Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

The American University of Afghanistan has once again seen death at the hands of the Taliban, but it has no plans to stop providing education.

An adjunct professor and a graduate student were both killed on May 31 when 150 people were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, by a truck bomb. Their deaths marked the third time in less than a year that members of the school, which is not affiliated with the American University located in Washington D.C., have been injured by the notorious terrorist organization.

The saga began on August 7, 2016, when Professors Kevin King and Timothy Weeks were abducted from their car. The pair then appeared in a hostage video which led officials to believe they are being held with other Westerners by the Haqqani sect of the Taliban. After this most recent attack, the university once again reiterated its request for the professors’ release.

Then, on August 24, 2016, suicide bombers set off a bomb outside the walls of the school and raided the compound. The attack left 15 people dead, including students, professors, and police officers.

Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, has once again erupted with violence in recent weeks, including an attack on a mosque and a bombing in rush hour that left hundreds of people injured. This violence has erupted during the holiest month of Islam, Ramadan.

Since American intervention in 2001, the city has been divided and on a perpetual edge of chaos. Still, the university reiterated its commitment to bringing Western education to the troubled nation.

“We haven’t closed, we haven’t stopped educating,” said David S. Sedney, who spent nine months as acting president of the school and revamped its security. “But we do watch things very carefully. But right now on balance, it’s the right thing to do to continue operations.”

Despite its fortification with 19-foot-high walls, the university remains on edge. Those walls are part of the new, supposedly safer, campus that reopened on March 25. While they enjoy the new facilities, students can be found debating how much safer the campus is, law student Samiullah Sharifi told the Washington Post.

The university, which opened in 2006, graduated its first class in 2011 as it sought to bring a liberal, Western education center to Afghanistan. It has lost a number of its professors and students in recent years, but is committed to their education no matter the costs. “In one attack we’re safe and in another we’re not,” Sharifi said. “We have accepted this as the reality of our lives.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American University in Kabul Faces Tragedy Again appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in wartime on an ISIS target in Afghanistan, says a Pentagon spokesman. The GBU-43/B, or Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, is often referred to as the “Mother of All Bombs,” likely due to its acronym. The name seems fitting considering it weighs about 21,600 pounds. The bomb’s target was a ISIS cave and tunnel complex in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in the northeastern part of the country.

According to U.S. officials, the bomb was developed during the Iraq war but this is the first time it has ever been used on the battlefield. It was dropped from an airplane around 7 p.m. local time. The bomb is designed to explode in the air above its target and the overpressure crushes tunnels below it and everything in them. This could make it very difficult to determine if there was any civilian casualties.

Just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. Massive Ordnance Air Blast is a concussive bomb … the father of all bombs (nonnuclear). pic.twitter.com/fW5UE1r2QA

— Saman Arbabi (@SamanArbabi) April 13, 2017

The bomb focused on the underground tunnels that ISIS fighters use to move around freely in the area.

“The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction” to the militants, said a statement from Pentagon.

The bombing comes just five days after Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Maryland, was killed in combat with ISIS in the same province. He was the first American service member killed in combat this year in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would “bomb the s**t” out of ISIS, and Thursday’s strike seems to have done exactly that. But many people were confused about why an 11-ton bomb was needed.

Was use strategically necessary? Most efficient and effective option? Did it accomplish objective? Was there collateral harm?

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) April 13, 2017

Another U.S. airstrike Thursday targeting ISIS killed 18 Syrian rebel fighters allied with the United States. The strike marks the third time in just a month that U.S. forces have accidentally hit allies or civilians. The Pentagon is already investigating two earlier airstrikes that hit a mosque complex in Syria and a building in Mosul that both killed several civilians.

Now many people are questioning what the White House’s policy for the Middle East really is, and whether President Trump just wants to show off his powers and “play war.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drops One of the Largest Non-Nuclear Bombs in the World on ISIS Target appeared first on Law Street.

The Taliban has released a video of two professors from the American University of Afghanistan who were abducted in August, the first public evidence that the rebel group is holding the two men hostage. The group wants imprisoned insurgents to be set free in exchange for the two Westerners. In the video, American Kevin King and Australian Timothy Weeks ask the U.S. government to cooperate with the Taliban so that they can be released.

The video clip portrays the two men as fragile and bearded, breaking down in tears and begging President-elect Donald Trump to lead negotiations. “Donald Trump sir, I ask you please. This is in your hands. I ask you please to negotiate with the Taliban. If you do not negotiate with them, we will be killed,” said Weeks.

Taliban video shows US and Australian hostages https://t.co/2tp1qEMWr6

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 12, 2017

The professors were abducted at gunpoint from their car on August 7, close to the university campus in Kabul. A team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers launched a rescue mission to free them, and the battle resulted in the death of several rebels. But the abducted men were not to be found–the U.S. troops were believed to have missed them by only a few hours.

A few weeks later the Taliban launched an armed attack on the university campus, killing 12 people and wounding many more. Classes have been suspended all fall and were just about to begin again when the video of King and Weeks was released. The school’s president, David Sedney, immediately issued a statement calling for the release of his colleagues:

We call on the Taliban to release immediately and safely Kevin and Tim and all other hostages. Kevin and Tim came to Afghanistan as teachers, to help Afghanistan. These innocent people have done nothing to harm anyone and need to be reunited with their family, friends and colleagues.

According to U.S. officials, the Haqqani wing of the Taliban is holding the men. That is the same group that also held U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed in 2014 and was featured in the podcast Serial last winter. The Haqquanis are also believed to be holding a Canadian-American couple hostage, who allegedly have had two babies since being captured.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Abducted Professors Beg U.S. Government to Negotiate With the Taliban appeared first on Law Street.

During the Cincinnati stop of President-elect Donald Trump’s “thank you tour” on Thursday, he made the unofficial announcement that he will be selecting General James Mattis, a widely respected 40-year veteran of the Marines, to serve as his secretary of defense. An official announcement is expected to come Monday. Mattis, if confirmed by the Senate, would be the first general to serve as defense secretary since George Marshall in 1950.

The blunt 66-year-old, nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Warrior Monk,” most recently served as the head of the U.S. Central Command under President Barack Obama. He retired from that post in 2013, about five months before his service was through, which some speculated was the result of his disagreements with Obama on the president’s policy in the Middle East, specifically his nuclear pact with Iran. Mattis has spoken frequently about Iran and the danger it poses. He once said Iran is “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.”

Mattis’ most recent rebuke of Obama’s “policy of disengagement in the Middle East” came at a Congressional hearing in 2015, when he told lawmakers the U.S. must “come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” And though he has expressed his disapproval of the Iran deal, he is not in favor of withdrawing from the commitment, and thinks the best path forward is cooperating with American allies.

Mattis is a widely respected general who was courted by both the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns to speak at their respective political conventions. He declined both offers. Mattis is perhaps best known for his work in the Middle East following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He led the first forces into Afghanistan, and established the first U.S. base in the country.

“I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
General James #MadDog Mattis pic.twitter.com/W2QklT5F1N

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) December 2, 2016

Mattis also led the sacking of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and the retaking of Fallujah in 2004. In a statement, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Mattis is “without a doubt one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops.”

As a former general, Mattis does face obstacles in getting confirmed. Former members of the military must spend at least seven years out of service before being allowed to serve as defense secretary, according to federal law. Congress must pass a waiver allowing him to skirt that stipulation. And though the former general is widely regarded in Congress, at least one lawmaker opposes his confirmation.

In a statement on Thursday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose a waiver. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy,” she said, while adding she deeply respects Mattis’ service.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who Is James Mattis? appeared first on Law Street.

The green-eyed “Afghan Girl,” famous for the photo taken by Steve McCurry for National Geographic, has been arrested in Pakistan for having a fake ID card.

Sharbat Gula was 12 when her image became the most famous National Geographic cover in the magazine’s history. McCurry captured his iconic image of her in 1984 in a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan. The photograph became one of the defining images of a conflict between mujahideen insurgents and Soviet occupying forces. Millions of people were displaced by the conflict and many never returned, establishing businesses and starting families in Pakistan. Today the country has an Afghan refugee population of 2.5 million.

Gula, also known as Sharbat Bibi, was arrested in Peshawar on Tuesday as part of an investigation into identity card fraud. Now in her 40s, Gula could be jailed for up to 14 years or be deported if convicted.

The famed “Afghan Girl” has spent her life moving between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where violence and instability continue to rage, as McCurry learned when he met and revealed her identity in 2002.

Responding to the news of Gula’s arrest Wednesday, McCurry wrote on Facebook:

We are doing everything we can to get the facts by contacting our colleagues and friends in the area.

I am committed to doing anything and everything possible to provide legal and financial support for her and her family.

I object to this action by the authorities in the strongest possible terms. She has suffered throughout her entire life, and her arrest is an egregious violation of her human rights.

According to Pakistani officials, Gula applied for a Pakistani identity card in Peshawar in April 2014, using the name Sharbat Bibi. The arrest comes as Pakistan launched a crackdown against those with fake ID cards.

This year has seen a surge in the number of Afghans leaving Pakistan, after a government crackdown and an increase in financial assistance from the UN to refugees who return to Afghanistan.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Afghan Girl”: National Geographic Cover to Police Mugshot appeared first on Law Street.

Many Afghan troops come to the U.S. to receive military training. But according to the Pentagon, 44 Afghan soldiers have disappeared in less than two years–probably in attempts to create new lives in America. Considering that approximately 2,200 individual soldiers have received military training here since 2007, 44 is not a high number. But according to officials the frequency with which troops go missing from Afghanistan is “concerning” and unusual compared to other nations.

In an effort to remove itself from the conflict in Afghanistan, the U.S. has spent over $60 billion on military training for Afghan troops since 2002. This news about soldier students who go AWOL—absent without leave–brings questions about the security and procedures used during trainings. Apparently eight soldiers have just left military bases without authorization since September. Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said to Reuters:

The Defense Department is assessing ways to strengthen eligibility criteria for training in ways that will reduce the likelihood of an individual Afghan willingly absconding from training in the U.S. and going AWOL.

44 Afghan troops training in the US have gone missing in less than two years https://t.co/aecX4RnMhb exclusive from @idreesali114

— Josh Smith (@joshjonsmith) October 6, 2016

This could fuel criticism against the Obama administration and play into Donald Trump’s hands, as he has criticized the White House for not being strict enough with Muslim immigrants that come to America. But Stump said that all foreign soldiers who come here for training are properly examined beforehand to make sure they are not sympathetic to any militant or terrorist groups or have conducted any crimes against human rights.

Not all of the missing students were attending training at a military base, as some were students in intelligence-gathering or other tasks. If anyone is absent from their training for over 24 hours they are considered AWOL. Though it is not known how many of the students authorities have located, the Pentagon did confirm that one man was detained when trying to cross the border from the U.S. to Canada.

Some experts that Reuters talked to said one reason for this problem could be that many foreign soldiers do not get paid on time. They might also feel hopeless when thinking about the economic state of their home country, and or feel that they receive insufficient training. That sounds like enough to discourage most people, and sheds some light on the “missing” soldiers.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 44 Afghan Soldiers Missing From Military Training in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Armed men attacked the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul on Wednesday, while trapped students tweeted for help from inside the school. Gunshots and explosions were heard as hundreds of students and foreign staff members were trapped inside the campus.

According to Reuters, 12 people, of which seven were students, were killed in the attack. An additional 44 people were wounded. So far, no organization has taken responsibility for the attack.

One man who managed to escape the violence told the New York Times that the sound of gunfire made many students rush out through the emergency exits. Shortly after that, they heard an explosion. Two of his friends were injured and hospitalized; one jumped from a window, and one was shot in his back.

Ambulances and security forces quickly arrived at the university, and a team of police officers entered. Gunfire started again shortly after that and two attackers were killed. Even though the attack happened at night, many were still on campus taking evening classes after work.

Police officer Ahmad Jawad told the New York Times that someone detonated a car bomb outside of the school for the blind, which is adjacent to the American University. The attackers seem to have entered that school and then start shooting at the university.

In the early moments of the attack, students as well as relatives and friends on the outside desperately called for help on social media. A pillar of smoke was seen above the university during the attack. This picture from war correspondent Mustafa Kazemi shows the view from a distance.

Photo attributed to the attack on American University of Afghanistan in Kabul pic.twitter.com/EVunzOpyd3

— KAZEMI, Mustafa (@CombatJourno) August 24, 2016

Reporter: Fires on American University campus in Kabul; witnesses hear blast, gunfire. https://t.co/UBfOhQUFFapic.twitter.com/2lYGeLDL5x

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 24, 2016

Pulitzer Prize winner and AP photographer Massoud Hossaini was among the people on campus when the shooting started but escaped with minor injuries.

Afghanistan’s 24-hours news network TOLOnews posted updates about the situation.

#AUAF UPDATE – Relatives of wounded students donate blood at the Kabul Emergency Hospital

— TOLOnews (@TOLOnews) August 24, 2016

The American University in Afghanistan has been open since 2006 and has been an important symbol of partnership between Afghanistan and the United States. The U.S. funds many scholarships for Afghans to study there, including many for women.

On August 7, two professors, one American and one Australian, at the American University were kidnapped by a criminal group according to ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi. It remains unknown whether there is a connection between that kidnapping and the recent attack.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Armed Men With Explosives Attack American University in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

A death was confirmed and a new leader appointed on Wednesday by the Taliban, the Afghanistan based Islamic terrorist group, according to an official statement from the group. The death: Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the former leader who was killed in an American drone strike last week in Baluchistan province in western Pakistan. The promotion: Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a fifty-something judicial leader and spiritual authority who was chosen to succeed Mansour.

“All the shura members have pledged allegiance to Sheikh Haibatullah in a safe place in Afghanistan,” the Taliban issued in a statement to the media. “All people are required to obey the new Emir-al-Momineen [commander of the faithful].”

Akhundzada is notable because of his relative anonymity within Taliban ranks and his lack of battlefield experience. He served as a deputy to Mansour, and was the lead justice when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from the mid ’90s to the early ’00s, when U.S. forces invaded the country and toppled the group. He was selected over two presumptive front runners, an operations leader and the son of the group’s founder, Mullah Muhammad Omar, who died of tuberculosis in 2013. Instead, the two men were selected as deputies under Akhundzada.

Not all factions within the Taliban agree with the new appointment. Some members of the Noorzai tribe–to which Akhundzada belongs–are unhappy with not being consulted on the matter, even though Akhundzada is a fellow Noorzai. A spokesman for the breakaway Noorzais anticipates a revolt in response to the decision which, he said, was made by a small contingent of elders rather than the usual few hundred group members.

While solidarity within the group seems elusive at the moment, the Taliban making peace with local governments is a hope the U.S. has held for years, and continues to work toward. The killing of Mansour signaled a shift in the U.S.’s patience with Pakistan–which has been accused of providing safe passage and relative safety for terrorist groups–when making battlefield decisions against the Taliban. Pakistan was to play interlocutor between the Afghan government and the Taliban in peace negotiations, though under the leadership of Mansour, that seemed like a fledgling reality. It remains to be seen whether Akhundzada is a more moveable negotiator.

In the meantime, the Taliban wasted no time in carrying out its deadly public strikes, as a van carrying government officials in Afghanistan was attacked on Wednesday. At least eleven people were killed and four injured.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taliban Appoints New Leader, Kills Eleven in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour has been killed in a U.S. air strike; officials in Afghanistan confirmed the news on Sunday. The Taliban, which has a longstanding tradition of denying deaths of prominent leaders, has not yet commented on the event.

On Monday morning President Obama, who currently is in Vietnam, confirmed the death in a statement and called it an “important milestone” in the longstanding effort to bring peace to Afghanistan, saying:

With the death of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansur, we have removed the leader of an organization that has continued to plot against and unleash attacks on American and Coalition forces, to wage war against the Afghan people, and align itself with extremist groups like al Qa’ida.

Mansour has been rejecting initiatives by the Afghan government to participate in peace talks, and this could be the time for the Taliban to seize an opportunity for reconciliation with the government, according to the statement from the White House.

Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed in an airstrike Saturday https://t.co/y0glNYzZiL https://t.co/o6pQQLOAXL

— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) May 23, 2016

The strike that killed Mullah Mansour was conducted on Saturday by the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as multiple U.S. drones struck the car he was traveling in, killing both Mansour and another Taliban fighter.

Mansour’s death does not mean an automatic change in the U.S. strategy when it comes to fighting in Afghanistan–the mission is still to train the Afghan forces to help themselves, not to do it for them, said Obama at a press conference in Vietnam. About 3,000 troops are in Afghanistan helping to combat groups like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Mullah Mansour had only been the Taliban leader since July of last year, a position he earned when his predecessor Mullah Omar–the infamous one-eyed leader who banned dancing and TV–was confirmed dead. Mansour repeatedly turned down peace talks and negotiations by the government, and was the commander in the seizing of Kunduz in September of last year. It is unclear who will succeed Mansour.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taliban Leader Mullah Mansour Killed: Obama Deems it “Milestone” appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

Two incredible women made history when they passed the Army’s elite Ranger School last Friday. Rangers make up an exceptionally trained unit of the Army comparable to the Navy SEALs. The graduation re-sparked the national debate over the ability of women to take on combat roles. To be clear, today women are located on the front-line, but some positions are still off-limits. Critics call the practice unfair and sexist while supporters dismiss those labels entirely. Is the current system in place justifiable? Or should women be given the opportunity to fill any position?

In Today’s News

Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver are the first female soldiers to graduate Ranger School–one of the most grueling training courses that the Army has to offer. The Pentagon describes Ranger School as “the Army’s premier combat leadership course, teaching Ranger students how to overcome fatigue, hunger, and stress to lead Soldiers during small unit combat operations.”

Army Rangers are trained to lead soldiers on difficult combat-related missions. They are specifically trained for close combat and direct-fire battles. Candidates must pass three phases of Ranger School: Crawl, Walk, and Run. The Crawl phase, lasting 20 days, focuses on physical and mental development. The Walk phase, lasting 21 days, is conducted in the mountains and focuses on military mountaineering tasks. And the Run phase further develops combat-arms functional skills under extremely stressful environments.

When the class began in April, there were 381 men and 19 women. The class finished, 62 days later, down to 94 men and two women. Each graduate had to pass a physical fitness test that requires:

Forty-nine pushups, 59 situps, a 5-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swim test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters and 27 days of mock combat patrols.

On a trial basis, this was the first year that the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. Although they could train, Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver still cannot apply to the 75^th Ranger Regiment with their fellow classmates. A follow-up decision on the specific roles that women can have in combat is expected by the end of the year. In 2013, the U.S. Military officially lifted the 1994 ban on women in combat roles. In addition, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta initiated a three-year project in 2012 calling for all branches to fully integrate women in combat roles by 2016, or request a special exception.

Statistics

Despite the ban for certain combat roles, women served on the war front in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women can hold jobs on gun crews, air crews, and in seamanship specialties. U.S. military women accounted for 67 combat deaths in Iraq and 33 in Afghanistan; those wars also saw more than 600 and 300 female injuries, respectively. Two military women were held prisoner in Desert Storm and three in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Regardless of the post, women are integral to the U.S. military. According to statistics from 2011, more than 200,000 women served in active military duty, including 69 generals and admirals. Women account for 14.5 percent of the military’s active armed forces. There are 74,000 women in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps. Women account for 10.5 percent of the Coast Guard as well.

Women are represented in leadership positions as well. Women make up roughly 14 percent of the enlisted ranks and 16.6 percent of the officer corps. More than seven percent of all generals and admirals are women–with 28 generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps, and 21 admirals in the Navy. Nearly 20 percent of female enlisted reservists and National Guard officers are women. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there were 1,853,690 female veterans in the United States as of September 2011.

Arguments against Full Female Integration

Strength

The main argument against expanding the role of women to new combat positions focuses on their physical capabilities. Many critics argue that their opinions have nothing to do with sexism and that they have the fullest respect for women in the armed forces. But when it comes down to it, women are not as strong as men. Male muscles and bones are denser. Critics argue that the endangerment of team members isn’t worth the military being politically correct. As Brig. Gen. George Smith explained on “60 Minutes,” “The realities of combat aren’t going to change based on gender.”

In 2012, the Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course to women on a trial basis, which is similar to the Ranger training. While 29 women have attempted the course, none have passed so far. Only four women passed the combat endurance test held on the first day. This includes, for example, a 25-foot rope climb with a heavy backpack full of gear. You must reach the top to pass. An imbalance in strength allows for differences between men and women in the Marine Corps basic physical fitness test. For example, a woman can perform fewer pull-ups than her male counterpart. Today 45 percent of female Marines can complete three pull-ups, the requirement for male testing.

Standards

The standards are high, and that is yet another argument against full integration. If you lower the standards to allow women to pass, you elevate the risk in the field. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, started to question these high standards two years ago. He claimed,

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

In other words, the Marine Corps Officer Course, along with other courses of similar intensity, will now have to justify current standards. However, there are those that don’t accept that argument. Retired Marine Corps Officer Dakota Wood believes they have “decades of experience on which to base requirements.”

Medical Concerns

Women have time and time again proved their worth on the front-line. They have exhibited poise and efficiency under fire. A main concern, however, is longevity. Capt. Katie Petronio, a former combat engineer officer on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, returned from deployment with new concerns about women in combat zones. She asks,

Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the -specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

With a similar viewpoint, Retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff links the ban on women in combat roles to women in the NFL. She told Business Insider:

There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great… Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women come on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.

Put simply, physical deterioration ultimately occurs more in woman than it does in men.

Arguments for Full Female Integration

When it comes to strength and standards, the counterargument seems obvious: keep the standards universal. If you don’t lower the standards and keep everything even for men and women, then that should silence critics at least against the physical arguments. Keeping standards high will remove sex from the equation.

Even though no women have passed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, 150 women did graduate from the Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion Course at the School of Infantry in North Carolina. These women passed with the same standards as the men. Marine Corps Spokeswoman, Capt. Maureen Krebs explained that even though basic physical fitness tests may allow different expectations, they are “separate from standards that must be met for a particular occupation, such as infantry, where women must achieve the same as men.” In other words, everyone meets the same standards to graduate.

Although a woman hasn’t yet passed the Officer Course, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. Allowing women to perform any combat role doesn’t provide a free pass. A woman will have to earn it like any male counterpart. That could still mean zero female Marine Corps Officers, for example, but at least they get a shot at it. As for medial concerns, extra pre-training for muscle building can be required to reduce female injury rates.

Conclusion

The two women who graduated from Ranger School certainly reignited the debate, but it’s been a controversial conversation that has existed for years. Both sides have sticking points to their arguments, but there is a resolution in sight. The Pentagon will release a final statement settling the issue after careful analysis of the research, perhaps solving the question once and for all.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: Women in the Military

USArmy: Ranger School

Additional

Business Insider: There’s A Big Unknown About Putting The Female Body In Combat

CNN: History in the Making

The Washington Times: Pressure Grows on Marines to Consider Lowering Combat Standards for Women

The Guardian: Women in Combat

Marine Times: Need to Know, 2015

SistersinArms: Women in Combat Pros and Cons

StatisticBrain: Women in the Military Statistics

CNN: By the Numbers

The Washington Post: Women now 0 for 29 in attempting Marine Infantry Officer Course

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Women in Combat Debate Continued: Should Every Door be Opened? appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, in Kabul, Afghanistan, there was a quiet ceremony to declare the war in Afghanistan finished. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military operation, is officially done after over 13 years. But what exactly does that mean? Will we no longer see American troops sent to Afghanistan? Not exactly–while the war may be officially over, there’s still a lot of work to be done, and we should expect to see continued involvement from the U.S. and some of its allies.

In response to the horrifying terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan. The official name for the international forces deployed in Afghanistan was the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), authorized by the United Nations Security Council in 2001.That mission has lasted almost exactly 13 years, and approximately 3,500 international soldiers have been killed in the war. The United States makes up a big part of that death toll, with over 2200 American soldiers killed. Obviously, however, the highest cost has been to Afghanistan’s people–over 4,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers were killed this year alone. It has cost–and will continue to cost–American taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion dollars.

In those 13 years, we’ve seen the Taliban fall, but remain present. A government has been built, and restructured. Osama Bin Ladin was captured and killed. There have been resurgences, different attacks, and a seemingly constant conversation about what exactly the United States is doing in Afghanistan.

ISAF will now be replaced by a new mission: Resolute Support. Still NATO-led, and still U.S. dominated, Resolute Support will attempt to train and build up the military forces in Afghanistan. That new mission will begin its work in January, 2015. That force will be made up of approximately 13,500 international troops; Americans will count for around 11,000 of those.

President Obama wasn’t present at the ceremony in Kabul, but released a statement on the “official” end of the war in Afghanistan. As Obama explained the continued involvement in his written statement:

Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States — along with our allies and partners — will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counter-terrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda.

Obama also called Sunday’s cessation of ISAF a “responsible conclusion.” That seems a possibly apt, although exceedingly careful, description. It may not even be a conclusion, at least not in a classic sense. After all, the United States will continue to be involved in Afghanistan, in many of the same ways that it was involved prior to Sunday’s ceremony. Afghanistan isn’t really in great shape, and there are concerns that it will collapse. Afghanistan’s military and police forces will still be fighting a war, and our American soldiers stationed there will probably be involved–regardless of what we want to call it. Honestly, measuring whether or not the entire war was a success or a failure really isn’t even possible right now–it’s essential to see what will happen in Afghanistan in the years moving forward to make any judgments of that magnitude.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United States Officially Ends War in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

The DOJ has brought new charges against four former Blackwater Security contractors by the names of Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten, and Paul Slough. All four men were previously in various branches of the US military before joining Blackwater, a private military and security company founded in 1997.

These four former Blackwater employees are now being charged with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter because of their involvement in the 2007 Nissor Square Massacre. On September 16, 2007, these four men shot at Iraqi civilians in Nissor square, leading to the 17 deaths and 20 injuries. The Blackwater contractors were in the Square to clear a way for American officials coming in a convoy. Exactly what happened that day is still somewhat unknown: Blackwater argues they were provoked, Iraqi police say they were not. A further FBI investigation determined that at least 14 of the deaths were unprovoked and classified the incident as an “unprovoked illegal attack on civilians.”

A year after the incident, the US charged the contractors who were present with various counts of manslaughter and weapons violations, but the charges were dismissed by a US Judge. The explanation given for the dismissal was that the testimony the case was based on was inadmissible. In 2011, three years later, an appeals court disagreed. Last week, four contractors were re-indicted —of the six involved in the incident, one has already pleaded guilty and another had charges against him dropped.

Last time the charges were brought, Heard, Liberty, Slatten, and Slough all pleaded not guilty and alleged that their actions in Nissor Square in 2007 were exclusively acts of self-defense. As of yet, there is no indication what they plan to plead for these new charges or when the case will actually begin. The indictment says that the four men, “unlawfully and intentionally, upon a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, did commit voluntary manslaughter.” The contractors on trial will need to prove that they did in fact act in self defense.

This opportunity to discuss Blackwater comes at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government, partly because of a lack of transparency. The history of Blackwater, which has now changed its name to Academi, sheds an interesting light on US military policies. Blackwater was originally founded in 1997, and was intended to supplement already existing military force. One of the founders, Erik Prince, stated , “We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.”

Blackwater mainly began by helping with training and providing protection services. It was one of a few different private firms hired in the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is estimated that in 2006, there were 100,000 private contractors working for the Department of Defense. This is a huge departure from previous wars—estimates only place about 10,000 contractors in the Persian Gulf War. This farming-out of war to private militaries has the potential to grow even further in future conflicts. The DOJ is taking an admirable step in forcing accountability for these groups by the indictment of the four contractors involved in Nissor Square Massacre.

[Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [jamesdale10 via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Charges For Former Blackwater Contractors appeared first on Law Street.