On December 1, 2009, President Obama told the whole world what his military strategy is to win the war in Afghanistan. He detailed out his strategy in a televised speech that was delivered to the Corps of Cadets at The United States Military Academy at West Point. While the uniformed cadets listened intently to their Commander in Chief, one can only assume that al-Qaeda leaders throughout the world were listening intently, too. If any of our enemies missed the live broadcast, they are welcome to read the entire speech transcript online, or they can watch a video replay of the speech if they prefer.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-afghanistan-delivered-west/story?id=9220661
Three days later on December 4, 2009, the American Forces Press Service aided our enemies with more helpful details in a long article titled “Transportation officials confident in Afghan deployment,” which is published online at the official website of the U.S. Air Force at: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180620
The following article excerpt frequently quotes U.S. Army Brigadier General Michael Lally, Director of Operations and Plans at U.S. Transportation Command based at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois:
"The units that have to be there in January obviously must fly, and we've already started working that," he said.
Complicating the situation in the CENTCOM theater is the massive drawdown in Iraq. Roughly 120,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq and by August 2010 there will be about 50,000, with all out by the end of 2011. Also, the Marine regiment going into Afghanistan now will get equipment both from Iraq and the United States. Other units will be in the same situation as the deployment continues.
TRANSCOM officials will use all modes of transportation -- military and civilian -- to get troops and their equipment to the theater.
"On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. For air cargo, commercial shippers carry 45 percent and 55 percent via military planes. About 75 percent of routine sustainment cargo goes in via commercial air and 25 percent via military.
Unit moves change the equation with the majority of equipment flown in via military air.
"You expect that because a lot of our equipment is outsized and it doesn't fit very well into a 747," General Lally said. "So we use C-17 (Globemaster IIIs) and C-5 (Galaxies) for the military equipment and the palletized cargo fits very well in the holds of our commercial partners."
The commercial partners have "stepped up to the plate" for this movement and for flights into CENTCOM in general, TRANSCOM officials said. There has been no need to call up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to handle the flow to the region, and officials do not expect to use this option.
"Our commercial partners have been outstanding," an official said.
Also, CENTCOM officials are working with Joint Forces Command officials to identify the forces that will deploy.
"We're involved with that process, because that will determine when these forces are trained and available for transportation," said Col. Gregory Schwartz, the TRANSCOM operations planner responsible for CENTCOM.
The two commands are meeting to figure out "the detailed data on what needs to be moved, who needs to be moved, where it needs be moved from and where in theater it needs to go," Colonel Schwartz said.
When TRANSCOM officials, who are developing the plan to get forces into Afghanistan, moved troops into Iraq, they had the luxury of an intermediate staging base in Kuwait. Troops could marry up with their equipment in Kuwait -- a country with excellent airports and seaports -- and conduct training before moving into Iraq. There is no such intermediate staging base for Afghanistan.
"Our people have to be ready when they arrive in Afghanistan," General Lally said. "It is a tight timeline. We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in. Every day we have teleconferences to synchronize that the passengers and equipment arrive at the right time. There's a lot more work and coordination involved to make sure this happens correctly."
The command also ships goods via the Northern Distribution Route, which uses Russian and Central Asian railroads to get supplies to Afghanistan. State Department officials are working with the countries along the routes to allow different equipment and supplies. State Department officials also are working with Russia to expand the overflight permissions, Pentagon officials said.
Yes, you read that correctly. But, in case you missed it, let me repeat in bold emphasis:
TRANSCOM officials will use all modes of transportation -- military and civilian -- to get troops and their equipment to the theater.
"On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. …
"Our people have to be ready when they arrive in Afghanistan," General Lally said. "It is a tight timeline. We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in. …”
On December 31, 2009, the American Forces Press Service published a related article titled “Lynn says fight against IEDs remains priority.” The entire article can be read at:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123183940
The following excerpt is the beginning of the article:
12/31/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defeating the terrorists' weapon of choice is and will remain a priority for the Defense Department, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said here Dec. 30.
Mr. Lynn spoke during a Pentagon ceremony where Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz stepped down as director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and Army Lt. Gen. Michael Oates took up the charge.
The organization looks for ways to defeat terrorists using car bombs, roadside bombs, as well as suicide vests, all examples of improvised explosive devices. The bombs are the biggest killers of American servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The weapon is a tactical device that has impacted the operational missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We must preclude the IED from impacting us strategically," General Metz said. "We cannot allow this weapon to influence the national-level decisions of our most senior leaders."
"Under (General Metz's) leadership, JIEDDO has moved forward on three lines of operation: attacking the networks that place IEDs, devising ways to defeat the device and training our forces to counter the threat," Mr. Lynn said.
The organization, only four years old, is a model of rapid acquisition, Mr. Lynn said. Its military and civilian staff quickly finds and employs ideas and technologies that can help servicemembers in harm's way. The organization operates with the services and combatant commands in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The threat continues, Mr. Lynn said, noting that in October IEDs claimed the lives of 41 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and one soldier in Iraq. The devices "are a clear and present danger," he said.
And the enemy knows how to use the devices.
"In Afghanistan we are up against a determined and clever foe who mastered the use of this deadly technology long before our forces set foot in the mountains of the Hindu Kush," Mr. Lynn said.
The Soviets lost nearly 2,000 soldiers and 1,200 vehicles during their nine-year war in Afghanistan, he said.
"That IEDs have defeated another technologically advanced military in the very same place we fight now, only adds to the urgency of our mission," Mr. Lynn said. "Our ability to project power in this world of asymmetric threats and to secure our population at home depends on JIEDDO's success."
Measuring success remains an issue for the organization.
"We may never find a way to determine how many lives and limbs we are saving, how many warfighters return home with their eyesight and how many have avoided serious burns that would have left them in pain for the rest of their lives," General Metz said.
The growing percentage of troop deaths caused by IEDs can be seen here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/25/GR2008032500711.html
AFPS reporter Jim Garamone wrote both of the articles mentioned above, so there is no excuse that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Garamone is a man who talks with Army generals of various ranks at U.S. military bases and at the Pentagon, and he was a raised hand away from asking questions directly to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III. Either Garamone is imagining that his writings are military-only interoffice memos that are top-down edicts and not the stuff of “ask questions” journalism, or Garamone is not a deep thinker with an abiding memory of his own writing. In either case, I am aghast.
Whatever happened to military secrets and the “Need To Know” limitations that used to be placed on the strategies of troop and supply movements? Did we win World War II with an open book that welcomed the perusal of our strategies by enemy generals and admirals? I think not.
Simple arithmetic adds up to terrifying consequences. Consider the following article excerpts in sequence:
"On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said.
PLUS
"Our people have to be ready when they arrive in Afghanistan," General Lally said. "It is a tight timeline. We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in.”
PLUS
The terrorists' weapon of choice is … using car bombs, roadside bombs, as well as suicide vests, all examples of improvised explosive devices. The bombs are the biggest killers of American servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
PLUS
The threat continues, Mr. Lynn said, noting that in October IEDs claimed the lives of 41 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and one soldier in Iraq. The devices "are a clear and present danger," he said.
PLUS
And the enemy knows how to use the devices.
PLUS
"In Afghanistan we are up against a determined and clever foe who mastered the use of this deadly technology long before our forces set foot in the mountains of the Hindu Kush," Mr. Lynn said.
PLUS
The Soviets lost nearly 2,000 soldiers and 1,200 vehicles during their nine-year war in Afghanistan, he said.
EQUALS
"… IEDs have defeated another technologically advanced military in the very same place we fight now …" Mr. Lynn said.
One has to wonder out-loud if U.S. military officers are ever made to read the U.S. Constitution during their training. Consider: Article. III. Section. 3. [1] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. … Perhaps sharing a general tactical strategy, troop deployment methods, troop supply routes, and the location of the main rendezvous processing center before entering Afghanistan is not aiding the enemy, but every al-Qaeda strategist in the whole wide world can be heard whispering “Thank you.”
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Act One: A Lesson in Afghanistan Geography and Demographics
I live in Oregon. When President Obama made his televised speech at West Point, I asked myself “Why?” Why continue the war in Afghanistan? Why escalate it?
Yes, it is possible to be in an inhabited place on Earth that is farther away from Oregon than is Afghanistan, but most of the world is closer. On a globe, locate one end of a string in Central Oregon and the other end of the string in Central Afghanistan by going up the 120 degrees west longitude line from Oregon through The North Pole and then down the 60 degrees east longitude line to Afghanistan — that is how the crow flies if the poor bird is in a hurry. But that “shortest distance” convenient route flies directly over the Ural Mountains in Russia, which is probably not to the liking of the Russians, so a circuitous route is necessary.
If you flew the same distance as the “shortest distance” through Iceland instead of The North Pole, you would end up in Jerusalem, Israel. If you flew the same distance as the “shortest distance” along the 45th Parallel, you would end up in Greece. Quite literally, if you adjust distances to allow for the necessary circuitous route to get from Oregon to Afghanistan in a troop deployment, the only inhabited places on Earth that are farther away are South Africa and Madagascar!
http://www.afghana.com/Directories/Facts.htm
Afghanistan is located in the heart of south-central Asia. It has an area of some 251,825 square miles (652,225 square kilometers) and is completely landlocked, the nearest coast lying along the Arabian Sea, about 300 miles to the south.
The boundaries of Afghanistan were established in the late 19th century in the context of rivalry between Britain and Russia.
The Hindu Kush (mountain range) and subsidiary ranges divide Afghanistan into three distinct geographic regions, which roughly can be designated as the Central Highlands, the Northern Plains, and the Southwestern Plateau. The Central Highlands, actually a part of the Himalayan chain, include the main Hindu Kush range. Its area of about 160,000 square miles is a region of deep, narrow valleys and lofty mountains, some peaks of which rise above 21,000 feet.
The Northern Plains region, north of the Central Highlands, extends eastward from the Iranian border to the foothills of the Pamirs, near the border with Tajikistan. It comprises 40,000 square miles of plains and fertile foothills sloping gently toward the Amu River (the ancient Oxus River). … The Northern Plains region is intensively cultivated and densely populated.
The Southwestern Plateau, south of the Central Highlands, is a region of high plateaus, sandy deserts, and semideserts. The average altitude is about 3,000 feet. The Southwestern Plateau covers about 50,000 square miles, one-fourth of which forms the sandy Rigestan Desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Afghanistan
The population of Afghanistan is 28,396,000, according to the "significantly revised" October 30, 2009 CIA Factbook.
The majority of Afghanistan's populations are Iranian peoples, notably the Pashtuns and the Tajiks.
Pashto and Persian (Dari) are the two official languages of the country. Persian is spoken by at least half of the population and serves as a lingua franca for most. Pashto is spoken widely in the south, east and southwest as well as in western Pakistan. Uzbek and Turkmen are spoken in the north. Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.
99% of Afghanistan's population adheres to Islam. An estimated 80% of the population is Sunni; 19% is Shi'a. Despite attempts during the years of communist rule to secularize Afghan society, Islamic practices pervade all aspects of life. In fact, Islam served as the principal basis for expressing opposition to communist rule and the Soviet invasion.
Literacy in Afghanistan:
Definition: Age 15 and over, and can read and write
Total population: 28.1%
Male: 43.1%
Female: 12.6% (2000 est.)
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_live_dollarday.html
KABUL, 5 November 2009 (IRIN) - The average per capita monthly expenditure of nine million Afghans is less than 66 US cents a day, and millions of other Afghans spend about $42 a month, according to a summary of Afghanistan’s new National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (NRVA).
NRVA 2007/08 was produced by the government with European Union funding and in collaboration with aid agencies.
A bleak picture is painted:
* 26 percent literacy rate (12 percent female and 39 male)
* 24 percent of all child deliveries are attended by a skilled birth attendant
* Less than 30 percent of people have access to safe drinking water
* Over 90 percent do not have access to proper sanitation
* About 20 percent have electricity in their homes.
* Half of the estimated population of 25 million is under 15
Source: Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a project the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. IRIN is UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies.
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/
Afghanistan Population Centers: Provinces and Cities:
http://www.citypopulation.de/Afghanistan.html
By comparison: Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
Texas has an area of 268,820 square miles (696,200 km2), and a growing population of 24.7 million residents.
Texas is the second largest U.S. state. It is 10% larger than France and almost twice as large as Germany or Japan, though it ranks only 27th worldwide amongst country subdivisions by size. If it were a country, Texas would be the 40th largest behind Chile and Zambia.
Texas's population density is 34.8 persons/km2, which is slightly higher than the average population density of the US as a whole, at 31 persons/km2. In contrast, while Texas and France are similarly sized geographically, the European country has a population density of 110 persons/km2.
Two-thirds of all Texans live in a major metropolitan area such as Houston. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area is the largest in Texas. While Houston is legally the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the United States, the Dallas-Fort Worth conglomerate is much bigger than Houston and all surrounding suburban areas.
Texas has the highest percentage of people with a religious affiliation in the United States. … Approximately 400,000 Muslims live in Texas while the Jewish population stands at approximately 128,000.
Literacy in Texas:
http://www.literacytexas.org/literacyfact.htm
The mountainous region of Afghanistan (the Central Highlands) covers approximately 160,000 square miles and is largely uninhabited. Some of its Himalayan peaks rise above 21,000 feet. The State of California covers 163,707 square miles. The populated regions of Afghanistan cover an area approximately equal in size to the State of Minnesota, which covers 86,943 square miles. The ten highest mountain peaks in the United States are all in Alaska, with Mount McKinley being the highest at 20,320 feet elevation.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_mountain_peaks_of_the_United_States
So the tangible truth is this: The U.S. is fighting a war in a country that is approximately the same size and population as Texas in almost the most distant from Oregon inhabited place there is on planet Earth. We are fighting for and against peoples who speak multiple languages, none of which U.S. soldiers understand. Furthermore, the vast majority of the peoples we are fighting for and against are illiterate, including in their own spoken language. Compounding the difficulties is a cultural/religious gulf that is incomprehensible in its immensity. And we are losing the war with no real hope of ever winning it.
The truth about Afghan soldiers and the Afghan army:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/eveningnews/main5765339.shtml
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/20/18494/160
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/30/820467/-A-Leak-About-the-Phantom-Army
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x418074
Inside an Afghan hospital:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/08/2679227.htm
Dodgy cars clogging Kabul’s roads:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/09/2565599.htm
Yes, it is possible to be in an inhabited place on Earth that is farther away from Oregon than is Afghanistan, but most of the world is closer. On a globe, locate one end of a string in Central Oregon and the other end of the string in Central Afghanistan by going up the 120 degrees west longitude line from Oregon through The North Pole and then down the 60 degrees east longitude line to Afghanistan — that is how the crow flies if the poor bird is in a hurry. But that “shortest distance” convenient route flies directly over the Ural Mountains in Russia, which is probably not to the liking of the Russians, so a circuitous route is necessary.
If you flew the same distance as the “shortest distance” through Iceland instead of The North Pole, you would end up in Jerusalem, Israel. If you flew the same distance as the “shortest distance” along the 45th Parallel, you would end up in Greece. Quite literally, if you adjust distances to allow for the necessary circuitous route to get from Oregon to Afghanistan in a troop deployment, the only inhabited places on Earth that are farther away are South Africa and Madagascar!
http://www.afghana.com/Directories/Facts.htm
Afghanistan is located in the heart of south-central Asia. It has an area of some 251,825 square miles (652,225 square kilometers) and is completely landlocked, the nearest coast lying along the Arabian Sea, about 300 miles to the south.
The boundaries of Afghanistan were established in the late 19th century in the context of rivalry between Britain and Russia.
The Hindu Kush (mountain range) and subsidiary ranges divide Afghanistan into three distinct geographic regions, which roughly can be designated as the Central Highlands, the Northern Plains, and the Southwestern Plateau. The Central Highlands, actually a part of the Himalayan chain, include the main Hindu Kush range. Its area of about 160,000 square miles is a region of deep, narrow valleys and lofty mountains, some peaks of which rise above 21,000 feet.
The Northern Plains region, north of the Central Highlands, extends eastward from the Iranian border to the foothills of the Pamirs, near the border with Tajikistan. It comprises 40,000 square miles of plains and fertile foothills sloping gently toward the Amu River (the ancient Oxus River). … The Northern Plains region is intensively cultivated and densely populated.
The Southwestern Plateau, south of the Central Highlands, is a region of high plateaus, sandy deserts, and semideserts. The average altitude is about 3,000 feet. The Southwestern Plateau covers about 50,000 square miles, one-fourth of which forms the sandy Rigestan Desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Afghanistan
The population of Afghanistan is 28,396,000, according to the "significantly revised" October 30, 2009 CIA Factbook.
The majority of Afghanistan's populations are Iranian peoples, notably the Pashtuns and the Tajiks.
Pashto and Persian (Dari) are the two official languages of the country. Persian is spoken by at least half of the population and serves as a lingua franca for most. Pashto is spoken widely in the south, east and southwest as well as in western Pakistan. Uzbek and Turkmen are spoken in the north. Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.
99% of Afghanistan's population adheres to Islam. An estimated 80% of the population is Sunni; 19% is Shi'a. Despite attempts during the years of communist rule to secularize Afghan society, Islamic practices pervade all aspects of life. In fact, Islam served as the principal basis for expressing opposition to communist rule and the Soviet invasion.
Literacy in Afghanistan:
Definition: Age 15 and over, and can read and write
Total population: 28.1%
Male: 43.1%
Female: 12.6% (2000 est.)
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_live_dollarday.html
KABUL, 5 November 2009 (IRIN) - The average per capita monthly expenditure of nine million Afghans is less than 66 US cents a day, and millions of other Afghans spend about $42 a month, according to a summary of Afghanistan’s new National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (NRVA).
NRVA 2007/08 was produced by the government with European Union funding and in collaboration with aid agencies.
A bleak picture is painted:
* 26 percent literacy rate (12 percent female and 39 male)
* 24 percent of all child deliveries are attended by a skilled birth attendant
* Less than 30 percent of people have access to safe drinking water
* Over 90 percent do not have access to proper sanitation
* About 20 percent have electricity in their homes.
* Half of the estimated population of 25 million is under 15
Source: Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a project the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. IRIN is UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies.
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/
Afghanistan Population Centers: Provinces and Cities:
http://www.citypopulation.de/Afghanistan.html
By comparison: Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
Texas has an area of 268,820 square miles (696,200 km2), and a growing population of 24.7 million residents.
Texas is the second largest U.S. state. It is 10% larger than France and almost twice as large as Germany or Japan, though it ranks only 27th worldwide amongst country subdivisions by size. If it were a country, Texas would be the 40th largest behind Chile and Zambia.
Texas's population density is 34.8 persons/km2, which is slightly higher than the average population density of the US as a whole, at 31 persons/km2. In contrast, while Texas and France are similarly sized geographically, the European country has a population density of 110 persons/km2.
Two-thirds of all Texans live in a major metropolitan area such as Houston. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area is the largest in Texas. While Houston is legally the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the United States, the Dallas-Fort Worth conglomerate is much bigger than Houston and all surrounding suburban areas.
Texas has the highest percentage of people with a religious affiliation in the United States. … Approximately 400,000 Muslims live in Texas while the Jewish population stands at approximately 128,000.
Literacy in Texas:
http://www.literacytexas.org/literacyfact.htm
The mountainous region of Afghanistan (the Central Highlands) covers approximately 160,000 square miles and is largely uninhabited. Some of its Himalayan peaks rise above 21,000 feet. The State of California covers 163,707 square miles. The populated regions of Afghanistan cover an area approximately equal in size to the State of Minnesota, which covers 86,943 square miles. The ten highest mountain peaks in the United States are all in Alaska, with Mount McKinley being the highest at 20,320 feet elevation.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_mountain_peaks_of_the_United_States
So the tangible truth is this: The U.S. is fighting a war in a country that is approximately the same size and population as Texas in almost the most distant from Oregon inhabited place there is on planet Earth. We are fighting for and against peoples who speak multiple languages, none of which U.S. soldiers understand. Furthermore, the vast majority of the peoples we are fighting for and against are illiterate, including in their own spoken language. Compounding the difficulties is a cultural/religious gulf that is incomprehensible in its immensity. And we are losing the war with no real hope of ever winning it.
The truth about Afghan soldiers and the Afghan army:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/eveningnews/main5765339.shtml
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/20/18494/160
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/30/820467/-A-Leak-About-the-Phantom-Army
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x418074
Inside an Afghan hospital:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/08/2679227.htm
Dodgy cars clogging Kabul’s roads:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/09/2565599.htm
Act Two: al-Qaeda, TRANSCOM, The Geneva Conventions & The Worst Case
When I first read the above Dec 4, 2009 article (Transportation officials confident in Afghan deployment), I felt like my U.S. patriotism had been raped. I could only read it as if I were an al-Qaeda strategist, and it horrified me that the U.S. military was so lax and so incompetent that thoughts of what the enemy might think seemingly never entered anyone’s mind throughout the entire chain of command. Either that or no one is reading the paper trail that has become the public record of past events and future plans.
Ask yourself: If you were an al-Qaeda strategist, how would you respond to this information: "On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. “We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in.”?
Any ten-year-old boy who has ever spent an afternoon playing war with his friends knows exactly what an al-Qaeda strategist would think if given that information. Plainly, an al-Qaeda strategist would decide to go all-out in a concerted effort to attack any and all “commercial air” flights that could possibly be carrying U.S. troops either to or from Afghanistan, especially any flights either to or from Karachi, Pakistan.
When the Christmas Day in-air suicide attack by the Nigerian al-Qaeda terrorist failed, I was sickened by the prospect that al-Qaeda was doing precisely what I thought they might do, and I expected that news reports would link the attack to the regrettable news article I had read about U.S. troop deployment plans. No such link has been made, so I am now making it here.
But where do President Obama and the U.S. military go from here? ABSOLUTELY, both President Obama and the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff MUST go on a worldwide television broadcast to state with undeniable clarity just what exactly is meant by Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally’s statement: "On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air."
Furthermore, the following excerpt from the same article also needs to be explained:
The commercial partners have "stepped up to the plate" for this movement and for flights into CENTCOM in general, TRANSCOM officials said. There has been no need to call up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to handle the flow to the region, and officials do not expect to use this option.
"Our commercial partners have been outstanding," an official said.
“TRANSCOM officials” — plural! “Our commercial partners” — plural!
Who are the “commercial partners” that have agreed to deploy U.S. troops to Afghanistan? For the safety of all worldwide commercial air passengers, those “commercial partners” MUST be identified. Also, those “commercial partners” MUST describe precisely how the U.S. troop deployments are being made: by route, including points of origin, stopovers, and points of destination; by whether the commercial air flights are entirely dedicated to U.S. troops and military supplies, or whether any of the flights at any time also carry civilian passengers; by whether the planes being flown for U.S. troop deployments have standard commercial air exterior markings, or whether those planes have repainted exteriors so they are only identifiable as U.S. military planes; and by whether any commercial air flights that carry both U.S. troops and civilian passengers are receiving appropriate extra protections, and what those protections are.
Unfortunately, my guess is this: Because the U.S. Army is now regularly deploying State National Guard troops to overseas combat zones, and deploys those troops in entire Companies of local soldiers who gather together in their hometowns for farewell ceremonies instead of each individual soldier traveling alone to an Army base to report for duty and deployment, it seems likely that commercial air flights all over the Nation are transporting U.S. troops from local airports to airports in the vicinity of U.S. military bases where the flown-in troops are then met by U.S. military transport trucks and buses for the final leg of their journey to their base staging areas. In the past, civilians became troops after they arrived at U.S. military bases. Now, the National Guard civilians don their uniforms and pack their gear at home or at their local Armory and become soldiers before kissing their loved ones goodbye. The consequence of this ill-fated reality is that any and all commercial air flights in the U.S. are potentially carrying military personnel.
Maybe this reality has always been an “of course” reality, but now it has become a “certainty” reality in 95% of the cases according to U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally.
Though it seems ludicrous to cite the Geneva Conventions in light of U.S. military behaviors at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay, consider Protocol 1, Section II, Article 44, paragraph 3, which reads:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
Or Part IV, Section I, Chapter II, Article 51, paragraphs 7 and 8, which reads:
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
In light of all the intended niceties and the playing-by-the-rules sentiments of the Geneva Conventions, one need only remember the events of September 11, 2001. Certainly, our enemies — al-Qaeda —do not trouble themselves with The Rules of War, or the need to remain agreeably civilized when engaged in hostilities. Indeed, al-Qaeda has openly demonstrated its willingness to target civilians with malicious and deadly intent.
In my opinion, the supreme arrogance, reckless foolishness, and taunting defiance of TRANSCOM in announcing publicly that “95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air" demands the harshest public censure possible from the Obama Administration. Can action on this matter wait? Brig. Gen. Lally was quoted above as saying: "The units that have to be there in January obviously must fly, and we've already started working that.”
To get very sober very fast about worse case scenarios, one unspeakable observation needs to be stated plainly: the worst case is not on-board suicide bombers blowing up in-flight commercial airliners, the worst case is surface-to-air missile attacks. Read:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3666
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda_car_bombing_and_sam_attack.htm
http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2009/11/psst-buddy-wanna-buy-surface-to-air.html
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/twa_flight_800_right.html
Ask yourself: If you were an al-Qaeda strategist, how would you respond to this information: "On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. “We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in.”?
Any ten-year-old boy who has ever spent an afternoon playing war with his friends knows exactly what an al-Qaeda strategist would think if given that information. Plainly, an al-Qaeda strategist would decide to go all-out in a concerted effort to attack any and all “commercial air” flights that could possibly be carrying U.S. troops either to or from Afghanistan, especially any flights either to or from Karachi, Pakistan.
When the Christmas Day in-air suicide attack by the Nigerian al-Qaeda terrorist failed, I was sickened by the prospect that al-Qaeda was doing precisely what I thought they might do, and I expected that news reports would link the attack to the regrettable news article I had read about U.S. troop deployment plans. No such link has been made, so I am now making it here.
But where do President Obama and the U.S. military go from here? ABSOLUTELY, both President Obama and the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff MUST go on a worldwide television broadcast to state with undeniable clarity just what exactly is meant by Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally’s statement: "On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air."
Furthermore, the following excerpt from the same article also needs to be explained:
The commercial partners have "stepped up to the plate" for this movement and for flights into CENTCOM in general, TRANSCOM officials said. There has been no need to call up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to handle the flow to the region, and officials do not expect to use this option.
"Our commercial partners have been outstanding," an official said.
“TRANSCOM officials” — plural! “Our commercial partners” — plural!
Who are the “commercial partners” that have agreed to deploy U.S. troops to Afghanistan? For the safety of all worldwide commercial air passengers, those “commercial partners” MUST be identified. Also, those “commercial partners” MUST describe precisely how the U.S. troop deployments are being made: by route, including points of origin, stopovers, and points of destination; by whether the commercial air flights are entirely dedicated to U.S. troops and military supplies, or whether any of the flights at any time also carry civilian passengers; by whether the planes being flown for U.S. troop deployments have standard commercial air exterior markings, or whether those planes have repainted exteriors so they are only identifiable as U.S. military planes; and by whether any commercial air flights that carry both U.S. troops and civilian passengers are receiving appropriate extra protections, and what those protections are.
Unfortunately, my guess is this: Because the U.S. Army is now regularly deploying State National Guard troops to overseas combat zones, and deploys those troops in entire Companies of local soldiers who gather together in their hometowns for farewell ceremonies instead of each individual soldier traveling alone to an Army base to report for duty and deployment, it seems likely that commercial air flights all over the Nation are transporting U.S. troops from local airports to airports in the vicinity of U.S. military bases where the flown-in troops are then met by U.S. military transport trucks and buses for the final leg of their journey to their base staging areas. In the past, civilians became troops after they arrived at U.S. military bases. Now, the National Guard civilians don their uniforms and pack their gear at home or at their local Armory and become soldiers before kissing their loved ones goodbye. The consequence of this ill-fated reality is that any and all commercial air flights in the U.S. are potentially carrying military personnel.
Maybe this reality has always been an “of course” reality, but now it has become a “certainty” reality in 95% of the cases according to U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally.
Though it seems ludicrous to cite the Geneva Conventions in light of U.S. military behaviors at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay, consider Protocol 1, Section II, Article 44, paragraph 3, which reads:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
Or Part IV, Section I, Chapter II, Article 51, paragraphs 7 and 8, which reads:
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
In light of all the intended niceties and the playing-by-the-rules sentiments of the Geneva Conventions, one need only remember the events of September 11, 2001. Certainly, our enemies — al-Qaeda —do not trouble themselves with The Rules of War, or the need to remain agreeably civilized when engaged in hostilities. Indeed, al-Qaeda has openly demonstrated its willingness to target civilians with malicious and deadly intent.
In my opinion, the supreme arrogance, reckless foolishness, and taunting defiance of TRANSCOM in announcing publicly that “95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air" demands the harshest public censure possible from the Obama Administration. Can action on this matter wait? Brig. Gen. Lally was quoted above as saying: "The units that have to be there in January obviously must fly, and we've already started working that.”
To get very sober very fast about worse case scenarios, one unspeakable observation needs to be stated plainly: the worst case is not on-board suicide bombers blowing up in-flight commercial airliners, the worst case is surface-to-air missile attacks. Read:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3666
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda_car_bombing_and_sam_attack.htm
http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2009/11/psst-buddy-wanna-buy-surface-to-air.html
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/twa_flight_800_right.html
Act Three: The Militia (a.k.a. The National Guard) & The U.S. Constitution
On January 5, 2010, President Obama gave a speech to the American people on the topic of airline security in response to the Christmas Day failed attack by a Nigerian al-Qaeda terrorist. A video of the speech can be watched here: http://www.shallownation.com/2010/01/05/obama-airline-security-speech-video-1-5-10/
In his stern no-nonsense speech, President Obama made no mention of the Dec 4, 2009, open invitation given by TRANSCOM to al-Qaeda to attack commercial air flights that might be transporting U.S. troops either to or from Afghanistan, so I can only guess that Obama is either still outside of the loop or knowledge of the enemy’s concept of fighting to win escapes him. Terrorists fight through acts of terrorism, especially if those acts can be disruptive of the military operations engaged against them.
What is sacred? Where can hope be found in ancient prophecy, or in the shared resolve of American history?
The prophet Isaiah saw this:
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
Jesus said this:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
And Jesus said this, too:
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.
President Abraham Lincoln said this at Gettysburg:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Where can we find “government of the people, by the people, for the people” except in the U.S. Constitution — that most sacred of human-contrived documents? If there is such a government still to be found — still to be worthy of a soldier’s sacrifice — are we living by its contents? And are we defending its honor against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? I think not.
The U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8 [1] The Congress shall have Power …
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; …
[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; …
[18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article. II.
Section. 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article. IV.
Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What does this mean?
First, force your mind into clear thinking by considering this clarification of The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is part of The Bill of Rights:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-amendment.html
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-of-rights-in-plain-sentence.html
Now, recount what rights and obligations are plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution:
Article I, Section 8 [11]:
The Congress declares War, not the President.
The Congress officially threatens enemies through written documents, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured territory, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured enemies, not the President.
Before proceeding, the term “Militia” must be correctly understood. According to Article II, Section 2 [1], the “Militia” is not “the Army and Navy of the United States.” Furthermore, according to Article I, Section 8 [16], the Congress reserves “to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” But the Congress also “shall have Power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Therefore, the term “Militia” in the U.S. Constitution plainly refers to the National Guard of each and every State, each State National Guard of which functions as a separate entity under the control of its own particular State government, but yet at times can work in concert with the National Guard of any and all other States under the command of the President and the governance of the Congress when “employed in the Service of the United States.”
Article I, Section 8 [15]:
The Congress equips the National Guard in a perpetually ready state for three — and only three — distinct purposes that would ever be “in the Service of the United States,” those three being to: 1) execute the Laws of the Union, 2) suppress Insurrections, and 3) repel Invasions — none of which should ever require duty of any sort in a foreign land.
Article I, Section 8 [16]:
The Congress organizes, arms, and disciplines the National Guard on a “provide for” basis, which means appropriating funding as needed, but also means overseeing and approving U.S. military leadership practices that directly impact the National Guard. This cannot be disputed, because the language very specifically states: “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” “Governing” is a very powerful word that means: to prevail or have decisive influence: CONTROL: to exercise authority — according to Webster's Dictionary.
Article I, Section 8 [18]:
The Congress can constitutionally protect its turf and its governance regarding the National Guard against any usurpers, including the Pentagon and the President.
Article II, Section 2 [1]:
The Plain Sentence of the first part reads either (as is version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States or (reorganized version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States. It is either one or the other, but not both. Either the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States (as is version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the National Guard when called into the actual Service of the United States, or the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the National Guard (reorganized version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States. I vote the “as is version” is (and should be) correct, but the distinction is clear. Therefore, combining Article I, Section 8 [15 and 16] with Article II, Section 2 [1], the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard ONLY when the National Guard is called into the actual Service of the United States to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, which is the ONLY time when “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.”
Article IV, Section 4:
The need for the Congress to maintain the National Guard of every State in a perpetually ready state to be employed in the Service of the United States is explained by the constitutional obligation to protect each and every State against Invasion and against domestic Violence. This is no small obligation as anyone who was alive during the city riots in the U.S during the 1960s and the 1970s can attest. It is not only against the U.S. Constitution to deploy National Guard troops to foreign lands to fight in wars, it is wholly and unacceptably irresponsible in the absolute extreme. No more perfect “Perfect Storm” can exist than to be suckered by an enemy into depleting National Guard troops and equipment resources stateside by shipping them overseas. If al-Qaeda terrorist cells are quietly being established in American cities in advance of a planned orchestrated attack, who will be ready to defend against the attack if the National Guard is 10,000 miles away in Afghanistan?
* * *
The U.S. Constitution allows for change in the form of amendments.
* * *
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …
In the entire history of the United States, 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified into law. The Twenty-First Amendment, which was ratified in 1933, repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (a.k.a. Prohibition of Liquor), which was ratified in 1919. Plainly, significant fixes can be undone. Sometimes, change takes almost forever to accomplish: the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (a.k.a. Congressional Salaries) was proposed on September 25, 1789, and was ratified into law on May 7, 1992. By contrast, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (a.k.a. Suffrage for Eighteen-Year-Olds) was proposed on March 23, 1971, and was ratified into law on July 1, 1971, just ten weeks later. The then in operation Selective Service Draft and the Vietnam War had something to do with that quick change. But that proves the point: needed and necessary change that is righteous change — including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — can be accomplished start-to-finish in ten weeks time!
There is no excuse — change is possible if wisdom dictates that it is needed. Even so, there has never been an amendment proposed that would have ever altered anything about the “Militia” (a.k.a. the National Guard) as it is described above. What was written into the U.S. Constitution by the Founding Fathers regarding the “Militia” remains fully intact, pristine, and unchanged. Even so such is so, were it so! Under the rocks of corruption and gutlessness, damnableness reigns supreme.
What we have here floating at the top of the slough are two haphazard legislative contrivances that keep plausible deniability possible for our nation’s politicians while the lives of National Guard soldiers are wrongly, foolishly, and illegally being put in harm’s way in foreign countries where those soldiers are fighting in wars that have never been declared. And some of those National Guard soldiers have died. According to the “Faces of the Fallen” running tally kept by washingtonpost.com, 466 Army National Guard soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. What in God’s Name is an “Operation (whatever) Freedom” but the feel-good collective escape from sworn duty by the gutless-wonder politicians of our day? An “Operation Freedom” is a war — an undeclared war — a constitutionally illegal war.
If you can bear it, click on the names of National Guard soldiers who have died thus far:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/branches/army-national-guard/
Read their stories. These National Guard soldiers were not soldiers who joined up to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. They died honorably, but they died wrongly.
The 466 dead National Guard soldiers represent 8.8% of the total 5,298 U.S. military service people who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ One out of every eleven deaths is a National Guard soldier. This statistic is significant because, “as of 2008, the Guard represented 7 percent of the force in Iraq and 15 percent in Afghanistan.” http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63422
The question must be asked: Could the U.S. continue the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan if the National Guard troops were withdrawn from combat there and were brought home to do the duty they were sworn to do according to the U.S. Constitution?
The two haphazard legislative contrivances that are running roughshod over the U.S. Constitution are: 1) the Montgomery Amendment (1986) referenced in:
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990 ruling)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty, and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service. The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emergency until 1952, when Congress broadly authorized orders "to active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the State concerned. After two State Governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requirement was partially repealed in 1986 by the "Montgomery Amendment," which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. Petitioner, Governor of Minnesota, filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the state Guard, and that the Amendment violates the Militia Clauses of Article I, § 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, § 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
and 2) the National Emergencies Act:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00308.htm
By Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg
On 9/11 the Bush administration declared a State of Emergency (SOE), which was formally proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and extended by Bush repeatedly thereafter, most recently on August 28, 2008. Under cover of this SOE, Bush secretly enacted many extreme measures, ranging from suspension of habeas corpus to preparations for martial law in America; all these were undertaken as part of secret so-called "Continuity of Government" (COG) procedures associated with the SOE, and first instituted on 9/11.
The National Emergencies Act, one of the post-Watergate reforms so detested by Vice-President Cheney, requires specifically that
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)
Last fall one of us appealed on the Internet for the Democrats in Congress to take this statutorily required step, and also to learn what secret COG measures were being enacted under the SOE. There was no response.
In February 2009 we sent to officials in Washington the following appeal to consider terminating the State of Emergency. The appeal was sent to President Obama's staff in the White House, and to the staff of Nancy Pelosi, Peter DeFazio, and Dennis Kucinich in Congress. Almost two months have passed, and there has not yet been any response from the addressees.
We are now appealing to the readers of this post to contact their representatives in Congress, and demand that they consider the termination of the State of Emergency, as is required of them by law.
This is the letter sent February 10, 2009 by Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg:
Will Obama and Congress End the State of Emergency?
On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That state of emergency was formally put in writing6 on 9/14/2001 consistent with Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.).
The state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11/01 to the present. It was most recently extended on August 28, 2008 for an additional year:
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency
with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.
Under a series of Presidential Decision Directives, the Bush administration enacted secret emergency powers, reportedly affecting the U.S. Constitution, which even the members of the House Homeland Security Committee have not been permitted to review.
Congress has a statutory obligation to address this situation. Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act states that: "Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated."
We now have a new President, supported by a new Congress, elected with a campaign promise of "Change." In this changed atmosphere, two questions need to be answered to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the American people:
Will President Obama allow the state of national emergency, first declared by President George W. Bush on 9/14/01 and re-declared seven times, to remain in effect?
Will Congress meet their statutory responsibilities under Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act, and meet to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated?
Dan Hamburg, former US Representative (CA-01)
Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
* * *
Read the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Perpich v. Department of Defense here:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
The ruling pertains only to the issue of training in a foreign country without the governor’s permission. Consider the following excerpt (I have added bold for emphasis):
Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but, unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state Guard unit. Under the 1933 Act, they could be ordered into active service whenever Congress declared a national emergency and authorized the use of troops in excess of those in the Regular Army. The statute plainly described the effect of such an order:
"All persons so ordered into the active military service of the United States shall from the date of such order stand relieved from duty in the National Guard of their respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia so long as they shall remain in the active military service of the United States, and during such time shall be subject
Page 496 U. S. 346
to such laws and regulations for the government of the Army of the United States as may be applicable to members of the Army whose permanent retention in active military service is not contemplated by law. The organization of said units existing at the date of the order into active Federal service shall be maintained intact insofar as practicable."
§ 18, 48 Stat. 160-161.
"Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service of the United States all individuals and units shall thereupon revert to their National Guard status."
Id. at 161. Thus, under the "dual enlistment" provisions of the statute that have been in effect since 1933, a member of the Guard who is ordered to active duty in the federal service is thereby relieved of his or her status in the state Guard for the entire period of federal service.
Until 1952, the statutory authority to order National Guard units to active duty was limited to periods of national emergency. In that year, Congress broadly authorized orders to "active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without gubernatorial consent. The National Guard units have under this plan become a sizeable portion of the Nation's military forces; for example, "the Army National Guard provides 46 percent of the combat units and 28 percent of the support forces of the Total Army." [Footnote 18] Apparently, gubernatorial consents to training missions were routinely obtained until 1985, when the Governor of California refused to consent to a training mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in Honduras, and the Governor of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar mission. Those incidents led to the enactment of the Montgomery Amendment, and this litigation ensued.
Page 496 U. S. 347
II
The Governor's attack on the Montgomery Amendment relies in part on the traditional understanding that "the Militia" can only be called forth for three limited purposes that do not encompass either foreign service or nonemergency conditions, and in part on the express language in the Militia Clause reserving to the States "the Authority of training the Militia." The Governor does not, however, challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual enlistment program. [Footnote 19] Nor does the Governor claim that membership in a state Guard unit -- or any type of state militia -- creates any sort of constitutional immunity from being drafted into the federal armed forces. Indeed, it would be ironic to claim such immunity when every member of the Minnesota National Guard has voluntarily enlisted, or accepted a commission as an officer, in the National Guard of the United States, and thereby become a member of the reserve corps of the Army.
The United States discontinued its military draft in 1973 by an act of Congress, and has had an all-volunteer Army since then. How then can National Guard soldiers be drafted or federalized from State National Guard status to National Guard of the United States status? Furthermore, there is the issue of draft deferments, and former Vice President Dick Cheney is the prime example. Consider the following article excerpts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.html?pagewanted=1
Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 1, 2004
WASHINGTON, April 30 — It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft.
Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.
Although President Richard M. Nixon stopped the draft in 1973 and the war itself ended 29 years ago on Friday, the issue of service remains a personally sensitive and politically potent touchstone in the biographies of many politicians from that era. …
But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month — and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.
On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military force in Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.
Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.
In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964.
Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. …
The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973. …
* * *
HOW MANY NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIERS ARE OLDER THAN 26 YEARS OLD AND ARE THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN?
* * *
One can shout in outrage about all of the above and be righteously angry, or one can simply quote the U.S. Constitution:
Article. VI.
[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
* * *
My opinion is that a Class Action Lawsuit alleging Wrongful Death of the 466 National Guard soldiers who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom should be brought by the dead soldiers’ surviving family members against any U.S. governors who allowed State National Guard troops to be federalized without their express permission, and also against any U.S. senators and U.S. representatives who failed in their sworn duties to be responsible for declaring war and to act according to the requirements of the National Emergencies Act.
The simple truth of the matter is this: the language in the U.S. Constitution regarding the “Militia” has not been altered, amended, repealed, or in any way changed at any time in U.S. history. The language has been ignored and usurped — even by the U.S. Supreme Court — but the language stands unchanged nonetheless as “the supreme Law of the Land,” and is to be supported by all who have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation” to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In his stern no-nonsense speech, President Obama made no mention of the Dec 4, 2009, open invitation given by TRANSCOM to al-Qaeda to attack commercial air flights that might be transporting U.S. troops either to or from Afghanistan, so I can only guess that Obama is either still outside of the loop or knowledge of the enemy’s concept of fighting to win escapes him. Terrorists fight through acts of terrorism, especially if those acts can be disruptive of the military operations engaged against them.
What is sacred? Where can hope be found in ancient prophecy, or in the shared resolve of American history?
The prophet Isaiah saw this:
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
Jesus said this:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
And Jesus said this, too:
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.
President Abraham Lincoln said this at Gettysburg:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Where can we find “government of the people, by the people, for the people” except in the U.S. Constitution — that most sacred of human-contrived documents? If there is such a government still to be found — still to be worthy of a soldier’s sacrifice — are we living by its contents? And are we defending its honor against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? I think not.
The U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8 [1] The Congress shall have Power …
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; …
[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; …
[18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article. II.
Section. 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article. IV.
Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What does this mean?
First, force your mind into clear thinking by considering this clarification of The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is part of The Bill of Rights:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-amendment.html
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-of-rights-in-plain-sentence.html
Now, recount what rights and obligations are plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution:
Article I, Section 8 [11]:
The Congress declares War, not the President.
The Congress officially threatens enemies through written documents, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured territory, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured enemies, not the President.
Before proceeding, the term “Militia” must be correctly understood. According to Article II, Section 2 [1], the “Militia” is not “the Army and Navy of the United States.” Furthermore, according to Article I, Section 8 [16], the Congress reserves “to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” But the Congress also “shall have Power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Therefore, the term “Militia” in the U.S. Constitution plainly refers to the National Guard of each and every State, each State National Guard of which functions as a separate entity under the control of its own particular State government, but yet at times can work in concert with the National Guard of any and all other States under the command of the President and the governance of the Congress when “employed in the Service of the United States.”
Article I, Section 8 [15]:
The Congress equips the National Guard in a perpetually ready state for three — and only three — distinct purposes that would ever be “in the Service of the United States,” those three being to: 1) execute the Laws of the Union, 2) suppress Insurrections, and 3) repel Invasions — none of which should ever require duty of any sort in a foreign land.
Article I, Section 8 [16]:
The Congress organizes, arms, and disciplines the National Guard on a “provide for” basis, which means appropriating funding as needed, but also means overseeing and approving U.S. military leadership practices that directly impact the National Guard. This cannot be disputed, because the language very specifically states: “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” “Governing” is a very powerful word that means: to prevail or have decisive influence: CONTROL: to exercise authority — according to Webster's Dictionary.
Article I, Section 8 [18]:
The Congress can constitutionally protect its turf and its governance regarding the National Guard against any usurpers, including the Pentagon and the President.
Article II, Section 2 [1]:
The Plain Sentence of the first part reads either (as is version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States or (reorganized version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States. It is either one or the other, but not both. Either the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States (as is version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the National Guard when called into the actual Service of the United States, or the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the National Guard (reorganized version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States. I vote the “as is version” is (and should be) correct, but the distinction is clear. Therefore, combining Article I, Section 8 [15 and 16] with Article II, Section 2 [1], the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard ONLY when the National Guard is called into the actual Service of the United States to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, which is the ONLY time when “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.”
Article IV, Section 4:
The need for the Congress to maintain the National Guard of every State in a perpetually ready state to be employed in the Service of the United States is explained by the constitutional obligation to protect each and every State against Invasion and against domestic Violence. This is no small obligation as anyone who was alive during the city riots in the U.S during the 1960s and the 1970s can attest. It is not only against the U.S. Constitution to deploy National Guard troops to foreign lands to fight in wars, it is wholly and unacceptably irresponsible in the absolute extreme. No more perfect “Perfect Storm” can exist than to be suckered by an enemy into depleting National Guard troops and equipment resources stateside by shipping them overseas. If al-Qaeda terrorist cells are quietly being established in American cities in advance of a planned orchestrated attack, who will be ready to defend against the attack if the National Guard is 10,000 miles away in Afghanistan?
* * *
The U.S. Constitution allows for change in the form of amendments.
* * *
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …
In the entire history of the United States, 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified into law. The Twenty-First Amendment, which was ratified in 1933, repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (a.k.a. Prohibition of Liquor), which was ratified in 1919. Plainly, significant fixes can be undone. Sometimes, change takes almost forever to accomplish: the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (a.k.a. Congressional Salaries) was proposed on September 25, 1789, and was ratified into law on May 7, 1992. By contrast, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (a.k.a. Suffrage for Eighteen-Year-Olds) was proposed on March 23, 1971, and was ratified into law on July 1, 1971, just ten weeks later. The then in operation Selective Service Draft and the Vietnam War had something to do with that quick change. But that proves the point: needed and necessary change that is righteous change — including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — can be accomplished start-to-finish in ten weeks time!
There is no excuse — change is possible if wisdom dictates that it is needed. Even so, there has never been an amendment proposed that would have ever altered anything about the “Militia” (a.k.a. the National Guard) as it is described above. What was written into the U.S. Constitution by the Founding Fathers regarding the “Militia” remains fully intact, pristine, and unchanged. Even so such is so, were it so! Under the rocks of corruption and gutlessness, damnableness reigns supreme.
What we have here floating at the top of the slough are two haphazard legislative contrivances that keep plausible deniability possible for our nation’s politicians while the lives of National Guard soldiers are wrongly, foolishly, and illegally being put in harm’s way in foreign countries where those soldiers are fighting in wars that have never been declared. And some of those National Guard soldiers have died. According to the “Faces of the Fallen” running tally kept by washingtonpost.com, 466 Army National Guard soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. What in God’s Name is an “Operation (whatever) Freedom” but the feel-good collective escape from sworn duty by the gutless-wonder politicians of our day? An “Operation Freedom” is a war — an undeclared war — a constitutionally illegal war.
If you can bear it, click on the names of National Guard soldiers who have died thus far:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/branches/army-national-guard/
Read their stories. These National Guard soldiers were not soldiers who joined up to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. They died honorably, but they died wrongly.
The 466 dead National Guard soldiers represent 8.8% of the total 5,298 U.S. military service people who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ One out of every eleven deaths is a National Guard soldier. This statistic is significant because, “as of 2008, the Guard represented 7 percent of the force in Iraq and 15 percent in Afghanistan.” http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63422
The question must be asked: Could the U.S. continue the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan if the National Guard troops were withdrawn from combat there and were brought home to do the duty they were sworn to do according to the U.S. Constitution?
The two haphazard legislative contrivances that are running roughshod over the U.S. Constitution are: 1) the Montgomery Amendment (1986) referenced in:
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990 ruling)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty, and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service. The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emergency until 1952, when Congress broadly authorized orders "to active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the State concerned. After two State Governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requirement was partially repealed in 1986 by the "Montgomery Amendment," which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. Petitioner, Governor of Minnesota, filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the state Guard, and that the Amendment violates the Militia Clauses of Article I, § 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, § 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
and 2) the National Emergencies Act:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00308.htm
By Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg
On 9/11 the Bush administration declared a State of Emergency (SOE), which was formally proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and extended by Bush repeatedly thereafter, most recently on August 28, 2008. Under cover of this SOE, Bush secretly enacted many extreme measures, ranging from suspension of habeas corpus to preparations for martial law in America; all these were undertaken as part of secret so-called "Continuity of Government" (COG) procedures associated with the SOE, and first instituted on 9/11.
The National Emergencies Act, one of the post-Watergate reforms so detested by Vice-President Cheney, requires specifically that
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)
Last fall one of us appealed on the Internet for the Democrats in Congress to take this statutorily required step, and also to learn what secret COG measures were being enacted under the SOE. There was no response.
In February 2009 we sent to officials in Washington the following appeal to consider terminating the State of Emergency. The appeal was sent to President Obama's staff in the White House, and to the staff of Nancy Pelosi, Peter DeFazio, and Dennis Kucinich in Congress. Almost two months have passed, and there has not yet been any response from the addressees.
We are now appealing to the readers of this post to contact their representatives in Congress, and demand that they consider the termination of the State of Emergency, as is required of them by law.
This is the letter sent February 10, 2009 by Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg:
Will Obama and Congress End the State of Emergency?
On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That state of emergency was formally put in writing6 on 9/14/2001 consistent with Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.).
The state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11/01 to the present. It was most recently extended on August 28, 2008 for an additional year:
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency
with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.
Under a series of Presidential Decision Directives, the Bush administration enacted secret emergency powers, reportedly affecting the U.S. Constitution, which even the members of the House Homeland Security Committee have not been permitted to review.
Congress has a statutory obligation to address this situation. Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act states that: "Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated."
We now have a new President, supported by a new Congress, elected with a campaign promise of "Change." In this changed atmosphere, two questions need to be answered to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the American people:
Will President Obama allow the state of national emergency, first declared by President George W. Bush on 9/14/01 and re-declared seven times, to remain in effect?
Will Congress meet their statutory responsibilities under Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act, and meet to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated?
Dan Hamburg, former US Representative (CA-01)
Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
* * *
Read the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Perpich v. Department of Defense here:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
The ruling pertains only to the issue of training in a foreign country without the governor’s permission. Consider the following excerpt (I have added bold for emphasis):
Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but, unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state Guard unit. Under the 1933 Act, they could be ordered into active service whenever Congress declared a national emergency and authorized the use of troops in excess of those in the Regular Army. The statute plainly described the effect of such an order:
"All persons so ordered into the active military service of the United States shall from the date of such order stand relieved from duty in the National Guard of their respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia so long as they shall remain in the active military service of the United States, and during such time shall be subject
Page 496 U. S. 346
to such laws and regulations for the government of the Army of the United States as may be applicable to members of the Army whose permanent retention in active military service is not contemplated by law. The organization of said units existing at the date of the order into active Federal service shall be maintained intact insofar as practicable."
§ 18, 48 Stat. 160-161.
"Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service of the United States all individuals and units shall thereupon revert to their National Guard status."
Id. at 161. Thus, under the "dual enlistment" provisions of the statute that have been in effect since 1933, a member of the Guard who is ordered to active duty in the federal service is thereby relieved of his or her status in the state Guard for the entire period of federal service.
Until 1952, the statutory authority to order National Guard units to active duty was limited to periods of national emergency. In that year, Congress broadly authorized orders to "active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without gubernatorial consent. The National Guard units have under this plan become a sizeable portion of the Nation's military forces; for example, "the Army National Guard provides 46 percent of the combat units and 28 percent of the support forces of the Total Army." [Footnote 18] Apparently, gubernatorial consents to training missions were routinely obtained until 1985, when the Governor of California refused to consent to a training mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in Honduras, and the Governor of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar mission. Those incidents led to the enactment of the Montgomery Amendment, and this litigation ensued.
Page 496 U. S. 347
II
The Governor's attack on the Montgomery Amendment relies in part on the traditional understanding that "the Militia" can only be called forth for three limited purposes that do not encompass either foreign service or nonemergency conditions, and in part on the express language in the Militia Clause reserving to the States "the Authority of training the Militia." The Governor does not, however, challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual enlistment program. [Footnote 19] Nor does the Governor claim that membership in a state Guard unit -- or any type of state militia -- creates any sort of constitutional immunity from being drafted into the federal armed forces. Indeed, it would be ironic to claim such immunity when every member of the Minnesota National Guard has voluntarily enlisted, or accepted a commission as an officer, in the National Guard of the United States, and thereby become a member of the reserve corps of the Army.
The United States discontinued its military draft in 1973 by an act of Congress, and has had an all-volunteer Army since then. How then can National Guard soldiers be drafted or federalized from State National Guard status to National Guard of the United States status? Furthermore, there is the issue of draft deferments, and former Vice President Dick Cheney is the prime example. Consider the following article excerpts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.html?pagewanted=1
Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 1, 2004
WASHINGTON, April 30 — It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft.
Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.
Although President Richard M. Nixon stopped the draft in 1973 and the war itself ended 29 years ago on Friday, the issue of service remains a personally sensitive and politically potent touchstone in the biographies of many politicians from that era. …
But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month — and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.
On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military force in Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.
Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.
In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964.
Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. …
The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973. …
* * *
HOW MANY NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIERS ARE OLDER THAN 26 YEARS OLD AND ARE THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN?
* * *
One can shout in outrage about all of the above and be righteously angry, or one can simply quote the U.S. Constitution:
Article. VI.
[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
* * *
My opinion is that a Class Action Lawsuit alleging Wrongful Death of the 466 National Guard soldiers who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom should be brought by the dead soldiers’ surviving family members against any U.S. governors who allowed State National Guard troops to be federalized without their express permission, and also against any U.S. senators and U.S. representatives who failed in their sworn duties to be responsible for declaring war and to act according to the requirements of the National Emergencies Act.
The simple truth of the matter is this: the language in the U.S. Constitution regarding the “Militia” has not been altered, amended, repealed, or in any way changed at any time in U.S. history. The language has been ignored and usurped — even by the U.S. Supreme Court — but the language stands unchanged nonetheless as “the supreme Law of the Land,” and is to be supported by all who have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation” to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Epilogue: Regarding The Draft & The Real Reasons For "Operation Freedom" Wars
Any thoughts of reinstituting the military draft should be tempered by thoughts of the contributions that have been made to the world by the following six men:
Bill Gates: Co-founded Microsoft in April 1975 at age 19
Paul Allen: Co-founded Microsoft in April1975 at age 22
Steve Jobs: Co-founded Apple in April 1976 at age 21
Steve Wozniak: Co-founded Apple in April 1976 at age 25
Larry Page: Co-founded Google in September 1998 at age 25
Sergey Brin: Co-founded Google in September 1998 at age 25
http://www.chicagolife.net/content/politics/The_Draft_Will_They_Bring_it_Back
April 1, 2004, article ”The Draft: Will They Bring it Back?”
Excerpt:
In a move more provocative than policy-oriented, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) introduced bills last winter that would reestablish a draft for all citizens 18-26, with deferments for education permitted only through high school. Rep. Rangel had voted against a House resolution authorizing the president to take action in Iraq, and Sen. Hollings voted in a similar Senate resolution. The bills must pass Congress and gain the president's signature before the Selective Service System-the federal agency in charge of implementing a draft-could induct anyone. And although it is unlikely the bills will leave committee before November's election, they nevertheless start the legislative process necessary for a new draft.
The Pentagon took the first step last November, calling for "trusted and objective" volunteers to fill the nearly 21,000 slots on local draft and appeal boards, which adjudicate conscripts' appeals for deferments and conscientious objector status. (Active and retired military personnel are ineligible to sit on the board, as are scofflaws with traffic fines of more than $400).
The Selective Service System received $28 million in the current federal budget, a $2 million spike in its funding, which as recently as five years ago was on the brink of elimination in the Capitol. If a draft were to reappear, it would probably follow the lottery system instituted in late 1969, which matches birthdays to 366 randomly chosen numbers-accommodating leap-year births-to determine the order of induction, low numbers first. Previously, a bevy of deferments allowed many affluent men to avoid service, placing the burden of fighting on the poor, working class and people of color.
But proposals for a new draft look much different than what existed 35 years ago. Rangel and Hollings' bill would make it harder to dodge the draft by ending most deferments and forcing students to enlist after completing the semester in which they receive their call-up. College seniors would serve after completing the academic year, despite the possible burden of repaying student loans which can reach into the $100,000 range. It would also require women to join the ranks, although it sets up a two-year non-combat domestic national service option.
Escaping the net cast by this type of draft will be much more difficult, too. In the clampdown of Washington's war on terror, Canada's safe harbor has frozen. Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge signed an agreement three years ago with Ottawa to repatriate asylum seekers en masse. …
The War in Iraq is — and always has been — about oil. Read:
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403677.html
Could it be that the War in Afghanistan is — and always has been — about drugs? Read:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4210600.shtml
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_cannabis.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/18/drugs-arms-trade-afghanistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/drugs-united-nations-afghanistan
Especially read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15761
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/10/28/why-wali-karzai-is-a-problem-for-afghanistan-and-the-us.html
The ugly underbelly of the War in Afghanistan is evil. Read:
http://current.com/items/91239450_report-taliban-trying-to-turn-us-troops-into-heroin-addicts.htm?xid=RSSfeed
Matthew 10:24-31 (New International Version)
Jesus said, "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
The concerted effort to stop the War in Afghanistan has already started in Oregon:
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE SESSION APPEAL TO THE GOVERNOR urges the governor to withhold deployment of Oregon National Guard to Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hr1.dir/hr0004.intro.html
Isaiah 45:5-7 (American Standard Version)
I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
God help us. Amen.
Bill Gates: Co-founded Microsoft in April 1975 at age 19
Paul Allen: Co-founded Microsoft in April1975 at age 22
Steve Jobs: Co-founded Apple in April 1976 at age 21
Steve Wozniak: Co-founded Apple in April 1976 at age 25
Larry Page: Co-founded Google in September 1998 at age 25
Sergey Brin: Co-founded Google in September 1998 at age 25
http://www.chicagolife.net/content/politics/The_Draft_Will_They_Bring_it_Back
April 1, 2004, article ”The Draft: Will They Bring it Back?”
Excerpt:
In a move more provocative than policy-oriented, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) introduced bills last winter that would reestablish a draft for all citizens 18-26, with deferments for education permitted only through high school. Rep. Rangel had voted against a House resolution authorizing the president to take action in Iraq, and Sen. Hollings voted in a similar Senate resolution. The bills must pass Congress and gain the president's signature before the Selective Service System-the federal agency in charge of implementing a draft-could induct anyone. And although it is unlikely the bills will leave committee before November's election, they nevertheless start the legislative process necessary for a new draft.
The Pentagon took the first step last November, calling for "trusted and objective" volunteers to fill the nearly 21,000 slots on local draft and appeal boards, which adjudicate conscripts' appeals for deferments and conscientious objector status. (Active and retired military personnel are ineligible to sit on the board, as are scofflaws with traffic fines of more than $400).
The Selective Service System received $28 million in the current federal budget, a $2 million spike in its funding, which as recently as five years ago was on the brink of elimination in the Capitol. If a draft were to reappear, it would probably follow the lottery system instituted in late 1969, which matches birthdays to 366 randomly chosen numbers-accommodating leap-year births-to determine the order of induction, low numbers first. Previously, a bevy of deferments allowed many affluent men to avoid service, placing the burden of fighting on the poor, working class and people of color.
But proposals for a new draft look much different than what existed 35 years ago. Rangel and Hollings' bill would make it harder to dodge the draft by ending most deferments and forcing students to enlist after completing the semester in which they receive their call-up. College seniors would serve after completing the academic year, despite the possible burden of repaying student loans which can reach into the $100,000 range. It would also require women to join the ranks, although it sets up a two-year non-combat domestic national service option.
Escaping the net cast by this type of draft will be much more difficult, too. In the clampdown of Washington's war on terror, Canada's safe harbor has frozen. Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge signed an agreement three years ago with Ottawa to repatriate asylum seekers en masse. …
The War in Iraq is — and always has been — about oil. Read:
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403677.html
Could it be that the War in Afghanistan is — and always has been — about drugs? Read:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4210600.shtml
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_cannabis.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/18/drugs-arms-trade-afghanistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/drugs-united-nations-afghanistan
Especially read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15761
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/10/28/why-wali-karzai-is-a-problem-for-afghanistan-and-the-us.html
The ugly underbelly of the War in Afghanistan is evil. Read:
http://current.com/items/91239450_report-taliban-trying-to-turn-us-troops-into-heroin-addicts.htm?xid=RSSfeed
Matthew 10:24-31 (New International Version)
Jesus said, "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
The concerted effort to stop the War in Afghanistan has already started in Oregon:
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE SESSION APPEAL TO THE GOVERNOR urges the governor to withhold deployment of Oregon National Guard to Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hr1.dir/hr0004.intro.html
Isaiah 45:5-7 (American Standard Version)
I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
God help us. Amen.
Appendix
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180620
Transportation officials confident in Afghan deployment
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
12/4/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- U.S. Transportation Command officials are confident they can accomplish the mission of delivering 30,000 U.S. troops and their equipment to Afghanistan when they are needed.
Planners at the command based at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., are working with operations specialists at U.S. Joint Forces Command and U.S. Central Command to fulfill President Barack Obama's decision to deploy the troops to Afghanistan in the first half of 2010.
Command officials already are transporting about 1,000 Marines to the country as part of the mission.
"Both CENTCOM and U.S. Transportation Command are very well prepared for this surge of forces going in," said Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally, the command's director of operations and plans. "We've been deploying and redeploying forces into and out of Afghanistan for years. We've been sustaining those forces there. So the processes, procedures and force structures are in place to move additional forces in and also sustain them. We feel very comfortable that we have the assets in the air and on the sea to make the move."
The two commands have been working together closely. CENTCOM officials invited TRANSCOM planners in at the beginning of the process to work on the flow and phasing for getting additional forces into Afghanistan, officials said.
Before the movement can really begin, commanders in Afghanistan must say where the troops will be based.
"They are working through that right now, making sure as we deploy forces into theater, there are places for those forces to bed down, to make sure they have food, water and so on," General Lally said.
Commanders in Afghanistan need to sequence the forces into theater to achieve their combat goals.
"In the coming weeks, we'll figure out how much needs to move in January, February, March to make sure we can meet the objectives of having all these forces in there by the summer," General Lally said. "Whether I have 20,000 people there in April and 30,000 there in September, or 26,000 there in April and 30,000 there in July, we don't have that level of detail from the commander, (Army) Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal, on what his requirements are yet."
For units deploying in April, May or June, TRANSCOM officials have the option of using sealift to get the equipment in.
"The units that have to be there in January obviously must fly, and we've already started working that," he said.
Complicating the situation in the CENTCOM theater is the massive drawdown in Iraq. Roughly 120,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq and by August 2010 there will be about 50,000, with all out by the end of 2011. Also, the Marine regiment going into Afghanistan now will get equipment both from Iraq and the United States. Other units will be in the same situation as the deployment continues.
TRANSCOM officials will use all modes of transportation -- military and civilian -- to get troops and their equipment to the theater.
"On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. For air cargo, commercial shippers carry 45 percent and 55 percent via military planes. About 75 percent of routine sustainment cargo goes in via commercial air and 25 percent via military.
Unit moves change the equation with the majority of equipment flown in via military air.
"You expect that because a lot of our equipment is outsized and it doesn't fit very well into a 747," General Lally said. "So we use C-17 (Globemaster IIIs) and C-5 (Galaxies) for the military equipment and the palletized cargo fits very well in the holds of our commercial partners."
The commercial partners have "stepped up to the plate" for this movement and for flights into CENTCOM in general, TRANSCOM officials said. There has been no need to call up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to handle the flow to the region, and officials do not expect to use this option.
"Our commercial partners have been outstanding," an official said.
Also, CENTCOM officials are working with Joint Forces Command officials to identify the forces that will deploy.
"We're involved with that process, because that will determine when these forces are trained and available for transportation," said Col. Gregory Schwartz, the TRANSCOM operations planner responsible for CENTCOM.
The two commands are meeting to figure out "the detailed data on what needs to be moved, who needs to be moved, where it needs be moved from and where in theater it needs to go," Colonel Schwartz said.
When TRANSCOM officials, who are developing the plan to get forces into Afghanistan, moved troops into Iraq, they had the luxury of an intermediate staging base in Kuwait. Troops could marry up with their equipment in Kuwait -- a country with excellent airports and seaports -- and conduct training before moving into Iraq. There is no such intermediate staging base for Afghanistan.
"Our people have to be ready when they arrive in Afghanistan," General Lally said. "It is a tight timeline. We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in. Every day we have teleconferences to synchronize that the passengers and equipment arrive at the right time. There's a lot more work and coordination involved to make sure this happens correctly."
The command also ships goods via the Northern Distribution Route, which uses Russian and Central Asian railroads to get supplies to Afghanistan. State Department officials are working with the countries along the routes to allow different equipment and supplies. State Department officials also are working with Russia to expand the overflight permissions, Pentagon officials said.
TRANSCOM officials have a strong track record for support to CENTCOM. In 2004, the command coordinated the changeover of American troops in Iraq. Three months later, the command transported 250,000 servicemembers, and equipment, into and out of Iraq. It was the largest troop movement in the U.S. military since World War II, command historians said.
But the deployment of 30,000 to Afghanistan will not affect the command's ability worldwide, General Lally said.
"We may ask for a bit of flexibility from the other combatant commands, but they will receive what they need, when they need it," he said.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123183940
Lynn says fight against IEDs remains priority
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
12/31/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defeating the terrorists' weapon of choice is and will remain a priority for the Defense Department, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said here Dec. 30.
Mr. Lynn spoke during a Pentagon ceremony where Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz stepped down as director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and Army Lt. Gen. Michael Oates took up the charge.
The organization looks for ways to defeat terrorists using car bombs, roadside bombs, as well as suicide vests, all examples of improvised explosive devices. The bombs are the biggest killers of American servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The weapon is a tactical device that has impacted the operational missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We must preclude the IED from impacting us strategically," General Metz said. "We cannot allow this weapon to influence the national-level decisions of our most senior leaders."
"Under (General Metz's) leadership, JIEDDO has moved forward on three lines of operation: attacking the networks that place IEDs, devising ways to defeat the device and training our forces to counter the threat," Mr. Lynn said.
The organization, only four years old, is a model of rapid acquisition, Mr. Lynn said. Its military and civilian staff quickly finds and employs ideas and technologies that can help servicemembers in harm's way. The organization operates with the services and combatant commands in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The threat continues, Mr. Lynn said, noting that in October IEDs claimed the lives of 41 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and one soldier in Iraq. The devices "are a clear and present danger," he said.
And the enemy knows how to use the devices.
"In Afghanistan we are up against a determined and clever foe who mastered the use of this deadly technology long before our forces set foot in the mountains of the Hindu Kush," Mr. Lynn said.
The Soviets lost nearly 2,000 soldiers and 1,200 vehicles during their nine-year war in Afghanistan, he said.
"That IEDs have defeated another technologically advanced military in the very same place we fight now, only adds to the urgency of our mission," Mr. Lynn said. "Our ability to project power in this world of asymmetric threats and to secure our population at home depends on JIEDDO's success."
Measuring success remains an issue for the organization.
"We may never find a way to determine how many lives and limbs we are saving, how many warfighters return home with their eyesight and how many have avoided serious burns that would have left them in pain for the rest of their lives," General Metz said.
The departing general thanked his staff, citing their dedicated and professional service. He also told them he is proud of the work they did together and the record they have made. He said getting the organization made a permanent entity was the toughest challenge of his time.
Still, a number of challenges remain, he said.
"JIEDDO's establishment is a mandate to bring us to the reality of the enemy we currently face," General Metz said. "Our role is to ensure that the fight we are currently in has a champion; one that can take prudent risks and rapidly respond to the warfighters' needs."
The organization has a transparent process in place to manage funds, "but if we add more and more layers of bureaucracy and thus time to get things done, we relinquish the initiative to the enemy," the general said. "The enemy is smart, innovative, agile, cunning and ruthless."
Minimizing bureaucratic roadblocks will assist JIEDDO, General Metz said, since the enemy operates in disregard of Defense Department contracting rules and budget cycles.
General Oates thanked General Metz "for looking out for our soldiers" and said he was proud and happy to be part of the organization. The incoming general also pledged to work with all to solve the very complex problem posed by improvised explosive devices.
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_cannabis.html
Pressured On Opium Crops, Many Afghan Farmers Switch To Cannabis
By Ron Synovitz
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
March 7, 2009
Opium-poppy eradication has been hailed as a success in much of Afghanistan's north and east, allowing counternarcotics officials to declare 18 provinces there as "poppy-free" despite record opium cultivation in the south and southwest.
But UN officials tell RFE/RL that many former opium farmers in those poppy-free areas have switched to another lucrative and illegal drug crop: cannabis.
As a result, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says, Afghanistan is now the world's largest producer of two illegal drugs -- heroin from opium poppies and cannabis.
The UNODC's latest assessment on the Afghan narcotics trade, released in February, says cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan is likely to fall this year compared to the record crops of previous years.
It says the 18 provinces labeled "opium-free" in 2008 will probably remain so in 2009. It also says seven other Afghan provinces are likely to reduce opium-poppy cultivation this year -- including the biggest opium-producing province, Helmand, in the volatile south.
That means opium cultivation in Afghanistan is now overwhelmingly concentrated within the seven most unstable provinces in the south and southwest.
But officials in neighboring countries say the size and frequency of drug seizures from smugglers near the Afghan border continues to increase -- highlighting the fact that many Afghan farmers who have stopped growing opium poppies are now growing cannabis crops instead.
In Plain View
UNODC spokesman Walter Kemp tells RFE/RL it is becoming "increasingly obvious" that the successes of opium-eradication programs in parts of Afghanistan are being offset by record cannabis cultivation:
"In Afghanistan, most of the attention is on opium," Kemp says. "But Afghanistan is now one of the biggest, if not the biggest, producer of cannabis in the world. This is often in provinces that have become opium-free. So we do have concerns that although some provinces are becoming opium free, they are not completely drug-free because they are growing cannabis."
Reports from RFE/RL correspondents in northern Afghanistan suggest that many farmers who used to grow opium poppies have responded to the pressure of poppy eradication programs by growing cannabis instead.
In fact, UNODC data suggest that more than 70,000 hectares of Afghan farmland is now being used to grow cannabis -- putting Afghanistan ahead of Morroco as the leading producer of cannabis and hashish made from cannabis.
Kemp admits that eradication efforts in recent years have been so focused on opium cultivation that cannabis farming has been able to proliferate:
"There's been a lot of focus on the opium cultivation -- and therefore opium eradication or finding alternatives to opium," Kemp says. "Less attention has been on finding out exactly how much cannabis there is, and also using development incentives and security deterrents to reduce the problem of cannabis cultivation."
Bigger And Badder
Security experts say local Afghan militia commanders who once funded their private armies with profits from the illegal opium and heroin trades still have their smuggling networks in place. But now, instead of sneaking relatively small packages of opium or heroin out of Afghanistan, drug traffickers increasingly smuggle larger shipments of hashish, made from cannabis.
Bobojon Shafei, a spokesman for Tajikistan's counternarcotics police, tells RFE/RL that the size and number of narcotics shipments being seized at the Afghan border continues to increase.
"Drug smuggling from Afghanistan to Tajikistan [has] only increased," Shafei says. "You know in comparison with 2007, last year's production of drugs in Afghanistan increased. If we look at the first two months of this year, we can see that confiscation of drugs has increased. That is why we can confirm [overall] production of drugs [in Afghanistan] has increased."
A recent attack on Tajik counternarcotics officers near Afghanistan's northern border has raised concerns in Dushanbe about the power and boldness of traffickers with ties to Afghan drug lords in the so-called opium-free provinces.
Local officials in Tajikistan's southern Khation Province tell RFE/RL that about 30 gunmen attacked the border crossing at Sari Ghor on the night of February 27, killing two officers and injuring at least three border guards before fleeing back to the Afghan side of the border.
Shafei says the attackers included smugglers from both sides of the border. Shafei also suggests that Tajik authorities let down their guard because they had not seen such a violent attack in the area for years:
"We did not expect that smugglers would be heavily armed," Shafei said. "We did not expect that drug-smugglers from [the Tajik] side and their accomplices from the Afghan side of the border would attack our officers. It is the first such case in several years."
Officials in Dushanbe say the killing of the Tajik counternarcotics officers may have been a retribution attack by drug smugglers. Several weeks earlier, Tajik border guards had killed six Afghan smugglers and confiscated a large amount of narcotics -- including hashish from cannabis -- that they were trying to smuggle into Tajikistan.
Subsistence Question
The Afghan government has launched poppy-eradication programs across Afghanistan with varying degrees of success. One complication is that many poor Afghan farmers have become dependent on the income they can earn from narcotics.
Internationally backed Afghan government eradication programs aim to help farmers develop alternative crops as a source of livelihood -- from fruits and vegetable crops, to spices or even fish farming.
But farmers who have joined those programs -- sometimes after having their poppy crops destroyed -- complain that the income from growing legitimate food crops does not come close to the amount of money they earned from opium poppies or cannabis.
There also is debate within NATO about whether NATO-led ISAF troops should get involved in drug-eradication efforts, which some alliance members consider to be an issue for law enforcement rather than military troops.
General John Craddock, NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, said during a visit to Afghanistan in December that he was surprised to discover a gap between the approval by NATO defense ministers of aggressive counternarcotics missions in Afghanistan and the actual conduct of NATO troops there.
NATO officials in Brussels have declined to list the countries that oppose widening NATO's ISAF mandate to include attacks on narcotics networks. And no country has publicly expressed legal objections to a wider counternarcotics mandate.
But several NATO countries have described their reluctance publicly -- including Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain.
RFE/RL's Tajik Service contributed to this report
Related:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2009/october/unodc-reveals-devastating-impact-of-afghan-opium-.html
Transportation officials confident in Afghan deployment
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
12/4/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- U.S. Transportation Command officials are confident they can accomplish the mission of delivering 30,000 U.S. troops and their equipment to Afghanistan when they are needed.
Planners at the command based at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., are working with operations specialists at U.S. Joint Forces Command and U.S. Central Command to fulfill President Barack Obama's decision to deploy the troops to Afghanistan in the first half of 2010.
Command officials already are transporting about 1,000 Marines to the country as part of the mission.
"Both CENTCOM and U.S. Transportation Command are very well prepared for this surge of forces going in," said Army Brig. Gen. Michael Lally, the command's director of operations and plans. "We've been deploying and redeploying forces into and out of Afghanistan for years. We've been sustaining those forces there. So the processes, procedures and force structures are in place to move additional forces in and also sustain them. We feel very comfortable that we have the assets in the air and on the sea to make the move."
The two commands have been working together closely. CENTCOM officials invited TRANSCOM planners in at the beginning of the process to work on the flow and phasing for getting additional forces into Afghanistan, officials said.
Before the movement can really begin, commanders in Afghanistan must say where the troops will be based.
"They are working through that right now, making sure as we deploy forces into theater, there are places for those forces to bed down, to make sure they have food, water and so on," General Lally said.
Commanders in Afghanistan need to sequence the forces into theater to achieve their combat goals.
"In the coming weeks, we'll figure out how much needs to move in January, February, March to make sure we can meet the objectives of having all these forces in there by the summer," General Lally said. "Whether I have 20,000 people there in April and 30,000 there in September, or 26,000 there in April and 30,000 there in July, we don't have that level of detail from the commander, (Army) Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal, on what his requirements are yet."
For units deploying in April, May or June, TRANSCOM officials have the option of using sealift to get the equipment in.
"The units that have to be there in January obviously must fly, and we've already started working that," he said.
Complicating the situation in the CENTCOM theater is the massive drawdown in Iraq. Roughly 120,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq and by August 2010 there will be about 50,000, with all out by the end of 2011. Also, the Marine regiment going into Afghanistan now will get equipment both from Iraq and the United States. Other units will be in the same situation as the deployment continues.
TRANSCOM officials will use all modes of transportation -- military and civilian -- to get troops and their equipment to the theater.
"On passenger movements, 95 percent of the troops that go into Afghanistan go by commercial air," General Lally said. For air cargo, commercial shippers carry 45 percent and 55 percent via military planes. About 75 percent of routine sustainment cargo goes in via commercial air and 25 percent via military.
Unit moves change the equation with the majority of equipment flown in via military air.
"You expect that because a lot of our equipment is outsized and it doesn't fit very well into a 747," General Lally said. "So we use C-17 (Globemaster IIIs) and C-5 (Galaxies) for the military equipment and the palletized cargo fits very well in the holds of our commercial partners."
The commercial partners have "stepped up to the plate" for this movement and for flights into CENTCOM in general, TRANSCOM officials said. There has been no need to call up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to handle the flow to the region, and officials do not expect to use this option.
"Our commercial partners have been outstanding," an official said.
Also, CENTCOM officials are working with Joint Forces Command officials to identify the forces that will deploy.
"We're involved with that process, because that will determine when these forces are trained and available for transportation," said Col. Gregory Schwartz, the TRANSCOM operations planner responsible for CENTCOM.
The two commands are meeting to figure out "the detailed data on what needs to be moved, who needs to be moved, where it needs be moved from and where in theater it needs to go," Colonel Schwartz said.
When TRANSCOM officials, who are developing the plan to get forces into Afghanistan, moved troops into Iraq, they had the luxury of an intermediate staging base in Kuwait. Troops could marry up with their equipment in Kuwait -- a country with excellent airports and seaports -- and conduct training before moving into Iraq. There is no such intermediate staging base for Afghanistan.
"Our people have to be ready when they arrive in Afghanistan," General Lally said. "It is a tight timeline. We move equipment by surface. It arrives in Karachi, Pakistan, we off-load it and truck it up to whatever base, and fly the units in. Every day we have teleconferences to synchronize that the passengers and equipment arrive at the right time. There's a lot more work and coordination involved to make sure this happens correctly."
The command also ships goods via the Northern Distribution Route, which uses Russian and Central Asian railroads to get supplies to Afghanistan. State Department officials are working with the countries along the routes to allow different equipment and supplies. State Department officials also are working with Russia to expand the overflight permissions, Pentagon officials said.
TRANSCOM officials have a strong track record for support to CENTCOM. In 2004, the command coordinated the changeover of American troops in Iraq. Three months later, the command transported 250,000 servicemembers, and equipment, into and out of Iraq. It was the largest troop movement in the U.S. military since World War II, command historians said.
But the deployment of 30,000 to Afghanistan will not affect the command's ability worldwide, General Lally said.
"We may ask for a bit of flexibility from the other combatant commands, but they will receive what they need, when they need it," he said.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123183940
Lynn says fight against IEDs remains priority
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
12/31/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defeating the terrorists' weapon of choice is and will remain a priority for the Defense Department, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said here Dec. 30.
Mr. Lynn spoke during a Pentagon ceremony where Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz stepped down as director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and Army Lt. Gen. Michael Oates took up the charge.
The organization looks for ways to defeat terrorists using car bombs, roadside bombs, as well as suicide vests, all examples of improvised explosive devices. The bombs are the biggest killers of American servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The weapon is a tactical device that has impacted the operational missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We must preclude the IED from impacting us strategically," General Metz said. "We cannot allow this weapon to influence the national-level decisions of our most senior leaders."
"Under (General Metz's) leadership, JIEDDO has moved forward on three lines of operation: attacking the networks that place IEDs, devising ways to defeat the device and training our forces to counter the threat," Mr. Lynn said.
The organization, only four years old, is a model of rapid acquisition, Mr. Lynn said. Its military and civilian staff quickly finds and employs ideas and technologies that can help servicemembers in harm's way. The organization operates with the services and combatant commands in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The threat continues, Mr. Lynn said, noting that in October IEDs claimed the lives of 41 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and one soldier in Iraq. The devices "are a clear and present danger," he said.
And the enemy knows how to use the devices.
"In Afghanistan we are up against a determined and clever foe who mastered the use of this deadly technology long before our forces set foot in the mountains of the Hindu Kush," Mr. Lynn said.
The Soviets lost nearly 2,000 soldiers and 1,200 vehicles during their nine-year war in Afghanistan, he said.
"That IEDs have defeated another technologically advanced military in the very same place we fight now, only adds to the urgency of our mission," Mr. Lynn said. "Our ability to project power in this world of asymmetric threats and to secure our population at home depends on JIEDDO's success."
Measuring success remains an issue for the organization.
"We may never find a way to determine how many lives and limbs we are saving, how many warfighters return home with their eyesight and how many have avoided serious burns that would have left them in pain for the rest of their lives," General Metz said.
The departing general thanked his staff, citing their dedicated and professional service. He also told them he is proud of the work they did together and the record they have made. He said getting the organization made a permanent entity was the toughest challenge of his time.
Still, a number of challenges remain, he said.
"JIEDDO's establishment is a mandate to bring us to the reality of the enemy we currently face," General Metz said. "Our role is to ensure that the fight we are currently in has a champion; one that can take prudent risks and rapidly respond to the warfighters' needs."
The organization has a transparent process in place to manage funds, "but if we add more and more layers of bureaucracy and thus time to get things done, we relinquish the initiative to the enemy," the general said. "The enemy is smart, innovative, agile, cunning and ruthless."
Minimizing bureaucratic roadblocks will assist JIEDDO, General Metz said, since the enemy operates in disregard of Defense Department contracting rules and budget cycles.
General Oates thanked General Metz "for looking out for our soldiers" and said he was proud and happy to be part of the organization. The incoming general also pledged to work with all to solve the very complex problem posed by improvised explosive devices.
http://www.afghan-web.com/economy/afghan_cannabis.html
Pressured On Opium Crops, Many Afghan Farmers Switch To Cannabis
By Ron Synovitz
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
March 7, 2009
Opium-poppy eradication has been hailed as a success in much of Afghanistan's north and east, allowing counternarcotics officials to declare 18 provinces there as "poppy-free" despite record opium cultivation in the south and southwest.
But UN officials tell RFE/RL that many former opium farmers in those poppy-free areas have switched to another lucrative and illegal drug crop: cannabis.
As a result, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says, Afghanistan is now the world's largest producer of two illegal drugs -- heroin from opium poppies and cannabis.
The UNODC's latest assessment on the Afghan narcotics trade, released in February, says cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan is likely to fall this year compared to the record crops of previous years.
It says the 18 provinces labeled "opium-free" in 2008 will probably remain so in 2009. It also says seven other Afghan provinces are likely to reduce opium-poppy cultivation this year -- including the biggest opium-producing province, Helmand, in the volatile south.
That means opium cultivation in Afghanistan is now overwhelmingly concentrated within the seven most unstable provinces in the south and southwest.
But officials in neighboring countries say the size and frequency of drug seizures from smugglers near the Afghan border continues to increase -- highlighting the fact that many Afghan farmers who have stopped growing opium poppies are now growing cannabis crops instead.
In Plain View
UNODC spokesman Walter Kemp tells RFE/RL it is becoming "increasingly obvious" that the successes of opium-eradication programs in parts of Afghanistan are being offset by record cannabis cultivation:
"In Afghanistan, most of the attention is on opium," Kemp says. "But Afghanistan is now one of the biggest, if not the biggest, producer of cannabis in the world. This is often in provinces that have become opium-free. So we do have concerns that although some provinces are becoming opium free, they are not completely drug-free because they are growing cannabis."
Reports from RFE/RL correspondents in northern Afghanistan suggest that many farmers who used to grow opium poppies have responded to the pressure of poppy eradication programs by growing cannabis instead.
In fact, UNODC data suggest that more than 70,000 hectares of Afghan farmland is now being used to grow cannabis -- putting Afghanistan ahead of Morroco as the leading producer of cannabis and hashish made from cannabis.
Kemp admits that eradication efforts in recent years have been so focused on opium cultivation that cannabis farming has been able to proliferate:
"There's been a lot of focus on the opium cultivation -- and therefore opium eradication or finding alternatives to opium," Kemp says. "Less attention has been on finding out exactly how much cannabis there is, and also using development incentives and security deterrents to reduce the problem of cannabis cultivation."
Bigger And Badder
Security experts say local Afghan militia commanders who once funded their private armies with profits from the illegal opium and heroin trades still have their smuggling networks in place. But now, instead of sneaking relatively small packages of opium or heroin out of Afghanistan, drug traffickers increasingly smuggle larger shipments of hashish, made from cannabis.
Bobojon Shafei, a spokesman for Tajikistan's counternarcotics police, tells RFE/RL that the size and number of narcotics shipments being seized at the Afghan border continues to increase.
"Drug smuggling from Afghanistan to Tajikistan [has] only increased," Shafei says. "You know in comparison with 2007, last year's production of drugs in Afghanistan increased. If we look at the first two months of this year, we can see that confiscation of drugs has increased. That is why we can confirm [overall] production of drugs [in Afghanistan] has increased."
A recent attack on Tajik counternarcotics officers near Afghanistan's northern border has raised concerns in Dushanbe about the power and boldness of traffickers with ties to Afghan drug lords in the so-called opium-free provinces.
Local officials in Tajikistan's southern Khation Province tell RFE/RL that about 30 gunmen attacked the border crossing at Sari Ghor on the night of February 27, killing two officers and injuring at least three border guards before fleeing back to the Afghan side of the border.
Shafei says the attackers included smugglers from both sides of the border. Shafei also suggests that Tajik authorities let down their guard because they had not seen such a violent attack in the area for years:
"We did not expect that smugglers would be heavily armed," Shafei said. "We did not expect that drug-smugglers from [the Tajik] side and their accomplices from the Afghan side of the border would attack our officers. It is the first such case in several years."
Officials in Dushanbe say the killing of the Tajik counternarcotics officers may have been a retribution attack by drug smugglers. Several weeks earlier, Tajik border guards had killed six Afghan smugglers and confiscated a large amount of narcotics -- including hashish from cannabis -- that they were trying to smuggle into Tajikistan.
Subsistence Question
The Afghan government has launched poppy-eradication programs across Afghanistan with varying degrees of success. One complication is that many poor Afghan farmers have become dependent on the income they can earn from narcotics.
Internationally backed Afghan government eradication programs aim to help farmers develop alternative crops as a source of livelihood -- from fruits and vegetable crops, to spices or even fish farming.
But farmers who have joined those programs -- sometimes after having their poppy crops destroyed -- complain that the income from growing legitimate food crops does not come close to the amount of money they earned from opium poppies or cannabis.
There also is debate within NATO about whether NATO-led ISAF troops should get involved in drug-eradication efforts, which some alliance members consider to be an issue for law enforcement rather than military troops.
General John Craddock, NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, said during a visit to Afghanistan in December that he was surprised to discover a gap between the approval by NATO defense ministers of aggressive counternarcotics missions in Afghanistan and the actual conduct of NATO troops there.
NATO officials in Brussels have declined to list the countries that oppose widening NATO's ISAF mandate to include attacks on narcotics networks. And no country has publicly expressed legal objections to a wider counternarcotics mandate.
But several NATO countries have described their reluctance publicly -- including Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain.
RFE/RL's Tajik Service contributed to this report
Related:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2009/october/unodc-reveals-devastating-impact-of-afghan-opium-.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
