Over the last week the U.S. military officially pulled out of Iraq after almost ten years of war and occupation.  The last of the remaining combat troops and equipment were moved across the border to Kuwait, and loaded on board vessels for the trip home to America.  There were no triumphant  speeches from American politicians, nor were there jubilant celebrations by the military for their great sacrifices and accomplishments.   However, in a dusty corner of a soon-to-be abandoned air base, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, along with a few Generals and a couple of hundred soldiers, simply rolled up the American flag, uttered a few words of encouragement,  and “got out of Dodge”.   The war in Iraq ended for the American military with a whimper.  In the meantime, not one Iraqi politician, nor a single Iraqi citizen or local newspaper praised America for sacrificing almost five thousand American lives and around $1.0 trillion in taxpayer funds for its “war of liberation”. The Iraqis simply wanted the American out of their country and out of their lives.

In a very real sense, this week marks a sad milestone in American history.  The lofty goals of bringing democracy to Iraq,  freeing them from  terrorism, and making the country a bastion  free enterprise in the Middle East never panned out.  In fact, the terrorism perpetrated between the ethnic groups in Iraq, which was largely kept in check by the regime of Saddam Hussein, was loosened to run rampant after Saddam’s demise.  Rather than freeing a nation from tyranny, the American military occupation only fanned the flames of deep-seated hatreds, and unleashed a new wave of violence.  During the ten years of occupation the Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed, the Iraqi economy was  ruined, and individual liberties were trampled upon by a new, U.S.-sponsored  dictatorship.  It is no wonder that the “victory march” out of Iraq by the U.S. military was not accompanied by the playing of brass bands.  In essence, the awesome power and might of the richest, most militarily sophisticated  country in the world was used to crush into submission a small, desert nation over ten long years. In the end, nothing of substance was accomplished.

With the war in Iraq finally over, the time has come for Americans to recognize that military actions taken against countries that pose no direct threat to American interests can create unexpected, and undesirable consequences.  For example, the military forays into both Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but push these nations further under the influence of Iran.  There is little doubt that the future will be rife with many opportunities and justifications for engaging in other military actions  in other far-off locations.   The strength and character of the United States as a world leader will not be measured in the future by the power of our military, but rather by our willingness to refrain from using military action to accomplish political objectives.  We must be ever-vigilant against becoming entangled in future conflicts that could lead to escalating violence and the threat of another world war.  It’s not too late.

Rich

Image by US Army Africa via Flickr

Many football fans  (especially those who live in the Cleveland area)  may recall that  fateful evening, not so long ago, when Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, packed up his equipment in the middle of the night and moved the team to Baltimore.   Although Modell had the legal right to move the team to another city, he also had the moral obligation to tell the millions of Browns’ fans why he was abandoning them for greener pastures, and when he was planning to leave.  In an analogous  situation, President Obama recently decided to move one hundred military personnel to the central African region.  The decision was made by the Obama Administration without Congressional approval or discussion, and without allowing any kind of public debate over the merits of putting American soldiers in harm’s way.   This unilateral action, similar to the actions ordered by President Bush regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, and similar to the action ordered by President Clinton regarding Somalia, may have far-reaching implications in the future.

The official explanation for the dispatching of troops (albeit a small number) is to give aid to local governments in hunting down and removing (i.e. killing) the head of a terrorist movement called The Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA.  The head of the LRA, Joseph Kony, is indisputably a very bad guy, and has been accused of the murder, rape and kidnappings of thousands of innocent Africans in The Central African Republic, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.  Exactly why the military forces of these republics need the help of a mere one hundred U.S. combatants in order to eliminate the head of a terrorist organization operating in their own neighborhoods is a question that cannot be avoided.   According to the Obama administration, the U.S. combatants will  simply be advisers to the local military commanders, and will only take aggressive actions in self-defense.

The truth of the matter is, most likely,  that the governments of the central African region lack the sophisticated techniques and sufficient resources needed to hunt down and eliminate terrorist organizations.   As a quid pro quo for supporting U.S. goals in Africa, those countries within the region will receive not only the help of military advisers, but the infusion of millions of dollars in military hardware, including drones.  The problem is that the American government is planting yet another “seed” of U.S. military presence in yet another part of the world.  As Americans have learned many times over, those actions which begins as relatively benign military assistance moves, can quickly turn into full-fledged military engagements. The region of Central Africa is a very unstable and volatile part of the world, misunderstood by most Americans, and rife with deep-seated secular conflicts; many of which go back for decades.

The decision of the Obama Administration to dispatch troops to central Africa without the proper Congressional consideration, and without the input from the American public is extremely ill-considered.  We should all hope and pray that this latest military foray does not escalate into another failed attempt to spread American influence, similar to the embarrassing and short-lived mission in Somalia in the 1990′s.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

On Friday, October 7, the United States reached  grim milestone. This date marked the ten year anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.  During this period of time over 1,700 American service men and women have been killed,  thousands more have been wounded and maimed, and the cost to the taxpayers has exceeded one trillion dollars.  In addition to American losses, tens of thousands of Afghan men, women and children have met their demise.  U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has now exceeded the ten year involvement in the War in Viet Nam, and it’s not over yet.  At best, the Obama Administration has indicated  the  military will be in Afghanistan for at least another three years, or three hundred billion dollars worth.  From just about any possible viewpoint, the conflict has been a huge waste of American lives and money, has done nothing to reduce the power and influence of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and has further destabilized a  very volatile region of the world.

There are many lessons that can be learned from America’s ill-conceived involvement in Afghanistan.  The first, and most important lesson is to allow regional powers to resolve problems within their own regions. Although terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, can cause damage and destruction throughout the world, it is impossible to  fight against them with boots on the ground in their own home territories.  It is inevitable that local warlords or tribal elders will  view the American military as foreign invaders.  In some cases, such as the ISI in Pakistan, terrorist organizations will be actively supported by local governments.  The key to avoiding long and costly military engagements is to stay out of regions where we have no strategic interest and to avoid conflicts in areas where we don’t belong.

The second lesson to be learned from the protracted war in Afghanistan is to have a well-defined exit strategy before embarking on a military campaign.  If the power and might of the U.S. military forces cannot be used to bring a quick end to the conflict, then the military should not be used. We should have learned this lesson from the Viet Nam War, but sadly we did not.  The American government knew early on that a disastrous end to the Viet Nam War was inevitable, yet the conflict went on for many more years than it should have.  The same is true for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Once American military forces leave Afghanistan, there is little doubt that Iran will slowly but surely bring them under its powerful sphere of influence.  The presence of the Taliban and of al Qaeda will matter very little to the Iranian government, since their objective will not be “the spread of democracy”, but exploitation and domination.  Such is the fate of Afghanistan, and there’s nothing much  the U.S. can  do to change this inevitability from happening.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

After the American Revolution was fought and won, the representatives of the thirteen colonies met in Philadelphia to decide how the Articles of Confederation could be changed to provide for a more effective federal government.  At that time in American history the thirteen states were operated more like thirteen separate countries than one nation;  each with its own set of laws, and each  with its own separate currency.   Early on in the process  most of the delegates realized that the Articles of Confederation needed to be be scrapped entirely, and replaced with a new federal constitution.  This new body of law would  clearly delineate the specific powers that would be granted to the federal government, and those powers not granted to the federal government would be assumed by the various states.   The Constitution of the United States was subsequently ratified and adopted by the states (with the exception of Rhode Island, whose  General Assembly never did approve the Constitution), and became the law of the land.    Under the provisions of the Constitution, the power to declare and to conduct wars against foreign countries was granted exclusively to the the Legislative  Branch of the federal government, and not to the country’s chief Executive.   With good reason, the founding fathers realized that the power to wage war was to important to be left to the discretion of  any individual president.

Over the course of time,  the power of Congress to declare war against another country has remained in effect, but the power to actually wage war for a limited time has been utilized by several Presidents under the provisions of the War Powers Act.   Among other things, this Act allows the president to quickly deploy U.S. military forces without prior Congressional approval when deemed necessary.   The idea behind the War Powers Act was to allow a president to act quickly and decisively when the country was in imminent danger.   In those circumstances, the president is required to receive Congressional approval within 90 days of the commencement of hostilities.  Unfortunately, the War Powers Act has been used far too frequently by presidents to conduct military operations without obtaining Congressional approval, and without rising to the level of  “full-blown hostilities”, as defined by the War Powers Act.  In essence, the War Powers Act has been applied in a way that negates the founding father’s intention  that the authority to wage war against foreigners  be wielded by Congress, and Congress alone.

Following precedent  established by his predecessors,  President Obama deployed U.S. military assets  to assist in  hostilities against Libya without seeking prior approval from Congress.   However, in contrast to the precedent established by his predecessors, the Obama Administration is  claiming that Congressional approval is not required at all, since the U.S. military operation in Libya does not meet the definition of “hostilities”, as defined in the War Powers Act.  The claim that the U.S. military involvement in Libya does not require Congressional approval is a dangerous usurpation of Congressional powers delineated by the Constitution, and a blatant mis-use of Presidential authority.  In short, the failure of the Obama Administration to seek approval to wage war in Libya  is  an illegal act and, in my opinion, an impeachable offense.

The failure of the Obama Administration to seek Congressional approval for the U.S. military involvement in Libya has not gone unnoticed by a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives. Under the leadership of  Speaker John Boehner, the House proposed two resolutions  on Tuesday that would either end U.S.military involvement in Libya altogether, or would authorize the continued use of force.  At the present time, the House is leaning against further U.S. involvement.  If,  in fact, the Obama Administration is denied Congressional approval it will be because the president has made no attempt to clearly explain to Congress or to the American people why he felt it was in America’s best interests to wage another violent and expensive military action on the other side of the world.   In this time of  national distress, with burgeoning budget deficits and high unemployment, there is no justification for America to get involved in another foreign war.  Congress should send the Obama Administration a clear message; end hostilities against Libya and bring the troops home now!

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

Sometimes it’s difficult to comprehend that it has been almost twenty years since President George H. W. Bush first sent American fighting forces to Iraq.   Although Saddam Hussein‘s  army was very quickly defeated, and Iraq’s occupation army was removed from Kuwait, the  American “war effort” continued in one form or another.  For at least ten of the twenty years  of military involvement, America and it’s coalition partners maintained and enforced an expensive “no fly zone”, until the war turned “hot” again during the administration of the next George Bush (i.e. Bush 43).  At no time during the entire twenty years of involvement have Americans been viewed favorably by the Iraqi people as liberators, nor have the U.S. and it’s coalition partners been able to adequately justify their continued presence.   The excuses for a continued American military presence, such as helping to make Iraq a shining example of  “democratic” principles, or stopping the spread of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, are as empty and false as they were almost ten years ago.

As the date for the total withdrawal of the remaining fifty thousand American troops nears,  the violence and terrorist tactics used against them continues unabated.  On Monday two additional American fighting men were killed in a suicide attack near the port of Basra, and another five died in a rocket attack in Baghdad.  In fact, U.S. forces have increasingly come under attack in central Iraq, showing the growing impatience of both Shiite and Sunni militants to drive the U.S. out of the country once and for all.   With a population that is armed to the teeth with assault weapons and IED’s, all factions within Iraq are impatiently waiting for the American military to leave, so that the “real” conflict can begin in earnest.   This conflict being the war between the Shiite and the Sunni Muslim Sects.  On one side the Shiites are worried about the return of former Baath Party loyalists who fled to Yemen and Syria after the 2003 invasion,  and on the other side the Sunnis are worried about the return of Shiite militias and the rise of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.  In reality, both sides are “itching for a fight”, and are not about to be deprived of their much-awaited civil war.

The continuing presence of the American military in Iraq has been an unnecessary expense for the American taxpayers, and will ultimately prove to be totally ineffective in halting the spread of terrorism, or in stopping Iraq from its slow but sure move toward the Iranian sphere of influence.  As militant assaults on the remaining American troops become more and more common, the Obama Administration must not be tempted to delay the withdrawal.  Any delays of the withdrawal of American troops will only delay the inevitable civil conflict within Iraq.  Enough is enough! America should cut its losses and “get out of Dodge” regardless of the situation on the ground.

Rich

Image by olaf.kellerhoff via Flickr

Few people would dispute that 2011 has not been a really  good year for the concept of  “peace on Earth”.   Popular rebellions have spread across North Africa, from Tunisia and  Sudan to Egypt and Libya. The Middle Eastern countries of Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Jordan have also experienced violence and social unrest brought about by years, even decades, of oppression and economic deprivation.  In addition to the newly-hatched revolutions occurring in North Africa and the Middle East are the ongoing, long-term, terrorist-driven conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.   The flames of violence and hatred among the peoples of the Earth have rarely burned with more intensity.  In a sense,  the world is experiencing a whole new World War; only this time around,  the countries in Europe and North America are essentially watching from the sidelines.   There is one situation, however, that is unchanged over the last few years, and perhaps over the last decade;  Pakistan remains the most dangerous country in the world, with the highest potential to cause the greatest harm to humanity.

Since its inception in 1947,  the military has been the dominant political  structure in Pakistan.  Although there have been short periods of time that the military has given way to civilian governments, such as presently, they  has never been able to tolerate criticism for long without violently seizing back the reins of power.   Along with those “reins of power’ comes control of Pakistan’s potent arsenal of nuclear weapons; an arsenal of potential death and destruction that could kill millions of people over a span of a single day.

On Thursday, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, gave the Pakistani people,  the civilian government, and the United States a clear warning;  stop criticizing the army in the local media,  stop blaming the army for a number of failed initiatives, and remove foreign military forces (i.e. U.S. military forces) from Pakistani territory immediately.   General Kayani’s comments came after weeks of public criticism for the U.S. Special Forces raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, for a humiliating terrorist assault on a naval base in Karachi and for the kidnapping and beating death of a prominent Pakistani journalist, known to criticize the Pakistani spy agency called the ISI.   There appears little doubt that General Kayani is preparing to take the future of Pakistan into his own hands, beginning with the elimination of all cooperation with American strategic objectives in the region.

Largely due to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons capabilities, the continuation of  the corrupt and ineffective civilian government does very little to assure other countries in the region that political chaos will not continue and, in fact, get worse.  At this point, Pakistan’s best chance at eliminating the destabilizing effect of the growing al Qaeda and Taliban presence in the country may be a return to military rule.  If, in fact, the return of  military rule would help to safeguard the nuclear arsenal from terrorist elements , then the sooner that General Kayani made his move, the better.

Rich

The words to an old 1960′s song goes something like this;  “One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?  Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is  (Afghanistan).”  Well, actually the words to song said “Viet Nam”,  but the sentiment still applies.   The United States is  building up military forces and equipment in Afghanistan at a feverish pitch, even while  relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai continue to rapidly worsen.   Apparently, Mr. Karzai felt that President Obama’s  recent trip to Kabul for meetings was an effort to manipulate him, and to scold him as an ineffectual leader.  The hot-headed and somewhat erratic Karzai decided to show his defiance by making two anti-American speeches over the course of three days.   In his remarks to parliament on Saturday, Mr. Karzai said that  if  foreign interference  in his government continues (i.e. the United States), the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance; one that he might even join.  He went on to publicly rebuke the U.S. government by saying ” Our most important ally is constantly criticizing us: you are corrupt.  You need to do this and that.  You cannot talk down to the Afghans like they are children or they don’t understand”.  Karzai’s recent remarks have send further shock waves through the State Department, where mistrust for the Afghan leader is already at a high level due to the wildly corrupt election that propelled him to a second term as president.

It would seem that the American government’s Afghanistan  policy  is being put between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.   Mr. Karzai, who owes his position and probably his very existence, to the overthrow of the Taliban government in a 2001 invasion, has become emboldened by the corrupt election that kept him in power.  Under the protection of the U.S.  military in Afghanistan , Mr. Karzai has been able to hold secretive meetings with the Iranians, the Pakistanis, and the Taliban itself.  While American soldiers die on the battlefields of Southern Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai has been negotiating a separate deal with the Taliban that would allow for a cozy power-sharing arrangement.  In his own words, Mr. Karzai suggested the Taliban was  a “legitimate” resistance movement, which had the equally “legitimate” goal of getting rid of all foreign interference, including the United States of America.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was a bad idea to begin with, and has now lasted almost ten years with no determinable results.  There is no legitimate government, and no credible election process.  The country’s administration is totally corrupt at all levels, the Afghan army controls no territory outside of Kabul, and the Taliban is stronger than ever.  The only chance that the U.S. government has for an “honorable” withdrawal of forces would be to actively support a power-sharing arrangement between the Karzai Administration and the Taliban.  Although this would amount to a “defeat” for American policy in the region, at least it would stop the senseless loss of American lives and the expenditure of $100 billion every year in taxpayer money.  If something is not done very soon to stop the escalation in U.S. troop levels, and to begin a complete withdrawal, America may find itself fighting against a formidable coalition of  Karzai supporters and  the Taliban, all armed to the teeth with Iranian-made weapons.

Rich

If you have not already done so, please subscribe and use the RSS button. We welcome your thoughts and opinions, here and on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Karzai: ‘I swear that I am going to join the Taliban’ (americablog.com)
• Karzai Slams the West Again (online.wsj.com)
• If I Can’t Control The Election Watchdog, I’ll Join The Taliban (attackerman.firedoglake.com)

The accused September 11 “mastermind”, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is like a bad case of indigestion that just won’t go away. After almost ten years of captivity at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, KSM still has neither been formally arraigned nor brought to trial. In this case the concept of Habeas Corpus has apparently been permanently suspended due to KSM’s status as a prisoner of war. Senior Obama Administration officials are now recommending the KSM be prosecuted in a military trial, reversing a prior decision to hold a criminal trial for KSM and four accused co-conspirators in a Lower Manhattan court. The change of mind on KSM’s status, and the location of where he should be tried has come after intense political pressure from many Republican leaders, and rightly so. A highly publicized trial, held on American soil, and subject to the civilian criminal code could easily become “circus-like” event, followed closely by the American and foreign press, and open the “door” to highly embarrassing testimony about the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo prison. It could also highlight the fact that KSM has been held for almost ten years without being tried for his crimes.

Regarding the impending trial of KSM (be it in civilian court or by military tribunal), the ubiquitous Osama bin Laden has weighed in via an audiotape aired on al Jezeera. Bin Laden complained that President Obama was following in Bush’s footsteps regarding the indefinite holding of al Qaida detainees, and warned the U.S. government not to execute KSM or any other “prisoners of war”. Bin Laden went on to say that “When America makes that decision (i.e. to execute KSM) it will have (also) made a decision to execute whoever of you is held by us.” The threat could signal an increased kidnapping risk targeting U.S. citizens during and after a trial in the United States. On this point, Osama bin Laden should be taken seriously.

The kidnapping and subsequent murder of American citizens by al Qaida is nothing new, and the gross mistreatment of American prisoners is already standard policy for the Islamic terrorist groups. However, Bin Laden’s public statement signals that the al Qaida leadership is willing to exploit the deep political divisions within American society by pressuring the Administration to keep KSM alive, under threat of renewed violence. After caving in to political pressures to bring KSM to trial in a military court, President Obama must follow through swiftly, even if it results in a death sentence. During this time of great political turmoil in the United States it is more important than ever to show al Qaida and Osama bin Laden that we remain united in the pursuit of justice. It is time to put KSM on trial and mete out the justice he so richly deserves.
-Rich

Once again, a line seems to be drawn in the sand between Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  This time the issue is what to do about U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, and when to do it.  Things were certainly not made any better by former Vice-President Cheney’s accusation that Obama was “dithering” in making a decision.  To their credit, Republican leaders Orrin Hatch and John McCain were quick to distance themselves from Cheney’s remarks.  Most foreign policy experts within the Obama Administration and outside of government generally agree that the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has escalated considerably in terms of size and complexity.  The changing situation in Afghanistan, combined with the role being played by the Pakistani government have left the Obama Administration with few good options.

One of the central issues to be considered is the future of the corrupt and generally despised government of Hamid Karsai.  Recent elections showing Karsai being re-elected by wide margins have been proven to be fraudulent, therefore the Karsai Administration is not regarded as legitimate by the majority of Afghanis.  Rather than helping to promote democratic principles, the election has only strengthened the position of the Taliban.  A significant increase in U.S. troop levels in support of Karsai’s regime could have the undesired effect of boosting the strength and resolve of the Taliban even more.  Once the U.S. forces are widely perceived as foreign invaders, all of the Afghanistan tribes and factions will turn against them.  When that happens, no amount of U.S. troops will be successful in overcoming the Taliban.

I agree with General McChrystal that the troop levels in Afghanistan are too small to get the job done, if the job is defined as imposing the will of the Karsai government and the U.S. government on the majority. However, an addition of forty thousand soldiers, or even a hundred thousand soldiers will not change the situation over the long run so long as Afghanistan lacks a legitimate government.  The Obama Administration is right in being cautious under the present circumstances.

—Rich

One of the few things that is predictable about Osama Bin Laden is that he will deliver an address to the “American People” every year, right around September 11.  This year is no exception.  On Sunday, two days after the eighth anniversary of al-Qaeda’s infamous attacks on The World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon, Bin Laden reminded Americans that the attacks were the result of U.S. support of Israel and the “occupation of Palestine”.  In this year’s address, he taunted the Obama Administration by claiming the new President was blindly following the strategies of George W. Bush, and that he was “powerless” to end the war.  Bin Laden further promised that the war in Afghanistan would be a “war of attrition” for whatever length of time was necessary to ensure an al-Qaeda victory.

Bin Laden’s eleven minute address contained, for the most part, the usual sabre rattling and Islamo-fascist propaganda.  Nothing new was proposed, nor was there any hint that al-Qaeda was  prepared to compromise its stated goal of destroying Israel and punishing anyone who comes to her assistance.  There is little doubt that Bin Laden has been emboldened by the failure of NATO forces to find and kill him, and by the growth of al-Qaeda’s strength throughout the region.

Bin Laden is clearly a terrorist of the highest caliber, and his al-Qaeda Organization has spread pain and suffering over the world for a very long time.  Unfortunately, his goals of eliminating the State of Israel and restoring Palestine resound very favorably with most of the Middle Eastern nations.  It is for this reason that the U.S. and other NATO countries will never be able to garner the cooperation of Middle Eastern nations in either capturing Bin Laden or destroying al-Qaeda.  Without the cooperation of these populations, the mission of the U.S. in Afghanistan is doomed to failure.  In a very real sense, the U.S. military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been about a “war of terrorism”, but about the protection and survival of Israel.  And both sides know it!

—Rich