Congress will soon vote on whether to spend another $33 billion of our money to escalate a war in Afghanistan that makes us less safe, violates the basic rule of law, kills innocent people, puts our children in debt, empowers the oil industry, and protects the heroin industry. The only decent, legal, or humane thing a member of Congress could do would be to publicly and privately whip his/her colleagues to vote No and defeat the bill. No caucus is engaged in that effort. As far as I know, Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the only one making any gestures in that direction. But a block of congress members is working to propose an amendment to the bill that will allow them to support it while (1) appearing to oppose wars, and (2) making the bill even worse. And even Kucinich supports this counterproductive campaign, as do many peace activists.
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.
I just spoke with Keith Stern, communications director for Congressman Jim McGovern and asked him whether the report in Congress Now yesterday was true, that McGovern, who has been one of the most reliable members of Congress in opposing wars, would now be voting Yes on the war money.
Stern said: "That is absolutely untrue. We are trying to correct it. He is a No vote. We are asbsolutely livid about that. It could not be further from the truth. Frankly, the reporter just made it up. Congressman McGovern is a hard No vote and he will be voting No on the supplemental."
U.S. airstrikes slaughtered 95 Afghan children in the Farah province last week, leaving a total of 140 civilians dead. And yet as Tom Hayden pointed out in The Nation this week, our Democrat-dominated Congress seems unwilling to criticize the Obama administration as it rushes to approve $94.2 billion in supplemental wartime funding. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has been holding hearings over the past few weeks with U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani military advisers, assessed that the supplemental only "exacerbates" failed strategies by allocating $84 billion to military escalation, leaving $10 billion for foreign aid.
At a time when we're facing soaring unemployment and an economic crisis, it's incredible to me that Congress is so quick to simply go along with Obama on this one, particularly when the run up to the war in Iraq is so fresh in our minds and when we've seen this pattern before from Democratic Presidents. And there are many who share this incredulity.
STATE BLOGS
