Who Are We at War With? That’s Classified 26JUL13

WE THE PEOPLE have a right to know who we are at war with. If our troops are going to be sacrificed, if our national wealth is going to be expended, we have the right to know who we are at war with and why and to what end. This is just another example of what a disappointment the Obama administration has become. From Propublica...

President Obama has repeatedly said the U.S. is targeting Al Qaeda and “associated forces.” But the government won’t say who those forces are. (STAFF/AFP/Getty Images)
by Cora Currier
ProPublica, July 26, 2013, 10:13 a.m

In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”
So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.

At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.
The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”
A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could cause “serious damage to national security.”
“Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”
It’s not an abstract question: U.S. drone strikes and other actions frequently target “associated forces,” as has been the case with dozens of strikes against an Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen.
During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda.
Sheehan said that by the Pentagon’s standard, “sympathy is not enough…. it has to be an organized group and that group has to be in co-belligerent status with Al Qaeda operating against the United States.”
The White House tied Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “elements” of Al Shabaab in Somalia to Al Qaeda in a recent report to Congress on military actions. But the report also included a classified annex.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal counsel during the Bush administration and has written on this question at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for keeping the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are ‘inflated’ enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they be mentioned publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a countervailing very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name."
The law underpinning the U.S. war against Al Qaeda is known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and it was passed one week after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t actually include the words “associated forces,” though courts and Congress have endorsed the phrase.
As we explained earlier this year, the emergence of new or more loosely-aligned terrorist groups has legal scholars wondering how effectively the U.S. will be able to “shoehorn” them into the AUMF. During the May hearing, many lawmakers expressed concern about the Pentagon’s capacious reading of the law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described it as a “carte blanche.”
Obama, in his May speech, said he looked forward “to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.” But he didn’t give a timeframe. On Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that would sunset the law at the end of 2014, to coincide with the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was voted down the same day, 185 to 236.
The AUMF isn’t the only thing the government relies on to take military action. In speeches and interviews Obama administration officials also bring up the president’s constitutional power to defend the country, even without congressional authorization.
http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified

Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans 7DEZ11

INDEFINITE DETENTION (opposed by all the heads of the federal law enforcement, intelligence and military departments and agencies), without charge and trial, a tactic used by every repressive, undemocratic, totalitarian regime in the world, is now a very real threat to everyone in America and to Americans no matter where they are. All it will take is for someone in power to not like what you are doing for you to be accused of terrorism or supporting terrorism and our government will be able to arrest you and turn you over to the military to be imprisoned. No civil rights, no human rights. The government will be able to imprison you for as long as they want. If this bill is passed how will we be any different than the prc, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, any of our Persian Gulf allies, any of the brutal dictatorships anywhere else in the world? Our Constitution will have lost all relevance, the Bill of Rights will be meaningless. This one piece of legislation is more of a threat to our Republic than hitler or communism was, more of a threat than terrorism ever will be. This is not a slippery slope that will erode our civil liberties, it will drag the nation over a cliff, destroying our Bill of Rights; no habeas corpus, no speedy trial, no Miranda Rights, no ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Sens carl levin D MI and john mccain r AZ and rep buck mckeon r CA are the architects of this assault on our freedom and civil liberties and human rights and they with their spineless colleagues are waging a vicious propaganda war of fear, ignorance and prejudice to sway the American people to support them. They are using the same tactics hitler and his nazi party used on the German people during an economic crisis in the 1930's to destroy their republic and unleash a reign of terror on the German people that lasted until the end of WW II. We must not let that happen to us. Click the link below to contact Congress and tell your Senators and Representative to vote against this bill, and then if it is passed tell President Obama he must veto it for the sake of the nation. This from the ACLU......

Maybe you spent the last weekend shopping for gifts, writing out holiday cards or studying for final exams. For most of America, the end of the year is a busy time. In Congress, this is a season usually spent trying to jam through bad bills while they hope no one is looking.
The Senate voted last Thursday to pass S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone. The power is so sweeping that the president would be able to direct the military to use its powers within the United States itself, and even lock up American citizens without charge or trial.
No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.
I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all.
Back in May, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the NDAA, which had a provision authorizing worldwide war wherever any terrorism suspect resides, even if there is no threat to America or Americans. Buried in the bill is a sentence that lets the president order the military to lock up without charge or trial American citizens and anyone else he decides is a suspect, even if the person is right here in America or in such friendly countries as Canada, Great Britain, or France.
Now, the two bills are in conference committee. The chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee — known as "the Big Four" — have been having one secret meeting after another over the past few days to quickly write a final bill. Who are the Big Four? From the Senate, it is Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) who were the very two who had secretly written the Senate indefinite detention provisions. The third member is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who is the person who wrote the House indefinite detention provisions without so much as a hearing. And the fourth member is the House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who courageously fought the indefinite detention provisions on the House floor.
That's 3-1 for indefinite military imprisonment without charge or trial. There's good reason to worry about what the Big Four do in their secret meetings.
What happens next? First, there will be a more formal House-Senate conference in the next few days to put an official stamp of approval on what the Big Four wrote in secret. And then the bills will be on the floors of the House and Senate by early next week.
Their plan is to move very, very fast. Congress certainly has earned a reputation for being slow, but the plan for the NDAA is to jam it through the House and Senate with as little debate as possible. But you can help stop them.
Amazingly, as soon as a week from today, a final bill could be passed by Congress and headed to President Obama's desk. His White House has repeatedly threatened to veto the NDAA if these dangerous provisions stay in the bill.
But should it really come to that? Congress itself should come to its senses and ditch the indefinite detention provisions. And just as importantly, Congress should listen to you and every other American on what we all as Americans want for our country. Secret deals for indefinite military detention without charge or trial? Tell Congress we are better than that. It's not who we are as Americans, and it is not the country or the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
Now is the time to act and contact your senators and House member. Tell them vote "NO" on the NDAA if it includes indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The War Must Not Go On! from SOJO 23JUN11

AMEN!!!! A very well thought, well written commentary on the war in Afghanistan from Sojourners....
Last evening, President Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the 103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that 10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going into 2014.

But that’s not good enough. President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of the American people want the troops to come home. Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last night, he did not.

We constantly hear the message, “Support the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working families, who in the current economy have few other options. The military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.

Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military. Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business -- claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified in Afghanistan.

The president acknowledged and honored the sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.

To truly support the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.

The president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.

+Click here for Sojourners’ FREE “War No More” bumper sticker as a gift for your involvement!

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Afghan nation-building programs not sustainable, report says 7JUN11

THAT billions are being wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq is no surprise given the corruption of the military-industrial complex and the American politicians and pentagon and military officers they own through their campaign contributions and/or promises of lucrative jobs when these politicians leave office. If you have had enough of the waste of American lives and tax dollars on the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, and the immoral war in Afghanistan, if you support the troops and know it is time to bring them home NOW, go to http://rethinkafghanistan.com/ 
and get involved in the campaign to end the war. This from the Washington Post...

By Karen DeYoung

The hugely expensive U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal, according to the findings of a two-year congressional investigation to be released Wednesday.
The report calls on the administration to rethink urgently its assistance programs as President Obama prepares to begin drawing down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this summer.
The report, prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff, comes as Congress and the American public have grown increasingly restive about the human and economic cost of the decade-long war and reflects growing concerns about Obama’s war strategy even among supporters within his party.
The report describes the use of aid money to stabilize areas the military has cleared of Taliban fighters — a key component of the administration’s counterinsurgency strategy — as a short-term fix that provides politically pleasing results. But it says that the enormous cash flows can overwhelm and distort local culture and economies, and that there is little evidence the positive results are sustainable.
One example cited in the report is the Performance-Based Governors Fund, which is authorized to distribute up to $100,000 a month in U.S. funds to individual provincial leaders for use on local expenses and development projects. In some provinces, it says, “this amount represents a tidal wave of funding” that local officials are incapable of “spending wisely.”
Because oversight is scanty, the report says, the fund encourages corruption. Although the U.S. plan is for the Afghan government to eventually take over this and other programs, it has neither the management capacity nor the funds to do so.
The report also warns that the Afghan economy could slide into a depression with the inevitable decline of the foreign military and development spending that now provides 97 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
The “single most important step” the Obama administration could take, the report says, is to stop paying Afghans “inflated salaries” — often 10 or more times as much as the going rate — to work for foreign governments and contractors. Such practices, it says, have “drawn otherwise qualified civil servants away from the Afghan government and created a culture of aid dependency.”
Even when U.S. development experts determine that a proposed project “lacks achievable goals and needs to be scaled back,” the U.S. military often takes it over and funds it anyway, the report says.
It also cites excessive use and poor oversight of contractors. Although the report provides some examples of successful projects, it is critical overall of what one senior committee aide called the U.S. focus on a rapid “burn rate” of available funding as a key metric for success. The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its release.
Debate has begun within the White House and in Congress over how quickly to begin withdrawing the 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with senior Defense Department figures cautioning against a precipitous drawdown this summer. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called for a “modest” decrease that would avoid jeopardizing recent combat gains.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters Tuesday that he would like to see a minimum of 15,000 U.S. troops withdrawn by the end of the year. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the committee’s ranking Republican, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying that he thought the number should be no more than 3,000.
But an increasing number of lawmakers on both sides have called for a more wholesale reconsideration of Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan, saying that the war’s cost cannot be sustained at a time of domestic economic hardship. They point as well to changing realities on the ground, including signs of growing extremist violence in Pakistan and the killing last month of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
“I’m personally for changing the military strategy to some degree,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the committee, said in an interview. Because the military and civilian components are tightly intertwined in Afghanistan, Kerry said, both have to be considered at the same time.
“We’ve created a . . . wartime economy” that is a “huge distortion” of Afghanistan’s revenue production, he said. “It’s very dangerous, and we have to get a handle on it rapidly.”
Kerry said that the committee’s report was not “a gotcha” but that it was intended to help the administration “think through and analyze” how to proceed. The report was distributed Tuesday to Democratic committee members and to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican.
The administration has requested $3.2 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction projects in the coming fiscal year. The report argued that the foreign aid program must continue because “the goal should be to reduce some of the political pressure to spend money quickly, especially when the conditions are not right.”
All U.S. development projects in Afghanistan should be reexamined, it adds, to determine whether they are “necessary, achievable, and sustainable.”
The report recommends multi-year congressional funding for the aid program that would plan ahead for the increased civilian responsibilities as the number of troops decreases and calls for “a simple rule: donors should not implement projects if Afghans cannot sustain them.”
Last week, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said in a separate report that billions of dollars in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects in both countries could fall into disrepair over the next few years because of inadequate planning to pay for their ongoing operations and maintenance. That report warned that “the United States faces new waves of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Foreign aid expenditures by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Afghanistan, about $320 million a month, pale beside the overall $10 billion monthly price tag for U.S. military operations. But Afghanistan is the biggest recipient of U.S. aid, with nearly $19 billion spent from 2002 to 2010. Much of that money has been expended in the past two years, most of it in war zones in the south and east of the country as part of the counterinsurgency strategy adopted by Obama just months after he took office.
The strategy, devised by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, calls for pouring U.S. development aid into areas that the military has cleared of Taliban fighters to persuade the population to support the Afghan government.
But evidence of successful aid programs based on “counterinsurgency theories” is limited, the Senate committee report says. “Some research suggests the opposite, and development best practices question the efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool over the long run.”
“The administration is understandably anxious for immediate results to demonstrate to Afghans and Americans alike that we are making progress,” the report says. “However, insecurity, abject poverty, weak indigenous capacity, and widespread corruption create challenges for spending money.”
High turnover among U.S. civilians working in Afghanistan, estimated at 85 percent a year, along with “pressure from the military, imbalances between military and civilian resources, unpredictable funding levels from Congress, and changing political timelines, have further complicated efforts,” it says.
The report is gently but unmistakably critical of the “whole of government” approach implemented by Richard C. Holbrooke, who served as Obama’s special representative for the region until his death in December. Control of all civilian operations on the ground were shifted to the State Department from the USAID, the traditional manager of development assistance.
“This new approach,” the report says, “created new levels of bureaucracy, diminished USAID’s voice at the table, and put decision-making on development issues in the hands of diplomats instead of development experts.”