there has never been universal acceptance of this fact. Defining the terrorist attack on 9-11 as “an act of war” was a debatable claim when the Bush administration made it. It’s equally debatable now.

Citing the example of the WWII targeting of the plane containing the “architect of Pearl Harbor,” Koh attempts – none too subtly – to once again equate 9-11 with the attack by Japan that sparked our entry into World War II. But, as many commentators have rightly pointed out, the two events are in no way equivalent. A handful of fundamentalists with box cutters – or a lone individual with explosive underwear – cannot be compared to an armada of aircraft carriers and dive bombers bent on destroying our entire pacific fleet. It is worse than apples and oranges; it is more like watermelons vs poppy seeds.

If we are not at war, however, Koh’s argument supporting targeted killing becomes a three legged stool with one leg missing. If one accepts the notion that terrorists are criminals who are guilty of crimes, it is hard to make the argument that they should be treated as “belligerent combatants” who can be legally assassinated using sophisticated weapons of war. If we are not at war, then the targeted killing of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders is most definitely extra-judicial and must be considered illegal under international law.

In his speech, Mr. Koh didn’t even address the fact that many of the “belligerents” we are targeting – i.e. Taliban leaders – have never declared war on the United States. They didn’t invade our country. We invaded and occupied theirs! By any measure, we have been the military aggressors in the Middle East. If anyone has the right to the claim of self-defense it would have to be the Taliban, not us.

Finally, while it is certainly understandable for a President to want to keep his population safe, it seems to me that by defining terrorists like al Qaeda as “belligerent combatants” who can be legally killed, we risk opening a Pandora’s Box to new and more bizarre uses for unmanned drone attacks. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are considered targetable, then what is to keep the government from defining other groups of terrorists as belligerent and marking them for assassination as well?

The U.S. State department currently lists some 45 Groups that are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations – including the FARC in Columbia and the IRA in Ireland. There are eight such groups in Palestine alone. Are we to assume by Mr. Koh’s legal pronouncement that any terrorist group that the State Department decides might wish to cause us harm is eligible to have their leaders snuffed with hellfire missiles launched from unmanned drones? If it starts, where does it end?

I am under no illusions about the usage of cutting edge technology in war. The United States is the world leader in weapons production and research. If our army develops a technological advantage that helps us to defeat enemies on the battlefield, I have no doubt the pentagon will attempt to justify its use.

As a citizen, I am less interested in hearing a State Department Lawyer expound on why our use of weapons like unmanned drones to target Taliban leaders is legal.

I am more interested in hearing the government elaborate about instances where they would consider the use of these weapons to be illegal.

Tags: Al Qaeda, Assassination, Drones, koh, law, Policy, UAVs, war
Posted in Daily Doubt, Politics, law, warfare | No Comments »

Ethics and The War on Terror.

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

Ethical quiz:

Suppose there is a militant leader in a foreign country who has stated publicly he wishes to kill Americans. He has guns and ammo and a ready supply of rabid followers. No doubt about it, he’s a bad guy. Imagine further, the C.I.A. knows where and when this man is going to be at a given location. Say they can put a sharpshooter in place, and assassinate him upon your order.

Would you do it?

Would you give the order to execute a man merely because he had stated a desire to kill American citizens? Would you consider it moral or ethical to execute someone merely because of something they would like to do?

I suspect that there are many in America who wouldn’t agonize too long over this type of decision. For the plethora of second amendment supporters out there the merest hint of danger would probably be enough for them to justify giving a sniper with a Bushmaster a green light to blow the guy’s head into a fine pink mist. Let the other poor bastard die for his country and all that. All’s fair in love and horseshoes.

Okay, now let’s back it up a tick:

Suppose you know the location where the man will be and even when he he’s going to be there. However, the only means of assassination at your disposal is to lob a grenade through the window. Would you do it then? If the attempt would almost certainly kill more people than just the man you are gunning for would it still be moral and ethical to go ahead? If you say yes to this one – and I mean no disrespect here – how many bystanders would you be willing to kill before your ethics and morality meter started to quiver?

Okay, now for the kicker:

Suppose you are only “pretty sure” this man will be in the house where and when you think he’ll be there. Suppose further the house is located in between an elementary school and a wedding chapel and oh, by the way, your only means of attacking him is with a missile fired from an unmanned drone circling high overhead, commanded by a pilot who is half a world away? Does this do anything at all to the needle on your moral compass?

This last one of course is a more or less exact description of where we find ourselves in the “war on terror.” In a curious bit of irony, C.I.A. director Leon Panetta went before Congress recently and related how he had dismantled a program set up by the Bush administration that was to have C.I.A. operatives identify and assassinate Al Qaeda leaders on the ground. At the same time Panetta gave his wholehearted support for a program of assassination using Hellfire missiles launched from Predator and Reaper drones flying at 20,000 feet that is virtually certain to kill way more innocent people than a sniper’s bullet ever could.

From a legal standpoint, the decision to dismantle the C.I.A. assassination program is understandable. It can be argued that targeted killing, such as that put forward for Al Qaeda terrorists, is prohibited by presidential orders that date back to the Ford administration. Presidentially ordered assassinations are, by definition, unethical and immoral. However, the decision to go with the drone assassination program instead places the Whitehouse on even shakier ethical ground. Though there is disagreement as to the amount of civilian casualties that have resulted from drone attacks – much of which stems from the CIAs own secrecy surrounding the program – no less an authority than advisor and strategist David Kilcullen admitted in an interview with the Financial Times in May that with regard to the whole drone program:
“US drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas aimed at hitting al-Qaeda and Taliban figures were counter-productive. They have an undeniable benefit, because we have disrupted AQ operations and damaged AQ cells in Pakistan. But they have a negative strategic effect in that they incite Punjabi militancy, which is the biggest problem in Pakistani right now. Mr Kilcullen said the hit rate on drone attacks was ‘unacceptably low’. He said the US had killed 14 mid-level or lower level al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 but the strikes had killed 700 civilians.”

“That’s a hit rate of two per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It’s not moral.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46c20ab0-3f59-11de-ae4f-00144feabdc0.html

By any measure, making the linchpin of your war strategy one in which you create 98% collateral damage is beyond justification. Any domestic police force that wiped out 700 innocents in order to target 14 bad guys would itself be labeled criminal.

It strikes me that the dilemma in which we find ourselves in the Middle East is made much more intractable because the powers that be are totally dysfunctional about the morality, the legality and even the efficacy of the strategy and tactics they’re willing to use to fight the so called “War on Terror.” Eschewing torture then giving prisoners defacto life sentences with no charges, no defense and no trial is dysfunctional. Axing a targeted assassination program, saying America is not going down that road is a fine moral stance. But to then employ a remote weapon that kills 98 innocent civilians for every one terrorist leader is just plain nuts!

Can there be such a thing as an ethical war against a group such as Al Qaeda? Is there a moral way of battling an insurgency such as the Taliban? Can we defeat terrorism?

Perhaps.

But in my opinion victory over religious zealots armed with box cutters will never be accomplished with either an armed occupation force or an assassination program. Terrorism is, by definition, immoral. However, assassination programs are also immoral. There is no way of defeating immorality with more immorality. Only by removing our troops from foreign countries; only by engaging in moral and ethical activities like helping the local people build schools, roads, and bridges; only by improving the lives of ordinary Afghan and Pakistani citizens, giving them jobs and access to healthcare; only then will we see peace in the middle east.

We could do this. We could change direction. However, it is frankly impossible to achieve a just and moral outcome while paying $400 a gallon for gas to move our army around in a country like Afghanistan where the yearly per capita gross domestic product is only $429!

I know. It’s a radical notion for our army to accept, that their very presence in a country might actually be part of that country’s problem. It will take will to change. But it can be done. After all, as Martin Luther King said about another intractable conflict:

“If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who posses power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

Tags: Al Qaeda, Assassination, Drones, Ethics, Morality, Peace, Politics, Terrorism, war
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, Uncategorized, warfare | 2 Comments »