LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: 09/15/06

Friday, September 15, 2006

Afghanistan: A Colossal Cock Up

While our attention has been in the South of Afghanistan with NATO and Canadian troops the Brits fighting in the North have faced the same contradictions. Destroying villages instead of reconstruction. Taking up the American operational policies of search and destroy, alienating the Afghan population. A colossal cock up leading to a top Brit military officer to quit in disgust.

Top soldier quits as blundering campaign turns into 'pointless' war

THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as “a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”.

“Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse,” said Captain Leo Docherty, of the Scots Guards, who became so disillusioned that he quit the army last month.

“All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British,” he said. “It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would.

“We’ve been grotesquely clumsy — we’ve said we’ll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them.”

Docherty’s criticisms, the first from an officer who has served in Helmand, came during the worst week so far for British troops in Afghanistan, with the loss of 18 men.

They reflected growing concern that forces have been left exposed in small northern outposts of Helmand such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Nawzad. Pinned down by daily Taliban attacks, many have run short of food and water and have been forced to rely on air support and artillery.

“We’ve deviated spectacularly from the original plan,” said Docherty, who was aide-de-camp to Colonel Charlie Knaggs, the commander in Helmand.“The plan was to secure the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, initiate development projects and enable governance . . . During this time, the insecure northern part of Helmand would be contained: troops would not be ‘sucked in’ to a problem unsolvable by military means alone.”

More damningly, once they had established a base in the town, the mission failed to capitalise on their presence. Sangin has no paved roads, running water or electricity, but because of a lack of support his men were unable to carry out any development, throwing away any opportunity to win over townspeople.

Also See:

Afghanistan

The image “http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/320/2006-08-31-Troops.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school,

Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar

Soldiers As Guinea Pigs

Not unlike the experimentation in the 1960's with agent orange (New Brunswick), soldiers who volunteered for their nations defense are being used as involuntary guinea pigs for medical research. The results of the former experiments were painful deaths and fatal long term illness. Wonder if this is being used on Canadian 'volunteers' as well.

Experimental drug given to British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans' support groups were dismayed. "It seems to us wrong that the military would almost use soldiers as guinea pigs for drugs that have yet to have a proven safety record," said Andrew Burgin of Military Families Against the War, a group with 600 members.

Also See:

Iraq

Afghanistan

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
UK, Britain, Soldiers, medical-experiments, guinea-pigs, Iraq, Afghanistan,

Lies My Government Tells Me

Earlier this week and even last week we were assured by the Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister that no more Canadian troops would be going to Afghanistan. Of course they lied. Hoping that we had forgotten that in March they abdicated responsibity for this mission to the General in Charge. So as NATO fails to get extra troop committments for the Kandahar mission, Canada steps up to the plate. Told ya so.

Tanks and 200 more soldiers going to Afghanistan

After getting final approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hillier has decided to send the following immediately to Afghanistan:

An infantry company from Valcartier, Quebec;
A Leopard tank squadron from Edmonton to better protect and enable the Canadian Forces to fight in those areas where Taliban forces have established well-coordinated and determined defences;
Military engineers to manage reconstruction and development projects;
A counter-mortar capability to locate Taliban forces that are targeting Canadian Forces installations with indirect mortar fire.

In total, about 450 soldiers and up to 15 tanks will be sent to Afghanistan. At the same time, about 250 headquarters personnel will return to Canada because of changes in the command structure, meaning an increase of 200 troops.

But retired Col. Michel Drapeau told CTV Newsnet that the actual number of personnel could be much higher.

He said a squadron usually has 120 to 125 people. But the tanks will require dozens of people to keep them operating.

"Tanks are large, very sophisticated machines," said Drapeau. "They require a lot of tender loving care. You will need mechanics, you will need supply technicians... So when you add all the support staff to it, and I would estimate it to be in the order of 150 or so, you do the math and you're into the 400 range."

The reinforcements are being sent at the request of the Canadian commanders in Afghanistan. Once the additional forces are in Afghanistan, Canada will have about 2,500 troops in the region. Canadian troops will make up well over 10 per cent of all NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Also See:

Afghanistan

Afghanistan Takes Its Toll On Liberal Leadership

Carolyn Bennett has announced that tommorow she will be dropping out of the Liberal Leadership Race and throwing her weight behind the Anybody but Iggy Campaign and endorsing Bob Rae.

Afghanistan is quickly becoming the desisive and devisive issue in this Leadership Campaign. And Iggy's stalwart defense of the moral principle of humanitarian war is in conflict with traditional Canadian Liberalism.

Could it be because of her position on Afghanistan dovetails with Rae's?

Lets lookee see.....

Carolyn Bennett:Fifty years later, Canadian soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan and we feel terrible. The nature of conflict has changed dramatically. No longer are we dealing with two nation-states that can be separated by a neutral zone that peacekeepers can survey. The threats to peace are now, more often than not, internal - though often not visibly identifiable - elements.

Canada lobbied hard to build support for a human security agenda, eventually leading the UN to adopt a "responsibility to protect" approach that will allow international intervention when citizens are at risk due to the inability, or unwillingness, of a government to "protect" its citizens.

Having said that, like most Canadians I believe that we made the right decision in not going into Iraq. Instead, we demonstrated our sincere and responsible commitment to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the promotion of democracy by sending Canadian troops on a one-year mission.

Torture Insurance

Torture weakens our country's moral strengthThe administration is being disgustingly disingenuous when it claims it will abide by the Geneva Conventions - but sends to Congress a bill that would authorize the CIA to engage in interrogation tactics the world understands as torture. The bill would also rewrite America's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. That is, the administration is telling a bald-faced lie when it says it's opposed to torture

Of course it is. Bush refers to torture this way.....

Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture. Instead he refers to "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation. But the administration no longer conceals what it wants. It wants authorization for the CIA to hide detainees in overseas prisons where even the International Committee of the Red Cross won't have access. It wants permission to interrogate those detainees with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and "waterboarding," or simulated drowning. And it wants the right to try such detainees, and perhaps sentence them to death, on the basis of evidence that the defendants cannot see and that may have been extracted during those abusive interrogation sessions.

Yep they are otherwise the CIA wouldn't need insurance against facing crimes against humanity charges and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, The Washington Post reported yesterday.
Citing unnamed current and former intelligence officials, the newspaper said the trend reflects heightened anxiety at the Central Intelligence Agency that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct.
They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the report said.
The Post said the anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons.

What worriees the CIA and Bush is that they may be charged in international court for torture and Geneva convention violations between 9/11 and now.

Bush fears war crimes prosecution, impeachment

Bush called on Congress to define these “vague and undefined” terms in Common Article 3 because “our military and intelligence personnel” involved in capture and interrogation “could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.”

Congress enacted the War Crimes Act in 1996. That act defines violations of Geneva’s Common Article 3 as war crimes. Those convicted face life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

The president is undoubtedly familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility, where commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be held liable for war crimes their inferiors commit if the commander knew or should have known they might be committed and did nothing to stop or prevent them.

Bush defensively denied that the United States engages in torture and foreswore authorizing it. But it has been well documented that policies set at the highest levels of our government have resulted in the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

Indeed, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in December, which codifies the prohibition in United States law against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in U.S. custody. In his speech, Bush took credit for working with Sen. John McCain to pass the DTA.

In fact, Bush fought the McCain “anti-torture” amendment tooth and nail, at times threatening to veto the entire appropriations bill to which it was appended. At one point, Bush sent Dick Cheney to convince McCain to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel treatment, but McCain refused.

Bush signed the bill, but attached a “signing statement” where he reserved the right to violate the DTA if, as commander in chief, he thought it necessary.

Throughout his speech, Bush carefully denied his administration had violated any laws during its “tough” interrogations of prisoners. Yet, the very same day, the Pentagon released a new interrogation manual that prohibits techniques including “waterboarding,” which amounts to torture.

Having got the information they needed Bush is closing the barn door after the horse has left. The CIA may no longer torture but it will still contract out such torture.....

Secret Prisons: Implications of the Administration's Maneuver Stratfor

Ultimately, the Bush administration's decision to rescind the use of "secret prisons" does nothing to prohibit this kind of work with foreign intelligence services, which was a mainstay of the CIA before the 9/11 attacks. Even in cases where Washington has serious differences with a host government over strategic or political issues, there can remain close cooperation between intelligence services on the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects. Consider the unlikely example involving the United States and Syria in 2002: The United States rendered a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, back to Syria -- at the cost of a major strain in U.S.-Canadian relations.

The end of the CIA program, whether permanent or temporary, will not leave the United States with any blind spots in its war against al Qaeda. In fact, considering that only a few al Qaeda members were ever held by the CIA, most of the suspects interrogated in this war have been questioned by foreign proxies -- even since clandestine interrogation centers came into use. The flow of intelligence can be expected to continue -- and it perhaps could be argued that it might increase, as political attention in the United States concerning the treatment of prisoners turns elsewhere and foreign services continue their work without interference.

And we should not forget that it is not just the CIA that contracts out torture and prison operations....US: Pentagon Spends Billions to Outsource Torture

But did the torture really get America the information it needed or is this all misdirection to be able to maintain a program that in fact is of little real value?

The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb

Of course, the President could not, he said with a knowing wink to his audience, describe “the specific methods used in these CIA interrogations” because “it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning.” Although these “procedures were tough,” they had proved vital, the President assured us, in extracting “information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else” and thus prevented Al Qaeda from “launching another attack against the American homeland.” If Congress and the Supreme Court would simply set aside their constitutional qualms about these “tough” methods, Bush concluded, then the “brave men and women” who work in this CIA program can continue “to obtain information that will save innocent lives.”

As in so many of these ticking-bomb tales, Bush’s supposed successes crumble on closer examination. Just four days later, The New York Times reported that the FBI claimed it got the key information from Abu Zubaydah with its noncoercive methods and that other agencies already had much of his supposedly “vital” intelligence

Time to Impeach Bush!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/1600/impeach_bush_finger_2_edited.0.jpg

See

CIA

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Bush, impeach, US, Cheney, Colin, Powell, torture, CIA, ICC, Hague, Geneva, Covnetion,