~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
The Biden administration has submitted its final War Powers Report to Congress, and it is filled with lies. The twice annual report, required under the law, is supposed to disclose to the American people the “deployments of United States Armed Forces equipped for combat.” But by playing with the definitions of the words “armed forces,” “deployments,” “equipped” and “combat,” the report conceals more than it reveals. This includes ignoring air forces, obscuring naval activities, undercounting U.S. personnel in various countries, brushing off combat that doesn’t involve ground troops, and most importantly, glossing over special operations and other clandestine activities, by the Pentagon, the CIA, and other agencies.
Befitting the Biden administration, the theme of the report is partnership, with the claim that most everything the United States military is doing out there in the world, is to “advise, assist, and accompany” other countries’ armed forces. In a “majority” of places where troops are deployed, the report says, “the mission of United States military personnel is to facilitate counterterrorism operations of foreign partner forces and does not include routine engagement in combat.” The report does include at least one admission that is newsworthy, admitting explicitly that the U.S. struck Iranian forces directly in Syria in November. The report, signed by President Biden, says:
Compare that with the U.S. press releases at the time. On November 11, CENTCOM reported conducting strikes against “nine targets in two locations associated with Iranian groups in Syria in response to several attacks on U.S. personnel in Syria over the last 24 hours.” It goes on to say that the strikes “will degrade the Iranian-backed groups’ ability to plan and launch future attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces.” On November 26: CENTCOM announced that it had “conducted a strike against an Iranian-aligned militia weapons storage facility in Syria.” Note the stressing of “Iran-backed.” In November, the U.S. just glossed over that it was attacking Iranian forces. The press releases at the time said that both attacks were “in response to an Iranian-aligned attack against U.S. forces in Syria ...” Now, President Biden reports:
Is it stating that Iranian forces (IRGC) directly attacked U.S. forces? Is it saying that Iran is directly the belligerent and not just Iranian-backed or Iranian-aligned? The answer isn’t clear, which certainly makes no sense in a report to Congress. In which case, Biden’s admission now would have meant headlines like: “U.S. attacks Iranian military forces in Syria” instead of “US strikes militant weapons facility in Syria following attack on American troops.” I thought that maybe I was reading too closely, questioning a contradiction that was merely a miswording until the news came out this week that the United States has twice the number of soldiers in Syria (some 2,000) than it previously admitted (see my article reporting on the Pentagon’s misleading numbers before the War Powers Report was issued.) Now, the report says: “A small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria.” It pretends, through its wording, that all of what was previously going on in Syria related to ISIS, and particularly attacks emanating from Syria that might threaten the United States directly. But that isn’t the truth; the U.S. isn’t only engaged in combat in Syria to fight ISIS (as the previously paragraphs on Iran show). And if the report is purporting to describe potential for combat, it is intrinsically deficient. If Syria has taught us anything, it is that tinderboxes are prone to explode with no or little notice, placing U.S. soldiers in harm’s way. On August 9, for instance, the Pentagon reported “an attack using a one-way attack uncrewed aerial system (OWAUAS) against U.S. and Coalition forces at Rumalyn Landing Zone in Syria” causing several “minor injuries.” There were a number of cases of injuries in the past six months (the coverage period of the report) that are never mentioned. In other words, the report is useless in talking about actual combat, actual threats, or actual injuries. Now on to Yemen. Biden’s report says: “The United States military continues to work closely with the Republic of Yemen government and regional partner forces to degrade the terrorist threat posed by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS.” It goes on to say: “United States forces have conducted discrete strikes against facilities, locations, and equipment in Yemen that support and facilitate Houthi militants’ attacks in the Red Sea region. … The strikes were conducted in a manner designed to limit the risk of escalation and avoid civilian casualties.” Near daily attacks during the month of September hardly could be described as “discrete,” nor would constant engagements by Navy ships to ward off Houthi missiles, drones, and unmanned explosive ships. In January last year, two Navy SEALs died in an operation to interdict an Iranian shipment of weapons to the Houthis. The operation took place off the coast of Somalia, where the U.S. has forces on the ground. But what does the report have to say about Somalia? Merely that: “United States Armed Forces have conducted one airstrike in Somalia against al-Shabaab in defense of our Somali partner forces.” Where were (or are) the SEALs and other special operators? That’s contained in the “classified” annex submitted to Congress. So our allies and enemies can know where U.S. forces are, but the American people can’t? The report goes on and on, saying a lot of nothing. And in that, it obscures both the nature of U.S. military deployments and activities, and the risks involved. About the ongoing war in Ukraine, what does the report have to say? “Approximately 80,000 United States Armed Forces personnel are assigned or deployed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in Europe, including those deployed to reassure our allies and to deter further Russian aggression,” it says. That’s all. U.S. military forces stationed all over the European continent are constantly in danger of being engaged in combat. U.S. special operators routinely go in and out of Ukraine, as do defense contractors. U.S. armed forces have also deployed closer to the front lines since the war began (in places like Poland, Romania, and Moldova). U.S. reconnaissance aircraft, fighters, and drones patrol European skies (including over Ukrainian airspaces), and ships travel in and out of ports close to the Russian mainland. All of that might make sense, but aren’t the risks worth reflecting on? I suppose the White House would answer that the “classified annex” that accompanies the report covers the risk. So why even have a public accounting, which has the purpose of providing an opportunity for the public to consent to dangers, expenditures, and obligations of the United States? On Israel, as an example, the report doesn’t even find it remarkable that American forces are actually in country. “Although these forces are equipped for combat,” the report says, they are manning “defensive systems.” And yet they’ve been attacked by Iran and have engaged in actual combat. Does it matter if they are “defensive?” Only in the minds of the lawyers. On Afghanistan, all the report has to say is: “United States military personnel remain postured outside Afghanistan to address threats to the United States homeland and United States interests that may arise from inside Afghanistan.” Does that mean that they merely remained “postured” and have never been used? And in what countries? Pakistan? Uzbekistan? Why can’t the American people know? As a general rule, the report glosses over clandestine forces operating anywhere around the world. It ignores reconnaissance operations that take place close to the borders of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, where surely there is some danger involved. It barely acknowledges naval forces that are engaged in combat, or could be, any day and everyday, in places like the Persian/Arabian Gulf or the South China Sea. “It is not possible to know at this time the precise scope or the duration of the deployments of United States Armed Forces that are or will be necessary to counter terrorist threats to the United States,” the report concludes. Evidently, it is not even worth speculating about. In what countries or regions are U.S. forces deployed, for what purpose, and to what end? You aren’t going to get an answer from Washington. We’ll continue to do reporting to answer those questions. | ||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment