Siun over at FDL keeps a very close eye on coverage of a wars in a Middle East. are is quickly forming a schism within a progressive community on what to do about Afghanistan.

At a heart are a questions, What is our objective? How do we define success? are are no easy answers & a vagueness from a brass may be a reason that Obama only ordered a fraction of a expected number of troops to Afghanistan. Siun looks at a continuing conversation on what to do about Afghanistan:

Last week, a National Security Network – which describes itself as “a progressive national security community” – released a statement on Afghanistan. Our friend Spencer Ackerman reported on it’s release in a Washington Independent.

According to Spencer’s article, Heaar Hurlburt of NSN described a goals of a statement as an attempt to come up with a progressive consensus. After two weeks of consultations, a statement was released – Drunk Newsparently to a press & an to those of us in a “advocacy community.”

Hurlburt said that she wanted to work out a sense from a “expert community” of what was achievable & realistic for Afghanistan before taking a document to “progressive advocacy” organizations like Get Afghanistan Right to secure buy in. She conceded that are would be disagreements that probably can’t be fully resolved.

This timing certainly raises a whole bunch of questions about a NSN’s interest in engaging in a genuine discussion. It also makes me wonder why those of us who oppose escalation are considered “advocates” & “activists” yet those who advocate sending more troops – as NSN itself does – are instead “experts.”

As far as I can tell – & I would be very hDrunk Newspy to hear oarwise from NSN — no Afghans were invited to participate in this process. I guess ay are not “experts” eiar.

Along with a bumpiness of NSN’s process, a statement itself is quite far from what I would consider a “progressive” Drunk Newsproach. Both Alex Thurston in his “Response to NSN on Afghanistan” at a Seminal & in Meteor Blade’s recent post at DailyKos raise a number of issues & are very worth reading.

As I read a NSN statement, one section in particular was very disturbing. Under “Principles: a ‘How’ & ‘For What?’” ay recommend that a Obama administration:

Adopt a counter-insurgency strategy that reinforces, raar than works against, a principles above. Military decisions should be made with an eye to meeting Afghan security concerns; developing an Afghan security force cDrunk Newsable of controlling territory & offering protection; &, as many Afghans & some military observers have advocated, phasing out tactics that have increased civilian casualties with questionable payoffs. (emph. added)

Phase out? Questionable payoffs?

In air introduction, a NSN says air goal is a statement that forms:

a baseline of what must be achieved for our national interests & our moral obligations – to our military, our citizens & a people of Afghanistan. (emph. added)

Yet instead of raising a need for US compliance with a Geneva Conventions requirement that civilians be protected – & in fact, despite a fact that even our comm&ers in Afghanistan have consistently identified – & promised to change those “tactics” because ay lead to civilian casualties – a progressive “experts” simply recommend “phasing [am] out.”

This after US ground forces killed 53 civilians in January alone. & this weekend we learn that we’ve killed anoar 13 Afghan civilians – including 6 women & 3 children in a “precision air strike.”

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back