Skip to main content

New top story from Time: Leaving Afghanistan Isn’t Enough to End America’s Forever Wars

https://ift.tt/3tMYNyC

The Russian soldier, it was said, had suffered a concussion, then total memory loss. When he woke up in Kabul, in the waning days of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, he had trouble figuring out what was going on. As the journalist Artyom Borovik told the story, when his fellow soldiers tried to reorient him, he just kept asking the same question: “What are we doing in Afghanistan?” No one could give a definite answer.

Even with America in charge, the answers to that question haven’t gotten much better since the 1980s. In 2001, we were conducting “comprehensive and relentless operations” to drive terrorists out of Afghanistan and bring them to justice. In 2009, we were surging 30,000 troops to “seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.” In 2017, we were “obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge.” But since none of that really happened, other rationales emerged. There was the humanitarian argument, exemplified by a 2010 TIME cover photo of a mutilated Afghan girl, her nose severed, beside the words, “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan.” Then there was the credibility argument, that if we don’t stay in other countries will wonder, as the journalist Eli Lake put it, if “the US will have their backs to confront bullies like China.” Finally, the war has been reframed as not a war but a necessary commitment for maintaining global order, in keeping with long-term troop presences in South Korea, Japan, and Germany.

And so now President Biden has announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan exactly two decades after 9/11. It’s fitting. Politically determined deadlines invested with great importance by presidents have long been a staple of the war. The question for Americans concerned about “forever wars,” though, is how meaningful this withdrawal will actually be.

After all, over the decades the war in Afghanistan hasn’t just generated endless rationales for its own existence, it’s generated rationales for other wars as well. Soon after 9/11, Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that allowed the president to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks. Though intended for the Taliban and al Qaeda, this language later stretched to justify attacks on al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the Khorosan Group in Syria, and others. By the Trump administration the precedent was firmly set. If you’d like to occupy Kurdish-controlled Syrian oilfields, or kill an Iranian general, the AUMF was your justification. “Dems should raise the minimum wage using the 2001 AUMF” joked Yale Law professor Scott Shapiro recently on Twitter. And why not? Using an authorization intended to fight the Taliban as an excuse to operate in 17 other countries (Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Niger, and so on) while leaving Afghanistan itself is only slightly less ludicrous.

If President Biden truly wants “to end the forever war,” as he declared on April 14, dealing with the over-broad AUMF is a critical piece, and one he has responsibility for. As the conservative legal scholars Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith point out, “almost every issue about the AUMF’s meaning and scope remained unresolved at the end of the Bush presidency,” and it was during the Obama administration that it transformed into “a protean foundation for indefinite war against an assortment of terrorist organizations in numerous countries.” A key moment came in September of 2014, when the Obama White House announced, three years after supposedly ending the war in Iraq, that it could launch an air war in both Iraq and Syria against ISIS without Congressional approval because the fight fell under the old 2001 authorization—despite that ISIS didn’t exist in 2001 and was competing with al Qaeda, which had excommunicated it.

Scholars debate how much of a stretch this was, but the legal wrangling obscures the its political utility. Obama had come into the White House as a critic of the Iraq War, and would advocate a “Don’t do stupid” stuff foreign policy. Pulling troops out of Iraq with great fanfare only to watch the country implode and then put troops back in did not fulfill that particular strategic vision. Relying on the 2001 AUMF allowed Obama to bypass arguing for renewed war to Congress and to the American public, and it gave Congress a pass on taking a tough vote (who wanted to be the next Hillary Clinton, on the hook years later for a vote that was popular at the time). Instead Obama suggested revisions to the 2001 AUMF (something President Biden has also done) while simultaneously expanding its scope.

By 2015, as we ramped up military involvement, Obama and senior officials still bragged about having “ended two wars.” When in 2016 a Navy SEAL, Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Charles Keating IV, died during a firefight with ISIS in Northern Iraq, the White House Press Secretary clarified that he “was not in a combat mission,” but had merely found himself “in a combat situation.” The ambivalent American public didn’t like the wars but also feared the rise of ISIS, and so the administration let them know we were tackling ISIS and al Qaeda and the Taliban and “associated forces” in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Somalia and Yemen and so on while somehow also not fighting a war. Good politics, perhaps, but hardly leadership. Donald Trump’s later chaotic approach to military policy, in which allies learned of things like a withdrawal of forces from Syria by tweet, was deeply irresponsible but ultimately a further extension of the precedent that it was the executive at war, not the American people. And fickle changes to a policy that has never been seriously argued for or debated carries no real political costs.

No wonder plenty of veterans don’t trust the Biden’s recent declaration. “There’s no such thing as a full withdrawal under any president,” Army veteran and journalist Jacob Siegel tweeted. “There will absolutely still be CT and covert SOF assets in the country after ‘the war has ended.'” It’s happened before, and in fact the Pentagon is already discussing where to reposition forces, possibly in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to enable strikes inside the country. As a friend texted last week, “I find it amusing that people think AFG is ending, and the shell game of ‘troops on the ground’ is suddenly over.” As long as the open-ended authorization for war continues, with no time limits, or geographic limits, or specificity about targets, so does the war.

Repealing the AUMF is not necessarily a pro or antiwar position. Congressman Peter Meijer, a Republican from Michigan who recently joined bipartisan legislation to claw back the Congressional role in warmaking, sees it as a precondition for responsible statecraft. “I strongly think repeal would create responsible policy and force Congress to make tough decisions,” he told me over the phone. “What we can’t have is another situation like we had in Niger, where troops die and Congress says, ‘We didn’t even know troops were there.’”

Critics of the withdrawal suggest we’ll have to return, that it will cause a collapse of government, a humanitarian disaster, and a spread of terrorism that will necessitate more intervention, as in Iraq. Perhaps. But if we do return, we should do so after the President has made a case to the American public articulating why, and what it will cost, and then our representatives should debate and vote. Without the approval and commitment of the American people, we’re unlikely to have either a successful war, or a durable peace. And our soldiers won’t have the bare minimum they’re owed by a democratic citizenry—the answer to the question, “Why are we here?”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New Sculptures Light up Van Ness Avenue

New Sculptures Light up Van Ness Avenue By Luis “Loui” Apolonio Light sculpture at Van Ness Avenue and O'Farrell Street Spectators gathered both online and in person to watch new lighting sculptures on Van Ness turned on for the first time on March 31, 2022. The whimsical and brightly colored sculptures located on the new Van Ness BRT boarding platform between Geary and O’Farrell are made of steel with LED lights inside on a timer set to illuminate at night.  The lighting event was kicked off with SFMTA Director Jeff Tumlin and MTAB Chair Gwyneth Borden serving as emcees. Mary Chou, Director of Public Arts and Collections at the San Francisco Arts Commission, spoke about the art installation itself, as well as the process for selecting the artist who would be awarded the project. In addition, Maddy Ruvolo, a member of the SFMTA’s Accessible Services team and a recently appointed member of President Biden’s U.S. Access Board, shared the importance of having accessibility as a ...

New T Third Connecting Chinatown to Sunnydale Starts Saturday

New T Third Connecting Chinatown to Sunnydale Starts Saturday By Christopher Ward New Muni Metro map. This Saturday the T Third starts its long-awaited new route connecting Chinatown-Rose Pak Station from 4th & King in Central Subway, Mondays through Fridays, 6 a.m. to midnight every 10 minutes and Saturdays and Sundays, 8 a.m. to midnight every 12 minutes.   The K Ingleside will now travel between Balboa Park and Embarcadero Station. Customers using Embarcadero & Folsom, Embarcadero & Brannan and 2nd and King platforms should transfer to the N Judah at Powell Station or 4th & King. Watch the new Muni Metro service  map animations . The following bus service changes also start this Saturday: The T Third Bus will now run along 3rd and 4th Streets in SoMa and on Stockton Street north of Market Street to align with the new T Third rail line and will no longer travel on the Embarcadero and Market Street.   The 6 Haight/Parnassus  will now...

Residents Overwhelmingly Support Slow Streets

Residents Overwhelmingly Support Slow Streets By Eillie Anzilotti After over a year of Slow Streets providing safe, low-volume corridors for people to walk, bike, play and travel during the pandemic, we’re excited to share our first comprehensive evaluation of the program . The key takeaway? San Franciscans are overwhelmingly in support of Slow Streets. Slow Streets are designed to limit through traffic on certain residential streets and allow them to be used as a shared roadway for people traveling by foot and by bicycle. Since introducing Slow Streets in April 2020 in response to the Mayor’s Emergency Health Order, SFMTA has designated around 30 corridors covering 47 miles of roadway as Slow Streets. The program has evolved from a critical component of San Francisco’s pandemic response and recovery to a potential new avenue to further the city and SFMTA’s goals around climate action and sustainable transportation. As the Slow Streets program has grown, we wanted to make sure we...

Transit Lanes Keep Muni Moving on Mission Street in SoMa

Transit Lanes Keep Muni Moving on Mission Street in SoMa By Erin McMillan The full-time transit lanes on Mission Street downtown installed as a temporary emergency measure during the pandemic will be made permanent. The first of the city’s Temporary Emergency Transit Lanes to get permanent authorization, they were unanimously approved by the SFMTA Board of Directors at their June 15, 2021 meeting. This shows how a quick-build project can be installed, evaluated, and refined in a relatively short amount of time.   Thousands of daily riders have already felt the impact of the full-time transit lanes since they were first temporarily installed last summer. Now, riders of the 14 Mission, 14R Mission Rapid, and many SamTrans and Golden Gate Transit customers will continue to benefit from the transit time savings we have seen with the implementation of these lanes. Mission Street in SoMa has been a major transit corridor for years, serving regional commuter...

FOX NEWS: What is TikTok's 'Check Your Privilege' challenge?

What is TikTok's 'Check Your Privilege' challenge? Activists are calling for awareness and change following the death of George Floyd. via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/3crYd00

New top story from Time: A Photographer’s Journey Through the Dangerous New Age of Conspiracies in America

https://ift.tt/354JVAF In November 2017, the House Intelligence Committee released fake advertisements found on Facebook in the walk up to the 2016 election. As politicians on each side argued over whether the ads changed the election results, the heart of the revelation was way more disturbing. The Russian ads targeted the American public to deepen wounds on divisive issues and spread false information. Facebook said the posts were “ what we saw from these actors was an insidious attempt to drive people apart ,” according to Colin Stretch, the general counsel for the company. In 2020, less than one month before the election, America seems even more divided and deeply fractured after a turbulent year with a deadly pandemic, economic pain, and a chaotic presidency. With many Americans on lockdown, social media has been a vital form of communication — but one that is also driving dangerous conspiracies. From the false QAnon conspiracy, which promotes Trump as the final de...

New top story from Time: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Accused of Conspiring With LulzSec and Anonymous Hackers

https://ift.tt/3hZ0cN4 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange conspired with hackers affiliated with the “Anonymous” and “LulzSec” groups, which have been linked to numerous cyber attacks around the world, according to new indictment by the U.S. Justice Department. Assange, who’s detained in the U.K. on a U.S. extradition request, gave the leader of LulzSec a list of targets to hack in 2012 and told this person that the most influential release of hacked materials would be from the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency or the New York Times, according to a statement Wednesday from the Justice Department. The LulzSec leader was cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the time, according to the statement. An Anonymous and LulzSec-affiliated hacker stole emails through a data breach of an American intelligence consulting company that were published in WikiLeaks, according to the statement. Assange indirectly asked that hacker to spam that company a...

FOX NEWS: California woman seen posing with power drill in front of boarded-up store goes viral, prompts extreme backlash The woman is seen in the short clip as holding a power drill and posing in front of a boarded-up store.

California woman seen posing with power drill in front of boarded-up store goes viral, prompts extreme backlash The woman is seen in the short clip as holding a power drill and posing in front of a boarded-up store. via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/3dvLfj6

New top story from Time: New York Prosecutor Convenes Grand Jury in Criminal Investigation of Donald Trump

https://ift.tt/3wuXF3R (NEW YORK) — New York prosecutors have convened a special grand jury to consider evidence in a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business dealings, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The development signals that the Manhattan district attorney’s office was moving toward seeking charges as a result of its two-year investigation, which included a lengthy legal battle to obtain Trump’s tax records. The person familiar with the matter was not authorized to speak publicly and did so on condition of anonymity. The news was first reported by The Washington Post . Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into a variety of matters such as hush-money payments paid to women on Trump’s behalf, property valuations and employee compensation. The Democratic prosecutor has been using an investigative grand jury through the course of his probe to issue sub...

New top story from Time: Families of Six American Oil Executives Convicted in Venezuela Cry Foul

https://ift.tt/36bW5cN CARACAS, Venezuela — Hopes of families for a quick release for six American oil executives detained in Venezuela for three years over an alleged corruption scheme have evaporated, with a judge finding them all guilty and quickly sentencing them to prison. Attorneys and relatives of the so-called Citgo 6 said the men were wrongly convicted, and the defense lawyers vowed to appeal Thursday’s verdicts. Alirio Rafael Zambrano, whose two brothers were among the defendants, said they were “undeniably innocent” and victims of “judicial terrorism.” No evidence presented in the case supports a guilty conviction, he said. “We, the family, are heartbroken to be separated even further from our loved ones,” Zambrano said by phone from New Jersey. “We pray that the leaders of our nation step forward and continue to fight unceasingly for their freedom and human rights.” Attorney María Alejandra Poleo, who helped represent three of the men, said the case was “voi...