The U.S. military is expanding its secret intelligence operations across Africa, establishing a network of small air bases to spy on terrorist hideouts from the fringes of the Sahara to jungle terrain along the equator, according to documents and people involved in the project.
At the heart of the surveillance operations are small, unarmed turboprop aircraft disguised as private planes. Equipped with hidden sensors that can record full-motion video, track infrared heat patterns, and vacuum up radio and cellphone signals, the planes refuel on isolated airstrips favored by African bush pilots, extending their effective flight range by thousands of miles.
About a dozen air bases have been established in Africa since 2007, according to a former senior U.S. commander involved in setting up the network. Most are small operations run out of secluded hangars at African military bases or civilian airports.
The nature and extent of the missions, as well as many of the bases being used, have not been previously reported but are partially documented in public Defense Department contracts.
[. . .]
The establishment of the Africa missions also highlights the ways in which Special Operations forces are blurring the lines that govern the secret world of intelligence, moving aggressively into spheres once reserved for the CIA. The CIA has expanded its counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations in Africa, but its manpower and resources pale in comparison with those of the military.
[. . .]
A hub for secret network
A key hub of the U.S. spying network can be found in Ouagadougou (WAH-gah-DOO-goo), the flat, sunbaked capital of Burkina Faso, one of the most impoverished countries in Africa.
Under a classified surveillance program code-named Creek Sand, dozens of U.S. personnel and contractors have come to Ouagadougou in recent years to establish a small air base on the military side of the international airport.
Read the full article; it’s shocking to consider the extent of the secret wars being waged and military bases being built or “borrowed” by the U.S. around the world. Thanks to Wikileaks for releasing the information in diplomatic cables.
U.S. military leaders are worried that recent outrageous conduct by U.S. troops in Afghanistan are stoking public anger against the foreign occupation, destabilizing the country and endangering U.S. and NATO troops there. They responded by telling their troops to behave. The AP reported “Military commanders warned to get troops in line” (May 3, 2012):
Military leaders are telling commanders to get their troops in line and refrain from misconduct such as urinating on enemy corpses, in a sharp response to the tasteless photos and other disturbing examples of bad behavior that have enraged Afghans and complicated war-fighting.
As military leaders gave their troops a refresher on proper occupation etiquette, President Obama made a secret trip to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden to sign a security agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai:
President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have signed a strategic partnership accord that charts the future of US-Afghan relations beyond the end of the NATO combat mission in the country in 2014.
[…]
The deal does not commit the United States to any specific troop presence or spending. But it does allow the US to potentially keep troops in Afghanistan after the war ends for two specific purposes: continued training of Afghan forces and targeted operations against al-Qaeda.
So, essentially the President has reneged on his promise to end the war and occupation of Afghanistan. Democracy Now! ran a show that featured the critical commentary of Tariq Ali and Ann Wright. The U.S. seeks to establish a long term military base presence in Afghanistan, not for anti-terrorism operations, but for surrounding Russia and China. However, despite modeling the security agreement on the kinds of arrangements in existence in Japan, Afghanistan is not post-war Japan.
The Marine Corps said Wednesday that it is investigating the origins of a video on the Internet that purports to show Marines in combat gear urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents.
The brief video, which runs for less than a minute, began circulating on Web sites early Wednesday. It depicts four Marines laughing as they relieve themselves while standing over three prostrate bodies.
A caption asserts that the Marines are part of a scout sniper team with the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, an infantry unit from Camp Lejeune, N.C. Members of the unit were deployed to Afghanistan last year but returned in September.
The Marine Corps was quick to distance itself from the scandal:
“The actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps,” she said in a statement.
Then on February 22, 2012, U.S. troops from Bagram Air Base burned Qurans at the nearby detention facility. The desecration of the Muslim holy book sparked a deadly wave of protests and violence across Afghanistan that resulted in 41 deaths and at least 270 injuries. As the New York Times reports “Obama Sends Apology as Afghan Koran Protests Rage” (February 23, 2012):
The potential scope of the fallout from the burning of several copies of the Koran by American military personnel this week became chillingly clear on Thursday as a man in an Afghan Army uniform shot and killed two American soldiers, while a crowd nearby protested the desecration of the Muslim holy book.
And all President Obama could do was say “uh, sorry.”
The paratroopers had their assignment: Check out reports that Afghan police had recovered the mangled remains of an insurgent suicide bomber. Try to get iris scans and fingerprints for identification.
The 82nd Airborne Division soldiers arrived at the police station in Afghanistan’s Zabol province in February 2010. They inspected the body parts. Then the mission turned macabre: The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held — and others squatted beside — the corpse’s severed legs.
A few months later, the same platoon was dispatched to investigate the remains of three insurgents who Afghan police said had accidentally blown themselves up. After obtaining a few fingerprints, they posed next to the remains, again grinning and mugging for photographs.
Two soldiers posed holding a dead man’s hand with the middle finger raised. A soldier leaned over the bearded corpse while clutching the man’s hand. Someone placed an unofficial platoon patch reading “Zombie Hunter” next to other remains and took a picture
The inhumane conduct of U.S. troops that has shocked public sensibilities is not an abberation; it is a product of the dehumanizing psychic conditioning of militarization and war. It is a necessary skill for troops to survive in war. To get a glimpse of this conditioning, I highly recommend Hell and Back Again, a powerful film about a Marine who is injured in Afghanistan and struggles to readjust to the terrifying normalcy of life back in the U.S. Like Restrepo, another powerful documentary about the war in Afghanistan,Hell and Back Again immerses the viewer in the “fog of war.” But unlike Restrepo, which leaves the audience disoriented by the surreal Apocalypse Now!-like meaninglessness and horror of it all, Hell and Back Again pulls the audience back to into the struggles of one Marine and his loved ones trying to piece together his life and make sense of what he has experienced. It forces us to face the mangled humanity that emerges from war, which can be more disquieting and terrifying than the senseless violence of the war itself. The website describes the film as:
From his embed with US Marines Echo Company in Afghanistan, photojournalist and filmmaker Danfung Dennis reveals the devastating impact a Taliban machine-gun bullet has on the life of 25-year-old Sergeant Nathan Harris. The film seamlessly transitions from stunning war reportage to an intimate, visceral portrait of one man’s personal struggle at home in North Carolina, where Harris confronts the physical and emotional difficulties of re-adjusting to civilian life with the love and support of his wife, Ashley. Masterfully contrasting the intensity of the frontline with the unsettling normalcy of home, HELL AND BACK AGAIN lays bare the true cost of war.
In 2009, U.S. Marines launched a major helicopter assault on a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. Within hours of being dropped deep behind enemy lines, 25-year-old Sergeant Nathan Harris’s unit (US Marines Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment) is attacked from all sides. Cut off and surrounded, the Marines fight a ghostlike enemy and experience immense hostility from displaced villagers caught in the middle.
Embedded in Echo Company during the assault, photojournalist and filmmaker Danfung Dennis captures the frontline action with visceral immediacy. When Sergeant Harris returns home to North Carolina after a life-threatening injury in battle, the film evolves from a war exposé to the story of one man’s personal apocalypse. With the love and support of his wife, Ashley, Harris struggles to overcome the difficulties of transitioning back to civilian life.
In immense physical pain, Sergeant Harris grows addicted to his medication. His agony deepens as he attempts to reconcile the gulf between his experience of war and the terrifying normalcy of life at home. The two realities seamlessly intertwine to communicate both the extraordinary drama of war and, for a generation of soldiers, the no less shocking experience of returning home.
An unprecedented exploration of the moving image and a film of uncommon intimacy, HELL AND BACK AGAIN comes full circle as it lays bare the true cost of war.
Filmmaker Danfung Dennis wrote about his personal motivation to make the film:
Oct. 23, 2010 – This morning I learned a photographer friend was severely wounded after stepping on a mine in southern Afghanistan. He lost both his legs and is in critical condition.
I’m flooded by feelings of rage, sadness, helplessness and isolation. I think of my friends and colleagues that have lost their lives while doing their job. It all seems utterly senseless.
Unless you have a personal connection, the war in Afghanistan is an abstraction. After nearly ten years since the initial invasion, the daily bombings and ongoing violence has become mundane, almost ordinary. It is tempting to become indifferent to the horror and pain. It is much easier to look away from the victims. It is much easier to lead a life without rude interruptions from complex insurgencies in distant lands. But it is when we take this easier path, the suffering becomes of no consequence and therefore meaningless. The anguish becomes invisible, an abstraction. It is when society becomes numb to inhumanity; horror is allowed to spread in darkness.
Visual imagery can be a powerful medium for truth. The images of napalmed girls screaming by Nick Ut, the street execution of a Vietcong prisoner by Eddie Adams, the shell-shocked soldier by Don McCullin – these iconic images have burned into our collective consciousness as reminders of war’s consequences.
But, this visual language is dying. The traditional outlets are collapsing. In the midst of this upheaval, we must invent a new language. I am attempting to combine the power of the still image with advanced technology to change the vernacular of photojournalism and filmmaking. Instead of opening a window to glimpse another world, I am attempting to bring the viewer into that world. I believe shared experiences will ultimately build a common humanity.
Through my work I hope to shake people from their indifference to war, and to bridge the disconnect between the realities on the ground and the public consciousness at home. By bearing witness and shedding light on another’s pain and despair, I am trying to invoke our humanity and a response to act. Is it possible that war is an archaic and primitive human behavior that society is capable of advancing past? Is it possible that the combination of photojournalism, filmmaking and technology can plead for peace and contribute to this future?
It is these possibilities that motivate us to risk life and limb.
The aerial disasters described draw attention not only to the technical limitations of drone warfare, but to larger conceptual flaws inherent in such operations. Launched and landed by aircrews close to battlefields in places like Afghanistan, the drones are controlled during missions by pilots and sensor operators — often multiple teams over many hours — from bases in places like Nevada and North Dakota. They are sometimes also monitored by “screeners” from private security contractors at stateside bases like Hurlburt Field in Florida. (A recent McClatchy report revealed that it takes nearly 170 people to keep a single Predator in the air for 24 hours.)
In other words, drone missions, like the robots themselves, have many moving parts and much, it turns out, can and does go wrong.
Turse cites numerous examples from the accident reports. The accounts are spectacular and shocking when you consider the ease with which drone operations can go astray with potentially deadly consequences. Despite the flaws of the system, Obama plans to expand the drone programs:
In spite of all the technical limitations of remote-controlled war spelled out in the Air Force investigation files, the U.S. is doubling down on drones. Under the president’s new military strategy, the Air Force is projected to see its share of the budgetary pie rise and flying robots are expected to be a major part of that expansion.
[…]
Over the last decade, a more-is-better mentality has led to increased numbers of drones, drone bases, drone pilots, and drone victims, but not much else. Drones may be effective in terms of generating body counts, but they appear to be even more successful in generating animosity and creating enemies.
Joseph Nye, President Clinton’s first Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs wrote an opinion article for the New York Times that applauds President Obama for his ‘pivot’ towards the Asia Pacific region and decision to increase U.S. military training in Australia. This appears to be a concession that the move of Futenma air station within Okinawa is not feasible. But one should read this article as the logic driving U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific. As you can see, the concerns and wishes of peoples of the Pacific do not factor into his thinking.
He writes
There are three good reasons for President Obama’s decision to rotate regularly 2,500 Marines through an Australian base.
Obama is right to ‘pivot’ American foreign policy toward East Asia. It sends the right message to China, and avoids further friction with Japan.
Of the U.S. “message to China” he writes:
The Pentagon’s East Asia Strategy Review that has guided our policy since 1995 offered China integration into the international system through trade and exchanges, but we hedged our bet by simultaneously strengthening our alliance with Japan. Our military forces did not aspire to “contain” China in a cold war fashion, but they helped to shape the environment in which China makes its choices.
And of the Okinawa situation he concedes:
The U.S. and Japan have been working on the Futenma issue since I co-chaired a special action committee on Okinawa — in 1995! The current official plan to move the Marines inside Okinawa is unlikely to be acceptable to the Okinawa people. Moving Marines to Australia is a smart move because they will be able to train and exercise freely without inadvertently signaling a withdrawal from the region.
The Washington Postpublished an informative article on China’s reaction to President Obama’s “pivot” toward Asia:
With the Obama administration’s high-profile pivot toward Asia this week — pushing for a new free-trade agreement with at least eight other countries and securing military basing rights in Australia — China is feeling at once isolated, criticized, encircled and increasingly like a taret of U.S. moves.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which was the major policy issue at the APEC summit in Honolulu, will raise tensions between China and the U.S. and spill over from the realm of economics into the realm of security concerns:
Among the friction points between the United States and China, a particular source of tension is the U.S. push for a new free-trade pact, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which pointedly does not include China. Beijing sees the development of the TPP as a political move, to create a U.S.-dominated counterweight to a rival trade bloc of Southeast Asian countries plus China, Japan and South Korea, known by the acronym ASEAN Plus Three.
[…]
“President Obama wants to intensely push on all fronts,” said Zhu Feng, a professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies. “It’s very, very depressing. Of course, it’s targeting China. It’s a new East Asian strategy.”
Zhu said he feared that the Chinese government would react to feeling isolated — particularly if the United States pursues the TPP free-trade agreement with Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and, perhaps, Japan, without China being invited to join. And the one area where Beijing could react is the economic arena, where the United States and China had lately been acting more cooperatively, even as they continued to disagree on the issue of currency valuation.
“What worries me for the moment is, economically China’s backlash could be very serious,” Zhu said. “Economics has turned out to be common ground for both sides. Now I have to say security elements will complicate China’s view of economic engagement.”
[…]
But, analysts here said, China expects to be taken seriously as a player in the East Asian region. And the analysts feared that any U.S. moves seen as provocative might only push a nervous China to take defensive measures.
“If the U.S. tries to be provocative . . . and treat China as a rival, it will definitely trigger an arms race and put East Asia in a tight spot,” said Sun Zhe, an international relations professor at Tsinghua University. “This is what alarms me most.”
Opposing paradigms converge on Hawaii Hawaii is center stage for a meeting between the all-business APEC and international environmental conference Moana Nui
Jon Letman Last Modified: 07 Oct 2011 10:36
Speaking earlier this year on US National Public Radio, Intel CEO Paul Otellini suggested that the global power shift that occurred from the United Kingdom to the United States at the beginning of the 20th century is now replaying itself, as power moves away from the United States to the Asia-Pacific region, specifically China.
If that’s true, then Hawaii is well poised to serve as the place where the proverbial baton is handed off. This November (8-13), Honolulu will host the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) 2011 summit where 21 member economies will discuss region issues.
Moana Nui 2011 – Pacific voices against the APEC agenda.
There will be a Panel on “MILITARIZATION AND RESISTANCE IN THE PACIFIC”
Thursday, November 10, 2011
2-5:30 PM,
CHURCH OF THE CROSSROADS
featuring Suzuyo Takazato(Okinawan Women Act Against Military Violence), Christine Ahn (Korea Policy Institute), Lisa Natividad (Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice), Kyle Kajihiro (DMZ-Hawaii/ALoha AIna and Hawaii Peace and Justice), Bruce Gagnon (Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space), Mayumi Oda (Artist and activist), Craig Santos Perez (Chamorro Poet), Ikaika Hussey (Hawaii Independent, Moderator)
The Asia-Pacific region; nations of the Pacific rim which include Australia and the American and Asian nations, including Pacific Island nations are an increasing focus of geopolitical competition and economic stresses. Struggles for national sovereignty and cultural viability bring about rapidly expanding campaigns toward economic self-sufficiency. These campaigns challenge the legacies of colonialism, continued militarism in the region, growing trade and development conflicts, and corresponding environmental degradations. Whose interests are advanced in these struggles? Whose views are served? What are the dominant economic interests in play? How do we take control of our future? Which is the best way forward—convergence or resistance?
Organized by a partnership of scholars, community and political activists and Hawaiian and Pacific Islander cultural practitioners, Moana Nui is intended to provide a voice and possible direction for the economies of Pacific Islands in the era of powerful transnational corporations, global industrial expansion and global climate change. This conference will issue a challenge to Pacific Island nations and communities to look for cooperative ways to strengthen subsistence and to protect cultural properties and natural resources. The timing of this conference is intended to overlap the next meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Honolulu, and hopes to call public attention to the critical importance of maintaining sound and productive local economies in the Pacific Islands both for their own sake and food security in the world. Invited speakers will include Native economists, farm and fishery practitioners, advocates for political and economic sovereignty, specialists in media, public education, environmental studies and law. The conference will be open to the public and the conveners will seek to facilitate the attendance of practitioners from other Pacific Islands. All of the proceedings will be documented by video and a published collection of the presentations is anticipated.
Regarding Christine Ahn’s article “Unwanted missiles for a Korean island” (Views, Aug. 6): China’s objection to being surrounded by the U.S. Asia-Pacific missile defense system — set to be reinforced by a naval base on Jeju Island — is understandable and could indeed fuel an arms race which China but not the United States could afford.
Russia sees a similar threat in the U.S. missile defense projects in Eastern Europe. And the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 demonstrated chillingly that the United States was prepared to risk a nuclear war to protect its own security.
Rather than pressuring Seoul to construct the Jeju naval base and thereby jeopardize both its relationship with China and the economy and environment of a beautiful island, Washington should instead take the advice of Joseph Nye Jr. to rethink how the United States uses its military power (“The way to trim the U.S. military budget,” Views, Aug. 6). Mr. Nye could have proposed “smart diplomacy” as well.
Gloria Steinem wrote a passionate solidarity appeal for the Jeju anti-base struggle:
My dear friends,
There are many reasons I thank you for signing the petition to stop the naval base on Jeju Island – and any one would be enough.
First, nine years ago when I saw this island at the tip of South Korea, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It is said that the only people who do not know Jeju is the most beautiful place on earth are those who have not seen it. From snow peaks, wild flower covered hills and ancient nutmeg forests to goddess groves and coral reefs, there is good reason why UNESCO named it a World Natural Heritage Site.
That would be enough.
So would the truth that the world does not need one more monument to death and destruction taking money, human effort, energy and resources away from preservation and life. As an American, I am ashamed that a naval base is being built to support U.S. nuclear-powered submarines – the same ones now being serviced elsewhere. As global citizens, you and I have a duty to stop it.
This May, I went to Jeju again, and saw two more living realities.
First, I stood on the edge of the sea where volcanic rock carries fresh water streams down from the snow peaks, and saw workmen breaking up those rocks so that their huge machines could descend and pour cement over living coral reefs. Even the dolphins were crying.
Then I met with dozens of people from Gangjeong which is the closest village. They’e been living in tents on this shoreline for four years, braving weather, arrests and absence from their families in order to protest a naval base that endangers their land, their livelihoods and their guardianship of this ancient island. Only bribes and illegalities have given the government of South Korea any pretense of democracy. The people want you to know that is a lie.
Several outsiders there – from South Korea itself and from as far away as France – came to support them, and just stayed. One young couple have been there for six weeks, with only the clothes they arrived in.
This contagion is causing the South Korean Defense Minister to pressure the Prime Minister to accelerate its construction. It has caused the Navy to say it will destroy the trail to the protestors’ camp and cut local power lines that broadcast this resistance.
In other words, the resistance is working.
This is how you and I can help the villagers, save our World Natural Heritage, and stop natural destruction in the name of military destruction:
1. Forward this petition to at least 10 friends and family. If each signer does this, we could have nearly 20,000 more signatures –fast.
2. Go to the website: www.savejejuisland.org and do at least one of the actions on the “Get Involved” page. If we stop this naval base, it will be contagious for peace, the environment, and democracy.
Jeju Island means Women’s Island. It stands for an ancient balance. We must save it from the cult of militarism that endangers us all, women and men.
With high hopes,
Gloria Steinem
The following article by Gwisook Gwon in Japan Focus gives an excellent history and context of the struggle against a naval base in Jeju:
Protests Challenge Naval Base Construction on Jeju Island, South Korea: Hunger Strike Precipitates a National and International Movement
Gwisook Gwon*
In May 2011, ‘Vimeo’ and ‘Youtube’ posted a film interview with Korean film critic Yang Yoon-moo.1 The interview shows why Yang has struggled against the naval base building for 4 years in Gangjeong village, Jeju Island south-west of the mainland of Korea and strategically located in relation to China, Japan, Korea and Russia.
Strategic Jeju
In addition, the film shows his forcible arrest by police on April 6, 2011. Following his arrest he maintained a hunger strike for 71 days including 57 days in prison. Why did he (and fellow residents of Gangjeong village) conclude that have no other choice than to risk their lives to prevent the construction of a base?
The movement against construction of a naval base on Jeju Island began in 2002 when the Korean navy announced plans to pursue an ‘ocean navy strategy’ to build military strength at sea through deploying large warships (Chosun.com, May 27, 2007). Challengers pointed out that the base would become a center for a naval arms race in the Asia-Pacific and a new phase in the ROK-US military alliance with Jeju as a focal point for monitoring and challenging China.2 With both China and Japan strengthening their naval forces with the newest vessels and submarines,3 peace activists have contended that the new base could only intensify hostilities throughout the region.4
The United States and China kicked off a new round of consultations on the Asia Pacific region in Hawaii on Saturday by broaching the flaring tensions in the South China Sea, a U.S. official said.
The first set of talks in the superpowers’ Asia Pacific push — agreed upon by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao — came at the end of a difficult week for the two countries over the growing antagonism in the South China Sea between China and its neighbors.
In a statement after the talks, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell reported that they discussed the recent tensions between China, Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea and concerns over China’s growing military power:
“We want tensions to subside,” Campbell said. “We have a strong interest in the maintenance of peace and stability. And we are seeking a dialogue among all the key players.”
China has shown increasing assertiveness in its claim to the entire South China Sea, believed to be rich in oil and gas. Vietnam has accused Chinese boats of harassing a Vietnamese oil exploration ship in the region.
Campbell said the U.S. delegation stressed China’s military expansions have raised concerns, but hoped greater transparency and dialogue would help ease those concerns.
[…]
Earlier in the week, [China’s Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai] told foreign reporters in Beijing China had not provoked any incidents in the South China Sea and said if Washington wanted to play a role it should urge restraint on other claimants.
[…]
The two delegations also discussed North Korea and Campbell said he asked China to urge North Korea to deal responsibly and appropriately with South Korea without provocation.
