This video lasts about as long as the American attention span.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

By F. William Engdahl
.
October 21, 2009 “Information Clearing House” — One of the most remarkable aspects of the Obama Presidential agenda is how little anyone has questioned in the media or elsewhere why at all the United States Pentagon is committed to a military occupation of Afghanistan. There are two basic reasons, neither one of which can be admitted openly to the public at large.

Behind all the deceptive official debate over how many troops are needed to “win” the war in Afghanistan, whether another 30,000 is sufficient, or whether at least 200000 are needed, the real purpose of US military presence in that pivotal Central Asian country is obscured.

Even during the 2008 Presidential campaign candidate Obama argued that Afghanistan not Iraq was where the US must wage war. His reason? Because he claimed, that was where the Al Qaeda organization was holed up and that was the “real” threat to US national security. The reasons behind US involvement in Afghanistan is quite another one.

The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia.

Geopolitics of Afghan Opium

According even to an official UN report, opium production in Afghanistan has risen dramatically since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001. UNODC data shows more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This is no accident.

It has been documented that Washington hand-picked the controversial Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun warlord from the Popalzai tribe, long in the CIA’s service, brought him back from exile in the USA, created a Hollywood mythology around his “courageous leadership of his people.” According to Afghan sources, Karzai is the Opium “Godfather” of Afghanistan today. There is apparently no accident that he was and is today still Washington’s preferred man in Kabul. Yet even with massive vote buying and fraud and intimidation, Karzai’s days could be ending as President.

The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical “Taliban” which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they  did in the 11980’s against the Russians.

The aim of the US bases in Afghanistan is to target and be able to strike at the two nations which today represent the only combined threat in the world today to an American global imperium, to America’s Full Spectrum Dominance as the Pentagon terms it.

The lost ‘Mandate of Heaven’

The problem for the US power elites around Wall Street and in Washington is the fact that they are now in the deepest financial crisis in their history. That crisis is clear to the entire world and the world is acting on a basis of self-survival. The US elites have lost what in Chinese imperial history is known as the Mandate of Heaven. That mandate is given a ruler or ruling elite provided they rule their people justly and fairly. When they rule tyrannically and as despots, oppressing and abusing their people, they lose that Mandate of Heaven.

If the powerful private wealthy elites that have controlled essential US financial and foreign policy for most of the past century or more ever had a “mandate of Heaven” they clearly have lost it. The domestic developments towards creation of an abusive police state with deprivation of Constitutional rights to its citizens, the arbitrary exercise of power by non elected officials such as Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and now Tim Geithner, stealing trillion dollar sums from taxpayers without their consent in order to bailout the bankrupt biggest Wall Street banks, banks deemed “Too Big To Fail,” this all demonstrates to the world they have lost the mandate

In this situation, the US power elites are increasingly desperate to maintain their control of a global parasitical empire, called deceptively by their media machine, “globalization.” To hold that dominance it is essential that they be able to break up any emerging cooperation in the economic, energy or military realm between the two major powers of Eurasia that conceivably could pose a challenge to future US sole Superpower control—China in combination with Russia.

Each Eurasian power brings to the table essential contributions. China has the world’s most robust economy, a huge young and dynamic workforce, an educated middle class. Russia, whose economy has not recovered from the destructive end pf the Soviet era and of the primitive looting during the Yeltsin era, still holds essential assets for the combination. Russia’s nuclear strike force and its military pose the only threat in the world today to US military dominance, even if it is largely a residue of the Cold War. The Russian military elites never gave up that potential.

As well Russia holds the world’s largest treasure of natural gas and vast reserves of oil urgently needed by China. The two powers are increasingly converging via a new organization they created in 2001 known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). That includes as well as China and Russia, the largest Central Asia states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The purpose of the alleged US war against both Taliban and Al Qaeda is in reality to place its military strike force directly in the middle of the geographical space of this emerging SCO in Central Asia. Iran is a diversion. The main goal or target is Russia and China.

Officially, of course, Washington claims it has built its military presence inside Afghanistan since 2002 in order to protect a “fragile” Afghan democracy. It’s a curious argument given the reality of US military presence there.

In December 2004, during a visit to Kabul, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finalized plans to build nine new bases in Afghanistan in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia. The nine are in addition to the three major US military bases already installed in the wake of its occupation of Afghanistan in winter of 2001-2002, ostensibly to isolate and eliminate the terror threat of Osama bin Laden.

The Pentagon built its first three bases at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US’ main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan; and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was constructed a mere 100 kilometers from the border of Iran, and within striking distance of Russia as well as China.

Afghanistan has historically been the heartland for the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British strategy then was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.

Afghanistan is similarly regarded by Pentagon planners as highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military power could directly threaten Russia and China, as well as Iran and other oil-rich Middle East lands. Little has changed geopolitically over more than a century of wars.

Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location, straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, along with Enron and Cheney’s Halliburton, had been in negotiations for exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron’s huge natural gas power plant at Dabhol near Mumbai. Karzai, before becoming puppet US president, had been a Unocal lobbyist.

Al Qaeda doesn’t exist as a threat

The truth of all this deception around the real purpose in Afghanistan becomes clear on a closer look at the alleged “Al Qaeda” threat in Afghanistan. According to author Erik Margolis, prior to the September 11,2001 attacks, US intelligence was giving aid and support both to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda. Margolis claims that “The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies.”

The US clearly found other means of stirring up Muslim Uighurs against Beijing last July via its support for the World Uighur Congress. But the Al Qaeda “threat” remains the lynchpin of Obama US justification for his Afghan war buildup.

Now, however, the National Security Adviser to President Obama, former Marine Gen. James Jones has made a statement, conveniently buried by the friendly US media, about the estimated size of the present Al Qaeda danger in Afghanistan. Jones told Congress, “The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

That means that Al-Qaeda, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan. Oops…

Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of Al-Qaeda are scarcely to be found. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Hunted by US drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. For Arab youths who are al Qaeda’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”

If we follow the statement to its logical consequence we must conclude then that the reason German soldiers are dying along with other NATO youth in the mountains of Afghanistan has nothing to do with “winning a war against terrorism.” Conveniently most media chooses to forget the fact that Al Qaeda to the extent it ever existed, was a creation in the 1980’s of the CIA, who recruited and trained radical muslims from across the Islamic world to wage war against Russian troops in Afghanistan as part of a strategy developed by Reagan’s CIA head Bill Casey and others to create a “new Vietnam” for the Soviet Union which would lead to a humiliating defeat for the Red Army and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now US NSC head Jones admits there is essentially no Al Qaeda anymore in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is time for a more honest debate from our political leaders about the true purpose of sending more young to die protecting the opium harvests of Afghanistan.

F. William Engdahl – Author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.. He also authored A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press). His latest book is Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press)  www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Rick Rozoff

:: Article nr. 58262 sent on 24-sep-2009 20:39 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=58262

Related Posts:

• Obama CIA Ties?
• Scary Muslims crawling out of the woodwork just in time
• ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report

WASHINGTON, Sept 10 (Reuters) – By most counts, the death toll of U.S. soldiers in America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stood at 5,157 in the second week of September. Add at least 1,360 private contractors working for the U.S. and the number tops 6,500.

Contractor deaths and injuries (around 30,000 so far) are rarely reported but they highlight the United States’ steadily growing dependence on private enterprise.

It’s a dependence some say has slid into incurable addiction. Contractor ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan have swollen to just under a quarter million. They outnumber U.S. troops in Afghanistan and they almost match uniformed soldiers in Iraq.

The present ratio of about one contractor for every uniformed member of the U.S. armed forces is more than double that of every other major conflict in American history, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That means the world’s only superpower cannot fight its war nor protect its civilian officials, diplomats and embassies without support from contractors.

“As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have progressed, the military services, defense agencies and other stakeholder agencies…continue to increase their reliance on contractors. Contractors are now literally in the center of the battlefield in unprecedented numbers,” according to a report to Congress by the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In previous wars, the military police protected bases and the battle space as other military service members engaged and pursued the enemy,” said the report.

In listing the 1,360-plus contractor casualties, it said that criticism of the present system and suggestions for reforming it “in no way diminish their sacrifices.”

So why are they not routinely added to military casualty counts? And why should they? A full accounting for total casualties is important because both Congress and the public tend to gauge a war’s success or failure by the size of the force deployed and the number of killed and wounded, according to George Washington university scholar Steven Schooner.

In other words: the higher the casualty number, the more difficult it is for political and military leaders to convince a sceptical public that a war is worth fighting, particularly a war that promises to be long, such as the conflict in Afghanistan. Polls show that a majority of Americans already think the Afghan war is not worth fighting.

Figures on deaths and injuries among the vast ranks of civilians in war zones are tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor on the basis of claims under an insurance policy, the Defense Base Act, which all U.S. contracting companies and subcontractors must take out for the civilians they employ outside the United States.

EXPENDABLE PROFITEERS, ROGUES?

The Labor Department compiles the statistics on a quarterly basis but only releases them in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. This can take weeks. The Department gives no details of the nationalities of the contractors, saying that doing so would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under the U.S. Privacy Act.

Writing in last autumn’s Parameters, the quarterly journal of the U.S. Army War College, Schooner said that an accurate tally was critical to any discussion of the costs and benefits of the military’s efforts in the wars. What’s more, the American public needs to know that their government is delegating to the private sector “the responsibility to stand in harm’s way and, if required, die for America.”

Schooner wrote it was troubling that few Americans considered the deaths of contractors relevant or significant even though many of them performed roles carried out by uniformed military only a generation ago. “Many…concede that they perceive contractor personnel as expendable profiteers, adventure seekers, cowboys, or rogue elements not entitled to the same respect or value due to the military.”

That’s not surprising after a series of ugly incidents involving armed security contractors. They make up for a small proportion of the total (about 8 percent) but account for almost all the headlines that have deepened negative perceptions and prompted labels from mercenary and merchant of death to “the coalition of the billing.”

In the most notorious incident, two years ago, employees of the company then known as Blackwater opened fire in a crowded Baghdad square, killing 17 Iraqis. Five of the Blackwater shooters, who were working for the Department of State, have been indicted on manslaughter and weapons charges.

The Pentagon describes private contractors as a “force multiplier” because they let soldiers concentrate on military missions. Some of the actions of private security contractors could be termed a “perception multiplier.” Such as the after-hours antics of contractors from the company ArmorGroup North America guarding the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

Shaking off the image of rogues became even more difficult for private security contractors after a Washington-based watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, accompanied a detailed report on misconduct and morale problems among the guard force with photographs showing nearly nude, drunken employees in a variety of obscene poses and fondling each other.

Whether contractors, even rogue elements and cowboys, should not be counted in the toll of American wars is another matter. Doing so would be part of the transparency Barack Obama promised when he ran for president.

You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com

Related Posts:

• Obama CIA Ties?
• ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report
• Scary Muslims crawling out of the woodwork just in time
• Police stop more than 1 million people on street
• Expert on Structured Finance and Derivatives: Rampant Fraud and Ponzi Scheme Caused Crisis

A policy research group says the Taliban have a significant presence in almost every corner of Afghanistan, eight years after their overthrow by US-led forces, Press TV reported.

A security map by the London-based International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) showed a deepening security crisis with substantial Taliban activity in at least 97 percent of the war-ravaged country.

The council added that the militants now have a “permanent presence” in 80 percent of the country.

ICOS defined “permanent” presence as one or more attacks a week and “substantial” as one or more attacks a month.

ICOS noted the Taliban are substantially active in another 17 percent of Afghan territory.

The report comes at a time as insurgency has skyrocketed in southern and eastern provinces where the US-led forces have lost several grounds to the Taliban linked militants.

The insurgency has intensified in the eastern and southern provinces. The US-led forces in Afghanistan lost 77 more troops in August, setting a new monthly record since the invasion began in 2001.

Based on the report, insurgent attacks have increased dramatically across northern Afghanistan as well.

The developments also come after 125 people, many of them civilians, were killed and scores of others injured on last Friday.

NATO warplanes targeted stolen fuel tankers on orders of a German commander in the northern Kunduz province. Kunduz was once considered relatively safe.

More than 140 Afghan civilians were killed in a series of US airstrikes in the western Farah province in early May.

More than 1,000 civilians have lost their lives either in US-led air strikes or in the Taliban-led insurgency across the violence-wracked country in the first half of the current year, according to a UN report.

Civilians have been the main victims of violence in Afghanistan, particularly in the troubled southern and eastern provinces.

The UN also noticed that the number of civilians killed in the Afghanistan conflict has jumped 24 percent so far this year.

The frightening picture comes at a time when the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) says investigators are studying evidence of alleged crimes against humanity in Afghanistan.

Media reports said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — which includes US and other western troops — could potentially become the target of an ICC prosecution.

The group further warned of a power vacuum if Afghanistan’s presidential election goes to a runoff.

Political uncertainty and civilian causalities have increased pressure on the US and its western allies to pull out troops from the violence-wracked country.

Related Posts:

• GE: 10,000 applications for 90 factory jobs

Saed Bannoura – IMEMC

August 28, 2009 In an Interview with Haaretz newspaper, Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated that Israel must learn from the Holocaust that it cannot gain security thought fences, walls and guns. Archbishop Tutu was commenting of statement made by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Germany, in which he said that “Israel should always defend itself”. Tutu said that “the regime in South Africa never managed to get security from the barrel of the gun, but got security after recognizing and respecting every person”. The Nobel Prize laureate made his statement to Haaretz in Jerusalem and “The Elders” concluded their tour in Israel and Palestine, except the Gaza Strip. The Elders are hoping to be able to visit Gaza in the future. Archbishop Tutu added that the west was consumed with the guilt for what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, “and they should be, but the people who are paying the price for that are that Palestinians”. He also referred to a meeting he had in the past with a German ambassador who told him that Germany is guilty for two wrongs; what it did to the Jews, and the current suffering of the Palestinians. Archbishop Tutu criticized some Jewish groups in the United States who intimidate any person who criticizes the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and accused them of being anti-Semite. He said that such groups pressured many universities in the United States into cancelling his appearance on their campuses. Tutu added that this is a very unfortunate issue, and that his opinions are derived from the Torah. “God created us on his own image”, he said, “God is always in favor of the oppressed”. Commenting on the a statement made by Professor Neve Gordon, of the Ben-Gurion University, in which he said that selective sanctions should be imposed on Israel, archbishop Tutu stated that sanctions played an important role in fighting apartheid in South Africa. He added that sanctions are one of the most “psychologically powerful instruments”, and that sanctions “hit the pocket of the government in South Africa, when we had the arms, the embargo, and the economic boycott”. The Elders visited the West Bank village of Bil’in, near Ramallah, as dozens of Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists were holding their weekly nonviolent protest against the Annexation. Archbishop Tutu said that the peace activists in Bil’in remind him of Ghandi, as he managed to overthrow the British rule in India by nonviolent means. Commenting on some Israeli schools refusing to receive Ethiopian Jews in their schools, Tutu stated that he hopes the Israeli society would evolve. During the live webcast on the Elders Website, Archbishop Tutu said that he hopes to see a free Palestine and a secure Israel and added that peace is possible. “We are with yes, and yes, don’t’ give up, don’t give up, peace is possible, and we will be coming to celebrate with you when Palestine is free, and when Israel is free and secure”

Link: www.imemc.org/article/61523

Related Posts:

• Israel plans to devour the world: Hungarian MP
• A Video Which Israel Does Not Want You See
• An `Unknown Holocaust’ and the Hijacking of History
• German Scientists Call for ‘World Climate Bank’
• Government Directive Addresses Traveler’s Attempt To Prevent Search In A Timely Fashion

Related Posts:

• Obama CIA Ties?
• ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report
• How to Lower the U.S. Deficit Without Killing Social Security
• Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
• Scary Muslims crawling out of the woodwork just in time

With less than two weeks to go until national elections, the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, is trying to cut a secret deal with one of his rivals to knock out his leading contender and ensure a decisive victory to avoid the chaos that a tight result might unleash.

Afghanistan’s second democratic polls threaten to split the country along sectarian lines. That would risk undermining US and British-led peace efforts which are already under pressure from a resurgent Taliban.

Mr Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, hail from different ethnic groups and different regions. If neither wins outright in round one on 20 August, officials fear Afghanistan could be engulfed by violence reminiscent of the civil war of the 1990s.

“The whole country is armed. Everybody has weapons. You have to keep everyone happy,” an Afghan analyst said. Mr Abdullah’s campaign staff have threatened to hold demonstrations should Mr Karzai win, insisting that he could only do so fraudulently.

Mr Abdullah’s supporters, who are largely Tajik, have warned of Iranian-style protests, but “with Kalashnikovs”, should the President win a second term. Although Mr Karzai, a Pashtun, is still the favourite, his supporters fear that a third candidate, Ashraf Ghani, could split the Pashtun vote, depriving the President of the 51 per cent share he needs to win, and opening the door to Mr Abdullah.

Yesterday, details emerged of how the President was trying to join forces with Mr Ghani to unite the Pashtun vote and knock Mr Abdullah out of the race. Officials said the President had offered Mr Ghani a job as chief executive – a new post described as similar to prime minister. “If Ghani agrees to the terms, Karzai will dump his team and move forward, with Karzai as President and Ghani as chief executive,” a campaign official told The Independent last night.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador, are understood to have discussed the proposal with Mr Ghani late last month. “It makes sense,” a policy analyst with close links to the US administration said. “Holbrooke likes Ghani, and he has come round to the fact that Karzai will probably win.”

The idea of a chief executive was hatched in Washington as a way of handing the responsibility of running the government to a skilled technocrat. Mr Ghani has an impressive pedigree as a former university professor and finance minister. Two years ago, he was a contender to head the World Bank. What he lacks – and what might make the deal attractive to him – is the grassroots support that Mr Karzai and Mr Abdullah enjoy.

Sources close to the President’s inner circle confirmed that they had made an offer to Mr Ghani two weeks ago and the President’s brother, Qayum Karzai, had made the first approach.

“For Karzai it’s logical,” said a businessman with friends in the President’s team. “He doesn’t want to divide the Pashtun vote, and if it goes to a second round he’s going to lose.”

US embassy officials have denied any involvement in back-room deals. Foreign diplomats are desperate to avoid being seen to be influencing the election but the international community is equally keen to avoid bloodshed when the results are announced.

Last night, Mr Ghani’s staff said he was campaigning as usual and had no plans to pull out of the race. They said the Mr Karzai’s offer was proof of their own candidate’s strength.

The President, who has been in power since US-led troops overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001, has been criticised for his lack of control outside of the capital, the slow pace of development and endemic government corruption, but many people admire him for weaving friends and enemies together. “He has always played a game with the Northern Alliance, the Hazaras and the warlords,” said the Afghan analyst. “Giving people positions and promises, he was very clever keeping everyone together.”

During this election campaign, Mr Karzai has made deals with tribal leaders and local strongmen, promising them positions and patronage in exchange for the votes they control. International officials believe as many as 20 cabinet positions have already been pledged. It is unclear what would happen to these deals if Mr Ghani came on board. However, some observers believe the deal could signal the emergence of a unity government. “Everyone realises that winner takes all won’t work,” said one.

Violence, already at its worst since the Taliban were ousted after the September 11 attacks, has increased in the run-up to the poll. Yesterday brought news of a bomb attack on a family heading to a wedding in Garmsir, in Helmand province. Five people were reported killed. In a separate attack, in Naad Ali, five policemen died when a bomb exploded near their vehicle.

In western Afghanistan, a roadside bomb killed four US Marines, bringing the death toll of Western troops for the first week of August to at least 15.

Related Posts:

• Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
• Cracks Emerging in NAFTA
• Jackass Alert! USDA: Oh no you didn’t!
• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level
• To President Obama & All Our Government Leaders

UN Revelation About Rising Civilian Toll Just the Latest Bad News

A United Nations report today cautioned that the eight year long war in Afghanistan is increasingly taking place in residential neighborhoods, with both the Taliban insurgency and the international forces killing enormous numbers of civilians as they duke it out over control of the nation.

But today’s report was hardly the first indication that the war is going poorly, and that July in particular is a month which has seen an enormous number of records broken and new “worst month” reports.

46 foreign troops were killed in August 2008, the previous high. Incredibly, that number was equaled on July 15, and continued to rise hitting at least 70 by month’s end. 42 American troops died in July, also a new record, and 22 British soldiers died, the worst month that nation has seen since the 1980’s.

As the US continues to commit more troops to the war, it takes more and more aggressive stances, like launching the Helmand River Valley offensive, the largest the nation has seen since the Soviet occupation. But it has little to show for its escalation, with attacks on the rise and deaths among both allies and bystanders reaching ever higher levels.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has conceded that the US most show some sign of improvement in the nation within a year, or it risks long international support. There is certainly no sign that is going to happen, but the bigger question is: how much worse is it going to get in the mean time?

Related Posts:

• Scary Muslims crawling out of the woodwork just in time
• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level
• deputizing dentists, paramedics, and pharmacists to help administer vaccine
• Cracks Emerging in NAFTA
• Who Will Probe The U.N.-Vatican Connection?

By Prof. Marc W. Herold

By Eneko in Diagonal Periódico. June 12, 2009 During 2009, seven out of ten civilians killed by the Obama and NATO military machines have been women and children. Clearly, the Obama regime has failed on the metric of civilian casualties. A tacit agreement operates between the Obama administration, the U.S corporate media, most progressive U.S. liberals, and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA). All dream to a lesser or greater degree of a future social democratic paradise in Afghanistan where girls’ schools would be flourishing and small farmers exporting pomegranates. (1) Some debate exists over the means to achieve this end. Much ado has been made during the past five months as to whether the Obama approach to Afghanistan differs or not with that of its predecessor. What is certain is that Afghanistan has become Obama’s war. (2) Words matter: this is Obama’s war and it is a military surge. Obama has put in motion a surge of U.S occupation troops raising them by 50% to a level of 55,000 by mid-summer 2009 (including a 1,000-strong contingent of Special Forces). He is continuing and expanding Bush’s use of mercenaries. Pentagon data indicates that private security contractors working for the Pentagon have risen by 29% during the first quarter of 2009. (3) A debate centers upon to what degree the Obama approach is one of counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN). Central to the latter is the metric of civilian casualties and this is where the U.S media by commission and the UNAMA by omission enter the evolving Afghan tragedy. Much of the U.S left by having earlier proclaimed that the Afghanistan was the “good war” and being inebriated by the nation-building of humanitarian imperialism is now suffering from a bi-polar disorder, rendering it irrelevant. With the sacking of General McKiernan and the entry of General McChrystal (along with the continuing prominence of counter-insurgency aficionado Kilcullen), Obama appears to tilt towards the COIN approach in Afghanistan. Put in other terms, the approach is population-centric rather than military-centric. General McChrystal stated in congressional testimony that “the measure of American and allied effectiveness would the ‘number of Afghans shielded from violence,’ not the number of enemies killed.” (4) He also said, “This is a critical point. It may be the critical point. This is a struggle for the support of the Afghan people. Our willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage, even when doing so makes our task more difficult, is essential to our credibility. I cannot overstate my commitment to the importance of this concept…Sir, I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous things we face in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan people, the Pashtun most likely.” (5) His approach hence is classic COIN, rather than focusing forcefully upon taking the fight to the Taliban and their associates (military-centric). Naturally, the COIN strategy if successful by providing better actionable intelligence enables better carrying out the military fight against “insurgents.” This strategy finds favor both in Karzai’s Kabul (to which yet more monies will flow) and in European capitals where the military-centric approach is unacceptable. The “new” U.S strategy which it turns out is not new at all, involves building up the Afghan military-police apparatus, pressuring NATO to take a greater role, employing “precision strikes” to avoid civilian casualties, etc. All this was tried under Bush and failed. Why should we expect anything different under Obama? But what is new is the metric of Afghan civilian casualties. This was well expressed in an editorial of the Boston Globe, McChrystal and the new number two commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, must make one tenet in their guerrilla warfare playbook an absolute priority: protection of the civilian population. The Taliban are reaping benefits from a dynamic that should be familiar from other guerrilla wars. When Taliban fighters stage an ambush, US forces frequently feel compelled to call in air strikes or artillery fire. And all too often, as happened last week, innocent Afghan villagers are hurt or killed. The inevitable outcome is widespread anger against the foreign army. This is what Afghan President Hamid Karzai lamented again and again last week during a visit to Washington. He begged Americans to stop killing Afghan civilians. What Karzai knows, and what McChrystal must take to heart, is that nearly all Afghans despise and fear the Taliban. Yet no US strategy can defeat the Taliban unless the foreigners become protectors – not destroyers – of Afghan families. (6) An editorial in the New York Times of June 8th added Protecting Afghan civilians and expanding the secure space in which they can go about their lives and livelihoods must now become the central purpose of American military operations in Afghanistan. (7) As pointed out by Jeff Huber, the McChrystal metric of winning – the number of Afghans shielded from violence – is nonsense. How many shielded Afghans will equate to victory? Who is going to shield them? (8) General McChrystal who was head of secretive Joint Special Operations Command, involved in widespread murder and carnage across Afghanistan? In other words, under the McChrystal metric, it will be impossible to know when we have won. This is an invitation to war without end. While it is not my purpose here to critique the feasibility of “protecting civilians” and whether such ever was U.S policy – indeed I argued exactly the contrary in December 2001 (9) – a few words are imperative. Protecting the civilian population requires a massive and prolonged U.S/NATO presence in the countryside, but as I have argued elsewhere, such requires around 400,000 foreign troops. (10) The Obama surge is obvious: to give Afghans enough space to rebuild their lives (11); but it is far too little, too late. (12) Establishing such a presence necessitates clearing areas of the Taliban and their associates, but if many of the Taliban are residents of these regions then such clearing must take the form of population removal to fortified strategic villages (as in Vietnam). (13) Moreover, such clearing carried out with admittedly very poor on-the-ground actionable intelligence, will per force kill many innocents (as I demonstrate below has “precisely” occurred under the Obama clock). In other words, the U.S and NATO are caught in an unwinnable Catch-22. The metric of civilian casualties has two dimensions: the one on-the-ground in Afghanistan and the other how Obama’s war gets reported outside Afghanistan. In Afghanistan today, word spreads very quickly about civilians killed by U.S and/or NATO actions. The foreign forces constantly lament the effectiveness of so-called Taliban propaganda. The presence of cell-phone technology has greatly facilitated such diffusion. No way exists to contain the spread of such information within Afghanistan. (14) Things look very differently as regards how Obama’s Afghan war gets reported outside Afghanistan. Given the new metric of civilian casualties, the U.S government is going to greater lengths to manage the news coming out of Afghanistan. As is widely acknowledged, the U.S corporate (non right wing) media is having a “love affair” with the Obama administration. (15) This is obvious as regards matters of foreign policy, the Pentagon and all the more so for Central Asia. It is no secret that Obama has taken over the U.S peace movement. (16) For example, John Podesta’s ‘liberal think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) strongly supports Obama’s escalation or surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn.org today serves as a full-time cheerleader of Obama’s policy agenda and is at best silent on Obama’s Afghan surge. More importantly, the established corporate media is largely silent about the continuing devastation perpetrated upon Afghan civilians by the Obama Afghan war. Only when a thoroughly egregious attack takes place as in Farah in early May 2009 when 97-147 civilians perished under U.S. “precision” bombs, is mention made. A British newspaper (not the Washington Post or equivalents) published a photo of what happens on the ground when a 2,000 pound bomb explodes (see below). (17) A B-1B bomber dropped two such bombs on a string of villages in Farah province on May 5th with devastating results. (18) This is precision? The effective casualty radius for such a bomb (meaning 50% of exposed persons within this range will die) is at least 400 meters from impact point. A B1-B bomber delivers a 2,000 lb bomb upon alleged Taliban positions in the village of Yatimchay, Helmand, in support of an assault by British Royal Fusillers during Operation Mar Lew. Facts-on-the-ground reveal that under Obama since January, more bombs are being dropped contra the administration’s public relations. Rolfsen reports in The Navy Times that Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show. In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever. April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July. The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties. The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles. (19) One searches in vain in the U.S mainstream press for reporting upon all those bombs being dropped upon Afghanistan. Vietnam-era enemy body counts are now officially back as part of the U.S propaganda war. (20) Even less is written on the concrete results – other than the prolific references to “eliminated militants” – of such bombing. Such is to be expected from a corporate media largely in tow to the Pentagon and the Obama regime. Naturally exceptions exist as for example the independent reporting by the freelance journalist, Chris Sands of Britain who has been working independently in Afghanistan since 2005. (21) Sadly for every Chris Sands, there are dozens like Jason Straziuoso (Associated Press), Lara Logan (CBS 60 Minutes) or Laura King (Los Angeles Times) who serve as megaphones for the Pentagon’s version of events. The U.S. military’s “Jan. 31, 2009 Airpower Summary” stated “in the Musa Qala area, a coalition aircraft bombed an anti-Afghan force compound with a precision-guided munitions. A coalition ground commander had ordered the strike after enemy forces began shooting at his unit with small-arms fire and RPGs.” How did this look from the ground? Four months after the U.S air strike, the independent reporter, Chris Sands, reported what had happened on that fateful day. He interviewed a 13-year-old girl, Ghrana, in a Kabul rehabilitation center. Walking on crutches, Ghrana told Sands what had really taken place in Musa Qala when U.S war planes “bombed an anti-Afghan compound” killing and wounding many. Sands wrote She sounded neither angry nor particularly sad describing what happened during a journey to her sister’s house in the south-western province of Helmand, one morning. “I didn’t hear any shooting or anything. Then I saw red coloured bombs falling from the aeroplane,” she said. Nine of her relatives were killed, including her mother. Ghrana lost her right leg and much of her left arm. In military parlance she and her family were all collateral damage, an unfortunate, but inevitable, consequence of war. Each day that goes by they are joined by other men, women and children caught in a struggle that many Afghans say is more brutal than anything in their country’s history…Exactly why Ghrana and her family were bombed in Musa Qala district three-and-a-half months ago may never become clear. She insists there were no Taliban in the area at the time and there is no obvious reason why her family was confused for insurgents. Whatever the events were that led to the bombing, the results have been devastating. In a remote and violent part of one of the world’s poorest countries, she must now try to find decent medical treatment and piece her life back together. Meanwhile, her remaining relatives pray for the day when the foreign troops finally withdraw from their country. “It will be like Eid for us,” said her uncle, Ahmed Abed, a polite 32-year-old who brought his niece to Kabul. “The Americans know who is a Talib and who is innocent, but they don’t care. If it is a Talib or a girl, they don’t care. They are crazy. It’s like they are blinded by love. If anyone comes in front of their face, they shoot them. They never care who it is. I can accept that airplanes make mistakes, but I have seen with my own eyes them fire from a vehicle at a woman in the street.” Mr Abed’s anger is common among Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group. Predominant in the south and east, many of them were naturally suspicious of the occupation. Now, with their homes in ruins and their futures more uncertain than ever, they are downright hostile. (22) This atrocity went unreported until Mr. Sands wrote his article in the UAE’s daily, The National, providing evidence that the figures cited in The Afghan Victim Memorial Project are a significant under-estimate of the true toll taken upon innocent Afghan civilians by the U.S. and NATO foreign forces. Another exception is Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, who in February past penned an article titled “Afghan Civilian Casualties Rose 40 Percent in 2008.” (23) Mr. Filkins relied upon overall figures provided by the UNAMA in a report released in February, but complemented those with valuable case detail. The UNAMA report was certainly a healthy anti-dote to NATO propaganda which blithely asserted in January 2009 that only 973 civilians were killed and only 97 by international forces during 2008. But can we confidently rely upon such UNAMA figures? The UNAMA will apparently be releasing new figures for 2009 this month. (24) The UNAMA itself concedes that it is not engaged in “body-counting” in Afghanistan. The reasons cited include inaccessibility to many areas of conflict and a lack of adequate human resources to carry out such work. (25) urther skepticism is warranted as the UNAMA refuses to publish disaggregated data which would allow fact-checking. In effect, we are asked to believe in the UNAMA figures. But, such amounts to faith-based counting. The Table and graph below present the evolving matrix of death for Afghan civilians, 2005-2009. The rows represent different counts: Herold; the United Nations’ UNAMA; Human Rights Watch (HRW); the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM); and the Afghan Ambassador to Australia (only 2008 figure (26). The UN data is for deaths caused by all pro-government forces. In order to make it comparable, I have assumed that 15% of civilian deaths were caused by Afghan forces, giving the revised ( ) figures. The graph below converts the annual totals into monthly averages for each year. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (Jan-May) Herold Midpoint 408-478 443 653-769 711 1,010-1,297 1,154 864-1,017 941 401-494 443 U.N Adjusted 477 (405) 829 (705) HRW 230 434 ARM 1,100 Afghan amb. 1,000 In order to better discern the evolution over time, the graph below presents annualized monthly averages of Afghans who perished at the hands of the U.S and its NATO allies. What emerges clearly is that for Afghan civilians, 2009 has been as deadly as the high point of 2007. The average monthly figure for 2009 is 90 innocent civilians killed; if we take just the Obama weeks (Jan 21 – May 31st) the figure rises to 96 (identical to the worst monthly average for 2007). In other words, historical standards, the Obama regime fails on the metric of protecting innocent civilians from death at the hands of U.S and NATO occupation forces. Figures for the year 2008 are now available from the UNAMA, NATO and Herold. Whereas the UNAMA provides overall civilian casualty figures, my own work focuses only upon innocent Afghans killed by U.S/NATO actions. The NATO figure is sheer propaganda. The following Table contrasts the compilations for civilians killed by US/NATO: UNAMA figures for pro-government caused deaths Herold figures for US/NATO-caused deaths NATO figures for deaths caused US/NATO action All of 2008 828 (705) 864-1,017 97 Jan-May 2009 (inclusive) n.a. 401-489 n.a. Source: data for Herold can be reconstructed from the Afghan Victim Memorial Project data base The compilations are not strictly comparable. The UNAMA also includes civilians who perished at the hands of Afghan forces. In other words, one can safely assume that the UNAMA captures only about 70% of those counted by Herold. (27) This serves to lessen U.S/NATO culpability and improve U.S/NATO “performance” on the metric of Afghans protected from violence. How should one assess Obama’s Afghan war based upon the metric of civilian casualties? The U.S media and the U.S left are largely silent (the latter choosing to ignore data I have provided (28) choosing instead to rely upon questionable accounts by Human Rights Watch and the UNAMA). The previously mentioned rise in U.S air strikes augers poorly. The following Table presents data on civilians killed by US/NATO actions compiled from the Afghan Victim Memorial Project for 2009: Low count High count January 2009: Bush 20 days Obama 11 days 63 35 71 35 February 50 50 March 36 38 April 70 75 May 147 220 Sub-total…. Obama sub-total…. 401 338 489 418 It should be noted that the figures for the six months Jan-June 2008 (inclusive) were 278-343. Comparing this with the data for five months in the last row in the Table above clearly demonstrates that even by the standards of the Bush administration, the Obama regime cares less about the well-being of Afghan civilians at least insofar as waging a “clean war,” that is on the metric of civilian casualties Obama fails. What about the demographics of the Afghan dead? As I have long argued, well over one half of Afghan civilians killed by U.S and NATO forces have been women and children. Of the civilians killed about whom demographics are known (70% of the universe deaths), some 70% were women and children under the Obama clock (Jan 21 – May 31st) (29): Low count High count Men 65 + 11 = 76 67 + 11 = 78 Women 13 = 21 = 34 13 = 21 = 34 Children 71 + 65 = 136 71 + 65 = 136 Undetermined 92 170 Total 338 418 Note: For the massacre in Farah on May 5th, I have used the figures provided by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC): 11 males, 21 women and 65 children (31 girls and 34 boys). By disproportionately killing civilian women and children, the Obama regime has clearly failed on the metric of civilian casualties. Frequently one reads commentary (no evidence provided) that air strikes are more deadly for civilians than ground raids. My data base allows testing this hypothesis. The Table below summarizes the evidence for U.S and NATO actions during 2009 which led to the killing of Afghan civilians. Type of attack (1) Number of attacks (2) Civilians killed Ratio of (2)/(1) Air 23 213 – 270 9.3 – 11.7 Ground 41 90 2.2 Air & ground 6 27 – 51 4.5 – 8.5 Other (e.g. traffic) 4 7 1.7 The data clearly reveals that U.S/NATO air strikes in Afghanistan today are 4-5 times more deadly than ground raids. Conclusion Having inherited a war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration nonetheless had choices. Some for instance like Gilles Dorronsoro argued that the very presence of foreign forces was inflaming the conflict and that what was called-for was a scaling-down of military action, focusing and exiting. (30) Instead, the Obama team which includes many members of the former Bush regime, decided to fight the “good war” in Afghanistan. During the past five months, the conflict has further escalated and promises to do more of the same. By the announced metric of protecting Afghan civilians, the Obama team has failed miserably even more so than its predecessor. What is different is the public relations which began with in the words of Michael Stewart “Operation Redefinition.” One can redefine as much as one wants, the reality for Afghans pursuing their daily lives has deteriorated as documented herein. Since taking office and assuming the position of Commander-in-Chief, Obama and his NATO allies have killed at the very least some 338-419 Afghan civilians (compared to 278-343 under the Bush clock during the first six months of 2008). In addition, deadly CIA drone attacks within Pakistan have continued since Obama took command. Of the sixty cross-border U.S drone attacks upon Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, Only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent. (31) Simple arithmetic shows that in some eighty days in office, Obama has managed to raise the monthly average kill rate in drone attacks achieved by Bush from 32 during 2008 to 45 per month (for February-March 2009). The Obama team might well head the words of the Pakistani intelligence agent, ‘Colonel Iman,’ who after training at Fort Bragg’s Special Forces base, oversaw the training camps for jihadis (including Mullah Omar) during the late 1970’s and 1980’s. Iman told Christina Lamb (another fine independent British journalist), that he left Afghanistan in late 2001 and claims he has not returned, but “I can go any time on my old routes, even the Americans cannot stop me, but there is no need,” he said. “I have friends roaming all over there. At times they give me a call, they like to hear my voice. I’m quite happy with the current situation because the Americans are trapped there. The Taliban will not win but in the end the enemy will tire, like the Russians.” (32) The ex-CIA station chief in Kabul, Graham Fuller is emphatic that Obama’s policies are aggravating the situation in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world. But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis. (33) Footnotes: 1) Barry Newhouse, “Afghanistan Promotes Crop More Profitable Than Poppy,” VOA News (December 3, 2008) at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-12/2008-12-03-voa28.cfm?CFID=220129668&CFTOKEN=54857634&jsessionid=0030d4274705b99d6c2d3a285c43195e5a2d 2) This essay builds upon previous work as “America’s Afghan War: The Real World versus Obama’s Marketed Imagery,” RAWA News (April 12, 2009) at http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/04/12/americaand-8217-s-afghan-war-the-real-world-versus-obamaand-8217-s-marketed-imagery.html and in “What do Obama’s First 100 Days Mean to Common Afghans?” Global Research (May 1, 2009) at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13357 3) Discussed in Michael Winship, “The Privatization of ‘Obama’s War’,” Online Journal (June 8, 2009) at http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_4774.shtml 4) Al Pessin, “New Commander Pledges to Protect Afghan Civilians in ‘Winnable War’,” VOA News (June 2, 2009) at http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-02-voa76.cfm 5) Noah Schachtman, “New Top General Could Mean Changes for Afghan Airstrikes,” Wired.com (June 5, 2009) at http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/new-top-general-could-mean-changes-for-afghan-airstrikes/ 6) “New Strategy, New Commander,” Boston Globe (May 13, 2009) at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/05/13/new_strategy_new_commander/ 7) “Editorial Measuring Success in Afghanistan,” New York Times (June 8, 2009) at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08mon1.html?hpw Jeff Huber, “Our McMan in Bananastan,” Antiwar.com (June 8, 2009) at http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2009/06/08/our-mcman-in-bananastan/ 9) Where I wrote, “I believe the argument goes deeper and that race enters the calculation. The sacrificed Afghan civilians are not ‘white’ whereas the overwhelming number of U.S. pilots and elite ground troops are white. This ‘reality’ serves to amplify the positive benefit-cost ratio of certainly sacrificing darker Afghans today [and Indochinese, Iraqis yesterday] for the benefit of probably saving American soldier-citizens tomorrow. What I am saying is that when the “other” is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S. government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits. “See my “A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting [revised],” Cursor.org (March 2002) at http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm 10) See my “What do Obama’s First 100 Days Mean to Common Afghans?” op. cit. 11) by the defence editor of the London Times, Michael Evans, “The Yanks and Their Firepower are coming…’ but not to destroy the Taliban,” Times (May 12, 2009) at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6269130.ece 12) see “America’s Afghan War,” op. cit and Ken Fireman, “Obama’s Afghan Troop-Surge Plan May Prove Too Much, Too Late,” Bloomberg.com (December 23, 2008) at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a_G.w1Vgsork 13) the difficulty for U.S occupation forces to isolate villagers from the Taliban is described in Philip Smucker,: “US Soldiers’ Limited Options Limited to Protect Afghans from Taliban,” McClatchy Newspapers (May 25, 2009) at http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/25-3 14) See Jason Motlagh, “After Gunfire, U.S., Taliban Swing PR Cudgel,” ABC News (May 16, 2009) at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7601482 15) On the other hand, in Europe sharp criticisms are more common, see the excellent analysis by Alejandro Pozo Marin, Alliance of Barbarities. Afghanistan 2001-2008 10 Reasons to Question (and Rethink) Foreign Involvement” (Barcelona: J.M. Delas Centre for Peace Studies – Justice and Peace, December 2008), 44 pp. at http://www.centredelas.org/attachments/442_Afganistan_en.pdf 16) well analyzed in Justin Raimundo, ” ‘Progressive’ Warmongers,” Antiwar.com (April 7, 2009) at http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/07/progressive-warmongers/ 17) Chris Hughes, “We Witness the Dangers Our Troops Face in Afghanistan Minefield,” The Daily Mirror (June 1, 2009) at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/01/a-walk-into-the-valley-of-death-115875-21405430/ ) 18) see my account on the Afghan Victim Memorial Project data base at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/In%20memory%20of%20the%20Bala%20Baluk%20Massacre.%20May%205,%202009.pdf 19) Bruce Rolfsen, “Record Bombs Dropped in Afghanistan in April,” The Navy Times (May 4, 2009) at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_april_airstrike_050409w/ 20) Michael M. Phillips, “Army Deploys Old Tactic in PR War,” Wall Street Journal (June 1, 2009) at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124380078921270039.html 21) See for example his “Afghanistan: Chaos Central,” Counterpunch (February 25, 2009) at http://www.counterpunch.org/sands02252009.html 22) Chris Sands, “Afghan Anger Grows at Slaughter of the Innocents,” The National (May 19, 2009) at http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090520/FOREIGN/705199920/1117 23) in The New York Times (February 18, 2009) at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/asia/19afghan.html?_r=1 24) Mentioned in Adam B. Ellick, “Uncertainty Clouds British Report of Taliban Leader’s Death,” New York Times (June 3, 2009) 25) The UNAMA’s Human Rights Unit has around six people in each of the mission’s eight regional offices. The unit collects data on civilian casualties from various available sources and tries to verify the data. See “Afghanistan: UN Trying to Verify Civilian Casualties with Limited Resources,” IRIN NEWS (September 20, 2007) at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74396 26) from Brendan Nicholson, “Australian Troops Kill 5 Afghan Children,” The Age (February 14, 2009) 27) The 2008 mid-point figures for Herold is 939. I we assume that 20% of the deaths caused by pro-government forces were caused by Afghan farces, then the adjusted UNAMA figure is 662 (which is about 70% of 939). 28) for example, by Dave Markland and Tom Engelhardt, see Dave Markland, “Afghanistan Past & Present,” ZNews (June 9, 2009) at http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allPrintDocs/0550EC82594E0D75872575D000664F41?OpenDocument 29) This figure is almost exactly identical to that (72%) for the first eight months of 2008, see Marc Herold, “Truth as Collateral Damage. Civilian deaths from US/NATO air strikes in Afghanistan are not accidents or mistakes – they are calculated and predicted,” The Guardian (October 22, 2008) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/22/afghanistan-nato/print 30) Gilles Dorronsoro, “Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report (January 2009) at http://carnegieendowment.org/files/afghan_war-strategy.pdf 31) “60 Drone Hits Kill 14 Al-Qaeda Men, 687 Civilians,” The News (April 10, 2009) at http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=21440 32) Christina Lamb, “The Taliban Will ‘Never be Defeated’,” Times (June 7, 2009) at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6445981.ece 33) Graham E. Fuller, “Obama’s Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” The Huffington Post (May 11, 2009) at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html

:: Article nr. 55066 sent on 13-jun-2009 04:13 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=55066

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

Related Posts:

• Obama and Workers’ Rights in America
• We Have The Moral High Ground
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• Why is Orly Taitz in Israel Two Days After Submitting a Forged Obama Birth Certificate to a US Federal Court?
• Who Will Probe The U.N.-Vatican Connection?

By Jerome Starkey in Kabul

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

The End Run

On the evening of March 19, 2009, Lawrence Korb spoke at the University of Pittsburgh (video at the end of this article).

Korb was the Vice President of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) from 1998-2002. He was also the CFR’s director of National Security Studies during that same period. From 1985-1986 he was Vice President of Corporate Operations at Raytheon. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981-1985 during the Reagan Administration. He was an advisor to Barack Obama when Obama was campaigning for president.  He currently is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and a Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information.

Afghanistan: Deadly, Unaffordable Quagmire For Sale

The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War).…The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” – Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to CFR and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton, in his book Tragedy & Hope (1966), pp. 1247-1248

Korb discussed Obama’s plans for Afghansistan at length.  He said, “The indications are that, you know, he’s gonna be going big in Afghanistan.”

He acknowledged that this is a betrayal of what his supporters — many of whom are anti-war — were led to believe about Obama’s agenda during his campaign.

“A lot of people say, ‘Well, no.  We voted for him because we didn’t want [to go] to any wars!’” Korb said with an amused smirk.

In a mocking tone, he continued: “And… you know on the ‘BLOGOSPHERE’ you should see the stuff.  I mean, these people are mobilizing to stop going to Afghanistan.”

But Korb did not seem to think that this pervasive, adamant grassroots opposition to “going big” in Afghanistan should give Obama a moment’s pause, despite the fact that, according to Korb, “seeing it through” will require America to pay a high price, in both money and lives.

“I think what the president has to say if he wants to do it is be honest with the American people and say, ‘Look, if you want to do this, and you want to do it right, you’re going to be there for another ten years.’” Korb said.

Later, Korb indicated that ten years may not even be long enough.  He said, “Within ten years it should be okay if you do everything right.  But there’s no guarantee.” (emphasis added)

This is especially noteworthy considering that he also acknowledged that so far “we haven’t done it very well”

Korb went on to say (possibly still in presidential ventriloquist mode), “You’re gonna have to have at least 100,000 troops… and what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna put the troops in the areas to protect the population [inaud] where the Taliban is.  That’s gonna be more casualities, okay?  And you’re gonna have to do that, and it’s gonna be expensive.”

He also acknowledged that the Afghan people have become increasingly unsupportive of the U.S. occupation, and admitted that, in fact, the U.S. may never be able to regain widespread support from the Afghan people.

According to a poll conducted in late December through mid-January by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul for ABC News, the BBC and ARD German television, only 47 percent of Afghans hold a favorable view of the United States.  This number has fallen 36 percent since 2005, and the steepest drop has occured in the past year.  This may be due to the fact that, as the Guardian reported last month, “The number of civilians killed in the war in Afghanistan increased by 40% last year to a record 2,118 people”.

More than 420 U.S. troops have already been killed in combat in Afghanistan since the war began, according to USA Today.

Despite all of this, the former Council on Foreign Relations Vice President and Obama Advisor said that the president has “got to see it through” in Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is a “real threat to the United States.”

“It’s gonna be a very, very difficult sell.”

“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.  The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.” - Rear Admiral Chester Ward,  Former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and a member of the CFR for sixteen years, in his book Kissinger on the Couch (1975), co-authored by Phllyus Schlafly, p. 151

“This is not a war of choice; it’s a war of necessity”, Korb said.

Narco State

One way that Korb attempted to “sell” his plan for Afghanistan was by expressing concern that Afghanistan could “become a narco state”.

It is interesting that he would say that in light of the fact that in 2000, the year prior to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Taliban had banned opium poppy growing, causing the country’s opium yield to drop by a whopping 94% in 2001. [source]

However, within a couple months of the CFR-dominated U.S.announcing its “War on Terrorism” and invading Afghanistan (using the false flag attack of 9/11 as a pretext),  The Independent ran a story headlined, “Opium Farmers Rejoice at the Defeat of the Taliban”.  This article indicated that massive opium planting was underway all over the country.

In actuality, the invasion was planned months before 9/11, and Bush was presented with detailed war plans for Afghanistan two days before the event. [source]

Another article in late 2001 in The Observer stated that farmers were being encouraged by warlords allied with the victorious Americans to “being encouraged to plant as much opium as possible”.

Then, in December of 2001, The Asia Times reported that the U.S. had gotten convicted drug lord and opium kingpin Ayub Afridi released from jail, allegedly to help establish control in Afghanistan.

A few months later, it was reported that estimated opium harvests in Afghaistan in the late-spring of 2002 would reach a world record 4,500 metric tons.  In 2007, that number was a record-breaking 8,000 tons; and in 2008 it was 7,700 tons.

Last month, Reuters reported that today Afghanistan “grows more than 90 percent of the world’s illegal opium poppies, the source of heroin.”

Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat and professor at the UC Berkeley.  He has studied what he calls the “deep state” (as opposed to the “public state”) for decades, and has written nine heavily-footnoted books, some of which deal in large part with CIA covert operations and/or the drug trade.  On 3/18/09, the evening before Korb spoke in Pittsburgh, he had this to say on the Alex Jones Radio Show:

We had the cocaine epidemic that turned into the crack epidemic. And so much of it was as a result of what the CIA was doing.  It’s now official that in the first year that the CIA started operations in Afghanistan back in 1980, within months — certainly in that year — we went from virtually no heroine coming from that part of the world to the United States to forty percent of our heroine coming from that part of the world to the United States.  And it’s very striking right now that we can’t get the people who are in Afghanistan to target the big drug lords, you know?  Drug refineries… they process the heroine right there in Afghanistan.

Three days later, Global and Mail, Canada’s largest-circulation national newspaper, published an article entitled “Afghan officials in drug trade cut deals across enemy lines”, and subtitled, “Corrupt politicians are safeguarding traffickers who then help the Taliban, Globe investigation finds”.

The article relates the story of a specially trained unit in of police in Afghanistan which caught a drug dealer moving 183 kilograms of pure heroin, only to discover that the man had “a signed letter of protection” from “their own boss… General Mohammed Daud Daud, the deputy minister of interior responsible for counternarcotics, widely considered Afghanistan’s most powerful anti-drug czar.”

“That document, along with other papers and interviews with well-placed sources, show that Gen. Daud has safeguarded shipments of illegal opiates even as he commands thousands of officers sworn to fight the trade”, the article said.

And who is propping up these “corrupt politicians”?

“The annual budget for the entire Afghan government is largely provided by the United States and other international donors.”  – Reuters 3/18/09

It’s Pakistan

Korb said:

And its not just Afghanistan; it’s Pakistan…  I mean Pakistan has hundreds of nuclear weapons… you can destabilize that whole region.  And this is where Al Qaeda Central is.  If you walk away, you know, they’ll get ready to, you know, begin to do other things.

Personally, this came to mind when I was listening to him say that.

When the Iranians had a message for the Bush administration, they called the VP of the CFR

Korb told this story:

I was in New York in 2001 [inaud] The Council on Foreign Relations… 68th and Park.  About a week after that I get a call from the Iranian Ambassador to the U.S., because, remember we don’t have relations in Washington… and I at that time was Vice President [of the Council on Foreign Relations]… He said ‘I’d like you to come over for dinner with some of your scholars that work on that part of the world… And basically he said ‘We want you to convey this message to the government: We’re with you in Afghanistan.  We don’t like the Taliban; we don’t like this narco stuff; we don’t like Al Qaeda; we’ll do whatever we can to help you.’  Well, I think they had an exaggerated opinion of the Council on Foreign Relations… [inaud]… I called Condi Rice and told her.

Now, come 2002, January, Bush gives the “Axis of Evil” Speech.  I get a call from the ambassador; this time [inaud]… and of course they have not been helpful in Afghanistan since then.  And you may know that in 2003 they offered to sit down and talk to us about a whole bunch of issues, and we got mad at the Swiss Ambassador for transmitting the thing.

“Previous attempts to document CFR’s influence have been ignored or smeared… as ‘exaggerated’.  This is to be expected, considering the beachheads that key CFR members hold in all parts of the media, and especially because any attempts to tell the truth about the power and activities of CFR members is bound to sound exaggerated.  Actually, however, all the published accounts thus far have understated CFR’s influence…” – Rear Admiral Chester Ward, Former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and CFR member for sixteen years, in his book Kissinger on the Couch (1975), co-authored by Phllyus Schlafly, p. 148

Posse Comitatus

Members We Are Change Pittsburgh were on hand to film this talk, and the group’s organizer Dave Beard was able to ask Korb two questions during the Q&A session.

In the preface to his first question, Beard first mentioned recent plans to station active U.S. Army unit’s inside the United States.

In September of 2008, Democracy Now! reported:

Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

Beard asked, “Doesn’t that violate Posse Comitatus?”

Beard also cited a recent plan by the Iowa Army National Guard to conduct urban warfare training exercises.  These plans were canceled as a result of public outcry.

Korb paced around the stage with a perplexed look on his face throughout Beard’s question, rocking back and forth.

Beard asked “Have you heard anything about that?  What are your thoughts on that?”

Interestingly, despite his aforementioned body language and facial contortions, Korb did not answer the former question (”Have you heard anything about that?”) directly.

KORB: Well you got two… you’ve got to be careful.  You know, the National Guard, when it’s not mobilized is under the government.  We can use the national guard in a state function and that does not violate Posse Comitatus…

BEARD: …But… I’m sorry to interupt you.  But, we used them in Katrina to [inaud] towns.  They were used in New Orleans to disarm the public.

KORB: Well, yeah, okay, but then… and that’s an interesting legal question.  Whose authority were they under?  And basically they were under the control, theoretically, of the governor.  You had the [General?] in there to coordinate it.  And remember, the [inaud] Coast Guard… But yeah, that’s, uh, there’s been a lot of people that have argued we ought to drop that now, you know, given the fact we might have a terrorist attack and so on and so forth.  But the president can announce that he’s recinding it temporarily.  Johnson did it in ‘68 when we had riots in Detriot at the height of, you know, after Dr. King’s death and uh, people protesting the war.  Um, President… the first President Bush sent Marines to Los Angeles after the Rodney King and… see what happens… the governor has to say “My National Guard can’t handle it, can you send in active.”  And if you’re requested you can do that.  In fact, if you go back and look at the history of Katrina it was one of these things… Bush kept saying “The governor hasn’t asked me”… you see… you know… and that delayed the thing.

False Flags

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war… That is understood.  But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communicst Dictatorship…  the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same way in any country.” – Hermann Goering, a leading member of the Nazi Party and Hitler’s designated successor, as quoted by Gustave Gilbert in the book Nuremberg Diary

One interesting comment by Korb came in response to a question about the American people’s lack of support for the occupation of Afghanistan.

In 2002, the people who voted no all lost the elections. (laughs)

You know, it’s interesting that you mention that.  Go back and look at the Gulf of Tonkin, which everybody remembers was the authorization to go to Vietnam; and it turns out that that incident never happened.  I remember — I was on active duty — my commanding officer [inaud] said “Why would the North Vietnamese do this!?  You know?  I mean, it doesn’t make sense!”  Well [inaud] they didn’t do it.

The only two Senators who voted against that, Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse, lost the next election.  So it’s us when you get right down to it.

Just to be clear, the “us”, in this context, seemed to mean the American people.

Korb’s point is only slightly valid at best, and an outright canard at worst.  It is disingenuous not to assign any culpability for these policies to the elitist collectivists who have dominated our federal government for decades.  As a matter of fact, they deserve the lion’s share.  It is well documented that the ruling establishment in this country (and other countries as well) frequently uses the problem, reaction, solution paradigm, whereby (often criminal) elements within the government create, facilitate the creation of, or just plain fabricate a “problem” to incite a “reaction” from the people in order to get them to accept a “solution”, which is, in reality, the establishment’s predetermined political agenda.  The key aspect of this paradigm is the inherent deceit; deceit as a catalyst for manufacturing consent for a policies that the public would otherwise not be likely to support.  There’s a word for this: it’s called “fraud”.

It may be tempting to blame the people for “falling for” these ruses, but the truth is that it is ultimately the ruling establishment who is primarily to blame for the success of these tactics.  By seizing control of the education system and mass media, these people have deliberately and systematically worked to program generations of Americans from birth to be mostly oblivious to their machinations.

(Nevertheless, “when you get right down to it”, even if average Americans are not the primary ones to blame for the widespread ignorance in this country, it is “us”, and only us, who can save ourselves from the tyranny that they have endeavored to condition us to acquiesce to.  What is needed [and is in fact underway right now] is a mass “awakening”, not only to their endgame, but also their means to that end.  This is why exposing the problem reaction solution paradigm and real-world examples thereof is a critical aspect of combating the “new world order” agenda.)

It is especially interesting that Korb would bring up a false flag lie such as the Gulf of Tonkin in response to a question about the public’s initial support for war in Afghanistan considering that 9/11, the supposed justification for the invasion and subsequent occupation of that country, is the mother of all modern false flag events and the quintessential example of “problem, reaction, solution”.

Beard Questioned Korb on this.

BEARD: I noticed that you talked a lot about Afghanistan, but I don’t think there’s enough said about why we’re in Afghanistan.  Obviously 9/11 happened, but going back to the Commission Report, it was kind of a whitewash if you ask me.  And in light of the fact that we know that there’s been a lot of false flag events perpetrated by the United States – there was the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Gladio in Europe, the U.S.S. Liberty Incident – why wasn’t there a proper investigation of 9/11?  And do you support a new investigation?

KORB: Well, you did have the 9/11 Commission… whether… I’ll leave it up to you to judge.  I think that, um…

BEARD: Well even the Commissioners said they were stifled, there wasn’t…

KORB: …Well, ok I’m just… (trails off into laughter)

BEARD: (finishes brief comment, inaudible)

KORB: Alright, well you had… the administration did not even want to have [a] 9/11 Commission… if it were not for the, the, you know, the victims you know [inaud].  No, I agree!  And they talk about now… I’m not worried about putting people in jail, but I think we ought to investigate and see what happened so we don’t do it, you know, we don’t do it again.  Because – go back and look at your history – in the 70’s [when we had] the Church Commission, we found out that, you know, some of the things that were going on that we didn’t really know, and, you know, we shouldn’t have been involved [with].

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related Posts:

• America’s “Money Machine”
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Bailout for the People
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to war we go!

As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. We’re told that it will be a new, expanded, extra-special American adventure in Afghanistan, involving a vigorous surge strategy to “stabilize” this perpetually unstable land.

The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so. This mass of soldiers is expected to be deployed to a series of new garrisons to be built in far-flung regions of this impoverished, rural, mostly illiterate warlord state that is ruled by hundreds of fractious, heavily armed tribal leaders. We’re not told how much this escalation will cost, but it will at least double the $2 billion a month that American taxpayers are already shelling out for the Afghan war.

The extra-special part of this effort is to come from a simultaneous “civilian surge” of hundreds of U.S. economic development experts. “What we can’t do,” said Obama in an interview last Sunday, “is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems.” To win the hearts (and cooperation) of the Afghan people, this development leg of the operation will try to build infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.), create new crop alternatives to lure hardscrabble farmers out of poppy production and generally lift the country’s bare-subsistence living standard.

What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors. Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America’s good name.

Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama’s war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. Despite the widespread contractor abuses in Iraq, Pentagon chief Robert Gates defends the ongoing privatization push: “The use of contractor security personnel is vital to supporting the forward-operating bases in certain parts of the country,” he declared in a February letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What the gentle war secretary is really saying is this: “We don’t have a draft, and I don’t see a lot of senators’ kinfolks volunteering to put their butts on the line in Afghanistan, so I’ve gotta pay through the nose to find enough privateers to guard America’s Army in this forbidding place.”

Meanwhile, here’s an interesting twist to Obama’s contractor surge: the for-hire guards protecting our bases and convoys will not likely be Americans. The Associated Press has reported that of the 3,847 security contractors in Afghanistan, only nine are U.S. firms.

Actually, being an American contractor is not a plus in the eyes of the Afghan people, for they’ve had bitter experiences with them. They point to DynCorp, a Virginia-based contractor that got nearly a billion dollars in 2006 to train Afghan police. The bumbling “Inspector Clouseau” of comic fame could’ve done a better job. At least he might have amused the people.

What they got from DynCorp was a bunch of highly paid American “advisors” who were unqualified and knew nothing about the country. Some 70,000 police were to be trained, but less than half that number actually went through the ridiculous eight-week program, which included no field training.

A 2006 U.S. report on the DynCorp trainees deemed them to be “incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work.” Meanwhile, no one knows how many of the trainees ever reported for duty, or what happened to thousands of missing trucks and other pieces of police equipment that had been issued for the training.

The punch line of this joke is that DynCorp got another contract ($317 million) last August to “continue training civilian police forces in Afghanistan.”

Excuse me for saying it, but Obama is about to sink us — and his presidency — into a mess.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, “Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow.” (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly “Hightower Lowdown,” co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• America’s “Money Machine”
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• A Tapestry of Lies