Fighting Terror is More Than Defeating ISIS

A man plays John Lennon's "Imagine" in Paris after the attacks on Friday

The pernicious cancer that is ISIS has done what many thought was only the group's pipe dream: they attacked a Western nation, bringing the carnage and horror they have employed across Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Beirut.

If you turn to Facebook or other social media, you'll see people's profile pictures adorned in the French tricolor, symbolizing solidarity with the wounded nation. An honorable gesture, to be sure, but one that I did not see utilized after the Beirut bombings, or the Sharm el-Sheikh plane crash, or the myriad other atrocities being committed across the Middle East. That's a problem.

Yes, ISIS needs to be destroyed. We need to wipe them out completely. But if we want to avoid these tragedies in the future, we need to stop accepting Middle East instability as the norm. We need to stop catalyzing regime change with no post-change strategy. We need to stop throwing money at and selling arms to repressive regimes in the region. We need to start realizing that an unstable portion of the world is not only a threat to area nations, but to all nations. It is 2015, we are a globalized planet. Globalization doesn't just mean business can reach new international markets more easily, it also means that we are all that much more connected. ISIS and al-Qaeda aren't regional problems - they're now global.

In response to 9/11, Washington declared a war on terrorism, which, on its face, is inane. You cannot declare war on an ideology - you will never, ever win. ISIS is a short-term manifestation of a long-term problem. When Joe Biden declared that the United States is not in the business of nation-building, he was way off the mark. ISAF member nations cannot destroy a nation and then not step up when it is time to rebuild. Post-war infrastructure - economic, political, physical - needs to be part of any military strategy, otherwise you open the door to what we're seeing now.

One thing that will not solve the ISIS problem - and will actually further long-term terrorism - is trying to close Western borders to those fleeing the unimaginable hell that exists in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. If Western nations are not willing to engage in post-war nation-building, then the very least they can do is take displaced civilians in. We as the West have an opportunity here to be known for humanitarianism and compassion instead of as the owners of unmanned aircraft that fire off missiles at any given moment in the Middle East. If we tell these civilians to stay where they are, all we are doing is serving them up to terrorist groups as either victims or recruits. That serves no one's end except the terrorists'.

We can cut down limbs from the tree of terrorism, but if we're not addressing the root causes of the problem - war-torn hellscapes that these kids grow up in, with zero opportunities, be they economic or educational - we're not going to solve it. We cannot deny that we've helped create these environments that allow terrorism to flourish. We did it in Afghanistan in the 80s, we did it with Iraq in the 2000s, we did it with Libya and Syria more recently. If we want to stop ISIS in the short term, we need to destroy them. If we want to minimize terrorism in the long term, we actually need to help to build stable Middle Eastern states.

Are the Democrats Trying to Lose in November?

I wrote last week on the Huffington Post about how the Tea Party has the potential to energize both the Republican base and the Democratic base this November. The movement is scary, not only from a xenophobic standpoint but also a policy one (or lack of policy), and the prospect of someone like Christine O'Donnell walking the halls of Congress just might be enough to get Democrats out to vote Democratic in an election cycle when, in all honesty, Democrats have not proven themselves worthy of our votes.

Is Iraq Ready to Handle Its Own Security Operations?

Today insurgents in Iraq mounted a two hour, 13 town assault as America begins its plans to draw down troops under 50,000 and will move from a combat operation to an "advise and assist" role in Iraqi security affairs. Unfortunately the attack today in Iraq, which killed at least 46 people (many police), underscores the ill-preparedness of Iraqi security forces to take over a very hostile situation created following the invasion of their country.

Obama is poised to announce the end of combat operations on August 31 in a major speech and I have this nightmare of it being Bush's "Mission Accomplished" all over again. Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln back in May of 2003 began like this:

Obama Administration Repeating Mistakes of 1980s Afghanistan Conflict

Yesterday's New York Times had an article entitled alluding to a "shadow war" being fought by the U.S. in Yemen and northern Africa. As I read the article my mind was having flashbacks to literature about the Soviet-Afghan War and our involvement in that conflict. In the 1980s we wanted to fight the Soviets without actually fighting them: we paid others (mujahedeen) to do the work and ran covert operations through the CIA to accomplish our goal of bringing down the Soviets. It worked, but the resulting consequences 20 years later were devastating.

The details of what the American government is doing in places like Yemen are disappointing to anyone hoping that this country would avoid, at nearly all costs, another Soviet-Afghan War situation. To begin with, the CIA is becoming more militant and the Pentagon is focusing more on covert operations dictated by secret Executive Orders. Combine this with that fact that the government is using military contractors in "territory hostile to the military" (which, I have to imagine, is pretty substantive in the Middle East) and the utter erosion of oversight is disturbing. Look at the death of Marib Province's deputy governor in an American strike intended for Al Qaeda: Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh took the blame. There is simply little to no accountability for these "covert ops."

Reactionary Response to WikiLeaks Afghan Papers

The fall out from the WikiLeaks disclosure of numerous classified military documents continues today, with one Congressman legitimately calling for Pfc. Bradley Manning's execution and Congress as a whole alienating bloggers and new media from a pending "media shield" bill. In other words, just a bunch of folks not getting it.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Fails to Clarify Administration's Goals for Afghanistan

Throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've stated that I just don't see a clear, quantifiable goal in either theater. President George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq over seven years ago, yet we're still there. Our efforts in Afghanistan have been met with increased difficulty, despite what the official rundown is. Well, we can supposedly rest easy now, because Defense Secretary Robert Gates broke down the current administration's goals on This Week.

When asked by Christiane Amanpour why Obama and Co. have not been out pushing the message that the Afghans enjoy our presence in their country (according to an ABC poll 68% of Afghans want us to remain in the country - how this poll was conducted I have no idea), Gates said:

And -- and I think -- you know, frankly, one of the things that I find frustrating is that I think that the president's strategy is really quite clear. I hear -- I hear all the stories that say what's the strategy, what's the goal here? I think it's quite clear. It's to -- it's to reverse the momentum of the Taliban, deny them control of populated areas, degrade their capabilities at the same time we're building up the Afghan security forces, so that the Afghan security forces can deny the Taliban and al Qaeda a base from which to attack the United States and the West.

These are great goals, I'm not going to deny that. But I have two problems with them. 1) How are we going to measure this? How will we know when these goals have been achieved? 2) With a timetable to begin troop drawdowns in July of next year, are these goals feasible in that kind of time frame?

9/11 Health and Compensation Act Voted Down in House

On September 11, 2001 the entire world fundamentally changed. For the majority of us the changes were macro in nature - from fear and confusion to small things like inconveniences at the airport and increased police presence in transit hubs. For a small, but significant, number of Americans the repercussions from the 9/11 attacks were, and continue to be, extremely personal. Over 2,800 people died that day. The two wars that have resulted from the cowardly attacks have seen over 5,600 military fatalities - 4,413 from Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1,212 from Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). These numbers do not reflect the other Americans who have been personally touched by 9/11 - friends and family members of those killed in lower Manhattan that day and those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, those wounded on September 11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those otherwise affected by that day and its repercussions.

WikiLeaks Documents Shed More Light on Afghanistan War

The revelation of newly released classified documents from WikiLeaks about the Afghanistan War has prompted the New York Times headline, "View is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan." This is true, but the real question I want to pose is this: how many people have been taking the official portrayal of the war in Afghanistan at face value? After being boondoggled by the previous administration into invading Iraq and being falsely promised by the current administration to have Guantanamo Bay closed by 2010 I would be shocked if people who read the WikiLeaks documents are, well, shocked.

What are some of the "earth shattering" revelations? The report outlines the corruption and outright collaboration of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (the equivalent of America's CIA) with Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Haqqani forces in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We knew that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a mess and that "Islamabad has no tangible control over the area." What we did not know (though certainly could have ascertained given the agency's history) is that the reason Islamabad has no control over the region is that they do not try, and they may even be making the situation worse rather than better.

Michael Steele is Half Right

First things first, Michael Steele is a fool. There's no two ways about it, the guy lives to put his foot in his mouth. His most recent series of gaffes occurred in Connecticut when he was speaking at a Republican Party fundraiser. He called the war in Afghanistan a "war of Obama's choosing." He said the McChrystal resignation was "comical." He stated that the war was not "something the United States had actively prosecuted or engaged in." In short, Michael Steele has selective amnesia, because everything that he said goes against the past decade of history.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Afghanistan?

You don't. I want to spin a quick yarn about a country back in the 1970s and 1980s that played a massive role in bringing down one of the most militarized nation-states in recent history. This country was a mountainous region with a very weak central government and was ruled over mostly by tribal warlords and religious extremists. When a very large nation-state to the north encroached on their territory and wanted to export their version of government, the tribal warlords and religious extremists mobilized against this foreign force. They eventually wore down the foreign army over nearly a decade, forcing them to withdraw. Now, we all know that the foreign army that retreated was the Soviet Union and the mountainous country it failed to keep under its control was Afghanistan. And clearly the story is a little more complex than a short paragraph (CIA Stingers, ISS corruption, etc.). But the fundamentals remain the same: the Afghan mujahideen was able to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan and then embarrass them on the world stage during the Soviet-Afghan War.

Fast forward to 2001 and while some of the circumstances have changed, the fundamentals remain the same. We've been drawn into Afghanistan by a Soviet-Afghan War veteran who understands how powerful guerrilla warfare tactics can be against a superior military. Compounding this, bin Laden has had two very lucky breaks. The first was Tora Bora in November, 2001 when we let him get away (a conclusion reached five months after the fact but made "official" by the Senate this week) and the second was Iraq. If we catch bin Laden in November we take out a major figurehead of the terrorist movement in Afghanistan and clearly and unequivocally send the message that you do not fuck with the United States. Instead bin Laden escapes because of crucial errors in judgment and tactics, becoming an even more mythic figure. Secondly, we go into Iraq, allowing Afghanistan to be relegated to red-headed stepchild status, with funds, troops, and materials diverted to the desert to find non-existent WMDs.

At the height of the Soviet-Afghan War, the Soviets had about 118,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. With Obama's plan to send another 30,000 troops to the war-torn country it will bring American troop levels to about 100,000 (with an additional 45,000 NATO troops). We are, essentially, sticking to the game plan that the Soviets had back in the 80s, at least in terms of troop levels. If it did not work for them, what could possibly make those in Washington think it will work for us?

We could sit here all day and talk about the failures of the past 8 years in Afghanistan, but that's not going to help with the future. What are our options there? I don't know, as I don't have top-level security clearance. Going on public information, though, one major issue is the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan that border Afghanistan, where it is believed bin Laden is hiding out and from where Al-Qaeda is launching attacks on American forces. We could talk to Pakistan to try to get permission to follow skirmishing Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Haqqani forces whose tactics include ambushing our armed forces and running back over the Zero Line, but Islamabad has no tangible control over the area. We could try to set up something similar to a DMZ on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan akin to that between North and South Korea and try to contain the terrorist forces. We could pack up and leave like we did in the 80s and allow the area to fall out of control (yet again) and hope we don't get attacked twenty years down the road. Pick your poison.

It's important to remember that in war nobody wins. Whether the insurgent forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan want to claim victory or the Americans and their "coalition of the willing" want to claim victory, the reality is we have all lost. Afghanistan has become even more war-torn, is now home to 90% of smack production in the world, and is stuck between two warring groups. Americans have seen our reputation both at home and abroad mocked, we've lost nearly 1,000 men and women in Afghanistan alone (with that number rising each year), and we will more than likely have some type of military presence in the country for at least a decade. You want the definition of a quagmire, here it is.

The Taliban Has Reformed and is Now a "Resilient Insurgency" - How Convenient

The latest out of Washington is a report from the Pentagon that states that the Taliban in Afghanistan has reformed and is now a "resilient insurgency." There are two scenarios now for the Bush White House, and neither is good. The first scenario is the fact that this report is complete and utter bullshit. The second is that Washington has allowed the Taliban to reform into a strong group under the armed forces' watch and the attention diverted to Iraq for a war based on incredibly horrible intelligence has more than likely detracted from resources that may have been more useful in a combat zone predicated on better intelligence (we knew Osama bin Laden was there; who do you think built the tunnel system for him in Tora Bora?).

Neither scenario is good for Bush and, in turn, McCain. The timing of this report, however, is very interesting. As the Democrats pander to stubborn and bitter Hillary supporters who would rather see John McCain in office than vote for a black man who actually has a better shot than Clinton at winning in November, John McCain's campaign has hit a few roadblocks. After a Newsweek poll stating that Obama was surging in the polls, McCain was probably scrambling for some good press. What is not good press is the fact that one of McCain's top advisers, Charlie Black (a longtime GOP operative) saying that a terrorist attack on the United States would be advantageous for McCain come November. So it looks like some in the McCain camp are hoping for innocent Americans to die just so McCain can reach the Oval Office.

However, the process of going to a nation, overthrowing the government, funding anti-American extremists and simply waiting for the results 20 years later (read: our Cold War operations in the Middle East) is simply too lengthy. The next best thing? Come up with a report - whether true or not - saying that the threat of terrorism is still high (9/11, which was politicized beyond belief by Rove and Company, seems to have outgrown its usefulness for the neo-cons) and people should be afraid. That way, no innocent Americans die (sorry Charlie Black) and people will still be scared.

But there are repurcussions to these actions. The first is, if this is exposed as a lie, the Bush camp is seen in even worse light (though somehow the man stays in office) and McCain, who will more than likely tout this report in the context of his foreign policy experience (though one of his most famous political moves involved aiding a savings and loan scandal douchebag in the 1980s with the Keating Five, which was 100% domestic), will suffer in the polls. The second, and more likely, is that this is not exposed as a lie and people will believe it. People will look over the fact that America's presence in Afghanistan has not deterred the Taliban from reforming right under their noses and that we should have learned a lesson from the 1980s. All they will see is that the Taliban (who have arguably done less for Osama bin Laden than the United States) is reforming and that America is in danger. McCain will slip up by saying Barack Hussin Obama and the typical American - who has absolutely no concept of what Islam is - will correlate Obama's middle name with the Taliban and chaos will ensue.

Seriously, though. Think about the timing of this report in the context of what is going on now. The Democrats are trying to move forward from a divisive primary (we have Hillary to blame for that) and McCain's campaign is shooting itself in the foot. It is at this moment that the Pentagon decides to release this report. I don't know what to think of it, given the shoddy intelligence coming out of that five pointed building (five pillars of Islam - conspiracy theory!) in the recent years. Yet still the fourth branch eats it up. Peace.

Photos - Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a major player in CIA Cold War covert ops in the Middle East) (CNN), Charlie Black - put his ass on a no-fly list (LA Times), The Pentagon (Pentagon)

Justice for Ciara Durkin

Harking back on a story that I discussed a while ago, Massachusetts Army National Guard Specialist Ciara Durkin was found dead on a secure army base in Afghanistan with a single gunshot wound to the head. Her September 28, 2007 death occurred under highly suspicious circumstances, but the Army eventually ruled it a suicide. Those circumstances surrounding her death, however, seem to paint a different story.

Durkin had been home only three weeks prior to her death in Afghanistan and had told her family that if anything happened to her while she was overseas that they should have it thoroughly investigated. Additionally, she had told her sister that while working as a finance specialist at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan (the same base on which she was killed) that she had discovered some information that had made her some enemies on the base. Only three weeks after this she was found dead with a single gunshot wound to the head.

As if this were not suspicious enough, the Army initially lied to the Durkin family about what really happened to their daughter. The Army told them that Ciara had died in a combat situation in Afghanistan, which immediately aroused suspicion because Durkin was a finance specialist who rarely, if ever, saw combat. When pressed, the Army conceded that, in fact, Durkin had died not in combat, but next to a church on a secure part of the airbase.

Recent scrutiny of the case has come on the heels of a column by Ann Wright, a 29 year Army and Army Reserve veteran who recently retired in protest to the war in Iraq. Colonel Wright highlights numerous other cases of women dying in secure areas that are suspiciously labeled "suicide" by the Army. Some of the cases are quote shocking, as there are damning statistics cited by Wright (she says that 1/3 of women in the Armed Forces will be sexually assaulted or raped by their male military peers). The cases involve cover-ups of rape and murder on military bases, with evidence to go with it. The incident involving Ciara Durkin's "suicide" is one of the highlighted cases for its very suspicious circumstances, given Durkin's comments to her family less than a month prior and her unlikeliness of taking her own life (her family and co-workers cite no unusual or depressing behavior).

Something about Durkin's death is amiss, here, and it appears that there are several things that the Army is not telling the Durkin family. Senators Kennedy and Kerry have looked into it, but have resolved little. The Durkin family deserves to know the truth about what happened to their daughter, who was serving this country in Afghanistan. Given the Army's past cover-up attempts and the VA's disgusting treatment of post-war veterans, it is time to demand the truth. It's bad enough that over 4,000 soldiers have died in a war that was sold to the American public on bad intel, but to lie to the families of those making the ultimate sacrifice for this country is unconscionable. I am urging anyone who feels that nothing less than justice is warranted in this case to write to the public officials who will be listed after this post and ask them to press for information in this case. Peace.

Photos - Ciara Durkin (www.bostonherald.com), Durkin's casket following funeral services in Quincy, MA (www.daylife.com)

Public Officials to Write To:

Bill Delahunt (Congressional Representative to the 10th District of Massachusetts, which includes Durkin's hometown of Quincy)
Congressman Bill Delahunt
1250 Hancock Street, Suite 802-N
Quincy, MA 02169
william.delahunt@mail.house.gov

Ted Kennedy (Senator to Massachusetts)
Senator Ted Kennedy
2400 JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm

John Kerry (Senator to Massachusetts)
Senator John Kerry
One Bowdoin Square
Tenth Floor
Boston, MA 02114
http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Ike Skelton (Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee)
Congressman Ike Skelton
1401 Southwest Blvd, Suite 101
Jefferson City, MO 65109-2429
http://www.house.gov/skelton/email.shtml

And the Lies Continue...

While browsing the Boston blog Bostonist, I stumbled upon a story that is very concerning. Everyone probably remembers the Pat Tillman disaster and the ensuing cover-up. The lies and deception involved in that case hurt Tillman's family immensely, so one may think that the Army would learn their lesson when it comes to lying about soldiers' deaths. But, alas, they have not. Quincy resident Specialist Ciara Durkin, 30, was shot and killed within a secure area of Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. Instead of coming clean about Durkin's death, the Army thought it might get away with telling Durkin's family that she was killed in a combat situation and that would be that. Not so much. The Army finally disclosed that, in fact, Durkin died in a non-combat situation and that she was found with a single gunshot wound to the head within a secure area of the airfield. Obviously something does not add up here. Also take into account that Durkin worked with soldiers' finances and making sure that the families of dead or injured soldiers were receiving their benefits. She also had told her family the last time she was home that she had come upon some information that she did not like and that she had "made some enemies because of it."

This news cannot come at a worse time for Washington as the Iraqi situation continues to deteriorate, at least on the strategic front. The Blackwater scandal continues to grow, the heat is on the Department of Defense and the State Department with neither of the two being very forthcoming, and Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) on the war path (rightly so) against what he calls "an epidemic of corruption" going down in Washington and Iraq. For just a taste of it, click here. So the fact that the Army, Department of Defense, and the State Department blatantly lie is not unprecedented. Not by a long shot. So why do we still put up with it? Why can't Representative Waxman get straight answers out of people that hold responsibility for these acts? The Army refuses to release the autopsy results and Durkin's will in this case. I understand not giving it to the media, but to one's own family members? Is this how we treat those who serve this country? Whether you think the "war" that we are involved in in Iraq is justified or not, you have to agree that this treatment of our soldiers and their families is despicable. The nonchalance that private companies show towards Iraqi citizens is also a disgrace to our country ($20,000 for an Iraqi life thrown away for no reason?). It's high time for a change in Washington and Iraq. If this is not enough to rally people behind truth and freedom in America, then I have to wonder when enough is enough. Peace.

Photos - Top: Specialist Ciara Durkin (bostonist.com), Middle: Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) (www.cnn.com), Bottom: Blackwater USA founder Erik Prince attempting to justify his company's actions (www.philly.com)