Take Action: Demand an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan

by: ZP Heller

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 15:00


Though the Pentagon finally took responsibility for the Afghan civilian deaths in last month's Farah province airstrikes, we're only seeing minor adjustments toward a deeply flawed military strategy in need of a complete overhaul.

Late last week, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said US troops were responsible for civilian casualties in the May 4 airstrike, during which B-1 bombers unleashed three 2000 lb bombs and five 500 lb bombs on a village compound, killing up to 140 Afghan civilians.  Following Mullen's admission, Gen. Stanley McChrystal announced plans to limit the use of these deadly airstrikes in populated areas.  Meanwhile, McChrystal will also issue orders in the coming days to disengage from combat whenever possible in order to reduce the number of civilian casualties.  According to McChrystal's spokesman, Rear Admiral Greg Smith, "Even if you are receiving fire from a structure, the first question you have to ask is: 'Can I de-escalate the situation by removing my force or relocating it'?"

Shouldn't commanders on the ground have been asking themselves this question all along?  And why has it taken military leaders this long to restrict airstrikes to more uninhabited areas?  Either McChrystal's plans signal a genuine shift in military strategy, or we're just seeing a PR maneuver on McChrystal's end--an attempt to save face because the soaring civilian death toll could quickly become inversely proportionate to the war's popularity.  I'm betting on the latter, considering McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. McKiernan, tried a similar tactical shift last year when US airstrikes resulted in an inordinate number of civilian deaths.  As I noted last week, this could easily be part of the Pentagon's plan to take greater control of the media narrative regarding the war.

Either way, it's time for action, and just in time for Afghanistan Exit Action Day.

ZP Heller :: Take Action: Demand an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan
As Congress prepares to authorize $550 billion in military spending along with an additional $130 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--more federal dollars than Bush ever requested--Rep. Jim McGovern is proposing a bill that requires Defense Secretary Gates to establish an exit strategy.  In addition to the stand-alone bill, McGovern intends to propose this as an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee wartime spending bill making its way to the House floor today.

At HuffPo, Tom Andrews emphasized the vital importance of setting an exit strategy:

I realize how hard it may seem for Congressional Democrats to require the Obama administration to develop an exit strategy as a condition for continued funding. After all, this is our guy, right? The last thing our guy needs is a Democratic Congress second guessing, making demands, and putting conditions on the war.

But this is exactly what we and the administration need precisely because he is our guy.

Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, we want and need President Obama to succeed. The very real prospect of the United States embedded in an endless war in Afghanistan would undermine everything this administration is trying to do while imperiling the very Congressional Democrats President Obama needs to move his agenda.


Though McGovern currently has 91 co-sponsors, we can get that number to over 100 and give this bill real visibility by the time the House votes on it later today or tomorrow.  Call your Representative at (202) 224-3121 and:
1. urge her/him to co-sponsor Rep. Jim McGovern's Afghanistan Exit Strategy bill - H.R. 2404
2. vote for Rep. McGovern's amendment to the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2647)

Over at After Downing Street, David Swanson has the full list of co-sponsors as well as the latest updates on this story.  And for more ways to take action, become a Peacemaker and you will be alerted whenever there are civilian casualties to call our government and protest the current US foreign policy.  

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not just commaders on the ground (0.00 / 0)
but the Commander in Chief, as well, should be asking:

"Can I de-escalate the situation by removing my force or relocating it?"


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Where were the Democrats? (4.00 / 1)
Shouldn't commanders on the ground have been asking themselves this question all along?  And why has it taken military leaders this long to restrict airstrikes to more uninhabited areas?

Were the Democrats out to lunch for the last 8 years while brutal rules of engagement killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And why has it taken military leaders this long...

And why did it take the Democrats so long to notice the ongoing genocide in Iraq?

But wait...

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!

I was so wrong!

It didn't take the Democrats all this time to notice the ongoing genocide in Iraq, because...

They still haven't noticed.


You're right, but... (4.00 / 1)
There are Dems who have opposed all this and McGovern's bill has 91 cosponsors and that's not exactly chicken feed.

It's the leadership that's the problem, including the White House. Especially the White House!

This argument is going to take a while. Let's at least give credit where it's due.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
Overkill (0.00 / 0)
Using 2000-lb bombs on a compound sounds like overkill to me.  Those are the big boys the USAF drops for conventional bombing.  Just think of those pictures from the B-52 Arc Light raids where you see a stick of bombs walking off to the horizon where each blast has a radius of something like 200 to 250 yards blast effect.  The 500-lb bombs following up would just make the rubble dance.  Maybe someone can use the commanding officer on this raid just what he/she was thinking when they chose to use such potent weapons and so many.  

The USAF bombing lobby is still predominant (4.00 / 1)
We never had enough troops to control much real estate in Afghanistan. This was rationalized by the AF bombardiers and their fellow travelers at DoD who think dropping bombs is good Force Protection. No one to date has ever given a rat's ass about Hearts and Minds. The point was to avoid massive US casualties so as to not piss off Americans who were (and still are) largely asleep. We don't want to wake them up with serious casualty numbers!

I'm puzzled by McChrystal's statement. It strikes me as pure pablum, even if he's actually serious about that--which I doubt. He is as serious about kinetic ops as there is, so I think the remark noted above is just bullshit intended to sell the COIN program to naves.

The real issue here, as to the future of our engagement in Afghanistan, is whether we start getting out or get into the counterinsurgency (COIN) program in a big way. The former would be cheaper, shorter in duration and involve less death and destruction. The latter will mean a massive presence, at HUGE cost, for one to two decades. COIN done properly would actually have the appearance of a military program liberals can "like." But doing that will cost a couple Trillion and take two decades and I'll be damned if I can figure how we're supposed to pay for it, much less put up with such a misadventure for so long.

This is why McChrystal and others are making such noises about protecting the locals from all that shrapnel. It sounds good to the liberals whose fiscal and moral compasses are not functioning properly, doesn't it?

But we're still going to be dropping JDAMS on wedding parties for a long time, for all the logistical reasons cited above and much, much more. Welcome to the inter-service argument about doctrine and budget priorities.

All this, without a single word about the real intentions of our presence there, which we simply cannot divine based on what's coming out of the WH.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
Even those who support the Afghanistan engagement should demand this! (0.00 / 0)
This should be a no brainer. Of course, there should be clear goalposts, a timeline showing the major objectives that have to be achieved, and exit strategies, both for the case of success and for a deterioration of the situation to the point where the military presence has become an end in itself.

As I see it, fighting the Taliban in order to prevent them from gaining control of Afghanistan is necessary, but it should be transparent if the strategy really is achieving positives results for the people there. Everything else would only work into the hands of the military industrial complex, the folks who never saw a war they didn't like. That would be unacceptable, of course







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search