Afghanistan: US Special Operations, Civilian Deaths, and the New US Commander

Related Post: Now It’s Petraeus’ War - US Replaces Top Commander in Afghanistan

On Friday, The Independent of London put together some pieces of a military puzzle, linking US special operations and Afghan deaths from American bombing and missiles, to declare, "The US Marines Corps' Special Operations Command, or MarSOC...was behind at least three of Afghanistan's worst civilian casualty incidents."

Reporter Jerome Starkey explained that the unit, "created three years ago on the express orders of Donald Rumsfeld,...call[ed] in air strikes in Bala Boluk, in Farah, last week – believed to have killed more than 140 men, women and children". In March 2007, after a suicide bombing close to the Pakistan border, a MarSOC company "fired indiscriminately at pedestrians and civilian cars, killing at least 19 people", while in August 2008 "a 20-man MarSOC unit, fighting alongside Afghan commandos, directed fire from unmanned drones, attack helicopters and a cannon-armed Spectre gunship into compounds in Azizabad, in Herat province, leaving more than 90 people dead – many of them children".

Yet, for all the credit Starkey deserves for getting this story, The Independent's misses its significance in its headline, "Rumsfeld's Renegade Unit". The Secretary of Defense may have authorised the special force, but in 2004 it was for "targeted" operations in Iraq, identifying and then capturing or killing key insurgent leaders. The MarSOC Starkey is writing about is far different: it appears to be a ground commando force, carrying out attacks on its own or in combination with Afghan special units or acting as "spotters" for American air assaults.

The most important warning in the story is hidden instead in one sentence, "News of MarSOC's involvement in the three incidents comes just days after a Special Forces expert, Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, was named to take over as the top commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan."

Exactly. McChrystal's reputation was built as head of the Joint Special Operations Command as it developed during the Iraq occupation. For his supporters, he is the general who organised the capture and killing of key insurgent leaders; for his most ardent critics, he was at the head of an "executive assassination ring" that reported to Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

Whatever the truth between these two views, which are actually more compatible than conflicting, McChrystal's significance is now in Afghanistan and his approach to this year's American "surge". And, as Starkey writes, "his surprise appointment has prompted speculation that commando counterinsurgency missions will increase in the battle to beat the Taliban".

If McChrystal was moving sideways to becoming a supporting commander for Special Operations, with other military and civilian leaders putting a focus on reconstruction efforts and political, economic, and social development, there might be some hope --- as our readers have commented --- in US "counter-insurgency". He is, however, the commander.

Thus "special operations", with the targeting of insurgent units, will continue and probably escalate. And, from benefiting from a new American military strategy, the deaths of Afghan civilians may match that escalation.

Iran: Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Related Post: Monday’s Israel-US Showdown - Iran First or Palestine First?

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, freed on appeal after an 8-year sentence for espionage, is now far from Iran. Her drama will now disappear from public view.

The significance of the outcome, however, will be lasting.

There were some interesting revelations in the last stages of the case. In particular, Saberi's lawyer revealed that his client had translated a confidential Iranian document on the US position in Iraq. This, plus Saberi's visit to Israel, had aroused Iranian suspicions that the journalist was not operating without a licence but providing information to a foreign agency. Here was Saberi's representative, not Tehran, was offering evidence for the escalation of the charges from buying wine to carrying out espionage.

This did not rule out the political dimension of the case, in particular, the rush to try and sentence Saberi. However, it could explain why the US Government was careful not to press Tehran too hard. Indeed, it appeared that the attorney's statement was part of a deal with Tehran in which Saberi would be released but Iran's actions would be (at least partially) vindicated.

For the Iranian political system, after Saberi was sentenced, acted very pragmatically. President Ahmadinejad was quick to "request" the hearing of an appeal, which meant the court would hear an appeal. And, since defendants who are allowed to appeal are almost always successful in Iran, the message was clear: Saberi's sentence would be reduced, most likely to the point where she would be able to leave the country.

None of this should be read as benevolence. The calculation was clear: the Obama Administration has advanced towards engagement with Tehran, and Iran --- tentatively at first, but now steadily behind the scenes --- has responded. The Saberi case should not derail that process. That assessment was reinforced, I suspect, as it became clear that Saberi was naive rather than sinister in her activities.

Thus a court case becomes politically significant, especially becomes of its timing. Saberi was released a week before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington to insist that the US break off the engagement with Iran. The freeing of Roxana removes a card (albeit probably a 7 rather than an ace) from Netanyahu's hand.Of course, the rhetoric will continue about the maniacal leadership in Tehran, but the substance here is realpolitik rather than evil or ideology.

Sometimes, the celebration is not only of a humanitarian outcome but of the less-than-humanitarian manoeuvres that lie behind it --- and of the political and quite positive consequences that may follow.

Monday's Israel-US Showdown: Iran First or Palestine First?

Related Post: Iran - Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit on Monday to Washington is shaping up as a critical early moment --- even amidst the torture controversy, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and a minor thing called the global economy --- in the Obama Presidency.

The Israelis are sticking to the line that something has to be done about the Tehran menace before they will address other regional issues, in particular negotiations with Palestine. That "something" is unlikely to be military action; instead, Netanyahu will ask Washington to step up economic sanctions. At the very least, the demand will be that the US break off its "engagement" with the Iranian Government. (An editorial by Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad, in Thursday's Financial Times of London is a must-read: "The 'sequence' must be clear: Iran first.)

Leading Obama officials, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have already countered that the issue of Israeli-Palestinian talks must be the priority. Iran's nuclear programme should not be the excuse (the Americans have stopped short of the word "blackmail") to stall on a two-state solution, which Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, still oppose.

How serious is the debate? Consider this story, which just emerged: two weeks ago CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel to warn Netanyahu against an airstrike on Iran. Consider, however, that Israeli officials framed this as a warning against a "surprise attack", leaving open the possibility that Tel Aviv could attack if the US was notified in advance.

And consider also this "information", first published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz but then circulated in The Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration and its European allies are setting a target of early October to determine whether engagement with Iran is making progress or should lead to sanctions.

They also are developing specific benchmarks to gauge Iranian behavior. Those include whether Tehran is willing to let United Nations monitors make snap inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that are now off-limits, and whether it will agree to a "freeze for freeze" -- halting uranium enrichment in return for holding off on new economic sanctions -- as a precursor to formal negotiations.

What adds a bit of spice to the claim, implying that Iran has less than five months to meet US conditions, is The Journal citation of "senior Administration officials" as sources. The indication is that there is still a battle among Obama's advisors over whether to treat "engagement" as an ongoing negotiation or whether to combine it with guaranteed sanctions if Tehran does not make the required moves within a quick (in diplomatic terms) period of time.

That possibility, while intriguing, is still secondary to what happens on Monday. What President Obama needs now is not an Iranian concession but an Israeli one. If Netanyahu holds fast and does not open up the possibility of "genuine" talks with the Palestinian Authority, including discussions of political status as well as economic development and security, then Obama's message --- launched on Inauguration Day --- of a new day in the Middle East is looking shaky.

Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process. And Washington is guarding against disappointment: that is why it left eight days between the visit of Netanyahu and that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on 26 May and another two days before Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas comes to the White House to see what's happening.

That, however, would not be enough. Obama has tied himself to an address to the "Islamic world" on 4 June from Cairo. His rhetorical approaches so far --- the Inaugural Address, the interview on Al Arabiya television in January, the speech from Turkey last month --- have been warmly received. This time, however, he has to bring something of substance to the table. Otherwise, it will be a speech too far.

Forget that "first 100 days" media fluff. Monday will be a true example of when the initial stages of a Presidency transform into defining moments.

Secret Wars: Pentagon $50 Billion "Black Budget" Reaches for the Sky

So much for the Obama Administration putting a check on the Pentagon and its ambitions. Writing in The Intelligence Daily, Tim Burghardt reveals the expansion of the military "black budget". Next year's expenditure on covert operations will be close to the entire military budget of Britain, France, Japan, or even China,the next supposed superpower rival to the US.

Big Increases for Intelligence and Pentagon "Black" Programs in 2010

Continuing along the dark path marked out by his predecessors in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama's Defense and Intelligence budget for Fiscal Year 2010 will greatly expand the reach of unaccountable agencies--and the corporate grifters whom they serve.

According to Aviation Week, "the Pentagon's 'black' operations, including the intelligence budgets nested inside it, are roughly equal in magnitude to the entire defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan, and 10 per cent of the total."



Yes, you read that correctly. The "black" or secret portions of the budget are almost as large as the entire defense outlays of America's allies, hardly slouches when it comes to feeding their own militarist beasts. The U.S. Air Force alone intends to spend approximately $12 billion on "black" programs in 2010 or 36 percent of its entire research and development budget. Aviation Week reveals:

Black-world procurement remains dominated by the single line item that used to be called "Selected Activities," resident in the USAF's "other procurement" section. This year's number stands just above $16 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, that's 240 per cent more than it was ten years ago.

On the operations side, secret spending has risen 8 per cent over last year, to just over $15 billion--equivalent to more than a third of Air Force operating costs.

What does it all go for? In simple terms, we don't know. It is apparent that much if not all of the intelligence community is funded through the black budget: for example, an $850 million USAF line item is clearly linked to reconnaissance satellites. But even so, the numbers are startling--and get more so year by year. (Bill Sweetman, "Black budget blows by $50 billion mark," Aviation Week, May 7, 2009)

How's that for change! The Register gives a break down of the numbers for added emphasis:

1) Mainstream US armed forces $490bn-odd
2) UK armed forces $60bn
3) Chinese armed forces $58bn
4) French armed forces $54bn
5) "Black" US forces $50bn+
6) Japanese Self-Defence forces $44bn

While the American government refuses to disclose the CIA or NSA's budget, "both the Agency and other non-military spooks do get money of their own. Some of this is spent on military or quasi-military activities," The Register reports.

Toss in the world-wide deployment of CIA and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) paramilitary operatives hidden among a welter of Special Access Programs (SAPs) classified above top secret and pretty soon we're talking real money!

One such program may have been Dick Cheney's "executive assassination ring" disclosed by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh during a "Great Conversations" event at the University of Minnesota in March.

And should pesky investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have the temerity to probe said "executive assassination ring," or other DoD "black" programs well, their Inspector General's had better think again!

According to the whistleblowing security and intelligence website Cryptome, a May 8, 2009 letter from Susan Ragland, GAO Director of Financial Management and Assurance to Diane Watson (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Committee on Government Management, Organization and Procurement, lays down the law in no uncertain terms to Congress.

Ms. Ragland wrote: "the IG Act authorizes the heads of six agencies to prohibit their respective IGs from carrying out or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena if the head determines that such prohibition is necessary to prevent either the disclosure of certain sensitive information or significant harm to certain national interests."

Neat, isn't it! Under statutory authority granted the Executive Branch by congressional grifters, Congress amended the IG Act "to establish the Department of Defense (DOD) IG and placed the IG under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense with respect to audits or investigations or the issuance of subpoenas that require access to certain information."

What information may be withheld from public scrutiny? Ms. Ragland informs us: "Specifically, the Secretary of Defense may prohibit the DOD IG from initiating, carrying out, or completing such audits or investigations or from issuing a subpoena if the Secretary determines that the prohibition is necessary to preserve the national security interests of the United States."

The same restrictions to the IG Act that apply to the Defense Department are similarly operative for the Departments of the Treasury, Homeland Security, Justice, the U.S. Postal Service (!), the Federal Reserve Board, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Talk about veritable mountains of dirty laundry--and "black" programs--that can be hidden here!

Space-Based Spies

Among the items nestled within the dark arms of Pentagon war planners is a program called "Imagery Satellite Way Ahead," a joint effort between "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense designed to revamp the nation's constellation of spy satellites," Congressional Quarterly reports.

As Antifascist Calling revealed in several investigative pieces in June, October and November 2008, America's fleet of military spy satellites are flown by the secretive National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

According to the agency's own description, "The NRO is a joint organization engaged in the research and development, acquisition, launch and operation of overhead reconnaissance systems necessary to meet the needs of the Intelligence Community and of the Department of Defense. The NRO conducts other activities as directed by the Secretary of Defense and/or the Director of National Intelligence."

As investigative journalist Tim Shorrock revealed in his essential book, Spies for Hire, some ninety-five percent of NRO employees are contractors working for defense and security firms. Indeed, as Shorrock disclosed, "with an estimated $8 billion annual budget, the largest in the IC, contractors control about $7 billion worth of business at the NRO, giving the spy satellite industry the distinction of being the most privatized part of the Intelligence Community."

While the Office's website is short on information, some of the "other activities" alluded to by NRO spooks include the Department of Homeland Security's National Applications Office (NAO).

As I wrote in October, the NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and "disaster relief" agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery (IMINT) generated by spy satellites. But based on the available evidence, hard to come by since these programs are classified above top secret, the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying--and toxic for a democracy.

DHS describes the National Applications Office as "the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes." As Congressional Quarterly reveals, the "classified plan would include new, redesigned 'electro-optical' satellites, which collect data from across the electromagnetic spectrum, as well as the expanded use of commercial satellite imagery. Although the cost is secret, most estimates place it in the multibillion-dollar range."

How these redesigned assets will be deployed hasn't been announced. The more pertinent issue is whether or not DHS, reputedly a civilian agency but one which answers to the militarized Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), will position these assets to illegally spy on Americans. The available evidence is they will.

DHS avers that "homeland security and law enforcement will also benefit from access to Intelligence Community capabilities." With Pentagon "black" programs already costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars the question remains, with NAO as the "principal interface" between American spooks, DHS bureaucrats and law enforcement, who will oversee NAO's "more robust access to needed remote sensing information to appropriate customers"?

Certainly not Congress. Investigative journalist Siobhan Gorman writing in The Wall Street Journal documented last year, that despite a highly-critical June 2008 study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congress partially-funded the program "in a little debated $634 billion spending measure."

Indeed, a fully-operational NAO now provides federal, state and local officials "with extensive access to spy-satellite imagery--but no eavesdropping--to assist with emergency response and other domestic-security needs, such as identifying where ports or border areas are vulnerable to terrorism." But as CRS investigators wrote:

Members of Congress and outside groups have raised concerns that using satellites for law enforcement purposes may infringe on the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. persons. Other commentators have questioned whether the proposed surveillance will violate the Posse Comitatus Act or other restrictions on military involvement in civilian law enforcement, or would otherwise exceed the statutory mandates of the agencies involved. (Richard A. Best Jr. and Jennifer K. Elsea, "Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues," Congressional Research Service, June 27, 2008)

While these serious civil liberties' issues have apparently been swept under the carpet, huge funding outlays by Congress for Pentagon's "black" budget operations indicate that President Obama's promises of "change" in how "government does business" is so much hot-air meant to placate the rubes.

Driven by a Corporatist Agenda

Wholesale spying by the American government on its citizens as numerous investigators have uncovered, is aided and abetted by a host of well-heeled corporate grifters in the defense, intelligence and security industries. These powerful, and influential, private players in the Military-Industrial-Security Complex are largely unaccountable; it can be said that America's intelligence and security needs are driven by firms that benefit directly from the Pentagon's penchant for secrecy.

Federal Computer Week reported in April that the program to revamp America's spy satellites "has the backing of the Obama administration, and the program is expected to win congressional approval, according to a senior intelligence official."
The same anonymous "senior official" told the publication, "given the backing of the Defense Department, ODNI and the Obama administration, lawmakers are expected to approve the plan." And as with other "black" programs, the cost is classified but is expected to run into the billions; a veritable windfall for enterprising defense corporations.

The electro-optical satellite modernization program involves building new satellites that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) would operate and expanding the use of imagery from commercial providers, according to a statement the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released April 7. Under the plan, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency would continue to integrate imagery products for government customers. (Ben Bain, "Spy satellite tally could increase," Federal Computer Week, April 8, 2009)

While no decision has been reached on the "acquisition approach for the program," ODNI and NRO "would oversee the acquisition strategy for the new government-built satellites and a contract would likely be awarded within months."

In a toss-off statement to justify the enormous outlay of taxpayer dollars for the new initiative, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, said last month, "When it comes to supporting our military forces and the safety of Americans, we cannot afford any gaps in collection." Or perhaps "any gaps in collection" on Americans. As Tim Shorrock revealed:

The plans to increase domestic spying are estimated to be worth billions of dollars in new business for the intelligence contractors. The market potential was on display in October at GEOINT 2007, the annual conference sponsored by the U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation (USGIF), a non-profit organization funded by the largest contractors for the NGA. During the conference, which took place in October at the spacious Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center in downtown San Antonio, many companies were displaying spying and surveillance tools that had been used in Afghanistan and Iraq and were now being re-branded for potential domestic use. ("Domestic Spying, Inc.," CorpWatch, November 27, 2007)

Indeed, according to Shorrock when the NAO program was conceived in 2005, former ODNI director Michael McConnell "turned to Booz Allen Hamilton of McLean, Virginia--one of the largest contractors in the spy business. The company was tasked with studying how intelligence from spy satellites and photoreconnaissance planes could be better used domestically to track potential threats to security within the U.S."

Tellingly, McConnell was a senior vice president with the spooky firm for a decade. Booz Allen Hamilton was acquired by the private equity firm The Carlyle Group in a 2008 deal worth $2.54 billion. In addition to Booz Allen Hamilton, other giant defense and security corporations involved in running Homeland Security's National Applications Office include the scandal-tainted British firm BAE Systems, ManTech, Boeing and L-3 Communications.

Among the firms in the running to land ODNI/NRO new spy satellite contracts are: BAE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. All of these corporations according to the Project on Government Oversight's (POGO) Federal Contractor Mismanagement Database (FCMD) have "histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations."

Unsurprisingly, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE and Northrop Grumman lead the pack in "total instances of misconduct" as well as fines levied by the federal government for abusive practices and outright fraud.

Conclusion

Unaccountable federal agencies and corporations will continue the capitalist "security" grift, particularly when it comes to "black" programs run by the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Despite a documented history of serious ethical and constitutional breeches, these programs will persist and expand well into the future. While the Obama administration has said it favors government transparency, it has continued to employ the opaque methods of its predecessors.

From the use of the state secrets privilege to conceal driftnet surveillance of Americans, to its refusal to launch an investigation--and prosecution--of Bush regime torture enablers and war criminals, the "change" administration instead, has delivered "more of the same."

War on Terror Newsflash: Guantanamo Stays Open, Military Tribunals Resume

A day after President Obama's reversal on the release of photographs of detainee abuse, his Administration made another concession to critics in Congress and the media. Three administration officials spread the word that Guantanamo Bay military tribunals will be resumed for some detainees.

Obama had suspended the tribunals in January, days after he promised the closure of Guantanamo within a year. The two issues are linked: Obama's intention was to put some detainees through the American criminal courts. This in turn meant imprisoning them in the US, rather than on the edge of Cuba. (Other detainees would not be tried but would be sent to "third countries".)



As soon as Obama issued the announcement, critics --- especially former Bush officials and legislators, "experts", and media who had backed the Bush Administration --- lined up to blast the softness of the President. From within the Administration, some military and civilian officials in the Pentagon leaked tales of detainees who would return to terrorism. In the last two weeks, accompanying the even louder blast against the claims of Bush-era torture, the criticism escalated, with Republican Congressmen declaring that no Guantanamo detainee would step foot on US soil. Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder effectively surrendered to a Senate committee, when he said about cases in which a detainee was acquitted:

We are not going to do anything that will endanger the American people. If there were a sufficient basis to conclude they pose a danger to the United States, we would not release them.

The immediate effrect of the decision is to rule out any possibility of due process. The military commissions were a belated "quick fix" when the Bush Administration, which had not intended to do anything with detainees except interrogate them and hold them in perpetuity, had to give some appearance of justice. By the time they put this in practice, however, detainee's files were lost or in a state beyond recovery, lawyers had been denied (and, in some cases, would continue to be denied) access to their clients, and evidence against the accused had been obtained in some cases through "enhanced interrogation".

The Obama officials said that there will be "expanded due-process rights", but this may be a case of putting the genie back in the bottle. Evidence has already been tainted, either because it has not been collected and maintained properly or because it has been obtained under duress. Unless all of that is thrown out by the tribunals (which in some instances means the collapse of the cases), then this is just a nicer face on a dubious system.

However, for the vast majority of the detainees (only a few have been brought before the tribunals), the significance is that they stay in Guantanamo. Difficulties had already stalled the plan to send at least 60 of the 240 to countries in Europe, and the whipped-up outcry about terrorists being let loose in the US has blocked that option. There may be individual releases back to home countries (Canada is now under a court order to take Omar Khadr, imprisoned seven years ago when he was 15), but that will be the extent of the grand intention announced by the President in January.

But maybe the most significance effect of the second  Administration "shift" in two days --- if you put emphasis on domestic politics rather than justice --- is the exposed weakness of the White House. While Obama had (impressively) won political victories in his first months on the economy and on some foreign policy issues like Iran, his critics will now take away the lesson that, if you hit this President with the "national security" club, he will buckle.

That has repercussions not only for the legacy issues of the Bush War on Terror but on Obama's new conflicts. He has another running battle on his hands with some US military leaders, who will keep poking at policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan to shape it to their vision of counter-insurgency rather than the President's. Expect their allies in media, if not the commanders themselves, to ramp up a public vigilance on any perceived Obama mis-steps in the new American wars.

I may be mistaken, for there could be an Administration cunning plan here to put a few high-profile detainees before the tribunals, get the required convictions and sentences, and then --- having bought time --- return to the original scheme to place most of the not-so-dangerous detainees in other countries, if not the US. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be the first showcase: the planner of 9-11 and four others pled guilty in December, and most Americans won't care about due process in his trial.

At best, however, this means that Guantanamo stays open indefinitely and those detainees who aren't KSM are kept in the limbo that they have enjoyed for seven years. More likely, the Administration hasn't even thought this far ahead and is simply scrambling for time. And time means little unless you can find the strength to hold your line when you come under pressure.