John Kerry on the WikiLeaks Afghanistan leak, Daily Kos, July 26, 2010, by Joan McCarter, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

John Kerry released this statement on the Wikileaks document release:

Statement By Chairman Kerry On Leaked Documents On Afghanistan And Pakistan

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following statement this evening in response to the New York Times story on the leak of classified documents concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan:

“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”

This statement, as Clemon points out at the link, is in stark contrast to the White House reaction, and coming from a Senator with the stature that Kerry has on issues of war, indicates that this could be the beginning of an important discussion about, as he puts it, “the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The country needs and deserves a serious policy discussion on this war. Hopefully Kerry intends to start one.

TUESDAY UPDATE: See U.S. Hunts For Leaker Of Afghan War Documents, Reuters on The New York Times, July 26, 2010, by Reuters, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon said on Monday it was launching a manhunt to find whoever leaked tens of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, one of the largest security breaches in U.S. military history.

U.S. defense officials said the person behind the release of some 91,000 classified documents appeared to have “secret” clearance and access to sensitive documents on the Afghan war.

More leaks were possible, officials acknowledged.

“We will do what is necessary to try to determine who is responsible for the leaking of this information,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

“Until we know who’s responsible, you have to hold out the possibility that there could be more information that has yet to be disclosed. And that’s obviously a concern.”

TUESDAY UPDATE: See Dennis Kucinich Announces Two Important House Votes, Kucinich.us: Cleveland, Ohio (July 26, 2010) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich announces that he and Congressman Ron Paul are joining in a cause focused at compelling the removal of U.S. military forces from Pakistan. Later this week, Congressman Kucinich will also support ending the War in Afghanistan by cutting off funding for the war.

See WikiLeaks Data Seem to Show Pakistan Helped Attack American Troops, ABC World News, July 26, 2010, by Nick Schifrin, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Documents Accuse ISI, Pakistan’s Intelligence Service, Of Aiding Insurgency; Senior ISI Official Dismisses Leaks

Perhaps the single most damming collection of data in a massive trove of secret documents from Afghanistan released by the website WikiLeaks is some 180 files that seem to show Pakistan’s premiere intelligence service, the ISI, helping the Afghan insurgency attack American troops.

See WikiLeaks Bombshell on Afghan War: What You Need to Know, AlterNet, July 26, 2010, by Greg Mitchell, excerpt quoted verbatim:

On Sunday, WikiLeaks not released more than 90,000 docs that paint of damning picture of the failing war effort in Afghanistan. Here’s a guide.

Despite advance claims of secret documents coming soon, it still felt like this bombshell arrived almost out of nowhere Sunday afternoon: WikiLeaks not only released more than 90,000 docs related to the United States and the war in Afghanistan, but the New York Times played it for all it was worth (as it turns out, quite a lot). In fact, the Times, The Guardian in London and Der Spiegel had been studying the documents and preparing for this for weeks.The Times highlighted it as “The War Logs” — Pentagon Papers, anyone? — with the subhed, “A six-year archive of classified military documents offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war.” It also raises questions about the media coverage of the war to date.

See Afghanistan war logs: whose side is Pakistan on?, The Guardian, July 26, 2010, by Guardian.co.uk, excerpt quoted verbatim:

The storm of controversy raised by the accounts of alleged collusion between Pakistani intelligence and the Taliban in the war logs has resurrected one of the most vexed questions of the nine-year Afghan war: whose side is Pakistan on?

The reports have galvanised the opinions of some Americans who view the Pakistani military, which runs the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, as a double-dealing entity that accepts $1bn a year in US funding while quietly helping Afghan insurgents.

Although the quality of evidence against the ISI in the logs is low – and the spy agency has rejected it as “malicious and unsubstantiated” – experts say there is strong evidence to suggest collusion elsewhere.

See WikiLeaks and AfPak: What “Everyone” Knows, The Atlantic, July 26, 2010, by James Fallows, excerpt quoted verbatim:

1) “Everyone” knows this already. People who have been very close to this story say that little of the information is “new,” in a fundamental sense. See the Atlantic Wire’s summary here, Mother Jones here and here, and (splenetically and amusingly) Andrew Exum here. Fine.

2) But not everyone actually did. Notwithstanding #1, information that may be old news to insiders may seem a revelation to the broader public. Whether from George W. Bush or Barack Obama, presidential speeches about Afghanistan have not emphasized the mixed loyalties of the Pakistani security services, the frustrations of dealing with tribal leaders and corrupt officials, the extent of civilian casualties, and other items that, according to insiders, “everyone” already knows. At this stage it’s impossible to say whether a vast, somewhat hard-to-digest compilation of raw reports, released in the middle of summer, will mean that “everyone” in a broader sense comes to share this insider perspective.

3) And that’s the possible similarity to the Pentagon Papers. Afghanistan is different from Vietnam, Barack Obama is different from Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, the raw battlefield intel from WikiLeaks is different from the inside policy memos of the Pentagon Papers, and so on. But the basic similarity of the cases involves the question of what “everyone” knows. By 1971, anyone who had been really following the Vietnam war already “knew,” or could guess, much of what was in the Pentagon Papers. The Papers mattered because of (a) the confirmation that the government had known about the problems for a very long time, and (b) the spreading of that understanding to the broader public. If the WikiLeaks documents, coming during what is already the deadliest month ever for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, really do mark a shift in mainstream opinion about the war, it will be because everyone [general public, press, and politicians] will now recognize what “everyone” [insiders] already knew.

Comment by Evans Liberal Politics Owner Paul Evans: On the Dylan Ratigan show today on MSNBC, Dylan was suggesting that there is certainly an “openness” (shall we say) towards welcoming conservative opposition against continuing to cooperate with Pakistan as we are. Michael Steele’s recent comments that we should rethink the extent of our involvement with Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are a case in point. Even a Republican Party opposing to any extent our continued involvement in Afghanistan and with Pakistan (out of purely partisan considerations) would spur liberals and progressives within the Democratic Party to rethink their lockstep support of the President’s wrongheaded policy. Afghanistan-Pakistan is eventually going to wind down in a similar way to that of Vietnam. The only question is, how many more years of terrible conflict, and how much grievous loss of American treasure and lives will have to be suffered before we ACTUALLY negotiate with the Taliban, or will we have to suffer being actually expelled with horrendous casualties. Or will the war just wind on in it’s terrible course for years before America comes to its senses.

See Pakistani Spy Agency Denounces Leaked US Intelligence Reports, The Huffington Post, July 26, 2010, by Munir Ahmed.

See WH: No attempt to stop WikiLeaks news reports, Antiwar Newswire, July 26, 2010, by AP News Staff.

See Pentagon scrambles to assess Wikileaks damage (AP), A Minute News, July 26, 2010, by AP News Staff.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Iraq Withdrawal? Obama and Clinton Expanding US Paramilitary Force in Iraq, The Nation, July 22, 2010, by Jeremy Scahill, excerpt quoted verbatim:

UPDATE: In Iraq today, three private security contractors were killed in a rocket attack on Baghdad’s Green Zone. All of them were employees of Triple Canopy, the security company hired by the Obama administration to take over much of Blackwater’s work in Iraq. Another fifteen people were wounded in the attack. The dead included two Ugandans and a Peruvian. The attack highlights the inevitable consequences of an emerging Obama administration policy wherein more contractors are going to be deployed to Iraq and many of them will be so-called third country nationals like those killed in today’s attack. The coming surge in contractors in Iraq is being done under the auspices of the State Department’s diplomatic security division, which was massively expanded under the Bush administration paving the way for the Department’s almost total reliance on private contractors for security in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

As a candidate for president, Senator Hillary Clinton vowed to ban the use of private security contractors, which she referred to as mercenaries. “These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq,” Clinton said in February 2008. “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.” Clinton was one of only two senators to sponsor legislation to ban these companies. Fast forward to the present and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is presiding over what is shaping up to be a radical expansion of a private, US-funded paramilitary force that will operate in Iraq for the foreseeable future–the very type of force Clinton once claimed she opposed.

The State Department is asking Congress to approve funds to more than double the number of private security contractors in Iraq with a State Department official testifying in June at a hearing of the Wartime Contracting Commission that the Department wants “between 6,000 and 7,000 security contractors.” The Department also has asked the Pentagon for twenty-four Blackhawk helicopters, fifty Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles and other military equipment. “After the departure of U.S. Forces [from Iraq], we will continue to have a critical need for logistical and life support of a magnitude and scale of complexity that is unprecedented in the history of the Department of State,” wrote Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, in an April letter to the Pentagon. “And to keep our people secure, Diplomatic Security requires certain items of equipment that are only available from the military.”

What is unfolding is the face of President Obama’s scaled-down, rebranded mini-occupation of Iraq. Under the terms of the Status of Forces agreement, all US forces are supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Using private forces is a backdoor way of continuing a substantial US presence under the cover of “diplomatic security.” The kind of paramilitary force that Obama and Clinton are trying to build in Iraq is, in large part, a byproduct of the monstrous colonial fortress the United States calls its embassy in Baghdad and other facilities the US will maintain throughout Iraq after the “withdrawal.” The State Department plans to operate five “Enduring Presence Posts” at current US military bases in Basrah, Diyala, Erbil, Kirkuk and Ninewa. The State Department has indicated that more sites may be created in the future, which would increase the demand for private forces. The US embassy in Baghdad is the size of Vatican City, comprised of twenty-one buildings on a 104-acres of land on the Tigris River.

In making their case to Congress and the Defense Department for the expansion of a private paramilitary force in Iraq, State Department officials have developed what they call a “lost functionality” list of fourteen security-related tasks that the military currently perform in Iraq that would become the responsibility of the State Department as US forces draw down. ….

Read the full article here.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Most Americans think Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist, Haaretz, June 23, 2009, by Haaretz service and Natasha Mozgovaya. This is old news but it is important and we wanted to republish it in the public interest:

Eighty-one percent of American voters agree that Palestinian leaders must recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of a Middle East peace agreement, according to a new survey by U.S. polling company Rasmussen Reports published Tuesday.

The national telephone survey found that just seven percent disagree that recognition of Israel should be a requirement for peace, while 12 percent are not sure.

But only 27 percent believe it is somewhat likely that Palestinian leaders will agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist, the poll found.

There is less support from American voters for requiring Israel to accept the creation of a Palestinian state. Fifty-seven percent of voters say Israel should be required to do so as part of a regional peace agreement, and 20 percent oppose such a requirement.

Forty-eight percent of respondents to the Rasmussen poll said U.S. President Barack Obama’s Middle Eastern policy is about right, but 35% said he is not supportive enough of Israel and 10% said he is too supportive.

Obama has called on Israel and the Palestinians to acknowledge each other’s existence, while also pushing Israel to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank.

Following Obama’s June 4 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, 32% of American voters now think that relationship will improve in the next year, while 28% believe it will get worse, according to the poll.

Forty-nine percent of respondents said the United States should help Israel if it decides to attack Iran over the latter’s nuclear weapon facilities.

Commentary: Israel and Palestine recognizing each other’s right to exist as part of a regional peace settlement seems to us to be a no brainer. The problem is that, de facto, there are two Palestines. De facto, Gaza is in the control of Hamas and Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel. This must change if there is to be any hope for peace. Equally, Israel must give up any ambition it has to attack Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions, which is a real and probably a growing threat in the region. Also equally, Israel really need to lift it’s terribly oppressive blockade of Gaza in favor of a more humane and reasonable stance. Pray, if you will, that these two nations and peoples might quit their hateful ways, that Israel might give up it’s blockade of the Gaza strip, and that peace might reign in a region soaked in the blood of two generations of its people. May God have mercy on the suffering people of this region.

We are “in good hands” when it comes to President Obama’s even-handed policy in the region. For the first time, pressure is being applied to Israel to stop it’s destruction of Palestinian housing and to reign in the growth of its settlements. This seems to us a necessary first step and needed show of good faith on Israel’s part, and we applaud the President for manfully standing up to the Israel lobby in supporting peace in the region on fair and (almost) equal terms. At the same time, Washington needs to make this even clearer to Israel, which remains dependent on our support. Nonetheless, America is and always will be a friend of Israel. It’s just that we need to be a friend to the suffering Palestinian people, as well. ~ Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans.

See 81% Say Palestinians Must Recognize Israel’s Right To Exist As Part of Any Peace Agreement, Rasmussen, June 23, 2009, by Rasmussen Reports.

See Letters: Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist, Mass Live, June 20, 2010, by "The Republican Editorials"

Although it is probably propoganda, Palwatch.org shows that Israel has some basis for it’s anti-Palestinian paranoia: see Denying Israel’s right to exist PA depicts a world without Israel, Palwatch.org, no date given.

On the other side of the coin, see On “Israel’s Right to Exist”, IslamOnline.net, January 10, 2008, by John Whitbeck, International lawyer.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Evans Liberal Politics, News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government and others, CLG News used with permission, quoted verbatim from email newsletter, Unedited copy from newsletter — Evans Liberal Politics simply is presenting this important AfPak news with no comment. Photo of Afghan villagers by Steve Evans:

Omar Deghayes: ‘He was brought in manacled and hooded’

CLG   — Libyan-born British resident held in Afghanistan was warned he faced a long period of incarceration in US hands 14 Jul 2010 In an MI5 report on the interrogation of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan-born British resident held by the Americans at Bagram airbase north of Kabul, an officer wrote to his superiors in London: “Deghayes was brought to the interview room manacled and hooded. When the hood was removed, Deghayes looked pale and shaky.” …Deghayes told the [MI5] officers that he was suffering internal bleeding and complained that no evidence had been presented against him… “He was treated better by the Pakistanis; what kind of world was it where the Americans were more barbaric than the Pakistanis? We listened but did not comment.” MI5 interrogated Deghayes again and told a senior American officer in Deghayes’ presence, that the detainee had not been co-operating. “If he sticks to his story and just gives a few more details, we propose disengaging and allowing events here to take their course,” the officer wrote. In the autumn Deghayes was flown to Guantánamo Bay, where he stayed for more than five years. At one point he was so severely beaten that he was blinded in one eye.

The torture files: the interrogations

CLG   — (guardian.co.uk) 14 Jul 2010 These documents detail for the first time the experiences of a detainee under interrogation. Omar Deghayes records his complaints about his treatment in the Bagram detention centre in Afghanistan in July 2002 and the willingness of MI5 officers to let him be removed to Guantanamo Bay.

Pakistan: Blackwater still active in Capital

CLG   — 13 Jul 2010 On May 14 and May 26 last, the exact postal addresses of 33 houses in posh residential localities of the Federal Capital – that were confirmedly hired by US Marines and Blackwater personnel – were first published in this newspaper. Further information indicates that out of those 33 houses – either hired by US Marines in the garb of humanitarian workers of US Office of Defence Representatives to Pakistan (ODR-P) or by Blackwater mercenaries – five residences-to-offices have been relocated to alternative venues and highest possible security measures are being adopted for their protection so that no one can track them. They were previously located in the sectors F-7/3, F-8/3 and F-6/2 of the Federal Capital but now they have been moved to E-7 and G-6/4.

Carl Levin backs strikes inside Pakistan

CLG   — 13 Jul 2010 A leading Democrat said the U.S. should be more aggressive in conducting airstrikes against groups inside Pakistan that threaten the mission in neighboring Afghanistan. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters Tuesday morning that the U.S. should go after groups like the Haqqani network that “directly threaten” the mission [?] in Afghanistan. [What, exactly, *is* the 'mission' in Afghanistan, besides protecting opium and gas pipelines and enriching US corporaterrorists and mercenaries? - Comment by Lori Price.]

Twelve US-led soldiers killed in 48 hours

CLG   — 14 Jul 2010 Five more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan’s volatile south, bringing to 12 the number of foreign soldiers killed over the past 48 hours. NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said on Wednesday that four of the soldiers lost their lives in a bomb attack, while the other one was killed in a gunfight with the Taliban in the volatile south. The latest casualties come a day after seven NATO soldiers — four British and three American — were killed in the war-torn country.

Check Out the Best Guide to Politics on the Web!
The Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web

Find Out Where to find the Truth!

Gunned down as they slept: Rogue Afghan soldier shoots dead three British troops inside military compound

CLG   — Attacker used grenade launcher and is now on the run 13 Jul 2010 A renegade Afghan soldier is on the run today after killing three British soldiers in southern Helmand while they slept. Another four British soldiers were wounded in the attack inside a joint patrol base near Nahr-e Saraj early this morning.

Afghan soldier murders British troops

CLG   — 13 Jul 2010 A rogue Afghan soldier was on the run tonight after murdering three British troops and wounding another four. The killer launched his attack on soldiers from 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles at a base in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan early this morning. He shot one dead in his sleeping quarters and killed the other two in the base’s command centre using a shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenade launcher, sources said.

More AfPak & Military News

Senators urge clarity on Afghan war:

  — AlJazeera.net, July 15, 2010, by AlJazeera:

US politicians have voiced their concern over the war in Afghanistan, saying US and Nato war efforts suffer from a crippling “lack of clarity”.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington on Wednesday, the legislators said Barack Obama has not done enough to explain his exit strategy.

They were referring to the US president’s self-imposed July 2011 deadline for starting a withdrawal of US forces.

The hearing comes in the wake of heavy casualties suffered by US forces in 24 hours, with the confirmed deaths of eight soldiers in attacks, including a Taliban raid on a police compound in the southern city of Kandahar.

Taranis: The £143million unmanned stealth jet that will hit targets in another continent

  — 13 Jul 2010 Defence firm BAE Systems today officially unveiled its first ever high-tech unmanned stealth jet. The Taranis, named after the Celtic god of thunder, is about the same size as a Hawk jet and is equipped with stealth equipment and an ‘autonomous’ artificial intelligence system. The plane will test the possibility of developing the first ever autonomous stealthy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) that would ultimately be capable of precisely striking targets at long range, even in another continent.

Karzai Approves Plan to Keep Taliban Out of Villages

  — By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense News:

WASHINGTON, July 14, 2010 – Afghan President Hamid Karzai has approved a program that will set up local police forces in towns and villages where the Taliban are attempting to infiltrate and intimidate the population.

The local police forces will bridge the gap until fully trained government forces can step in, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said at a news conference today.

“While we are simultaneously operating at a far higher tempo and degrading the Taliban so they are less of a threat to these local communities, we can utilize a willing, local, armed population to do community policing,” Morrell said.

The local police forces are not militias, Morrell explained. Karzai approved a plan to put up to 10,000 community police in place, to be paid by the government and to operate under the control of the Afghanistan’s interior ministry.

Petraeus wants Taliban in Pakistan on terror list

  — AP News hosted on Google News, July 14, 2010, by Pauline Jelinek:

WASHINGTON — The new military commander in Afghanistan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee are urging the State Department to add to its terrorist list some Afghan insurgent commanders who operate from hiding places in neighboring Pakistan.

Commander of NATO forces Gen. David Petraeus wants some leaders of the Haqqani network added to the list, a senior U.S. Defense official in Washington said Wednesday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to describe internal administration discussions.

On Tuesday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., urged the State Department to take the same action. Levin is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Both asked for sanctions against the al-Qaida-linked group, led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj. The Haqqani network launches attacks against U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan from the Waziristan tribal region in Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, drug rehab for children

  — MichaelMoore.com, July 14, 2010, by Aunohita Mojumdar / Christian Science Monitor:

Children in Afghanistan are often fed opium to stop their crying, and many are born to addicts. A few clinics offer drug rehab for youths, but they are scarce and socially taboo.

Afghan war unwinnable under Karzai, says rights group

  — Reuters on MichaelMoore.com, July 14, 2010, by Rob Taylor:

(Reuters) – It would take “a miracle” to win the war and restore viable peace in Afghanistan under the inept government of President Hamid Karzai despite a massive surge in foreign troops, a rights group said on Monday.

The surge had also driven violence to its worst levels since the Taliban’s 2001 ousting, with 14 civilians killed or wounded on average each day, Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) said in a new report (see below).

“Contrary to President Barrack Obama’s promise that the deployment … would ‘disrupt, dismantle and defeat’ Taliban insurgents and their al Qaeda allies in the region, the insurgency has become more resilient, multi-structured and deadly,” the group said.

Taliban attacks kill 8 US soldiers within 24 hours

  — Christian Science Monitor on MichaelMoore.com, July 14, 2010, by Kristen Chick:

Taliban attacks on Tuesday night and Wednesday killed eight US soldiers within a 24-hour period, highlighting the intensifying insurgency waged by the Taliban, which this year is carrying out more attacks than ever in the nearly nine-year-long war.

On Wednesday, a roadside bomb killed four US troops in the south, reports the Associated Press. A fifth soldier died the same day of wounds from a gun battle.

On Tuesday night, a Taliban attack on the headquarters of a police unit in the Afghan city of Kandahar killed nine people, including three US soldiers. It came hours after an Afghan soldier killed three British troops in neighboring Helmand Province, and days after six additional US troops were killed in Taliban attacks Saturday.

Tuesday’s attack on the police post began when a suicide bomber exploded his car at the entrance to the elite Afghan National Civil Order Police, reports AP. Fighters then began firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, but the Afghan police, along with NATO troops, kept the insurgents from entering the compound.

Afghanistan Rights Monitor SLAMS Washington
Spin About “Progress” in Afghanistan

  — Firedoglake, July 14, 2010, by Derrick Crowe:

The Afghanistan Rights Monitor’s (ARM) mid-year report on Civilian Casualties of Conflict (pdf) blasts the happy-talk coming out of the Obama Administration about the deteriorating security situation and its effect on civilians.

Despite the high-profile spin in Washington and Kabul about progress made in Afghanistan, the Afghan people have only witnessed and suffered an intensifying armed conflict over the past six months. Contrary to President Barrack Obama’s promise that the deployment of additional 30,000 US forces to the country would “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” Taliban insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies in the region, the insurgency has become more resilient, multi-structured and deadly. Information and figures received, verified and analyzed by Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) show about 1,074 civilian people were killed and over 1,500 were injured in armed violence and security incidents from 1 January to 30 June 2010. This shows a slight increase in the number of civilian deaths compared to the same period last year when 1,059 deaths were recorded.

…In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since the demise of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Not only have the number of security incidents increased, the space and depth of insurgency and counter-insurgency-related violence have maximized dramatically. Up to 1,200 security incident were recorded in June, the highest number of incident compared to any month since 2002.

The administration and their allies have continuously that “we’re making progress,” “we’re turning the tide,” or “we’ve begun to reverse the insurgents’ momentum,” but the data doesn’t support their assertions. As ARM’s report shows, civilian casualties continue to climb even as more troops flood into the country — troops executing a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy supposedly premised on “protecting the population.” The rise in troop levels and civilian casualties has been accompanied by an increasingly large and sophisticated insurgency and a widening lead in sympathy or support for the insurgents in key districts of Afghanistan.

Also see Poll: Americans Again Pessimistic on Afghan War, AntiWar.com, July 14, 2010, by Jason Ditz:

After falling to a relatively pessimistic low shortly before his December announcement of the McChrystal Plan and the latest escalation, America’s public perception of the Afghan War had been running comparatively high, with only about half of Americans believing the war was going badly as recently as May.

… Summer is back though, and with June’s record death toll comes a return to pessimism about the war’s prospects. The latest poll shows 62 percent believing the war is going badly now, with only 31 believing it is going well.

The poll also showed a majority of Americans, 54-41, want a timetable for exiting Afghanistan.

Also see India, Pakistan in high-level talk, ABC News.net, July 14, 2010, by Sally Sara: The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan will hold talks later today for the first time since the Mumbai terrorist attacks. (This is the only possibly good news of the day. ~ Paul Evans)

Visit ReThinkAfghanistan.com to see effective, compelling videos about how escalation of the war in Afghanistan and meddling in Pakistan is the wrong move for America.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

US government lifts lid on alleged leak to WikiLeaks, BBC News, July 14, 2010, by Chris Vallance, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WikiLeaks posts video of ‘US military killings’ in Iraq (see links to right).

The US state department has told the BBC it believes an alleged whistle-blower obtained secret diplomatic data despite being at a field base in Iraq.

Serviceman Bradley Manning, 22, faces two charges related to the illegal transfer and transmission of classified information from a US military network.

The US said he was suspected of downloading from SIPR Net.

He reportedly then passed on the data, including army videos and diplomatic messages, to the WikiLeaks website.

WikiLeaks has repeatedly said it does not have the confidential messages and the site itself is not mentioned in the charges against Private First Class (Pfc) Manning.

A former hacker, Adrian Lamo, reported Pfc Manning to the US authorities. He said the intelligence analyst admitted, in a series of online chats, to sending data to the whistle-blowing website.

In the redacted charge sheet detailing the accusations against Pfc Manning, the Army alleges that he transmitted, “to a person not authorised to receive it”, a classified US Department of State cable described as “Reykjavik 13″.

The US also alleges Pfc Manning obtained 150,000 US diplomatic cables without proper authorization.

Previous incidents

In February this year, WikiLeaks released a diplomatic cable from 13 January 2010 recording details of a meeting in Iceland between US diplomat Sam Watson, British ambassador Ian Whitting, and members of the Icelandic government.

Now the state department has told BBC News how Bradley Manning, based at the Hammer military field base in Iraq, could have accessed information unrelated to the US mission in that country.

In an e-mail, US state department spokesperson Megan Mattson said: “After the events of 11 September 2001, agencies across the federal government understood that greater information sharing was vital to protecting our national security interests.

“As part of our efforts to make Department of State information available to those who have a legitimate need to know, we established the Net Centric Diplomacy initiative, which allows Department of State information to be shared on the Department of Defence’s SIPR (Secret Internet Protocol System) Net system.”

Ms Mattson said that access to the system was only permitted to those “civilian and military users with appropriate security clearances”.

She said that Bradley Manning was “suspected of violating the trust and confidence given to him”.

Pooled resources

Catherine Lotrionte, associate director of the Institute for Law, Science and Global Security, has a background in US intelligence work.

She told BBC News that there was “a push after 9/11 that information was going to be shared – and databases connected.”

In her view, data-sharing is necessary for effective intelligence work, and the risk that it may make large data breaches easier is simply “the cost of doing business – the downside is that someone may break the rules”.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a retired US General, with extensive military intelligence experience, told BBC News that there were, “layers of clearances designed to protect and restrict access to data.”

He said that sharing information was the right thing to do and the military benefits far outweighed the risks.

Check Out the Best Guide to Politics on the Web!
The Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web

Find Out Where to find the Truth!

But Crispin Black, a former intelligence analyst for the UK government, says the content of cables can be very sensitive.

“Diplomatic cables don’t usually contain huge secrets but they do contain the unvarnished truth so in a sense they can be even more embarrassing than secrets.”

He told the BBC that the possibility that someone in a base in Iraq could potentially access cables about Iceland violated, the principle of “need to know” in intelligence.

According to claims by Adrian Lamo, Pfc Manning told him in online chats that he removed information by burning it onto a CD.

Mr Lamo claims that Pfc Manning told him that he disguised his activities by pretending he was listening to music by Lady Gaga.

According to Lamo, Pfc Manning is alleged to have said in one online-chat that “Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack…” ….

Read the full article here.

See US soldier linked to Iraq helicopter video leak charged, BBC News, July 6, 2010, by BBC News.

See Profile: Who are Wikileaks?, BBC News, April 6, 2010, by Jonathan Fildes.

Watch and read: WikiLeaks VIDEO Exposes 2007 ‘Collateral Murder’ In Iraq, The Huffington Post, June 5, 2010, by Dan Froomkin.

Visit WikiLeaks.org.

Listen to 12 Liberal Speeches

. We’re going to keep pounding three or four of these into a lot of our articles. Feeling discouraged and need some motivation? Sure you can read a self help book, but for me, listening to these four speeches makes all the difference to how my day goes:

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

Top anti-war Democrat: Afghanistan war could ‘destroy’ Obama’s presidency, The Raw Story, July 12, 2010, by Sahill Kapur, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON – An outspoken anti-war Democrat said ongoing US military efforts in Afghanistan could deeply imperil the presidency of Barack Obama and the fortunes of the Democratic Party.

“I think that this war, if it goes on and if it escalates, has the potential to destroy this presidency and to destroy the Democratic majorities in Congress,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) told Raw Story in an interview.

The New York congressman, who has called the Afghanistan war a “fool’s errand,” said he has no qualms opposing Obama and Democratic leaders on this sensitive issue ahead of the midterm elections, despite the harsh climate for his party.

“When you’re dealing with war and peace you can’t think of it in those terms,” he said. “People are dying. The security of our country, the honor of our country, the lives of our men and women, the lives of foreign men and women – are at stake. And that’s a lot more important, frankly, than partisan advantage.”

For Nadler, his stance on Afghanistan hearkens back to when he disapproved of US efforts in Vietnam in the 1960s, which President Lyndon Johnson championed and escalated.

“I got into politics opposing a president of my party – a president who was very good in most other respects – over the Vietnam war,” he said.

Military leaders say the US has national security interests in creating a stable central government in Afghanistan, by rooting out Taliban insurgents and ensuring the region doesn’t become a save-haven for Al-Qaeda.

Obama, who has championed the mission and deployed 30,000 additional troops to the region this year, faces a tough political predicament. Recent events have enhanced negative perceptions of the war, but withdrawal may carry with it an admission of failure and lead to forceful attacks from Republicans.

148 Hot Rock and Pop Tracks
for Your Listening Pleasure!

#1 Rated by Google

A House vote on July 1 to approve war funding revealed growing Democratic divisions over the war. Three-fifths of Democrats backed an amendment demanding an exit strategy, which failed due to resolute Republican opposition.

While the president and most members of Congress deem a withdrawal timetable ill-advised, Nadler considers the shift in Democratic perception a positive step. “I think most of the Democratic Party is coming round,” he said.

The Brooklyn native said that while he believes there are political incentives for ending the Afghanistan war, his opposition is based chiefly on harsh realities in the region that make victory unachievable at a reasonable cost, if at all.

“It ought to be stopped for all sorts of reasons, but those political reasons increase the case for stopping it,” Nadler said.

Comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Yes, we know, right now our videos are not showing. We believe it is a hosting issue or perhaps some little snippet of code is not quite right. We are working hard to resolve this issue. Thanks for your patience. ~ Paul

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

Mexican Democracy, Even Under Siege, © The New York Times, July 5, 2010, by Marc Lacey, excerpt quoted verbatim:

MEXICO CITY — Campaign offices had been bombed, candidates threatened and killed, and dead bodies were even hung from bridges on the morning of the polling. But Mexico’s voters still turned out in relatively large numbers to choose new governors, mayors and state representatives over the weekend and managed to send an inspiring message amid all the violence: Mexico’s democracy, flawed as it may be, endures.

One of the nation’s most powerful factions — the country’s drug lords — had attempted to hijack the process. Through bloodshed, they managed to keep voter turnout down in some

states and scare off many poll workers, prompting one former president of the Federal Election Institute, Luis Carlos Ugalde, to lament that this was the first Mexican election in which drug dealers played a visible role in interrupting the process.But the polling went on and the results were accepted, with voters appearing to steer away from candidates with perceived links to traffickers. In the border state of Tamaulipas, the populace seemed particularly intent on declaring that drug lords should not decide elections, voting in the brother of a candidate who was murdered less than a week before Election Day by a wide margin.

Political analysts had predicted a huge win for the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as the P.R.I., which ruled Mexico for 71 years before voters broke its grip on the country’s politics a decade ago. And the P.R.I. did take nine of the 12 governorships that were up for grabs on Sunday, including in Tamaulipas.

But the clearest message that voters seemed to send was that no one party rules Mexico anymore, and that entrenched party machines no long have a lock on power. Voters were clearly fed up with the violence Mexico has experienced, interviews showed, and the fact that they turned out at all in some particularly dangerous areas was noteworthy.

Election Day in Mexico

Leading Conservatives Call for Steele to Resign for Daring to Question War, AlterNet, July 4, 2010, by zaidjilani, quoted verbatim:

This post first appeared on Think Progress.

This past Friday, video surfaced of RNC Chairman Michael Steele speaking at a fundraiser in Connecticut about the war in Afghanistan. While some of Steele’s comments at the fundraiser were clearly inaccurate — such as his claim that the war was of “Obama’s choosing,” when it was started by his predecessor — he also made reasonable, debate-worthy arguments that engaging in a prolonged land war in Afghanistan is unwise.

Rather than refuting the historical inaccuracies in the first half of Steele’s statements and thoughtfully considering his critique of the war, numerous leading conservatives have responded to Steele’s comments by lashing out at the chairman, with some even asking for him to step down from his post. Their message is clear — in the modern Republican Party, you are not allowed to question the wisdom of engaging in a war:

- Leading conservative pundit and McCain presidential campaign advisor Bill Kristol called Steele’s comments an “affront…to the commitment of our soldiers” in Afghanistan and demanded that the chairman step down. [7/2/10]

- RedState founder, leading movement conservative, and CNN contributor Erick Erickson said that Steele “has lost all moral authority” and he “must resign.” [7/2/10]

- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Steele’s remarks were “totally unacceptable” and said that he should “apologize and resign.” [7/03/10]

- Former Bush State Department official and Keep America Safe founder Liz Cheney said that Steele’s Afghanistan comments were “deeply disappointing and wrong” and that it is “time for Steele to step down.” [7/4/10]

- This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there was “no excuse” for Steele’s comments and told host Jake Tapper that “Mr. Steele is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee.” [7/4/10]

- Speaking on Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) demanded that Steele “apologize to our military” and said that Republicans “need a chairman who’s focused.” [7/4/10]

- On CBS’s Face The Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Steele’s remarks “unwise” and said “we must win this war.” The senator was thankful, however, that Steele was “backtracking so fast he’s gonna be here fighting in Kabul soon.” [7/4/10]

While leading conservatives may be fine with toppling the head of their party for daring to question the wisdom of a long and protracted war in Afghanistan, they risk marginalizing themselves politically among an American public that is increasingly opposed to America’s longest war in history. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a whopping 58 percent of Americans agree with President Obama’s stated timeline of July 2011 to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is also worth noting that nine elected Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the McGovern-Obey amendment requiring President Obama to submit a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan — indicating that Steele’s position may be an increasingly popular one in the Republican Party.

Update: As Glenn Greenwald notes, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse put out a statement saying that Steele’s comments are tantamount to “betting against our troops and walking away from the fight.” Woodhouse’s position is hard to square with the fact that nearly 2/3 of House Democrats have voted to require the President to submit a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

News Headlines

BP eyes stake sale as spill cost tops $3 billion, Reuters, July 5, 2010, by Raji Menon and Eman Goma.

Private Sector Goes Public: Retailers Devise Stimulus Plans to Revive Sales, The New York Times, July 4, 2010, by Stephanie Clifford.

See Also: Seven Untrue Things Most Americans Believe, Daily Kos, July 4, 2010, by make a difference.

Nudge on Arms Further Divides U.S. and Israel, &#169 The New York Times, July 3, 2010, by Mark Landler, photo &#169 N.Y. TImes/Oded Balilty, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON — It was only one paragraph buried deep in the most plain-vanilla kind of diplomatic document, 40 pages of dry language committing 189 nations to a world free of nuclear weapons. But it has become the latest source of friction between Israel and the United States in a relationship that has lurched from crisis to crisis over the last few months.

At a meeting to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in May, the United States yielded to demands by Arab nations that the final document urge Israel to sign the treaty — a way of spotlighting its historically undeclared nuclear weapons.

Israel believed it had assurances from the Obama administration that it would reject efforts to include such a reference, an Israeli official said, and it saw this as another sign of unreliability by its most important ally. In a recent visit to Washington, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, raised the issue in meetings with senior American officials.

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet President Obama on Tuesday at the White House, the flap may introduce a discordant note into a meeting that both sides are eager to portray as a chance for Israel and the United States to turn the page after a rocky period.

Other things have changed notably for the better in American-Israeli relations since Mr. Netanyahu called off his last visit to the White House to rush home to deal with the crisis after Israel’s deadly attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla sailing to Gaza in late May. His agreement to ease the land blockade on Gaza, which came at the request of the United States, has helped thaw the chill between the governments, American and Israeli officials said.

Meanwhile, the raft of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, after the passage of the United Nations resolution, has reassured Israelis, who viewed Mr. Obama’s attempts to engage Iran with unease. Mr. Obama signed the American sanctions into law on Thursday.

“The overall tone is more of a feel-good visit than we’ve seen in the past,” said David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It has been more focused on making sure that the Ides of March have passed.”

He was referring to the dispute during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in March, when Israel approved plans for Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Mr. Obama was enraged by what he perceived as a slight to Mr. Biden, and when Mr. Netanyahu visited a few weeks later, the While House showed its displeasure by banning cameras from recording the visit.

But despite the better atmospherics, some analysts said the nuclear nonproliferation issue symbolizes why Israel remains insecure about the intentions of the Obama administration. In addition to singling out Israel, the document, which has captured relatively little public attention, calls for a regional conference in 2012 to lay the groundwork for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Israel, whose nuclear arsenal is one of the world’s worst-kept secrets, would be on the hot seat at such a meeting.

At the last review conference, in 2005, the Bush administration refused to go along with any references to Israel, one of several reasons the meeting ended in acrimony, without any statement.

This time, Israel believed the Obama administration would again take up its cause. As a non-signatory to the treaty, Israel did not attend the meeting. But American officials consulted the Israelis on a text in advance, which they found acceptable, a person familiar with those discussions said. That deepened their surprise at the end.

Administration officials said the United States negotiated for months with Egypt, on behalf of the Arab states, to leave out the reference to Israel. While the United States supports the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East, it stipulated that any conference would be only a discussion, not the beginning of a negotiation to compel Israel to sign on to the treaty.

The United States practices a policy of ambiguity with respect to Israel’s nuclear stockpile, neither publicly discussing it nor forcing the Israeli government to acknowledge its existence.

The United States, recognizing that the document would upset the Israelis, sought to distance itself even as it signed it.

In a statement released after the conference ended, the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, said, “The United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.” He said it was “equally deplorable” that the document did not single out Iran for its nuclear ambitions. Any conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, General Jones said, could only come after Israel and its neighbors had made peace.

The United States, American officials said, faced a hard choice: refusing to compromise with the Arab states on Israel would have sunk the entire review conference. Given the emphasis Mr. Obama has placed on nonproliferation, the United States could not accept such an outcome.

It also would complicate the administration’s attempts to build bridges to the Arab world, an effort that is at the heart of some of the disagreements between the United States and Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama will have plenty of other things to discuss this week. After several rounds of indirect talks, brokered by the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, the United States is pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians to begin direct negotiations.

Read the full article, here.

See Despite Raid, Mostly Business as Usual for Israel and Turkey, The New York Times, July 2, 2010, by Dina Kraft.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google