US Military

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Milley defends China calls and says ‘I am certain Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.20pm EDT
      17:20

      In deep red West Virginia, Biden’s $3.5tn spending proposal is immensely popular

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      4.17pm EDT
      16:17

      Federal agencies to take modest steps to expand voter registration

      3.40pm EDT
      15:40

      Sanders urges House colleagues to vote against infrastructure bill

      1.34pm EDT
      13:34

      Grisham book: Trump told Putin he had to pretend to be tough

      1.19pm EDT
      13:19

      Warren to Fed chair Powell: You’re a dangerous man

      1.01pm EDT
      13:01

      Today so far

      Live feed

      Show

      5.20pm EDT
      17:20

      In deep red West Virginia, Biden’s $3.5tn spending proposal is immensely popular

      Zack Harold reports:
      Elizabeth Masters isn’t a natural Joe Biden supporter. A self-described conservative who lives in Parkersburg, in deeply Republican West Virginia, she said she registered to vote in the last election so she could cast a ballot for Donald Trump.
      Masters says she doesn’t approve when people “just stand for a handout” – she doesn’t think the United States should be spending money on undocumented immigrants, for example – but says anything that will “help people that are trying to do for themselves, I’m all for it”.
      To that end, Masters has found herself supportive of efforts by the Biden administration to pass a $3.5tn budget proposal that is full of ambitious plans to help poorer and working class Americans on a range of social issues from childcare to healthcare.
      Though vehemently opposed by Republicans and West Virginia’s own Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, there is some evidence that the proposals contained in the spending plans – which some have likened to the 1930s New Deal – are more popular among grassroots Republicans than their political representatives. That may be especially true in West Virginia, which is a poor, largely white and working class state whose residents would stand to greatly benefit from the Biden effort.
      That is why Masters says she supports the Child Tax Credit, the monthly payments from the IRS given to families with children making less than $200,000. The Build Back Better plan would make the credits permanent.
      Masters and her husband recently took out a loan to repair the roof on their house, only to lose the home in a fire. They did not have insurance, so they are still paying on the loan. The Child Tax Credit payment she receives each month for her nine-year-old son covers that loan every month.
      Biden’s budget bill includes his Build Back Better plan, which would cut taxes for most Americans, raise taxes on the rich, train more workers and lower costs for healthcare, childcare, education and housing.
      When the nonpartisan nonprofit WorkMoney surveyed more than 50,000 of its 2 million members nationwide, it found 81% of respondents said they supported this plan. That includes 90% of liberals who took the survey, 81% of moderates and 66% of conservatives.
      Conservative backing appears even more robust in West Virginia, home of Manchin, a moderate Democrat who is one of the critical holdouts on the budget bill and whose efforts could derail the entire plan – or see large chunks of it scrapped as he balks at the budget’s price tag.
      But according to the survey, 80% of more than 800 people surveyed in his home state believe he should vote to pass the bill. That includes 77% of conservatives who responded to the survey.
      Read more:

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
      Here’s where the day stands so far:

      Gen Mark Milley defended his calls with Chinese officials in the final days of Donald Trump’s presidency, saying the conversations were meant to “de-escalate” tensions between the two nations. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said during a Senate hearing today, “I know, I am certain that President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese.” Republicans had called for Milley’s resignation over reports that he was attempting to prevent Trump from launching an attack on China.
      Defense secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged that senior military leaders were caught off-guard by how quickly the Afghan government and military collapsed. “We helped build a state, Mr Chairman, but we could not forge a nation,” Austin said at the hearing. “The fact that the Afghan army that we and our partners trained simply melted away – in many cases without firing a shot – took us all by surprise. And it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.”
      Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, contradicted Joe Biden on what military advice he received regarding Afghanistan. While not going into detail about his private conversations with Biden, McKenzie said that he recommended keeping 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to help ensure the stability of the Afghan government. Biden has previously said that he never received such advice from military leaders. The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters that Biden heard “a range of viewpoints” on the matter.
      Congressional progressives are sticking to their position that they will not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the reconciliation package passes. Ahead of the expected Thursday vote on the infrastructure bill, the Congressional Progressive Caucus chair said members would not support the legislation unless the spending package advances at the same time. Senate budget committee chair Bernie Sanders has expressed his support for the House progressives’ stance as well.
      Senator Elizabeth Warren said she would not support Jay Powell’s renomination as Federal Reserve chairman. “Your record gives me grave concerns,” the Massachusetts Democrat told Powell at a hearing this morning. “Over and over, you have acted to make our banking system less safe, and that makes you a dangerous man to head up the Fed, and it’s why I will oppose your renomination.”

      Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.

      4.45pm EDT
      16:45

      Florida is suing the Biden administration over its immigration policies, while Republican governor Ron DeSantis is barring state agencies from helping with relocating undocumented immigrants.
      The AP reports:

      DeSantis’ order authorized the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Highway Patrol ‘to detain any aircraft, bus, or other vehicle within the State of Florida reasonably believed to be transporting illegal aliens to Florida from the Southwest Border.’
      He also ordered the agencies to gather information on the identities of any immigrants arriving illegally in Florida from the Mexico border and told state agencies not to spend money assisting those immigrants unless required by law.
      Attorney General Ashley Moody’s lawsuit claims the federal immigration policy will cost the state millions of dollars and cause harm to Florida.

      Biden’s immigration agenda has come under harsh scrutiny in recent weeks, after alarming footage surfaced of border agents on horseback confronting Haitian migrants in the border city of Del Rio, Texas.
      Homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said on Friday that there were no remaining migrants at the camp underneath the Del Rio bridge, and administration officials had previously said they would suspend the use of horses in Del Rio.

      4.28pm EDT
      16:28

      Sam Levine

      The US constitution gives the president little power to act unilaterally around voting. But the set of actions the White House announced on Tuesday signals an aggressive effort to use the power Joe Biden does have.
      Voting rights groups have long advocated for expanded voter registration opportunities at federal agencies.
      Expanding voter registration to the Indian Health Service could help 1.9m people register, according to a report issued last year by the Brennan Center for Justice. Expanding voter registration at naturalization ceremonies could help add a significant portion of the 760,000 people naturalized each year to the voter rolls, the report said.
      The actions come six months after Biden issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to come up with plans to provide voter registration assistance.
      The announcement also comes as the White House has faced some criticism from civil rights groups who say it is not pushing hard enough to get federal voting rights legislation through congress.

      4.17pm EDT
      16:17

      Federal agencies to take modest steps to expand voter registration

      Sam Levine

      Federal agencies are going to take modest steps to expand voter registration, the White House announced on Tuesday.
      Among the actions: The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service will provide voter registration opportunities and assistance to their patients.
      The Justice Department will facilitate voting for those eligible who are in federal custody and help people understand the rules of voting in their states once they’re released from prison.
      The Department of Homeland Security will invite local government officials and non-profit groups to register voters at naturalization ceremonies.
      The Department of Transportation will encourage local transit agencies to weigh offering free or reduced fares on election day.

      Updated
      at 4.19pm EDT

      3.56pm EDT
      15:56

      Meanwhile, on the issue of the debt ceiling, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said today that using reconciliation to raise or suspend the debt ceiling is “risky” and a “non-starter”.
      But with Republicans digging in on their opposition, reconciliation may be the only option for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling in a party-line fashion.
      House majority leader Steny Hoyer had suggested earlier today that reconciliation may be the path forward, but he then walked back those comments after Schumer and other Senate Democrats criticized the idea.
      “Today I was asked whether reconciliation is an option to address the debt limit. It is certainly not the best option, nor the option we’re pursuing,” Hoyer said on Twitter, adding that Republicans “have a responsibility to the country to ensure the US does not default”.

      Steny Hoyer
      (@LeaderHoyer)
      Today I was asked whether reconciliation is an option to address the debt limit. It is certainly not the best option, nor the option we’re pursuing. Senate GOP are putting our economy & families at risk. They have a responsibility to the country to ensure the US does not default.

      September 28, 2021

      3.40pm EDT
      15:40

      Sanders urges House colleagues to vote against infrastructure bill

      Progressive senator Bernie Sanders is urging his House counterparts to oppose the bipartisan infrastructure bill until a reconciliation package is passed.
      Sanders, who chairs the Senate budget committee, said on Twitter, “Let’s be crystal clear. If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress.”
      Sanders warned that approving the infrastructure bill would “end all leverage that we have to pass a major reconciliation bill,” meaning Democrats would not have an opportunity to expand Medicare or invest in affordable childcare.

      Bernie Sanders
      (@SenSanders)
      Let’s be crystal clear. If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress.

      September 28, 2021

      “It also means that Congress will continue to ignore the existential threat to our country and planet with regard to climate change,” Sanders said.
      “I strongly urge my House colleagues to vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill until Congress passes a strong reconciliation bill.”
      As of now, House progressives are standing firm to their position that they will vote against the infrastructure bill if it is taken up on Thursday without a plan to simultaneously advance the reconciliation package.
      Given Democrats’ very narrow majority in the House, the progressives’ stance raises the possibility that both bills may fail.

      3.20pm EDT
      15:20

      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he would soon put forward a bill to fund the government past the end of the month.
      If Congress does not pass a government funding bill in the next two days, the government will shut down on Friday.
      “I think very soon we will put down a bill to deal with the shutdown and move forward,” Schumer said this afternoon.

      CSPAN
      (@cspan)
      .@SenSchumer: “I think very soon we will put down a bill to deal with the shutdown and move forward.” pic.twitter.com/nM5Mpn4bMq

      September 28, 2021

      Asked whether he could assure the American people that the country will avoid a government shutdown, Schumer said, “We’re doing everything we can to avoid a shutdown, and we should put something on the floor.”
      The majority leader expressed hope that Senate Republicans would help Democrats pass a government funding bill, accusing them of “playing games with the American people — political, nasty and destructive games”.

      3.05pm EDT
      15:05

      The White House press secretary reiterated that Democrats had previously hoped Republicans would help them raise the debt ceiling in a bipartisan fashion, which occurred during Donald Trump’s presidency.
      Jen Psaki added, “It’s also our hope that, if Senator McConnell isn’t going to help us avoid a default and a shutdown, at least he’ll get out of the way and let Democrats do it alone, so we can avoid a default, and right now that question remains up in the air.”
      But as Psaki held her briefing, McConnell threw another wrench into Democrats’ efforts to raise the debt ceiling along party lines.
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer requested unanimous consent to move toward a final vote on suspending the debt limit without having to overcome a filibuster. McConnell objected, and the saga over the debt limit continues.

      CSPAN
      (@cspan)
      .@SenSchumer makes unanimous consent request to move to a final vote to suspend the debt limit without 60-vote threshold filibuster.@LeaderMcConnell objects. pic.twitter.com/7t7dPPhJev

      September 28, 2021

      2.41pm EDT
      14:41

      A reporter asked Jen Psaki whether Joe Biden would consider supporting abolishing the Senate filibuster to raise the debt ceiling.
      “The president’s position has not changed on that,” the White House press secretary said.
      Senate Republicans remain adamant that they will not support any effort to raise the debt ceiling, intensifying concerns over a potential default next month.
      Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said in a letter today that Congress must raise or suspend the debt ceiling by October 18 to avoid economic disaster.

      2.28pm EDT
      14:28

      The White House press secretary said Joe Biden had a “constructive meeting” with Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema today to discuss the reconciliation package.
      Jen Psaki noted that Biden was still meeting with senator Joe Manchin when she came out to the briefing room.
      According to Psaki, the senators agreed that the country is at a “pivotal moment” right now, but it’s unclear whether any progress was made toward agreeing on a top-line cost for the legislation.
      A CNN reporter spotted Sinema returning to the White House for another meeting as the press briefing started:

      Kevin Liptak
      (@Kevinliptakcnn)
      Sinema is back at the White House (2:10 p.m. ET) pic.twitter.com/TJSupZCh81

      September 28, 2021

      2.20pm EDT
      14:20

      The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, is now holding her daily briefing, and she faced questions about Pentagon officials’ testimony before the Senate today.
      A reporter asked Psaki to respond to the claim from Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, that he recommended keeping 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan to help ensure the stability of the Afghan government.
      The reporter asked whether Joe Biden misrepresented the military advice he received, given that the president previously said he did not hear anyone suggest an ongoing troop presence in Afghanistan.
      Psaki said Biden heard “a range of viewpoints” on the matter, and she argued maintaining a troop presence would have risked further casualties.
      Asked who recommended the complete troop withdrawal that occurred, Psaki said, “I’m not going to get into specific details of who recommended what.”

      2.11pm EDT
      14:11

      House progressives are sticking to their position that they will not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the reconciliation package is simultaneously approved.

      Congresswoman Cori Bush
      (@RepCori)
      Today is Tuesday.The infrastructure vote is Thursday.And I still will be voting “No” unless we first pass the Build Back Better Act to deliver universal pre-K, tuition-free community college, Medicare expansion, paid leave, climate action, and so much more.

      September 28, 2021

      Congresswoman Cori Bush said on Twitter, “Today is Tuesday. The infrastructure vote is Thursday. And I still will be voting ‘No’ unless we first pass the Build Back Better Act to deliver universal pre-K, tuition-free community college, Medicare expansion, paid leave, climate action, and so much more.”
      But it seems virtually impossible that the reconciliation package can be advanced on that timeline, raising the possibility that both bills could fail.

      2.01pm EDT
      14:01

      Martin Pengelly

      Away from the Milley-McKenzie-Austin hearing, things are not getting any easier for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden when it comes to passing Biden’s ambitious domestic spending plans.
      The House Progressive Caucus says in a new statement it won’t vote for the bipartisan $1tn infrastructure deal until the spending plan is passed via reconciliation.
      Caucus leader Pramila Jayapal of Washington state said of the spending plan: “This agenda is not some fringe wish list: it is the president’s agenda, the Democratic agenda, and what we all promised voters when they delivered us the House, Senate, and White House.”
      In a letter to colleagues, Pelosi writes: “The change in circumstance regarding the reconciliation bill has necessitated a change in our Build Back Better legislation but not in our values.”
      Pelosi also said “negotiations are being led by President Biden to advance his vision”. Biden was expected to meet two key moderate senators: Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Yesterday, prominent House progressive Ilhan Omar called the two senators “Republicans”.
      Of course, no one’s word in Washington is final until it’s final. But there’s meant to be a vote on the infrastructure deal on Thursday.

      1.47pm EDT
      13:47

      Martin Pengelly

      The hearings before the Senate armed services committee have resumed, with Gen Kenneth McKenzie facing questions about future operations and strike capabilities regarding Afghanistan from Senator Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican.
      “Hard to do but we can talk more about it in the closed session,” the general says, referring to classified aspects of the US strike capacity, then admits that the US must still rely on co-operation from Pakistan – which hosted Taliban groups during the US occupation.
      “They’re going to be very conflicted about this,” he says, “as they have been for the last 20 years.”
      Defense secretary Lloyd Austin is asked how many US citizens are still in Afghanistan. He tells Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, that 21 just came out.
      Here’s some essential reading from Julian Borger, about some essential reading from Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post:

      1.34pm EDT
      13:34

      Grisham book: Trump told Putin he had to pretend to be tough

      Martin Pengelly

      Donald Trump told Vladimir Putin he had to act tough next to the Russian president for the cameras, according to the former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham.
      “OK, I’m going to act a little tougher with you for a few minutes,” Grisham says she heard Trump tell his Russian counterpart in Osaka in 2019. “But it’s for the cameras, and after they leave, we’ll talk. You understand.”
      Grisham makes the claim in a new book, I’ll Take Your Questions Now, which will be published next week. The Washington Post obtained a copy.
      Trump’s presidency was dogged by his relationship with Putin, the focus of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.
      Mueller did not establish a conspiracy but stressed that he did not exonerate Trump of seeking to obstruct justice. Speculation over the two leaders’ relationship remained rampant, particularly over a meeting alone save for interpreters in Helsinki in 2018.
      In front of the media at the G20 summit in Osaka in 2019, with Grisham sitting nearby, Trump joked with Putin that they should both “get rid” of journalists who published “fake news”, saying: “You don’t have this problem in Russia.”
      Putin said: “Yes, yes, we have too, the same.”
      Trump later smirked, pointed at Putin and said: “Don’t meddle in the election.”
      Grisham was Trump’s third press secretary, an unhappy reign in which she did not hold a single White House briefing. Her book has been extensively trailed, titbits including a comparison of Melania Trump to Marie Antoinette.
      Full story: More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US Afghanistan withdrawal a ‘logistical success but strategic failure’, Milley says

      by

      US militaryUS Afghanistan withdrawal a ‘logistical success but strategic failure’, Milley saysGeneral and other military leaders in heated cross-examinationMilley defends loyalty to country and rejects suggestion to quit Julian Borger in WashingtonTue 28 Sep 2021 14.44 EDTLast modified on Tue 28 Sep 2021 17.00 EDTThe withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation of Kabul was “a logistical success but a strategic failure,” the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has told the Senate.Gen Mark Milley gave the stark assessment at an extraordinary hearing of the Senate armed services committee to examine the US departure, which also became a postmortem on the 20-year war that preceded it.Milley appeared alongside the defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the head of US Central Command, Gen Kenneth ‘Frank’ McKenzie, in the most intense, heated cross-examination of the country’s military leadership in more than a decade.At one point, Milley was obliged to defend his loyalty to his country, in the face of allegations of insubordination in last weeks of the Trump administration, and to explain why he had not resigned in the course of the chaotic Afghan pullout.General defends himself over Trump and says his loyalty to nation is absoluteRead more“It is obvious the war in Afghanistan did not end on the terms we wanted,” Milley said, noting “the Taliban is now in power in Kabul.”“We must remember that the Taliban was and remains a terrorist organization and they still have not broken ties with al-Qaida,” he added. “I have no illusions who we are dealing with. It remains to be seen whether or not the Taliban can consolidate power, or if the country will further fracture into civil war.”It was a long and very difficult day in Congress for the Biden administration, which has been trying to move past the reputational damage caused by the sudden fall of Kabul last month and subsequent scramble to evacuate Americans and allies, which left tens of thousands of vulnerable Afghans behind.Milley, Austin and McKenzie all confirmed that when the Biden administration was considering its policy on Afghanistan in its first few months in office, they had believed a small US force of about 2,500 should remain.None could explain Joe Biden’s claim in an interview last month that he had not received any such advice.“No one said that to me that I can recall,” Biden told ABC News on 19 August.Milley adamantly rejected a suggestion by Republican senator Tom Cotton he should resign because that advice was rejected.“It would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken,” he said, staring straight at Cotton. “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we’re going to accept and do or not. That’s not our job.”In his 19 August interview, Biden had said that US forces would stay until all American citizens had been evacuated. But when the last soldier left on a flight on 30 August, there were still believed to be more than a hundred Americans – most if not all dual nationals who had delayed their decision to leave until it was too late.Milley said it was the advice of the military leadership to stick to the end of August deadline to complete the departure, which the Taliban had accepted.If the US had stayed on into September to try to evacuate more people, he said: “We would have been at war with the Taliban again,” requiring an extra 20,000 troops to clear Kabul of Taliban fighters and retake Bagram air base near the capital, which the US had abandoned in July.Milley also had to defend himself against charges that he deliberately sought to undermine Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief out of fear that the former president would launch a foreign war as a diversion to distract attention from his election loss in November.“My loyalty to this nation, its people and the constitution hasn’t changed and will never change,” Milley told the Senate armed services committee on Tuesday. “As long as I have a breath to give, my loyalty is absolute.”Milley was facing hostile Republicans, some of whom have demanded his resignation following revelations that he spoke twice to his Chinese counterpart, reassuring him that the US would not launch a surprise attack.Mark Milley, US general who stood up to Trump, founders over Kabul strikeRead moreThe revelations are contained in a new book, Peril, by the Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.According to the book, Milley also ordered officers assigned to the Pentagon war room to let him know if Trump ordered a nuclear launch, despite the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs is not in the chain of command.The general said his two calls with the Chinese army chief followed intelligence suggesting China was fearful of an attack, and were intended to defuse tensions.“I am certain President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese,” Milley said, adding he had been directed by the defence secretary to convey that message to the Chinese.“My task at that time was to de-escalate,” he said. “My message again was consistent: stay calm, steady and de-escalate. We are not going to attack you.”He said the calls were closely coordinated with the defence secretary and other senior officials in the Trump administration, and that several senior Pentagon officials sat in on the calls.On the question of his actions on nuclear launch procedures, Milley said he had a responsibility to insert himself into those procedures in order to be able to perform his role to advise the president properly.“By law I am not in the chain of command and I know that,” he said. “However, by presidential directive, and [defence department] instruction, I am in the chain of communication to fulfil my legal statutory role as the president’s primary military adviser.”TopicsUS militaryAfghanistanSouth and Central AsiaUS foreign policyUS CongressUS politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Top US general to face heated questions in Congress after Woodward revelations

      by

      US CongressTop US general to face heated questions in Congress after Woodward revelationsMark Milley poised for tense cross-examination after book said he took steps to prevent Trump from starting a war Julian Borger in WashingtonTue 28 Sep 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 28 Sep 2021 02.01 EDTThe top US general will appear before Congress on Tuesday in what is expected to be the most heated cross-examination of a senior US military officer in over a decade.The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mark Milley, can expect a hostile interrogation from Republicans on the Senate armed services committee after accounts in a recent book that he carried out acts of insubordination to prevent Donald Trump from starting a war as a diversion from his election defeat last year.In the book, Peril, the Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa report that Milley twice called his Chinese opposite number to reassure him that the US would not conduct a surprise attack, and that the US general would alert Beijing if the president tried to order one.According to the book, Milley also ordered officers assigned to the Pentagon war room to let him know if Trump ordered a nuclear launch, despite the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs is not in the chain of command.Milley will be facing senior Republican senators who have been calling for his resignation since the book came out this month. Some Democrats, though generally thankful that Milley stepped in to rule out a potentially catastrophic military diversion ordered by a volatile and defeated president, are also concerned about the precedent it sets for the future power balance between elected civilian leaders and US generals and admirals.The formal purpose of the Senate hearing is to hear testimony on “the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan and plans for future counter-terrorism operations”.Milley, alongside the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the head of US central command, Gen Kenneth McKenzie, will face stern questioning from both sides over the chaotic last days of the 20-year US military presence in Afghanistan, and asked why some many Afghans who had been granted special immigrant visas or had visa applications pending were left behind to fend for themselves after Kabul fell to the Taliban.McKenzie will also have to answer questions about a 29 August drone strike that was meant to target an Islamic State car bomb but instead killed 10 members of a family, seven of them children.Milley will be asked why he deemed it a “righteous strike” before all the evidence was available, and all three men will have to respond to concerns that such deadly mistakes could become more concerning as the US resorts to an over-the-horizon approach to counter-terrorist operations in Afghanistan in the future, flying long-distance bombing sorties with little or no human intelligence on the ground to guide attacks.TopicsUS CongressUS militaryUS SenateDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are Americans paying $32m every hour for wars since 9/11? | Barbara Lee

      by

      OpinionUS politicsWhy are Americans paying $32m every hour for wars since 9/11?Barbara LeeI was the sole member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan. Congress has yet to stand up against endless militarism Thu 9 Sep 2021 06.19 EDTLast modified on Thu 9 Sep 2021 06.21 EDTOn 11 September 2001, the world witnessed a terrible attack against our nation that took thousands of lives and changed millions more lives forever. The events of that day fundamentally changed the way we view American national security. But the decision to plunge the US into a state of perpetual war was taken rashly, without the debate that such a momentous decision demanded.Twenty years on, the US and the world are much worse off for this failure of leadership. It is time to turn the page on two decades of endless war with a vague and ever-shifting mission. While this begins with removing the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force from the law books, it will also require decisive changes in our foreign policy decision processes and resource allocation.Shortly after the attacks, President Bush sent a 60-word blank check to Congress that would give him or any other president the authority to wage war against enemies of their choosing. It was a sweeping resolution known as the 2001 authorization for use of military force, or the 2001 AUMF. I was the lone vote in Congress against the authorization because I feared it was too broad, giving the president the open-ended power to use military force anywhere, against anyone.The human cost has been high: an untold number of civilian casualties overseas, two generations of American soldiers sent to fight without any clear objective or oversight and thousands of our troops and other personnel killed, wounded and traumatized in action.The Afghanistan war alone has cost more than $2.6tn taxpayer dollars and killed more than 238,000 individuals. The 2002 AUMF, which authorized war against Iraq based on fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction, has cost $1.9tn and killed an estimated 288,000. Together, these two AUMFs have been used by three successive presidents to engage in war in at least seven countries – from Yemen to Libya to Niger – against a continually growing list of adversaries that Congress never foresaw or intended. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations have further identified to Congress combat-ready counter-terrorism deployments to at least 14 additional countries, indicating that the AUMFs could justify armed combat in those places as well. Only 56 current members of the House and 16 senators were present at the 2001 vote, making a mockery of the constitutional principle that only the people’s elected representatives in Congress can send our country to war.The results today are a perpetual state of war and an ever-expanding military-industrial complex that consumes a greater and greater amount of our resources every year. Pentagon spending since 9/11 (adjusted for inflation) has increased by almost 50%. Each hour, taxpayers are paying $32m for the total cost of wars since 2001, and these wars have not made Americans safer or brought democracy or stability to the Middle East. To the contrary, they have further destabilized the region and show no sign of ending or achieving any of the long-ago stated goals.Additionally, many of these actions were essentially hidden from the American people by using funds from an account meant for unanticipated developments called overseas contingency operations. Congress appropriated nearly $1.9tn for this account, enabling continuing military actions and wars in several countries, exempted from congressional budget rules. Thankfully, President Biden ended this budget practice this year. But two decades of reliance on emergency and contingency funding sources has resulted in less oversight, less transparency and higher levels of waste.It’s time we end these forever wars. With a coalition of partners, allies and advocates both inside the halls of Congress and out, we are finally on the cusp of turning the page on this state of perpetual war-making.To begin with, I worked with colleagues on a bipartisan basis to urge President Biden to withdraw troops from Afghanistan swiftly and efficiently. He heeded our calls and undertook an evacuation operation unprecedented in its scale, while keeping our commitment to withdraw military occupation before 11 September. The ill-defined AUMF allowed the Afghanistan war to drag on for two decades, even after we had achieved the ostensible mission of eliminating the threat posed by al-Qaida to the United States. The challenges of our evacuation, and the fact that the Taliban could regain control of Afghanistan despite our 20-year war, merely underscore why Congress should not authorize open-ended military engagements.For that very reason, it’s not enough just to withdraw our forces. We must rein in executive power and keep it from being abused by any more administrations – Democratic or Republican. In my role on the Democratic platform drafting committee, I successfully advocated for including a repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in the Democratic party platform. In a historic 268–161 vote, the House passed my legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF in June, and the Senate foreign relations committee voted 14-8 in August to do the same, with both votes drawing bipartisan support. I am also calling on Congress to address the outdated 2001 AUMF. Any new authorization for use of military force must include safeguards to protect against overreach – including a clear and specifically defined mission objective, reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability and a sunset clause or timeline within which Congress should revisit the authority – among other provisions.Congress must reclaim its constitutional duty to oversee matters of war and peace. In addition to repealing these AUMFs, we also need to revisit the broader statutes that govern war powers so that Congress can more effectively rein in presidential war-making – a project being pursued in earnest by my colleagues, Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). But we need to go beyond just changing the law. We need to change our approach to the world, away from framing every challenge as one that requires military force as a response. When we use the frame of war to analyze the challenge of terrorism, we artificially limit the solutions available to us, crowding out the political and diplomatic approaches that offer the only real durable solutions for US security.Helping to build an equitable world that values inclusion and human rights won’t make terrorism disappear. But it would dramatically shrink the space for terrorist groups to operate and weaken the real grievances that they exploit. Not only that, but a US foreign policy based on supporting development and human rights would allow us to pursue a proactive strategy in line with progressive values, rather than one where America finds itself constantly in a militarized defensive crouch.A new foreign policy approach requires a significant reallocation of our resources to address the very real and immediate threats we face. The world is still confronting a global pandemic. Hundreds of millions of people are living in extreme poverty, with many more pushed out of the middle class by Covid-19. And the climate crisis looms over us, threatening every gain in human progress we have made over recent decades. It is unacceptable to continue to pour billions of dollars into the Pentagon when the real challenges we face require diplomatic and development solutions.A new and better approach also requires empowering our civilian foreign policy agencies to set the agenda. For too many years, we have outsourced our foreign policy to the Pentagon. The overwhelming human and financial resources that the Pentagon brings to foreign policy decision-making too often push diplomatic or development concerns to the background. Rebalancing the emphasis of our foreign policy will give us the opportunity to explore solutions that could be both more humane and more durable.The president has a role in fixing the errors of the past 20 years. But ultimately Congress must step up. For two decades, Congress has failed to exercise its constitutionally mandated role to conduct proper oversight, to make appropriate decisions about budgets and resource allocation, and – most importantly – to play the singular role the constitution assigns to us of making decisions about war and peace. The American people have made clear their preference for moving beyond endless war. Congress needs to hear their voice and act.
      Congresswoman Barbara Lee is a member of the House appropriations committee, chair of the subcommittee on state and foreign operations, and co-chair of the House steering & policy committee. As a member of the House Democratic leadership, she is the highest-ranking Black woman in the US Congress
      This essay is co-published with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law as part of a series exploring new approaches to national security 20 years after 9/11
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS militaryForeign policycommentReuse this content More