SUBMITTED BY LAWRENCE RAFFERTY, GUEST BLOGGER
I had a very peaceful Sunday afternoon watching my beloved Bears take it on the chin against their biggest rival, the Green Bay Packers. It was sadly peaceful until I read a story that quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press as stating that he wanted the United States to maintain permanent military bases in Afghanistan even after all NATO forces are transitioned out by the year 2014. I thought the Bears had done enough to tie my stomach in knots, but Lindsay Graham’s statements forced me to find the last remaining antacid in the house!
I have a son who is currently serving in Afghanistan with the Marines, and the thought of anyone else’s son or daughter serving on American bases in Afghanistan after 2014 is just scary. To be sure that I heard the story correctly, I went online and found the following quote from Senator Graham in response to a question from NBC’s David Gregory: “DAVID GREGORY: But that’s important. You believe a permanent U.S. Military presence in Afghanistan is required in order to head off a potential failed state in the future? SENATOR GRAHAM: I think it would be enormously beneficial to the region, as well as Afghanistan. We’ve had air bases all over the world. A couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan Security Forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity. It would be a signal to Pakistan that the Taliban are never gonna come back in Afghanistan. They could change their behavior.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40871803/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts
I have a radical idea for Senator Graham and any other politician in Washington who agrees with him. Why don’t we listen to the Afghan people who want us out now and save the Billions that would be wasted by building and staffing permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and use that money to actually do some good for our country and our economy? The Afghan war is already our longest war so why should we continue to drag it out beyond 2014? What do we get out of it or I suspect I should ask, what does corporate America get out of a perpetual presence in a country that does not want us there? Shouldn’t Senator Graham be more concerned about getting some judicial nominees approved to relieve the judicial vacancy crisis here at home? I realize those are a lot of questions and it is late on a Sunday evening, but I’m just asking.
buckeye,
This should be read carefully because the timeline is important:
“ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —
Defying new military warnings from the United States and Britain on Tuesday, Afghanistan’s Taliban government again refused to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and disregarded the American threat to its regime.
“Only Allah changes the regime,” the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said at a news conference in Quetta, Pakistan.
Zaeef reiterated the Taliban insistence that it would not turn over bin Laden without receiving evidence of his participation in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, and he called again for talks with the United States, which President Bush already has rejected.
“We are ready for negotiations,” Zaeef said. “It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only the way of negotiations will solve our problems. We should discuss this issue and decide.” from the la times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,7225586.story (Oct. 3)
Several points. The Taliban was ready to turn over bin Laden with evidence. This isn’t some weird thing on their part, this is how extraditions occur. More importantly, the US had suffered terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. These attacks were treated as a matter for the criminal justice system. There is no reason this attack could not have been treated in the same way. Bush chose to go to war, but he could have chosen differently.
I will assume you misunderstood my comment on civilian deaths and thus made a mistaken response to it.
A different view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Interviews_with_people_from_Waziristan
He’s disguising his gayness by pretending to be a combative patriot. He’s actually a veteran…attorney, so must show how much he cares by continually sending the grunts into harm’s way in hopes that some of the blood will drift his way to show he’s brave, too. Putz.
Those are some serious numbers!
There were 2,945 defense contractors in S. Carolina in 2009. Between 2000 and 2009 there were 32,704 contracts let in that state for a total worth of $17,458,055,391.00.
That kind of money has a lot of influence buying built in as part of the cost of business.
http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/south_carolina_counties.asp
lottakatz,
Those are some amazing numbers on the civilian to Militant kill ratio. I hope the Brookings institute is wrong, but it would not surprise me if they are right.
Drone are killing a lot of people, Obama is using them routinely and they kill a lot of people. The military and Administration says the victims are almost all militants. I don’t believe that for a minute. The only question is how much the figure regarding militants is being inflated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/28/us-drone-attacks-no-laughing-matter
“These attacks by unmanned aircraft may have succeeded in eliminating hundreds of dangerous militants, but the truth is that they also kill innocent civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers. According to the New America Foundation, one in four of those killed by drones since 2004 has been an innocent. The Brookings Institute, however, has calculated a much higher civilian-to-militant ratio of 10:1. Meanwhile, figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities suggest US strikes killed 701 people between January 2006 and April 2009, of which 14 were al-Qaida militants and 687 were civilians. That produces a hit rate of just 2% – or 50 civilians dead for every militant killed.”
Don,
You are right about the Bears offensive line, but they better get it fixed quick!
Jill,
I am not sure that the use of drones could be considered a blunt instrument any more than any aerial bomb or missile attack. Almost every aerial bomb, even those so-called smart bombs, can produce collateral damage and loss of life.
Anon nurse, that is interesting information about the Gorgon Stare device. I wonder where it is being used in the US?
Buddha hit the nail on the head that empires go to die in Afghanistan. History has not been kind to foreign intruders. Another reason to not have bases in Afghanistan after 2014.
Jill
Not exactly. The taliban refused to turn over OBL until after the bombing started and then only to a third country upon receiving information about his guilt. This was somewhat disingenuous since OBL had been indicted on several occasions of terrorist activities.
—————————————–
To use a weapon known to most certainly kill civilians is illegal.
————————————
Again, not exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law
http://www.newarkpostonline.com/articles/2011/01/03/news/doc4d21e56a7f83c780497986.txt
Police continue to investigate the murder of 66 year-old John P. Wheeler, 3rd., a resident of New Castle.
Wheeler, served in Vietnam 1969-70 and in four tours in the Pentagon for four presidents, according to Second Line of Defense, a website, where he was listed as a member of its editorial team.
Murder victim key figure in construction of Vietnam Memorial & 1st CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving
I feel that the Bears’ defense did well against one of the most potent offenses in the league, but the O-line did not. On the other hand the O-line has been getting better and better and they now have a bye week so I am not counting Da Bears out yet.
buckeye,
Afghanistan offered to hand OBL over to the US after 9/11. Had we taken a criminal response to a criminal act, he could have been brought to the US, put on trial and a verdict reached. There was no need for a war, this was a war of choice and a very destructive response to what had happened. Going to war has increased the number of attacks on our own people, not lessened them.
Just because the Congress or executive does something, doesn’t mean it was either legal or a good idea. That’s why we used to have a judicial branch in our govt.– because both the executive and legislative branch have been known to commit illegalities!
The kill ratio of civilians to possible combatants could be as high as 33-1. This isn’t something the govt. doesn’t know. To use a weapon known to most certainly kill civilians is illegal. There is no good purpose for this war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/john-wheeler-murder-delaw_n_803735.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=DTN+Indonesia%3A
John Wheeler, Former Aide To Both Bush And Reagan Presidencies, Found Murdered In Delaware
by Jon Bershad | 1:53 pm, January 3rd, 2011
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-wheeler-former-aide-to-both-bush-and-reagan-presidencies-found-murdered-in-delaware/
Jill
From what I understand, using drones is not a war crime, though CIA operatives that use drones may be.
Here is an article that addresses those concerns as well as civilian casualties. Unfortunately, civilian deaths will never be eliminated from any war operations – at least with drones they are limited.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/to-drone-or-not-hearing-questions-drone-attacks-legality/
As far as I know, almost the entire congress approved of invading Afghanistan. I would be interested in what “criminal response” to 9/11 you think would have prevented more attacks.
BIL
I’m not sure why Saudi Arabia would have wanted to attack one of their biggest customers.
Almost all the highjackers, though most were originally from SA, had spent time in Chechnya and Afghanistan fighting the Russians and/or being trained as terrorists to be used as OBL decided.
Almost all, though well educated, were alienated from their families. I don’t know of any being connected with the SA “government”, but I’m the first to admit I’m not very well informed about Saudi politics.
Even OBL was persona non grata in SA, I think.
buckeye,
There are many problems with drones. First, there use is a war crime. It is known to our govt. that drones are a blunt instrument, ie, they will kill many innocent civilians in the course of possibly killing an actual combatant. The laws of war specify minimization of harm to civilians. Drones absolutely do not do this. Then you keep assuming the govt. is telling the truth about who it kills, when after you look into it, they have been lying about it almost everytime. (We have killed about 300 number 2’s and 3’s all over the middle east, innumerable times.)
Drones are no different than IEDs, which I presume, when they hit our people, you don’t like. There are many other problems with them both legal and moral which I urge you to examine.
Now let’s step back even further into something BIL mentioned. There was no need to go to war in Afghanistan in the first place. The Bush administration choose to make a war out of a criminal act and the Obama administration continues to prosecute a “war” on terror instead of using a criminal response to terrorism. This has been a disaster for our people, their people and our Constitution.
Warnin’ : Ad Hominem Ahead!
The sissy-squirt, full bird (full-feathered chicken hawk) colonel also wants to become an AF General (reserves, of course, in the JAG Corps). Rather sickening is his battle/war experience listed as:
Gulf War
Iraq War
War in Afghanistan
I have a very strong stomach, although I reckon I could down a full bottle of rafflaw’s antacids after reading this thread. However, thanks for the very important revelation about this small man.
Buckeye,
Especially when you consider the economic implications of not only China’s size and rapid growth, but their control over a large part of the world’s reserves of those strategic materials.
This, as you point out, is only supplemented by Jill’s point about contractors at the government trough. It also highlights the failure of seeking justice for 9/11 in failing to invade Saudi Arabia. Their only resource of any merit – oil – is rapidly running out. Their production has peaked and the remaining oil will only get more expensive to extract. The proof of this will be evident within the next 3-5 years. If this wasn’t the case, family business partners or not, Bush would have done the right thing by both justice and his business interests to invade Saudi Arabia. Instead, he opted for personal profit over justice.
To be sure, the vast mineral reserves were only discovered recently so there must have been a reason prior to that which extended beyond simply removing al Quida.
I suspect part of the reason for staying is Jill’s point of military contractors and, of course, the ever present arms merchant’s profit line.
And, unlike Jill, I’m satisfied with using drones to kill people who are planning to kill U.S. civilians. I much prefer that to using troops.
The latest, December 28, 2010, is Nasir Al-Wahishi. From IBN:
[Al-Wahishi is among four top al-Qaeda commanders killed in American drone strikes which assumed unprecedented proportions in 2010.
Those killed by US missiles include al-Qaeda number 3 Abu Mustafa al-Yazid, Sheikh Fateh al-Misri, al-Qaeda’s operations head for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who replaced Yazid.
The two other commanders killed were Abdallah Umar al-Qurayshi, who co-ordinated Osama bin Laden’s Arabs in Afghanistan, and explosives expert Abu Atta al-Kuwaiti.
The drones have also felled top Taliban commanders including its chief Baitullah Mehsud and the trainer of suicide bombers Qari Hussain Mehsud.
The officials claimed Wahishi had served as secretary of bin Laden until 2003. He was arrested in Iran and extradited to Yemen in 2003. The al-Qaeda commander was among 23 Yemeni captives who made a dramatic escape from maximum security prison in Sana’a, in 2006 and was at large since then.
The Yemeni figures in the Interpol’s Orange Notice as well as US State Departments and UN Sanctions List.]
The question is whether leaving Afghanistan will hinder our ability to thwart those who mean to harm us, and whether Afghanistan will welcome al Qaida back once we are gone.
It seems to me that al Qaida would do better to continue to spread it’s operations to other areas and Afghanistan wouldn’t be particularly helpful to their objectives, but what do I know. Maybe they need the poppy crops to fund their operations, but poppys are surely easier to eliminate than terrorists.