This Tuesday Obama is supposed to announce his decision on troops and Afghanistan (the last guess I heard was 30,000 as opposed to the 40,000 the General asked for) and we will once again see our middle-east battle commitment increase.
But is there a reason why the President didn't turn the problem over to the State Department for a negotiated solution? Sherwood Ross in OpEdNews writes an extended article on why diplomacy wasn't even considered. here's a clip:
$100 billion more in wartime spending. That's what Congress is hellbent on approving despite valiant efforts from a growing number of Progressives led by FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher to derail this legislation's passage in the House. $100 billion, and for what? To bring more troops to Afghanistan without an exit strategy? To further US foreign policy that fails to address the humanitarian needs of the world's third poorest country? To escalate military operations that directly result in Afghan civilian casualties?
Recently, Anand Gopal, who has been covering the war in Afghanistan for The Christian Science Monitor, dispelled the myths about troop escalation at the America's Future Now Conference in Washington, DC. The reality, Gopal grimly assessed, is that more troops will mean more incidents of violence. More troops will also mean the need for more airstikes, which, as you can see in the sobering trailer for part four of Rethink Afghanistan, will mean more civilian casualties.
How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration's pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "minimalist" or "reductionist" path would be, in their view, "dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it." As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it's in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary."
How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don't get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use "loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan." The thing is though, and I never ever thought I'd write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
Over the weekend, President Obama confirmed what many Get Afghanistan Right bloggers, myself included, have been saying for months: resolving the war in Afghanistan will require negotiating with elements of the Taliban. 17,000 more troops will be "a drop in the bucket," as Andrew Bacevich has said, if the US doesn't engage in regional diplomacy.
Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban "should be explored," an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.
Granted, the Obama administration has acknowledged that it is far more complicated to reach out to moderate Taliban factions than it was to negotiate with nationalist Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq. Yet the fact that the Obama administration is pursuing this diplomatic strategy at all is a step in the right direction to Rethink Afghanistan. As The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss notes in his must-read piece on the Taliban, we should have been talking with them all along.
There is no "end game" strategy for the war in Afghanistan. That is what a military official told President Obama last week, according to an NBC report cited by Think Progress' Faiz Shakir yesterday. In other words, the ultimate outcome for our military presence in Afghanistan is unclear, not just to the activists and bloggers who have been wrestling with this war at Get Afghanistan Right, but to those inside the Pentagon as well. If we have any chance of avoiding further catastrophe in the region, we better make damn sure we Rethink Afghanistan.
That is exactly what Brave New Foundation is calling for in a new campaign launched today. They will hold a series of debates on the issues surrounding this war in the coming weeks, and currently they're asking everyone to sign the petition urging Congressional oversight hearings like those held in 2007 regarding the Iraq war. Vice President Biden, who orchestrated the Iraq hearings as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said, "No foreign policy can be sustained in this country without the informed consent of the American people." Isn't informed public consent what we need now before committing more troops to Afghanistan?
Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.
The VA became embroiled in scandal this week based on an email directing doctors not to diagnose PTSD and instead diagnose an adjustment disorder, a cost-cutting move which was meant to allow the VA to provide fewer benefits. (marinecorpstimes.com)
Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.
USA Today found that the Pentagon knowingly sent 43,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan that were determined to be medically unfit for combat in the weeks prior to their deployment, another sign of the unprecedented stress on our military. (usatoday.com)
Brandon Friedman explains the mathematics behind the President's announcement that on August 1st he will shorten deployments from 15 month tours to 12 months tours, and how that won't actually affect a single soldier until August 2009, 7 months into the next president's administration. (vetvoice.com)
John McCain still hasn't signed on to Jim Webb's 21st Centuty GI Bill, which would provide the first update to the bill since 1947. (huffingtonpost.com)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
(From one of America's leading veterans' advocates. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
This morning, President Bush will make an announcement about the situation in Iraq. For every American who supports the troops, I hope that you will listen carefully when he announces that troop deployments are being reduced from the current back-breaking 15 months to 12 months at the end of the summer.
In short, this is a hollow political announcement.
We at Veterans For America released two new reports this week: "The Consequences of Churning, about the toll that repeated deployments are taking on frontline Army units, and "Weekend Warriors to Frontline Soldiers", about the effects felt by National Guard combat teams. (veteransforamerica.org)
Lastly, New York Senator Charles Schumer and Virginia Senator Jim Webb are co-sponsoring a plan to create a bigger and better GI Bill that extends benefits and offers more money for living costs and educational programs, in an effort to update the program which has not been amended since the end of World War II. (wwnytv.net)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
The Iraq Winter Soldier hearings took place this week. Independent media were crucial to its occurrence and its viewership. (www.veteransforcommonsense.org)
The Billings Gazette discusses the very successful overhaul of the Montana National Guard's PTSD program. (www.billingsgazette.com)
Sen. Barack Obama spoke in West Virginia on Thursday about the toll the war in Iraq has taken on the economy. With the economy having replaced the war as the voters' chief concern, Obama made a case that a continuation of the war amounts to a continuation of our economic problems. (nytimes.com)
Last, a The New York Times explored the problems widows and parents of fallen servicemen face balancing grief and windfall when they receive $500,000 in survivor benefits.
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.
Gen. David H. Petraeus spoke in his sternest terms to date that that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services since the surge, despite a reduction in violence. (washingtonpost.com)
On the subject of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush said that he was envious of the troops serving there, trivially describing their mission as something "romantic". (www.outsidethebeltway.com)
A report on sexual assault in the military said that the number of reported assaults had dropped by 9% this year, after several years of increase. In 2006 there were 2,947 reported cases - in 2007 the number dropped to 2688. (www.armytimes.com)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
One of my biggest complaints about the Democrats we have in Washington is that (most of the time) they don't seem to understand how to throw a coordinated, strategic punch-- that is, how to have a broad push-back against conservatives and conservative messaging when political opportunities present themselves. Fortunately, Mitch McConnell's comments today provide the perfect opportunity for Democrats to do just that. Today, Greg Sargent at TPM brings us this little nugget of news, courtesy of a Kentucky newspaper:
Uh oh -- looks like GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell has got a problem on his hands. Check out what he said about the death of American troops in Iraq in a meeting with constituents this week, according to Kentucky's Grayson County News-Gazette:
"Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."
Imagine, just for half a second, what the response to this would be if you switched in "Harry Reid" for "Mitch McConnell" in the attribution of that quote. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
In this hypothetical situation, we'd see immediate reactions from top Republicans condemning Reid for degrading the lives of the troops. Bill O'Reilly and the crew at Fox News would devote endless hours of airtime to making Reid a troop-hating, un-American girly man human pinata. Michelle Malkin might even have a stroke out of sheer self-righteousness.
Policy-wise, we'd see Republican staffers planting anonymously sourced rumors to their favorite reporters calling for a Congressional vote to condemn Reid's comments. Dutifully, these reporters-- eager to reinforce the false narrative of Democrats as troop-haters-- would write their stories. We'd see the noise machine amplify and echo those calls for a censure vote, building momentum. We might even ultimately see such a censure vote take place, as Republicans eager to distract Americans from the real issue of Iraq desperately tried to focus on something else.
We know what would happen if a Democrat had made such a comment. So how will we react, as a movement and a party, now that we have seen the Senate's Republican minority leader belittle the deaths of thousands of courageous young American men and women? We shouldn't be afraid to play hardball on this debate.
McConnell's comments sought to downplay troop deaths in order to advance a very specific Republican narrative (Hey, the surge is working!). By pushing back hard on his comments we have an opportunity to discredit the message and the messenger by going on the offensive. Having Congress vote on a resolution to condemn McConnell's disgusting comments would not only put the GOP off-message and on the defensive, it would put the very issue McConnell tried to minimize front and center.
Such a vote would bring immediate, specific focus to the 3,886 young Americans killed for Bush's failed war. The Republican presidential candidates would be forced to issue awkwardly-worded non-condemnation condemnations of McConnell, while Democrats would further re-shape the narrative that it's the Republicans who really don't support the troops. Most importantly, in a year when McConnell himself is up for re-election, it gives Democrats an opportunity to hammer McConnell over and over again, while putting the Congress on record condemning him by a huge margin.
We know what would happen if the situations and parties were reversed. What I'm wondering is, are Democrats strong and smart enough to take advantage of McConnell's blunder? Or will this issue be buried by the backslapping, "bipartisan" Democrats who'd rather not roil their comfortable beltway waters?
This documentary was recently made by two DC-based journalists after spending a year in Baghdad.
What is even more interesting to me is the fact that one of the filmmakers was kidnapped by the Iraqis in 2003 and detained at Abu Ghraib. Nonetheless, this film was still made.
Another week, another story on the AP about how we are letting down our brave men and women in the military. This week, the story is that our troops are committing suicide at record rates.
Ninety-nine U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year, the highest rate of suicide in the Army in 26 years of record-keeping.
Nearly a third of the soldiers who committed suicide did so while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to a report released Thursday. Iraq accounted for most of those - with 27 of the suicides coming from that conflict and three from Afghanistan. Also, there were 948 attempted suicides, officials said, adding that they didn't have a comparison for previous years.
Somehow the phrases "Family Values" and "Support our Troops" have become partisan, Republican mantras in today's divisive political climate. Yet, both those phrases ring hollow when we see what the Bush administration is doing to the families of our soldiers.
A few days ago, I stopped by a corner market to buy some ice and saw a rather shocking story in the USA Today:
Army wives whose husbands are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have committed markedly higher rates of child neglect and abuse than when their spouses are home, according to a study Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The Army-funded study found child neglect was almost four times greater during periods when the husbands were at war. Physical child abuse was nearly twice as high during combat deployments.
