Civilian casualties spiral as U.S. wages terror war in Afghanistan

Scan page 3

Socialist Action january 2010 5 This month, the first members of President Obama’s call-up of 30,000 military reinforcements are being transported to Afghanistan. Foreign military strength in the country is scheduled to swell to about 140,000 troops by summer, including about 98,000 from the United States.

At the same time, Washington and its allies are expanding what can only be called a war of terror, in which alleged Islamic militants, and their families, are assassinated in their homes. Over a thousand civilians have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan due to U.S. drone missile raids.

A secret army of commandos, private “contractors,” and CIA “Special Activities” operatives has been turned loose for assassinations and other armed forays against Islamist radicals in the region. These clandestine death squads began under President Bush, and Obama has increased their role in the region.

Such measures have yielded little success so far for the U.S.-led coalition against the Taliban and other resistance militia, and European governments are becoming increasingly wary of getting bogged down in the morass. As a result, the Afghanistan war and occupation is more and more becoming an American campaign—as it is in Iraq.

In response to Washington’s urging or bullying, a few U.S. allies (including aspiring NATO members Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and Macedonia) have promised to send a total of about 7000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. But these units will barely replace the troops from other countries that are being withdrawn.

The Afghan war is deeply unpopular among the European public; in response to antiwar pressure, the Netherlands will withdraw its 2200 troops this year. The Canadian government, likewise acceding to antiwar sentiment at home, has decided that its 2800 troops will be withdrawn in 2011.

Some military spokespeople have expressed optimism for the coming year, due mainly to the increased U.S. troop strength. Canada’s top general in the field, Daniel Menard, boasted that with over 5000 Canadian and U.S. troops under his command, the Taliban insurgency would be “marginalized” in Kandahar province by Canada’s 2011 pull-out date.

But Canada’s chief of defense, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, was less ebullient in his predictions, conceding that 2009 had been a “rough year” in Afghanistan. He cited the corruption-marred presidential election in the summer, a rise in Taliban (Photo left) Dec. 30 Kabul protests against U.S. air strike in Kunar province that killed 10 civilians.

(Right) U.S. Marines patrol Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Dec. 12. attacks, and heightened allied casualties (Canwest New Service, Dec. 27, 2009).

A recent Canadian government report suggested that although there has been some progress in training Afghan National Army battalions, training the Afghan National Police has been an uphill battle: “The ANP suffers from frequent incidents of corruption, extortion and drug abuse; as well, poor pay, substandard equipment and targeted violence from insurgents.”

Working with “friendly” Afghan soldiers and civilian collaborators presents the U.S. and European trainers with constant risks. For example, the suicide bomber who killed seven CIA agents on Dec. 30 at a base for coordinating drone missile attacks was reported to have been able to enter the base as a presumed CIA operative.

Anti-U.S. forces gain ground Jonathan Burch, reporting for Reuters on Dec. 27, noted, “Foreign forces have only a year to turn the tide of the war in Afghanistan, and the Taliban have a shadow government in place that could run the country if the West fails, a senior NATO intelligence official said on Sunday. The official said that the Taliban has expanded its influence across Afghanistan and was now running a “full-fledged insurgency.”

“Time is running out. We’ve got about a year to prove that our strategy can actually work. The Taliban has shadow governors in 33 out of the 34 provinces,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told a small group of reporters. “So he [the “Taliban,” a catch-all term used to refer to a number of allied militias] has got a government-in-waiting. He has got ministers.”

The NATO official said that the Taliban had found a successful weapon in roadside bombs; IED attacks rose from merely 81 in 2003 to 7200 last year. Twice as many U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2009 compared to 2008 (310 deaths compared to 155 the previous year), while fatalities among British soldiers more than doubled (106 last year compared to 51 in 2008). “This is not meant to be a joke,” the official said, “but whoever is their logistics chief, you know, we oughta be taking lessons from them. Because that’s pretty darn good ... for an enemy insurgent force to generate that kind of capability.”

While the ground war appears to be at a stalemate, or worse, the U.S.-led coalition has ramped up its one-sided air war—though the spiraling civilian death toll has increased resentment against the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in the country. According to UN figures, 10 percent more civilians were killed during the first 10 months of 2009 than during the same period of the previous year.

In one of the most highly publicized recent massacres, operations by international forces in Kunar province on Dec. 19 killed 10 civilians, including eight young students. Popular outrage forced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to order a probe into the circumstances of the attack. Barely three days later, however, at least four civilians were killed by NATO airstrikes in northern Baghlan province. The dead, according to Pajhwok Afghan News, included a father and his three sons who were caught while running to escape the bombardment.

Air attacks, chiefly by unmanned drones, have also raised the number of civilian casualties in the neighboring Tribal Territories of Pakistan. Seven U.S. missile attacks in December killed at least 44 people in the same area of North Waziristan, according to the liberal Pakistani journal, Dawn. U.S. and Pakistani authorities claim that the dead were all pro-Taliban and al-Qaida members, but this is unclear. The U.S. carried out over 50 airstrikes in Pakistan in 2009, and estimates of the number of Pakistani civilians killed by these attacks range from over 600 to as many as 1000 since August 2008.

Reports state that people of the region are panicked by the constant presence of drones overhead, often accompanied by higher-flying B-52 heavy bombers. At present, the B-52s are used to aid in surveillance—but they can also be lethal. During Desert Storm in Iraq, B-52s were responsible for 40 percent of all the bombs dropped by the U.S.

Secret assassination squads In recent weeks, the U.S. media—including the Washington Post and New York Times—have reported on the increasing use of secretive Special Operations units in combat against Islamist forces. An article by Eric Schmitt in the Dec. 26 Times cited unnamed officials in stating that these units are being sent into areas to soften them up before the introduction of regular troops. Often they are assigned to assassinate insurgent leaders, a task they share with the CIA.

“The commandos, from the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s classified Seals units, have had success weakening the network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, the strongest Taliban warrior in eastern Afghanistan, the officers said. … Guided by intercepted cellphone communications, the American commandos have also killed some important Taliban operatives in Marja, the most fearsome Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province in the south.” More than 1000 U.S. Marines, as well as Afghan and British forces, are being readied for a major confrontation in Marja early this year.

“American commanders in Afghanistan,” The Times reported, “rely on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders, and the missions are never publicly acknowledged. The commandos are the same elite forces that have been pursuing Osama bin Laden, captured Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and led the hunt that ended in 2006 in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader in Iraq of the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” The use of secret commando forces is due to be increased in the coming year, according to military officials.

Citing interviews with former “contractors” from Blackwater (now XE Services) and U.S. intelligence agents, The New York Times reported Dec. 11 that Backwater employees “participated in some of the C.I.A.’s most sensitive activities—clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the transporting of detainees.”

According to The Times, the Blackwater guards “were supposed to only provide perimeter security during raids, leaving it up to C.I.A. officers and Special Operations military personnel to capture or kill suspected insurgents.” The newspaper added, “But in the chaos of operations, the roles of Blackwater, C.I.A. and military personnel sometimes merged.” Blackwater was also employed to assist the CIA with the use of Predator drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Times article pointed out that the new details of Blackwater’s activities come at a time when the House Intelligence Committee is investigating the company’s role in the CIA’s assassination program, and a federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating a wide range of allegations of illegal activity by Blackwater and its personnel, including gun running to Iraq. But the tactics of the Afghan war, employing secret assassination squads and bombings that result in high civilian casualties, are not under review; the government’s concern seems to be merely that these activities were taken over by a private company.

It is up to the American people, and those of other countries, to speak out against such barbarities—and against the Afghanistan war as a whole. An opportunity will come on March 20, when mass antiwar marches in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles will take place. For more information on how to get involved, contact: National Assembly to End the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars & Occupations, www.natassembly.org. n

Scan page 4

... ‘Reform’ bill (continued from page 1: “Health ‘reform’ bill a bonanza for the insurance corps”) uninsured), threatening the care of the 23 million who would remain uninsured. This problem will be exacerbated as the budget crisis facing states leads to more cuts in state aid to hospitals.

• The bill would not control costs, and its insurance “exchanges” would in fact increase waste, adding a new level of bureaucracy.

• A mandate to either purchase insurance or pay a penalty as high as 2.5% of one’s income (the House version). In addition, between $447 billion and $605 billion in public dollars (Senate and House versions respectively) would be given to private insurers in the forms of subsidies to help people forced to buy insurance. Yet even with those subsidies, millions would be unable to afford insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a family of four with household income of $54,000 would pay 17% of their income on health care.

The number of underinsured (i.e., those who can afford only barebones policies not covering many badly-needed services) and medical bankruptcies would increase. The least expensive plans would cover only 60% of necessary care, and patients would have to pay the balance. As costs continue to soar, more families would face co-payments and deductibles so high they would forego needed care. Insurers have already predicted that the cost of premiums would rise since they are being required to stop excluding pre-existing conditions and cancelling coverage for sick patients.

• The new 40% tax on “Cadillac” health plans would encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift costs to employees, promote high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are labeled “Cadillac” each year as costs rise. A survey in September found 30% of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, and 86% said they would pass the higher costs on to employees.

The tax would also hit hardest those already facing price discrimination by insurers, i.e., workers in firms that employ more women and older and sicker employees, and those in states with big cities that have higher costs—all of whom have “Cadillac” plans that are high cost only because insurers won’t insure them without sky-high premiums. Within three years, the tax would apply to nearly 20% of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country.

The NNU added that the Senate amendment exempting certain “high risk” occupations from this tax covers only male-dominated occupations: mining, construction, police, and firefighting.

The New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert noted that the legislators and insurers promoting this Cadillac tax are not just oblivious to suffering, but actually intend the tax to force people to forego health care or to pay more out-of-pocket: “The idea is that rather than fork over 40% in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their 4 Socialist Action january 2010 Justin Sullivan / Getty Images Jim Watson / AFP own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

“Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful—that is to say, more reluctant—to access health services.” But many with serious illnesses will forego care, leading to much expensive treatment later—if it can be afforded at all.

• The bills’ supposed protection against insurer denials and abuse are shot through with loopholes. There are supposedly bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions and on cancellations for sickness. But insurers would be allowed to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.

Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation”—the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage. Insurers would be permitted to sell policies “across state lines,” using as a standard the state with the fewest regulatory protections for patients. And there would be minimal oversight of all these practices.

• The legislation protects pharmaceutical company profits and patents.

• The bills allow insurers to continue age discrimination. Older enrollees can be charged four times more than younger enrollees, and those with certain medical conditions will also be charged more.

• Enrollees would be required to prove citizenship in order to receive subsidies, and non-citizens would be required to bear the full cost of purchasing insurance.

• Reduced reproductive rights for women: The Stupak amendment to the House bill prohibits use of any public funds for abortion. The Senate version forces women to pay ahead of time into a separate fund connected to their plan. Given the unexpectedness of most unwanted pregnancies, this measure severely curtails the ability to use insurance to obtain an abortion. NOW said the Senate bill “amounts to a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us.”

• Funding for Medicare services provided by forprofit plans would be cut by $43 billion. Supposedly designed to halt profiteering by the for-profits, these cuts will in fact enrage seniors who got a few sweeteners above and beyond traditional Medicare coverage to entice them into such plans—sweeteners that instead should have been expanded and extended to all seniors under public auspices.

PNHP had already denounced the House bill, calling it “a massive bailout of the profit-making health industries.” The physicians’ group called on Congress “to start from scratch. Improving and expanding Medicare to all would save over $400 billion annually on insurance overhead and bureaucracy,” enough to cover all the uninsured.

While noting that the Senate bill includes some “salutary provisions” like an expansion of Medicaid and increased funding for community clinics, it noted that these provisions had been the focus of earlier, separate legislation, and could be enacted on their own rather than being lumped into a pseudo-reform “designed to fail.”

(Left) Sept. 22 picket line outside Blue Cross offices in San Francisco; part of a national day of protest against insurance giants and for significant health-care overhaul.

(Below) Obama speaks on health care, Sept. 12. His “reforms” offer little gain for working people.

Some liberal commentators claim the Senate bill is a flawed but necessary first step, citing the example of Social Security. But, replied PNHP, where Social Security established a public institution that grew over time, the Senate bill proscribes any such new public institution. “Social Security’s first step was not a mandate that payroll taxes which fund pensions be turned over to Goldman Sachs!”

National Nurses United pointed out that “the bill seems more likely to be eroded, not improved, in future years,” noting that all the compromises made this year were “to the right.” PNHP and NNU pledged to continue the fight for single-payer.

Role of Democrats Liberals directed their anger at “Blue Dog” Democrats for siding with Republicans in making the bills even more pro-insurer. But the most liberal Democrats, plus the “independent” and supposedly “socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders, played an even more insidious role in helping Obama put over his pro-insurer strategy.

Sanders—as well as Representative John Conyers, author of the most prominent single-payer bill, HR 676—voted in favor of the final bills in the Senate and House respectively. And although nearly 60 members of the House Progressive Caucus promised to vote against a bill without a “a robust public option,” virtually all of them are expected to end up voting for a reconciled bill with no public option, a coercive mandate, and a “Cadillac” tax.

Sanders also helped structure the last-minute porkbarreling that gave special favors to Senators who had threatened No votes. These deals came after a half-hearted attempt by Sanders to introduce his singlepayer substitute amendment. In a parliamentary maneuver to kill the Democrats’ main bill, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma demanded a full reading of the 770-page amendment before debate could proceed. Rather than take this opportunity to let the American people finally hear some details about single-payer, Sanders gave up after three hours and withdrew his amendment. Profiteers gleeful In the days following passage of the Senate bill, shares of health-care company stocks soared. “Things have turned out pretty well for the industry,” said one analyst. “In particular, all versions of a governmentrun health plan have largely been eliminated.” What’s more, a proposed $6.7 billion industry tax is likely to be phased in only gradually beginning in 2011, which gives insurers time to raise prices.

PNHP columnist Don McCanne pointed out that even the requirement forcing insurers to hike the percent of revenues spent on actual care would not necessarily lead to provision of more needed (especially primary and preventive) care. The Senate bill would require insurers to spend at least 80% on medical care or “quality improvements,” while the House bill specifies 85%.

Said McCanne: “But companies could game the system by broadly defining medical costs. And spending limits alone may not stop insurers from raising rates. When New York State tried to limit non-medical care spending, many insurers companies complied—but still instituted double-digit rate increases.

Furthermore, even this 80% or 85% leaves private insurers spending less on care and more on administration than does Medicare, and does nothing to end the huge administrative burden on physicians and hospitals forced to waste precious time and money interacting with hundreds of separate insurers.

But there’s more, says McCanne: “By fixing the insurers’ cut, they can no longer reach down into the funds allocated for patient care.” Instead, “to increase their own net revenues they are highly incentivized to dramatically increase spending on health care! They will encourage every imaginable program that they can label as patient care: more expensive information technology systems, more costly high-tech services regardless of demonstrated value, higher-priced brand drugs instead of generics, six-figure biologics and cancer drugs, rewarding increased frequency and intensity of services, and, the clincher, blinders to the massive fraud that would be rewarded under this system!”

These are just the kind of escalating costs described earlier that make private insurance ever-more unaffordable.

On March 5 to 7, the Labor Campaign for SinglePayer Healthcare will hold its next national meeting, at which National Nurses United will kick off a discussion of next steps in the fight for single-payer. Hopefully, that discussion will include ideas on breaking the Democratic Party influence that has to date kept unions from mobilizing in a serious way for genuine health-care reform. n

----- pull-quotes -----

A secret army of commandos, private ‘contractors,’ and CIA operatives has been turned loose for assassinations and other armed forays. Obama has increased the role of these death squads in the region.