July 27, 2011

War Resisters Inject Truth Into Military Recruitment

War Resisters Inject Truth Into Military Recruitment

http://www.truth-out.org/war-resisters-inject-truth-military-recruitment/1311181786

Wednesday 20 July 2011
by: Eleanor J. Bader

The setting changes but the scene does not: Men and women in crisply
pressed uniforms enter public high schools across the country and
cajole the teenagers they meet into signing on the dotted line to
serve Uncle Sam.

Thanks to Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002,
recruiters from the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and
Navy have the same access to secondary school students as college
recruiters or potential employers. This, in concert with mandatory
Selective Service registration for all 18-year-old males and the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery [ASVAB] exam that is given
to nearly three-quarters of a million high school juniors and seniors
each year, has prompted many domestic peace activists to organize
opposition to the militarization of youth. They advocate
"truth-in-recruiting," arguing that lofty promises made at the time
of enlistment -- extensive travel, scholarships or an easy route to
U.S. citizenship -- often fail to materialize once service begins.

What's more, these peace activists say that they are paying
particular attention to female recruits, warning them of potential
pitfalls: The risks associated with wartime service even in
"non-combat" positions, as well as the too-common experience of
sexual harassment and assault by unit supervisors and peers.

Little-Known Facts

The War Resisters League, an 88-year-old national group with more
than 25 chapters across the U.S., targets students and, when
possible, tables at schools to provide little-known facts about the
military: One in four soldiers gets a less than honorable discharge,
making them ineligible for college money; nearly one-third of females
seeking health care from the Veteran's Administration report
experiencing a rape or attempted rape while conscripted.

"Up until the economic recession began, the military had a hard time
finding recruits," says Kimber Heinz, National Organizing Director of
the War Resisters League. "But now the military is not only meeting
its quota, it's a de facto jobs program and you have recruiters
preying on students who can no longer afford college or find work."

One of its brochures, Know Before You Go, offers this information for
those thinking of signing up: "The military contract states, 'Laws
and regulations that govern military personnel may change without
notice. Such changes may affect pay, benefits, and responsibilities
as a member of the Armed Forces regardless of the provisions of the
enlistment document.'" In other words, beware: Even though a recruit
has signed a contract, the terms can be modified at the military's discretion.

"We let people know that if we're at war a recruit can be stop-lossed
and might end up on multiple tours," Heinz continues. "The recruit
has no control over this. We always remind people that the military
is the only job where if the worker quits, he or she goes to jail."
The organization also provides data on what it means to be a
conscientious objector and outlines the penalties for failing to
register for Selective Service.

Other truth-in-recruiting messages are also hammered. For one,
despite promises to the contrary, Heinz reports that skills learned
in the military are rarely transferable to the civilian world. "We
make it clear that many, many people come out of the military
traumatized or disabled," Heinz continues. "We ask people to think
about what it means to be an occupier of someone else's land and we
try to get people to consider whether they'll be able to live with
killing someone or seeing someone killed."

It's a heavy message, and it is repeated by more than 75 local
organizations throughout the 50 states.

Joanne Sheehan is an adult advisor to YouthPeace, a student-led
social justice group at the Norwich Free Academy, a public, regional
high school in eastern Connecticut. Since 1998 YouthPeace has raised
issues including military recruitment and Islamophobia with the student body.

Students Can Opt-Out

For the past seven years, members have also coordinated an annual
opt-out campaign to inform students that the law allows them to
request that their contact information be withheld from recruiters.
"Schools typically send student names, addresses, and phone numbers
to the military in October, so we have about a month once school
starts to publicize the opt-out provision," Sheehan says. "A few
years ago we pushed the superintendent to put information about
opting-out in the first paragraph of a letter that is sent to parents
at the beginning of the year. We want to be sure they understand that
their children don't need to provide data to recruiters, that it's
something they can opt-out of."

In some schools recruiters have free rein in the hallways

The peace groups also broach a broader anti-militarist agenda, even
in places like San Diego with a heavy military presence and 110,000
military employees. There, the school board recently voted to ban
students enrolled in the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
[J-ROTC] from taking in-school marksmanship classes. "Fifteen of the
18 high schools in San Diego have ROTC. One of them, Lincoln, was
temporarily closed for rehabbing and when we saw the plan for the
renovation, we saw that it included a firing range. We brought this
to the community's attention and formed the Education Not Arms
Coalition," says Rick Jahnkow, coordinator of Youth and Non-Military
Opportunities, known as Project YANO.

The consensus, Jahnkow says, was to focus on ending gun classes
rather than campaigning against ROTC more generally because group
participants felt an anti-ROTC campaign would fail. Education Not
Arms pointed to the pervasive gun violence already plaguing the
Lincoln area and denounced planned cutbacks in Advanced Placement
classes needed by college-bound pupils. The efforts paid off: The
school board ended all in-school gun training.

Boosted by this victory, Project YANO and Education Not Arms next
turned their attention to school-based recruiters. In late 2010 San
Diego activists succeeded in restricting recruiters to two school
visits per year, similar to policies in New York City, Chicago,
Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland. As a result,
recruiters must schedule specific times to meet with potential
conscripts and cannot disrupt "normal school activities."

"In some schools the recruiters eat lunch with the kids, hang out and
chill in the parking lot, and have free rein in the hallways," says
Pat Elder of Maryland's PeaceAction Montgomery. "In most places, what
they get to do depends on the principal. I've seen schools where male
recruiters are always around, playing one-on-one basketball with kids
who don't have fathers."

This scenario led New York City's Youth Activists-Youth Allies
Network to monitor recruiters to ensure that they obey the
regulations that circumscribe their access to individual students.

YA-YA Network staff -- all but one of whom are between 15 and 19 --
also lead workshops about U.S. foreign policy and the costs of war
and militarism. "Several years ago I asked participants what their
peers thought about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says YA-YA
advisor Amy Wagner. "The wars were not very present for them. I
talked about how during the Vietnam War when you turned on your TV
you always heard the number of dead soldiers. They thought about this
and concluded that facts were being hidden from them on purpose. They
did a lot of research and the result was a short video now up on
YouTube, called The War Will Not Be Televised.

Terms can be modified at the military's discretion

The YA-YA Network is presently focused on making sure that schools
abide by regulations that mandate that a school staff person be
appointed to provide guidance on military recruitment in each high
school. "We first want to investigate and see if this is being done,"
Wagner says. "If not, why not. If it is, we want to know where these
people are getting their info and who's training them. We want to
give students the information they are entitled to so that they fully
understand their range of options."

Indeed, it is this idea of options that propels organizing against
militarism. Take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test,
a four-hour recruiting tool used in nearly 12,000 high schools
nationwide. To date, Maryland is the only state to require schools to
select a provision that stops student scores from being sent directly
to recruiters.

"Look, if you take even moderate Democrats and sit them down and ask
them who they think should give student data to the military -- mom
and dad or the Pentagon – they'll all support parental decision
making," says Pat Elder of PeaceAction Montgomery.

They want students to understand that becoming a soldier is not
necessarily the best way to show personal strength or valor. "A lot
of people want to be tough and powerful, so they enlist," says the
War Resisters League's Kimber Heinz. "They ultimately learn that
enlisting is not a good way to test how strong they are."
--

Eleanor J. Bader

Eleanor J. Bader is a freelance writer, teacher and feminist activist
from Brooklyn, New York. She writes for The Brooklyn Rail,
ontheissuesmagazine.com, RHrealitycheck.org and other progressive
blogs and publications.

.

Don't Exaggerate the Death of the Antiwar Movement

Don't Exaggerate the Death of the Antiwar Movement

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/21-2

by Medea Benjamin
Published on Thursday, July 21, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

In an article in Salon.com, Todd Gitlin writes a convincing obituary
for an antiwar movement killed by a thousand blows: crushed by Bush's
pigheadedness, dumped in the media's black hole, rendered invisible
by a volunteer army and drones, overshadowed by more urgent financial
crises, chastened by the "unpleasantness" of adversaries from Taliban
to al-Qaida to Gadhafi. He leaves out some other daggers to the heart
of the movement: grass-roots election campaigns that lured away
millions of activists; betrayals by the president and groups like
MoveOn who used and abused the antiwar sentiment; craven
congressional reps who violate the will of their constituents by
continuing to fund war; powerful lobbyists for the war industry who
wield enormous power in Washington; and the utter exhaustion that
sets in after 10 years of standing up to the largest military complex
the world has ever seen.

Despite all these challenges, however, the reports of the death of
the antiwar movement are greatly exaggerated. Sure, there are no
longer millions marching in the streets -- but there aren't millions
marching in American streets for any cause these days. Lacking the
staying power of Tahrir Square, our weekend rallies failed to effect
policy and left people disillusioned -- and bored. That's why
creative and media-savvy activism 2.0 tactics -- like flash mobs,
Twitter culture jams and YouTube videos -- have emerged that engage
with the younger generation.

And that's why the movement has transformed as well. Rather than
marching in circles and chanting slogans to ourselves, we're reaching
deep into our communities to make connections between the economic
crises our neighborhoods face and the wars that rob us of scarce resources.

Take a look at the recent Bring Our War Dollars Home campaign spurred
by CODEPINK, a campaign that gave a new burst of energy to the
movement. We encouraged activists around the country to build local
coalitions to push the passage of a resolution to stop funding wars
and invest those monies into rebuilding America. From big cities like
Los Angeles and Baltimore to towns like Ithaca, N.Y., and Worcester,
Mass., coalitions of peace, labor, environmental, feminist and
religious groups wrote letters, made calls, visited and otherwise
cajoled their city officials. After dozens of victories, in June we
took the resolution to the national U.S. Conference of Mayors,
representing 1,200 American cities. Despite some hackneyed efforts to
brand the resolution as being "against the troops," it passed
overwhelmingly and has become a useful tool against congressional
members who continue to vote more money for war.

While many exasperated activists have given up on lobbying Congress,
some antiwar groups like PeaceAction and Progressive Democrats of
America continue to plug away, with a degree of success. In May, for
example, they pushed for the McGovern-Jones amendment to accelerate
the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. While the amendment failed
215-204, the 178 Democrats and 26 Republicans voting yes made this
the closest that any vote has come to repudiating our nation's
Afghanistan strategy in 10 years.

Another sign of life in the peace movement is the massive outcry it
generated over the inhumane treatment of alleged WikiLeaks
whistle-blower Bradley Manning. The uproar forced the U.S. military
to improve Manning's pre-trial conditions, moving him from the harsh
military brig in Quantico, Va., to more humane facilities in
Leavenworth, Kan. Activists also raised funds, in record time, for
Manning's legal fees and orchestrated creative visibility campaigns,
from Bradley contingents in increasingly commercialized, "apolitical"
gay pride parades to a skit performed at a high-dollar San Francisco
fundraiser with President Obama.

Interfaith, anti-nuke, antiwar activists across the country are
working together to oppose the use of the unmanned drones responsible
for the civilian deaths in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia,
Afghanistan and Iraq. On Oct. 9, several hundred Catholic Workers,
CODEPINK members and friends are expected to protest at Creech Air
Force Base, home of the deadly Reaper drones.

After witnessing Israel's brutal assault of Gaza in 2008, many peace
activists also joined the movement for human right and justice in
Israel and Palestine, engaging in campaigns to boycott and divest
from the occupation, organizing boats and caravans to break through
the crippling blockade of Gaza, providing support to non-violent
actions against home demolitions and the "apartheid wall" in the West
Bank, and challenging the stranglehold that pro-Israel lobbies have
on U.S. policy.

Finally, we have been busy trying to insert the anti-war message in
the broader movements for social and economic justice. While our
message is sometimes rebuffed or marginalized in activities closely
linked to the Democratic Party, at every major rally for jobs, civil
rights or corporate responsibility, you'll find anti-war activists.


As Todd Gitlin knows well, movements ebb and flow. We are certainly
not at our zenith, but we are still breathing. The Arab Spring has
given us new inspiration, and as the 10th anniversary of the
senseless war in Afghanistan approaches in October, you can expect to
see the antiwar movement not just breathing, but kicking into high
gear with an open-ended mobilization in D.C. starting on Oct. 7 and
artistic actions throughout the country under the banner of 10 Years
and Counting. We invite Todd and others who have been writing about
our demise to come join us.

Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global
Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace
(www.codepinkalert.org). She is author of Don't Be Afraid Gringo: A
Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart.

.

July 23, 2011

Thank You for Your Service=?UTF-8?B?Pw==?=



Thank You for Your Service?

by Laurence M. Vance, lewrockwell.com
July 19th 2011

It is without question that Americans are in love with the military. Even worse, though, is that their love is unqualified, unconditional, unrelenting, and unending.

I have seen signs praising the troops in front of all manner of businesses, including self-storage units, bike shops, and dog grooming.

Many businesses offer discounts to military personnel not available to doctors, nurses, and others who save lives instead of destroy them.

Special preference is usually given to veterans seeking employment, and not just for government jobs.

Many churches not only recognize veterans and active-duty military on the Sunday before holidays, they have special military appreciation days as well.

Even many of those who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and do not support foreign wars hold the military in high esteem.

All of these things are true no matter which country the military bombs, invades, or occupies. They are true no matter why the military does these things. They are true no matter what happens while the military does these things. They are true no matter which political party is in power.

The love affair that Americans have with the military – the reverence, the idolatry, the adoration, yea, the worship – was never on display like it was at the post office the other day.

While at the counter shipping some packages, a U.S. soldier, clearly of Vietnamese origin in name and appearance, dressed in his fatigues, was shipping something at the counter next to me. The postal clerk was beaming when he told the soldier how his daughter had been an MP in Iraq. Three times in as many minutes I heard the clerk tell the soldier – with a gleam in his eye and a solemn look on his face – "Thank you for your service." The clerk even shook the soldier’s hand before he left.

I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing, and I am no stranger to accounts of military fetishes in action.

Aside from me not thanking that soldier for his service – verbally or otherwise – I immediately thought of four things.

One, what service did this soldier actually render to the United States? If merely drawing a paycheck from the government is rendering service, then we ought to thank every government bureaucrat for his service, including TSA goons. Did this soldier actually do anything to defend the United States, secure its borders, guard its shores, patrol its coasts, or enforce a no-fly zone over U.S. skies? How can someone blindly say "thank you for your service" when he doesn’t know what service was rendered?

Two, is there anything that U.S. soldiers could do to bring the military into disfavor? I can’t think of anything. Atrocities are dismissed as collateral damage in a moment of passion in the heat of battle by just a few bad apples. Unjust wars, we are told, are solely the fault of politicians not the soldiers that do the actual fighting. Paul Tibbets and his crew are seen as heroes for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Before he died, Tibbets even said that he had no second thoughts and would do it again. I suspect that if the United States dropped an atomic bomb tomorrow on Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing everyone and everything, and declaring the war on terror over and won, a majority of Americans would applaud the Air Force crew that dropped the bomb and give them a ticker-tape parade.

Three, why is it that Americans only thank American military personnel for their service? Shouldn’t foreign military personnel be thanked for service to their country? What American military worshippers really believe is that foreign military personnel should only be thanked for service to their government when their government acts in the interests of the United States. Foreign soldiers are looked upon as heroic if they refuse to obey a military order to shoot or kill at the behest of their government as long as such an order is seen as not in the interests of the United States. U.S. soldiers, however, are always expected to obey orders, even if it means going to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Libya under false pretenses.

And four, what is a Vietnamese man – who most certainly has relatives, or friends or neighbors of relatives, that were killed or injured by U.S. bombs and bullets during the Vietnam War – doing joining the U.S. military where he can be sent to shoot and bomb foreigners like the U.S. military did to his people?

And aside from these four things, I’m afraid I must also say: Sorry, soldiers, I don’t thank you for your service.

I don’t thank you for your service in fighting foreign wars.I don’t thank you for your service in fighting without a congressional declaration of war.I don’t thank you for your service in bombing and destroying Iraq and Afghanistan.I don’t thank you for your service in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.I don’t thank you for your service in expanding the war on terror to Pakistan and Yemen.I don’t thank you for your service in occupying over 150 countries around the world.I don’t thank you for your service in garrisoning the planet with over 1,000 military bases.I don’t thank you for your service in defending our freedoms when you do nothing of the kind.I don’t thank you for your service as part of the president’s personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Thank you for your service? I don’t think so.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn't, and Rethinking the Good War. His latest book is The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



Original Page: http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance250.html

Shared from Read It Later

“Our” Troops vs. Our Eco-System



“Our” Troops vs. Our Eco-System

by mickeyz, fairsharecommonheritage.org
July 18th 2011

Mickey Z.

Since I’ve already told you about the importance of repetition, let me recite some numbers I’ve shouted out a few hundred times or so:

80% of the world’s forests are gone90% of the large fish in the ocean are gone80% of the planet’s rivers can no longer sustain sustain life200,000 acres of rain forest are destroyed each day200 animal and plant species go extinct every 24 hours

If these statistics make you (at least) squirm, you might be interested to know something I’ve also repeated till I’m hoarse: The US Department of Defense (DoD)—the interventionist institution formerly known as the War Department—is the biggest polluter on Planet Earth, for example, releasing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined.

To add insult to injury, the world’s worst polluter—the entity wrecking havoc upon the landbase that makes all life possible—also gobbles up 54% of US taxpayer dollars. But it takes more than obscene amounts of money to keep this criminal enterprise afloat. It also takes more than the volunteers willing to be paid to wage illegal, immoral, and eco-system destroying wars. The DoD will be able to maintain its crime spree as long as most of us continue to unconditionally support (sic) those troops.

As long as the yellow ribbons fly, our shared heritage/future is doomed.

For some, the phrase “support our troops” is merely a euphemism for: support the policies that put the troops there in the first place. For others—sadly, including many activists—the mantra is a safe way to avoid taking an unqualified, uncompromising stand against this war (and all war). Many who identify themselves as “anti-war” still vigorously defend the troops…no questions asked.

The excuse-making typically falls into two broad categories. The first being: “Our troops are just following orders.”

If you activate the google function on your interwebs machines, you’ll easily find many reasons why this concept has no legal basis. For example, Principle IV of Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

(Besides this, I hope I don’t have to explain that “only following orders” also has no moral footing.)

The second common excuse: “It’s a poverty draft. The poor have to enlist because they any economic options.” America is certainly an unjust economic society and this would be a compelling argument…if it were true. However, studies found that wartime recruits since 1999 are “on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school, and more rural than their civilian peers.” It seems youths “from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers” while “enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.”

Did some of the soldiers enlist primarily for economic reasons? Sure. Did others sign up for a chance to shoot some “ragheads”? Probably. After factoring out these two relatively small groups and rejecting the illegal, immoral, and reactionary “only following orders” defense, I ask this of anti-war, pro-green activists: Exactly how are the men and women who willingly signed up to be paid to wage war immune from any and all scrutiny and/or blame?

They are also not immune from profound irony.

While most American citizens—even if they’re anti-war—are manipulated, harassed, coerced, and guilted into hanging yellow ribbons, from Shays Rebellion in 1787 to Coxey’s Army to the Bonus Army to the Gulf War Syndrome, generation after generation of US military personnel has suffered a distinct lack of support from their own government (and the corporations that own it). “Our troops” are just as controlled and exploited as the US citizens that worship them.

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of suicides among people serving in the armed forces has jumped more than 25% since 2005. In 2010 alone, 454 service members killed themselves in combat zones.

Life doesn’t get easier for those who make it home. About one-third of the adult homeless population is veterans and, according to the VA, is 95% male.

The majority of homeless vets are…

singlecome from urban areassuffer from mental illness, alcohol and/or substance abuse, or co-occurring disorders

People of all ethnicities may sign up to defend (sic) the land of the free (sic) but 56% of all homeless vets are African American or Hispanic (despite only accounting for 12.8 percent and 15.4 percent of the US population respectively).

More VA stats:

107,000 veterans are homeless on any given nightOver the course of a year, approximately twice that many experience homelessnessOnly 8% of the general population can claim veteran status, but nearly 20% of the homeless population is made up of veterans

Another 1.5 million veterans, says the VA, are considered at risk of homelessness due to “poverty and lack of support networks.”

Yes, you read that correctly: “lack of support networks.”

Yellow ribbons, flag-waving, repressive laws, peer pressure, and loud chants of “USA” don’t qualify as support. Rather, this is self-policed obedience manipulated by a corporate-dominated state. As long as so many of us conform, our tax dollars will be stolen to fund endless foreign wars and interventions launched by the most egregious polluter on Planet Earth…and the lost souls volunteering for this global terror campaign will learn too late that no one gives a shit about them.

Support? Our eco-system needs it most. What our citizens could use is some assistance rediscovering the capacities of critical and independent thought.

One more thing: Let’s stop with the “our troops” charade. You and I may foot the bill, but “we” have no say in how that money is spent. If those truly were “my” men and women, I’d bring them right home and put them to work doing something useful…like turning the Long Island Expressway into the world’s longest organic farm.

Mickey Z. is the author of 11 books, most recently the novel Darker Shade of Green. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, he can be found on an obscure website called Facebook.



Original Page: http://www.fairsharecommonheritage.org/2011/07/18/our-troops-vs-our-eco-system/

Shared from Read It Later

July 17, 2011

Remote control murder: Afghan drones operated from Nevada and Virginia



Remote control murder: Afghan drones operated from Nevada and Virginia

by Julie Hyl, wsws.org
July 15th 2011

Last week’s admission that Britain’s Royal Air Force killed four civilians and injured two others in Afghanistan has highlighted the growing resort to remote-controlled “drones” as weapons of choice by the major powers.

The Guardian reported that the incident took place on March 25 when a UK Reaper drone struck two trucks on the ground in the Now Zad district of north Helmand. Supposedly directed at a Taliban commander, an investigation by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed that “civilians were discovered in the vehicles following the airstrike during a battle damage assessment”.

Britain’s military were quick to insist that it was the first instance in which an RAF drone had caused civilian deaths. A Whitehall source told the newspaper, “It was extremely unfortunate that the civilians were killed”.

The article noted grimly, “The families of the civilian victims will be entitled to compensation if they report to a British base and can prove their identity”.

Given that drone attacks are known to incinerate their victims, destroying them beyond recognition, this statement is particularly cynical.

The usual description of drones as “unmanned” is a misnomer. A separate article in the same newspaper explained that the March 25 attack was the responsibility of 39 Squadron, based at the Creech air force base near Las Vegas, Nevada.

Described as an “elite unit formed in some haste during 2007”, the RAF unit works out of three metal “pods” resembling a cockpit, using “Playstation-style” technology to track down and launch murderous, sneak attacks on people several thousand miles away in Afghanistan.

Two RAF pilots, seated side by side and surrounded by a bank of TV screens delivering virtual real-time surveillance, “fly” and fire at targets.

“The aircraft can fire four Hellfire missiles and two 500 pound laser-guided bombs from five miles away; the target would have no idea a Reaper was overhead”, the Guardian reported.

“Once they have been briefed about a mission, the pilots rely on an array of systems to run the aircraft; the decisions they make in Nevada travel by fibre-optic cable to Europe, where they are beamed up to a satellite and then back down to Afghanistan. There is a two second delay”.

Drone use has risen sharply since 2001. The UK government has had three Reaper drones in Afghanistan, and also reportedly rents 450 Hermes drones from Israel on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. It is intended that, by 2030, some 30 percent of the RAF’s capacity will be comprised of drones.

It is the United States, however, that leads in the use of technology targeting people for assassination from thousands of miles away.

US drones are operated by the CIA from close to its headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and by the military from airbases in Texas, Nevada and elsewhere. They can operate 24/7.

Aviation Week July 6 noted, “There is an unofficial but lethal drone war taking place over Pakistan, Yemen and Libya that has expanded the area of operation for US forces beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, with no real acknowledgement from the government that anything extraordinary is happening. The undeclared conflict on these three fronts might be the first Drone War, and warfare has never seen anything like it”.

In Pakistan, an estimated 2,500 people have been killed in US drone attacks since 2004. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that in the week leading up to June 10 this year, more than 50 people had died as a result of such strikes. The attacks “show a return to levels last seen in mid March, prior to Osama bin Laden’s killing”, it said.

The Obama administration has ordered more than 200 such attacks since coming into office. Pakistan reported that US drone attacks had killed at least 42 people on Monday and Tuesday this week in the North and South Waziristan areas, bordering Afghanistan.

In late April, Obama authorized the use of drones in Libya as it escalated its intervention into the civil war with the aim of regime change. At the end of June, the US launched its first drone attack in Somalia, with the aim of assassinating Islamic militants. Several “fighters” were reportedly injured in the attack.

US author and journalist James Bamford said, “Death warrants for targets are signed by mid-level bureaucrats, and soccer moms and dads double as joystick killers. They operate in comfort and safety, half the Earth away from their targets and close enough for many to run home for lunch between kills”.

Bamford said that there are more than 5,000 robotic vehicles and drones deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 50 of which can fly at the same time.

A global scramble for drone technology is underway. A 2011 study by the Teal Group forecast that global spending on “unmanned” aircraft capacity would double to $94 billion by 2021. Over that time, the US intends to double its own drone capacity by 2021—up from 340, currently, to 650. Israel is the second-largest manufacturer in the world, and regularly utilises the technology in its one-sided war against Palestinian militants.

Other countries are increasingly acquiring the technology. China has launched its own development programme, as has India. Pakistan is said to be seeking to obtain armed drones from China.

France and Britain are cooperating to develop a new unmanned system, in a partnership between Dassault and BAE Systems. The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), the pan-European defence corporation, has developed its own drone, the Talarion.

The Aviation Weekly report indicated the ramifications of the increased use of drones. It commented, “The notion that having access to armed, unmanned platforms may make it easier for the order to be given to fly lethal missions, and therefore permit politicians to take nations to war sooner, or without the planning and deliberation that is essential to engaging in conflict, is one that the UK Defence Ministry has considered. The ministry’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre released a report titled ‘The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems’ in March, which states ‘…the recent extensive use of unmanned aircraft over Pakistan and Yemen may already herald a new era. That these activities are exclusively carried out by unmanned aircraft, even though very capable manned aircraft are available, and that the use of ground troops in harm’s way has been avoided, suggests that the use of force is totally a function of an unmanned capability”.

The implications extend not only to overseas dissidents, or others who have become the targets of the major powers “overseas”.

In June, it was reported that the 5,000 MQ-9 Reaper drone will soon start flying training missions over the Adirondacks, northeast New York.

Pilots from the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing, are to fly the Reaper via satellite from bases at Fort Drum and Hancock Field air base in Syracuse. The latter has been the base for drone missions over Afghanistan since December 2009.

The drones will be unarmed and undetectable, it was reported. According to the Watertown Daily Times, “‘It will not be used to spy on residents, because federal law prohibits that use,’ Col. Charles Dorsey, vice commander of fighter wing, told members of the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization…”.

“For training purposes only, the aircraft crews, based out of Hancock Field, will train using random objects, such as structures and vehicles, from afar”.

The US Customs and Border Protection agency currently flies seven MQ-9 drones along southern and northern borders. It intends to regularly fly them over northern New York by 2016.



Original Page: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/dron-j15.shtml

Shared from Read It Later

Afghanistan: 'Deadliest six months' for civilians



Afghanistan: 'Deadliest six months' for civilians

bbc.co.uk | Jul 14th 2011

The first six months of 2011 were the deadliest for civilians in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001, a UN report has found.

The country saw 1,462 civilian deaths in January to June, a 15% increase on the same period last year.

Most of the deaths were caused by roadside bombs and anti-government forces such as the Taliban.

While the total number of people killed by pro-government action fell by 9%, more people died in Nato air strikes.

The report comes days before Nato is due to begin the process of handing over responsibility of some provinces to Afghan security forces.

Complex attacks

"The rising tide of violence and bloodshed in the first half of 2011 brought injury and death to Afghan civilians at levels without recorded precedent in the current armed conflict," the report said.

More than 80% of those deaths have been blamed on anti-government militants including the Taliban, with roadside bombs and IED [improved explosive devices] the single biggest killer.

There has also been an increase in the number of deaths caused by suicide attacks. The reports also warned that while the number of suicide attacks was largely unchanged, the number of casualties they caused caused had gone up 53%.

Such attacks were now "more complex", said the UN, and often involved "multiple bombers in spectacular attacks that kill many Afghan civilians".

Pro-government forces were responsible for 14% of the total number of civilians killed.

Nato air strikes were once again the leading cause of these casualties, leaving 79 Afghans dead in the period in question.

More than half of those deaths have been attributed to the use of Apache ground attack helicopters.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Kabul says that despite claims from Western leaders of progress and improving security in Afghanistan, these figures show increasing violence in the everyday lives of Afghans.



Original Page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14149692

Shared from Read It Later

Brian Willson, peace protester, hand-cycles into Bay Area



Brian Willson, peace protester, hand-cycles into Bay Area

by Kevin Fagan, sfgate.com
July 14th 2011 7:06 PM

By Kevin Fagan

Longtime peace protester Brian Willson has a new autobiography to push -- "Blood on the Tracks" -- and he's taken himself on the road for a book tour -- on three wheels.

Hand-cranked tricycle wheels, that is. Willson is doing his tour by hand-cycling his way from his home in Portland, Ore., to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Willson, 70, lost both legs in 1987 when a munitions train barreled over him during a protest at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. He and other anti-war demonstrators were trying to block the train from delivering bombs headed for Central America when the protest went horribly awry -- the train didn't stop.

Only Willson got run over, and in the years following the accident he got fitted with prosthetic legs so artfully made that he can walk for miles at a time without pain. Bicycling, however, is a bit trickier, since the movements go around in different ways that quickly begin to hurt his leg stumps if he hits any kind of hilly terrain.

Thus the hand-cycle. So far, he's clocked almost 700 miles on his journey, which will have him in San Rafael Friday at 7:30 p.m. at the First Methodist Church, 9 Ross Valley Drive. Sunday, he will be in San Francisco at 12:30 p.m. at the First Unitarian Church, 1187 Franklin St.

Urging peace over war is still a big part of his message, but so is downsizing our lives so that we in America aren't so dependent on oil and machines. Willson lives in a solar-powered house and tries to be an example, as a national icon of the peace movement, by keeping his life simple -- as in hand-cycling rather than driving on this book tour.

Check out our Shaky Hand video for his attitude as he cranks in the lead of this little caravan, as longtime peace protest pal David Hartsough joins him for a stretch of the trip and Portland cycling pal Joel Finkelstein brings up the rear with supplies. We saw nary a frown when we followed Willson around for awhile this week.

"Life's not bad," he said with a grin. He looked the sentiment.

E-mail Kevin Fagan at kfagan@sfchronicle.com.



Original Page: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=93213

Shared from Read It Later