I describe why the Afghanistan and Pakistan "Wars of Terror" must be immediately ended and how to deal with Osama Bin Laden. by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"All Warfare is Deception... There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." - Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC
Summary:I will not approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid immediate and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America's sieve-like borders. I support increasing the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. I support issuing constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America's historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands.
The Problem of Osama Bin Laden
"The Congress shall have Power... to declare War [and] grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." - [link edited for length], 1787-present. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
When America began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001 and expanded the "War of Terror" by commencing daily bombing of Pakistani villages in September 2008, both assaults were committed against sovereign states without a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement. The key justification related to the public for both wars was the tragic 9/11 attacks. The key goal related to the public for both wars was simply to capture Osama Bin Laden.
After having read the July 2004 9/11 Commission Report, there should be enough evidence to bring Bin Laden to trial for the 9/11 attacks. (1) Even though I believe Bin Laden was behind the attacks, a dispassionate observer would question why the following facts are not generally known by the American public:
Per the CIA's FBIS, Bin Laden said in a public interview on September 18, 2001 that "I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States... Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks..." While he could certainly be lying, why would he deny responsibility? The entire point of terrorism is to advance a cause through violence and fear. (2)
On their "Most Wanted" poster, the FBI does not specify that Bin Laden is wanted for trial in connection to the 9/11 attack which may mean that there is not enough hard or admissible evidence to try him in a court of law. (3)
However, the question of 9/11 responsibility is somewhat moot in the case of Bin Laden. Although he was a CIA "asset" in the proxy war fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, Bin Laden has been America's enemy since 1998 when, on the anniversary of American troops to Bin Laden's native Saudi Arabia, simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 12 American citizens. (4A) (4B) The USS Cole suicide bombing which killed 17 American sailors while harbored in Yemen, and the 1993 World Trade Center garage explosion which killed 6 civilians are also tied to Bin Laden.(4A) (5) (6)
However, hurling armies of tens of thousands after Bin Laden is not cost effective, nor is it constitutional – nor has it succeeded after the past 8 years. Therefore I would support the raising the reward for the capture of Bin Laden from $27 million to over $1 billion, and the issuing of a constitutional letter of marque to bring him – and other responsible Al-Qaeda - to justice. Letters of marque and reprisal are warrants issued by Congress to specified parties giving them permission to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts as they capture "marked" enemies or seek retribution, as was done against the Barbary pirates in 1812. (7) The higher reward would incentivize groups to pursue Bin Laden, and could conceivably include US special forces.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are Unjust Wars
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." - former President and Supreme Allied Commander in WWII Dwight D. Eisenhower
Besides a formal declaration of war, the "just war" doctrine specifies that wars cannot be preemptive; that there must be a just cause and innocent life must be in immediate jeopardy; that war must be a last resort after all diplomatic initiatives have failed; and it must be proportional in regards to the damage caused by the aggressor. (8)
Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan attacked the United States, and America was not in dire danger of an attack from either the Taliban or Pakistani military.
While the Taliban did shelter Bin Laden, the American government did not exhaust diplomacy – as a matter of fact, the government blindly ignored any efforts by the Taliban. On October 4, 2001, a Taliban plan to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial failed. (9) On October 7, as the bombing began, the Taliban stated they would place Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan. (10) On October 14, the Taliban stated they would extradite Bin Laden to a third country for trial if America presented evidence of his involvement. (11)
Proportional? In 2001, 2,976 died during the 9/11 tragedy with 4 planes destroyed, 3 collapsed buildings in New York City, and a damaged Pentagon. In return, we have annihilated many tens of thousands of innocent civilians, many insurgents, and laid waste to countless cities and villages in a country that had no air force. If one includes the 19-year long Iraq War, several million civilian dead is a reasonable total. If this were somehow not enough, 5,278 American soldiers have died abroad. (12)
Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires: History on Brutal Rerun
"Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are." - George Santayana
The Russians, British, even Alexander the Great have all met with defeat in Afghanistan, where the allegiances of a motley collection of tribes and clans still shift like the wind. America's present-day involvement did not start in 2001, but instead began in 1979. The Muslim rebels, including Bin Laden, were funded via a proxy war to bled the Soviet Empire dry a few years before its' failed central economic planning would have accomplished the same feat. President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – who later was an advisor for President Obama – related in a 1998 interview that America fomented unrest in Afghanistan by secretly funding the Mujahadeen well before the Soviets invaded. When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted funding Islamic fundamentalists and future terrorists, he replied, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" (13)
Brzezinski's attitude was typical as America wiped its hands clean and left Afghanistan to tribal warfare which resulted in the Taliban consolidating power in the late 1990s. After fleeing Sudan, Osama Bin Laden found shelter with old contacts in the Northern Alliance and also the Taliban. As is related in the 9/11 Commission Report in chapters titled "The Attack Looms" and "The System Was Blinking Red," America took very few actions to capture or kill Bin Laden until after 9/11 occurred. (14) However, even after 9/11 America was very hesitant to spend our soldiers' lives. Consider:
On October 7, 2001 American and British air forces began the bombardment of Afghanistan, which had no air force. Air strikes directed by small British and American special forces units working alongside the Northern Alliance were the key reason the Taliban was defeated very quickly.
On November 13, Kabul was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.
On November 26, Kunduz was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.
In December the last major city of Kandahar was captured, also by Northern Alliance ground forces. (15)
During December 12-17 the infamous Battle of Tora Bora was fought in the mountains on the Afghanistan border. It is widely believed that this is when Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. (16) (Photo)
So President Bush, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, did NOT allow American land forces to pursue him on land. In other words, we launched 150,000 troops over the Iraqi border in 2003 to capture Saddam Hussein, who was completely uninvolved with 9/11, but had only aerial bombardment and a few scant special op/CIA forces in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. Bush was content to let the Northern Alliance, a group of tribal warlords, fight a proxy war on our behalf. (17)
It wasn’t until March 2002 that a major ground campaign was launched by the US to attack Al-Qaeda, and this can be seen by just looking at the casualty list's details – most of those who died up to March were non-hostile airplane crashes or special ops related deaths. The first US combat death was a CIA operative on November 25. (18)
Will America join the dead phalanxes of Alexander and the rusted tanks of the Soviets in the graveyard of empires? I do not think we should stay long enough to find out. We are spending $400 to deliver each gallon of gasoline to patrol foreign borders, and currently maintaining an expensive army of 68,000 troops in the field. (19) The current National Security Advisor James Jones claimed in October 2009 that there are "less than 100 [al Qaeda] operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." (20)
A Tale of Opiates and Oil
"The first casualty when war comes is the truth." - Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917
These are two fairly taboo subjects when the Afghanistan War is covered by the mainstream press. How much each factor truly played in foreign policy decision-making is left to the reader to decide.
Per the most recent, highly detailed United Nations report, the opium crop is over twice the pre-invasion levels. In fact, up until the invasion in November 2001, the Taliban's mission to eradicate the crop was well underway due to their religious beliefs as seen by the dramatic drop in this chart. (21) The claim that the invasion has slowed down the drug trade is false; the war has accomplished the exact opposite. This is a major cash market, with Afghanistan supplying over 90% of the world's opiates.
The second topic is the geopolitics of oil. While Afghanistan itself does not have fossil fuels, the vast and fairly-untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas lie in the former Soviet satellite nations on the Afghan northern border. The Caspian Sea region is landlocked and there are plans to pipe the resources out via a Turkish or an Afghani-Pakistani pipeline, but political instability makes this difficult. A modern "Great Game" of geopolitical power struggles with the Russian, Chinese, Indian and Iranian governments is well underway. (22)
Border Security and the Economy
For those who do not heed the Constitutional limits on government, the brutal lessons taught by history, the immorality of unjust war, here are another two attempts to reason – border security and the economic turmoil.
As a chemical engineer, in industry when attacking customer problems, the first step is always containment of the problem, followed by root cause analysis, then preventative actions. In the case of 9/11, the Bush II administration made a foolhardy leap directly to preventative action, and has still not contained the threat of terrorism. In fact, even the "root cause analysis" from the 9/11 Commission did not begin until 14 months AFTER 9/11 instead of on 9/12/2001. (23) Despite all the wasted bureaucracy in creating the monstrous $44-billion-a-year Department of Homeland Security, the American border is still a sieve with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese as evidenced by rampant illegal immigration. (24) Returning the overseas Defense Department troops back to actually defending our borders with civilian border patrol staffing access points is extremely crucial for two reasons – our border security and our budget.
We must extricate our country from the overseas military empire of well over 700 bases in 150 of the planet's 194 countries costing well over $1 trillion before it is too late. (25) With unemployment raging at over 20% and the dollar currency in crisis, imperial overstretch will result in the further stripping from the false Keynesian economy of our capital equipment, businesses, and jobs. If we and our children are to have peace in our lifetimes, we must drop the silly notion of America serving as the "world's policeman" and JUST BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
What kind of "policeman" patrols city streets with tanks, assault rifles, automated Predator drones and calls in aerial bombing and strafing runs to "peacekeep" the neighborhood? Washington DC is full of warmongers, armchair generals and chicken hawks who have no idea what the horrors of war entail. If our country were truly in danger of being invaded, I would be among the first to protect my family and friends.(Photo courtesy Leon Kuhn. Used with permission.)
The enemies I have chosen to peacefully rise up against instead walk the halls of government. Errant foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and any future acts of terrorism on our soil. In return for military and CIA meddling during the past century, America was hit on 9/11 by "blowback," a CIA term coined to describe what goes around comes around. (26) Without our troops stationed on Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Kuwaiti, et cetera soil, continuous supply of arms to both Israeli and Arab factions, and continuous bombing of Iraq, and harsh sanctions on Iraq and Iran, we would not have been attacked on 9/11.
We must be far more wary of the reckless spenders who support the Warfare-Welfare state, the FED and corporatist bailouts than of desperate bands starving in caves on the opposite side of the world. The American republic was conceived in liberty and is dead in its grave until We the People decide to fight for our freedoms. While I draw breath I intend to see that liberty shall not perish under the heavy fist of this unconstitutional and illegal collection of rogues in government.
For freedom, justice, peace and prosperity,
Jake Towne
November 14, 2009
[Note: If you would like to find out what General McChrystal, commander of our forces suggests we do instead, here is his leaked and declassified report. While I had been hoping to find a logical, detailed alternative, unfortunately it reads like a poor high school book report that was turned in 8 years too late. The key takeaway is that "many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating." (page 5/66) Also recommended reading is the resignation letter of Iraq War veteran Matthew Hoh, who resigned rather then continue serving in Afghanistan, and Imperial Hubris, a book written by the CIA's Bin Laden unit's former head, Michael Scheuer.]
(7)Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies. "What Are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?" http://www.lbccs.org/2009/11/what-are-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal.html
(9) UK Telegraph. 4 October 2001. "Pakistan Blocks Bin Laden Trial." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html
(21) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2009. "Afghanistan Opium Survey 2009 - Summary Findings." p. 26/42. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_opium_survey_2009_summary.pdf
(22) Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. "The Sorrows of Empire."
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-11-16 11:57:10
The U.S. government's intervention in Afghanistan's poppy production is a fascinating example of how the U.S.'s intervention causes serious problems in other countries.
Thank you so much for an intelligent and understandable reasoning of the Afghan/Iraqi/Pakistani wars. My heart is daily broken by the extreme damage being done to beautiful Pakistan, which has now to defend its nascent democracy from Taliban who were bankrolled and trained by US interests to be their proxy fighters in the Afghan-Soviet war.  I
Nice article, Jake. I must disagree with your idea that the troops need to be brought home & then used to "secure" the border. Better to follow the Founder's advice not to have a standing military & turn the returning soldiers, airmen, etc into PFCivilians. :-)
Don't worry about the border, only require that those who come here behave peacfully.
Posted By: Edu Montesanti
Date: 2009-11-18 00:51:49
I agree to Darren and go a little far: US imperialism being changed for a fair politics will resolve great part of our Latin problems, especially the question of the border put by you, Jake. Let us also remember that the US imports a great part of Mexico's smuggled drug, as well as the Afghan opium.
Mexico ha accepted US free market brought by Nafta. The US has fallen so Mexico did. Until when the underdeveloped countries will pay for the Imperial mistakes, and people who go behind an opportunity in developed countries will find them closed?
OK, Jake, I understand your position, it is needed to have control. But in the case of drugs, US officials participate of smuggled drug from Mexico, we know. As a future Congressman, consider it and see that great part of it inhabits in the US (if we do not ave who buy drugs, they are not going to sell).
In the case of poverty and seek for new opportunities in the US, it is a long debate, but... where is the so-called free market? Merchandizing can freely cross the borders, not people? See, Jake, that I consider order and control, but think of accomodating, receiving people who goes to the US, or before in politics who makes them happy in their country, for we know anyone wants to lave you homeland, but in the case of violence, or poverty, or natural disaster...
In the case of poverty and violence (drugs play its strong role) the Empire and other powers are in historical debt with the underdeveloped countries, as you mentioned especially in the US case in this so great article, Jake.
Posted By: Edu Montesanti
Date: 2009-11-18 00:58:06
I just write it here, Jake, because I have been seeing many concerns, lomg debates on it, boarders affairs, but we sometimes forget the problems, the root, which you well-observed in this article mentioning 9/11: imperialism leads to aggression... [and poverty].
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-11-19 14:31:19
I'm sorry, Jake, but I could only get a portion of the way through your screed before I decided that you know nothing about 1] the Constitution 2] international law 3] history or 4] logical presentation of a rhetorical position.
The Constitutional assertion of "declaration of war" has consistently been upheld by the USSC as being irrelevant as to whether the US can actually undertake hostile actions.
The President is Commander in Chief [find your own Constitutional cite, Mr Expert], and as such has the authority to determine whether to send US armed forces into hostile action. It has been interpretted thus for well over 200 years. More US armed conflicts have been entered without a Declaration of War than not, and every time we enter another some crybaby files suit against the US in federal court claiming we cannot do so, and the federal courts give the same stock answer: yes we can.
The Congressional declaration of war is essentially a check-n-balance mechanism for Congress to compel the President to do so if/when the President may be reluctant.
If we do not like this way that the Constitution has been UNIVERSALLY interpretted by courts -- liberal and conservative and every shade between and at right-angles -- then there is a remedy: change the damned Constitution.
Until that happens, those who claim it unconstitutional to enter military conflict without a Declaration are factually wrong; if they continue to claim it, they are liars.
A sovereign nation -- such as A'stan -- is required, under the precepts of international law, to control how agencies within its borders acts towards other sovereign nations -- such as the USA. When an agency within the borders of, say, A'stan act against the sovereign territory of, say, the USA in ways that would otherwise be considered Acts of War, then the sovereign nation of A'stan is responsible to apprehend those agents -- or make what is recognized as a good faith effort to try.
Failure to even try, as A'stan failed [refused, actually], is understood by the precepts of international law as the sovereign nation ratifying the actions of the agency -- in the case of 9-11, committing an Act of War against the US. The actions of the agency became the actions of the sovereign nation.
This same principle requires P'stan to control those agencies in their Northwestern Frontier who are oozing across the border and taking military actions in A'stan. Whether P'stan is physically and politically unable to control their border against exported war-making, or they simply refuse [as A'stan did in 2001] is irrelevant: international law presumes it the duty of each sovereign nation to control their borders; failure or refusal effectively nullifies the sovereignty of the border.
Again, you do not have to like this, but until there is another quantum shift in how sovereignties deal with each other then you have to accept it. There is no ready remedy as trivial as changing the Constitution; you would have to change the worldview and mindset in the halls of power on the whole planet -- and given that much of that planet is slouching towards world government [i.e., the Wrong Way], you'd be fighting an uphill battle.
I find it dishonest for people with positions -- such as you and yours -- to "argue" that position from the posture of preaching to the choir. The "argument" is unconvincing to anyone but the Amen Pew, and the most common means of saving the souls of the righteous is by repeating axiomatic balderdash without acknowledging criticism. One specific example of the dozens you present: "...a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement...".
You otherwise footnote resplendantly; why did you fail to note that not once in our 220 years of Constitutional Republic has your assertion every been deemed to be the case?
Mostly, because it would work against your "point". Those you're talking to already know this fable to be "true", those who dispute it won't listen to you. End result: you stir the outrage of the True Believers and the rest of the world ignores you as the crank and crackpot you are who cannot acknowledge the real world.
Fact: a declaration of war is not necessary to take military action. It is dishonest to claim otherwise, regardless of how sincerely you believe it SHOULD be the case. It is not.
A political philosophy which freely supplants a reality contrary to its ideals with axiom is no different from a religion. It relies on mortgaged credibility to score instant gain. That's no way to build legitimate foundation of government. [see RNC and DNC].
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-11-19 15:57:53
Dear Ross - Thanks for your comments.
"Fact: a declaration of war is not necessary to take military action"
I agree with you. If US forces or our country is attacked, obviously the military can take immediate actions in response. However, for longer-term commitments and acts of aggression, Congress is reserved the power to declare war or issue letters of reprisal. Both Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, are quite obviously in this category as its been about a decade.
"The Congressional declaration of war is essentially a check-n-balance mechanism for Congress to compel the President to do so if/when the President may be reluctant."
I disagree. I suggest you check out the Federalist Papers, or look into the last time we declared war, which was in December 1941 vs Japan, Germany and Italy. Congress has the power to declare war - not the President. Period. Another check remaining to Congress is that of the purse strings, which is how Vietnam ended. I will agree that this has not been the case since after Pearl Harbor and on other international escapades all over the planet.
However, what's not mentioned above is the War Powers Resolution which conflicts with the Constitution - but needed to exist for the President to exercise his "broad executive powers" Garet goes further into his description of the rise of the executive in his short essays in "The People's Pottage" http://mises.org/books/pottage.pdf
At any rate, I hope you understand that the legal point of the above is just one of many points I've made against this war. We are both entitled to our opinions of course, but the next 8 years of fruitless war will be much worse than the first 8 years if we continue our present path.
The courts may not agree, but Hamilton's view was different. From the Federalist No 69:
The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp
So, no, the prez shouldn't have the power to start a war, the rubber stamp courts notwithstanding
Well, I mostly agree with your points, however, it seems to me that Bin Laden is most likely dead from kidney failure. So, does a reward for his capture really make sense?
Also, I would expect that bringing home a large number of troops when unemployment is in excess of 20% would be politically unappealing. That is, unless they are being brought home to reduce the potential problem of riots... Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but unfortunately, that's just about the only scenario I can envision where the troops come home.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2010-01-03 18:42:05
Ken -
Same for any other identified terrorists.  I know there's a chance he's passed away, but haven't seen any proof.  Hazlitt wrote a good chapter on troop demobilization in Economics in One Lesson  http://towneforcongress.com/lots-more/educational-resources
When America began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001 and expanded the "War of Terror" by commencing daily bombing of Pakistani villages in September 2008, both assaults were committed against sovereign states without a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement. The key justification related to the public for both wars was the tragic 9/11 attacks. The key goal related to the public for both wars was simply to capture Osama Bin Laden.
However, the question of 9/11 responsibility is somewhat moot in the case of Bin Laden. Although he was a CIA "asset" in the proxy war fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, Bin Laden has been America's enemy since 1998 when, on the anniversary of American troops to Bin Laden's native Saudi Arabia, simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 12 American citizens. (
Besides a formal declaration of war, the "just war" doctrine specifies that wars cannot be preemptive; that there must be a just cause and innocent life must be in immediate jeopardy; that war must be a last resort after all diplomatic initiatives have failed; and it must be proportional in regards to the damage caused by the aggressor. (
The Russians, British, even Alexander the Great have all met with defeat in Afghanistan, where the allegiances of a motley collection of tribes and clans still shift like the wind. America's present-day involvement did not start in 2001, but instead began in 1979. The Muslim rebels, including Bin Laden, were funded via a proxy war to bled the Soviet Empire dry a few years before its' failed central economic planning would have accomplished the same feat. President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – who later was an advisor for President Obama – related in a 1998 interview that America fomented unrest in Afghanistan by secretly funding the Mujahadeen well before the Soviets invaded. When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted funding Islamic fundamentalists and future terrorists, he replied, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" (
During December 12-17 the infamous Battle of Tora Bora was fought in the mountains on the Afghanistan border. It is widely believed that this is when Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. (
Per the most recent, highly detailed United Nations report, the opium crop is over twice the pre-invasion levels. In fact, up until the invasion in November 2001, the Taliban's mission to eradicate the crop was well underway due to their religious beliefs as seen by the dramatic drop in this chart. (.jpg)
We must extricate our country from the overseas military empire of well over 700 bases in 150 of the planet's 194 countries costing well over $1 trillion before it is too late. (