John McCain Wants Afghanistan War To Continue Even After Bin Laden's Death; War Profiteering!

As long as some members of Congress such as John McCain & Mitch McConnell, have a Vested Financial Interest in War i.e., Government Contractors, our Men & Women in Uniform will continue engaging in Tribal Conflicts we can NOT Win.

The Afghan War is a Tribal War.

It has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda because even after Bin Laden's Death, the Taliban's presence still rules that region of the Middle East.

And since President Karzai is a Willing Partner in that Scheme, why are we Wasting Billion$ of U.S. Dollars annually in Resources & Human Lives?

Remaining in Afghanistan for another 3 mos, 6 mos or 12 mos will NOT make a difference!

We've killed Osama Bin Laden so the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan is Complete!

Let's just get out & let Karzai govern his Own Country!


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, White House.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

Karzai Celebrates Obama's U.S. Troops Withdrawal Plan (Of Course!)

After Becoming Super Rich Via G. W. Bush's "War On Terror" Profiteering Scheme, Of Course Karzai Is Happy To See American Troops Leave.

Now He Can Continue His Narcotics Trade Without Interruptions.

Yes Its Definitely Time To Bring Our Troops Home!!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Karzai welcomes U.S. troop withdrawal

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama's plans for a U.S. troops drawdown and said it's a sign that Afghanistan is ready to take control of security in the war-torn nation.

"The number of troops that he has announced to be withdrawn is a sign that Afghanistan is taking over its own security and is trying to defend its territory by its own means," Karzai said. "So we are happy about the announcement."

As the United States pulls back, Karzai painted a picture of a more stable Afghanistan, despite the fact that May was the bloodiest month for Afghan civilians since 2007. He told CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview set to air Sunday that Afghans were ready to take the reins of their own country.

"It is the responsibility of the Afghan people to protect their country and to provide security for the citizens of the country," Karzai said. "If you fail in fulfilling our most important responsibility with regard to our country and our people, then somebody else should take over."

Obama announced Wednesday night that 10,000 U.S. troops would leave Afghanistan this year and all 33,000 forces sent as part of a 2009 surge would return home by the summer of 2012.

Karzai also defended his public criticisms of NATO, which in recent weeks have taken on a more angry tone. Karzai blasted the alliance for civilian deaths and nighttime raids. He said his comment on NATO becoming an "occupying force" was taken out of context.

"No, I don't regret having made that comment," he said. "That comment was not seen in the full sentence that I spoke. It was after the incident of civilian casualties in Afghanistan where children were killed in an aerial bombing, where I said, 'No more of such aerial bombings on our residents.'

"The question was what if they continue?" Karzai said.

"When Afghanistan asks that these operations cease and even then, if they continue, this means we are not in charge of our country," he said. "And that, of course, becomes an occupation. It was in this context that I spoke, and I stand by that."

Karzai stressed regional cooperation between his homeland and neighboring Pakistan and India in the fight to bring an end to many years of conflict. He said the United States and Afghanistan's other allies could do a lot more in expediting talks with the Taliban to put an end to the violence.

"My statements are neither hostile nor inflammatory nor designed to get anything but an understanding from our partners that the Afghan people need to feel secure, they need to see this war take a direction in which they can see the end of the tunnel," Karzai said.

He said Afghanistan, dependent on U.S. dollars for security and development, was grateful to American taxpayers, but expressed dismay that U.S. humanitarian efforts have not always taken Afghan wishes into account.

He cited a Kandahar electricity project in which he said the United States spent $250 million to buy generators. Karzai said Afghanistan would have preferred the construction of a dam, which he called a more lasting solution.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Guardian.co.uk, MSNBC, NY Times, Raw Story, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Troop Withdrawal Plan Ends Bush's "War On Terror" PROFITEERING!!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last Night The Entire World Listened As Pres. Barack Obama Announced What Could Be Considered An End To Bush's Fake "War On Terror" Era.

Our Troops Are Finally Coming Home!! Thank God!

Perhaps Not All At Once, Which Is Unrealistic But At Least They Are Finally Moving Out Of Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan Heading Back To American Soil.

Hopefully For Good!

Do I Agree With Progressives That Pres. Obama's Afghan Troop Withdrawal Plan Should Be More Aggressive?

Yes!

However I Do Still Give Him Credit For Keeping His Word Regarding The Timeline To Begin Withdrawing U.S. Troops From Afghanistan.

For All The Skeptics Of Obama's Afghan Troop Withdrawal Plan, Here's Something Crucial To Consider.

If It Were Up To A Republican President, The Idea Of A Troop Withdrawal Plan Would NEVER Have Been Discussed!

And Why Should It?

Why Discuss An Afghan Troop Withdrawal Plan If Hundreds Of GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill Are Earning Million$ Each Year From Oil Interests & If Millions Of Dollar$ Are Being Donated To GOP Campaign Pots From Super Wealthy, NO Tax Paying Government Contractors Friends?

i.e., War PROFITEERING!!

That's Right! I Said It!

Many GOP Leaders & Friends Of GOP Leaders Have Become Millionaires From Bush's "War On Terror" PROFITEERING!!

Now Do You Understand Why Most GOP Leaders & Pentagon Generals NEVER Want U.S. Troops To Leave Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan?? NOT Ever??

Its ALL About Oil Interests & Government Contractor PROFITEERING!

NOT National Security Or World Peace!

Thank The Good Lord Pres. Obama Genuinely Does Care About National Security & World Peace.

I Also Thank God Pres. Obama Wants To STOP Throwing U.S. Dollars To The Wind Overseas By Placing Billion$ Of Taxpayer Money Into The Hands Of Corrupt Middle East Leaders.

Real FREEDOM & Democracy Can NOT Be Purchased!

If Karzai (Afghanistan) & Zardari (Pakistan) REALLY Want Their Nations To Experience Some level Of Democracy, Let Them Use Their OWN Money & Troops To Do It!


Once Again I Am NOT Opposed To U.S. Forces Being Deployed After Osama Bin Laden's 9-11 Attack On American Soil.

The U.S. Government SHOULD Have Responded As Such Because What Happened To Our Nation On 9-11 Was Indeed An Act Of War!

However......

I Still Believe Bush's Administration Could Have Captured & Executed Osama Bin Laden Long Before The Obama Administration Acted If That Is TRULY What G.W. Bush Wanted.

History Has Since Proven Former Pres. George W. Bush Did NOT Really Want Bin Laden Killed.

How Do I Know This Theory To Be True?

Because It Took Bush's Administration 8 Years To NEVER Capture Osama Bin Laden, While It Took Obama's Administration ONLY 2 Years To Capture & Execute This Greedy Murderer.

So Please Don't Try To Persuade Me To Believe That Bush's Endorsement Of Torture Tactics Worked Or Helped Lead Obama's Administration Officials To Osama Bin Laden's Capture & Execution Because I'm NOT Buying It!!

Thanks To Pres. Obama's Afghan Troop Withdrawal Plan, A New Future Now Lies Ahead For America & Her U.S. Armed Forces.

No More Blood Money Being Wasted To Harbor Murderers & Crooks!!

No More U.S. Troops Being Used As Pawns On A Chessboard Losing Their Lives To Prop Up Greedy Politicians & Their Super Wealthy, No Tax Paying Government Contractor Friends!

Especially Government Contractor Friends Who Refuse To Hire Minority Veterans Or Pay Minority Veterans Wages Equal To What They Pay, White Veterans!

And Money Previously Wasted Overseas By The U.S. Dept Of Defense, Can Finally Be Put To Good Use Creating American Jobs Via Rebuilding Our OWN Nation.

Ex: Fixing Crumbling, Decades Old Infrastructures, Creating Clean Energy Jobs & Green Energy Jobs, Reducing Our Deficit, Restructuring Our Broken, Racist Public Education System, etc.,

So While I Do Agree Pres. Obama's Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan Should Have Been More Aggressive, I Still Applaud Him For Making The Best Of A Terrible Mess.

A "War On Terror" PROFITEERING Mess Left By His Predecessor, George W. Bush.

For The Record I Don't Hate Former Pres. George W. Bush.

I Just Hate What He Did To Our Country Via His Fake "War On Terror".

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!






Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan


President Obama declared Wednesday that the United States had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan, setting in motion a substantial withdrawal of American troops in an acknowledgment of the shifting threat in the region and the fast-changing political and economic landscape in a war-weary America.

Asserting that the country that served as a base for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks no longer represented a terrorist threat to the United States, Mr. Obama declared that the “tide of war is receding.” And in a blunt recognition of domestic economic strains, he said, “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”

Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 “surge” of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue “at a steady pace” until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.

The troop reductions, which were decided after a short but fierce internal debate, will be both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders, and they will come as the president faces relentless budget pressures, an increasingly restive American public and a re-election campaign next year.

Only hours after Mr. Obama spoke, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said on Thursday that he would also begin drawing down the 4,000-strong French contingent in Afghanistan.

”Given the progress we have seen, France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement issued by his office, Reuters reported.

Mr. Obama, speaking in businesslike tones during a 15-minute address from the East Room of the White House, talked of ending America’s longest war and of the painful lessons he thought could be taken from it. While justifying the nation’s decade-long commitment, he talked of “ending the war responsibly” and warned of the perils of overextending the military by sending large numbers of soldiers into combat. He acknowledged that huge challenges remained before an end to the conflict that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and 1,500 American lives.

The withdrawals would begin winding down the military’s counterinsurgency strategy, which Mr. Obama adopted 18 months ago. Administration officials indicated that they now planned to place more emphasis on focused clandestine counterterrorism operations of the kind that killed Osama bin Laden, which the president cited as Exhibit A in the case for a substantial American troop reduction.

“We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength,” Mr. Obama said. “Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.” He said that an intense campaign of drone strikes and other covert operations in Pakistan had crippled Al Qaeda’s original network in the region, leaving its leaders either dead or pinned down in the rugged border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Of 30 top Qaeda leaders identified by American intelligence, 20 have been killed in the last year and a half, administration officials said.

But the withdrawal of the entire surge force by the end of next summer will significantly change the way that the United States wages war in Afghanistan, analysts said, suggesting that the administration may have concluded it can no longer achieve its loftiest ambitions there.

Mr. Obama acknowledged as much in his remarks. “We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place,” he said. “We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government.”

Mr. Obama’s decision is a victory for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has long argued for curtailing the military operation in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama indicated a willingness to move toward more focused covert operations of the type that the United States is conducting in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. “When threatened, we must respond with force,” he said. “But when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.”

The pace of the withdrawal is a setback for the president’s top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has been named director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Petraeus did not endorse the decision, said another official. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates argued publicly against a too-hasty withdrawal of troops, but he said in a statement on Wednesday that he supported Mr. Obama’s decision.

During the internal debate, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also expressed reservations about the scale of the reductions, officials said.

General Petraeus had recommended limiting withdrawals to 5,000 troops this year and another 5,000 over the winter.

He and other military commanders argued that the 18 months since Mr. Obama announced the troop increase did not allow for enough time for the Americans to consolidate the fragile gains that they had made in Helmand and other provinces.

But troops have succeeded in clearing many towns and cities of insurgents, and then keeping them safe so that markets were able to reopen and girls could go to school, for example.

Military officials say the withdrawal of American troops will impose limits on which areas of the country can be pacified. In particular, plans to pivot extra American troops from south and southwestern Afghanistan to volatile areas in the east, along the Pakistan border, will be curtailed or even canceled, officials said.

The effort to transfer responsibility for security to Afghan forces remains elusive because the Afghan troops are proving unprepared for the job. Corruption in the government of President Hamid Karzai continues to be rampant, sapping the confidence of many Afghans.

Still, the growing disenchantment in the United States with the war, particularly given the ballooning national debt, the country’s slow economic recovery and the whopping $120 billion price tag of the Afghan conflict this year alone, were all considerations weighed by the president. “Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource: our people.”

Republican presidential candidates including Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr. are demanding a swift withdrawal from Afghanistan, while Democrats complain that the cost of the war is siphoning money away from efforts to create jobs in the United States. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, called on Mr. Obama to speed the withdrawal. “If we’re going to leave, we should leave,” he said in a statement. “The centralized system of government foisted upon the Afghan people is not going to hold after we leave. So let’s quit prolonging the agony and the inevitable.”

Highlighting the unusual political splits the war is causing, other Republicans criticized the president for pulling out too soon. Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that Mr. Obama was playing politics with the troop reduction, saying, “The president is trying to find a political solution with a military component, when it needs to be the other way around.” He said the situation in Afghanistan was “very precarious,” and that the White House seemed to be panicking about the levels of violence.

Mr. Obama’s speech, delivered at dawn on Thursday, Kabul time, is expected to be the subject of a speech by Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, scheduled for later in the day. Senior figures in Mr. Karzai’s administration began signaling that they were comfortable with the withdrawal of 10,000 troops by year’s end.

Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the Afghan National Army “has this capability and quantity to fill the gap of those places where the foreign troops withdraw and leave Afghanistan.”

“We are ready,” General Azimi said.

Muhammad Siddique Aziz, an adviser to Mr. Karzai on tribal affairs, said the withdrawal plan was acceptable, but he warned against a complete withdrawal of American troops before the Afghan government was strong enough to administer the country on its own. “I think they have to concentrate more on the Afghan government so when they leave, the government can stand up on its own,” Mr. Aziz said.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Guardian.co.uk, MSNBC, NY Times, Raw Story, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Closes Door On Bush's Costly "War On Terror" (Thank You!)

Tonight Pres. Barack Obama Will Finally Announce The End To Former President G.W. Bush's Very Expensive, Oil/ Government Contractor Scheme: His Fake "War On Terror".

Immediately After Sept. 11, 2011, No One Doubted Bush's Intent To Invade Iraq Because Practically Everyone In America Thought It Only Right To Get The "Bad Guys" (Al Qaeda) For Breaching Our Safety Net & Destroying Our Comfort.

We Sincerely Wanted To Show Terrorists & Extremists That NO ONE Can Attack America, On American Soil & Get Away With It!

NO ONE!

Thus When G.W. Bush Approached Congress With His LIE-Based ("Weapons Of Mass Destruction") Scheme To Invade Iraq, For Lawmakers On The Hill To Question His True Motives Would Have Appeared Anti-Patriotic.

Fast Forward To 8 Years Later.

There Were NO "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"!

It Was Later Discovered We Were ONLY There To Protect The Interests Of GOP-Registered, Oil Rich American "Powers That Be".

And Even After Capturing Saddam Hussein, U.S. Troops Are STILL In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Why?

Since Both Saddam & Bin Laden Are Now Dead, Why Are We STILL In Those Countries??

Why Are U.S. Military Generals STILL Insisting We Remain In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan?

Could It The ONLY Foreign Policy Interests Our U.S. Troops Are Currently Protecting Are Those Of GOP Lawmakers Profiting In A HUGE Way Via Government Contractors?

i.e., Blackwater Now XE, Balfour Beatty, Dyn Corp, KBR, Halliburton, etc.,

YES!!!

This Is The ONLY Reason Why GOP Lawmakers On Capitol Hill & Pentagon Brass Are STILL Insisting U.S. Troops Remain In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Truth Be Told GOP Lawmakers Don't Give A Darn About The Lives Of Thousands Of U.S. Troops Lost In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan!

They Just Want To Keep Their Pockets Fat At Any Cost!!

i.e., BLOOD MONEY!!

And To Make Matters Worst, Most Government Contractors (Blackwater Now XE, Balfour Beatty, Dyn Corp, KBR, Halliburton) Working In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan Largely Practice Racial Discrimination By Hiring Very, Very Few Minority Veterans. (Almost Zero Black Veterans!)

Or If They Do Hire Any Minority Veterans, Those Minority Veterans Are Paid Much Lower Salaries Than White Veterans.

In Addition, Balfour Beatty A Construction Company Which Helps To Build & Manage U.S. Military Bases, Also Grossly OVERCHARGES Active Duty Soldiers & Veterans Residing On Those U.S. Military Bases.

So I Along With Millions Of Other American Voters (Democrats, Independents & Republicans) All Agree Its High Time This Government Contractor/ Oil-Rich Charade FINALLY Comes To An End!!

Like Yesterday!

For The Record, American Voters Are NOT Stupid!!!

We Know That George W. Bush Left Behind A Mess, In Fact Several Messes For Pres. Obama To Clean Up!

i.e., Deregulated Wall Street Mess, Subprime Housing Mess, Iraq Mess, Afghanistan Mess, Pakistan Mess, Osama Bin Laden Mess, TARP Mess, HUGE Unemployment Mess, etc.,

YES!

While Serving 8 Years In Office, George W. Bush Left Behind A Ton Of Serious Messes & Now The GOP Unrealistically Expects Barack Obama To Clean Up Those Serious Messes After Serving Just 2 Years In Office!

Well Its Time For Bush's Messes To Be Placed In The Trash Can Where They Belong!

In 2008 Barack Obama Was Elected NOT To Continue George W. Bush's Political/ Deregulated Charades For Personal Gain.

Instead Obama Was Elected To Discontinue & Clean Up G.W. Bush's Messes So That America Could Begin To Heal.

Obama Was Elected To Discontinue Bush's Schemes & Bring Our Troops Home!

As It Relates To George W. Bush's Government Contractor, "Nation Building" Scheme, Let The Corrupt Leaders Of Afghanistan & Pakistan Build Their OWN Nations, With Their OWN Money!

Do We Need To Maintain Some Type Of Alliance With Pakistan Even Though Its Been Proven They Can't Be Trusted?

Yes Or They Will Build An Alliance With India & China Against America.

However.....

American Leaders Should NO Longer Allow Afghanistan & Pakistani Leaders To Make Fools Of Us Or Hold American Leaders Hostage!!!

Tonight During Pres. Obama's Anti-War/ Afghanistan U.S. Troop Withdrawal Speech American Voters Expect To NOT Only Hear That Our Soldiers Are Coming Home For Good!

But Also That America Will NEVER Again Use U.S. Military Troops For Personal Gain i.e., Oil & Government Contractors!

NEVER Again!!!

NO MORE BLOOD MONEY!!

Pres. Obama Should Also Apologize To All The Families Of U.S. Troops Serving Overseas, Including Those Who Lost Loved Ones During Combat And.....

YES Pres. Obama Should Apologize To Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan For What Past U.S. Leaders Did For The Sake Of Personal Gain.

Don't Get It Twisted!

Should We Have Caught & Killed Osama Bin Laden For What He Did To Our Country On 9-11??

YES! A Thousand Times Yes!

However Doing So Did NOT Take 8 Years!

I Repeat: It Did NOT Take 8 Years To Capture & Kill Osama Bin Laden!!

I Truly Believe Former President George W. Bush Knew Exactly Where Osama Was Hiding.

I Also Believe G.W. Bush & His Administration Was Somehow Involved In A Scheme To Pay Off Pakistani Leaders To Help Hide Bin Laden.

Why??

Oil & Government Contractors!!

Pres. George W. Bush Will One Day Pay For His LIES, Deceit & Sin But....

Tonight America Expects Pres. Barack Obama To End Bush's LIES & Start A New Chapter In American Foreign Policy Sans LIES!!!

Pres. Obama Please Don't Disappoint Us Tonight.

God Bless America Land That I Love & ALL U.S. Troops Everywhere!









Cost of Wars a Rising Issue as Obama Weighs Troop Levels


President Obama will talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan when he makes a prime-time speech from the White House on Wednesday night. But behind his words will be an acute awareness of what $1.3 trillion in spending on two wars in the past decade has meant at home: a ballooning budget deficit and a soaring national debt at a time when the economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.

As Mr. Obama begins trying to untangle the country from its military and civilian promises in Afghanistan, his critics and allies alike are drawing a direct line between what is not being spent to bolster the sagging economy in America to what is being spent in Afghanistan — $120 billion this year alone.

On Monday, the United States Conference of Mayors made that connection explicitly, saying that American taxes should be paying for bridges in Baltimore and Kansas City, not in Baghdad and Kandahar.

The mayors’ group approved a resolution calling for an early end to the American military role in Afghanistan and Iraq, asking Congress to redirect the billions now being spent on war and reconstruction costs toward urgent domestic needs. The resolution, which noted that local governments cut 28,000 jobs in May alone, was the group’s first venture into foreign policy since it passed a resolution four decades ago calling for an end to the Vietnam War.

And in a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said: “We can no longer, in good conscience, cut services and programs at home, raise taxes or — and this is very important — lift the debt ceiling in order to fund nation-building in Afghanistan. The question the president faces — we all face — is quite simple: Will we choose to rebuild America or Afghanistan? In light of our nation’s fiscal peril, we cannot do both.”



Demonstrators describing themselves as “angry jobless citizens” said they would picket the Capitol on Wednesday to urge members of Congress to use any savings from Mr. Obama’s troop reductions to create more jobs. The group sponsoring the demonstration, the Prayer Without Ceasing Party, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “urging the masses to call their congressmen and the president to ensure that jobs receive a top priority when the troops start returning to America.”

Spending on the war in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since Mr. Obama took office, to $118.6 billion in 2011. It was $14.7 billion in 2003, when President George W. Bush turned his attention and American resources to the war in Iraq.

The increase is easy to explain. When Mr. Obama took office, he vowed to aggressively pursue what he termed America’s “war of necessity” (Afghanistan) and to withdraw from America’s “war of choice” (Iraq). He has done so; the lines on Iraq and Afghanistan war spending crossed in 2010, when the United States spent $93.8 billion in Afghanistan versus $71.3 billion in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But the White House is keenly aware that the president is heading into a re-election campaign; with the country’s jobless rate remaining high, topping 9 percent, his poll numbers on his handling of the domestic economy have plummeted.

“Do we really need to be spending $120 billion in a country with a G.D.P. that’s one-sixth that size?” asked Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress, a policy group with close ties to the Obama administration. “Most Americans would be shocked to know that we’re spending that kind of money for jobs programs for former Taliban, and would wonder where are our jobs programs for Detroit and Cleveland?”

In 2010, Congress — at the Obama administration’s request — set aside $100 million to support programs in Afghanistan aimed at moving former insurgents off the battlefields and into the country’s mainstream economy. Those efforts — similar to what the Bush administration did in Iraq — have yet to bear much fruit; the 1,700 fighters who have enrolled in the reintegration program represent only a fraction of the estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Taliban insurgents, The New York Times reported Monday.

Most American aid bypasses the Afghan government and goes to international companies, a practice that, according to a June 8 report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, can undercut the Afghan government and lead to redundant and unsustainable donor projects. But Obama administration officials complain that the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has, thus far, been unwilling to tackle corruption in any meaningful way, making it hard to argue that it should get more money directly.

In Washington, the argument over whether the United States should be building bridges in Kandahar or Cleveland is bound to grow even louder as the 2012 election campaign heats up.

After Senator Manchin made his speech on Tuesday calling for an end to nation-building in Afghanistan, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, took to the floor to rebuke him, calling Mr. Manchin’s remarks characteristic of the “isolationist-withdrawal-lack-of-knowledge-of-history attitude that seems to be on the rise.”

But in Mr. McCain’s own Republican Party, which has historically been more supportive of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than Democrats, there is clearly some queasiness about war spending during a period of economic distress.

Four years ago, Representative Ron Paul of Texas was the only Republican presidential candidate raising concerns about the costs of the Afghanistan or Iraq wars. But last week, Mr. Paul was joined explicitly by another contender, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah and the Obama administration’s former ambassador to China, who said that the cost of a continued military presence was a leading factor in his belief that a major troop drawdown should begin in Afghanistan.

“Very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs,” Mr. Huntsman said.

Even when Mr. Obama does withdraw the bulk of troops from Afghanistan, Americans will still be footing the bill for years, argued William R. Keylor, an international relations professor at Boston University.

“The total cost of the war, the longest in American history and one that was paid for by borrowing rather than by increased taxation, should not be measured solely by the costs of financing the troops and the extensive aid programs administered by the State Department,” Mr. Keylor said. “It should also include long-term costs of the war, primarily veterans’ benefits for the returning soldiers, who will require medical and mental health services for many years to come. Long after the last troops depart from the country, that hidden part of the bill will come due.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

US Government Contractors Played "Lord Of The Flies", Created Hostile Working Environment...Cancel Contracts & Prosecute Them!

MSNBC----

"Lord of the Flies" at U.S. Embassy in Kabul?

(Oversight group: Workers subjected to hazing, other inappropriate behavior)

(Photos appear to show hazing rituals taking place at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan among guards hired by the State Department. A Morning Joe panel discuss.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Guards hired by the State Department to protect diplomats and staff at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan live and work in a "Lord of the Flies" environment in which they are subjected to hazing and other inappropriate behavior by supervisors, a government oversight group charged Tuesday.

In a 10-page letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the independent Project on Government Oversight contended the situation has led to a breakdown in morale and leadership that compromises security at the embassy in Kabul where nearly 1,000 U.S. diplomats, staff and Afghan nationals work.

In a statement on Wednesday, the U.S. Embassy said it was aware of the POGO report. "Nothing is more important to us than the safety and security of all Embassy personnel — Americans and Afghan — and respect for the cultural and religious values of all Afghans," the embassy said.

"We have taken immediate steps to review all local guard force policies and procedures and have taken all possible measures to ensure our security is sound. We will work closely with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate the issues raised in this report, but cannot comment further on this ongoing investigation."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., on Tuesday called on the US State Department to open an investigation into the performance and management of the contract with ArmorGroup North America. McCaskill, who chairs a Senate subcommittee on contracting oversight, said the new evidence calls into question the company's ability to provide adequate security at a key facility.

In a letter to Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, McCaskill also demanded a slew of documents related to the contract, including any department reviews of alleged misconduct by ArmorGroup employees.

The nonprofit group's findings are based on interviews with ArmorGroup guards, documents, photographs and e-mails that it says depict "Lord of the Flies" conditions. The reference is to the 1954 novel by William Golding about a group of British schoolboys who are stranded on a desert island and try, but fail, to govern themselves in a chaotic setting.

Lurid conditions described in e-mail

One e-mail from a guard describes lurid conditions at Camp Sullivan, the guards' quarters a few miles from the embassy. The message described scenes of abuse including guards and supervisors urinating on people and "threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity."

Photographs show guards and supervisors in various stages of nudity at parties that took place near the housing of other supervisors.

Multiple guards say these conditions have created a "climate of fear and coercion." Those who refuse to participate are often ridiculed, humiliated or even fired, they contended.

ArmorGroup's management is aware of the conditions but has not stopped it or disciplined those responsible, the letter says. Two supervisors alleged to be the worst offenders have been allowed to resign and may now be working on other U.S. contracts, the group said.

Wackenhut Services, ArmorGroup North America's parent company, did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Tuesday that Clinton has been apprised of the allegations. The group also sent the letter to the State Department's inspector general, the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting and members of Congress.

"These are very serious allegations," Kelly said, adding that the State Department has been talking to the contractor about "addressing deficiencies in their performance."

The group's investigation found sleep-deprived guards regularly logging 14-hour days, language barriers that impair critical communications, and a failure by the State Department to hold the contractor accountable.

The State Department has been aware of ArmorGroup's shortcomings, the letter says, but hasn't done enough to correct the problems.

Performance deficiencies detailed

It cites a July 2007 warning from the department to ArmorGroup that detailed more than a dozen performance deficiencies, including too few guards and armored vehicles. Another "cure notice" was sent less than a year later, raising other problems and criticizing the contractor for failing to fix the prior ones.

In July 2008, however, the department extended the contract for another year, according to the notice. More problems surfaced and more warning notices followed. Yet during a congressional hearing on the contract in June, State Department officials said the prior shortcomings had been remedied and security at the embassy is effective.

The contract was renewed again through 2010.

Nearly two-thirds of the embassy guards are Gurkhas from Nepal and northern India who don't speak adequate English, a situation that creates communications breakdowns, the group says. Pantomime is often used to convey orders and instructions.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, POGO, Politico, Flickr, Google Maps