April, 23 2009, 03:35pm EDT
Feingold Questions Afghanistan Strategy During Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
WASHINGTON
Today, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold participated in a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee hearing entitled "Voice of Veterans of the Afghan War."
The hearing featured testimony of several veterans of the Afghanistan war, as well as Colonel
Andrew Bacevich (Ret), a West Point graduate currently on the faculty at Boston University.
During the hearing, Senator Feingold, who has raised concerns with the president's
proposed troop increase in Afghanistan
without an adequate strategy for Pakistan, had this
exchange with Bacevich:
Feingold:
Isn't necessary. Colonel
Bacevich what are the prospects for defeating the insurgency by increasing the
number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan given some concerns that many if not most
Afghans in the South oppose the presence of U.S. troops?Andrew Bacevich,
Colonel, U.S.
Army (Ret.): Several people have made the point that this is not a problem that
has a military solution. That to the degree that there is a solution, the
solution in Afghanistan is going to be found in what is going to be a massive
and protracted and tremendously costly exercise in nation building. I
think the likelihood of that exercise in producing success ten or fifteen years
downstream is not great but I think the larger point to be made, and I think
you made it in your remarks and I think Senator Lugar alluded to the same
thing, even if we could magically wave our wand and tomorrow have the
Afghanistan problem be solved - that the country would be stable, that
the government would be legitimate - what exactly would we have achieved
in a strategic sense? I think in a strategic sense the gains would be
very limited because as you suggested, and as this administration has
acknowledged in the creation in this term "Af-Pak," it is a mistake
to view Afghanistan in
isolation and in many respects the larger problem is in neighboring Pakistan.
To invest enormous resources in Afghanistan
I think is allowing technical considerations to take precedence over strategic
thinking.Feingold:
This is precisely what's been bothering me since I spent four or five
days in Pakistan in this region less than a year ago, and after the thoughtful
remarks of the chairman after his recent visit there, I want to follow on this
inter-relationship between Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
What about the possibility that an escalation in Afghanistan
can actually be more destabilizing to Pakistan. In other words, in
terms of militants spilling back over into that border. Is that a fair
concern or not?Bacevich:
I think it's a very real concern. You know, there's a very
interesting, I think, flawed new book out by David Kilcullen, the
counter-insurgency specialist, called "The Accidental Guerrilla."
There's a lot about that book that I disagree, but there's
one core truth I think that he give us. And that is the notion that most
of the people who fight against us, in places like Afghanistan, are fighting against
us because we're there. Now we may not believe that we are invading and
occupying countries, but the people on the other end view themselves as being
invaded and occupied. So to some degree, to some measurable degree, in
places like Afghanistan,
increasing the U.S.
presence actually increases the dimensions of the problem.Feingold: And
Colonel, Admiral Mullen has acknowledged that the Pakistani security services
maintains relations with militants in Pakistan. There are press
reports that this includes the provision of fuel and ammunition for Taliban
operation against U.S.
forces in Afghanistan.
If these allegations are correct, what is the likelihood that we can
stabilize the region or deny al Qaeda safe havens there so long as this sort of
activity continues?Bacevich:
Next to none.
Video of Senator Feingold's exchange with Bacevich
is available here.
Senator Feingold's full statement and exchange with the witnesses (both
video and transcript) are available below. The hearing came on a day when there
were reports
of the Taliban gaining control over more territory in Pakistan.
LATEST NEWS
'Dangerous Escalation': Iraqi Government Condemns US Airstrikes
A spokesperson for Iraq's government called the strikes "a clear violation of sovereignty."
Nov 22, 2023
The Iraqi government on Wednesday condemned deadly U.S. airstrikes south of Baghdad as "a clear violation of sovereignty" that risks escalating regional tensions amid Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.
The Pentagon said the U.S. strikes targeted two facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah, an Iraqi militia group that the U.S. considers an Iranian proxy. The group, which the U.S. has accused of carrying out an attack on American forces at Iraq's al-Asad Airbase, said eight of its fighters were killed in the early Wednesday strikes and pledged to retaliate.
Bassem al-Awadi, a spokesperson for Iraq's government, said the U.S. launched the strikes without any coordination with Iraqi officials, a decision that he called "a dangerous escalation" and "an attempt to disrupt the stable internal security situation."
Al-Awadi also denounced "any armed action or activity outside the military institution is deemed condemnable and an unlawful endeavor that jeopardizes the national interest," an apparent reference to militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.
The U.S. airstrikes came just over 24 hours after an American gunship launched an attack on what the Pentagon described as "an Iranian-backed militia vehicle and a number of Iranian-backed militia personnel" in Iraq, purportedly targeting militants who were involved in a ballistic missile strike on U.S. forces.
The missile attack "resulted in non-serious injuries to U.S. and coalition forces, as well as minor damage to infrastructure on the installation," the Pentagon said.
"One thing is clear: Only through a cease-fire can we prevent the conflict from spreading and leading to a devastating regional war that sucks the U.S. into it."
Attacks on the thousands of U.S. forces stationed in Iraq and Syria have intensified since Israel began its latest devastating bombing campaign in Gaza on October 7, when a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel killed around 1,200 people. Israel and Hamas have agreed to a four-day pause that's set to begin on Thursday.
In recent weeks, the U.S. has carried out three separate series of airstrikes in Syria, actions it has described as defensive responses to rocket and drone attacks that have injured dozens of American forces since last month. None of the U.S. strikes were approved by Congress.
The bombings have intensified fears of a full-scale regional conflict potentially involving the U.S., Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Hamas militants in Gaza. Iran's foreign minister recently warned that "expansion of the scope of the war has become inevitable" due to the severity of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued Tuesday that "one thing is clear: Only through a cease-fire can we prevent the conflict from spreading and leading to a devastating regional war that sucks the U.S. into it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Say Israel-Hamas Pause 'Not Enough' to End Bloodshed
"The Israeli government's collective punishment and unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza cannot just be put on 'pause'; it must be stopped," said Jewish Voice for Peace.
Nov 22, 2023
Israel and Hamas have agreed to a deal under which dozens of Israeli hostages will be freed in exchange for a brief pause in fighting and the release of 150 Palestinian women and children held in Israel's prisons.
The pause, set to take effect within the next 24 hours, is expected to last at least four days to allow for the release of 50 hostages held by Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said the pause will be extended by a day for every additional 10 hostages released.
Hamas is believed to have around 240 hostages. According to the Israeli human rights group HaMoked, thousands of Palestinians are currently detained in Israel without charge or trial.
If it holds, the Qatar-mediated hostage deal will mark a temporary reprieve in what has been a catastrophic six-week war. Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas-led attack—which killed roughly 1,200 people—has decimated large swaths of the Gaza Strip, wrecking schools, homes, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure and killing more than 14,000 people, drawing accusations of genocide.
Israel's siege of the Palestinian enclave has left virtually the entire population on the brink of starvation and forced many of the territory's overwhelmed hospitals to shut down due to a lack of fuel and other critical supplies, depriving many patients—including premature babies—of necessary treatment.
"There is no military solution. We need a political solution—and we cannot get there until we have a full and lasting ceasefire."
Progressive U.S. lawmakers who have been calling for a cease-fire for weeks welcomed the newly announced hostage deal but said it's not sufficient, particularly if the Israeli government resumes its devastating bombing campaign once the four-day pause is over—as Netanyahu has said he intends to do.
"A temporary pause in the violence is not enough," Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement. "We must move with urgency to save as many lives as possible and achieve a permanent cease-fire agreement. Over 14,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since this violence began, including thousands of children, and 1.7 million Palestinians have been displaced from their homes."
“Further displacement of Palestinians and forced annexation of their land will only perpetuate this conflict," Tlaib added. "Expanding the illegal occupation will never lead to a just and lasting peace. We must address the root causes of this conflict."
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), the lead sponsor of a cease-fire resolution in the U.S. House, said the pause announcement "further proves the effectiveness of de-escalation and diplomacy—not military force—as a means of saving lives and affirms why we must keep up our push for a permanent cease-fire."
"When this agreement expires, the bombing will continue, thousands more will die, and millions of people will continue to be displaced," said Bush. "We must continue to vigorously push for a permanent cease-fire that ends this violence, protects and saves lives, and ensures the safe return of all hostages, including those who are being arbitrarily detained."
The advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace echoed Bush and Tlaib, saying that "the Israeli government's collective punishment and unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza cannot just be put on 'pause'; it must be stopped."
"Once we have reached a permanent cease-fire, we cannot return to the status quo," the group continued. "We must address the root causes of injustice. A future of peace and safety for everyone, grounded in justice, freedom and equality for all, is still the only option. There is no military solution. We need a political solution—and we cannot get there until we have a full and lasting cease-fire."
Congressional support for a cease-fire has grown steadily in recent weeks as survey results indicate overwhelming support from the U.S. public. Forty-three members of Congress are now calling for a cease-fire, according to a tally by The Intercept's Prem Thakker.
The Biden administration, though, has repeatedly dismissed the prospects of a lasting cease-fire, claiming it would only benefit Hamas. Citing an unnamed senior official, Politicoreported Tuesday that "there was no sense" inside the administration "that the pause would turn into a lengthier cease-fire."
"And there was some concern in the administration about an unintended consequence of the pause: that it would allow journalists broader access to Gaza and the opportunity to further illuminate the devastation there and turn public opinion on Israel," the outlet added.
As news of the Israel-Hamas deal emerged late Tuesday, The Associated Pressreported that "residents in Gaza City said the fighting there had intensified overnight into Wednesday, with gunfire, heavy artillery, and airstrikes in central neighborhoods."
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, said in response to the Israel-Hamas deal that "cease-fire or not, unlawful attacks should cease."
Shakir also called for the immediate release of all hostages and an end to the Israeli siege that "has put the lives of 2.2 million people at risk."
"Human beings are not bargaining chips," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most US Voters Want Stricter Supreme Court Ethics Code
"Americans can see through the court's failed attempt at a code of conduct," said one group. "It's time for Congress to take action and pass actual ethics reform."
Nov 21, 2023
Nearly three-quarters of U.S. voters want federal lawmakers to pass a stricter ethics policy for the nation's Supreme Court, according to polling results released Tuesday by the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice.
The poll was conducted by YouGov after the Supreme Court announced last week that it had formally adopted a new code of conduct following months of outrage over reporting on relationships between right-wing justices and billionaires. YouGov explained to those surveyed that justices have been criticized for failing to disclose taking gifts and travel from political donors.
YouGov also told voters that supporters of a stricter ethics code say the newly adopted policy "has no way to actually enforce the rules" and believe "Congress should continue to investigate corruption allegations," while opponents of congressional action believe members of the court should be "allowed to determine their own rules without interference" and trusted to enforce them.
Across party lines, 74% of voters agreed that Congress should approve a stricter ethics code and continue to probe "the ties between justices and political megadonors," including 90% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 57% of Republicans.
In response to the findings, End Citizens United said that "Americans can see through the court's failed attempt at a code of conduct. It's time for Congress to take action and pass actual ethics reform."
As Common Dreamsreported when the new code was announced last week, critics have condemned it as a "toothless PR stunt" intended to curb media coverage of potential corruption and "halt momentum for transparency and real reform."
Amid a wave of reporting about Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's connections to billionaire megadonors and Leonard Leo—who leads the Federalist Society, a primary force in pushing U.S. courts to the right—Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act in July.
However, the bill is unlikely to win approval from the full Senate or GOP-controlled House of Representatives. Still, the Senate panel—chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—is expected to continue its probe, possibly with subpoenas targeting Leo and Thomas benefactor Harlan Crow.
Demand Justice was among over a dozen groups that last week called on the committee to issue subpoenas, arguing that "we must learn the full scope of these hidden efforts to improperly influence the Supreme Court and the extent of Justices Thomas' and Alito's ethical wrongdoings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular