Bill to Expand Global War on Terror

In November 2009, on the eve of a long-delayed decision regarding the Pentagon request for additional troops to Afghanistan, the White House convened three days of meetings. They invited three communities to join; faith-based organizations, development agencies, and peace groups and academics.

As alternatives to military solutions and sustainable Afghan-led alternatives were articulated, a revealing comment from the government officials circulated through the discussion. It often went like this. We agree with you, but “it is hard to turn the ship around.’ We are trying. The decision was to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan within the next six months.

Yesterday’s announcement of the ‘new war cabinet’ and some of the critical analysis it fostered makes clear that the CIA and the Pentagon – the key bodies in fighting the global war on terror - were seeking to deflect public concern about the actions of US forces abroad by increasingly acting in secret.

Now we hear about a dangerous new bill from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that proposes to greatly expand the power of the President and the Secretary of Defense to start wars by stripping away congressional checks and balances.

Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has introduced legislation (H.R. 968) handing the Executive Branch a blank check for endless war. By declaring the United States in armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and “associated forces” this bill would allow any president to go to war against anyone, anywhere, anytime. Exactly who are these “associated forces?” Chairman McKeon’s bill leaves that entirely up to the Secretary of Defense.

Tom Andrews posted this alert yesterday.

Senator John McCain and Congressman “Buck” McKeon, the new Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, are proposing: Congress should give the President and the Secretary of Defense a blank check to wage war against anyone he or she declares “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban – anytime, anywhere, anyhow.

***

Just what and who is an “associated force” of al Qaeda and the Taliban? Chairman McKeon’s bill leaves that determination entirely up to the Secretary of Defense. Shock and awe – the sequel – might not be far behind. And there would be no need to get authorization from Congress before the missiles start flying – that would all be covered in this new blank-check legislation.

What could be more efficient?!? No more messy Congressional authorization, with all of those hearings, debates and prolonged votes. No more having to deal with intruding Congressional inquiries! No more having to worry about the likes of Congressmen Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) who insist on accountability by the administration and oversight by the Congress!

This is not a pipe dream. Legislation that will do what I have just described has not only been introduced in both the House (H.R. 968) and Senate (S. 551), it is likely to end up in the Defense Authorization bill that emerges from the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks from now. Those keeping score should note that the new authorization is:

• Global in scope. With no geographic boundary, the Secretary of Defense could take America to war in any country in the world where a suspected terrorist resides;
• Never ending. This language is open ended and doesn’t require the President to return to Congress for additional authority;
• Divorced from national security concerns. Unlike the 2001 authorization passed days after the 9/11 attacks that ties the authority to use military force to a direct attack on America, this language is not linked to any attack or imminent threat to American citizens.

It is arguably the greatest ceding of unchecked authority to the Executive Branch in modern history. Not only would this bill abdicate Congress’ authority to declare war, it would relieve the Administration of the need to seek Congressional resolutions of support or authorizations for new military actions.

But wait, there’s more! In addition to providing a blank check for war, the proposed legislation would give the president dangerous new powers to detain anyone suspected of links to terrorism (the ostensible purpose of the legislation, titled the “Detainee Security Act of 2011”). It requires that all suspects be held by the military (unless the Defense Secretary grants a waiver), and either tried by military commission or held indefinitely. This provision alone diminishes the authority of law enforcement agencies integral to our anti-terror efforts, obstructs the counterterrorism operations of officials who have a record of successful intelligence gathering, overburdens the military with responsibilities it does not want, and limits the president’s options in defending America’s national security interests. Dozens of federal agencies with critical expertise would be prevented from participating in a review of whether suspects posed a threat to national security.

The odds of the Committee stripping any of this dangerous language from the bill before it hits the floor of the House are about as long as my being signed by my Boston Red Sox. House leadership is very likely to support their Chairman and push hard for passage on the floor. Passage of similar language in the Senate Armed Services Committee is not a sure bet, but it is a distinct possibility. While the Democrats hold a voting edge on the panel, one of those “edges” is none other than Senator Joe Lieberman – a Co-sponsor of the McCain version of the bill! That leaves Senator Ben Nelson as the swing vote, putting opponents of a blank check for endless war in a very precarious position at best. If Senator Nelson votes for the bill, Senator McCain will have a victory in Committee and have plenty of momentum as the bill heads to the Senate floor.

But the first stop for the bill will be the House Armed Services Committee and then the House floor. It will begin to make its way in just a few weeks and a final floor vote will more than likely occur by Memorial Day.

Those who believe that this legislative attempt to grease the skids for the next US military adventure is outrageous and irresponsible need to worry. Better still, we need to get busy. Chairman McKeon’s legislation has so far been flying well below the radar of public attention. His bill is alive and well without a peep of public opposition or concern. This has to change now.

Take one minute right now and tell your Representative to oppose Chairman McKeon’s blank check for endless war.

Members of Congress need to start hearing from opponents of endless war and supporters of the U.S. Constitution. This tidy little provision – that heretofore has gone completely unnoticed by the public - should not be allowed to be tucked into a Defense Authorization bill without a fight. If there isn’t one, and Chairman McKeon and Senator McCain prevail, public opposition to any future US military action around the world won’t matter. It will have already been authorized by Congress.

AFSC is on the steering committee of Win Without War.

Petraeus, Panetta and War Fighting

Every minute of every day our government spends $2.1 million on the military. To slash that spending we have joined the New Priorities Network, a broad coalition of groups working together to fund jobs and services, end wars, and cut the pentagon budget.

And there is a lot to be done - Linda Bilmes lays out some of the challenges here.

”Even the Pentagon admits that it has “lost visibility’’ on spending. We spend $600 billion per year on the “base’’ military budget — but anything we ask it to do — like fighting wars or distributing humanitarian aid — costs extra. It’s like having a fire department that charges extra if your house catches on fire.”

The New York Times looks at the war-fighting picture in Afghanistan following the announcement of President Obama's new team. Mr. Panetta will leave the CIA to head the Department of Defense and General Petraeus the current US commander of foreign troops in Afghanistan will take over as head of the CIA.

"As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta hastened the transformation of the spy agency into a paramilitary organization, overseeing a sharp escalation of the C.I.A.’s bombing campaign in Pakistan using armed drone aircraft, and an increase in the number of secret bases and covert operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan.

General Petraeus, meanwhile, has aggressively pushed the military deeper into the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions. As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, he also signed a classified order authorizing American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones.

The result is that American military and intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya and Yemen."

Talking to the Taliban - A Roundtable

Decades of violence has traumatized generations, displaced one-quarter of the population and left hundreds and hundreds of thousands dead. Invasion, occupation, and intervention from bordering countries, and the arming of proxy militias by the US and others ‘outside’ powers have damaged traditional and governmental structures and elevated the use of force to resolve conflict.

The result has been a sustained absence of the rule of law and a culture of impunity on all sides. Many Afghans are addressing this challenge through concepts of transitional justice and the need for truth and reconciliation. Most of all there needs to be transparency. No more shortcuts and backroom deals at the expense of ordinary Afghans.

Will these principles be applied to negotiations with the Taliban?

Here is a sample of different positions.

Muhammad Tahir, writing for Radio Free Europe (Don't Negotiate Over The Heads Of The Afghan People) gives voice to the influential in order to make the case for truth and reconciliation. It begins with the wounds from the Taliban era.

Malalai Joya – former member of Parliament.

"What kind of negotiations they are talking about?" she asked during a recent appearance on the U.S. radio and TV news program "Democracy Now." "The people want all those killers to be brought to criminal courts for the war crimes they have committed."

Ahmad Zia Masud - Brother of the slain Tajik guerilla leader

"There is no way the Tajiks would sit down with the Taliban," says Ahmad Zia Masud, the brother of the slain Tajik guerilla leader. "It's a grave mistake that the West is supporting these so-called negotiations."

More Than Reconciliation Needed

"But it is precisely the complexity of this bloody history that makes it unlikely that genuine peace can be achieved without genuine reconciliation. And genuine reconciliation cannot be achieved by fiat. Nor can it be achieved by pretending that all is well, or that everything will be great if everyone simply agrees to move ahead and forget about the past. You can only avoid mistakes in the future by honestly confronting what has happened.

A genuine and sustainable peace process must include a formal mechanism to ensure that everyone's concerns are properly addressed. The best forum would be a conference sponsored by the international community -- perhaps one reminiscent of the Bonn Conference in 2001 that brought the interim government to power after the fall of the Taliban.

At the same time, it should be clearly stated that no real reconciliation can take place without a truth-finding process to clarify the nature of crimes against humanity committed both by the Taliban and its opponents during the long years of internal Afghan conflict.

This does not necessarily have to lead to criminal prosecutions. That would undoubtedly complicate the efforts to find a lasting peace in Afghanistan. The experience of post-apartheid South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission offers a fitting example of the sort of process Afghanistan needs. The Karzai government is fond of referring to "reconciliation" but less eager to talk about the "truth" component of the equation. But lasting peace cannot happen without both."

Additional Resources

Chatham House: No Shortcut to Stability: Justice Politics and Insurgency in Afghanistan

“The challenge is that it is precisely now, when the pressure is growing, that it is most important to have a long-term perspective, to recognize that there is no shortcut to stability. That requires making justice an issue of core interests, one that will command not just lip-service but serious political capital when it comes into conflict with other priorities. This is the single overarching recommendation of this report, for both Afghans and foreigners: that the strategic weight given to justice should be much greater across the board. What this means in practice will vary from case to case, though a key element is the need to send a coherent political signal. Substantive change will inevitably involve a degree of political heat (indeed that will be a sign of an effective impact), and will demand compromise, diplomacy and tactical intelligence rather than simply the promotion of abstract principles; it can only be one part of a strategy to build”

Human Rights Watch: Repeal Amnesty Law

“The National Stability and Reconciliation Law was passed by parliament in 2007 by a coalition of powerful warlords and their supporters to prevent the prosecution of individuals responsible for large-scale human rights abuses in the preceding decades. The amnesty law states that all those who were engaged in armed conflict before the formation of the Interim Administration in Afghanistan in December 2001 shall "enjoy all their legal rights and shall not be prosecuted."

Also noting that.

"The existence of this law is as much a test of the principles of Afghanistan's international backers, such as the United States, as it is of Karzai," said Adams. "Will they stand with abusive warlords and insurgents, or will they stand with the Afghan people?"

Is talking to the Taliban a betrayal of Afghanistan’s women?
New Internationalist Magazine

"The US is scheduled to start a partial withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan in a couple of months’ time. Talk is in the air of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. But what would it mean for Afghan women and the rights that they have struggled to gain in recent years? Our debaters this month, Orzala Ashraf and Michael Semple, are both passionate workers for peace and justice – but they take opposite positions on a thorny issue with global ramifications."

One Minute for Peace | The Mural

Fresh Mural Hits the Heart of Little 5 Points

From our Atlanta office:

Check out this minute long time laspe showing the creation of a mural inspired by the One Minute For Peace campaign.

***

We've been working with Camron Wiltshire, of We Are Change Atlanta, for several months to develop a mural for the 5-Spot wall in little 5-Points. The 5-Spot gave us permission to put the mural up last October after our Love Bombs Over Euclid Event.

Camron purposed a mural inspired by AFSC's "One Minute For Peace" campaign, which basically draws attention to the gross crisis in spending priorities our federal government continues to perpetuate. Everyone was knocked out by Camron's design. Volunteers came out of the woodwork to help put the mural up, it really looks great.

We're really excited to have the mural up in such a prominent spot. Thousands of folks walk by the wall off Euclid over each weekend.

Big thanks to the 5-Spot for the space, Camron Wiltshire for the amazing design and heading up the mural painting, Angie Brooks for scaffolding, SCAP for providing resources, and all the volunteers who helped paint, took pictures and video!!!

There will be a few minor touch ups to the mural this week, including the addition of the One Minute For Peace website and the articulation that the numbers presented are the 2012 recommended discretionary budget.

Action: Sign Our Petition

Huge Prison Escape Kandahar

* The scene outside Kandahar prison after a previous escape in 2008.


Hundreds of Taliban prisoners escaped from Kandahar's Sarposa prison in a daring escape Sunday night. The escape from an Afghan run prison has exposed glaring security gaps and led to a huge hunt for the fugitives. Kandahar is considered the spritual home of the Taliban leadership.

All armed forces increasing.

The Bookings Afghanistan index notes that from 2004 – 2009 ‘Taliban’ forces multiplied roughly tenfold from (1,770-3,200) to 30,000. Afghan government forces tripled, and US forces have grown to 100,000. Increasing the levels for Afghans on all fronts.

***

Speaking to RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan, Gulam Dastageer Mayar, the director of prisons in Kandahar, says police are investigating the jailbreak.

"Most of the 467 prisoners who escaped were political prisoners," he says. "They had dug into [the prison] from some village, but it's not entirely clear how they did it. The police are investigating. At least eight of the escaped prisoners were rearrested this morning."

Sarposa prison, rebuilt after a 2008 jailbreak, is supposed to be one of Afghanistan's most secure. In June 2008, more than 800 prisoners, including Taliban insurgents, had escaped from the same prison after a suicide bomber blew up the facility's gates and destroyed a nearby army check-post.

The Prison sits on the outskirts of Kandahar city and holds both captured insurgents and criminal prisoners from across southern Afghanistan, where thousands of American troops have spearheaded the campaign against rural Taliban strongholds.

The Taliban, in its own statement, said 541 prisoners escaped through an extensive tunnel that took months to construct and were later moved in vehicles to safer locations.

The statement said that "mujahedin started digging a 320-meter tunnel to the prison from the south side, which was completed after a five-month period, bypassing enemy checkpoints and [the] Kandahar-Kabul main highway leading directly to the political prison."

The Taliban said the tunnel was completed late on April 24, with hundreds of insurgents escaping over a 4 1/2-hour period.

Kandahar: Quick Facts
Founded by Alexander the Great 2,500 years ago
Second largest city in Afghanistan with a population of 300,000
Central trading city in the country with an international airport
Manufactures wool, felt, silk
Crops: Opium, grapes, grain and tobacco

The Global War on Terror – The Costs

Ever wonder what type of information is available to elected officials as they continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The Congressional Research Service actually provides a huge number of authoritative reports for members of Congress. Amy Belasco is the author of a number that look at the financial cost of the global war on terror. Her most recent update was released at the end of March 2011. She has a interesting section at the end on previous congressional efforts to cut funding to wars.

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2011

Here is what else you will find.

“Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks…”

***

“Between FY2009 and FY2010, average monthly DOD spending for Afghanistan grew from $4.4 billion to $6.7 billion a month, a 50% increase while average troop strength almost doubled from 44,000 to 84,000 as part of the troop surge announced by the President last year. Troop strength in Afghanistan is expected to average 102,000 in FY2011. DOD’s plans call for troop levels to fall by less than 4,000 in FY2012 unless the President decides otherwise as part of his decision to “begin transition to Afghan security lead in early 2011. . . [to ] a responsible, conditions-based U.S. troop reduction in July 2011.” At the same time, the President announced a long-term U.S. commitment to a NATO summit goal of “a path to complete transition by the end of 2014.” It is currently unclear how quickly or slowly troop levels will fall this summer or in later years to meet these goals.”

***

“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated three military operations:

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) covering primarily Afghanistan and other small Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the Philippines to Djibouti that began immediately after the 9/11 attacks and continues;

Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced security for U.S. military bases and other homeland security that was launched in response to the attacks and continues at a modest level; and

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued with counter-insurgency and stability operations, and is slated to be renamed Operation New Dawn as U.S. troops focus on an advisory and assistance role.”

***

Some 94% of this funding goes to the Department of Defense (DOD) to cover primarily incremental war-related costs, that is, costs that are in addition to DOD’s normal peacetime activities. ..

***

[T]he Administration initiated several programs specifically targeted at problems that developed in the Afghan and Iraq wars:

Coalition support to cover the logistical costs of allies, primarily Pakistan, conducting counter-terror operations in support of U.S. efforts;

Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) providing funds to individual commanders for small reconstruction projects and to pay local militias in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter insurgent or Taliban groups;

Afghan Security Forces Fund and the Iraq Security Forces Fund to pay the cost of training, equipping and expanding the size of the Afghan and Iraqi armies and police forces; and

Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs) Defeat Fund to develop, buy, and deploy new devices to improve force protection for soldiers against roadside bombs or IEDs.

***

Congressional Options to Affect Military Operations

As interest in alternate policies for first Iraq and now Afghanistan has grown, Congress may turn to the Vietnam, and other experience to look for ways to affect military operations and troop levels in Iraq. In the past, Congress has considered both funding and non-funding options. Most observers would maintain that restrictions tied to appropriations have been more effective.

Restrictive funding options generally prohibit the obligation or expenditure of current or previously appropriated funds. Obligations occur when the government pays military or civilian personnel, or the services sign contracts or place orders to buy goods or services. Expenditures, or outlays, take place when payment is provided.

The Vietnam Experience

Past attempts or provisions to restrict funding have followed several patterns, including those that cut off funding

***

One or both houses may also state a “sense of the Congress,” or non-binding resolution that does not need to be signed by the President, that U.S. military operations should be wound down or ended or forces withdrawn.

While only a handful of provisions have been enacted, congressional consideration of these various limiting provisions did place pressure on the Administration and thus influenced the course of events. For example, the well-known Cooper-Church provision that prohibited the introduction of U.S. ground troops into Cambodia was enacted in early 1971 after U.S. forces had invaded and then been withdrawn from Cambodia. That provision was intended to prevent the reintroduction of troops.69 Although President Nixon did not reintroduce U.S. troops, the United States continued to bomb Cambodia for the next three years.

Later in 1973, Congress passed two provisions that prohibited the obligation or expenditures of “any funds in this or any previous law on or after August 15, 1973” for combat “in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.”70 The final version of that provision reflected negotiations between the Administration and Congress about when the prohibition would go into effect, with August 15, 1973 set in the enacted version. Bombing did, in fact, stop on that day.

Several well-known proposals that were not enacted—two McGovern-Hatfield amendments and an earlier Cooper-Church amendment—were also part of this Vietnam-era jockeying between the Administration and Congress. One McGovern-Hatfield amendment prohibited expenditure of previously appropriated funds after a specified date “in or over Indochina,” except for the purpose of withdrawing troops or protecting our Indochinese allies, while another also prohibited spending funds to support more than a specified number of troops unless the president notified the Congress of the need for a 60 day extension. The earlier Cooper-Church amendment prohibited the expenditure of any funds after July 1, 1970 to retain troops in Cambodia “unless specifically authorized by law hereafter.”

Generally, Congress continued to provide funds for U.S. troops in Vietnam at the requested levels as the Nixon Administration reduced troop levels. Overall, funding restrictions have generally proven more effective than the War Powers Act, which has been challenged by the executive branch on constitutional grounds.

Recent Restrictions Proposed

Most recently, as part of the July 1, 2010 debate over the House amended version of H.R. 4899, the FY2010 Supplemental, the House considered three amendments designed to restrict funding or troop levels for the Afghan war. The amendments are similar to some of those proposed during the Vietnam war.

Amendment No. 3 would delete all military funding for the Afghan war , and was defeated 25 to 376.

Amendment No. 4 would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds to the protection and “safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan,” and was defeated 100 to 321.

Amendment No. 5 would require the President to submit a plan for a “safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the Armed Forces from Afghanistan,” along with a “timetable for the completion of that redeployment and information regarding variables that could alter that timetable,” as well as require that none of the funds in the act be obligated or expended “in a manner that is inconsistent with the President’s policy announced on December 1, 2009, to begin the orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan after July 1, 2011,” unless the Congress approves a joint resolution that would receive expedited consideration in both houses. This amendment was defeated 162 to 260.

US Drone Strikes Kill 25 in Pakistan | US to Begin Drone Strikes in Libya

Two U.S. pilotless aircraft fired four missiles into a house in Pakistan's North Waziristan region on the Afghan border on Friday killing 25 militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The strike came two days after a visit to Islamabad by Admiral Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military official, in which he expressed concern over links between Pakistani security agents and militants attacking U.S.-led forces across the border in Afghanistan.

According to AFP the strikes inflame anti-US feeling, which is already running high after the January killing of two Pakistani men in a busy Lahore street by a US embassy official later revealed to be working for the CIA.

Last month's US drone attack led Pakistani civilian and military leaders to publicly protest the civilian casualties, although the drone campaign is believed to operate with the tacit consent of the government.

Missile attacks doubled last year, with more than 100 drone strikes killing over 670 people in 2010 compared with 45 strikes that killed 420 in 2009, according to an AFP tally.

Additional Resource: The Long War Journal has a chart of US airstrikes in Pakistan from 2004 - 2011


US to begin drone strikes in Libya

The US announced it will begin using armed drones against forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, raising further concerns about "mission creep" in Libya after a trio of European powers also decided this week to send military advisers to train the rebels. Sen. John McCain called the rebels "heroes" on a surprise visit to Benghazi today.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Thursday evening that President Obama had approved the use of drones for strikes against Col. Qaddafi's forces and defense positions. The announcement marks the United States' return to a direct combat role in the Libyan conflict, which had ceased when the US handed control of Libya operations to NATO in early April, according to the Los Angeles Times.

AFSC Statement on Libya

“We believe that it is morally unacceptable to allow military tactics to lead our response to human crises. The current foreign military assault on Libya is a step in the wrong direction, one that may lead the country to further instability, human suffering, and protracted violent conflict.“