At Least 27 More Afghan Civilians Dead in Special Ops Airstrike

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday, Feb. 22 that a U.S. Special Operations airstrike destroyed a group of minibuses, claiming the lives of at least 27 civilians near the Pakistani border between Uruzgan and Daykundi provinces.

Matthew Rosenberg's article appears here:
wsj.com


Business Week's Eltaf Najafizada and Mark Williams reported up to 33 were killed in the strike.
businessweek.com

The language used to describe dead civilians continues to be twisted into depictions of a situation in which ordinary people, not unlike the intended readers of the articles, parents and children unarmed and fending for their lives in their own land now being occupied, are being described as an inconvenience for the U.S. Military public relations effort in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East.

In the WSJ article, Rosenberg writes, "The area is hundreds of miles from Marjah, where the largest allied offensive since 2001 is now in its second week. But the airstrike nonetheless illustrated one of the major problems for coalition forces as they try to win over civilians in Marjah and across Afghanistan: figuring out who is a civilian and who is an insurgent—and not killing the civilians."

Is the WSJ not defending U.S. Special Operations, implying that they are doing their best whoever and wherever they are regardless of how they are conducting top secret, classified actions that result in murder of noncombatants?

Rosenberg reports, "'Nobody has an idea what were they doing there because they don't share anything with the Afghans,' said an official at the presidential palace. He added that U.S. Special Operations Forces 'arrest people and they raid houses without keeping the Afghans in the loop.'"

And a gem from General Stanley McChrystal sheds light on just how modern modern warfare can be in the United States' broader conquest in the Middle East: "'I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust,' Gen. McChrystal was quoted as saying by the NATO statement."

Would it be any different to have said, "I have made it clear to our forces that killing the Afghan people is not the same as protecting them?" McChrystal's statements do nothing to raise the issue that U.S. Special Forces are accountable in the light of day to no one and that their clandestine actions do not produce results that in any way attempt to complete the logic of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, namely apprehension of the members of Al Qaeda in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Pakistan and U.S. Angering Populace in At Least One of Those Countries

Thank you Radioactivegavin (see link at right) for the heads up to GRITtv with Laura Flanders and a Monday, Feb. 8 piece,

Lifting the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan

Flanders alerts us to a Feb. 3 New York Times piece on the inadvertent exposure in U.S. media of operations inside Pakistan resulting from the loss of three U.S. soldiers in a late January suicide bombing in the region of Lower Dir.

Flanders writes, "Among the Pakistani public, surveys constantly show that Pakistanis consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban, despite 3,021 Pakistani deaths in terrorist attacks last year. If the drones are controversial, the presence of US soldiers on Pakistani soil is far more so. If the US war is quietly shifting, it’s not quiet inside Pakistan. People are kicking up a stink."

The NY Times article appears at the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/asia/04pstan.html

CIA Drones & Defense Secretary Robert Gates' Visit to Pakistan

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates flew to Pakistan in late January to discuss CIA drone attacks (mentioned here extensively in other entries) and furnishing unarmed drones to Pakistan's military for the purpose of additional surveillance.

http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/22/still-trying-to-reconcile-cia-drones/

A reiteration: what's going on, exactly? What is the change in language from "War on Terror" and "War in Afghanistan" to "AfPak" and "AfPak War" supposed to mean? A sudden glitch in CNN word choice that's not supposed to raise any suspicion or questions about a grossly overfinanced, murderous and poorly timed, poorly focused and seemingly unending act of aggression in Pakistan, a part of the world that is not part of the deal in the war launched in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 might potentially raise questions of at least legality.

Apparently in the age of globalization and asymmetrical warfare, "Wherever Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters may or may not be" is a metageographical location and the postmodern interpretation of international and U.S. law of the moment follows the actions of military operatives who were once under mandate of the state system before the borders became porous.

The article on the Foreign Policy Blog Network's Pakistan site is written by Zainab Jeewanjee, who comments in a chilling tone, "It’s been a polarizing issue from the onset because while it’s convenient to fly unmanned CIA predator aircraft over potential terrorist havens, they result in significant civilian casualties, and displaced persons. So it’s no surprise that over a year later, reconciling their use in Pakistan is still on the agenda." Try reading this passage again, replacing the word "convenient" to whatever you imagine and switch out "civilian casualties" for something similar but sounding more like "innocent Americans." Why are we talking about civilians like this in any country? Shouldn't we be talking about due process or even war crimes tribunals?

U.S. Secret Afghan Prisons and Accompanying JSOC Night Raids

From Democracynow.org Feb. 2, 2010

A new investigation by journalist Anand Gopal reveals harrowing details about US secret prisons in Afghanistan, under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Gopal interviewed Afghans who were detained and abused at several disclosed and undisclosed sites at US and Afghan military bases across the country. He also reveals the existence of another secret prison on Bagram Air Base that even the Red Cross does not have access to. It is dubbed the Black Jail and is reportedly run by US Special Forces.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/2/americas_secret_afghan_prisons_investigation_unearths

**Similar to night raids in Iraqi homes, Anand Gopal's descriptions of these U.S. military Joint Special Ops Command (JSOC) raids sound similar to terror tactics employed in Central America which appear in the transcripts of the Iran-Contra hearings. The psychological operations (psyops) techniques described in this report violate U.S. Military Counterinsurgency Manual descriptions of limitations and legal techniques.**

Forty Civilians to One Al Qaeda Target in Pakistan War

From Democracynow.org Feb. 2, 2010

Report: US Drone Attacks Killed 123 Civilians in January

In other news from Pakistan, the US is being accused of killing dozens of civilians in a record twelve drone attacks last month. The Pakistani newspaper The News is reporting the US botched ten of the attacks, killing 123 civilians and just three al-Qaeda leaders—a ratio of forty-one to one.

**How is this ongoing effort, run by the U.S. Military JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) and alleged to be staffed largely by civilians under the employ of private contractors such as the coroporation formerly known as Blackwater, Inc. helping the U.S. effort in Afghanistan? Presumably, the U.S. and NATO are fighting to bring democratic process to the people of Afghanistan. What is it about Pakistan that must be kept low profile in the American press according to efforts by the U.S. government to hide operations that are not subject to international laws the same as they would be if the armed drone flight operations were run by U.S. Military personnel? What do American citizens have to say about Pakistani children, women and non-combatant civilian males being killed by U.S. missles fired remotely from a forward operating base? Why would such activity not reflect upon public opinion toward the U.S. overseas? Why wouldn't a congressional committee convene over these civilian deaths?**

When a Republican Calls for the CIA to be "Taken Out," the World is Most Certainly On Its Ear

Republican representative Ron Paul took an approach to the Central Intelligence Agency, its involvement in U.S. Military operations in the Middle East and its shady history regarding narcotrafficking seldom if ever heard from fellow statesmen the weekend of Jan. 17 in Atlanta.

During an annual presentation to members of Paul's Campaign for Liberty at its conference in Atlanta, he underlined the importance to the U.S. mission of removing CIA operatives and private contractors like the soldiers employed by the scandalized security firm formerly known as Blackwater, Inc.

This post appeared on RawStory Jan. 20 and is accompanied by a YouTube video segment of Paul's presentation.

Ron Paul and the CIA on rawstory.com

Pakistan, Drones and the Unpopularity of the U.S. War in Afghanistan

Amid the climate of escalation and apparent shuffling of tactics in the Pentagon today, most folks aren't noticing that the U.S. War in Afghanistan is largely run by the CIA, that its frequently being fought in a destabilized Pakistan where the conventions of international conflict (Congressional declaration of war, official status as an ally downgraded to enemy, some kind of responsibility informally but publicly pinned on leader of offending nation, U.S. Military announcements of strategy for achievement of objectives in target region and an outline of those objectives ... ) are being flouted by both invader and invaded, and civilian contractors, namely a U.S. Corporation whose employees and officers under investigation by the FBI for murder and corruption formerly known as Blackwater, appear to be running the operation.

The question I would be asking if I was, say, a proud American parent of a U.S. soldier, "Are our soldiers there just to provide cover for the CIA operation of drone strikes into Pakistan?" Is the CIA running intelligence missions under the rifle sights of U.S. sentries in crowded markets in southern Afghanistan so that Blackwater can fly remote controlled missle drones in violation of international law and the conventions of combat to murder four to six civilians--mostly women and children--for each military target, probably Al Qaeda, probably not Osama Bin Laden?

Furthermore, with embedded media present under strict agreements with the Pentagon, can U.S. and other major media outlets even begin to address let alone answer this question?

What Constitutes Unpopular Aggression, and for that matter, Illegal Aggression

Suspected U.S. Drone Strike Kills 15 in Pakistan

Thursday, December 17, 2009

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — Pakistani intelligence officials say the latest suspected U.S. missile strike along the Afghan border has killed 15 people, including seven alleged foreign militants.

The officials say the strike involved five drones and 10 missiles, a massing of resources that suggests the U.S. had homed in on a high-profile target.

The missiles Thursday hit two compounds in the Ambarshaga area of the North Waziristan tribal region. It was the second such strike of the day in the Pakistani territory.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media.

The U.S. rarely confirms such strikes. Pakistan protests them, but is believed to secretly aid them.

News from the Underwire: Highlights of the Underreported

At the opposite end of the spectrum from the joyous outpouring at Wall Street's Dow Jones Industrial Average closing above 10,000 for the first time since 1999, the United Nations Food Program announced this month an enormous lack of food aid to hungry people all around the world. International food aid, both from public funds and private donations, will meet massive shortfalls in the next year largely due to the effects of the global economic downturn.

A Sept. 16 Reuters story, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLG270557 quotes UN World Food Program (UNWFP) executive director Josette Sheeran detailing the inexorable increase in famine resulting from cuts to food aid by the world's wealthiest nations and the relationship of this crisis to the current international financial crisis.

Sharon Lindores writes for Reuters, "The number of hungry people passed 1 billion this year for the first time, [Sheeran] said, adding the WFP has barely a third of the funding it needs to feed 108 million people this year. To date the WFP has confirmed $2.6 billion in funding towards its $6.7 billion budget for 2009. It would take less than 0.01 percent of the global financial crisis bailout package to solve the hunger crisis, [Sheeran] said.

Following Sheeran's comments by a month, major news channels trumpeted the Wall Street achievement while the story was reported only by the fringes of the business press.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2285493/dow_jones_average_climbs_above_10000.html

Still many on and off Wall Street consider genuine indicators of recovery--for instance reduction of monthly job losses, the re-issuing of loans to small business and decrease in monthly home foreclosures--to follow strength in consumer confidence.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/confidence-drops-for-second-straight-month-2009-10-27

Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch reporter Greg Robb writes on Oct. 27, "U.S. consumers doubt that the much-touted economic recovery is under way, according to the latest report on consumer confidence released by the Conference Board on Tuesday. The consumer confidence index was much weaker than expected, falling for the second straight month as the assessment of present-day conditions fell to its lowest level in 26 years."

Analysis: Monitoring economic indicators that tell you only about the daily lives of a specific range of citizens can only provide false readings on recovery or any kinds of stability trends. Current economics, under the constant influence of Wall Street culture, do not look at the lives of the poor in the US and elsewhere to tell them about the health of financial institutions, which is most often the health analysts and investors are concerned about. People all around the world with no access to regulation of banks (or lack thereof entirely) are not facing the repair of central financial institutions like it is something we all caused and haven't the expertise to fix, but monitoring the usual media outlets we don't get that impression. Instead, powerful individuals who knew precisely what would happen and what to ask for when it did happen are looking at the rest of the world's literate population trying to interpret the current financial crisis as a routine system crash that seemingly caused itself and only our patience and adherence to the notion we're dealing with forces we can't understand without a masters degree in economics. There are perpetrators here with names and families and lives who, unlike Bernard Madoff, are getting away. They have been getting away since December of 2007 while the rest of us tried to make sense of what happened to the financial sector. They are not absconding to a secret island in the South Pacific or a mountain redoubt in the far reaches of the Swiss Alps. They are retreating into the rhetoric created by so many people who have worked so hard to obfuscate justice in economic crime, to make the situation appear so complicated that not only is it impossible to bring the culprits to a fair hearing and ultimately to justice, but also to construe this as the impossibility of even defining what justice is, therefore rendering it unattainable. What this allows is not only the exoneration of those who knew what the consequences of their enormously reckless acts would be. This prevarication also creates the possibility to commit these crimes again on the same order of magnitude, arguably by the same names and faces now running to safety behind a flimsy wall of "financial might makes financial right."

For a more critical look at the financial crisis, don't miss Jeff Madrick's piece on financial regulation in the Nov. 5 issue of the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=23323 (online content is premium with three pay options available; newsstand copy runs about $6 and can be found at many bookstores)

Also, the action group Showdown in Chicago rallied just this weekend to raise awareness about banking and decisions being made right now by financial institutions. Under the "What's Broken" tab on their site are both html and pdf versions of a sensible prognosis in the woe that is our current financial predicament. http://www.showdowninchicago.org/whatsbroken.html

Party Dominance and the Separation of Powers

[This post is originally part of the blog Statesubterfuge, which was very different in intent from Extraordinary Edition; therefore some discontinuity exists between this entry and those that follow]


Tuesday, November 2 is a peak on the graph of political curiosity in the U.S. Not until we return to the lead up to the first November Tuesday in 2012 (and maybe not even then) will persons of every background and walk of life turn their eyes to events and ideas in the political realm, unable to look away for more than a few hours at a time.

The New York Times reports today, amid analysis of hardened foreign policy outlooks offered by each candidate, that Democrats could find their party in a position of control in the event of a Barack Obama victory, a set of circumstances House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alluded to at the onset of the primaries.

“The possibility of a victory by Senator Barack Obama combined with significant Congressional gains by his party could give Democrats extraordinary muscle to pursue an ambitious agenda on health care, taxes, union rights, energy and national security. Democrats, who are within reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would also face high expectations, especially from the party’s more liberal quarters, that could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers in the Senate as well as the House. And they would be at risk of overreaching, a tendency that has deeply damaged both parties in similar situations in the past.”

Living in the world of Bush, one might not be too quick to point out that with power comes responsibility. The extensive mocking of focus groups by Bush and Cheney suggests to the contrary that the winners take all while the losers can sit by and wait it out until power shifts at the end of the next two-year cycle.

Still, if the suggestion marks a political reality both sides of the aisle will take notice.

“Armed with polls that raise the possibility of decisive wins in House and Senate races, Congressional Republicans are trying to turn the situation to their advantage, warning voters about unchecked one-party government and urging them to split their tickets to deny Democrats unfettered control. The Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, issued warnings about one-party control as he campaigned Friday and Saturday.”

If we are truly not panicked as the election winds down over its last nine days, thinking calmly and rationally about a United States that will in either outcome be lead by a very powerful party as old as the nation itself, what we might ask is how this system came to be designed to operate with, say, an executive, an upper house, a lower house and a Supreme Court stacked with party members who share the ideology of one national committee? Does party dominance undermine the fundamental democratic concept of the separation of powers?

To address these questions, we will be taking a look at the concept itself, the separation of powers, which we know as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Credited with the foundational work on the theory is Charles de Montisquieu, who relied upon lessons of the Roman republic and was influenced by Greek political thought dating to the Second Century. Montisquieu contributed to the Constitutional Convention adopted in Philadelphia in September of 1787.

Please. Don't be frightened. Your assistance is requested.

[This post belongs to the previous manifestation of this blog, Statesubterfuge, which is very different in intent from the current manifestation, Extraordinary Edition. Accordingly, the bent of this entry will resonate differently in tone than those that follow it. While you are welcome to view the mission and purpose of Statesubterfuge, the mission and purpose of Extraordinary Edition are along the lines of news analysis where the former was political theory]


Greetings. Welcome to the very serious-faced outlet of political information and ideas being created here. The only thing to do now that this page has such a serious face is create and accumulate much serious-face-themed material—issue-based news and commentary posted in the spirit of inquiry and intellectual pursuit—under the auspices of visitors to the site being able to make sense and use of it. Please remember ‘subterfuge’ is really just a big word for lying, and also please try thinking of ‘state’ as something created by humans in quite the way a machine is—to serve its originally intended function, and when found to fail that function, to duly be dismantled or replaced with something intended to function better than the obsolete incumbent mechanism.

A specific theme that will be recurrent here is the tendency of power in the modern liberal democracies to centralize within the population, boil down to two ideologically opposed leading forces still in pursuit of some of the same things—be they Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., Labor and Tories in the U.K., Socialist and Social Democrat to a more left-leaning populace, Center-Right and Christian Democrat to one leaning more to the right—and proceed to lock the doors behind them, the duopoly increasingly resembling a monopoly wearing two suits as time accumulates more wealth and power beneath the symbol of each leading force.

Under this theme we’ll look for what happens to human issues and the rules we impose upon ourselves (call it ‘the law’) within a system that bears the contours described above. Let’s also examine possible social arrangements precluded by monolithic (sorry, ‘duolithic’) dominance in the political sphere. What might life be like if [circumstances we could never have because the most powerful people we’ve heard of would never consent to it, therefore it shall never be] didn’t exist? If we wanted this world badly enough, what steps would have to occur in order to bring that world into existence? And, since achievement requires sacrifice, would it be worth the sacrifice?

This endeavor is proposed with at least one foot on the earth at the beginning and end of each engagement. We will commit to focusing on the world into which we were born and own up to each of the problems with which we all are faced. This pledge will rein in the dreaming only to the extent that the ship’s crew does not lose sight of the shore before developing instruments by which to navigate on a voyage of discovery to a world of possibilities we’re unable to see from where we now stand. The discussion will be superior in value if you’ll be so kind as to join in.