Davis: U.S. Policies Are A Guaranteed FAIL In Afghanistan

Source: Scott Olson/Getty Images from USA Today coverage of NATO summit protests in Chicago May, 2012.

Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis just spent a year in Afghanistan, and now he just can't shake off the feeling that our government is lying to the troops, lying to the people, and lying to itself. Davis came home to the vast indifference of a Congress that won't even hold hearings on the USA's longest war, and he turned to press outlets like the Armed Forces Journal to carry some reality to those with ears to listen.

In "Truth, lies and Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down" Davis has a different perspective than do peace activists who are concerned about harm to all the Earth's people. His job, which he seems to take seriously, is to advocate within the system for proper deployment of the troops we are always being urged to support. He writes:

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Obviously he is reading but not buying the official NATO line on Afghanistan. From the statement signed by heads of state at the recently concluded NATO summit in Chicago.

“In the ten years of our partnership the lives of Afghan men, women and children, have improved significantly in terms of security, education, health care, economic opportunity and the assurance of rights and freedoms. There is more to be done, but we are resolved to work together to preserve the substantial progress we have made during the past decade.”

One of the most damaging effects of lying to yourself is how badly it hampers ones ability to make decisions based on evidence.

Source: BBC article on childhood mortality rate of Afghanistan (#3 in the world).

Davis quoted several experts to back up his analysis, among them Foreign Policy analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who wrote in Afghanistan: The Uncertain Economics of Transition: “Credible transition planning cannot be based on systematic dishonesty and omission of key variables...”

Davis again in a longer piece he posted online:

If the vast and diverse body of work I have included here is right, our official policy will not only fail to accomplish our national objectives, it may perversely contribute to its failure. [empahsis mine] Of greater concern to me personally, however is this: the men and women of our Armed Forces will pay with their lives, their body parts, their flesh and blood, and suffer continued degradation to their emotional and psychological well-being in pursuit of a strategy that will not benefit our country.

As far as paying with their lives, the President has a solution: just use drones. The cross border  bombing of civilians while attempting to assassinate presumed militants is the hallmark of the second decade of NATO's war on Afghanistan.

The horror of bombing mourners at funerals in Pakistan was expressed by many commenters along the lines: What kind of vicious tyrant would use such tactics? (My answer from 5th grade civics class: a tyrant with no checks and balances in place.)

Medea Benjamin  had a piece in Truthout this week about what people on both sides of the world really want. She quoted drone expert, Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer suing the CIA on behalf of drone victims:

[Akbar] thinks its time for the American people to speak out. "Can you trust a program that has existed for eight years, picks its targets in secret, faces zero accountability and has killed almost 3,000 people in Pakistan alone whose identities are not known to their killers?," he asks.

"When women and children in Waziristan are killed with Hellfire missiles, Pakistanis believe this is what the American people want.

I would like to ask Americans, 'Do you?'"

Source: American Free Press "CIA Drone Attacks Murder Civilians, Rescuers, Mourners"

Obama's Kill List -- Why Drone Wars Are Dumb Wars

They say fortune favors the prepared. Lucky for us that CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin did her homework last year and produced the comprehensive book Drone Warfare:Killing by Remote Control just in time for breaking news of President Obama's “kill list.”

Peace activists often wonder if they are voicing their concerns into an abyss of indifference. When robotic killers emerged as the U.S. empire's weapon of choice, its citizens didn't seem to give a hoot. If that's how the President chooses to wage war, it must be smart – right?

Benjamin carefully delineates each of several reasons why drone wars are dumb wars in a well-researched and up to the minute account: they kill civilians in large numbers, which manufactures enemies in the form of bereaved family and neighbors; they demolish due process by rendering extrajudicial killing normal, even as applied to U.S. citizens and even as applied to minors; they are tremendously expensive, with their use creating its own markets; and proliferation is galloping ahead with no real prospect for regulation.

Since Drone Warfare's publication last month, mainstream media outlets have discovered the horrors of one man sitting in the highest office in the land poring over lists of names of alleged terrorists. The checks and balances written into the Constitution are nowhere in sight as the executive branch anoints itself judge, jury and executioner. Even those who persist in being enamored of the man currently inhabiting the Oval Office must feel their confidence falter when they consider that the power being abrogated goes with the office, not the person serving his term there. The New Yorker, the New York Times and The Nation are among those sounding the alarm.

Next on the horizon according to Bejamin's research will be not only unmanned but unflown drones, with no human operator involved once their pre-programming is complete. No longer will 19 year old joystick warriors or 35 year old re-tooled Air Force pilots hunch over screens in a trailer in the Nevada desert to pilot the Reapers, Hawks and Predators that generate huge profits for a handful of corporations. No longer will they consult with boots on the ground for the go-ahead to pull the trigger. Drones are on the way to becoming autonomous robotic killers who decide when they have spotted the right militant – or are those just shepherds? Mourners at a funeral? A mother running for cover with her baby?

At the end of the day it's hard to know whether to be more concerned about autonomous weaponized drones or the surveillance drones with creepy comic book names like Gorgon Stare that will soon be able to record high definition video of a globe's worth of human activity.

At the end of the book, there are rousing accounts of the many people worldwide who are raising their voices and demanding accountability for the use of remote control killing machines. Why not join in yourself?

Ground the Drones campaign info here.

Medea and other CODEPINK members in No Drones at the White House on June 1.