“Transition” is the word on the tip of everyone’s lips in Afghanistan these days—a catchphrase I’ve heard employed more than any other since arriving in Kabul about two weeks ago. Why “Transition?” Because in less than three years time, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are expected to assume responsibility for securing the country and protecting the population. To prepare for the security transition, US and international military forces have concentrated their efforts on securing southern Afghanistan—the so-called “heartland” of the insurgency—whilst intensifying efforts to train and equip the ANSF.

The message from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)—the U.S. led security force in Afghanistan—is that security is improving as a result of these efforts. Last spring, a Pentagon report concluded that President Obama’s strategy had produced “tangible progress” in Afghanistan. More recently, David Rodriguez, former Commander of ISAF Joint Command, wrote “there are indisputable gains everywhere we have focused our efforts.” Talk of progress and security gains has been pervasive in my early Kabul meetings.

But that message stands in stark contrast to what I’m hearing from international and humanitarian organizations. In its mid-year report released in July 2011, the U.N. political mission in Afghanistan reported that “civilians experienced a downward spiral of protection” during the first half of 2011 with civilian casualties higher than at any other time since 2001. Indeed, nearly 1,500 civilians were killed during the first half of 2011, an increase of 15% from the same period during 2010. More recently, the U.N. confirmed significant civilian casualties last month largely due to the twin suicide attacks in Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif.

ISAF’s rosy assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is also at odds with the most recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which noted that “security gains” have been undercut by “corruption, incompetent governance and Taliban fighters operating from neighboring Pakistan.” The NIE also suggests that the Afghan government “may not be able to survive as the U.S. steadily pulls out its troops and reduces military and civilian assistance.”

To be clear, the Taliban and other armed groups are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan – roughly 80%, according to the U.N. Despite pledges to avoid killing civilians, armed groups have continued to resort to indiscriminate tactics, including improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks, which combined are responsible for nearly 50% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, according to the U.N. For the past two years, armed groups have also increasingly resorted to assassinations, targeting public officials and others who cooperate with ISAF and the Afghan government.

Meanwhile, as civilian casualties caused by armed groups have spiked over the past few years, the number of civilians killed or injured by international military forces has gradually declined, largely due to the policies ISAF has put in place to mitigate civilian harm. That being said, Afghans want and expect ISAF and the ANSF to improve efforts to protect them from all acts of violence, regardless of which warring party is ultimately responsible.

Afghans I have met since arriving are very worried about the future. One former government official I spoke with voiced his concern that Afghanistan could slide back into civil war after the bulk of international military forces depart at the end of 2014. Like many others in the country, he isn’t confident that the ANSF will be able to provide security on their own, and he’s concerned about the proliferation of weapons and armed groups.

Why such disparate narratives and assessments of the security situation? One reason could be that ISAF is using different metrics than international and nongovernmental organizations. Counterinsurgent forces tend to examine territory held and the quantity of indigenous security forces trained and equipped to measure progress. And as noted, ISAF has taken very concrete steps to mitigate civilian harm, resulting in fewer civilians killed or injured by international military forces. Meanwhile, the U.N. and nongovernmental organizations are analyzing overall levels of violence and civilian casualties – which have increased over the past several years.

Another reason may be that ISAF is setting a tone for its departure. With the U.S. elections less than a year away, the Obama Administration would like to reassure a war weary public that it has turned the Afghan war around. While not ill – intentioned, the U.S. and its allies may simply be focused on highlighting what they have achieved, including reduced levels of civilian casualties caused by international military forces as well as reinvigorated efforts to improve the quality of Afghan security forces. But the problem still remains – while ISAF has improved its own civilian casualty statistics, the number of civilians harmed or killed in Afghanistan is increasing. Indeed, if “security gains” are to be measured by fewer civilian casualties, then security is deteriorating in Afghanistan.

As international military forces prepare for withdrawal, they should be clear-eyed about the toll the war is taking on civilians and what needs to be done to better protect ordinary Afghans. Over the next six months, I will be taking this message to ISAF on behalf of CIVIC. More specifically, I will be assessing the efficacy of the mechanisms ISAF has put in place to mitigate civilian harm as well as urging the Afghan government to take concrete steps to better protect civilians. I hope we’ll soon be able to agree that security is improving in Afghanistan.

This post originally appeared on CIVIC From the Field.

Photo: Afghan National Army (ANA) doing a route clearence patrol exercise at the Kabul Militairy Training Centre (KMTC).

Released under the Creative Commons License: Courtesy of the U.S. Army.

This week COHA.org writer Natalia Cote-Munoz produced a great piece comparing and contrasting Mexico’s current drug war with Colombia’s historical drug conflict in order to differentiate between policies that should be applied to the two countries. Often parallels are depended upon in discussing the two countries and their internal drug conflicts, but with a lack of clear analysis on each individual case, solutions for Colombia are assumed to apply neatly to Mexico as well. This is done to such a great degree that policy is formed that treat Colombia’s past drug violence the same as Mexico’s current drug conflict. Natalia Cote-Munoz seeks to draw clear distinctions between the two conflicts in order to initiate a proper policy debate that can create effective solutions in Mexico, and maintain successes in the case of Colombia. I recommend everyone read the COHA piece Mexico’s Drug War: Not Another Colombia at the link here.

Parallels between Mexico’s and Colombia’s drug violence is often compared as it involves two simple elements, namely violence coming from the narcotic trade and extreme violence that affects society as a whole. The article argues that there are many differences between the two countries and the drug issues beyond extreme violence. She makes a very important point as an analysis of extreme violence could also link Mexico to Iraq or Afghanistan a few years ago as much as it could be linked to Colombia in the 80s and 90s. The article points out that the structural elements of corruption and a lack of justice in Mexico differs than that in Colombia, although it exists in each country and contributes to the drug trade. Poverty, while not the reason for a drug trade, enables the movement of many in society to take risks to gain immediate rewards. With a lack of confidence in the system and the government, it creates rationale actors in an environment where money and the narcotics market has a real impact on society as a whole.

Natalia points out correctly that the complex system making true O’Donnellian democracy difficult in Mexico even today was not as much of a challenge faced in Colombia. Historically Colombia was blessed with relatively functional institutions and a traditionally democratically motivated system to help manage drug violence that arose over thirty years ago. Whereas Mexico’s complex democracy and systemic difficulties contribute to the difficulties in forming and anti-narcotics strategy, Colombia’s drug violence was linked to past revolutionary movements that existed in a past era that were married to drug cartels in the 1970s. The way cartels were formed is also highlighted by Natalia, where Colombian cartels often were run by well know figureheads, Mexican cartels reflected our networked society, working off networks that often are not understood nor do officials know who exactly runs the drug gangs. While Colombia could target the FARC, and affect the drug cartels in the process, Mexican gangs are comprised of many smaller, unknown elements that can evade authorities by way of being covert. This allows Mexico’s smaller gangs to have the ability to cross borders, maintaining lucrative markets by establishing them from Vina del Mar to Vancouver or displacing defunct cartels that are stopped by authorities or eliminated by competitors. These broad networks also create access to weapons that can be easily obtained in the US for use against Mexican authorities in Mexico.

Suggestions by the author that the demand for narcotics in the US and weapons proliferation across the border is a main source for the cartel violence in Mexico is tied to the ease of access Mexico has to the US border. While she makes a solid point that a lot of the problems can be sourced in the US demand for narcotics, it is not likely that the US would legalise narcotics or even take Mexican cartels as serious as Iraq, even though they are a greater burden on American society than any country in the Middle East. President Obama for all the criticisms has made a lot of strides in US foreign policy, just not in Latin America yet, hopefully the COHA.org article will reach those policymakers in Obama’s Administration for positive policy development.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

Would President Obama’s new security strategy, a plan for a “leaner” U.S. military, unveiled earlier this month, have prevented the Iraq War were it adopted a decade sooner? Sarwar Kashmeri, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, makes just this point in his analysis of U.S. defense strategy in the Huffington Post.  Is the history of U.S. intervention since 9/11 necessary to understand President Obama’s decision to refocus military power on small, agile forces rather than large ground troops? Or could the U.S. have implemented this defense doctrine sooner?

Read Kashmeri’s interesting analysis here.

Since early December 2011, nearly a thousand Wikipedia users have been openly debating as to whether they should protest the oncoming SOPA bill like other sites have planned. Well the votes are in as yesterday Jimmy Wales tweeted: “Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!” Wikipedia to Protest SOPA by [...]

Wikipedia to Protest SOPA by Blacking Out is a post from: PakMediaBlog All Rights Reserved.

In his NYT op-ed today entitled ‘Don’t Do It, Bibi,’ Roger Cohen issued another stern warning to his favorite target, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his piece, he warns about the grave repercussions if Israel were to attack Iran without political support from the United States.

This article is the latest installment in Cohen’s crusade against Netanyahu and the Likud-led governing coalition in Israel. Cohen solemnly recites all the ways in which Netanyahu has mistreated President Obama before he settles down and proceeds with his analysis of Iran’s nuclear threat.

Cohen argues that Netanyahu has stalled in his negotiations with the Palestinians because he foresees a rabidly pro-Israel Republican nominee beating Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. Yet in the next paragraph Cohen contends that Netanyahu is sorely tempted to bomb Iran before the elections because he and his advisors increasingly believe Obama can win in November.

Now, almost everybody following the Middle East understands that Netanyahu is a savvy politician who is not oblivious to American election cycles. Perhaps even more than most politicians, Netanyahu may be better characterized as “cynical” than “shrewd” in formulating his political agenda. And it may be true that Netanyahu indeed forecasts a Republican victory in 2012, but wants to hedge his bets by bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors while Obama courts the Jewish vote in the swing state of Florida.

However, Cohen makes the same mistakes in this article that he has consistently made throughout his analysis of the Iranian threat.

First, he implies that any attack by Israel would be a massive bombing campaign that would instantly and irreversibly unite all of Iran’s people under their oppressive regime and against the West. For starters, any aerial attack would be limited to the nuclear reactor sites and would probably result in few civilian casualties. With the possible tacit support of the US, in the last few years Israel has already attacked Iran’s nuclear program with a computer virus, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and sabotaged missile bases in Iran that resulted in dozens of Iranian deaths. Meanwhile, less than three years ago Iran’s regime was strongly challenged by its populace. While the theocratic government may have suppressed the mass protests in 2009, there is still a strong anti-regime sentiment among Iranians. Moreover, the “regime” itself is an uneasy coalition between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is showing highly visible signs of strain. I’m not sure how Cohen can absorb these facts and compute that an attack by Israel “locks in the Iranian Republic for a generation.”

Second (and he is not alone in this truly bizarre line of argumentation), he reckons that Israel’s security is threatened more by the status of the occupied territories than by Iran. I fully agree that Israel must keep striving to find a way to ensure that Palestinians have a fully functioning state. While the on and off again courtship between Hamas and Fatah certainly complicates matters, it is also reasonable to argue that the Netanyahu administration has shown a distinct lack of urgency in its approach toward negotiations with the Palestinians. I am also gravely aware of the risks that any aerial attack by Israel on Iranian reactor sites would entail (although per above I disagree with Cohen about their nature.) However, I struggle to comprehend how the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, which is grinding toward its 45th year of existence, can be compared to the existential threat posed by the nuclear program of a country whose stated intention is to destroy Israel.

By Saeed Shah for The Miami Herald

Pakistan’s political crisis, which pits its president against determined opponents in foes in Parliament, the Supreme Court and the military, is likely to reach fever pitch on Monday with a confidence vote scheduled in Parliament and hearings scheduled in two critical court cases.

The crisis is so intense that President Asif Zardari’s administration may be willing to call elections for as soon as October, according to members of his ruling coalition and its advisers. But that may not be enough to mollify the opposition, which wants earlier elections, or the country’s powerful military establishment, which is believed to be trying to force a so-called “soft coup,” under which Zardari, a critic of the military’s traditional dominance of Pakistan, would be forced out by Parliament or the courts.

The threat of an outright coup also hangs over the crisis, if the politicians cannot find a way out or the court proceedings reach absolute stalemate.

Whether the government can reach agreement with opposition leader Nawaz Sharif is unclear. Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party doesn’t want to announce elections until after voting in March for a new Senate, which the PPP is widely expected to win. But Sharif would like the new elections to be in the summer, perhaps June, which would require an earlier announcement.

“There is no other option for the government to come out of the current crisis without elections,” said an adviser to the PPP leadership, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, as did the other coalition members. “It is in the interests of the PPP to reach an agreement with Nawaz.”

The PPP rules with three major coalition partners, but the alliance is looking shaky. Two of the parties, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, have distanced themselves somewhat from the government.

A senior member of the coalition said the parties so far have agreed internally only to a general election to be held in October. That would be just a few months before the February 2013 date when Parliament would complete its five-year term and elections would have to be held anyway.

An early election should also placate the courts and the military. A supposedly neutral caretaker government would have to be installed to oversee a three-month electioneering period.

Another coalition member said: “It is 100 percent certain that there will be elections in 2012. The only solution is elections. It doesn’t matter whether they are held in June or October.”

Zardari’s coalition itself brought Monday’s confidence vote resolution to Parliament, cleverly wording it so that it asks for support not for the prime minister or even the government, but for democracy. That makes it difficult to oppose.

But the PPP’s troubles in Parliament are only one of the fronts in its battle for survival. The courts and the military are both maneuvering against the party’s leaders, with two explosive cases coming up for hearings Monday.

The first stems from a 2007 decree by President Pervez Musharraf that granted immunity from prosecution to Zardari and other exiled PPP politicians in an effort to persuade them to return to Pakistan to participate in elections that Musharraf was being pressured by the United States to hold.

The Supreme Court later ruled, however, that the decree was illegal and demanded that the government reopen corruption charges against Zardari stemming from the time when his wife, the assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, was prime minister.

The government declined, however, and now the court has summoned the government to explain its actions. The court could declare Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in contempt of court, which would in effect remove him from office.

The other case involves the the scandal in which a judicial commission is investigating allegations that Husain Haqqani, a close Zardari adviser and former ambassador to the U.S., wrote a memo that was passed to U.S. officials in May. That memo offered to replace the Pakistan military’s top officials in return for U.S. support should the military attempt to push Zardari aside.

Haqqani, who was forced to resign, says he had nothing to do with the memo, which the military has said amounted to treason.

The judicial commission may take testimony this week from an American businessman, and occasional news commentator, Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed that he had delivered the memo to U.S. officials, in a column that appeared in the British newspaper the Financial Times in October. Ijaz has said he will show up as a witness, though he apparently has yet to receive a visa to enter Pakistan.

Filed under: Afghanistan, American Muslims, Democracy, Freedoms, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, President Obama, Taliban, United States, US Army Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Imran Khan, Mansoor Ijaz, Memogate, MQM, Muttahida Quami Movement, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan, Pakistan Muslim League-Q, Pakistan Parliment, Pervez Musharraf, PPP, Yousuf Raza Gilani

By S. M. Hali

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, a staunch and ardent supporter of the Kashmiri cause, is an American citizen of Kashmiri origin, from Indian Occupied Kashmir. He was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 19, 2011 for allegedly accepting monetary support from Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to lobby and influence the US government on the Kashmir conflict in violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act. His arrest came at a time when relations between Pakistan and the United States were already strained in the aftermath of the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Dr. Fai, who has been pillar of strength for the Kashmiri cause, organizing seminar, roundtable discussions and colloquiums for creating awareness in the world regarding the sad plight of the Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir, is a harmless person, devoting his life to the cause of his downtrodden brethren.

The United States of America, which is a melting pot of different ethnic origins, has been magnanimous in welcoming them. In fact, the Statue of Liberty, located at the mouth of New York harbor on Ellis Island, faces outward toward the nations, holding aloft the torch of freedom, the flame of hope, the promise of the future. She holds this torch high in the daytime and during the night as well. She shines her light in the midst of darkness. This symbol of freedom and hope was presented by the people of France to the people of the United States in 1886 in honor of the friendship between the two nations. Yet, the Statue belongs to all people.  Her message is universal, speaking to the hearts of those who cherish freedom everywhere.

Liberty’s image is one of strength, majesty, and hope, visible in her eternally raised right arm which carries the torch of freedom.  Holding aloft a light that never fails, she represents hope to the hopeless, welcome to the poor, courage to the meek. Facing outward toward the ocean, her lamp is a beacon on stormy seas, drawing to her shores, those from afar who seek a better life.  For these, and for countless others who embrace her message, the Statue of Liberty represents the Golden Door, which is the entrance into liberty and freedom from oppression that is the promise of America—a land, a people, a way of life. It is also the freedom of spirit and of choice that was declared an inalienable right in the US Declaration of Independence—a document whose date of execution, July 4th, 1776, is inscribed on the tablet she carries. The Statue welcomes all to this door—the lost, the needy, the rejected, and the exiled.  She invites them to step through it into freedom.

Immortalized in the poem of Emma Lazarus, the Statue speaks eternally the words of compassion: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." These words from the "The New Colossus," written in 1883, appear on the Statue’s pedestal.

For a nation, committed to the oppressed and downtrodden, victimizing Dr. Ghulam Nabi, a dedicated and unswerving freedom fighter is extremely contemptible. The decision to arrest Dr. Fai was taken while the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was touring India. It is apparent that the famed social worker was taken into custody only to please India. The overtures to the latest US paramour India have compelled it to take a number of unpleasant decisions, to woo it. Pakistan has been victimized and targeted while Kashmiri freedom fighters are now being incarcerated at the behest of India. The US is forgetting that Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai was also in contact with Indian diplomats and other officials. Besides carrying out activities with their involvement, he has also been gathering their support in organizing various Kashmir related functions. This does not make Dr. Fai a criminal. On December 7, 2011 Fai pleaded guilty to felony, conspiracy and tax evasion charges, but not for being an ISI agent.

The action against Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai has exposed US sincerity towards resolution of Kashmir Issue. President Obama, during his run up to the US presidential elections, had taken cognizance of the Kashmir issue and had promised that if elected, he would use his good offices to help resolve the flashpoint of Kashmir imbroglio, which has the potential of erupting into a war between nuclear weapons equipped India and Pakistan. The rivals have gone to war thrice during the last six and half decades and been on the brink of war on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, President Obama reneged on his promise to help resolve the Kashmir issue and cut the Gordian’s knot and bring peace into the region. When President Obama visited India, he was presented a petition signed by 4500 persons including the Kashmiri Diaspora and parliamentarians from the UK and US but Obama chose to disregard the petition.   

A legal question that arises is that in case, US law was being breached, why US authorities have taken so long to take action against Dr. Fai. It is now amply clear that the Indo-US nexus has chosen to victimize Dr. Fai a harmless human being only to pressurize Pakistan. His arrest was condemned by separatist Kashmiri leaders including Syed Ali Shah Geelani who called his arrest "a conspiracy by India to weaken the freedom struggle in Kashmir". The sentencing of Dr. Fai is scheduled for March 2012. Fai faces a five year sentence for the conspiracy charge and an additional three years for tax evasion. As part of his guilty plea, Fai signed an 81-paragraph "Statement of Fact" cataloging his crimes, with specific details as to the instructions and payments he received. The US judicial system should take into cognizance, that in pursuit of drawing US and international attention towards the trampling of Kashmiris’ rights, Dr. Fai had obtained the support of US legislators and parliamentarians like Dan Burton, Joseph R. Pitts and others. To single out Dr. Fai for victimizing him and incarcerating him for pursuing his noble mission is despicable

By Carlos Harrison for The Huffington Post

It’s been a troubled – some might say, tragic – 10 years for the detention camps at the Guantánamo Naval Base in Cuba. And as they slouch into their 11th year on January 11, there’s no end in sight.

“We say to ourselves, in sort of gallows humor: Guantánamo will close when the last detainee there dies of natural causes,” Jeremy Varon, an organizer with Witness Against Torture, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

Franz Kafka himself would have been hard-pressed to concoct a more bewildering and brutal contradictory reality. Allegations over the years have included sexual humiliation, waterboarding, and the use of dogs to scare detainees. Released detainees reported being locked in in sensory deprivation cells, beaten repeatedly, and forced to race while wearing leg shackles. If they fell, they were punished.

If it sounds like Abu Ghraib, it should. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee found that intelligence teams transported the “aggressive” interrogation techniques perfected at Guantánamo to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The link between Cuba and the war zones, the New York Times reported, was Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the head of detention operations at Guantánamo. At his insistence, the Times wrote, the Defense Department sent training teams on 90-day tours in Iraq, showing the soldiers there the techniques utilized on the island. The timing, Amnesty International points out, happened to coincide with when the worst abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Thanks to reports like those, the detention camps have become an international symbol of what democracy and justice are not. They’ve been plagued by suicide attempts by desperate detainees and condemned by the United Nations, human rights groups, even former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who called for the immediate closing of the camps in 2006.
“The value of holding prisoners there was unclear, but the price we were paying around the world for doing so was obvious,” Powell said.

The camps were created in 2002 as a deliberately “extraterritorial” place to extract information from captives in the “War on Terror.” By putting them at Guantanamo, the United States, meant to be beyond the jurisdiction of both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. courts.

That didn’t put them outside the range of public opinion. The camps sparked outrage on day one. Pictures flew around the world of shackled and handcuffed detainees on their knees on the ground with black hoods over their heads and mittens on their hands.

The indignation grew as the first 20 captives went into wire cages at Camp X-Ray, described by critics as “kennels.” Soon, though, the detainees were transferred to permanent cells, and Camp X-Ray was closed.

But the human rights complaints continued, even from some of America’s closest allies.
In 2006, speaking on BBC radio, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:

“I am absolutely clear that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a Gulag in Guantanamo Bay. They want to see the situation resolved and they would like it other than it is. However, that is the situation that they have.”

In all 779 detainees have been held in the camps. Eight have died there, including six suicides. One man died of colon cancer, another after an apparent heart attack.

And, in the 10 years since it opened, only six detainees have been convicted of war crimes.
The last 171 still there are caught at the conflicting conjunction where bureaucracy, politics, and military regulations collide – offering little chance, at least for the foreseeable future, of gaining their release.

Forty-six are classified as “indefinite detainees,” held without charges, but considered too dangerous to be released; 89 are eligible for release or transfer but in perpetual custody because there is no place to send them. Five more have been convicted of war crimes; and six face trial – perhaps this year – for the 9/11 attacks and the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing.
That makes Guantanamo, as Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald described it in a piece for Foreign Affairs, “arguably the most expensive prison camp on earth, with a staff of 1,850 U.S. troops and civilians managing a compound that contains 171 captives, at a cost of $800,000 a year per detainee.”

But even the budget conscious Congress resists closing the base. In fact, it has used its spending oversight powers to thwart the president’s efforts to do just that. It has used that authority to prevent the trial of detainees on U.S. soil and to block the purchase of a dedicated prison facility in Illinois to house transferred detainees.
And no one wants to risk having a released captive later become involved in an act of terrorism or insurgency, which happened with at least one-fourth of the 500 detainees set free under President George W. Bush.

So, the captives remain in Guantanamo. Until when no one knows.
As Marc Thiessen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told CNN:

“We have the right to continue to hold them as long as al Qaeda is at war with us.”

Having the right, though, doesn’t make it right, said Geneve Mantri, government relations director for national security, Amnesty International.

Speaking to The Huffington Post on Wednesday, he said the 89 cleared for release by both the Bush administration and a review ordered by President Obama, “represent little or no threat.”

“This has always been sold as a question of the worst of the worst and the reality is that a large number of the people that have been picked up, I hate to say it are in the insignificant and rather pathetically sad story category,” he said.

“There is a minority of people (in the camps) that no one doubts are truly dangerous. That minority of people should be placed in front of a US court. Because we have the most efficient system, the fastest and cheapest and best system for looking at all the evidence. You produce it all in a court of law. Have a real defense — an internationally recognized defense. And then put them away forever.”

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, Hate Crime, homegrown terror, Middle East, Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban, President Obama, United States Tagged: Civil Rights, Constitutional Rights, Cuba, GITMO, Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay, Gulag, Human rights, NDAA, President Obama, United Nations

Last week I participated in a Department of Defense Bloggers Roundtable on President Obama’s new defense strategy with Captain John Kirby (USN), Deputy Secretary of Defense for Media Operations; and Dr. George Little, Pentagon Press Secretary. In support of the new strategy the Department of Defense published a paper called Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. The following are the key missions as stated in the paper:

“Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare… Achieving our core goal of
disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qa.’ida and preventing Afghanistan from ever being a safe haven again will be central to this effort.”

“Deter and Defeat Aggression…Credible deterrence results from both the
capabilities to deny an aggressor the prospect of achieving his objectives and from the
complementary capability to impose unacceptable costs on the aggressor.”

“Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges. In order to credibly deter potential adversaries and to prevent them from achieving their objectives, the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged…Accordingly, the U.S.
military will invest as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) environments.”

“Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. U.S. forces conduct a range of activities aimed
at preventing the proliferation and use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons…In partnership with other elements of the U.S. Government, DoD will continue to invest in capabilities to detect, protect against, and respond to WMD use, should preventive measures fail.”

“Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space. Modern armed forces cannot conduct
high-tempo, effective operations without reliable information and communication
networks and assured access to cyberspace and space…Accordingly, DoD will continue to work with domestic and international allies and partners and invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency in cyberspace and space.”

“Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent. As long as nuclear
weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective
arsenal.”

“Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities”

“Provide a Stabilizing Presence. U.S. forces will conduct a sustainable pace of presence
operations abroad…These activities reinforce deterrence, help to build the capacity and
competence of U.S., allied, and partner forces for internal and external defense,
strengthen alliance cohesion, and increase U.S. influence… However, with reduced resources ,thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations.”

“Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations… the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible… However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.”

Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and Other Operations.

Captain Kirby and Dr. Little provided some more insight on the new strategy. Dr. Little spoke first stating:

“…the Defense Department over the last year has been in the process of identifying several hundred billion dollars’ worth of reductions in future defense spending. The Budget Control Act that the Congress passed last summer requires that we identify nearly $500 billion in savings over the next 10 years. And Secretary Panetta, along with the civilian and military leaders of the department, decided early on, when the Budget Control Act was passed, that it was important that we identify future savings not through a numbers-driven process but by articulating a strategy that would guide their decisions on the defense budget. And the president was very much a part of this process all along…The strategic guidance that was issued today I think reflects, as the secretary said, a strategic turning point for the United States and the configuration of our defense system around the world.

The strategic guidance recognizes that we, even in the face of fiscal tight-beltening (sic), we have to maintain our commitment to protect the United States and to protect the finest military in the world.

There are some key shifts…, we’re going to be placing increased focus on the Asia-Pacific region. We have an arc of interests and alliances from Japan all the way to India, and that region is very important to us. There are geopolitical shifts there, economic shifts, and we are going to remain a Pacific power, and we’re going to remain committed to our alliances and interests there.

We will of course remain focused on the Middle East, and we’re going to maintain our commitments to Europe and to other regions around the world.”

Captain Kirby stated:

“…there’s just a few elements here in the strategic guidance that I think are worth noting about what this means for the military… We will be leaner, therefore…we will be smaller in terms of — in terms of numbers. But we’re also going to maintain the superiority that we’ve enjoyed in the technological spectrum. We’re going to remain networked. We’re going to remain very focused on cyber…
We are now and will remain a globally postured force. Some of where we will be will change in size and scope, but we’re still going to maintain the security commitments that we’ve made around the world.

…
And then the last thing — and this is a — it’s not a small point — is inherent in this strategic guidance, this strategy moving forward, is what we call reversibility. We want… the organization, the institution itself, to be flexible enough that if we have to reverse any of these decisions, if we have to — we need the ability to surge or regenerate a capability or force structure, we can do that, if we have to.”

There’s really not much change in the missions. What is different is the size of the military and the shifting of the focus to the Asia-Pacific region. During the bloggers roundtable we were told that more specifics on the force structure would be released sometime in February when the defense budget is presented to Congress. I suspect the 80,000 strong military force in the European theater may experience downsizing but I don’t expect to see much change in the size of our Pacific forces. As I’ve mentioned in earlier blogs, even at the height of our involvement in the Persian Gulf the U.S. maintained a significant military force in the Pacific. For instance, in a recent talk before the Center for a New American Security, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert the navy has 100 of its 285 ships currently deployed and half are in the Pacific region.

The other thing that jumped out at me was the concept of “reversibility.” Basically as Captain Kirby stated if conditions change the U.S. will make a “course change” in the strategy. I think this was one of the most significant parts of the strategy. It means if some part or all is not working they will change it. My experience is this is something the military has always done. There is a common military saying that the war plans are out of date the first day of a conflict. The issue is over the last few years with increased media coverage of military operations a course change was sometimes seen as a sign of failure or weakness instead of a process that has to be flexible if you’re going to achieve mission success.

It’s nearly impossible to accurately predict the next major defense problem. There are many areas that a crisis could develop: Iran, North Korea, Cyber, etc. The strategy has to be flexible enough that the military can be reorganized if necessary to meet the new threat. The only problem I see if the military does major downsizing as expected they need to be very careful when it comes to what areas and skills are cut. There are some skill sets that take a while to reconstitute.

My favorite example of this involves the Battleship USS New Jersey. The ship was recommissioned for the last time in 1982. When they did that the Navy realized they had a problem. No one knew how to work the ships 16 inch guns. They called back to active duty a group of men who had served on the ship during World War II. In 1982 I was assigned to Panama as part of the United States Southern Command staff (now homeported in Florida). I was privileged to get a tour of the ship as it transited the Panama Canal. I met the recalled vets and never saw a happier group of guys. Some of their active duty time had run out and they were having such a great time some volunteered to stay longer.

Think I’ll end here but would like to direct you to an excellent blog about 50 Air Force Academy cadets developing a new UAV. Both professional military contractors AND cadets submitted designs, and surprisingly, the cadets’ UAV is the final model being considered. Here’s the link:

http://strikefighterconsultinginc.com/blog/new-technology/cadets-design-air-forces-next-best-uav/

As always my views are my own.

Today is National Global Human Trafficking Awareness Day (NGHTAD), a a day of awareness and vigilance for the countless victims of human trafficking across the globe. Yet President Obama announced that this year, and every year hence forth, January will be known as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month (White House).

Therefore use this day and month to take action, promote awareness, and support those who have been victimized by modern slavery.  Make this the day that you fight to end a global plague that has stolen the freedoms of some 27 million men, women and children.  Be it via the internet or in your own city/town/village across the world, make today a day to remember those who have been victimized by modern slavery and who are unable to govern their own lives. We have it in our power to see that future generations of children are no longer at risk for exploration and slavery. Let us unite to end slavery  in our lifetime.

• There are some 27 million people held in slavery today across the globe.
• According to 2009 State Department Trafficking in Persons Report over 80% of those trans-nationally trafficked are women and children.
• The U.S. State department estimates that some 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year and about 80 percent of them are female and at least 50% are children.
• In 1850 a slave in the Southern United States cost the equivalent of $40,000 today. According to Free the Slaves, a slave today costs an average of $90.

If you suspect a situation or a potential victim, please call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline at 1-888-3737-888 now!  We highly recommend you take a moment to place this number in your mobile phones now.

*The awareness poster is available for free download via Bridge to Freedom Foundation, please see there site to download this poster as well as their two other awareness posters.

By Alton Lu for The Huffington Post

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.

One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.

The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens’ turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

It’s a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen’s right to a trial and jury has been abolished.

Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:

Section 1022′s use of the word ‘requirement’ also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022′s purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to ‘military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.’ The term “requirement” does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.

He merely states that the people have ‘misinterpreted’ the provisions within the bill.

This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong. I will repeat: “They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong.”

Similar to Griffin’s response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
(NDAA):

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.

It doesn’t matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren’t. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world… influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I’m not one to count it all, but I’d say it would last my entire family over a week.

My father legally owns a handgun. There’s something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.

I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?

Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.

– Alton Lu is an 18 year old high school senior. Alton Lu: I see the name as the most uncommon thing about myself. I’m just a typical teenager in a stereotypical high school residing an in un-extraordinary town. I enjoy pretending that I’m a modern-day philosopher and political activist while still living out the generic high school experience. I am now embarking on the longest, most extensive campaign to the presidency. If you agree with my views, look forward to voting for me in about thirty years. If you disagree…I hope you’ll still vote for me.

Filed under: Democracy, Freedoms, President Obama, United States Tagged: Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Justice, DOD, Due Process, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Habeas Corpus, Lindsey Graham, NADAA, National Defense Authorization Act, Patriot Act, President George W Bush, President Obama, Racial Profiling, Terror Suspects, terrorism, US Constitution, War on Terrorism

Congressman Ron Paul at the Republican Leadership Conference – 2011

Is it just me, or are seemingly incessant GOP debates the past few months allowing President Obama’s lack of public exposure to seem more and more like solid leadership? The Republican lineups simplistic, square and reactionary focus on “Anti-Obama” rhetoric especially on foreign policy has highlighted a resoundingly hawkish stance on Iran with little attention to our current engagements in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it may be expedient amongst a certain political base to try and one-up each other in aggressive foreign policy talk, only Ron Paul challenges the party line on Americas role in the world.

When it comes to Pakistan, compared to Democrats Republicans have a consistent history of preferring to work closely with the military establishment in Islamabad. While there is a level of bipartisanship post 9/11, (case in point is Obama’s continuation of Bush era drone use with little debate), Republicans have through the Cold War and beyond preferred dealing with the military establishment rather than focusing on democratic, or liberal institution building. Which is not necessarily an entirely erroneous policy; part of the rationale is that state building is expensive in blood, toil, time and treasure and rarely feasible. Further, there are an endless number of constraints and uncertainties that profoundly hinder institution, or democratic state building in a place like Pakistan, rendering Republican policies simply pragmatic.

Which brings us to current policy: the bipartisan endorsed “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act” (S. 1707) enacted in 2009 has yet to bear tangible fruit. Granted the aforementioned that institution building is time exhaustive, the fact remains that Pakistan has deteriorated politically, in the realm of security and economically. And having watched everyone from Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorun, Gov. Perry, Rep. Bachmann and yes even the soft spoken Gov. Huntsman, reiterates hawkish foreign policy while refusing to acknowledge a need for meaningful improvement. In the Republican camp only Rep. Ron Paul’s extreme calls for an isolationist posture offer some semblance of change. And because his prescriptions have yet to be tried, the utility of his ideas have yet to be tested. And now may be a time to consider his stance since they call for exactly what the Pakistani public wants right now.

Referring to our policies to Pakistan as nothing short of “Bombs for Bribes” Ron Paul acknowledges the nobility, yet inherent futility in calling for democratic institutions in places of strategic engagement. He understands that we are already engaged in “130 countries” with “700 bases around the world” and in this speech against the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, he bluntly explains:

“the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do and if they do it, we give them money. If they don’t we bomb them. Under this condition we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan and innocent people get killed. If you want to promote our good values and democratic processes, you can’t antagonize the people”

Ron Paul Opposes “Bombs and Bribes” for Pakistan – 9/30/2009 - VIDEO

He goes on to suggest dialogue and trade as alternatives to current policy. And although his statement is simplistic and was made in 2009, it highlights Ron Paul’s isolationist, more economically focused prescriptions on foreign policy that seek to reduce our military footprint abroad based on pragmatic constraints, like military and fiscal overstretch. And these calls seem more reasonable than before, especially when it comes to Pakistan and the fact that our aid has yet to yield satisfactory results. So while the Obama administration continues engagement and GOP candidates refuse to acknowledge much concern over current policy to Pakistan, can Ron Paul really be the only alternative available?

Someone once considered completely out of left, excuse me, right field, could be the reminder we need to moderate our engagement with countries of interest. Because what is interesting is that current rhetoric in Pakistan is very much in line with Ron Paul’s ideas. Ron Paul isn’t touting conspiracy theories, nor does he echo far left foreign policy thinkers like Noam Chomsky. Rather, his past statements on our engagement in Pakistan as “inadvertently causing chaos” and “violating security and sovereignty“ are exactly what the average Pakistani seems to feel and hears about in their mainstream TV, and print media. Takeaway for us means, it’s a perception that is realistic; perhaps more so than current policy reflects.

In fact, legendary cricket star turned politician Imran Khan’s recent surge in popularity is in large part due to his highly critical foreign policy rhetoric that vociferously calls for D.C. to adopt a more isolationist stance so Pakistan might reclaim lost autonomy. Imran Khan steadily built support for his party on the continued observation that America’s “War on Terror” has intensified insecurity and his subsequent promises to curtail American involvement is a first step in alleviating Pakistan’s problems.

Imran Khan at Davos – Talks about Winning Hearts & Minds; the War on Terror – VIDEO

He underscores Ron Paul’s sentiment that perceptions urgently matter in a climate where American intervention is increasingly received hostilely. While there may be issues of concern with Ron Paul’s overall foreign policy prescriptions, both politicians insistence on winnings hearts and minds does render the congressman’s ideas in relation to Pakistan worthy of consideration. Imran Khan’s recent ascendency and Governor Paul’s gradually increasing support marks a convergence in shifting to a direction of a less militarized approach to engaging Islamabad. Two men once considered out of the realm of politician viability now increasingly resonate in their respective publics; policymakers ought to take note.

Photo: Department of Defense

The notion of asymmetric power–referring generally to the danger of lesser powers resorting to unconventional weaponry and tactics as an answer to the United States’ immense conventional military superiority–has been in vogue among American defense analysts since the first Gulf War; Gulf War II and its aftermath, with the devastating appearance of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), gave the idea more credence than ever. So it’s important to be clear about the root of that asymmetry. It’s a result not primarily of other countries’ weakness but of the wildly over-built U.S. military and the country’s stubborn belief that it’s still its job to be the world’s policeman.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the irrelevance of a global conflict between capitalism and communism, and the unthinkability of armed conflict between what once were called the world’s two superpowers, U.S. defense spending has increased more than 50 percent since 2000. Although the United States is arguably only the world’s second largest economic power (strictly speaking the European Union is the biggest), the United States spends more on its bloated military complex that the next 10 countries combined.

President Obama made just that point in yesterday’s slightly peculiar Pentagon press briefing, which appears to have been staged to get the top brass used to the idea that defense spending cuts are ahead–and to send a message that team players will be expected to act the part of team players. But the president was not suggesting that U.S. defense spending should now be cut 50 percent and then some, which would be the logical thing to do now that the neo-imperialist fantasies of former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Vice President Dick Cheney have been discredited and repudiated. No, what the president was evidently doing was positioning the military to accept the $450 billion in defense cuts already mandated by the budget supercommittee, and the additional cuts of $500 billion that will have to be made if congressional Republicans and Democrats are unable to agree on alternative spending cuts. Together, those cuts would equate to about 15 percent of the U.S. military budget, as the highly respected defense analyst Lawrence Korb pointed out in an interesting exchange published in the Sunday New York Times’s Review section on Nov. 13 last year.

Korb argued that the United States could easily go further than that, for example by reducing the number of its nuclear warheads from 5,000 to 311, “as recommended by some Air Force strategists” (as he said); reducing the number of aircraft careers and Air Force fighters by 25 percent; and cutting ground forces by 100,000 to pre-9/11 levels.

Readers reacting to Korb pointed out that the United States could in fact go even further than that, for example by ending its quixotic attempt to develop a leak-proof missile defense system, retiring 50 naval ships and scrapping plans to build up to a fleet of 300 ships, dumping plans to replace the current fleet of nuclear missile submarines, and sharply curtailing the “modernization” of U.S. nuclear weapons. (In that connection, here’s another idea not mentioned by those readers: Shutter one of the country’s two nuclear weapons laboratories, either Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos, and reduce the other’s budget by 75 percent.)

Responding to those readers, Korb said, interestingly, that he basically agreed with them. So what are the prospects of cuts going even further than those resulting from the supercommittee’s mandate? Regrettably, not good.

On the positive side of the ledger, there now seems to be a bipartisan consensus, as The New York Times has pointed out, that defense spending needs to be cut; indeed, the supercommitte’s mandate was an implicit acknowledgement of that consensus. In a poll of its readers the Times published earlier last year, when they were asked where they would most prefer to see U.S. spending reduced, defense spending ranked at the very top. Though some of the Republican presidential candidates have made intemperate remarks about taking military action against Iran, Ron Paul appears to have got considerable traction with his neo-isolationist argument that the U.S. president should first and foremost keep the country out of unnecessary armed conflicts. Whoever the Republican presidential candidate turns out to be, Obama will surely be able to prevail with a position that avoiding new military entanglements will have equal place with preparedness in his second administration.

But on the negative side, there’s no indication that the president is ready or ever will be to confront head-on the country’s military and intelligence establishments, by far the country’s biggest and more fearsome vested interest. It’s hard to imagine that any president will ever have the guts and skill to face that challenge. But until one does, American military asymmetry will continue to provoke other countries to seek an equalizer, whether it’s an old-fashioned nuke or some much more fearsome biological or chemical device.