Friday, March 06, 2015

Who got trapped in Afghanistan?

The violence continues in Iraq.  Alsumaria notes a bombing outside Falluja left 5 Iraqi soldiers dead and four injured, 3 corpses were discovered dumped in an orchard outside of Baquba, 4 Iraqi soldiers were killed in a house bombing outside of Tikrit, 4 Iraqi forces were killed and twenty-eight injured in a battle outside of Tikrit, a Baghdad roadside bombing killed 1 person and 1 corpse was discovered dumped in the streets of Baghdad.

As the Tikrit offensive continues, Joshua Keating (Slate) notes:

Washington seems a bit unsure of how to feel about that. U.S. officials say the Iraqis did not ask for U.S. support in the Tikrit operation, but military commanders say they were aware of the operation to retake Saddam Hussein’s hometown in advance, even if they didn’t coordinate it. As one official told the Wall Street Journal, “any geography taken from ISIL is a good thing.”

Still, the increasing influence of Iran in Baghdad, and the fact that Iranian-backed Shiite militias are taking the lead in the fight against ISIS while the U.S. continues to debate the readiness of the official Iraqi army, cannot be good for the American push for Iraqi unity.

We should probably note now that a few in the administration having been bragging around DC about how this is really a brilliant stroke and it will keep Iran trapped in Iraq like, they insist, happened to the Soviet Union with Afghanistan.

The idiots making that boast seem unable or unwilling to note how that actually worked out in the long run: the never-ending US - Afghanistan war for example -- a strange oversight considering US troops are still fighting in Afghanistan.

In the long run, who got trapped in Afghanistan?

It would appear it was much more than just the Soviet Union.

At least they have legal cover.  The US troops in Iraq today really do not.  Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) has a column at MSNBC on the Barack's requested Authorization for the Use of Military Force:

Generally, if you’re sincere in asking for permission to do something, you don’t ask more than six months after you start that something. But that’s the case with the AUMF against ISIS, which authorizes a war Obama actually started waging in August of last year. Six months ago, however, the president didn’t have a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress – a Republican majority seemingly hell-bent on continuing a legacy of never-ending U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The truth is, we’re already at war. By asking for the authorization to use military force in such a manner, the White House is acting as if the AUMF against ISIS is a mere technicality, some paperwork they didn’t get to on time but finished eventually. But in reality, the consequences could be much darker, because if Congress approves the AUMF as it stands, this president—and those who come after him—will be able to wage a war unlimited by geographical distances, with no defined enemy or length.

On last week's  Law and Disorder Radio,  Michael and co-host Heidi Boghosian, discussed the AUMF and you can refer to the program's website to stream that discussion or you can read a transcript of the bulk of the discussion in the February 23rd snapshot.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, and Dissident Voice --  updated:


  • The e-mail address for this site is

    law and disorder radio
    michael s. smith
    heidi boghosian
    michael ratner