If Top General Gets His Way, America's "Longest War" Will Become Even Longer

General John Campbell Says He Wants to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible—and is considering asking for even more

Published on Wednesday, December 30, 2015 by Common Dreams

Written by Sarah Lazare

General John F. Campbell pictured in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, May 23, 2015. (Photo: Allauddin Khan/AP)

If the highest ranking U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan gets his way, America's longest official war could become even more protracted.

Army General John Campbell said in a USA Today article published on Tuesday that he wants to keep the 9,800 American troops currently in Afghanistan there for as long as possible—and is considering asking for even more boots on the ground.

"My intent would be to keep as much as I could for as long as I could," Campbell told the paper from Kabul.

The general's comments follow President Barack Obama's October announcement that he plans to reverse his prior pledge to remove all but 1,000 U.S. troops from the country by the conclusion of 2016. Instead, Obama proclaimed that the 9,800 troops will be maintained through most of 2016 and then cut to 5,500 by the beginning of 2017.

Even then, Obama's statement came despite the official declaration a year ago that the war was "over."

But now Campbell plans to ask the president to put off troop withdrawals even further by delaying the reduction to 5,500 troops.

"If I don't believe that we can accomplish the train, advise and assist... the (counter-terrorism) missions, then I owe it to the senior leadership to come back and say, 'Here's what I need,'" Campbell said. "If that's more people, it's more people."

The general expressed confidence that he will get his way. "My job as commander on the ground is to continually make assessments," Campbell said. "Every time I've gone to the president and said, 'I need X,' I've been very, very fortunate that he’s provided that. So he’s been very flexible."

Campbell's comments come as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan stretches well into its 15th year—and appears certain to extend into the next presidency. While many argue that the Afghanistan intervention is not, in reality, the longest war in U.S. history, it is widely recognized as the most protracted according to the official record.

What's more, the Bilateral Security Agreement signed in 2014 by the U.S. and Afghanistan locks in another decade of heavy American involvement in the country, including the training, funding, and arming of the Afghan military. The pact also secures immunity for U.S. service members under Afghan law—a highly controversial measure in a country that has suffered civilian massacres by U.S. troops.

The U.S. is planning a military role long into Afghanistan's future despite indications that its long-term intervention and occupation so far has worsened conflict and violence, with the Taliban now showing signs of increased strength.

Meanwhile, Afghan civilians continue to pay the greatest price. In the first half of 2015 alone, United Nations agencies documented 4,921 civilian casualties (1,592 deaths and 3,329 injured).

Imperial Delusions: Ignoring the Lessons of 9/11

Published on Friday, September 9, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Robert Jensen

Ten years ago, critics of America’s mad rush to war were right, but it didn’t matter.

Within hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was clear that political leaders were going to use the attacks to justify war in Central Asia and the Middle East. And within hours, those of us critical of that policy began to offer principled and practical arguments against aggressive war as a response to the crimes.

It didn’t matter because neither the public nor policymakers were interested in principled or practical arguments. People wanted revenge, and the policymakers seized the opportunity to use U.S. military power. Critical thinking became a mark not of conscientious citizenship but of dangerous disloyalty.

We were right, but the wars came.

The destructive capacity of the U.S. military meant quick “victories” that just as quickly proved illusory. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dragged on, it became clearer that the position staked out by early opponents was correct -- the wars not only were illegal (conforming to neither international nor constitutional law) and immoral (fought in ways that guaranteed large-scale civilian casualties and displacement), but a failure on any pragmatic criteria. The U.S. military has killed some of the people who were targeting the United States and destroyed some of their infrastructure and organization, but a decade later we are weaker and our sense of safety more fragile. The ability to dominate militarily proved to be both inadequate and transitory, as predicted.

Ten years later, we are still right and it still doesn’t matter.

There’s a simple reason for this: Empires rarely learn in time, because power tends to dull people’s capacity for critical self-reflection. While ascending to power, empires believe themselves to be invincible. While declining in power, they cling desperately to old myths of remembered glory.

Today the United States is morally bankrupt and spiritually broken. The problem is not that we have strayed from our founding principles, but that we are still operating on those principles -- delusional notions about manifest destiny, American exceptionalism, the right to take more than our share of the world’s resources by whatever means necessary. As the United States grew in wealth and power, bounty for the chosen came at the cost of misery for the many.

After World War II, as the United States became the dominant power not just in the Americas but on the world stage, the principles didn’t change. U.S. foreign policy sought to deepen and extend U.S. power around the world, especially in the energy-rich and strategically crucial Middle East; always with an eye on derailing any Third World societies’ attempts to pursue a course of independent development outside the U.S. sphere; and containing the possibility of challenges to U.S. dominance from other powerful states.

Does that summary sound like radical hysteria? Recall this statement from President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 State of the Union address: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Democrats and Republicans, before and after, followed the same policy.

The George W. Bush administration offered a particularly intense ideological fanaticism, but the course charted by the Obama administration is much the same. Consider this 2006 statement by Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense in both administrations: “I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world. We have been here for a long time. We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries.”

If the new boss sounds a lot like the old boss, it’s because the problem isn’t just bad leaders but a bad system. That’s why a critique of today’s wars sounds a lot like critiques of wars past. Here’s Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assessment of the imperial war of his time: “[N]o one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”

Will our autopsy report read “global war on terror”?

That sounds harsh, and it’s tempting to argue that we should refrain from political debate on the 9/11 anniversary to honor those who died and to respect those who lost loved ones. I would be willing to do that if the cheerleaders for the U.S. empire would refrain from using the day to justify the wars of aggression that followed 9/11. But given the events of the past decade, there is no way to take the politics out of the anniversary.

We should take time on 9/11 to remember the nearly 3,000 victims who died that day, but as responsible citizens, we also should face a harsh reality: While the terrorism of fanatical individuals and groups is a serious threat, much greater damage has been done by our nation-state caught up in its own fanatical notions of imperial greatness.

That’s why I feel no satisfaction in being part of the anti-war/anti-empire movement. Being right means nothing if we failed to create a more just foreign policy conducted by a more humble nation.

Ten years later, I feel the same thing that I felt on 9/11 -- an indescribable grief over the senseless death of that day and of days to come.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center . His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity; and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). He can be reached atrjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online here

Obama: Reversing Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine'

Obama: Reversing Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine'

37th President Reduced America's Presence In Asia; The 44th Is Bringing It Back

Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Sunday, 29 November 2009 22:41

GUAM - Wrapping up his tour of Asia with a stopover on the American Territory of Guam in the summer of 1969, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced at an island news conference the makings of a force-reduction policy that would become known alternately as the 'Nixon Doctrine' or 'Guam Doctrine'.

Uncle Sam Does A 180

Fast forward four decades and President Obama's recent overtures to East Asia seem to be a reversal of the United States' longstanding 'Guam Doctrine' – launched by the 37th President on his momentous Territorial stop 40 years ago. Nixon then set the stage for East Asian allies to defend themselves with secondary augmentation, rather than frontline 'primary' trooping, from the U.S.

Didn't Know What We Were Getting Into

It was a different era. The War in Vietnam was increasingly unpopular at home as the American body count piled high. And the 'communist containment' strategy fought by Americans on North Vietnamese terms was looking more and more unwinnable in a booby-trapped realm of terra incognita.

Furthermore, by then America had been embroiled in Asian wars for nearly 30 years -- from the Second World War's Pacific Theater in the '40s to Korea in the '50s to Indochina in the '60s.

Older, Wiser, No Worse For The Wear

But after a generation of active military engagement in the Middle East, 40 years of technological advancement, and years of gradual defense reduction in the Far East, America is reemerging better equipped and more remarkably allied as Protector of the Pacific.

It all comes together (1) at a time when the Air Force in particular and Department of Defense in general are enjoying high public approval ratings in the U.S. and Guam; (2) at a time when the Navy is aggressively pursuing an agenda of carbon reduction; (3) at a time when DOD is increasingly committed to job satisfaction; and (4) at a time when the Pentagon is demonstrating that its commitment to humanitarian assistance trains soldiers while dissolving negative attitudes about the U.S. military worldwide.

Guam At The Cusp

As Obama renews security commitments to the region, buttressed by his whirlwind East Asia tour earlier this month and a state dinner for India's prime minister at the White House last week, US-Guam's military-buildup symbolizes America's growing resident power in the Pacific.

Although invited more than once to visit Guam on his return trip from Asia, Obama didn't have time for his own Presidential stopover to the Territory this go-around. But as the buildup takes hold and Guam's stock rises on the global stage, an Obama visit remains foreseeable, if not imminent.

Perhaps by the time he does visit, an Obama Doctrine will be firm in hand. One that is presaged by diplomacy; driven by active engagement; supported by a strong defensive posture; and prioritized by peace. And instead of announcing a withdrawal from East Asia, he'll instead be celebrating a new era of economic prosperity protecting mutual interests and deterring common foes.

Guam Senator Seeks Apology from Japan

Guam senator seeks apology from Japan
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, June 5, 2009

Now that Japan has officially apologized for atrocities during the Bataan Death March in the Philippines during World War II, Guam wants an apology, too.

On Saturday, Japan’s ambassador to the United States, Ichiro Fujisaki, attended the 64th annual meeting of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and formally apologized for the atrocities committed on the prisoners of war who were forced to walk 65 miles after the Philippines fell to the Japanese.

It is estimated that 11,000 prisoners died during the brutal trek to prisoner of war camps.

Guam Sen. Frank Blas Jr. says a similar apology to the people of Guam would help grease the skids for passage in the U.S. Senate of a bill that would allocate $126 million to the survivors of the Japanese occupation and their families.

"An apology would help, but it’s more important to compensate the victims," Blas said during a telephone interview Wednesday.

The Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in February and is now before the Senate, which has voted against it in the past. It recognizes the suffering Guamanians endured during the occupation by the Imperial Japanese Army "by being subjected to death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment."

"I firmly believe an official apology from Japan would greatly assist in our effort to have this bill passed," Blas said, pointing out that Japan also has made formal apologies for atrocities committed against the people of China and Korea during the war.

"Almost everyone who has family members who lived on Guam during the war has tales of horror perpetrated by the Japanese soldiers," Blas said. "My mother-in-law was brutally raped, her husband was beheaded, my grandmother was subjected to torture, starvation and flogging."

Seisuke Shimizu, Japan’s deputy consul general on Guam, told Stars and Stripes on Wednesday that Japanese officials "have repeatedly expressed their heartfelt apologies to the people who suffered during the war."

"The apologies were directed to all the victims, not just the people of Guam," he said.

He said he was not aware of any move by the Japanese government to issue such a formal apology to the people of Guam.

After World War II, the U.S. and its allies waived all wartime reparation claims against Japan in a peace treaty signed in 1951. That’s why Blas is looking toward Congress to pass the reparations bill.

At the time, Japan was struggling to rebuild and it was believed payment of reparations would be impossible, Blas said.

That left a traumatized community, said Patricia Cruz, a Guam psychologist who treats occupation victims for post-traumatic stress disorder.

"A formal apology could help heal some of the wounds," she said in a telephone interview Wednesday from Guam. "By not requiring Japan to make reparations — and Japan not apologizing — it robbed us of the process of healing, atonement and acknowledgment.

"It’s as if nothing happened," she said. "The horror of the occupation — where people could be beaten and killed for not bowing correctly — is something not many people outside of Guam know about."

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63102

Rand Study Suggests US Loses War with China

Rand Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China
By wendell minnick
Defense News
Published: 16 Oct 11:45 EDT (15:45 GMT)

TAIPEI - A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas."

According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

The report states that 34 missiles with submunition warheads could cover all parking ramps at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa.

An "attack like this could damage, destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based at Kadena," it says.

In contrast, many Chinese air bases are harder than Kadena, with some "super-hard underground hangers."

To make matters worse, Kadena is the only U.S. air base within 500 nautical miles of the Taiwan Strait, whereas China has 27.

U.S. air bases in South Korea are more than 750 miles distant, and those in Japan are more than 885 miles away. Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, is 1,500 miles away. The result is that sortie rates will be low, with a "huge tanker demand."

The authors suggest China's CETC Y-27 radar, which is similar to Russia's Nebo SVU VHF Digital AESA, could counter U.S. stealth fighter technology. China is likely to outfit its fighters with improved radars and by "2020 even very stealthy targets likely [would be] detectable by Flanker radars at 25+ nm." China is also likely to procure the new Su-35BM fighter by 2020, which will challenge the F-35 and possibly the F-22.

The authors also question the reliability of U.S. beyond-visual-range weapons, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. U.S. fighters have recorded only 10 AIM-120 kills, none against targets equipped with the kinds of countermeasures carried by Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s. Of the 10, six were beyond-visual-range kills, and it required 13 missiles to get them.

If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the authors say it is difficult to "predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game."

Overall, the authors say, "China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena - about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen. Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1" - a differential that is "extremely difficult to achieve" against a like power.

If beyond-visual-range missiles work, stealth technology is not countered and air bases are not destroyed, U.S. forces have a chance, but "history suggests there is a limit of about 3:1 where quality can no longer compensate for superior enemy numbers."

A 24-aircraft Su-27/30 regiment can carry around 300 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), whereas 24 F-22s can carry only 192 AAMs and 24 F-35s only 96 AAMs.

Though current numbers assume the F-22 could shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when "outnumbered 12:1 without loss," these numbers do not take into account a less-than-perfect U.S. beyond-visual-range performance, partial or complete destruction of U.S. air bases and aircraft carriers, possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025, and the possible use of Chinese "robo-fighters" to deplete U.S. "fighters' missile loadout prior to mass attack."

The authors write that Chinese counter stealth, anti-access, countermissile technologies are proliferating and the U.S. military needs "a plan that accounts for this."

High Emotions at Congressional Townhall Meeting

Town hall meeting featured high emotions
by Sabrina Salas Matanane, KUAM News
Friday, August 17, 2007

Thursday night's town hall meeting on the proposed military expansion for Guam, hosted by congressional representative Madeleine Bordallo, lasted much longer than the two hours than it was scheduled for. Bordallo was joined by U.S. Virgin Islands delegate Donna Christensen and Congressman Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa. All three congressional delegates are members of the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, which Christensen chairs.

For several hours the members heard testimony from various sectors of the community, many of whom waited several hours just to be able to have a seat at the table.

Trying to summarize years of what they perceived as inequality in five minutes angered many of those who showed up to testify. The effort was difficult for many island residents who testified before the congressional panel on the Department of Defense's proposed military expansion for Guam. Chamorro language teacher Linda Edwards tried to summarize what life was like living with the military in her backyard, saying, "When I was a young kid growing up in Yigo I recall then we had certain days of the week they would go out and spray these chemicals in there and we were told to go in the house. When they started to do that, I'll never forget that. And then after all these years I think we were still exposed to his in our soil, plants and water. What was that chemical and what contaminants did it contain? My mother had Parkinson's Disease and her sister and all her cousins and all died fro Parkinson's, and to take care of an invalid such as that is very hard, especially being the only girl."

Linda's story was just one of many from those who showed up to Thursday night's town hall meeting on the proposed military expansion. Others who served on the front line defending America like Phil Cruz, a retired Army man. He says he didn't understand why a hearing held specifically for the people had to wait at the end of the line in order to testify. "If you were good enough you would have said hear the people fist and I'll come after you."

Cruz waited like others to give their testimony. His opportunity came at around 11pm last night. "Be careful, Guam. I am not approving and disapproving this until all info comes out. I just want to say I don't know what you're intentions are and by the way you elected officials when you go negotiate turn this table around you should be up there and let the military ask you the questions they are the visitors we live here," he warned.

Emotional testimony also came from David Sablan who believes the island can not accommodate such an influx. "Our island is too small, so tiny, that it's only a dot on the map and this is the largest military buildup in the history of the United States, and you're going to bring it to the littlest place? Can we make some sense there are we thinking or what? Hello?!?!?"

Patrea Sablan said she believes the military buildup is really a cover for a prelude to war. "No more smoke screening say it's a war buildup say it as it really is and how long will it before you can tell us because you know we all adults here on Guam."

Further, Pauline Pangelinan made reference to local media reports. On the recent announcement and unilateral decision by U.S. Navy officials on Guam about its plans to double the amount of water it charges the Guam Waterworks Authority for water from Fena. "This is a classic example of the callous disregard the military has for the people of Guam," she charged.

Russians "Buzz" Guam

Russia boasts buzzing U.S. base in Cold War-style assertiveness
Andrew Borowiec
Washington Times
August 10, 2007



GENEVA —Russian long-range bombers buzzed a U.S. naval base at Guam, Russian military officials said yesterday, the first such sortie since the Cold War and just the latest example of Moscow's growing assertiveness in reclaiming some of the prerogatives of its Soviet superpower days.

Russian Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov boasted in a Moscow press conference that the pilots of the two TU-95 turboprop bombers flew close enough to the U.S. jets that scrambled to track them Wednesday that the Russian pilots were able to "exchange smiles" with their American counterparts.

The unannounced, 13-hour flight was just the latest in a series of incidents that have given rise to fears across Europe that Russia's post-communist opening to the world is increasingly giving way to a more inward-looking, nationalist fervor under President Vladimir Putin.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler confirmed the flight of the two Russian bombers, but said they did not come as close to U.S. assets as the Russians suggested.

"We were prepared to intercept the planes, but they never came close enough to a U.S. ship or to the island of Guam to warrant an air-to-air intercept," he said.

Russia under Mr. Putin rejects Western criticisms of its economy and political freedoms and shows a growing official appreciation in government, the press and education for the achievements of the communist era, according to Western analysts.

Recent Russian films reaching Western Europe portray Josef Stalin not as a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians, but as a heroic leader who defeated Nazi Germany.

"In Russia today, any call to restore former Cold War greatness and stature is applauded," according to Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian military analyst for the Jamestown Foundation, though Mr. Felgenhauer questions whether the Kremlin has the resources and will to match Mr. Putin's grandiose rhetoric.

Russian government officials have been conspicuously absent from events this year marking the 70th anniversary of Stalin's Great Purge of 1937, when millions of citizens were killed or shipped off to labor camps.

Mr. Putin, in remarks earlier this summer, did not defend the Stalin purges, but said Russians today should not wallow in shame or guilt because "in other countries even worse things happened" — including the U.S. atomic bomb strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Liberal opposition leader Grigory Yavlinsky said at a memorial ceremony south of Moscow on Wednesday that the Putin government was "almost completely ignoring" the Great Purge anniversary, "one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that Russian authorities sympathize with Stalin's regime," according to the Associated Press.

Disclosures of Stalinist purges and massacres are being discouraged, analysts say, and school textbooks are being rewritten to include the "positive sides" of the communist era.

The back-to-the-Cold-War sentiment can be seen particularly in Russian military policy, with the Guam mission part of a pattern of events that call to mind the Soviet Cold War era.

Russian explorers who planted a flag on the North Pole seabed to strengthen Moscow's territorial claims received a heroes' welcome earlier this week in the Russian press, despite angry rejections of the Russian claim by the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway.

Last week, Russia's navy chief, Adm. Vladimir Masorin, sounded another echo of the Soviet era when he said that Russia "must restore a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea" — a presence Moscow has not had since the Cold War.

The Russian reassertiveness is being felt even in the arts.

According to Russian movie producer Nikita Dostal, plans for films depicting Soviet setbacks or events such as Stalin's massive ethnic resettlements or the 1937 purges are "simply set aside."

In some recent films, Stalin is not portrayed as the short man with a pock-marked face he was, but as a dignified, handsome leader who inspired victory.

The resurgence of nationalism reflects the popular feeling that the United States and the West exploited Russia's weakness after the Soviet collapse and the fact that the Kremlin's coffers are now bulging because of energy revenue, according to Ariel Cohen, a Russia specialist at the Heritage Foundation.

"Flush with cash, Russia today is constantly looking for avenues to boost its geopolitical muscle," he said. "That has translated into some very ambitious strategic programs."

• David R. Sands contributed to this article from Washington.