[Peace-discuss] UFPJ Policy Notes.

[Stuart Levy]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:31:03PM -0500, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> Here is a fact sheet from UFPJ about the US policies in Afghanistan and 
> Pakistan. I recommend it be reprinted and passed out when we have the 
> opportunity. I find the objections of Neil and Carl  misleading. --mkb

Yes -- this looks very good to me, and doesn't seem to pull punches.
Includes some real gems, for example:

>> Pres. Obama professed admiration for the Pakistani people because 
>> they have struggled for their democracy.   He should have mentioned who and 
>> what they are struggling against – rule by a small elite, and against a 
>> continual cycle of military dictatorships, supported by huge amounts of 
>> U.S. military aid.  

and many others.  I agree, this would be good to pass out.  It might
just about fit on two sides of a sheet of paper at a good font size.


> Afghanistan – Pakistan Crisis                                   Policy 
> Notes
> President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy
> In presenting his Afghanistan/Pakistan policy to the nation on March 27, 
> President Obama said we must escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan 
> to protect the U.S. from Al Qaeda terrorism.    But people are tired of 
> such scare tactics, sick of endless wars which only increase violence.   
> United for Peace and Justice calls for a new policy which withdraws U.S. 
> troops, prioritizes diplomacy, and repairs the damage we have already 
> caused.
> ·       President Obama stated that we are fighting in Afghanistan to 
> protect the U.S. from Al Qaeda terrorism.    But the rebels in Afghanistan 
> are not Al Qaeda – they are fighting against foreign occupation and for 
> their version of Islam, not to threaten the U.S. or other countries.    As 
> a recent RAND report confirmed, military action is the least effective 
> means of responding to terrorism (working in only 7% of the cases studied) 
> – political engagement, economic development, education, and police work 
> are far smarter.  More than 7,000 Afghan civilians have been killed by U.S. 
> military action in Afghanistan, compared to the 9/11 death toll of 3,067.
>
> ·       President Obama stated that the U.S. did not choose the 
> Afghanistan war and that we were forced into it by the 9/11 attacks.   But 
> it was President Bush’s choice to define a crime – the 9/11 attacks -- 
> as an act of war, and to respond with military means.  Pres. Obama has 
> unfortunately not challenged Bush’s mistaken identification of criminal 
> terrorists as “soldiers” fighting a “war”.  The U.S. itself had 
> created and armed the very forces we are now fighting -- the U.S. 
> government organized, armed and funded Afghan jihadis to fight the Soviets 
> in the 1970s.    Pakistan’s military, supported by U.S. aid, similarly 
> created the Taliban in the 1990s.
>
> ·       Pres. Obama was right when he said that a return of Afghanistan to 
> Taliban rule would mean brutal government and denial of human rights to the 
> Afghan people, especially women and girls.    But he forgot to say that the 
> regime of Hamid Karzai is little better.   Support for warlords, 
> corruption, involvement in the opium trade, and inability to enforce the 
> rule of law, coupled with U.S. air attacks and night raids on civilians, 
> means that the situation of the Afghan people including oppression of 
> women, rape and lawlessness are now as bad or worse in most parts of 
> Afghanistan as they were under the Taliban regime, according to Afghan 
> women’s organizations.     Instead of military approaches we need to 
> support Afghan civil society in their efforts to end impunity of all armed 
> groups.
>
> ·       Obama said that the U.S. is not in Afghanistan to control that 
> country or dictate its future.    But Hamid Karzai was chosen leader at the 
> Bonn Conference in December 2001 because of U.S. support, not because of 
> his standing in the country.   In 2004 the U.S. also interfered with the 
> Afghan elections, ensuring that former warlords could run instead of being 
> prosecuted for their crimes.    Now, press reports say the U.S. is 
> pondering how to downsize the Afghan president’s position to a figurehead 
> and install a new leader to exercise real power.    With such manipulations 
> in the background, talk about safeguarding this year’s  elections is not 
> about helping Afghans exercise their right to choose their leaders.   It is 
> really about the U.S. strategic aim to control the region.
>
> ·       Pres. Obama said he will shift the emphasis of the U.S. military 
> mission to training Afghan security forces, setting targets of 132,000 for 
> the Afghanistan National Army and 82,000 for the police force.   But such 
> enormous numbers are unsustainable for Afghanistan, one of the poorest 
> countries in the world, and an oversized army has oversized political 
> influence.    With a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces as proposed 
> even by President Karzai, and a reduction of regional tensions, Afghanistan 
> can defend itself without mortgaging its future.
>
> ·       While most expected Pres. Obama to call for negotiations to 
> resolve the Afghan insurgency, he did not do so.   Instead he called only 
> for a sham “reconciliation” process in which Afghans who have worked 
> for the Taliban will be paid to switch sides.   But this model would 
> further fragment the country and build up warlords.    Only Afghans can 
> choose their political direction.   In a positive sign, the Afghanistan 
> National Council of Ulemma (religious scholars) recently called for a new 
> Loya Jirga (Grand Assembly), which would involve all Afghan groups and 
> bodies and be mediated by the Saudi king.
>
> ·       Pres. Obama professed admiration for the Pakistani people because 
> they have struggled for their democracy.   He should have mentioned who and 
> what they are struggling against – rule by a small elite, and against a 
> continual cycle of military dictatorships, supported by huge amounts of 
> U.S. military aid.    Pakistan’s oversized military, fifth largest in the 
> world, has dominated since the 1950s.   The U.S. should end, rather than 
> increase, its colossal aid to the military. Since last summer U.S. Predator 
> drones have been raining death on Pakistani tribal areas, killing civilians 
> as well as militants.    New plans to expand air attacks to the Quetta area 
> will further enrage Pakistanis.  The U.S. should focus on nurturing 
> negotiations between India and Pakistan rather than sending arms to either.
>
> ·       Pres. Obama promised a $7.5 billion development aid package for 
> Pakistan over 5 years, but said little about reconstructing a devastated 
> Afghanistan.    While people in both countries have real needs, this money 
> will not be well spent unless the U.S. changes the way it spends foreign 
> aid.   As Oxfam said in a recent report on the U.S. Afghan aid program, 
> “there has been limited success in part because the US uses foreign aid 
> to achieve short-term or security objectives”.    60% of U.S. “foreign 
> aid” spending never leaves the U.S., so that wheat is purchased in North 
> Dakota and shipped to Afghanistan, while Afghan farmers are priced out of 
> the market and turn to poppy cultivation.  Still more aid is wasted on 
> high-priced Western consultants, skimmed off in bribes, or used to support 
> military strategies which have little to do with human development.   To be 
> effective, development aid must be locally directed and managed by the 
> people of each country.
>
> ·       The proposal to designate portions of Pakistan as 
> “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” is a scheme to enmesh Pakistan in a 
> global economic web which could only increase the glaring inequities in 
> Pakistani society.    Cooperative enterprise and production for the 
> domestic and regional market is the economic model both Pakistan and 
> Afghanistan should follow, and Pakistan needs land reform.
>
> ·       Pres. Obama said the U.S. will enlist its NATO allies and other 
> countries in its Afghanistan/Pakistan project.     But few if any other 
> major countries are on board with the new policy, which sends the signal 
> that the U.S. is not interested in giving up control of its Afghan 
> adventure or U.S. bases there.  NATO should go back to Europe.   A real 
> international peace conference for Afghanistan should be called, grouping 
> India, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, China, the U.N. and others to address 
> regional security and establish a new international peacekeeping body to 
> replace U.S. and NATO forces.
>
> SPEAK UP NOW.   Call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111, its 
> switchboard at 202-456-1414, and the Congressional switchboard at 
> 202-224-3121, and ask for an end to the U.S war in Afghanistan and
[Pakistan?]