Obama's Perpetual War in Afghanistan Without Apologies or Restrictions???

So much for Obama's Peace in our time motif as he pursues perpetual war in Afghanistan without apologies or restrictions. American liberals will make more excuses up to defend Obama's indefensible pro-war policies.

Afghanistan War in 2024?
The Young Turks -November 22, 2013

Published on 22 Nov 2013
"Secretary of State John Kerry announced Wednesday that the United States and Afghanistan had finalized the wording of a bilateral security agreement that would allow for a lasting U.S. troop presence through 2024 and set the stage for billions of dollars of international assistance to keep flowing to the Kabul government. The deal, which now will be presented for approval by an Afghan grand council of elders starting today, came after days of brinkmanship by Afghan officials and two direct calls from Mr. Kerry to President Hamid Karzai, including one Wednesday before the announcement. Just the day before, a senior Karzai aide had said the Afghan leader would not approve an agreement unless President Barack Obama sent a letter acknowledging U.S. military mistakes during the 12-year war. But Mr. Kerry emphatically insisted Wednesday that a deal was reached with no U.S. apology forthcoming. "President Karzai didn't ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology," Mr. Kerry said. "I mean, it's just not even on the table." After a 12-year war that stands as the longest in U.S. history, the security accord defines a training and counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan lasting at least another 10 years and involving an estimated 8,000-12,000 troops, mostly American...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

In Afghanistan, 'Security Deal' Means US Occupation Forever In addition to immunity, US demands right to enter Afghan homes in 'bi-lateral security agreement' - Sarah Lazare, staff writer, Common Dreams November 19, 2013

Days before the so-called bi-lateral security agreement heads to an Afghan council of elders and political leaders for a final decision, the U.S. is attempting to force through a stipulation that would allow U.S. troops to continue raiding Afghan homes, in addition to measures giving U.S. troops and contractors immunity from Afghan law and extending U.S. military presence far beyond Obama's 2014 pullout date.

Critics charge that the U.S. is giving itself the green light for open-ended occupation at the expense of the Afghan people. "Occupation is not defined by how many occupiers are policing someplace," said Kimber Heinz of the War Resisters League in an interview with Common Dreams. "If you reduce the amount of occupation forces but keep them there forever, then the occupation continues and the war on people's everyday lives is not actually over — no matter what the US government or mainstream media tells us."

The U.S. is pushing for the right to enter Afghan homes over the initial objection of Afghan negotiators. The New York Times reports that President Hamid Karzai's spokesperson, Aimal Faizi, announced Tuesday that Karzai would allow U.S. home raids in "extraordinary circumstances." He said this was in exchange for an agreement from President Obama to issue a letter apologizing for mistakes in Afghanistan.

This latest development follows attempts on the part of U.S. negotiators to ram through immunity for U.S. troops and independent contractors from Afghan law. According to The Washington Post, the U.S. appears to have succeeded in including this immunity in a previously-circulated draft of the agreement.

Meanwhile President Obama continues to defend the use of Drones . Most American citizens support the use of Drones mainly because it leads to fewer American casualties. Obama plays on this support while ignoring legal and ethical or moral questions concerning the use of Drones on civilian populations.


Blocking NATO to Stop Drones November 23, 2013 By Ashfaq Yusufzai, Inter Press Service via Truthout.org

Upping the ante against U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan, celebrated cricketer-turned-political leader Imran Khan has threatened to block NATO supplies to Afghanistan through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, where his party leads a coalition government.

“We are holding the biggest ever anti-drone protest in Peshawar, where we could decide to block NATO supplies permanently,” Khan, who leads the Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI), told IPS ahead of massive protests planned by the party for Nov. 23.

“We don’t want to start a fight with the U.S. but we have every right to protest these illegal assaults which kill innocent people,” Khan said, calling the attacks a breach of international law and a violation of human rights.

His party is enraged over a U.S. drone strike at a madrassa or religious seminary that killed at least eight people in Hangu district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in northwestern Pakistan, on Nov. 20.

Also see newly released British report criticizing the UK government and military for the botched series of military interventions in iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc.

UK actions in Iraq and Afghanistan wars were incoherent, report says by Richard Norton-Taylor, Nov. 21, 2013, The guardian

Chatham House report challenges view that politicians, including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, bear sole blame for failures

...The way Britain went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan was incoherent, inconsistent, and opaque, with political leaders failing to face up to military commanders, according to a study by a leading thinktank released on Thursday.

The report, published by Chatham House, challenges the view that politicians, notably Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, should bear the sole blame for Britain's military failures. Drawing on recent evidence, including from the Chilcot inquiry, it concludes that Britain suffered a wider failure of government, with politicians, senior military officers and civil servants all playing a part.

"The overall impression of British practice was of disorder and incoherence, informality and individuality", said James de Waal, the report's author. The British governmental machine was simply unsuited to the enormous challenges and pressures of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he suggests.

There was no clear idea of the roles of ministers, senior military officers, and civil servants and how they should work together. "All interpreted their roles in different ways, with effectiveness depending on the quality of individuals and the personal relationships between them", says the report, titled "Depending on the Right People: British Political-Military Relations 2001-2010".

The bloody disaster of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is laid bare by Simon Jenkins ,The Guardian, Nov. 18, 2013

Bombs and militia violence make clear the folly of Britain's wars – the removal of law and order from a nation is devastating

...In each case – Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan – it was easy to see evil in the prevailing regime. These are bad guys that we need to go after, said the Americans. Yet the removal of law and order from a nation is devastating, however cruel that order may have been. Iraqis today repeat that, whatever the ills of Saddam Hussein, under his rule most ordinary citizens and their families could walk the streets at night without fear of murder or kidnap. Religious differences were tolerated. Iraq should have been an oil-rich modern state. Even the Kurds, scourged by Saddam in the past, enjoyed autonomy and relative peace.

In each of these cases Britain and its allies, chiefly America, intervened to overthrow the army, disband government, dismantle the judiciary and leave militias to run riot. Little or no attempt was made to replace anarchy with a new order. "Nation building" was a fiasco. The British bombs that flattened government buildings in Kabul, Baghdad and Tripoli did not replace them, or those who worked in them. Those who dropped them congratulated themselves on their work and went home.

It is hard to exaggerate the misery and chaos created by so-called "liberal interventionism". It is hard to think of a more immoral foreign policy, roaming the (chiefly Muslim) world, killing people and sowing anarchy. That is why the blood-stained consequence should be splashed across headlines. Those who seek political kudos by visiting violence on foreign peoples should never be allowed to forget their deeds.