EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- The Downwinders: Fracking Ourselves to Death in America
Popular content
Today's Top News
Admiral Mullen Announces Afghanistan Strategy: Prepare to Nonviolently Resist
This past Wednesday, Admiral Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced that the Pentagon will seek additional war funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2010. While he did not give a firm dollar amount, the New York Times reported that defense budget analysts are kicking around the number of $50 billion. The Times also reported that Jack Murtha, Chair of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, indicated on October 30 that he expects the supplemental spending bill for 2010 to be in the range of $40 billion. The final dollar amount won't be known until the White House submits its "emergency" supplemental spending request to Congress, most likely around February 2.
In the immortal words of Coach Vince Lombardi: "What the hell is going on out there?"
We should be so lucky if it were a simple matter of the Green Bay Packers screwing up the power sweep.
Instead, it's a matter of the Obama Administration now leading us down the path of the most expensive year in war funding since President Bush began the so-called "Global War on Terror" (now morphed into the "Overseas Contingency Operations" under President Obama).
You read that correctly. War spending in 2010 will exceed $190 billion if indeed the Pentagon seeks-and Congress approves-$50 billion in "emergency" funding. That's more than the $179 billion spent under President Bush in 2008, the previous high water mark for war spending. War spending in 2010 will also far exceed spending in 2009 (which is about $145 billion).
While Admiral Mullen did not announce a new war strategy for Afghanistan, it is difficult to conceive for what this additional $40 to $50 billion will be used if not used to expand the war in Afghanistan (and to perhaps continue the occupation of Iraq at near current troop levels without the substantive reductions promised earlier this year).
Let's compare the numbers from 2009 to 2010 for three key areas of spending: Personnel costs; Operation and Maintenance costs; and Procurement costs.
Funding levels in 2009 were: Personnel - $19.9 billion; Operation and Maintenance - $80.4 billion; and Procurement - $31.9 billion.
Current funding levels in 2010 are: Personnel - $14.1 billion; Operation and Maintenance - $80.3 billion; and Procurement - $22.2 billion. (With all the talk about building Afghanistan's army and police forces, it is worth noting that spending on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund increases from $5.6 billion in 2009 to $6.6 billion in 2010, so it's not likely that the "emergency" supplemental will include significantly more funds for this category).
Total funding levels in these three main areas are approximately $15.6 billion less in 2010 than in 2009. While Procurement funding declines in 2010 compared to 2009, this decline is most likely the result of returning to a more normative definition of what constitutes "emergency" war spending than the very expansive definition that was implemented under President Bush and that resulted in the explosion of Procurement spending to approximately $45 billion in both 2007 and 2008 (Procurement spending in 2005 was $18 billion and in 2006 it was $22.9 billion before this expansion).
The Congressional Research Service notes in a September 2009 report that the President's budget for 2010 includes both the increase in troop levels in Afghanistan to 69,000 ordered by President Obama earlier this year and the anticipated reduction in U.S. troop levels in Iraq through August 2010.
Which leads one to ask the question:
In announcing that the Pentagon intends to seek additional war funding for 2010, did Admiral Mullen tip the hat that President Obama intends to dramatically increase the level of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan-edging towards that 40,000 additional troops that General McChrystal seems to be requesting?
Or that the U.S. intends to otherwise dramatically increase the level of combat operations in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, which would carry the potential for significant increased costs in Operations and Maintenance as well as in Procurement funds?
Or that the U.S. intends to maintain troop levels in Iraq near current levels for the remainder of 2010?
Mullen's statement comes within the context of Obama's speech to service members in which he said that the U.S. would not send members of the military into harm's way without adequate resources. It comes within the context of Obama assuming personal responsibility for his decisions as commander-in-chief when he became the first U.S. President in decades to personally participate in the ceremonies at Dover upon the return of U.S. service members who died in war. The sequencing of events seems to be preparing the way for President Obama to issue the order to dramatically increase U.S. troop levels and combat operations in Afghanistan.
Somehow we must reinvigorate the antiwar movement that seems to have largely gone missing over these past several months.
One campaign under way to rise to the challenge is the Peaceable Assembly Campaign (www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org).
From January 19 through February 2, the PAC will maintain a two week vigil at the White House and engage in regular acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, starting on the day President Obama enters his second year in office, continuing through his anticipated State of the Union address to Congress, and concluding on the day he is to submit his budget for 2011 to Congress.
Then after February 2, the Peaceable Assembly Campaign will focus its work upon Congress. Similar to the Occupation Project effort of 2007, the PAC will organize lobbying-both legal and extralegal (i.e., civil disobedience)-in the home offices of Representatives and Senators who do not commit themselves publicly to oppose additional funding for the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the occupation of the Palestinian territories.
You can become involved with the Peaceable Assembly Campaign at www.peaceableassemblycampaign.org
Now is not the time to equivocate in our opposition to the continuing and expanding wars. The die is being cast by the Obama Administration. It is our choice on how we respond. And rather than being directed at the Administration, perhaps we should direct Coach Lombardi's challenge to ourselves. After all...
What the hell IS going on out here?
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show Allfull blown insanity is what's going on 'out there' and a mass psychosis here at home with the US population. Look, we voted in the Dems and we are getting what we voted for. But, you'll say, what Obama's doing is not what he said during his election campaign! Oh, really! Are we that far gone that we haven't learnt by now that these politicians will say whatever, and lie through there teeth with out batting an eye, in order to get elected and hold the reigns of power!! Obama and the vast majority of congress are liars and self interested power mongers! They have lost there humanity and are simply immoral megalomaniacs.
Cheers
Yeah, but Obama is doing what said in this case. He said he would pull some troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. He has advocated escalating the occupation in Afghanistan from the beginning and has made no secret of it. It seems people just had irrational expectations, or were fooled by the slick packaging and branding of Obama Inc.
Yeah, count me among the imbeciles. I remember him saying that he would put more troops in Afghanistan too, but fell for all of the good things that he was saying, and thought getting out of one country (Iraq) was at least a start.
I won't be fooled again like this. On the other hand, we were basically screwed no matter what happened or who I voted for. It's not like there was any chance of a good person getting elected.
Bingo!
That disgusting photograph of Capo di Tutti Capi Obama at Dover AFB represents the official opening of a new chapter in our criminal expedition in Afghanistan. Obama now needs his picture hanging in every post office in the United States along with all the other wanted posters. Obama now officially becomes George Wanker Bush. That was both the symbolic and real import of that photo. On the Richter Scale of evil and criminality, George Wanker Obama is now there with Bush and Cheney. There appears to be no escape from this nightmare that is killing us.
- President Bush began the so-called "Global War on Terror" (now morphed into the "Overseas Contingency Operations" under President Obama). -
I suggest that we call it DAFT, Defense against Future Terrorism, rather than use the words of the MIC.
-----
- Afghanistan...Pakistan...Iraq -
Instead of trying and failing to influence each and every war zone in isolation, I suggest that we end one war.
There is only one law to change, one target.
- Somehow we must reinvigorate the antiwar movement -
America is stuck at the bottom of such a deep hole that only overwhelming public support can get it out, can go from WAR to PEACE.
Blaming the system, changing a law, is where we can get that support.
Nothing else has worked so far and Progressives have no successes to show for their efforts.
To use the author's football-eze, every Progressive Lombardi-like sweep gets stuffed.
Why? Because the field isn't wide enough to get around the oppposition.
So, widen the field. Let's talk about the DAFT law, because nobody else does. Give Progressives room to manuever.
Obamanible MANIFEST INSANITY, indeed.
GOOD ONE!!
The United States is possibly the dumbest nation in the world right now. We are the nation of the sick smile which we flash while sinking beneath the waves.
Excellent my precious, more blood and profits.
Gotta keep Afghanistan safe for the pipeline you know.
"Prepare to Nonviolently Resist"
Prepare to be ignored (as the suits rush past you).
Great article!
I was waiting for the admiral to say the new policy in overseas contingency operations was "non-violence".
considering that OBAMA - the Emperor of the Empire now tries to blather about getting tough with Karzai and afghanis about corruption
is so BIG OF HIM to say - considering that the US Congress is so full of corruption with their supporters expecting and GETTING the payback!
=====================
South Asia
Nov 10, 2009
It's payback time in Kabul
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - The Barack Obama administration is talking tough to Afghan President Hamid Karzai about the need for decisive action on corruption and governance reform, but its main objective is to prevent particularly corrupt and incompetent warlords from getting plum ministries as rewards for helping clinch his re-election, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned.
Obama told reporters last week that he had emphasized to Karzai in a phone call to congratulate him on his re-election that there would have to be "a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption" and that "the proof is not going to be in words, it's going to be in deeds".
The New York Times reported the day after the Obama-Karzai
conversation that the Obama administration wanted Karzai to prosecute certain high-profile figures known to be involved in corruption. The story referred to the president's brother, Kandahar warlord Ahmed Wali Karzai, former defense minister Mohammed Fahim and General Abdul Rashid Dostum.
And last Wednesday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Karzai must "take concrete steps to eliminate corruption", adding it means "you have to rid yourself of those who are corrupt, you have to actually arrest and prosecute them".
The new public rhetoric and press stories have given the impression that the Obama administration is now pursuing far-reaching reform of Afghanistan's system of governance. But the sudden intensification of administration pressure on the issue of corruption is aimed less at far-reaching reform of the system than at avoiding a significant worsening of the problem in the wake of Karzai's re-election, which was dogged with allegations of fraud.
In return for their pledges to guarantee huge majorities for Karzai in the August 20 election, the Afghan president had to make promises to a number of power brokers or warlords in the provinces. Some of those were promised key ministries in the next government, according to Gilles Dorronsoro, a specialist on Afghanistan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The main concern in Kabul and Washington in the wake of Karzai's re-election is how many of the warlords to whom Karzai is indebted will be rewarded with ministries when the new cabinet is announced.
"Everybody who supported Karzai now expects their payback," said Dorronsoro, who spent the entire month of August in Afghanistan.
It is understood that the Obama administration's pressure on Karzai over the corruption issue is aimed in large part at heading off the nomination of some of the most incompetent and corrupt warlords to key ministries, and that Karzai is aware of this US concern.
It now seems very likely, however, that some lucrative ministries will be given to warlord allies of Karzai.
Dorronsoro believes the administration's influence on Karzai's new government is going to be constrained by Karzai's dependence on provincial and sub-provincial warlords who control the actual levers of power outside Kabul. The US pressure on Karzai "can only work on a few ministries and a few issues", he told IPS.
It is understood here that administration officials are well aware of the political constraints on Karzai imposed by the power of warlords in the provinces. They understand that reforming the governance system of Afghanistan cannot be achieved simply by leaning on Karzai.
"There is no Afghan government in the way there is an American government," counter-insurgency guru David Kilcullen observed on a panel at the US Institute of Peace last August. "There are only a series of fiefdoms."
Kilcullen cited those warlord fiefdoms, and the lack of law and order that accompanies them, as the main driver of popular support for the Taliban insurgency.
article continued
----===================
The power of the warlords, which US policy abetted by providing them with cash, arms and legitimacy in the wake of the overthrow of the Taliban regime, poses serious obstacles to any US initiative aimed at reducing corruption.
Although US commander General Stanley McChrystal warned that US ties with regional power brokers have alienated much of the Afghan population from foreign troops, US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military contingents remain heavily dependent on them for the provision of perimeter security for their fixed bases and to protect supply convoys, as IPS has reported.
Even the idea of prosecuting the president's brother Ahmed Wali Karzai over his role in the drug trade is likely to generate disagreement within the administration, because the Central Intelligence Agency's operations directorate continues to use his paramilitary organization for intelligence and counterinsurgency operations.
There is no evidence that the administration is moving toward a more aggressive posture toward the warlords in general. Instead, the problem is viewed as one in which US interests in supporting the central government must be balanced with its interests in cooperation with provincial and sub-provincial power holders, IPS has learned.
National security officials tend to believe, for example, that the way to handle the problem of abuses by the militia personnel and police affiliated with individual warlords is not to take on the warlords but to do more to train national police.
Despite the flurry of activity on the corruption issue, the administration still hasn't decided what approach it should adopt to promote governance and anti-corruption reforms. Several different options are said to be still under discussion.
One of the approaches being proposed by some officials is to get Karzai to agree to a detailed plan of action which would involve both the United States and other states heavily involved in Afghanistan, as reported by McClatchy last Monday.
The report referred to the plan as the "Afghanistan Compact" and said the administration had been working with the Karzai government and other allied governments "for months", according to McClatchy.
But an intelligence official told McClatchy he was doubtful about such a compact, because it would require Karzai to renege on promises he had made to his warlord allies.
A previous "Compact on Afghanistan", which was agreed to by the Karzai government and 50 other states at a conference in London on February 1, 2006, has been an embarrassing failure.
That document included benchmarks for progress in bringing about the rule of law, human rights, public administration reform and "anti-corruption", among other areas, by the end of 2010. In those politically sensitive areas, however, the Karzai regime not only did not deliver on the 2006 pledges but has even retrogressed on many of the targets.
Some officials are suggesting that the administration avoid using the term "compact" altogether, because of the well-known fate of the previous effort.
One of the problems associated with trying to get Karzai to do anything about governance and corruption, IPS has learned, is that it has taken months in the past to work out any agreement with Karzai on any politically sensitive issue. There is now a sense in the administration, however, that it may not have that much time to have an impact on Karzai's behavior.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.
(Inter Press Service)
Does "somebody have a 'mote' in their eye?
How about prosecuting the people in the USA responsible for the deaths of 100,000's of Muslims
what is so stupid and funny at the same time with these american generals and leadership - from obama on down is :
they THINK that their word and demands MATTER to the afghanis.
roflmao.
don't they realize that to the afghanis...whatever THEIR internal rivalries and differences and issues and interests are -- the Americans and foreigners that try to occupy and dictate are nothing more than
an ANNOYANCE that eventually will be KICKED OUT just like all the others?.
Annoyance? If only that were the case.
More like seven horsemen of the Apocalypse.
there you go. you have the better description. !
i was thinking of situations similar to when , say, a group of people, a family maybe, or a gathering of people discussing something - going about their ways -- treat with someone that barges in and tries to elbow his way into the conversation - uninvited...so they treat him exactly like he is :
outsider:
"who are YOU? why are you HERE? who gave you permission to come HERE? you have no business being HERE...go AWAY...you are disturbing us...and don't touch ANYTHING on your way out!!!".
Obomber has slaughter more Afghan civilians in eight months than Bush murdered in eight years.
Don't waste your vote on a person with a D or an R after their name.
Since D & R are one party, I say vote 2nd party or 3rd party. Vote out one party, D&R, rule.
We need a Butlerian plebiscite: everyone publicly votes to stop or continue the killing, no other choices. Those who vote to continue it must put on an infantry uniform at the E1 grade (lowest) and go personally shoulder a rifle for the duration.
I bet we'd have maybe 20,000 troops over there, max, and dropping rapidly as more and more sobered up and began to wonder what'nhell they were doing there.