President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.

As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.

Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he’s determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”

The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”

Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.

Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don’t stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit’s living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.

Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on February 24, 2009.

Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.

While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave “responsibly.” What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?

Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?

Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.

If we are serious

President Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn’t sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.

The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on February 26, 2009.

Council board member Col. Richard Klass, along with the chairman of our research wing, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, released a report today that outlines how President Obama can responsibly execute his campaign commitment to remove U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months.

Based on recent press reports, there is reason to suspect that there may be an effort underway, led by some military officials and non-governmental analysts, to delay President Obama’s 16-month timetable.

The report is available online here.

“This plan meets President Obama’s criteria of being as careful getting out as we were careless going in,” said Council board member retired Col. Richard Klass. “Redeployment of U.S. combat forces should be coupled with a diplomatic surge to help stabilize Iraq.”

The report proposes a U.S. redeployment schedule that would result in 100,000 total U.S. troops remaining in Iraq by the end of 2009; 35,000 to 65,000 support troops remaining in Iraq by July 2010, when the President’s 16-month timetable would end if it is initiated in April 2009; and fewer than 1,000 troops remaining by December 2011, when the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement (commonly referred to as the status of forces agreement or “SOFA”) mandates that all U.S. forces be out of Iraq.

“Our national security would be enhanced by implementing President Obama’s 16-month timetable,” said Gard. “President Obama’s plan to remove combat forces from Iraq is militarily workable and can be executed responsibly.”

On January 22, President Obama’s second day in office, Council for a Livable World board member Brig. Gen. John Johns, along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,  stood behind the President in the Oval Office when he signed executive orders related to the incarceration, interrogation, and treatment of detainees. Both Gen. Johns and Gen. Gard wrote about what it was like to be in the Oval Office, and how they came to be activists against the Bush administration’s torture policies.

From Brig. Gen. Johns John (USA, ret.):

On January 22, 2009, I – along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the Center’s chairman – was among 16 generals and admirals of the U.S. Armed Forces who were invited to attend a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, where President Obama signed three directives and a memo addressing policies on torture and the detention center at Guantanamo. Gen. Gard and I have been members of a group of retired flag officers who met at various times with presidential candidates to lobby for changing Bush policies, especially those related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture. We had hoped that President Obama would take action early in his administration on this specific issue, but were elated and surprised that he did so on his second day in office. To take this action immediately reflects the importance the President places on this subject.

The group met in the Roosevelt Room for about 20-25 minutes with the President before the ceremony in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and members of the legal staff joined the discussion. Both Obama and Biden expressed appreciation for the fruitful meetings they had had with the group during the campaign. President Obama had met for one hour in Des Moines, Iowa and Vice President Biden in New Hampshire. I was struck by the warm and gracious attitude of both the President and Vice President. Both showed a detailed knowledge of the policies on torture and interrogation techniques and fully understood the symbolic value of the changes that were being made.

From Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.)::

On January 22, President Obama’s second day in office, I, along with 15 other retired general and flag officers, stood behind the President in the Oval Office when he signed executive orders related to the incarceration, interrogation, and treatment of detainees. I have been asked to explain how that occurred and to report on the visit to the White House.

My outrage began and built up as the Bush administration directed flawed military operations in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, and in Iraq beginning in 2003, coupled with the President’s reversal of past policy with his announcement that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to terrorists we detained. There was a “surge” in my outrage when I, along with virtually every other American, was shocked by the pictures and reports of abuse of detainees in the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq. My outrage hit a new plateau on reading a report on the front page of the 8 June 2004 Washington Post exposing a Department of Justice memo, issued in August 2002 to the White House Counsel.

That memo advised that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in the war on terrorism. The memo went so far as to claim that to qualify as torture, the pain or suffering inflicted on a victim “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Needless to say, this put the abuse at Abu Ghraib and allegations of similar conduct in other detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay, in a much broader context.

Coincidentally, two days later, on 10 June 2004, I was surprised to receive an email from Peter Loge, Senior Vice President of M&R Strategic Services. In the mid to late 1990s, Peter had been associated with the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, the founder/manager of the international campaign to ban anti-personnel land mines. During part of the time, I was serving as the campaign’s senior military advisor. In his email message, Peter advised me that Human Rights First, formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, planned to hold a press conference a week later.

Essay continued here.

Extra Extra! An update on something we wrote about earlier in the week (see below). We’re thrilled to announce that in the final economic stimulus bill that was just released by a Congressional committee, funding for the nuclear weapons infrastructure was removed! The Council’s supporters and other activists across the country flooded congressional offices with requests to cut this money. The Council also sent letters and pressured Congress to cut these funds. Many Senators and Representatives did not even know this funding existed before we (and our supporters) alerted them to it.

As Joe Cirincione rightfully said, ” chalk one up for the good guys.”

Here’s our initial post on this story earlier this week:

Don’t think that nuclear weapons has anything to do with the economic stimulus package? Think again. In the bill that’s being debated on Capitol Hill right now, there is over $1 billion in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). At a time when America need jobs, not nukes, leaders in the arms control community  — including the Council’s Executive Director John Isaacs — are calling for the funding to be stripped. Below is a copy of the letter signed by over 20 arms control experts.

Dear Senator,

We write to express concern over the $1 billion proposed for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in S.336, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With Congress seeking to make substantial cuts in the total price tag of the bill, we strongly urge you to eliminate the $1 billion for NNSA. This money is not a cost effective way of accomplishing S.336’s primary stated goals of creating jobs, restoring economic growth and strengthening America’s middle class. Moreover, it would be premature to make major investments in NNSA’s nuclear weapons research and production infrastructure, which the agency proposes to revitalize through “Complex Transformation.” NNSA has a long history of cost overruns and poor management, and is one of the least likely agencies to give taxpayers a sound return on their investment when economic stimulus is so vitally needed. Finally, it is unlikely that this money will go towards preventing terrorism.

Congress has repeatedly noted that the United States lacks clear nuclear weapons policies.  Adding $1 billion to NNSA’s $9 billion budget is an 11% increase, a poor investment when there is such a policy vacuum. The 2008 Defense Authorization Act requires that the Obama Administration complete a nuclear posture and policy review. Until the Obama Administration addresses such issues as posture, force structure, size and scope of the nuclear complex, it would be premature to make any decisions about what infrastructure projects are needed. Conversely, making major investments in the complex could potentially prejudice the final outcome of any posture review that the Obama Administration conducts.

Since its inception in 1999, the NNSA has continually experienced significant cost overruns and oversight problems. According to several GAO reports, NNSA had not been fully effective in managing its safeguards and security program. The reports found that there was weakness in security culture, organization, staffing and training. Additionally, two of NNSA’s major projects, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility, “experienced major delays and cost overruns because of problems with project management and are still not complete.” The NIF alone, originally expected to cost approximately $2.1 billion upon its completion in 2002, is still not operational and is expected to cost more than $3 billion. While this money is likely not going to these projects, NNSA should not be rewarded for their poor track record with an additional $1 billion.

Senators should also realize that these funds are unlikely to go towards preventing nuclear terrorism, as DOE spends at least 67 percent of its budget on weapons. The Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) did not mention using any potential stimulus money for securing the incredibly vulnerable highly enriched uranium, which only a few years ago was a priority security issue that could not be addressed due to a lack of funding. Also, these funds will not likely go towards expediting the removal of bomb-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Recent security tests failure demonstrate that the Lab’s nuclear materials pose a significant risk to its surrounding residential community.

With Congress seeking to make substantial cuts in the total price tag of the bill, we strongly urge you to eliminate the $1 billion for NNSA. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Should you have any questions, please contact:

Nickolas Roth
Program Director
Alliance For Nuclear Accountability
(p) 202-544-0217
(f) 202-544-6143
nroth@ananuclear.org

National Organization Signatures

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project On Government Oversight

David Culp
Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Ambassador Robert Grey
Director
Bipartisan Security Group

Susan Gordon
Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Darryl Fagin
Legislative Director
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.

William Hartung
Director
Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation

Mark W. Harrison
Director, Peace with Justice Program
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

Terri Lodge
Director of Government Affairs
Ploughshares Fund
Coordinator Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative

Paul Kawika Martin
Organizing, Political and PAC Director
Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund

Lorelei Kelly
National Security Director
American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation

Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women’s Action for New Directions

Paul F. Walker, Ph.D.
Director, Security and Sustainability
Global Green USA

Dr. Peter Wilk
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ron Zucker
Legislative Director
2020 Vision

State Organizations

Joni Arends
Executive Director
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

Beatrice Brailsford
Program director
Snake River Alliance, Idaho

Jay Coghlan
Executive Director
Nuke Watch, New Mexico

Amanda Hill
Development Director
Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs, California

Eileen McCabe
Acting for a Greener World
Nuclear Policy Advisor, Utah

Judith Mohling
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Colorado

Deanna Taylor
Green Party of Utah
National delegate