DETAINEE ABUSE PHOTOS MUST NOT BE RELEASED, AT LEAST NOT RIGHT NOW - WACKED-OUT MILITANTS DO NOT NEED ANOTHER REASON TO KILL

Abusive photos taken by United States' soldiers of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be released to the public, at least not right now. The release of 21 photos has nothing to do with privacy rights or government transparency; instead, it has everything to do with protecting American troops who are still in Afghanistan fighting a war against a bunch of lunatics. Only when every soldier is safely back on American soil should the photos be released.FILE - This 2003 file photo obtained by The Associated Press shows a detainee bent over with his hands on the bars of a prison cell at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. Congress is set to give the Pentagon power to keep new pictures of detainee abuse from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court (AP Photo/file)

Understanding the Legal Battle

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the government, arguing 21 photographs of abuse should be released to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The government has unsuccessfully argued that the photos are exempt from FOIA's mandatory disclosure because they "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F).

The lower courts have ruled in the ACLU's favor and the government has lost its appeals. The district court recognized the risk of violent acts as a result of the release of the photos but said that "our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument." Essentially, the judges agreed with the government -- that there is a risk to our soldiers -- but that their hands were tied by FOIA. The court of appeals also said the release of the photos could "incite violence" but that the government had to identify a specific individual who would be threatened under the exemption and since it could not, the photos are not exempt.

This is craziness! The courts acknowledge the risk of violence to our troops; but, since the risk is to the group of American soldiers as a whole, not to a named individual, the risk is not "specific" enough. Well, if we use that thinking, then why the hell are we in Afghanistan in the first place? We are not only there to identify "specific" people, like named Taliban and al Qaeda leaders; we are also there to hunt down any Taliban or al Qaeda militant.

Our mission in Afghanistan is broad based; therefore, the protections to our soldiers must be broad based as well. We are at war, folks. Why risk a militant capturing an American soldier or journalist and torturing him in retaliation to the release of the photos? Requiring the name a specific soldier who could be targeted is absolutely silly.

I believe in transparency and the public's right to access government documents. (For example, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis tried to protect the names of CPD officers accused of abuse. I believe those names should be disclosed to the public. We have a right to know the names of Chicago's worst cops.) But, there is no need to publish photos to the world that could increase the threat of violence, no matter how small, against our fathers and sons who are fighting in Afghanistan, who are putting their lives on the line in a region filled with crazy-ass insurgents. Keep in mind, the soldiers accused of the abuse were tried and convicted. It is not like the Army did not bring the abusive soldiers to justice.

Legal Battle May Be Killed by Defense Secretary

The final decision, to be made by the Supreme Court, may come as early as Tuesday; however, the White House has asked the justices to withhold their ruling until House and Senate vote on whether absolute power to decide on the photos' release should be given to the defense secretary. Basically, if they vote yes, the ACLU's legal victories will be stripped from them and we can expect Robert Gates to hold those photos closely to his chest. (That's another legal discussion for another day!) AP article here.

If Secretary Gates is granted the power to protect the photos, I hope that he will authorize their release once the war is over. For many reasons, the public has a right to see those images, just not right now. The public does not have a pressing, immediate interest in viewing those photos.

Obama Flips the Script Yet Again

Obama is becoming a master at switching his positions. In the beginning days of his presidency, Obama said he was not opposed to the photos being released and he wanted government transparency. But, in May, Obama said he was now opposed to the release of the photos.  After talking with lawyers, he decided "the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan." Interesting -- now he is in agreement with the Bush administration's refusal to release the photos. 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/obama-broke-his-word-on-d_n_203065.html

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

* The "Darby photographs" are the property of the Department of Defense and Department of the Army.

* To support its position, the government submitted a declaration of General Richard Myers, (then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation's highest ranking military officer.) that stated disclosing the Darby photographs "could reasonably be expected" to "endanger the lives and physical safety" of those individuals was based on his extensive military experience, assessments by his combat commanders, intelligence reports from subject-matter experts, the violent response to the release of photographs of detainees in British custody, and the widespread and deadly rioting following the publication of a false story alleging the desecration of detainees' copies of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. See Government's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

* The government already gave the ACLU written descriptions of the photos, which the ACLU has posted on its website. See here.

* This blog is dedicated to my dear childhood friend, Marcia Hofmann, who is a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Marcia co-authored the amicus briefs with the ACLU in the above case and it is her work that inspired me to really think about the case. Thank you, Marcia. You are such a great friend, scholar and resource.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

THE POWER OF 3: AL QAEDA, TALIBAN & AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY

We must get out of Afghanistan now.

The WSJ reports that General McChrystal wants as many as 60,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. Whether we send 1,000 troops or 100,000 troops, are we really capable of "winning" the war against all of these negative forces? I say NO; I say get the hell out of dodge.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said al Qaeda has focused on hitting the U.S., while danger posed by the Taliban "was somewhat different" and less threatening. That's interesting because it was the Taliban, 300+ strong, that attacked our outposts last weekend. AP article here. In fact, my friend's husband led about 60 troops from the top of a mountain, down into the location of the attack. And yet the Taliban is less threatening than al Qaeda? Really?

Also reported to me by a member of the front line was that the Afghan National Army did not help the American troops at all. Apparently, members of the new army are easily paid off by the Taliban. In fact, our troops have implemented a buddy system even for bathroom breaks because they do not trust the Afghan National Army troops.

What is our mission in Afghanistan? We are not trying to bring down one regime, as we did with Sadam Hussein. There is no single leader, there is no single mission. We are fighting al Qaeda forces within Afghanistan and also seeking to keep them from entering from Pakistan. We are fighting the Taliban. And, we are trying to train an Afghan army that apparently is already rooted with corruption. Three forces, three issues, three reasons to get out of Afghanistan.

As a side note, an increase in helicopters is a silly request if the helicopters can't reach dangerous mountain regions. For example, the attack last weekend was in a remote village that prevented helicopters from landing closely; thus, the men had to be dropped off at the top of a mountain and then had to hike downhill. Here is yet another example that quantity of troops or resources are not the answer. The answer is that the United States must leave or we will never get out of there.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

A PORTION OF MY INTERVIEW WITH AN ARMY SOLDIER ON THE FRONT LINE IN AFGHANISTAN -- RECENT TALIBAN ATTACK WAS ON HIS POST & KILLED 8 OF HIS BUDDIES

Gun inside of Afghanistan postBelow is a brief portion of my interview with my childhood friend's husband, who is on the front-line in Afghanistan. He just lost 8 troops this weekend. He answered these questions last week, before the big attack this past weekend.

According to Fox News online: (Entire article here.)

Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. troops and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American troops were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, plans to shift U.S. troops away from remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

My friends, this ain't no joke. Reading about the deaths is one thing, watching the war is another. Imagine being my childhood friend, the wife of an Army soldier, who constantly prays, worries and hopes for the safety of her husband and the father of her kids.

Just this past weekend, I spent some time with my friend and their two absolutely precious children. As I took turns spinning them around until I got too dizzy to stand, I thought about my friend's life and the path it has taken. She's such an incredible mom -- a "single" mom of sorts -- and yet she holds herself together so well. She smiles. She giggles. Her kids are happy and fun. Crazy to think at the very moment I was lifting her son into the tree I used to play on as a kid, the Taliban was plotting an attack on her husband's post. 

Maybe Gen. McChrystal and Obama should talk to the troops on the front line. Is that such a novel idea?

I was going to write a blog about my interview with my friend's husband but I'd rather just post some of his quotes, given the fact that he just lost 8 of his buddies. For the safety of the Army, I have chosen to leave out certain portions of the interview for now.

Something must be done. Time is of the essence.

Another image taken in Afghanistan

Direct from a soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan

More troops: "Troops is tricky because it depends how you use them and what troops are being sent, I feel the answer is yes. But let me explain my answer. What most people fail to realize is that two types of Soldiers exist here Combat and Support. Combat Soldiers (Cavalry Scouts like myself and Infantry) are the ones that go out find the enemy and kill him -- well, we do when it is convenient for the Afghan Army/Government . Support Soldiers are cooks, supply clerks, admin and so forth they make sure the Combat Soldiers get water, food , bullets or whatever they need. Support Soldiers are just as important as Combat Soldiers, but what is needed here is more Combat Soldiers. When some politician says and this is just an example not actual numbers "we are sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan" only a small percentage are actually combat troops. It does no good to send Troops if all they do is stay in the FOB and do nothing."

Afghan attitude: "Personally I would prefer and so would other Soldiers to have ten well trained, disciplined and motivated ANA Soldiers willing to fight for their country next to me during a fight. Instead of fifty ANA that might shoot me in the back because they don't want to be there or their leaders are taking half their pay and they might get a better deal from the enemy."

Winning: "First of all "winning" is a word we do not use around here to much. Our president (which a large majority of Soldiers I know did not vote for) said that we are not here to win, that is very confusing to a Soldier that is trained to fight and win wars. At times it seems that he places Afghan politics in front of U.S. Soldiers lives. Another confusing issue is the U.S. strategy here if there is one, a U.S. general said, "So we don't get to shoot at those that are shooting at us, that is not always bad." Now, would he have said that if he had seen his friends torn to pieces by those bullets? I have seen it. I want to shoot back and so do my Soldiers. Since we are at the receiving end and not him."

Thank you, my friend, for answering these questions.

Now, please watch this video - my friend's husband is a soldier filmed in the video.

In the first, one Army troop says, "We're in a bowl." Another is asked, "Why are you here?" The response, after a nervous chuckle is, "My boss told me to come here." The video shows the troops getting shot at and the journalist saying, "We don't know where the shots are coming from," as they seek cover in the mountainous area.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BILL O'REILLY WRONG, "IF WE PULL OUT ON AFGHANISTAN, THE TALIBAN WINS."

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Obama (Courtesy of Fox News)Last night, Bill O'Reilly suggested we give Gen. McChrystal the troops he needs -- that if we pull out of Afghanistan now, the Taliban wins.

No so fast, Mr. O'Reilly. This isn't entirely about the Taliban. We have the al-Qaeda problem too, don't forget - remember those are the people who killed us in 9/11? Um, yeah, they were not the Taliban.

What Does Obama Think?

Seems like Obama may not agree with O'Reilly. (That's not a surprise!) This isn't about winning or losing to the Taliban. In July, Obama told ABC News, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

And just last Sunday, Obama told David Gregory of Meet the Press, "And we are going to see how this is fitting what I think is our core goal, which is to after the folks who killed 3,000 Americans in 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us - al-Qaeda. How do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them?"

Protecting Afghanistan from TWO Groups: The Taliban AND al-Qaeda

McChrystal's report begins with the stated goal to "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat al-Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan.'' And that it's "his mission" to protect the Afghan government from the Taliban.

al-Qaeda = Pakistan
Taliban = Afghanistan

McChrystal is essentially saying that we are protecting Afghanistan from not only the re-entry of al-Qaeda from Pakistan but also protecting them from their internal Taliban.

The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan has changed. Our original goal was to destroy "terrorist" training camps so that we would be protected from attacks on American soil. Now, it looks like the entire goal is to protect Afghanistan & the Afghan people, NOT the American people or others who live in the free world. 

"Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan,'' McChrystal reports. "Nevertheless, the insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Afghan.''

Geez, this is getting awfully confusing! If stability in Pakistan is essential, how is the United States and its allies going to accomplish such stability? And is it our job to do so? How long is that going to take?

More Troops

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

Before we send an additional 30-40,000 more troops into Afghanistan, we must re-define the mission, purpose and goals.

Biden's Idea Back on the Table

Looks like Obama may reconsider Biden's idea that adding additional troops may not be the answer. Biden suggests we re-evaluate the Pakistan/al-Qaeda issue before sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Reilly, sending more troops into Afghanistan for the purpose of defeating the Taliban is not proper answer.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IT IS NO MYTH: ONLY A TROJAN HORSE COULD PROVIDE VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN

Obama needs to get the hell out of Afghanistan now. All of these meetings, briefings, memos and summaries are a waste of time. The death toll is rising at a rapid rate, the cost is absolutely absurd, and the people who suggested we enter Iraq are the very same people saying we need more troops in Afghanistan. The idea that we are winning in Afghanistan is only myth that ends with us conquering them with a Trojan horse. You think that sounds absurd? So do I.

Death Toll

With every meeting comes another death. With every briefing comes another roadside bomb. We are losing allies. Just last Thursday, six Italian soldiers were killed - the worst attack on the Italians since their entrance into Afghanistan.

The death toll in July was 76 and August was 77, the highest ever. Before July, the highest number was an entire year prior - August 2008 - the death toll was 46. As of today, September 22, the death toll is 55.  Surely, we can expect more casualties before October 1.

Since 2004, we have lost over 50 more soldiers each year than the previous year. The numbers are going up, not down.

Clearly, the Taliban is getting more violent and are are losing more power. The numbers speak for themselves. Clearly, something is terribly wrong: something like, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan. We can protect American soil on American soil. We cannot protect American soil in the land of poppy plants, roadside bombs and "martyrs" who believe in killing insurgents -- that would be us, just in case you were wondering.

Courtesty of icasualtiesCost

According to David R. Francis of The Christian Science Monitor: Full Article here.

For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq. By the end of the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 trillion.

That’s more than the cost of the Vietnam War, adjusting for inflation, or any other US war except World War II ($3.2 trillion in 2007 dollars).

A trillion dollars is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: If you had an expense account good for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion, which is the actual estimate for the wars’ price tag by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. He reckons the two conflicts will have cost the typical American family of four roughly $13,000 by next year.

Wars, even counterinsurgency conflicts, are expensive in lives and dollars.

Why is Afghanistan getting so expensive? The US is sending more troops, of course. It also costs about 50 percent more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University economist. In sharp contrast to flat, urbanized Iraq, most of Afghanistan’s population lives in rural, mountainous terrain with few good roads to link them up.

Officially, Afghanistan war costs are budgeted at $65 billion for fiscal 2010, somewhat more than the $61 billion for the Iraq war.

So as Americans struggle -- they are without jobs, without heath insurance, their homes are in foreclosure -- they continue to pay for a war that has no end. They continue to pay for a war that is providing no answers.

What if we pulled out of Afghanistan and applied all of that money to domestic protection? The best place to protect your home is at your front door, not thousands of miles away, in the mountainous region of Afghanistan.

Infrastructure

The same people who advised Bush to enter Iraq and Afghanistan are advising Obama. The internal forces have not changed. Gen. McChrystal recently stated in a "Commander's Summary" that, "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress." This is the same guy who said, in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, "I would anticipate that the major combat engagements are over." He also looks in the mirror every day knowing he was behind the cover-up of the Pat Tillman "friendly fire" incident.  On June 10, 2009 McChrystal was promoted to General - a decision by Obama himself. Shortly thereafter, McChrystal assumed command of NATO operations, Operation Khanjar commenced, marking the largest offensive operation and the beginning of the deadliest combat month for NATO forces since 2001.

This guy is out of his mind. What has he done besides make terribly wrong decisions and create terribly inaccurate plans?

Obama needs to stop relying on the same guys who advised Bush. That's great: send more troops to Afghanistan. But then what? What is the plan? How do we stop the drugs flowing out of there? How do we stop the killing? How do we convince our allies to stay?

Sending more troops is not the answer -- Obama, we gotta get the hell outta there. Pronto.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com