Unfortunately, I don’t have time to examine the question posed in the title of this piece as carefully as I’d like, but even the quickly posted Wikipedia entry on Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) Task Force 373 notes that there is a large discrepancy between the amount of targets on TF373′s "kill/capture" list as reported by the major media.
The figures are drawn from the extraordinary release of previously classified Afghan war reports by Wikileaks, and now searchable at the latter’s website.
Task Force 373 is alternately described by the New York Times as "a secret commando unit"; as "an undisclosed ‘black’ unit of special forces" by the UK Guardian; and "an elite American unit…. which operates in Afghanistan outside of the ISAF mandate" by Spiegel Online. These three news sources were partners with Wikileaks in the release of the documents, and had special access to the material prior to their public posting.
By all accounts, Task Force 373 seems to be a kidnapping and death squad, run by the Americans, but housed at a German base in Afghanistan. The very secret unit, unknown even to other ISAF forces, works off a "kill or capture" list known as JPEL, which stands for "Joint Prioritized Effects List." From this bland name springs an operations force that, according to the UK Guardian, has "more than 2,000 senior figures from the Taliban and al-Qaida" on its seize or kill list. Most of the world press has reported this same or similar figure, though Spiegel only says the figure is "large":
The list of targeted individuals is arranged according to process number and priority level. Depending on the case, the commandos are sometimes given the option to arrest or kill their prey. Nowhere in the available documents is that list printed in full, but a total of 84 reports about JPEL operations can be filtered out of the thousands of documents. It is not possible to work out from the documents exactly how many JPEL targets there are in Afghanistan, but the four-digit process numbers are enough to suggest that the total number of targets is large.
It was the four-digit process numbers that the Guardian used to determine their figure. Simply put, they counted.
The pursuit of these "high value targets" is evidently embedded deep in coalition tactics. The Jpel list assigns an individual serial number to each of those targeted for kill or capture and by October 2009 this had reached 2,058.
But however they did it, the New York Times came up with a much different and drastically lower number.
Secret commando units like Task Force 373 — a classified group of Army and Navy special operatives — work from a “capture/kill list” of about 70 top insurgent commanders. These missions, which have been stepped up under the Obama administration, claim notable successes, but have sometimes gone wrong, killing civilians and stoking Afghan resentment.
The dramatically lower of numbers reported may be a fudged way of looking at figures. They say "top insurgent commanders", and this may be a subset of the total of 2000 or more. But the Times never reports the larger number, or even that it runs into the four digits. The import of this is to underplay the amount of killings. It’s unlikely there are 2000 or more "top insurgent commanders." So, who is the U.S. seizing or killing?
Operation Phoenix Redux
The Guardian article by Nick Davies reports much more than the single paragraph the New York Times dedicates to the story, emphasizing the legal, moral and political ramifications of the Task Force’s actions.
The United Nations’ special rapporteur for human rights, Professor Philip Alston, went to Afghanistan in May 2008 to investigate rumours of extrajudicial killings. He warned that international forces were neither transparent nor accountable and that Afghans who attempted to find out who had killed their loved ones "often come away empty-handed, frustrated and bitter".
Now, for the first time, the leaked war logs reveal details of deadly missions by TF 373 and other units hunting down Jpel targets that were previously hidden behind a screen of misinformation. They raise fundamental questions about the legality of the killings and of the long-term imprisonment without trial, and also pragmatically about the impact of a tactic which is inherently likely to kill, injure and alienate the innocent bystanders whose support the coalition craves.
The Guardian story documents some of the cases of killings of women and children, and notes that there is also likely a British version of Task Force 373 operating in Afghanistan as well. The parallels with Vietnam are extraordinary, where U.S. counterinsurgency amounted to a large degree to a capture, torture and assassination program known to us today as Operation Phoenix.
It was only a few weeks ago that I noted (based on an observation in a Guardian story by Ian Cobain and Owen Bowcott) that documents released in Britain in the Binyam Mohammed et al. suit had referenced what sounded like extrajudicial killings associated with the rendition program. "Is it clear that detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation?" asks a protocol for MI6 operatives working with the U.S. on rendition operations.
Now we have evidence of massive killings underway by secretive U.S. forces, and of plenty of deaths of civilians who get in the way. But the U.S. press has mostly deep-sixed this aspect of the Wikileaks Afghan logs. A story by CNN makes no mention of how many people might be on TF373′s target list, but does add a word of dissent:
“You have people going in with a kill list and the public accountability simply doesn’t exist,” said Sarah Knuckey, director of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the New York University School of Law.
Marc Ambinder on Task Force 373
Mainstream bloggers appear to be taking the lead of the major U.S. press. Take Marc Ambinder’s story on the release at The Atlantic, and his own reference to TF373:
The task forces themselves — well, there’s TF 373, the Joint Special Operations Command task force for Afghanistan, which has since morphed into something else. The structure is different today. There are, however, references to the activities of Task Force 2-2, a multi-element special operations element that has — and I emphasize has — the authority to basically self-task, to take bad guys off of the JPEL list (the joint prioritized effects list) and decide whether to capture or kill them based on the situation at hand.
There are several incidents in which 2-2 and other 373 elements killed civilians and saw those killings covered up or obscured in official press releases.
Ambinder’s link is to the same Guardian story on TF373 that I have quoted here, so I’ll give him that. But the failure to report the extent of the targets, and the reference to "take bad guys off the JPEL list" makes them sound, well, sort of innocuous, basically good guys. His view that the TF is "basically self-task" is belied by the Guardian’s coverage, which reports, "The process of choosing targets reaches high into the military command." Additionally, the idea that there have only been "several incidents" underplays the extent of damage done by the secret U.S. death squad.
Consider this "incident", reported by Speigel Online:
The documents don’t just reveal the existence and activities of the Taliban hunters, they also show why these special units cause so much anger in the Afghan population. Mistakes made by special units are kept secret. One particularly sensitive report of a TF 373 operation dated June 17, 2007 is classified so secret that details of the mission must not be passed on to other ISAF forces. On this day the soldiers appear to have committed a particularly fatal error. The aim of the mission seems to have been to kill the prominent al-Qaida official Abu Laith. The unit had spent weeks watching a Koran school in which the Americans believed the al-Qaida man and several aides were living. But the five rockets they launched from a mobile rocket launcher ended up killing the wrong people.
Instead of the finding the top terrorist, the troops found the bodies of six dead children in the rubble of the completely destroyed school.
The Guardian reports, "The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path."
It is a sign of how debased our society has become that reports of "targeted killings" and assassinations are met with little outrage in the press or by the public. Perhaps this is because we use terms that will not offend as much. Indeed, in the title of this very piece I use the term "extrajudicial killings" rather than "death squads" (which I do clearly use in the text) because I fear that this reality will be so discordant to readers that they will shun the article, perhaps too psychologically defended to accept the terrible truth about the government they have and the country they live in.
Let us say, too, that the mainstream press plays a major role in this. The downsizing of the figure of killings — really murders — by the Special Operations task force, as reported by the New York Times, or underplayed by major bloggers such as Marc Ambinder, lulls the population into believing the terror wrought by the U.S. military in Afghanistan is really not so bad. But it is bad. It is a war crime, and Julian Assange, who orchestrated the release of the documents upon which this story is based is correct in saying that they give evidence of war crimes. I’m reminded of recent stories that have cited the Harvard study (PDF) that showed how the media dropped using the word "torture" after Abu Ghraib.
One wonders what kind of schizoid state exists at the New York Times. One minute their ed board calls President Obama’s forcible deportation of an Algerian Guantanamo prisoner back to a country where he feared persecution, torture, or death "an act of cruelty that seems to defy explanation.” The next minute, the editorial news staff is minimizing the number of targets on a U.S. military task force hit list. I’ll let them figure that one out for themselves.
As for the rest of us, we need to step up the demand that U.S. and NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan.



148 Comments

TROOPS
HOME
NOW
YEAH
What a piece…
Thanks, Jeff.
Recommended.
The NYT, Guardian, and Spiegel articles only mention TF 373, not TF 323. Is that a typo, or are there actually two task forces?
google task force 373 first page results …
Army Brig. Gen. Raymond Palumbo, Task Force 373 commander…
Appears to be July, 2008.
http://www.veteranshour.com/enduringfreedom.htm
Lots of tasks forces out there.
Which in many cases amounted to sneaking into a village late at night, killing a couple of village leaders and returning later to heard the rest of the villagers into ‘strategic’ hamlets where they’d be ‘safer’.
We know how that worked out.
These guys have no appreciation of history, and a one-dimentional immagination that is heavily biased towards their one-size-fits-all solution, killing people.
typo alert:
Jeff, I’m only half way through, but sometimes the article calls it “TF373″ [that's correct, right?] and sometimes [ie:the title] it’s TF323″.
edit: oops, cujo already got it…
ooops, cujo359 already picked that up…sorry.
Thanks so much for this excellent piece, Jeff! I found the following to be particularly sad [but astute]:
Thanks so much for this excellent and important piece, Jeff! I found the following to be particularly sad [but astute]:
[sorry for the multiple posts...having trouble with edit]
Yes, I had late-night proofreading difficulties.
I am speaking of, and the articles are only referencing, Task Force 373.
Not my experience with Phoenix at all. Nor anything I have read by Phoenix members
the Guardian (UK) online read of the leaks is far superior to the NYTimes.
Really well-strategized to use all three outlets, in three different countries with three different governments with three different constituencies, to compete to write the best story covering the WikiLeaks. I know the focus should rightly be on the war diary, but I must step back and admire Assange’s maturity on this one.
He knows how to ensure the message gets out. Will Americans pay attention?
We’ll know today when the House needs 290 votes for the Senate supplemental, since it’s been put on the Suspension Calendar for this “morning.”
Link
Yes, Phoenix was even bigger, and used more local personnel, but the similarities are still striking. This might more accurately be labeled as standard counterinsurgency, but the real counterinsurgency, not the sugar-coated version handed out to the public. A reality where schools are built for some, while assassination squads ferret out any opposition to the U.S. or colonial power and their puppet government, and destroy them. Anyone who looks like leadership material is killed.
TF-373 no longer exists. It was a temporary, ad hoc organization set up to go after AQ in Afghanistan, the same as TF-88 in the Horn of Africa, TF-914 in Northern Africa and Europe and TF-714 in Iraq, and, later, Afghanistan.
While the veracity of the cables or the horrible injustices narrated within cannot be disputed, the timeline can: TF-373 has not been in existence since summer 2008.
And you’re looking for now-MG Palumbo and LTG Fiel.
Perhaps some of these folks cross-trained with those at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly School of the Americas) given our successes with creating and training Latin American death squads. The current problem for Task Force 373 is that the name it too easy to remember. They need at least three more words in the title so that no one knows the actual name’s reference.
Our taxpayer funded contributions to war crimes across the world has gone on so long that Ambinder or the NYT would be taking bigger risks defending Milla Jovovich’s Caftan than they do in defending assassinations.
Why the fuck are we killing Taliban leaders? These guys aren’t terrorists, they’re local political/military types. The only reason they’re fighting us is because we’re THERE. The Taliban isn’t going to follow anyone home to Fort Bragg. This is idiocy, and immoral as hell.
Great post Jeff.
In the Andrew Exum NYT piece I referenced in my earlier post, Exum references his own participation in similar units:
Given Exum’s role as mentor to so many “progressive” young mil journos and his role these days at the supposedly “progressive” CNAS, it seems there’s little concern about being a nation that sponsors death squads.
What would you/they tell us that your/their field time spent with Phoenix actually entailed then? No BS about advancing the strategic goals of the United States through extra-diplomatic methods, please, nor the Mission Statement for the Operation, but what did you/they do
Not only that, but as in Afghanistan, the program provided cover for vendetta killings by our local ‘allies’.
Very sad, and messy business.
It’s a rhetorical question, right? The NYTimes, oh please. The Old Gray Lady has morphed into the Old Gray Hag.
The New York Times was instrumental in taking the lead in Iraq’s so-called WMD and when those claims turned out to be bogus, (as most of us knew they would), their defense was “Well, everybody thought…..”, so it’s not surprising that they are again omitting salient facts and spinning it to suit their own purposes. I stopped reading the New York Times because it became a propaganda rag, no more credible than The National Enquirer. Just because it’s influential doesn’t make it reliable.
No, not “everybody” thought that Iraq had WMD. The NYT and just about every other Main Stream outlet ignored the voices who knew better. The sources were ignored and the journalists who reported honestly were reassigned or even fired. That they’re still at it isn’t surprising. What would be is if they had seen the error of their ways.
It was the Taliban that didn’t turn over Bin Laden as required by the UN.
Please substantiate your statement.
I wouldn’t line a bird cage with a copy of the NYTimes I found lying on the street.
IMPO TF373 is a legitimate use of troops in war. Just like Phoenix was in Vietnam. And, if I remember my reading correctly, the British spec ops troops, the SAS, did the same in Malaya-not to mention N.Ireland
As did the French in Algeria.
When you get right down to it, when a major military power is fighting an Asymetrical war how else do you fight it? Infantry units can not find an organized uniformed enemy to fight, Fighter/Bombers can’t attack enenmy strongpoints as there are none. So what ya gonna do? The enemy force has structure and leaders. You use intelligence to find them then you sneak in a specially trained unit to capture or kill them.(Phoenix, TF373)
That is what Asymetrical warfare is. In my experience. If the enemy is the one who initiates contact-see Vietnam where the VC/NVA initiated contact well over 95% of the time(via ambush)-then history tells us that all we do when we use conventional military tactics is lose troops. So we go to unconventional warfare. The same tactics used by Navy SEALS and Army Special Forces in Vietnam. Which ultimately resulted in the Phoenix Program, which was, again IMO, successful.
HELLO, war is in fact hell. It is the mass destruction of people and other living things.
We are in fact very good at war as we have been fighting and killing each other for all of recorded history. In fact there has never been a year in which the entire world was at peace. So, you can believe, if you want, that we are civilized and beyond war. I am here to tell you that is not true. Warfare is our natural state. “peaceful civilization” did not start in 1945. Wars are eternal, as long as 1 country desires what another country has or perceives that another country has wronged it, then you will have invasions. Like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the invading country then place unreasonable restrictions on their troops, then all you have are dead and wounded soldiers and no victory.
Just my opinion and 45 years of reading military history.
Give it up. Everyone knows you hate the American people and the truth.
In the mid to late 1960s Task Force 373 would have been known as a Phoenix Team, the business end of the Phoenix Program. Same shit, different day.
The Taliban aren’t good people. Period. That being said, it’s not up to us to force people to behave as we think they should be behaving. The only thing we have accomplished in Afghanistan is returning the opium harvests to pre Taliban levels and beyond. So if you’re a junkie or somebody making money off of them, the war must be a grand thing.
Yeah, I’m hip. :)
If you were to change the words to canyone who looks like leadership material for the enemy is killed, then I would agree 100%. That is COIN warfare.
say what? In my world, he does speak the truth.
Got your facts backwards. Phoenix grew out of a nondescript memo written at CIA Saigon and put into practice by William Colby when he became CIA Station Chief, Saigon. Originally a massive intelligence program it developed into the “terminate or capture” program. Phoenix teams were a conglomeration of Special Forces and regular troops.
Maybe you should have read a little less military history and instead read “Three Cups of Tea” 45 times.
From Wiki.
The first two Security Council Resolutions, 1267 and 1333 (2000), were adopted on 15 October 1999 and 19 December 2000 respectively. They were warmly welcomed by the ambassador for Afghanistan who was not a representative of the Taliban regime that had conquered 80% of his country.[7][8] Only Malaysia expressed reservations about their effectiveness and concern about the humanitarian consequences[9] to the extent of abstaining on the second resultion.[10] Although voting for the second resolution, United Kingdom privately opposed it on account of the already dire humanitarian situation and the expectation that there would be a backlash against UN aid organizations providing relief in the country.[11]
The first resolution followed the sanctions regime imposed by the United States on 5 July 1999 by an executive order[12][13] after intelligence officials had found bin Laden controlled money flowing through banks.[14]
The resolutions imposed a series of demands on member states as well as on Afghanistan under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The first included:
The Taliban must not allow territory under its control to be used for terrorist training.
The Taliban must turn over Osama bin Laden to the appropriate authorities.
All countries must deny flight permission to all Taliban operated aircraft.
All countries must freeze all financial resources that could benefit the Taliban.
All countries must report back within 30 days on what measures they had taken.
Being right wing these days means nothing except being contrary, pure and simple. It doesn’t matter what position is taken by Liberals or Progressives because reasoned position isn’t the point. Counter positioning is. This is exactly what has led the Republicans to suddenly embrace the Constitution though they heartily disparaged the very same document under Bush as a “200 year old piece of paper” and so forth. It’s just mindlessly being anti everything. If Obama comes out in support of keeping the Bush tax cuts, the right wing will scramble like roaches when a light is flipped on to take the opposite point of view, despite their long demand that he do just that.
As Orwell pointed out in Politics and the English Language, political language is designed to leach words of imagery. Images are powerful, and “Death squads” brings forth an unpleasant image. “Extrajudicial killings” is virtually imageless. (See also, Death Panels and The Public Option.) As you note, Jeff, if people are sufficiently motivated to screen out the image, they’ll screen you out, too, if your words tend to conjure it for them.
Raffi Khatchadourian had intimate access to Julian Assange a few months ago and wrote a superior piece for The New Yorker. It’s available:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian
Now (as it may have been intended in advance of the wikileaks videos from last month) it can serve as an important antidote to the attempts to discredit Assange or to misrepresent him.
We/they used intelligence gathered by different units-CIA,DIA,MI, etc-to discover who were the enemy leaders-sometimes time sensitive, many times had a lot of time to check intel-or enemy fighters were in different vils/towns/cities-and then different teams went into those areas at nite and either killed the targets or captured them for interrogation.Sometimes we/they spent entire nites in ambush positions waiting for those targets that intel told us/them would pass a certain point, but the target would be a no show. We/they used strong intel, to my knowledge we/they did not target just anyone and we/they always confirmed the target before doing anything. How is that not legit in war?
2,000 is a large number. You have to ask yourself who could be on such a list. There are only some 25,000-35,000 Taliban fighters total. al Qaeda members would only increase this number slightly. You could increase the numbers somewhat by adding in narco-traffickers and smugglers, but seriously you would have a hard time coming up with figures that increased the ratio of purported names on the list to the total population of targets beyond about 1:20. This would mean that those being targeted went far below the “senior” level. I don’t know much about Taliban force structure but this would correspond to something on the order of squad or platoon leaders in our armed forces. So the question is: are the numbers wrong or who precisely is this death squad targeting?
You forgot to call me a racist too.
Use slurs when you’ve got nothing else.
I don’t know that you’re a racist but I do now you hate the American people and the truth. It’s like Harry Truman was told to give the Republicans hell and he said he just tells the truth and the Republicans think it’s hell.
Interesting use of “death squad”. care to define it and show show how an army unit hunting members of an armed and violent insurgency during a war fits the usual definition?
What was it about post #23 that was untruthful?
I was asked to substantiate so I posted #35.
All was in response to #17, “Why are we killing Taliban leaders?”
“How is that not legit in war?”
Your point, and its well-expressed preamble, is well-taken.
The please-do-not-forget-the-overarching question remains: Is the quote/unquote war legit?
Whether the “targets” are armed or not is irrelevant in the use of the term. If there is a group of people whose mission it is to track down and kill people, then they are, by definition, “death squads”. Euphemisms are bullsh*t, whether it’s “preemptive war” or “enhanced interrogation” or what have you. You can’t sugar coat torture, war and killing.
Were you ever part of a Phoenix Team?
Dig a little deeper, Sport.
during a war, Margaret,
is called an army, or part thereof.
In Nam SEALs were often referred to as the terrorist arm of the military. Most Phoenix operations in the Delta were led by SEALs but contained other troops as well. There weren’t enough SEALs to go around.
I forgot that according to you, slaughtering Middle Eastern Muslims is almost always justifiable. And again, euphemisms are bullsh*t. I’ll never forget the smell of human blood, I don’t think I’ll ever be free of it. Slaughtering people is sick and wrong.
Yep, they are still known as such or were 20 years ago. These are just more examples of people who feel that they are qualified to discuss something of which they have no clue. You’d think they’d learn.
Fixed it for ya.
Thanks, and I’ll check out. Ambinder referred to changes, but didn’t specify. In any case, they may change names, and sometimes organization, but the strategy of having such elite, secret hit teams appears not to change.
How many of the Special Forces operations killings have been against people involved in 9/11? Remember the AUMF? It wasn’t to go out and use military force against whoever the President deemed to be worth offing – it was a limited authorization. I don’t see how the asassains who are hunting down “insurgents” who may not even have been Taliban at the time of 9/11 are acting within the AUMF.
Good thing we have Dawn Johnsen heading up a review of all this.
Oh.
Wait.
Never mind.
Again, not my reading. Nor the associated reading of history in other countries. As far as I knew Phoenix was always a targeted kill/capture program. But then I was 19 and what I read after my return to the states did not show a “massive intel program”. Mr Colby OTOH, did a lot for Phoenix. Which to my knowledge consisted of Navy SEALS, Army Special Forces, some other Army troops gleaned from line units and, at least for the time I was there, ROK Marines-White Horse, some CIA, and some USMC sniper teams.
You might have the begining of Phoenix correct, I have no knowledge of that, but COIN warfare,as exibited by many other countries in many other wars, was the blueprint for the Phoenix kill/capture teams.Your source?
I believe, if history is a guide, they go after the leadership (of course, we knew this) but also those who are identified as militant, or potential leaders. Only about 10-20% or so max will really be leadership material, and the idea is to go after them, I believe. It could also be basic counter-terror.
Yes, I agree. But this is not what the American public is told.
and you should continue to forget that bullshit you’re according to me, Margaret.
Are we at war with Afghanistan? Or are you saying there’s a civil war in Afghanistan? Do we have a military authorization to engage in the civil war in Afghanistan?
The “during a war” part of your question goes to a lot more than a short answer here would cover, but to try to keep it short, where is either a) the authorization to go to “war” against people not involved in 9/11 and not involved in al-Qaeda and not involved in helping al-Qaeda to plan 9/11, or b) the authorization occupy Afghanistan military, or c) the authorization to take a side(s) in the multi-sided civil, drug, secular, tribal,criminal, conflicts in Afghanistan unrelated to al-Qaeda and 9/11.
We have a very specific, limited, AUMF. Outside of that AUMF, soldiers engaged can return fire and protect themselves, but outside of that AUMF I don’t see any declaration of war on opium lords and people like Gul Rahman (who was tortured to death at the salt pit) etc.
You follow your specific, limited, AUMF – you don’t end up digging quite so deep a hole. But we don’t have a Congressionally authorized Global War on anyone who wants us out of Afghanistan.
Phoenix was originally set up to gather intelligence about Viet Cong cadres and their supporters. As an intelligence gathering effort it was hugely successful. Only after Colby realized how successful it was did the “terminate or capture” phase enter the picture. My sources are/were CIA Saigon, DaNang, and An Thoi and Phoenix Team members.
I acknowledge your inability to find fault with my statement and will not pick on you anymore.
That’s funny. You’re like the big black fly that shows up at the picnic always trying to land on the potato salad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Again IMO, the answer would be no. Iraq was always an illegitimate war. Afghanistan started out as a legimate war. To kill/capture OBL and alQaeda. That reasoning ended after Tora Bora when Rumsfelds meddling allowed OBL and other alQaeda leaders to escape. Since then mission creep has totally changed the war aims and goals. We no longer have a legitimate rteason to be in A’stan. All that will happen from here on is that our troops will get killed and wounded for nothing. No national security reasons for war.
Also, IMO, Viertnam was a war that we should never have gotten in to. North Vietnam requested our aid in keeping out the French in Indochina war I. We ignored them, then helped the French, until they got themselves into a battle they could not win(see the book, Hell in a Very Small Place)(great writer on French Indochina war, many books) where they wanted us to use our bombers. Then our pols-started with Ike, then JFK got us into what became Vietnam II. It was a civil freekin war. WTF were we doing there? We even assissinated the Vietnam prez, which started the entire ensuing debacle. Sorry, names seem to be eluding me today. But what happened, hasn’t.
word
OK. So be it. Again, not what I saw/read. But then the program was ongoing for some time before I came on the scene.and continued even after it became public and the soldiers were tried in general CM. And I were only a lowly EM, not an officer or even a senior NCO.
I think that we do have authorization to engage in war in Afghanistan against people fighting against the present government and for providing security and law and order throughout the country, through the UN and the AUMF.
But my question was directed to Suin and asks where she finds reason in trying to say that Andrew Exum led a
“death squad”.
Got your facts wrong again. At the end of WWII Ho Chi Minh and General “Vinegar Joe” Stillwell tried to convince Washington to allow Viet Nam to become an independent nation. Ho even had a constitution drafted that mirrored our own. The war with France didn’t start until Washington agreed to returning VN to France as a colony. Ho turned to China for aid at that point.
Diem was the name of the SVN president assassinated.
Thanks for the good reply.
“North Vietnam requested our aid in keeping out the French in Indochina war I.”
Who the fuck invented ‘North Vietnam’ and ‘South Vietnam’? he asks rhetorically.
(After Jagger/Richards) Sympathy For The Devil, 2.0: Support our troops/It’s for the kids.
North and South came out of the cessation of hostilities between France and the Vietnamese insurgents, the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh.
The NYT is not a newspaper anymore. It is another mouthpiece for the ANTI-AMERICAN forces working in the US. These people are commonly known as rich people. Somehow these people cannot afford to pay a little into a system that keeps America great because Americans care about each other. Somehow paying .ooo1 percent of their blood money to ensure the greatness of the US. In fact, these people are moving their money out of the US as fast as they can because they know that the people are coming with smokey torches and shiny pitchforks.
Ngo Din Diem.
Dat be him. Geez, they talk about how corrupt Afghanistan is. Thieu and Ky weren’t any better.
I think your sentence would require a footnote of several massive volumes.
You’re right. I even started for the bookcase but thought better of it.
The Center For A New American Security is like the rest of the neo-con “think tanks”. It is is a nest of warmongers. I call it a Pig Pen with a few liberal Veal Pen ornaments. They have The Honorable Richard L. Armitage, Irak war profiteer, of Plame gate. There is the honorable Stephen Friedman, head of the super secret Presidents Intelligence Board. Friedman is another architect of the Irak Genocide and AIG fraudster and head of CFR and Goldman Sachs and with Pete Peterson probably runs the Secret Government. The “advisors” and “directors” are mainly war profiteers and Investment Banksters.
Only two small quibbles with your understnading;
1. My edit;
If you were to change the words to anyone who looks like leadership material is killed, then that is COIN warfare.
2. As we found out in the early days of the Afghanistan conflict, locals were turning in their enemies for the reward money which led to people with very little or no involvement being detained and ending up in GITMO;
There was an element of South Vietnamese government involvement in Phoenix, and this led to their ability to target their political opposition or questionable individuals, as well as personal enemies.
To the South Vietnamese government, and to some extent our own, anybody who was “leadership material’, but not already obviously on ‘our side’, was considered dangerous by default.
We’re talking about 20,000-40,000 people depending on your sources.
This wasn’t the surgically precise operation, built on clean Intel, that it may have seemed to be from the level of individual units; it was a messy business of questionable value.
I have two bookcases. One holds the books that presume there are only ‘Western Europe’ and ‘Eastern Europe’ (their terms, not mine); the other holds only books from and about (so-called) Central Europe.
great news. If Frank calls them names, then they are effectively discredited and might as well padlock the door and pull the tarp over the tank!
True, at least in the abstract. Task forces are units created for a specific task. When the task ends, so does the unit.
Does TF 373 include former retirees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, or does it just use their playbooks? These appear not to be fictional inglorious basterds, but real operatives with a license to kill. I hope their “intel” is better than that used to tell us that everyone Bush held at Gitmo was the “worst of the worst”. It wasn’t true, not by a long shot.
All work, as the rule goes, will consume the resources and fill the time allotted to it. That’s true for Dilberts in their cubicles, it’s true for inglorious basterds killing at the whim of their executive.
Instead of calling for doctors Howard, Fine and Howard to pick up the pieces such lethal machines leave in their wake, perhaps we need a bit more political leadership that defines what we ask these men and women to do before they do it, and uses them with more restraint than frustration.
I should have included neo-con Michael O’Hanlon. These think tank pigs do not hesitate to call people names who oppse their criminal wars. It is OK because they are rich and powerful and create wars.
As for name calling, I wish that I knew what name you called me, when you got modded.
Not quite. We don’t know what these men and women do; they could as easily be considered spies and saboteurs as uniformed soldiers killing for king and country.
When, btw, did Congress issue its declaration of war against the actual “enemies” TF 373 kills? When was the collateral damage they cause, on a mission by mission basis (real dead people, not statistics) publicly admitted and regarded generally as a legitimate cost of an acknowledged war? I must have missed that, too.
I didn’t call any name at all, Frank. the things cut out of my comment were “WTF” and “bullshit” and were nothing more than the heated part of a heated denial of what you said about me, and nothing at all about you.
Congress didn’t enforce the AUMF, so it was essentially carte blanche for Bush to do whatever he felt like. You could say that’s why we’re still there in such massive force for no particular good reason.
I know I am stating the obvious, but it’s what I do. People tend to forget about the obvious. Our recent history has been a case in point.
May I suggest that people take a few minutes to read the following article:
Imperial Overkill and the Death of US Empire
earl, does our ignorance of what Exum’s Army Ranger platoon did make it reasonable for Siun to label him as a member of a death squad?
I respect the dedication, commitment and skills that the men and women capable of being part of TF 373 demonstrate. I acknowledge there are times when their use might be essential, though not without restraint and quite often not without compensation to those wrongly harmed in the pursuit of their goals (and even those illegally and intentionally harmed by such pursuit).
I have little respect for the political judgment of this and the prior administration in their use of such resources. The Cheney mandate to “take the gloves off” – a meaningless euphemism for taking scalps, for pillaging, plundering and murdering as lawlessly, brutally and ruthlessly as any enemy – has morphed from isolated, in extremis use to standard operating procedure. It would appear to be the analog to those administrations’ dismissal of the rule of law as a guiding principal for national conduct.
Mr. Cheney baldly put forth his preference for lawless, criminal action his minority report to the Iran-Contra commission’s findings. What I thought improbable was that his views would become popular, unremarked, centrist, normal, routine behavior for the United States Government.
You could guaranty a large fighting force of kids in the 19th century by promising them food, clothing, and pillage. In the 20th century you could promise them free cigarettes and rubbers. In the 21st century – what? a college degree?
Yep. Lots of black ops. Kill, not capture, was the rule. Not good there, either, as it further decapitated current and potential leaders and made lots of enemies. We still lost, and not because we didn’t “take the gloves off”.
BTW, toward the end of the Vietnam war, a young Steven Seagal left his Aikido dojo in Japan to do such things in SE Asia. Borders, as generally understood, then too played little part in determining whom to strike and where.
Excellent link, thank you. Of course the headline should have read “Bush rejects Talabans conditions…”, but it’s the Guardian.
I think my statement “It was the Taliban that didn’t turn over Bin Laden as required by the UN.” is quite accurate considering that they still haven’t.
Badly framed question. If Exum and his men violated the laws of war, they would have acted criminally, quite possibly as a “death squad”. Mr. Cheney applauded such tactics in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in the 1980′s; I’m sure he applauded, nay, demanded, their use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just as governments never admit they torture, governments never tell their most talented soldiers that they are part of a death squad; they tell them how much their mother, their mates and their government will be proud of what they do. It’s the facts of each operation that would tell us the truth.
Genocide.
Strategic air strikes would precede the ground forces. Though ‘secret’, they were far from being unknown. Domestic, ‘political’ resistance peaked at Kent State in May, 1970.
Text of the 2001 AUMF:
The bolded text is the operative portion of the AUMF. There are abou 100 al Qaeda thought to be currently in Afghanistan. It is hard to see how this AUMF justifies a large army in that country fighting not them but the Taliban. At the same time, no such army is deployed in Pakistan where most of al Qaeda and all of its leadership reside.
and not answered.
Is there evidence that Exum has engaged in acts that might lend plausibility to labeling him a leader of a death squad?
Comment concerning Cheney, entirely welcome and justified IMO, is not really of relevance.
“he determines……committed, aide, or harbored,,,,,,,,,and to prevent any future acts……..”
is about as wide-open as it gets…….
and throw in the UN authorization resolutions,
there’s near enough for any shit in Afghanistan, sane or not.
Thank you. BTW, if I’m not mistaken, that language excludes Iraq; Iran, too, and Pakistan. But what empire would halt the march of its legions when in full stride?
Before interpreting a statute or rule, read the whole statute or rule, not just the convenient part, and read it again.
The authorization does not apply to heirs, descendants and legatees of such persons, or to like-minded persons in this country or another one half way round the world. It applies to attacks against the United States, not in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Iran.
As others have said, the use of force, a nicely bland bureaucratic description, ought also to be appropriate to the threat. Mr. Cheney made his demented sense of proportion his governments, and Mr. Obama has not seen to correct that mistake either.
You are taking Siun’s comment slightly out of context. Siun has hoist Mr. Exum on his own petard; his record will keep him there or relieve him from its point.
thanks for the lesson, earl, but your highlighting part is not a significant difference from my more terse distillation and possibly less worthy.
you could, however, clarify for me a point about those “organizations” .
If the president determines that those organizations have continued to exist and remain malign, would action against members enrolling after 9/11 be enjoined under your suggested heirs, descendants and legatees exclusion, or might the “prevent any future acts” cover action against them?
but surely, earl, the absence of evidence makes it more like a blind flinging of shit than a petard-hoisting.
and Siun’s context is his
“role as mentor to so many “progressive” young mil journos and his role these days at the supposedly “progressive” CNAS?”
which merely helps to show that she’s smearing a whole nasty bucket of it at quite a few folks.
That’s an amendment to the constitution without following the amendment process, making it unconstitutional, Period. End of discussion. If it’s not in my contract with my government then it just doesn’t apply to me. It takes two to tango or contract.
What else, after ceding the high ground, can we amend without the amendment process? Seems like FISA, with constitutional scholars murphy and obama , among others, voting against their oath because they are pissing their pants? Please.
We are only allowed a defensive war to repel a direct attack by treaty.
Other than that everything is illegal. End of debate, story or discussion.
Then again the constitution never seeks the political judgment of the supreme court in election disputes, leaving that to the congress.
Thanks for answering, and thanks to Bluetoe2 for the Guardian article. imo, the original
“It was the Taliban that didn’t turn over Bin Laden as required by the UN.”
is not “quite accurate”, because they began a dialogue to that end, but it was totally cut off by the Bush adminstration’s refusal to a) show any evidence against him, and b) even consider having him transferred to any other country ["appropriate authority"].
Bush had an opportunity…he cut it off at the knees.
Siun draws reasonable conclusions from Exum’s own admissions. As for his characterization of the Wiki-released documents as “Nothing to see here, move along,” he mimics the White House’s preferred take. Like it, he rather has a conflict in his critique being accepted as objective, his employment by the misnamed neocon Center for a New American Security, for starters.
As usual in such matters, the foreign press hits closer to the mark when it sees a lot to see in this release, as does the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson. But people, like horses, cannot be persuaded to drink what’s in front of them.
Based on my review of other comments you’ve written, including the rest of this one, you know better than to make a blanket statement demonizing thousands of people. You aggravate the harm by failing to distinguish between the Taliban and thousands upon thousands of Pashtun tribal members who reasonably and justifiably want the United States to get the hell out of their country.
you might want to look into the accuracy of that
, because it hasn’t much.
the “dialogue” about turning over binLaden was begun by the United Nations long before and should have been concluded by the UN demand that the Taliban cease refusing to do so and turn him over no later than Nov 14 1999.
Your “distillation” adds words that weren’t there. That’s not a helpful shorthand, in some situations it might be considered bad faith; especially the “and to prevent any future acts” part you’ve created.
The actual text states: “…in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
“in order to” does not equal “and”. The former is a justification for what preceded it, the second is adding to the list of authorized activities. That’s a significant change in meaning accomplished through a brief word swap.
a nourishing bowl of steam.
Jeff, great post.
It has been the MO of the traditional American media to downplay acts committed by spec ops groups under JSOC because of the questionable legality of much of what those ops guys do. Actually, they probably commit acts that could best be described as “war crimes.” Much of what they do is secret in this most secret of wars.
Checkout this article that appeared in Jan., this year:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175197/anand_gopal_afraid_of_the_dark_in_afghanistan
yes you’re right that my “and” would make for an even more broad authority, but beyond admitting to a lack of rigor, I’ll stick with contending that the thing is way broad enough without it.
I appreciate the correction.
Please sir, may I have some more?
Mr. Exum served in Afghanistan with the US Army and as a mercenary. He and Siun can debate whether that means he filed reports, shot ranks of uniformed armed personnel from 300 meters, or garrotted uncooperative drug lords or their mistresses in the dead of night.
His Op-Ed in the Times does say that he now works for what is a neocon-funded think [sic] tank called the Center for a New American Security. He is heavily invested in this fight. Paying his mortgage, if he’s poor enough to need one, depends upon supporting the neocon dog in it, which is more war, outsourced whenever possible, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. His objectivity appears limited.
Sure thing. Thanks for acknowledging that difference.
my ladle melted.
you make a fair and gallant defense for the lady, but a full two coats of lipstick can’t gloss the mud on the accusation.
And on October 14, 2001, Bush lacked the strength and vision to show even an ounce of humanity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
I’m sure most people here know that Seymour Hersh reported the growth of these units in a series of reports in The New Yorker, but I’ll just post the list, here:
Manhunt; The Bush Administrations new strategy in the war against terrorism; Seymour Hersh; 12/23/02
Moving Targets; Will the counter-insurgency plan in Iraq repeat the mistakes of Viet Nam?; Seymour Hersh; 12/15/03
The Coming Wars; Seymour Hersh; 1/24/05
[There may be more recent additions.]
Thanks for that link, billyc.
This should give every single Exum protege pause. There’s a very clear reason why he doesn’t want these assassination squads looked into. He was in one.
Why do people require huge footnotes of known facts?
I am baffled by this thread.
As you point out,
I agree with your analysis, as far as it goes, but I think it’s important to take it a few steps further and stress the following points:
(1) The present day Taliban isn’t the same group of people who constituted the government of Afghanistan in 2001;
(2) No credible argument can be made that the members of the Taliban in 2001, much less the members today, had anything to do with planning 9/11 or knowledge that such a plan existed before 9/11;
(3) The planning for 9/11 took place in Germany and the training took place in the United States;
(4) With the exception of one or two Egyptians, all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia;
(5) Mullah Omar’s offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a neutral third party nation, provided the United States present evidence that he was involved in 9/11, was reasonable, given that Bush had expressed his intent to kill OBL, the United States was bombing Afghanistan at the time, and demands for extradition minimally require a showing that the person sought committed a crime;
(6) The invasion of Afghanistan was an unlawful war of aggression; and
(7) Most of the insurgents resisting the unlawful occupation of their country are not even members of the Taliban and their connection to 9/11 is even more attenuated.
THEREFORE, most, if not all of the Task Force 373′s activities, were war crimes and everyone from the top down involved with Task Force 373′s death squads should be prosecuted at the International Court of Criminal Justice together with George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and everyone else who ordered the invasion of Afghanistan.
I’ll not be drawn into applauding Bush, if I can help it, dammit.
But that “offer” was a crock of shit. Read it again.
The Taliban wasn’t even offering to turn him over, even then. That was made clear. They affirmed that they would not turn him in to the US or any other place not governed by Sharia law.
What it amounted to was that the US calls off the fight, leaves the Taliban in power, the training camps remain operational, and bin Laden gets to go somewhere safely away from us.
I neglected to mention that no extradition treaty existed between the United States and Afghanistan
And then of course, there’s torture to consider,
AND Obama’s complicity in war crimes by covering them up and aggressively obstructing any investigation of those war crimes, not to mention his own war crimes by ordering the use of drones that mostly kill innocent people. For example, David Kilcullen, who advised Gen. David Petraeus on terrorism, and Andrew McDonald Exum, of the Center for a New American Security, recently concluded that drones have killed 700 civilians and just 14 terrorist leaders, a 50-to-1 ratio. Jane Mayer wrote in the New Yorker that the campaign to get one particular terrorist killed between 207 and 321 other people along the way.
BTW, my sources on the street tell me that Macaquerman has advanced through the ranks of the organization to finally be promoted to the prestigious position of al Qaeda Number 3./s
Congratulations, Mac.
Hey, did anybody ever tell you you’re cute when you blush?
I’ve been wondering if Assante is on the kill/capture list….
Wldn’t put it past the war mongers and State Secrecy hawks in this administration.
CNAS is a counter-insurgency lobby-cum-”think tank”. Its president wrote the fickin’ Army Counterinsurgency Manual. Exum writes:
Note how cleverly he morphs “insurgents” into “terrorists”. He certainly does not deny the charge, indeed he exults in it, and claims that “most Americans” support such endeavors.
Exum is the voice of the Pentagon here, with his antipathy towards Assange as “wild and reckless”, causing bloodshed, an “activist”, even as he also reports that the documents present “nothing new.”
They want their war to be conducted in secret, with at most some embedded reporters to write their spin. Assange and the leakers have said no, these actions must come into the light and be subject to examination.
How could Assange NOT be on their list?
I mean, once they’ve made a list, what’s the point of having one if Assange isn’t exactly the person atop it? That’s why there’s all this “no BFD” crap from the neolib warbloggers and Exum proteges: once our government kills Assange, it’ll be easily deniable from the perspective that ‘everyone’ said these leaks don’t matter.
And if it’s not the leaks that matter, then certainly the not-yet-leaked stuff matters. I mean, who should he really be afraid of, CIA assassins or Bank of America security goons?
Excellent. Yes, this is about counter-terrorism programs. Because, as the article you link to points out, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism go hand in hand, I tend to refer to the more publicly known term, COIN or counterinsurgency. But when I do, I always mean both. In the future, I’ll try and make this more specific.
Thanks for the excellent link.
Not much thinkin’; lotsa tank.
The CNAS only allows warmongers to play in their playground. They only allow pro war propaganda. No dissent there. I bet they get covert taxpayer funding as all the Dee Cee war propagandists do. Pakistan is our great ally. Petraeus says so. CNAS Saluted By Petraeus!
Worth sharing, from Jeff Cohen at Truthout:
hey, Mace, I didn’t know that you were still on the street, but damn if I ain’t a bit cute all the time.
Yes, nice conflation: insurgents = terrorists. Assuming one could agree on terrorist being the correct label for someone – a big assumption given how hole-filled our intel has been – it’s a far cry from a lowly insurgent, an even more vague term. It could apply to a political opponent, former colleague, former mistress or rent boy, or a legitimate, violent criminal. Our record at distinguishing among them hasn’t been so good; we error in the direction of those who promote the interests of our largest corporations rather than those who oppose them.
It seems possible that Mr. Exum is more interested in validating the idea of killing, outsourced where possible, than in whom he kills, and keeping the public out of it.
Nicely parsed.
oh my, you’re really all over the place in trying to mount a defence of the indefensible!
what do you mean the un should have? why would it ever have been obliged to impose a specific deadline? the US does indeed pull undue weight in that forum but the US by itself has no remit to dictate to the un – it can disagree and ignore which it has done many times but it cannot dictate
sorry for o/t
A Letter from Omar Khadr in Guantánamo; Andy Worthington; 7/27/10
steve clemons highlighted sh’s role in revealing such blackops in the washington note, including a video of sh
afghanistan referred to a ‘third country’ but never mentioned anything baout sharia law being operative in that third country
Thanks, sona. I’ll look for that.
!
It seems like we’ve become a third world Junta, complete with our own death squads. Is it any wonder there are no shortage of people willing to kill american soldiers after seeing their own family members murdered?
FAIR [Links omitted.]
Thanks, harpie. An amazing document (here’s the PDF from the Washington Post, who first published the letter). Here’s a portion:
Oct 7
The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.
Next offer, Pakistan under sharia law.
After that, in all subsequent offers they refused to turn him over to the US, but instead tried vague offers of accepting discussions about a “neutral” country for bin Laden, if the US could provide evidence sufficient for the satisfaction of the Taliban.
Just for the record, what was the evidence that the U.S. provided to the government of Afghanistan before attacking it? I forget.
FWIW, from today’s UK Guardian story on the NATO bombing that killed 52 civilians in Helmland, Afghanistan:
Hearts and minds, anyone?
the government of Afghanistan was not functional at the time, red. the UN and the rest of the world was dealing with the taliban.
Y’all probably know this but the House passed the supplemental war funding bill today by a wide margin, except it was for $59 billion, not $33 billion.
Roll call on the final vote on the war supplemental.