PROTEST IN THE STREETS THE DAY AFTER AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE TO SEND MORE TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN

We in the anti-war movement have been tirelessly and endlessly calling upon the government to end the occupations. We want our troops out of the middle east, and an end to the drone bombings that are killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Letters have been written, petitions signed, arrests made but the wars drone on. And now we are grimly awaiting the announcement by the Obama Administration of an escalation of troop levels once again in Afghanistan.

It is impossible to predict when this announcement will come, but it will, and we must be ready. Everyone of conscience who can’t stand one more day or one more minute witnessing the death and destruction being wreaked upon countries and its people, under the guise of “bringing democracy” or “helping women” or “ending the poppy production” or “protecting civilians”, or the best yet, “fight the war on terror”, must join together, show unity, and strength against this scourge.

We must stop flying our own banners announcing our “affiliations” and fight our common enemy, those who chose to continue wars of aggression in our names, and we must fight cohesively and with one message, and in one voice: END THE WARS, ALL TROOPS HOME NOW!

Soon the announcement will be made to send more young men and women to die and to kill. We don’t want it, we have told those who have taken power that it must end. But slowly we have come to realize that our cries fall on deaf ears, and it is in our hands and our hands only to enter the belly of the beast and show them what the people can do united.

We must have a national day of resistance against these occupations, and when the announcement is made to send more troops to Afghanistan, it is time for ALL of us to get into the streets and stop business as usual.

It may mean going out in your community during the week! It may mean expressing our anger in the form of non-violent civil disobedience.

But if hundreds of people around the country picked a location where they live and formed alliances to make sure this happened, our message would be heard, loud and clear. We owe it to the troops and to the people of other countries who are looking to us for their salvation.

If Obama makes his announcement on a weekend, then we as a collective group of anti-war activists, with a plan in place, go to a pre-determined location the next business day at 5 PM and shut down the streets in the name of PEACE.

If we are truly determined to face our enemy then we must do it with resolve. We must be relentless, unafraid and staunch in our demands and demeanor.

It is way past time to join together and move forward to a more peaceful world. But without hundreds if not thousands out there around the country being arrested in the name of peace at the same time and on the same day, we will not move one inch from where we are now. It is a step forward, a small brave step, but if we do it in unison we will find strength in our numbers. The world is counting on us!

LIES USED TO JUSTIFY THIS INCLUDE:

Afghanistan is a “good war” against the “real terrorists” who attacked Americans

Barack Obama referred to the war as the “the central front in our battle against terrorism.” According to our the new president, “I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job. …We got distracted by Iraq.”

The war in Afghanistan had nothing to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks. It was launched to defeat reactionary Islamic fundamentalist trends and groups that have posed obstacles to U.S power and to restructure the Middle East and Central Asian regions in order to deepen U.S. domination.

DOWNLOAD PDF FOR PRINTING LEAFLETS

Afghanistan is one front in this global war because of its strategic location. It was a U.S. target before 9/11. A Pakistani diplomat told the BBC that he was informed of the U.S. intent to attack Afghanistan in mid-July of 2001 (see U.S. ‘planned attack on Taleban’, September 18, 2001.)

When various Islamic fundamentalist forces were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan they were funded and armed by the U.S. President Reagan called them “freedom fighters.” Today they are an impediment to U.S. goals and are now called “terrorists.” We are supposed to accept that this requires the people of the U.S. to support U.S. aggressive wars in order to protect “our safety,” regardless of how many lives are sacrificed in other nations.

The U.S. has freed the people of Afghanistan, particularly women, from oppressive rule

The Bush regime used concern for the women to justify slaughter of civilians, creating a situation where women were even more vulnerable to the Taliban, religious reactionary fundamentalists who oppress women, progressives, and the people of Afghanistan in general. Life under the Taliban was and is a living hell of reactionary religious strictures and suffocating social relations.

But during the years of Soviet occupation, the U.S. supported the Taliban in the hope that they could unite the various and fractious forces within the country, better enabling the U.S. to achieve its goals in the country.

 Even now, after the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban, both Obama and Biden have recently talked of negotiating with some “moderate” factions of the Taliban to get them to support the current Afghan government and U.S. goals. Since the U.S. invasion, the people of Afghanistan continue to be under the domination of reactionaries who are now in the service of the U.S.

The Karzai regime is a puppet government of the same hated landlords, militia heads, and feudal and tribal chieftains that have tormented the people of Afghanistan for decades. Corruption within the government is endemic. Opium production and trade makes up one-third of the country’s gross domestic product.

Women are still deeply and cruelly oppressed in Afghanistan. An Afghan woman dies during childbirth every 30 minutes; 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate; only 30 percent of girls have access to education in Afghanistan; one-third of women experience physical, psychological, or sexual violence, including honor killings; and 70 to 80 percent of women, including many children, face forced marriages in Afghanistan.

“We broke it, now we must rebuild it”

The argument is that even though the initial invasion was wrong, the U.S. now owes it to the Afghan people to rebuild the country. Obama has promised increased economic aid.

But what little aid is delivered to the country evaporates into a cauldron of corruption and is used to support the reactionary rulers of the country. A recent poll conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research indicates that the vast majority of the Afghan population views public corruption as a major problem, and wanted the United States military to leave.

Apologists for the U.S. occupation would argue that at least the U.S. is making people in Afghanistan more secure. But in the above poll, only 42% had confidence that the U.S. coalition forces could provide security in Their areas. One in six of those polled reported nearby bombing or shelling by U.S. forces in their area. One in five reported civilians being killed by U.S. coalition forces in the last year in the areas where they lived.

People continue to suffer. According to the United Nations Human Development Index, Afghanistan is the 174^th poorest nation. Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights

Commission (AIHRC) in December 2008 reported that 37 percent or about ten million people in Afghanistan suffer from severe poverty, with millions earning less than $1 per day.

The U.S. State Department in 2008 stated the infant mortality rate is 154.67 deaths per 1,000 live births. The U.S. State Department admits that at least 3 million Afghans are refugees in other countries. Less than 1/4^th of the adult population is literate, with the U.S. State Department estimating that only 12 percent of females are literate. Life expectancy is only 43.1 years and the unemployment rate in 2008 was 40%.

More U.S. troops will only increase the death and destruction. The longer the U.S. and its allies remain, the longer the suffering will continue for the Afghan people.

If the U.S. and it allies leave, the Taliban will return to power and it will be even worse than before the invasion

Neither Taliban nor U.S. rule, through its puppet allies, is in the interests of the Afghan population. Two historically obsolete and reactionary forces are contending in the country: the Islamic fundamentalist forces led by the Taliban and the outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system, led by the U.S. These two reactionary forces reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. But supporting the U.S. imperialists to defeat the Taliban will not advance the interests of the Afghan people. Our choices are not limited to supporting the Taliban or supporting the U.S. imperialists in the war.

We Demand U.S. Withdrawal of All Troops Now!

When Obama announced his escalation of the Afghanwar on February 17th he said, “I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action.”

He is right that the situation is urgent and demands swift action, but not in the way he meant. We must demand the removal of all U.S. forces, including allied forces immediately. We must oppose the war and occupation and expose the crimes of the U.S. imperialists there. To do less will forsake the people of Afghanistan and enable the U.S. to continue its crimes in that country.

Click here to sign the petition

Lou’s message to bring the troops home:

I’ve laid out my view clearly on why it’s time to begin withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and also from their stations and bases around the world. But in case you missed it, please listen to my comments on why I hope you will join me in bringing our troops home.

Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, our top military leadership has yet to define clearly what victory and success will look like, nor has it identified the goals and objectives of the conflict. Like you, I’ve been thinking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time. I’ve decided that it’s time to bring our troops home. I hope you will join me in that effort.

I am disgusted with what is happening with General McChrystal, General Petraeus and the general staff of the Pentagon, President Obama, this administration, and the previous administration have been waging war in Afghanistan for eight years. I am upset that the White House has chosen not to consider withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan while our generals don’t have a strategy for victory.

What happened? In the Bush administration we began to tolerate failure on the part of our general staff. We began to tolerate excuses on the part of the general staff. And it¹s being continued under this administration. I¹ve heard people say this president now owns the war in Afghanistan, that this President owns the war in Iraq. You know what, that’s not true: You and I own the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You and I are responsible for every single man and woman in uniform who is serving there and around the world.

And I have a proposition for President Obama: You say you will not consider withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, so here is my proposition, Mr. President: Given that we have not succeeded under the leadership of the general staff for eight years in Afghanistan, eight years of combat, why not re-evaluate what we are doing with our troops worldwide, not just Afghanistan?

For the sake of our men and women in uniform who deserve far better leadership than they are receiving from their general staff, please bring them home. It is time to call a halt to the nonsense, bring home our troops, and not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the 60,000 troops in Germany, 37,000 in South Korea, 10,000 in Japan, 10,000 troops in Italy.

Bring all of our troops home, and leave only a modest presence wherever it might be proven absolutely necessary, but bring home our troops. And let our allies carry their own share of the burden, put their military forward against whatever enemy is perceived, potential or existent, and let’s work as mature responsible partners in these alliances, rather than the United States as some sort of senior partner, some sort of big brother who carries most of the burden, nearly all of the financial sacrifice, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overwhelming sacrifice of blood from the brave men and women who serve this nation in uniform.

It is time, Mr. President, this is your opportunity, this is the nation’s opportunity, and it’s your responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. I hope you’ll consider it seriously, and I hope each and everyone in Independent America will think about this call for reason. I don¹t believe there is a more urgent issue today.

Join me and sign this petition, for the good of the nation.

In the private sector, there is always a test of success. The business must make a profit. It can sustain some losses but the clock is always running on those. At some point, after all cuts have been made and costs are trimmed to a minimum, the business has to close shop. The summer of losses must become the autumn of profits, or else it’s all over.

Not so in government. Failing projects can go on forever. There is no profit and loss test. There is no test at all, in fact. Agencies like the GAO can blast away at a particularly egregious case of government waste, but hardly anyone pays attention. Congress has no reason to scrap it. No one does. Taxpayers have no means to pull the plug, because the whole thing is run outside their purview.

Now, with an intro like that, you might think I’m about to talk about Medicare or public schools or the post office. It would be easy enough. But let us never forget that foreign policy constitutes another sector of government management, central planning, and bureaucratic-driven missions that are no more or less successful than anything else a government does.

The case in question here is the Afghan invasion and occupation. The top military commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has written a report (supposed to be secret but emailed to the Washington Post) that says unless more troops arrive soon, the entire operation will fail. They won’t be able to defeat the insurgency unless more force is applied. That’s a serious problem, since it is not unreasonable to define the current and would-be insurgency as the entire population of Afghanistan, perhaps excepting those directly on the US payroll.

How well do I recall that first American foray into Afghanistan following September 11, 2001. The US just had to kill someone and soon. The Islamic hardcores running that country made a good target, especially since the average American doubts that anyone in such a far-flung country, where people dress funny and believe crazy things, is up to any good at all. Let’s go get ‘em!

There was hardly any opposition. Oh sure, there were a few of us out there. But mostly, everyone went along, as if this were a case of dispensing justice and, after all, that’s what government is supposed to do, according to its own storyline. So far as I know, all D.C. think tanks got on board with that one. It was the least objectionable war of the modern period, the one that almost no one opposed.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Led by William Kristol, the same ideologues who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distraction and was involved with Al Qaeda, both not true, have sent an open letter to the White House describing Afghanistan as a “war we cannot afford to lose.” Among the signers were a raft of prominent Republican politicians and military hawks as well as former Bush adviser Karl Rove and that “expert”, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

This effort comes as support for the war is falling. A CNN/ORC poll in August showed increased opposition to the war among 74% of the Democrats and 57% of Independents, with overall support down to 39%. Public opinion has been affected by the mounting U.S. death toll in Afghanistan, the multiple charges of election fraud, rampant corruption in the U.S. supported Karzai government, and the disinclination of the Afghan army to fight.

The American military forces in Afghanistan now number 62,000 in addition to the 70,000 contractors, mostly American, hired by U.S. corporations to provide food, clothing, shelter and other services for the troops. The suggested increase could bring U.S. forces and contractors as high as 400,000 at a cost that would exceed the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq. And we are still in Iraq in force. Our NATO allies won’t help: they’re cutting back their forces in Afghanistan.

Is the occupation of Afghanistan worth the effort? Al Qaeda is no longer there, Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, if he is still living. It is difficult for the only superpower, bestriding the earth like a colossus, to admit a mistake, but the cost in lives and money is too great for the miniscule benefits. America, go home from Afghanistan. Ignore the failed advisors that wasted so many lives in Iraq. Don’t let them do it again.

Author insert a music with WS Audio Player
(Download) this music.

Cindy Sheehan became a leader of the antiwar movement after her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. Her efforts to get answers from President Bush, including a vigil in Crawford,Texas, have received national media attention. She has a website, is the author of Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey through Heartache to Activism and wrote the introduction to 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military.

Despite assurances to the contrary in Washington and a major policy speech in London, one need not quibble with the obvious fact that the situation is deteriorating beyond repair in Afghanistan. Although international media is more concerned with what that means politically for United States President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, little attention is given to the browbeaten and war-weary people of that country.

One should know that public support for the war has greatly diminished, when conservative commentators like The Washington Post columnist George Will write: “US forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy. America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent Special Forces units.”

Okay, so his narrative is still ultimately violent, but the fact remains that the war mood is changing. After all, Will’s 1 September article was entitled, “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.”

Dan Senor and Peter Wehner responded with a peculiar diatribe in the New York Times, accusing Will of allowing his party allegiance to influence his views on the war. The two authors, senior fellows at major US think tanks, offered a bloody rationale wrapped in deceptive wording. They argued that historically Democrats opposed Republican wars and Republicans have done the same, and that must change. It was implied that pretty much every major war in recent decades was a war that served US national security interests; therefore, “Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition parties have, which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other party because he is a member of the other party.” In other words, yes to war, whether by Democrats or Republicans.

The intellectual wrangling, of course, is not happening in a vacuum; it almost never does. Indeed, there is much politicking going on; intense deliberation in Washington, political debates in London; defensive French statements, and more. It seems that the war in Afghanistan is reaching a decisive point, militarily in Afghanistan itself, and politically in major Western capitals.

But why the sudden hoopla over Afghanistan? For after all, the bloody war has been grinding on for eight long years.

The Taliban and various groups opposing the Kabul government and their Western benefactors are gaining ground, not just in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan. Daring Taliban attacks are now taking place in the north as well, long seen as peaceful, thus requiring little attention. On 26 August a roadside bomb hit the car of the chief of the provincial Justice Department in the northern Kunduz province, killing him, and sending shock waves through Kabul. The bloody message was meant to echo as a political one: no one is safe, nowhere is safe. Another attack was reported in the province of Laghman, in the east, where 22 people, mostly civilians were killed. Among the dead were four Afghan officials including the deputy chief of the National Directorate of Security, Abdullah Laghmani. The irony is too obvious to state.

In Washington, London and Paris politicians wish us to believe that they are not unnerved by all of this. They exaggerated the significance of the recent Afghani elections, attempting to once again underscore that the “crucial” elections placed Afghanistan on a crossroads. Crossroads? What does that even mean, in any practical terms? George Will, although selective in his logic, was honest enough to mention that President Hamid Karzai’s “vice-presidential running mate is a drug trafficker.” Even US officials admit that the government they’ve created following the war is corrupt, to say the least.

Richard Holbrooke, among other foreign envoys “responsible for Afghanistan”, told reporters in Paris on 2 September that US officials have no preference among the candidates, nor are they particularly interested in runoff elections, but they wished to see a government that appoints “more efficient, less corrupt ministers”. It behooves those “responsible for Afghanistan” to remember that inefficiency and corruption were the outcome of the very policies they have so eagerly adopted in the country. No sympathy for Karzai here, but it’s unfair to point the finger at a feeble leader whenever a Western strategy fumbles, as it has repeatedly.

Speaking of strategies, what is the plan ahead? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner promised that foreign troops will stay put in Afghanistan unless the country’s security was ensured, reported Xinhua. In practical terms, this means never, for how could security ever visit that region as long as the strategy is hostage to two equally destructive narratives — the Senor/Wehner troop surges vs Will’s “offshore” strategy?

Hubris aside, Washington and London are facing some difficult political and military decisions ahead. Top officials in both capitals are using grim and somber language. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, responding to a call by the top US general in Afghanistan for a fresh approach to the conflict, is considering yet another troop increase as part of Obama’s new Afghan strategy.

The sense of urgency was invited by the detailed report of the newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal, who maintains that “success” was still possible, but a change of strategy is needed. The report resulted in intense deliberation in Washington, highlighted by grim press conferences involving the Pentagon’s heavyweights, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over what to do about “Obama’s war”.

Speaking at the Pentagon, Gates equivocated: “I don’t believe that the war is slipping through the administration’s fingers. I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan (but there remains) limited time for us to show that this approach is working.”

The details of the new Obama strategy are still not very clear, but the commitment to the war is still unquestionable, as expressed in a “major” 4 September speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. “When the security of our country is at stake we cannot walk away,” said Brown, according to the BBC.

As Brown was solemnly speaking about British security, NATO air strikes on a pair of fuel tankers killed up to 90 people, according to Afghan authorities.

Indeed, the situation in Afghanistan requires a fresh approach, although not the one George Will had in mind.

That change may provide an American “success”, whatever that might mean, but at least it is a start toward disengagement in Afghanistan, an end to the American occupation, an end to the futile attempt to create a democratic and effective central government that Afghanistan has never had in its entire history.

George Will tells us that the Afghan government is corrupt, inept and predatory, the nominated Vice President is a drug trafficker, and that the people yearn for restoration of the warlords. In the current election, charges of ballot stuffing and fraud come from all sides.

U.S. forces are being increased to 68,000 bringing the coalition total to 110,000, a deceptive figure that does not include the 100,000 civilian contractors who do the logistical work for the troops. George Will writes that “Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.”

President Obama insists that this is a war of necessity, to protect the U.S. homeland from another criminal attack like the tragedy of September 11 that killed about 3000 Americans. Yet those 19 criminals were armed only with box cutters and credit cards, learned to fly at U.S. airfields. None of the 19 were Afghan, 15 were Saudis. Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, is hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The Al Qaeda organization is diminished to a criminal conspiracy without a base in Afghanistan.

It is hard to see how taking sides in the Afghan civil war by sending an American army would prevent a similar criminal act by 19 other criminals. Yes, we can defend ourselves by smart police work, by protecting our places of entry and our installations all over the world – and we have done so.

The war in Afghanistan is a waste of lives and money. Pulling out of Afghanistan will not damage U.S. power and prestige around the world any more than did our departure from Vietnam. And the enemy in Vietnam had potent allies: the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, bristling with powerful armies and nuclear weapons. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are rebels with rifles and roadside bombs, without significant allies, hardly an existential threat to the United States.

Where are the sensible Americans who agitated for ending the Vietnam and Iraq Wars? Are they intimidated by the so-called war on terror that commits our country to intervene on behalf of dictatorial governments challenged by revolutionaries?

George Will is not intimidated. His conservative analysis says that America will be safer if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan. Thank you, George Will. You are half right, but your recommendation for offshore bombardment with the inevitable killing of civilians is hardly the way to capture the hearts and minds of the Afghans. But at least you are heading in the right direction.

Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center discusses how the doctrine of enumerated powers has become quaint, how the Constitution provides persuasive talking points for a strictly limited government for those otherwise undisposed, why activist priorities should be on limiting federal power as it is the most expansive and potentially destructive and how the states are, in some cases, resisting federal laws and asserting their own.