Bagram Prison: A Profile

Martine van Bijlert is one of the bloggers with the Afghanistan Analysts Network. This lengthy profile documents the randomness of arrest sweeps and the terrible conditions of detention. This remarkable story (unique only because it is told) shows the insidious alliance between various American and Afghan special forces and the role of the US controlled detention center. The International Committee of the Red Crescent (ICRC) makes an appearance, but the delivery of letters falls short of the protections they propose to enforce. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission as an Afghan body to ensure the rights of Afghans is shown as powerless with the US center.

“There are so many stories of people who get caught up in the nightly operations by American and Afghan forces. In the search for 'kill & capture' targets the net is cast wide: once a door is kicked in all males in a household are usually taken for interrogation. And it is then anyone's guess when they will be released again.

One story - out of many - of how an unlucky sleep-over resulted in years of detention, and what those years were like.”

His release it telling.

“I was released a few weeks ago. At my release an American colonel apologized to me. He said that they had concluded that I was innocent and that I had worked for the good of Afghanistan. He said that after 2.5 years! They gave me a bottle of perfume, but they did not return my possessions. When I was arrested I had $6000 on me, as an advance for the medicines, and also my mobile phone and some afghanis. They did not give them back yet. At the time I didn't say anything, I just wanted to leave. But they should give it back.”

Obama’s War Revisited

In October 2009 Frontline broadcast the show Obama’s War.

It was an ambitious film that sought to understand the President's strategy one year after winning the election with a campaign pledge to focus on the war in Afghanistan. The film crew accompanies US troops being deployed to Helmand province as part of a now long-ago military surge.

We hear about the ambitions of nation-building. Instead, what is revealed is mistrust, violence, and frustration over language and culture misunderstandings. We see that the US military does not have the will or the expertise to build nations.

The opening scene sets the stage (1:35). A sergeants voice is recorded preparing his troops for deployment. This is what he says.

“Make no mistake. We’re experts in the application of violence. We are attacking to seize control of the populations from the Taliban. The people are our objective…”

This remains the foundation of our policy and continues to fuel violence and instability in the country.

Note: The film was produced before the announcement in December of 2010 that President Obama would send an additional 30,000 US troops.

Challenging the Notion of Progress

Today the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission released their 2010 Annual Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.

2010 has been – again – the deadliest year for Afghan civilians since the US-led military intervention against the Taliban regime commenced almost ten years ago. Since 2005 the violence against civilians has been increasing each year. Last year witnessed a 15% increase in civilian deaths from 2009.

For those of you not familiar with the language of UN agencies in Afghanistan the violence is divided into two broad categories; pro-government (this includes NATO and US forces) and anti-government (this includes the Taliban and many local and regional actors resisting the government). Many Afghans condemn all the violence from all the sides, US Troops, NATO, Afghan Forces, Taliban, and Warlords.

The report (85 pages) documents many levels of violence. From increased aerial assaults, to assassinations, suicide attacks and improvised explosive devices. It is heartbreaking.

The scale of the violence makes the US narrative on progress sound hollow and dishonest.

One-hundredth of 1 percent

That’s the percentage of the United States Institute for Peace budget as compared to the Pentagon.

As a government funded agency, the institute has a critical role to play in seeking to instill principles of conflict prevention and diplomacy into structures of decision making that to often depend on military aid and military action to resolve conflict.

Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine general and commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1997 to 2000, offers an unexpected (to some) defense of the institute.

Petraeus Policy Primer

Next week General Petraeus will testify before Congress. As with the December review fragile gains will be stressed. The NYT’s cuts to the chase with its headline: Military Progress in Afghanistan.

What may not be revealed – as was the case with the classified December review - is the real impact of escalating military action. And the ways it prevents peacebuilding and reconciliation, critical priorities of Afghans as they struggle to repair the damage of war.

“Under General Petraeus, the tempo of operations has been stepped up enormously. American Special Operations forces and coalition commandos have mounted more than 1,600 missions in the 90 days before March 4 — an average of 18 a night — and the troops have captured and killed close to 3,000 insurgents, according to information provided by the general.”

***

“Other aspects of the war remain difficult, and progress is patchy and slow, General Petraeus conceded. There has been only modest momentum on efforts to persuade Taliban fighters to give up the fight and join a reintegration program, and a plan to train and install thousands of local police officers in rural communities to mobilize resistance to the Taliban has proved to be a painstaking business constrained by concerns that it will create militias loyal to warlords.”

Our friends at Rethink Afghanistan have a clever video juxtaposition from Monday’s press conference by Secretary Gates where he also articulates the ‘progress message’ in preparation for the congressional meetings. You should check it out.

US Predators kill 5 in South Waziristan

Unmanned US Predators struck inside Pakistan's tribal areas for the first time in 11 days. The strike killed five "militants" in the tribal agency of South Waziristan.

The Predators or the more heavily armed Reapers fired two missiles at a compound in the village of Landidog about 12 miles west of Wana, the main town in South Waziristan. The compound is owned by "a local tribesman named as Fazal Karam, Dawn reported.

Click here for more analysis.

Getting Away With Murder?

Last year Spencer Ackerman writing in the blog Danger Room documented the escalation of air power (and bombings) under General Petraeus.

It is not a new tactic. In fact, it has been an on and off campaign over the years. The reason it is cyclical - and has been reduced at times - is Afghan anger over civilian deaths that accompany massive indiscriminate power. To revisit the policy says something about immunity and a disregard for Afghan lives.

“The air war over Afghanistan has reached a post-invasion high. Unfortunately for the U.S., Afghan anger over air strikes is soaring as well.

No group of people is going to be enthusiastic about a foreign power dropping bombs on their countrymen, as the Pakistanis can attest. But a new poll from the Washington Post, ABC News and the BBC finds that 73 percent of Afghans say that U.S. air strikes are “unacceptable.” That’s an increase from the last survey, which found 66 percent opposition to the U.S. air war last December.”

Two years ago Amnesty International also addressed the issue of immunity and civilian casualties in a report called Getting Away With Murder? The Impunity of International Forces in Afghanistan. Update 1: There are now more US troops in Afghanistan, and a greater reliance on armed drones, helicopter gunships, and warplanes. Update 2: There remains little accountability by foreign forces in Afghanistan. Here is what the report found in 2009.

“There is now a persistent perception among many Afghans that international forces in Afghanistan do not sufficiently consider the wellbeing of ordinary Afghans—a perception successfully reinforced by the propaganda effort of the Taliban and other anti-government forces."