Afghanistan Archive

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Congress publicly discussed the implications of targeted killing abroad for the very first time. The conversation was enlightening, but it must be the beginning of a longer discussion and review of the impact of these practices overseas.

In 2011, Matt Southworth led a group on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan to better understand the dynamics of the conflict. He, and Professor Michael T. Snarr of Wilmington College, have written about the lessons they learned in Quaker Higher Education, a publication of the Friends Association for Higher Education.

Uncertainty around U.S. military base closures has caught some attention, but uncertainty about the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan has gone largely unnoticed.

In fact, there is so much uncertainty around President Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan that the government can’t even properly budget for it — unlike the base closures, which did have a budget request.

As Afghan uncertainty regarding their future builds, U.S. leaders and media need to highlight efforts to support political and economic stability during the transition.

According to a recent Harvard report, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $6 trillion in the long term.

Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Bruce Braley (IA) introduced H.R. 1238, the True Cost of War Act to require the Obama administration to present official government cost projections for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—something that has not yet been done.

NBC News received and published a Justice Department white paper this morning outlining the Obama administration’s troubling legal rationale for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens working with Al Qaeda or other aligned violent extremist groups.

The State of the Union provides the President the perfect opportunity to announce his intentions to fulfill his campaign promise of bringing the U.S. war in Afghanistan to a rapid and responsible end.

Breaking: the U.S. considers the “zero” option for troops in Afghanistan post 2014.

What does this mean? In short, your advocacy is working.

This Friday, President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai are set to meet at the White House to discuss a “vision of Afghanistan post 2014.”

President’s Obama and Karzai should discuss issues that must be addressed before a successful transition is ever possible in 2014.

It’s a new year. A turn away from the military transition to the increasingly pressing concerns of the political and socioeconomic transitions is necessary.

By a vote of 62-33, the Senate endorsed a non-binding amendment (#3096) to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that seeks to expedite the transition of governance responsibility to the Afghan government by mid-2013, a full eighteen months before the current proposed full transition date of December 2014.

This amendment, while imperfect in many ways, signifies a very important step ensuring the President fulfills his promise to end the decade long U.S. war in Afghanistan. Perhaps more importantly, it puts on record the sense of the Senate—by way of around three-quarters of American public—that endless war in Afghanistan is unacceptable. The Pentagon will undoubtedly try to push the Obama administration, much as it did in 2009, to keep this war going. Yet the Senate has now made clear that this would be unacceptable.

Last night’s Presidential Election was historic no matter where you sit in the political spectrum. Perhaps it wasn't that surprising, especially if you follow Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog. Some House and Senate elections also left many on the edges of their seats. It is going to take some time to predict and know what this 113th Congress will hold for U.S. policy domestic and abroad.

For me, there was one major take away from last night: it is time to get to work.

The national conversation about Afghanistan needs some course-correction.

Our government can only work on our behalf if we are consistent in letting it know what we want. With a healthy dose of preparation, confidence and conviction anyone can be an effective lobbyist for peace here in Washington.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced yesterday that the two year troop surge in Afghanistan, which brought troop levels above 100,000, is now over. Roughly 68,000 U.S. troops still remain in Afghanistan. To be sure, the U.S. war is far from over.

The final withdrawal of these surge troops comes after a tough couple months for the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan.

On September 7, 2012, the U.S. Government officially designated the Haqqani Network, the most lethal branch of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan, a foreign terrorist organization (FTO).

Legally, the designation fits. But just because the U.S. could make this designation does not mean they should have.

This is my origin story:

Eleven-year-olds are very impressionable. That’s the age I was when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 gripped the world and my home town just outside of New York City.

BREAKING: the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan.

You might not realize it by listening to most candidates on the campaign trail. Last week’s Republican National Convention omitted almost any mention of the U.S. war in Afghanistan—save for Clint Eastwood calling for an immediate, complete withdrawal. In fact, as we mark the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001, campaign rhetoric on U.S. foreign policy largely centers on the possibility of the next U.S. war—this time on Iran.

This week, the House will begin to consider a bill, H.R. 5658, worth around $607.7 billion in funding for the Pentagon and U.S. war in Afghanistan—all for just one year. Some $519.2 billion is poised to be appropriated for the Pentagon’s “base budget” and $88.5 billion for U.S. wars—a little known fact: there is $2.9 billion in funding for Operation New Dawn, also known as the war in Iraq.

According to the New Priorities Project, just one year of Pentagon spending (based on fiscal year 2012 enacted) could provide 69 million college scholarships or provide VA care for 69.8 million veterans. Yet, against all reason, the House will pass this fiscal year 2013 Defense Appropriations bill. It is as of yet unclear if the Senate will finish its Defense Appropriations by the end of this fiscal year (September 31st) or even at all. Congress is too defunct to finish these most fundamental of congressional responsibilities these days.

The recent agreement reached on Afghanistan made by NATO allies in Chicago is more likely to undermine peace and stability than produce it in that country and the region.

Signed this month, the U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement—now endorsed by NATO—will not translate to good outcomes in Afghanistan. The agreement is a shell that, post 2014, will inevitably pit an internationally backed Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) against an Afghan born insurgency that has historically risen to resist foreign intervention.

This coming fiscal year, the United States is set to spend more than $640 billion dollars on the Pentagon and war, accounting for more than 60 percent of federal domestic spending. In excess of $85 billion of that will be spent on the war in Afghanistan alone.

This unfathomable amount of money was approved by the House of Representatives in the National Defense Authorization Act. These funds will serve to bring suffering and pain to innocent people, further militarize the world and undermine peace and stability for generations to come—all on the backs of those who struggle at home.

Last night, the House Rules Committee ruled the McGovern/Jones amendment out of order, preventing it from coming to the House floor today as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment would have required the U.S. to expedite transition plans, end combat operations no later than December 2013 and ensure a limited or nonexistent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after December, 2014. Last year, Representatives Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered a similar amendment, which failed by a hair: 204-215. It was the most impressive display of congressional opposition to the war to date. This year, the amendment’s rejection by the Rules Committee was an indication that it would have likely passed had it seen the House floor. Rep. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, protested the decision for over an hour at the Rules Committee meeting late last night.

Despite poll after poll showing overwhelming public support for ending the war in Afghanistan across all party affiliations, the Rules Committee made the political choice to avoid this telling vote during an election cycle. Representatives whose constituents have been calling for the war to end now won’t have to make the choice between representing their war-weary constituents and acquiescing to a powerful, over-funded Pentagon.

A bill that would prevent current planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is set to hit the House floor next week, continuing a policy that has not succeeded in delivering peace and stability to that country.

The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which passed out of the House Armed Service Committee (HASC) late last night includes “Sense of Congress” provisions (link) that will maintain a minimum of 68,000 U.S. troops from this summer through the end of 2014. It also calls on the U.S. to maintain a “credible troop presence” after 2014, the current scheduled withdrawal date for the majority of U.S. forces.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that has been passed by Congress every year for over 50 years. Most authorization bills are taken up once every two-five years, but Congress has a special affinity for the military authorization bill—often calling it a “must-pass” bill. This year will be no different.

Last year, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 NDAA became synonymous with indefinite detention due to provisions included that allow for detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. President Obama signed the NDAA on December 31, 2012, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes that happened on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

President Obama’s primetime announcement from Kabul, Afghanistan last night has left us all with many more questions than answers.

The President, while acknowledging the one year anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, flew to Afghanistan to sign a ten year pact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The Strategic Partnership Agreement, which has only recently been made public, paves the way for the United States to stay involved in Afghanistan through 2024.

As we come up on the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration is poised to sign a US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement that could be a prelude to Afghan civil war. Unless drastic policy changes are started immediately, reorienting US policy toward legitimate political negotiations between Afghan and regional entities, dark days lie ahead. It's time to end the US war, but the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghans.

The Obama administration has been attempting to negotiate a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan since last year through the State Department and the Department of Defense (DoD). According to reports about the negotiations, two major sticking points were control over Afghan detainees and US-led night raid operations. The United States and Afghanistan are now poised to sign an agreement before the NATO Summit in May, where the administration plans to roll out the agreement.

Events in Afghanistan over the last several months have driven U.S. support for the decade long war to an all time low. U.S. General John Allen, who testified to the House and Senate Armed Service Committees last week, pushed back on criticism, telling both committees the war is on track.

Yet to many Americans, the war seems completely off-track. A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% of respondents don’t believe the U.S. should be involved in Afghanistan anymore (that’s up from 53% a year ago).

As is increasingly evidenced by developments in Afghanistan from gloomy intelligence reports to the Quran burning to the recent massacre of 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, it is long past time for the U.S. military to leave that country.

After weeks of tumultuous upheaval, the slaying allegedly by a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant is just the most recent incident undermining U.S. objectives to win hearts and minds. Frankly, that mission has long been lost.

Scrolling through articles on my iPhone-a ritual on my morning commute-I was astonished by this headline in the New York Times: "Pentagon Says U.S. Citizens With Terrorism Ties Can Be Targeted in Strikes." That is to say: no charges, no trial, no jury and no due process. The Pentagon, with executive branch signoff, can strike down any U.S. citizen where they stand anywhere around the world.

The article opens: "The Obama administration's top Pentagon lawyer on Wednesday said that American citizens who join Al Qaeda can be targeted for killing and that courts should have no role in reviewing executive branch decisions about whether someone has met such criteria."

It’s no secret that war is expensive. The U.S. has spent over $1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. This figure represents operational costs, not long term costs such as veteran care, which will rise for decades to come. However, looking at the fiscal year 2013 war funding request, you might think war is getting less expensive. Not quite. Funding overall is on the decline, yes, but the war in Afghanistan still costs $1 million per soldier, per year.

Overall, war funding is on the decline because of troop withdrawals from Iraq. Afghanistan war funding is also down due to troop withdrawals. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding request for Afghanistan is $88.5 billion, approximately $26 billion less than what was appropriated in FY 2012. But there is a hitch: the FY13 request assumes that 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through September 2013, when the fiscal year ends.

This weekend Matt Southworth and I packed our bags and took our excitement about the upcoming young adult Spring Lobby Weekend on the road, touring the Tri-College Consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore.

At Swarthmore, we worshipped with young Friends in a beautiful meetinghouse, and Matt shared the story of his first experience lobbying--at Spring Lobby Weekend 2006, lobbying to end the Iraq war, in which he fought. Speaking about Spring Lobby Weekend after meeting for worship brought a gravity and a power to the conversation that sometimes can get muffled in an office environment.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announcement about Afghanistan last week was both unexpected and welcomed. During a visit to Brussels, Belgium, Panetta told journalists “hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 [the U.S. will] be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise-and-assist role.” Previously, 2014 was the year which the U.S. had committed to transition all authority to the Afghan government. The Obama administration has since backpedaled on the announcement, unfortunately muddling whether this move is a rhetorical or strategic shift.

The Obama administration should stick by the 2013 proclamation and take the long view on U.S.-Afghanistan policy. The announcement, if a shift in strategy, is a step in the right direction—and an opportunity to end not only the U.S. war, but also the broader conflict.

President Obama finished his third State of the Union Address the same way he began it—by touting what the administration considers foreign policy successes. “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq” President Obama said, concluding his address by stating, “Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies.”

This kind of rhetoric is incredibly unfortunate. The logic contained within these thoughts says that force has worked to end wars when it has, in fact, failed to deliver long term peace and stability. We can clearly see this playing out in Iraq today—not to mention, as I wrote in December, the U.S. war in Iraq may have concluded, but the long term damage is far from done running itscourse.

On January 5th, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta released the Pentagon's new military strategy document, designed to guide military budgets and operations for years to come. Despite the heavy rhetoric from President Obama and Secretary Panetta claiming the new strategy represents big changes, I find little more than cosmetic touch ups to the same old war policies that have gotten the US into its current economic and security problems and reaped horrendous global damage along the way.

Yes, the size of the forces will be reduced somewhat. Yes, there's a shift away from the idea of the US being able to fight two major wars simultaneously (that one has been buried in Iraq and Afghanistan already). Yes, military planners will be focusing more on Asia and the Middle East, less on Europe and Latin America. And yes, there will be changes in the budget line items (think more drones and cyberwarfare) presented to Congress.

As the last U.S. soldiers leave Iraq, our nation is reflecting on the legacy of this war for returning veterans, for taxpayers, and for U.S. relations with the rest of the world. But nine years later, I’m concerned that as a nation we are simply trying to put Iraq behind us rather than learn some lessons from this conflict. Let us all not forget the biggest lesson of all: the Iraq war was a mistake.

When I deployed to Iraq in 2004, our government argued we were in Iraq to break Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda, to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction and to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Today, very few people argue there were strong links between Iraq and al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion (al Qaeda moved in after the invasion). The CIA has acknowledged that it was the United Nations and the international community that blocked Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. And looking at the headlines from Iraq, freedom and democracy still seems a long way away for the Iraqi people.

2011 has been a remarkable year in our lobbying for a world without war. I'm also acutely aware of how many challenges remain and how much work we have ahead in 2012.

In an historic moment and by voice vote, the U.S. Senate has adopted a Sense of Congress amendment, offered by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Mike Lee of Utah, to expedite the already planned U.S. drawdown from Afghanistan. The adoption by voice vote on this amendment marks a new high water mark in mounting Congressional opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Amendment No. 1257, offered on the National Defense Authorization Act, was offered at a time when many in Congress are questioning the merit of continuing the war in Afghanistan. The vote took place on the eve of the two year anniversary of President Obama’s West Point escalation speech and only one week before the conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany.

After Thanksgiving, your Senator will cast some of his or her most important votes on war and peace of the year, so this is a crucial time to weigh in, and ask your Senator to vote to end current wars and prevent new ones.

More than 2,000 people took action on FCNL’s alert “War or Diplomacy? Senate Prepares to Vote” last week to ask Senators to support diplomacy, and reject anti-peace amendments to the international affairs funding bill.

That message is still crucial for the Senate to hear because even though the international affairs funding bill is now stalled indefinitely, and the Supercommittee folded completely, after Thanksgiving the Senate will resume debate on the military authorization act.

Just before leaving for Thanksgiving recess, Senator Jeff Merkely (OR) and seven other Senators introduced an amendment that would expedite a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The amendment was offered on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, a bill which authorizes military operations and spending that includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This measure is both timely and important.

For me, Veterans Day is a solemn day meant for reflection, discernment and understanding. As I reflect on my time in the military and think of all those touched by violent conflict around the world—some I know, many that I do not—I cannot help but question the presence of military violence in our world and wonder, ‘at what cost?’ Those who experience war firsthand pay the costs long after the last bullet is fired. Taken in concert with the operational costs of the wars, long-term cost estimates for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan range from $4 to $6 trillion dollars—all of which will be tacked on to our national debt. And no dollar figure can ever convey the human cost of war.

According to Veterans for Common Sense, the Veterans Administration (VA) says over 440,000 Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF) and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF) veterans filed claims since 2001. With over 2 million OIF and OEF veterans and nearly 1.2 million now eligible for VA benefits, we can expect these numbers to grow. One underlying and very costly issue with these claims is that many of the injuries are difficult, if not impossible, to treat. The signature injuries of these wars—amputations, post traumatic stress (PTS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) account for a large number (between 25-50%) of VA claims.

The tenth anniversary of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan came this past week, on Friday October 7th. I had the privilege of attending a panel briefing hosted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force. The panel was called “Ten Years On: Why the War in Afghanistan Must End Now.” It was a showcase of opposition to another decade of war by leading experts and members of Congress. The panel was conceived of and organized together by Rep. Barbara Lee’s office and FCNL.

I was impressed by the testimony, at times incredibly heart-wrenching and at times simply brilliant. All of the panelists were speaking truths that I wished all of our lawmakers could have heard. I was particularly impressed by Brock McIntosh, a specialist who has left the Army National Guard with a pending conscientious objector application. He spoke from a strategic perspective, explaining in clear logic why continuing to fight in Afghanistan is completely antithetical to stated arguments for remaining at war, and directly opposed to U.S. and global security. To read more about this panel and to check out the impressive testimonies, click here.

As of October 7th, the U.S. will have been in Afghanistan for exactly ten years, a decade fraught endless issues and ill-conceived policies. Since President Obama took over the helm in 2009, the number of foreign troops has more than tripled. As a result, security conditions have worsened, the mood of Afghans over all has soured, regional stability has been compromised significantly and Afghanistan is governed, at best, by a fragilely functioning non-representative oligarchy.

Security remains a grave concern to many Afghans. Recent attacks on the U.S. embassy compound and the assassination of Berhanuddin Rabbani, head of the presidentially appointed High Peace Council, underscore the decline in security. On my recent trip to Afghanistan, countless people talked about the steady decline in security since 2004, most notably in the last two years. The policy prescribed by the U.S. military for the last several years, even before the Obama administration, has not delivered the political settlement or solution—a political solution even generals acknowledge is the only solution for the conflict.

The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki is a big deal for two reasons:

First, it is a big deal because it is yet another example of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having nothing to do with “getting the bad guys” or whatever the Pentagon/CIA thinks that it is doing. The killing the disputed operational leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an organizational arm of al Qaeda which is widely accepted as a “branch” as opposed to a “franchise” of the organization with a drone, not 100,000 troops, shows the futility of annually spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the merits of that argument, this means the United States—using the Pentagon’s logic—has decimated the last truly veritable arm of al-Qaeda – aka the “Global War on (of) Terror” is over.

Second, and more importantly, al-Awlaki was an U.S. citizen, born in American. A second U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, was also killed. Al-Awlarki was assassinated by an unmmaned drone without due process—without trial, without actually being charged with anything, without a jury of his peers, without any justice. As Gleen Greenwald, “He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.” Maybe the al-Awlaki and Khan were bad guys, but even bad guys have the right to due process if they’re citizens of this country. I know targeted assassination and even assassinations of U.S. citizens is not a new thing—it is still wrong.

As I write, I’m watching coverage of September 11, 2001 as it happened 10 years ago. I didn’t expect to see actual footage of the 2001 attacks today. Flipping the television between the memorial services of 2011 and the day of the attacks on 2001 evokes both the emotional state of that day and somber reflection looking backward.

I was a senior in high school on 9/11/2001. My first two period classes were study halls, which I used as a workout period. This particular Tuesday, I slept in later than usual. When I got to the high school gym, I was greeted by my football coach Mr. Mader. “There are jets circling the Pentagon” he shouted to me. I had no idea what he was talking about, so I just followed him to a TV set up in one of the gymnasium classrooms. As I listened to newscasters try to piece together the events of that morning, I witnessed the second plane fly into the World Trade Center building in New York City.

A few months ago, shortly after I arrived in Washington to begin working at FCNL, I was waiting in Union Station for a train back to Connecticut when I noticed a local news channel reporter and camera. Sure enough, the reporter approached and asked if I would be willing to respond to a few questions.

"What do you think of the new legislation proposed by Sen. Schumer to heighten security screening on trains?" the reporter asked. Not knowing anything about the new measures, I couldn't say much. "Are you worried about terrorism when you travel by train?" the reporter pressed. "Do you think that measures that screen all train travelers will make us more secure?" No, I'm not worried about terrorism when I travel by train and no I don't think screening everyone getting on a train will make me more secure.

Has the $1.3 trillion dollars spent on the "war on terrorism" made our country safer? Does the "see something, say something" campaign and the "homeland security" measures in our local communities find real threats to our lives and safety or do they perpetrate a society of fear and mistrust?

Kabul — I arrived with a small delegation a couple of days ago to do some research here on the ground. This unfiltered view of what's happening is the best way to try to make sense of it all. It has been quite the experience so far, filled with very constrictive, informative meetings.

Kabul — I arrived with a small delegation a couple of days ago to do some research here on the ground. This unfiltered view of what's happening is the best way to try to make sense of it all. It has been quite the experience so far, filled with very constrictive, informative meetings.

Eighteen months after he declared the U.S. would begin a “rapid transition” this July, President Obama announced his Afghanistan withdrawal plan last night. In a speech noticeably light on detail, the President said of that transition promise, “Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment… Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year.” This initial reduction will be followed by another 23,000 by summer of 2012 and a “steady pace” of reduction until 2014, when Afghans will take full control of their own security.

This announcement, including claims of progress that facts do not support, was not news to any of us around here; the writing on the wall forecasted a reduction of 9-12,000 troops back in January. As for a strategic military shift, this is not one. Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen tweeted late last night, “strategy same.” The strategy simply amounts to aimlessly throwing money and military power at what in the end is a political problem with only political solutions. In sum, the Pentagon will do what it has been doing, just with fewer troops over the next year. This is a troop shift, not a strategy shift.