US forces blow up Afghan civilian dead bodies: protesters

PressTV

Anti-US protesters in southern Afghanistan say US-led forces have blown up the dead bodies of three civilians, who were recently arrested and killed by the foreign forces in the country.

Hundreds of angry protesters blocked the Kandahar-Kabul highway in the city of Qalat on Monday, in response to the killings.

Foreign forces have reportedly refused to return the bodies of the victims to their families.

Protesters say the victims were all civilians and they had no connections with the Taliban militants.

This is while over Sunday and Monday, at least eight people were killed in US-led airstrikes in the Wardak and Kandahar provinces respectively situated in central and southern Afghanistan.

The loss of civilian lives at the hands of US-led foreign forces is a highly sensitive issue in Afghanistan, which has dramatically increased anti-American sentiment and triggered anti-US protests across the war-torn country.

The issue is also a major source of friction between Kabul and Washington.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 under the pretext of combating terrorism.

The offensive removed the Taliban from power, but insecurity continues to rise across Afghanistan, despite the presence of thousands of US-led troopers in the violence-scarred country.

Thousands of Pakistanis rally against US drone strikes

Nine-mile convoy led by Imran Khan heads towards South Waziristan as local officials say it will not be allowed to proceed

Thousands of Pakistanis, joined by US anti-war activists, have headed toward Pakistan's volatile tribal region to protest against American drone strikes despite threats from the Taliban.

The demonstrators, headed by former cricketer turned politician Imran Khan, say the strikes violate Pakistani sovereignty and kill civilians.

The rally is heading into a part of the country where the Pakistani military has been battling a violent Taliban uprising. The motorcade started from Islamabad on Saturday morning and, after an overnight stay in the city of Dera Ismail Khan, departed for the tribal belt. Local officials said the convoy would not be allowed to reach its destination in South Waziristan because of security concerns.

In a televised speech before the convoy got under way on Sunday morning, Khan thanked his supporters.

"We have achieved the goal of this march. Our message of peace has reached the world. I am thankful especially to the American group that came a long way here to join this protest against drone attacks," he said.

Thousands turned out on the road outside Dera Ismail Khan to cheer on Khan and the convoy of supporters and accompanying media, which stretched to a length of nine miles. Supporters packed into vehicles waved flags for Khan's political group and chanted: "We want peace."

Videos posted on Pakistani media showed barricades with hundreds of police in riot gear, a sign of concerns that the motorcade would be attacked or become unruly.

After three years of military operations in South Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan to the west, the Pakistani military is still struggling to suppress militants.

A senior official in the South Waziristan administration, Hameedullah Khattak, vowed that the motorcade would not be allowed to enter the tribal area. "We will not let them in South Waziristan for security reasons. Here is major security situation and we cannot provide them security," he said.

Factions of the Taliban have threatened to attack the march. On Saturday, a statement from a faction said to be based in Pakistan's eastern Punjab province warned that militants would target the protesters with suicide bombings.

The main Pakistani Taliban group, which is based in South Waziristan, issued a statement on Friday calling Khan a "slave of the west" and saying that the militants "don't need any sympathy" from such "a secular and liberal person".

Khan brushed aside the criticism but indicated that if the protesters are not allowed into South Waziristan, they will simply hold a rally wherever they end up.

Khan has seen his popularity surge in recent years, as the government, led by the Pakistan People's Party of Asif Ali Zardari, has disappointed many.

The US says its drone strikes are necessary to battle militants that Pakistan has been unable or unwilling to control.

US court calls CIA emperor without clothes

Press TV

A US appeals court in Washington has denounced President Barack Obama’s CIA-run policy of assassination drone strikes, calling the CIA an emperor without clothes. 


On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to court over Pentagon’s controversial drone policy after the US government refused to release documents related to the drone attacks, also known as the “targeted killing” program.

Judge Merrick Garland told government lawyer Stuart Delery, "If the CIA is the emperor, aren't you asking us to say that the emperor has clothes even when the emperor's bosses say it doesn't?"

The ACLU has tried to file Freedom of Information Act requests to get information on the CIA's drone program.

However, the US spy agency has refused to respond to the requests, saying that it cannot confirm the existence of the program.

The assassination drone program is cloaked in secrecy, even as officials up to President Obama admit it exists.

On January 31, 2012, Obama confirmed that the United States uses the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan and other countries.

In 2009, former director of the CIA, Leon Panetta said, "Because these are covert and secret operations, I can't go into particulars. I think it does suffice to say that these operations have been very effective."

“The notion that the CIA’s targeted killing program is a secret nothing short of absurd,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said on Tuesday.

The US regularly uses the unmanned aircraft for attacks on Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, claiming the airstrikes target Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, but locals say civilians are the main victims of the assaults.

The aerial attacks were initiated by former US President George W. Bush but have been escalated under Obama.

Reality Check: Afghan Attacks on U.S. Soldiers “trending” in the Wrong Direction

Why the Mideast Exploded, Really

Consortium News
Ray McGovern

Exclusive: The new conventional wisdom, in the wake of angry protests roiling the Middle East, is that Muslims are either way too sensitive or irrational. How else to explain the fury over an offensive anti-Islam video? But the video was just the spark that ignited a long-smoldering fire, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

“Why Is the Arab world so easily offended?” asks the headline atop an article by Fouad Ajami, which theWashington Post published online last Friday to give perspective to the recent anti-American violence in Muslim capitals.

While the Post described Ajami simply as a “senior fellow” at Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution, Wikipedia gives a more instructive perspective on his checkered career and dubious credibility.

An outspoken supporter of the war on Iraq, Ajami was still calling it a “noble effort” well after it went south. He is a friend and colleague of one of the war’s intellectual authors, neocon Paul Wolfowitz, and also advised Condoleezza Rice. It was apparently Wolfowitz or Rice who fed Ajami’s analyses to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who cited Ajami’s views repeatedly in speeches.

The most telling example of this came in Cheney’s VFW address on August 26, 2002, in which the Vice President laid down the terms of reference for the planned attack on Iraq. Attempting to assuage concerns about the upcoming invasion, Cheney cited Ajami’s analysis: “As for the reaction of the Arab ‘street,’ the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are ‘sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.’”

Author and scholar Fouad Ajami.

In his writings, Ajami did warn, in a condescending way, that one could expect some “road rage … of a thwarted Arab world – the congenital condition of a culture yet to take full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds.” He then added:

“There is no need to pay excessive deference to the political pieties and givens of the region. Indeed, this is one of those settings where a reforming foreign power’s simpler guidelines offer a better way than the region’s age-old prohibitions and defects.”

No One Better?

Ignoring the albatross of tarnished credentials hanging around Ajami’s neck, the Post apparently saw him as just the right academician to put perspective on the violence of last week in Middle East capitals. As for his record of credibility: Well, who takes the trouble to go to Wikipedia for information on pundits?

Nor were the Post’s editors going to take any chances that its newspaper readers might miss the benefit of Ajami’s wisdom. So the Post gave pride of place to the same article in Sunday’s Outlook section, as well. What the Post and other mainstream media want us to believe comes through clearly in the title given to the article’s jump portion, which dominates page 5: “Why a YouTube trailer ignited Muslim rage.”

Setting off the article were large, scary photos: on page one, a photo of men brandishing steel pipes to hack into the windows of the U.S. embassy in Yemen; the page-5 photo showed a masked protester, as he “ran from a burning vehicle near the U.S. embassy in Cairo.”

So – to recapitulate – the Post’s favored editorial narrative of the Mideast turmoil is that hypersensitive, anti-American Muslims are doing irrational stuff like killing U.S. diplomats and torching our installations. This violence was the result of Arabs all too ready to take offense at a video trailer disrespectful of the Prophet.

Nonetheless, it seems to be true that the trailer did have some immediate impact and will have more. According to an eyewitness, the 30 local guards who were supposed to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi simply ran away as the violent crowd approached on Tuesday night.

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya’s Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the video trailer which made the guards abandon their post.
“There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”

Predictably, Islamophobes and Muslim haters with influence over Western media coverage are citing the violence as the kind of “irrational” over-reaction that “exposes” Islam’s intolerance and incompatibility with democratic values and demonstrates that Islam is on a collision course with the West.

It is no surprise that Ajami gives no attention to the many additional factual reasons explaining popular outrage against the U.S. and its representatives – reasons that go far deeper than a video trailer, offensive though it was. Ajami steers clear of the dismal effects of various U.S. policies over the years on people across the Muslim world – in countries like Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Libya, Afghanistan. (The list stretches as far as distant Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state.)

Last week’s violence not only reflects the deep anger at and distrust of the U.S. across the Islamic world, but also provides insight into the challenges posed by the power now enjoyed by the forces of extremism long held in check by the dictators toppled by last year’s wave of revolutions.

Cui Bono?

Who are the main beneficiaries of misleading narratives like that of Ajami. He himself concedes, “It is never hard to assemble a crowd of young protesters in the teeming cities of the Muslim world. American embassies and consulates are magnets for the disgruntled.”

So, does that mean the notorious video trailer is best regarded as a catalyst for the angry protests rather than the underlying cause? In other words, if the video served as the spark, who or what laid the kindling? Who profits from the narrative that neocons are trying so hard to embed in American minds?

Broad hints can be seen in the Washington Post’s coverage over recent days – including a long piece by its Editorial Board, “Washington’s role amid the Mideast struggle for power,” published the same day Ajami’s article appeared online.

This 21-Year-Old Marine Predicted He Would Die At The Hands Of Afghan Security Forces

Business Insider
Michael Kelley

Lance Corporal Greg Buckley, Jr.

A 21-year-old Marine who was killed by an Afghan trainee had previously told his father that he would be killed inside his base, David Ariosto of CNN reports.

Lance Corporal Greg Buckley Jr. trained Afghan security forces in the restive Helmand Province before he and two other Marines were killed on Aug. 10 by one of the Afghans he was training.

Buckley knew something was wrong after a tormenting encounter with an Afghan trainee earlier in the year.

From CNN: 

"The guy turned around and said to Greg, 'We don't want you here. We don't need you here,'" his dad said.

"Greg turned around again and said, 'Why would you say that?'" according to Greg Buckley Sr.

But the trainee apparently wouldn't relent, repeating the phrases for hours over the course of a night in which the young Marine was on guard watch.

"Greg said, 'I thought I was going to lose my mind,'" his father said. "Pitch black out, and all he kept saying over and over again is, 'We don't want you. We don't need you. We don't want you.'"

Buckley's father said Buckley informed his superior officers that "one day they are going to turn around and turn those weapons on us," and asked his father to prepare to tell his mother and two younger brothers that he'd been killed.

This year there have been more than 51 NATO killed by allied security forces in Afghanistan, compared to 35 so-called green-on-blue attacks last year. The attacks have forced troops to carry loaded guns everywhere.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called the attacks the Taliban's "last gasp" while Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the U.S. military's top officer, called them "a very serious threat" to the war effort, according to BBC.

The Helmand Province is where Taliban dressed in U.S. Army uniforms infiltrated Camp Bastion, killed two U.S. Marines and caused more than $200 million in damage last week.

Indefinite Detention Ban Stayed By Appeals Judge In NDAA Case

Huffington Post
Michael McAuliff

A federal appeals judge gave the Obama administration the OK to keep enforcing its indefinite detention policy Tuesday, issuing a temporary stay of a ruling that had found the practice unconstitutional.

The stay, issued by Judge Raymond Lohier of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, lasts until Sept. 28, when a three-judge appellate panel will hear the case.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who sits in the Southern District of New York, had ruled against the administration last week, issuing a permanent injunction against section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on the grounds that it violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

Forrest also denied a stay request, rebuffing the argument of federal lawyers that stopping enforcement of the law does "irreparable harm" to the government.

The law allows the executive branch to hold without trial any person, including Americans, "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces."

President Barack Obama issued a statement when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act saying he would not hold people without trial and later issued regulations that bar the practice. Yet his Justice Department has vigorously defended the law, filing immediate appeals after each loss in Forrest's court.

Obama and the federal government were sued by a group of activists and journalists, including former New York Times writer Chris Hedges, academic Noam Chomsky and activist reporter Tangerine Bolen.

Forrest ruled that the law is so vague that simply by doing their usual work, the plaintiffs could conceivably be deemed to "substantially support" an "associated force" of the Taliban or al Qaeda, and thereby fall under the law's sway.

US suspends joint military operations with Afghanistan after attacks

Joint US-Afghan missions halted after US and other Nato soldiers killed in an 'insider attack' on the weekend

Guardian

Chis McGreal

The US military has suspended joint operations with Afghan forces because of a collapse in trust after a surge in the number of Americans and other Nato soldiers killed by the men they are fighting alongside or training.

The chief US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, described the sharp rise in "insider attacks" by rogue Afghan soldiers and policemen, which saw four American and two British soldiers killed at the weekend, as "a very serious threat to the campaign" against the Taliban.

American commanders said that joint operations on the ground will be suspended "until further notice" in a dramatic admission that the strategy to shift responsibility for fighting the insurgents to local forces has been deeply compromised by Afghan government soldiers and policemen killing 51 Nato soldiers in 36 attacks this year. At least 12 attacks were carried out last month alone, leaving 15 dead.

The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, described the attacks as the "last gasp" of a weakened Taliban. But the admission that Nato troops are no longer safe from the forces they are relying on to keep the Taliban at bay after the final US pullout in 2014 is a severe blow to Washington's military plans.

Under the strategy, members of the soon to be 350,000 strong Afghan security forces gain experience patrolling and fighting alongside American and other foreign soldiers. But the killings have led to a collapse in trust.

The US army said it is "not walking away" from Afghan military units and will continue to advise them. But Nato troops will patrol with them only when specific approval is given by a regional commander.

American officials say the insider attacks are carried out by a mix of Taliban infiltrators dressed as soldiers, by insurgents who have got themselves recruited and Afghan soldiers angry about their treatment because of personal insults or cultural differences.

US commanders had already assigned soldiers to guard their comrades as they slept, ate or interacted with Afghan forces because of the increasing number of "insider killings". American troops were also ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times, even inside their own bases.

Nato attacks on Afghan civilians have added to the strain. In the latest, an air strike killed eight women and girls collecting firewood.

The loss of trust in the force the US is relying on to prevent the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan again, compounds other concerns about Washington's strategy. The additional 33,000 soldiers Barack Obama despatched two years ago as part of the "surge" are expected to complete their withdrawal this week. The remaining 68,000 US troops are supposed to gradually shift responsibility to Afghan forces which, under the American strategy, are to take the lead in combat as early as next year.

But despite gains on the battlefield, questions persist about whether the Afghan forces will have the ability and will to keep an undefeated Taliban at bay once Nato forces have left.

False Flags and Imperial Mobilization: The Middle East Explodes on 9/11 Anniversary

Global Research
Larry Chin

Every year, people commemorate 9/11 without having a clear understanding of the original event or the elite agenda that made it possible. This lack of comprehension persists, even as the world explodes in series of orchestrated “new 9/11s” on the eleventh anniversary of the original crime.

* * *

What was still is

The attacks of 9/11/01 was a false flag operation of the Bush/Cheney administration and CIA-affiliated military-intelligence assets (Al-Qaeda, etc.). The resulting “war on terrorism” of the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations is built on false flag terrorism and propaganda. The “terrorists” are military-intelligence assets, acting on behalf of Anglo-American leaders and their allies.

9/11 is not history. It is now.

The overriding elite military and intelligence agenda remains the conquest of oil and gas resources. 9/11/01 was the first act of desperation among elites to control all significant energy-related geography on the planet, while preventing rival powers from doing the same.

Under the “war on terror”, the world has suffered eleven continuous years of false flag terror. Bombings. Destabilizations. Assassinations. Coups and counter-coups. Controlled and co-opted popular revolts and “mob violence”. Regime changes. Criminality beyond redemption.

As of this writing, new false flag terror attacks in various nations have been carried out by “terrorists” directly and indirectly connected to the CIA and Washington.

They have taken place simultaneous with mob action and grass roots street protests, likely stoked and guided by military-intelligence assets of the CIA and its affiliates.

The manner of the Benghazi attack suggests military-style coordination (also see here), and that the attack was allowed to happen.

The timing was politically convenient. The anti-Muslim film (allegedly by an American right-wing Christian zealot) that sparked riots, and its translated broadcast in Egypt, demand further inquiry. Popular unrest also appears to be guided and/or co-opted.

While the situation remains fluid, what is beyond question is that in the wake of this violence, there has been no attempt to negotiate peace. Instead, support is being drummed up for retaliation: new military attacks and aggressive US war policies, for either the “restoration of order” (Libya,), or new and long-planned regime changes (Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) In the famous words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, such attacks would spur the masses to support “imperial mobilization”.

This is not simply sudden chaos or reaction. Ignoring the multiple red herrings, the central war agenda has not changed in eleven years. It is simply being taken to a new level.

Military-intelligence assets behind every act

The Libyan violence, including the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens was carried out by the Al-Qaeda “freedom fighters” that helped the US overthrow the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. These assets are closely linked to American neoconservatives, including a large contingent of figures behind the Bush/Cheney apparatus. At the forefront is the bloodthirsty Senator John McCain, who is all over the American media screaming for vengeance. Other “leading suspects”, such as the Ansar al-Shariah group, are also Al-Qaeda linked.

Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif has stated clearly that the attack was “planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago”.

Al-Qaeda, a CIA front for decades, plays multiple roles, boogeymen as well as “freedom fighters”, on behalf of US policy.

In Afghanistan, the pattern repeats. The murder of four members of the NATO coalition force by terrorists impersonating Afghan police officers has been blamed on the Taliban. The Taliban is another Islamic front connected to the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, which is a virtual branch of the CIA that came to power with Washington support. There is no mention of these connections in mainstream reporting.

Syria has been targeted for regime change, and a “humanitarian” war. It is in the process of being destabilized, as are Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The same forces are involved in each region. The Haqqani network in Pakistan was recently named as a major new threat. Not mentioned is the fact that the ISI, as already noted, is connected to the CIA.

Iran has been the target of CIA covert operations and black ops for years. Like the other nations, it has been infiltrated and is brimming with spies and “terrorists”.

This combination—calculated, criminal military-intelligence programs by world leaders, competing and/or “out of control” intelligence assets, intelligence blowback, parallel with legitimate protests and popular backlash—is a recipe for global catastrophe, threatening the future of humanity.

Following the attack in Benghazi, the next step has already been taken, and it is not towards peace or order. Now that it has the luxury of another pretext, the Obama administration has sent even more CIA and FBI spies to the region (not mentioning the fact that the region is already brimming with intelligence assets working for Anglo-American interests), more drones, and Marines, including forces to the Syrian border.

This is the Obama administration’s “diplomacy”. The administration has plans to attack both Syria and Iran. His political “rivals” embrace the same plans, and more.

Cover-up and spin

As of this writing, US officials and the US State Department are involved in a propaganda dance with competing factions, all playing political football with this “new 9/11”. CIA-connected media outlets are unleashing waves of competing spin.

Speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, UN Ambassador Susan Rice claims that there was no “actionable intelligence” that could have prevented the attacks by Al-Qaeda, blaming the violence on “spontaneous” mob reaction. This, even while strong evidence suggests that Washington had clear warnings. This, directly counter to the claim by Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif that the attack was “planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago”. Many suspicious aspects abound, as noted by former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

And as it was eleven years ago, hot propaganda debate swirls deceptively around the ability of the supposedly “stretched thin” CIA, its intelligence successes or “failure” to “protect Americans”. We hear the endless assertions that the CIA and its many foreign branches, with their unlimited budgets, resources, technology and global stranglehold “lack the resources”. The criminal agency responsible for the bulk of the world’s terrorism is depicted as the heroic outfit that will “go after” the terrorists on behalf of America.

The parallels with the original 9/11 attack and propaganda cover-up are unmistakable.

Presidential election charade

While the world burns under the fires lit by military-intelligence, yet another sham of a presidential election is underway, with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney (and the poison-spitting vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan)—each of them war mongering corporatist candidates—falling over themselves to proclaim who is the more effective “terrorist killer”, and who will do a better job when it comes time to destroy Iran and Syria.

The outbreak of anti-Americanism abroad conveniently steers election debate away from a US economy that will not be revived, the endless looting of US tax dollars, and the destruction of social programs (and the fact that all of that taxpayer money goes to war and the CIA). It focuses American anger once again on “crazy Arabs”. The US population was false flagged and “dog wagged” on 9/11/01. It is being deceived again.

Towards oblivion

Thanks to successful mass conditioning, the annual 9/11 “remembrance” has become a yearly international holiday for the Big Lie.

Both the Republican neocons and the Democrats and the Obama administration benefit from this propaganda. Obama and Romney know that the US economy will not be repaired, and that there really is nothing to talk about.

But war is forever. Popular hysteria and hatred remain the keys to controlling the “hearts and minds” of the emotional and the uninformed, who do not bother to study history and facts, even though they are widely available.

It will not matter which war mongering US presidential candidate “wins” (granted the next seat by the consensus of elites, and given the fraudulent electronic vote totals).

The inability and refusal by the masses to recognize and resist this horror ensures that the atrocities to continue, towards even greater criminality and destruction.

The pandora’s box opened on 9/11/01 remains wide open, and set ablaze, on 9/11/12.

9/11 Mastermind Osama bin Laden: America’s Anti-Soviet “Peace Warrior” and CIA “Intelligence Asset”

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

“On September 11, 2012, let us not only renew our efforts to expose the truth, but also take our awareness a step further to understand that the wars launched since that fateful autumn day in 2001 - in the bitterly ironic name of “justice” and supposedly to combat “terrorism” - continue to take lives of people across the world. These wars are based on lies and their costs are staggering.”

The eleventh commemoration anniversary of 9/11 brings to the forefront the issue of 911 truth. The official story is that Al Qaeda, with the complicity of the Taliban government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Both George W Bush and Barack Obama claim that the late Osama bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, responsible for overseeing the 9/11 hijackers.

And that is why, we are told, that America is waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) under the Pentagon’s doctrine of “preemptive warfare”

The Global War on Terrorism not only targets “non-State” terrorist entities including Al Qaeda, it is also directed against alleged “state sponsors” of terrorism. In this regard, several Western countries including the US, Britain and Canada consider that Iran is supportive of the “Sunni jihadist terror network”, an absurd proposition. In December 2011, a Manhattan court judgment (based on selected testimonies and fabricated evidence), accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of supporting the 9/11 Al Qaeda hijackers.

The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case).

In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”. (See Michel Chossudovsky, the 9/11 Reader, Global Research, September 3, 2001)
Who was Osama bin Laden, the Alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks?

The US administration tacitly acknowledges that Osama bin Laden had been recruited by the CIA in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda which was supported covertly by the CIA.

The Blowback: The official version is that “we supported” Al Qaeda’s jihadist crusade against the Soviet Union. “It was for a good cause.:

According to Washington’s narrative Osama bin Laden “turned against us” in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war, which broadly coincided with the end of the Cold War (1946-1989), .

In intelligence parlance, “the blowback” refers to an “intelligence asset” which goes against its sponsors, namely the CIA.

In the immediate wake of the Cold War, bin Laden was said to have abandoned the jihad. He was portrayed with some hesitation as a “Peace Warrior” involved in humanitarian undertakings. The byline of this post Cold War photograph of Osama bin Laden published by the Independent in 1993, describes Bin Laden as an “anti-Soviet warrior” “on the road to peace”.

* * *
Robert Fisk’s 1993 report, published at the outset of the post Cold War era. described Bin Laden as a former “freedom fighter”, “Saudi businessman” and philanthropist:

Osama Bin Laden sat in his gold- fringed robe, guarded by the loyal Arab mujahedin who fought alongside him in Afghanistan. Bearded, taciturn figures – unarmed, but never more than a few yards from the man who recruited them, trained them and then dispatched them to destroy the Soviet army – they watched unsmiling as the Sudanese villagers of Almatig lined up to thank the Saudi businessman who is about to complete the highway linking their homes to Khartoum for the first time in history.

With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr Bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahedin legend. Chadored children danced in front of him, preachers acknowledged his wisdom. ”We have been waiting for this road through all the revolutions in Sudan,” a sheikh said. ”We waited until we had given up on everybody – and then Osama Bin Laden came along.”

Al Qaeda in the 1990s

Did Bin Laden abandon the jihadist cause?

The evidence amply confirms that in the wake of the Cold War, Bin Laden maintained his links with the CIA –indirectly through Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI)– and continued to perform the role of a US sponsored “intelligence asset”

Pentagon Describes ‘Long-Term and Acute’ Problems in Afghanistan

The failure of the war is abundantly clear, so Obama has decided to continue it on a smaller scale for another decade

Anti-War
John Glaser

The Pentagon Tuesday released a report on the progress of the war in Afghanistan that acknowledged a “resilient” Taliban and pointed to “long-term and acute challenges” as the military prepares for a considerable drawdown of forces in 2014.

Like all such Pentagon reports, mandated by Congress to be submitted every six months, this one touts supposed “progress” and so-called “security gains,” while noting they are “fragile and reversible.” But the inkling that the fundamental mission of eliminating the Taliban has failed is a notable conclusion.

The true nature of the failure in Afghanistan is much worse than the report indicates, though. For example, the January National Intelligence Estimate concluded the war is still a “stalemate,” that the Taliban are still strong, that the government Washington has propped up is plagued by pervasive corruption and illiberal policies, etc.

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis in February submitted his own report to Congress criticizing the “rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground” in Afghanistan, which he claimed bore “no resemblance” to the truth.

“Our current military leadership,” Davis wrote, “is so distorting the information it releases that the deterioration of the situation and the failing nature of our efforts is shielded from the American public (and Congress), and replaced instead with explicit statements that all is going according to plan.”

This widespread failure in Afghanistan is part of why the U.S. won’t actually be leaving on the date constantly labeled the end of the war. A huge contingent of U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014, perhaps until 2024, and operations like night raids and drone strikes into Pakistan will continue unabated. Instead of cutting America’s losses and quitting the lost war, Obama is continuing it for another decade.

‘US illegally occupies Afghanistan’

PressTV

The rising number of casualties in Afghanistan has caused widespread anger in the US and members of the Western military alliance of NATO, undermining public support for the US-led war.

As anti-American sentiment is growing among Afghans, the US and Afghanistan government have agreed on a draft for a strategic partnership deal.

The accord, which has not been made public, outlines the US role in the country for a decade after 2014, when most foreign combat forces are expected to leave.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Allen Roland, online columnist, to further discuss the issue. The following is a transcription of the interview.

Press TV: The US has finally made it official to stay in Afghanistan beyond the withdrawal date. Did you see this agreement coming?

Roland: Yes, but remember, first of all, let’s get a couple of things straight, this is not a war in Afghanistan, it’s an illegal occupation. This is not a war in Iraq, it’s an illegal occupation.

The government of Pakistan is illegal like your last [Afghanistan] speaker said. It’s an illegal government setup by the American government. This is all political.

This is Obama’s occupation, not Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s occupation. He’s doing everything to make it seem like we’re making progress right up until his election, if he makes it. I personally feel he will not be reelected.

Everything is going to fall apart after the election. This are [band aids] going on here…

We’re spending two billion dollars a month in Afghanistan, 120 billion dollars last year. There’s a reason Afghanistan is called the ‘graveyard of empires’, it’s going to be the graveyard of the American empire.

Press TV: Your answer basically clarified your views on the Afghan government but still having said that, how can the government of Afghanistan completely ignore the aspirations of its own people, and the rage and anti-American sentiments that Afghans harbor day by day now?

Roland: Remember, this is freedom fighters. The Taliban are freedom fighters. Think of it in those terms, you’ve got the picture. Anything that’s [being a victory], etc, and the slow deterioration of Afghanistan is not being reported in the mainstream press, only in the alternative press.

It’s sinking. It’s a moral [deterioration] that’s happening over there - all the outrageous treatment. The soldiers, most of our military over there, the large majority of them are dealing in drugs with the Taliban.

The Taliban army is no such army. It’s all [a show] to somehow put the impression that we’re winning or we’re on the right track.

We’re not. We’re sinking into the quagmire of Afghanistan. It’s Obama’s occupation. He’s going to go down with it. 

Taliban lead attacks on U.S. bases and government sites across Afghanistan

McClatchy
Jonathan S. Landay and Ali Safi |

KABUL, Afghanistan — Taliban-led insurgents opened a spring offensive Sunday with a wave of coordinated suicide missions, firing at embassies and government offices from seized buildings in Kabul and attacking U.S. bases and police stations in three eastern provinces.

The strikes, which seemed to catch U.S.-led forces and Afghan authorities by surprise, sparked fierce firefights in Kabul and two other cities that underscored the insurgency's lethality as U.S. combat troops gird for the second phase of a withdrawal due to end in 2014.

"This is the start of the spring operations," Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, declared in a cellphone interview with McClatchy. "This is just the beginning."

The violence, which lasted past nightfall in Kabul and Puli Alam, the capital of neighboring Logar province, claimed the lives of at least 26 insurgents and four civilians, Afghan and NATO officials said. At least 36 others, mostly civilians, were wounded. All of the casualties were Afghans. Some of the attackers were captured.

The attacks, Mujahid said, were "a message" in response to recent assertions by U.S. officials and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen "that there would be no spring offensive because we are not able to fight."

The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, issued a statement calling the strikes "largely ineffective."

In a separate statement, the ISAF commander, U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, praised the response of Afghan security forces. The insurgents' choice of targets, he added, "speaks volumes about where we are in this campaign" to crush the insurgency and create a "sovereign Afghanistan responsive to its people."

But while the violence brought them no military gains, the insurgents demonstrated their ability once again to stage complex operations inside the security rings of Kabul and other government centers that will without doubt stoke fears of continued turmoil after U.S. and allied combat forces are gone at the end of 2014.

The audacious attacks — mirroring a September incident in which insurgents seized an unfinished high-rise and fired into the U.S. Embassy compound for nearly 24 hours before being killed by Afghan security forces — could also fuel demands in the United States and other NATO capitals to accelerate the withdrawal of international forces after more than a decade of fighting in Afghanistan.

The violence in Kabul began with intermittent gunfire and then a series of window-shaking blasts around 1:15 p.m., disrupting a languid spring day. Traffic and pedestrians raced from the streets as police blockaded major thoroughfares, paralyzing the city center, and merchants gated their shops.

There was no sign that ISAF or Afghan authorities had prior intelligence of the attacks, with security at the international force's headquarters and around the city no tighter than usual.

The attacks showed that the insurgents remain fully capable of executing complex operations requiring extensive preparations, including scouting the buildings they seized and transporting their weapons and extensive stocks of ammunition to them without being caught.

Militants free hundreds in attack on Pakistan jail

Ghana MMA

Almost 400 prisoners have escaped from a prison in Pakistan after it was attacked by militants, officials say.

At least 100 Islamist militants launched the assault on the jail in north-west Pakistan at 01:00 (20:00 GMT Saturday).

Officials said some of the freed men were “dangerous” insurgents, including an inmate on death row for trying to kill ex-President Pervez Musharraf.

The jail is located in Bannu, a town in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which borders Pakistan’s volatile tribal areas.

On several occasions over the last year, the Pakistani Taliban have employed a similar tactic of using a large number of militants to attack a single site at the dead of night.

In the past it has been military outposts close to the Afghan border that were the target; this time it was even more audacious.

Police say the attackers went straight to the wing of the prison that housed death row inmates, including Adnan Rashid. He was a comparative rarity in Pakistan: a man convicted for his part in a militant plot.

Those responsible for years of attacks in Pakistan are seldom brought to book, and security failings are rarely fully acknowledged.

That is likely to be the case again with the attack on the prison in Bannu. It is yet another incident involving a supposedly secure compound that will make many wonder what, if anything is safe from the militants.

Pakistan’s Taliban said they carried out the attack, but the claim has not been verified.

“We attacked the Bannu prison and got our special members freed,” Ehsanullah Ehsan, a Taliban spokesman, told Agence France-Presse.

“In a couple of days when all of them have reached their designated places we will issue details about them. At the moment I cannot give you exact numbers.”

A spokesman quoted by the Reuters news agency said hundreds of inmates had been freed.
Officials described how militants in cars and pick-up trucks entered the complex shooting and throwing grenades.

A total of 384 prisoners were freed in the attack, the Information Minister of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Mian Iftikhar Hussain, said.

He described at least 20 of the prisoners as very dangerous, and that Adnan Rashid, a former member of the air force sentenced to death for an attack on Mr Musharraf, was among those who escaped.
Senior Bannu police official Iftikhar Khan told AFP that three police officers were wounded in the two-hour attack.

The BBC’s Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says the attack is clearly a setback for Pakistan’s security forces, who over the last year have gained considerable ground against militants in the north-west of the country.

The Taliban carried out an audacious jail raid near Kandahar in Afghanistan in April last year, freeing at least 470 prisoners, including Taliban commanders and fighters.

Murder in Afghanistan, the Coverup Begins

Veterans Today

Gordon Duff

Sixteen Dead, Nameless “Lone Gunman,” We Have Heard It All Before

The village is Balandi, outside Kandahar in Afghanistan.  Thus far the dead are 16, shot in their homes, not just said to be “women and children” but actually infants murdered in their mother’s arms and set afire.

The US claims the perpetrator to be an unnamed “Army Staff Sergeant who has turned himself in.”

There are inconsistencies.

This is the report from Reuter’s today:

Afghan officials also gave varying accounts of the number of shooters involved.

Karzai’s office released a statement quoting a villager as saying “American soldiers woke my family up and shot them in the face.”

“They (Americans) poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them,” Samad told Reuters at the scene.

Neighbors said they had awoken to crackling gunfire from American soldiers, who they described as laughing and drunk.

“They were all drunk and shooting all over the place,” said neighbor Agha Lala, who visited one of the homes where killings took place.

“Their (the victims’) bodies were riddled with bullets.”

The village is outside the gate of an American base.  A single soldier without a vehicle would have had to evade security and tunnel under the wire and walls to reach the village or, much more likely, this was more than one man?

This is how CNN has it as for the morning of the 12th.  Story embellishment, as you will note involves a “bed count” and a “search patrol.”  I believe the next story will include rocket flares and bloodhounds.  We will wait for this one.  To impart credit to the Army, their belated response is much more creative but as full of holes as a sieve.  A minor thing to add here, of course, is that a Staff Sergeant, as the perpetrator or suspect, whichever you choose, “patsy” if you will, is a Staff Sergeant, rank E 6.  At 3:AM, those of such rank typically do not “stand watch” on towers or in bunkers.

Then, of course, we will return to the forgotten jerrycan, taken off the nonexistent vehicle to burn the bodies of the dead.  I did, however, feel a need to get this response added in so that readers in the Western Hemisphere would be better informed.  Another minor error in the report below, noted in our earlier evaluation and reiterated here, above that text, is the nature of the armed response team.

They “came a runnin’” based on someone missing from a bed rather than from gunfire, screams and flaming bodies a short distance away.  As is so easily noted, as one begins lying, one lie ties to another, one absurdity to another and, in the end, it is always a “malcontent” and “lone gunman.”  By now we would have seen a list of antipsychotic medications but “legal” was already informed by pharmaceutical companies that there is already a rash of murder/suicides for those on medications the military and Departmetn of Veterans Affairs has prescribed for those suffering from combat stress ( or misdiagnosed as suffering from “personality disorders” or “pre-existing trauma”).

In order to leave the many “blameless,” this will have to be a singular occurrance of magical proportions, no pre-indications, no signs of any kind, no diagnosis and medical records entering shredders, being wiped from hard drives, flaming in trash cans as we speak.  But for how many, one or four or perhaps more?  CNN:

“We call this an intentional act,” Karzai said. He said the dead included four men, three women and nine children, calling the killings “acts of terror and unforgivable.” Another five people were wounded, he said. 

Capt. Justin Brockhoff, an ISAF spokesman, said the wounded Afghans were being treated in ISAF facilities. The allied command did not give its own estimate of casualties. 

Brockhoff said officials do not yet have a motive for the shooting, which is under investigation by both NATO and Afghan officials. And Maj. Jason Waggoner, another ISAF spokesman, said the soldier “was acting on his own.” 

There were no military operations in the area, either on the ground or in the air, at the time, according to two senior ISAF officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. They said only one soldier, an Army staff sergeant, is believed to have been involved. 

A U.S. military official told CNN later Sunday that the suspect is from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. The official said the soldier is assigned to a Special Forces unit. 

A third ISAF official said Afghan troops spotted the soldier leaving his combat outpost around 3 a.m. Sunday and notified their American counterparts. The U.S. military did an immediate headcount, found the soldier was missing and dispatched a patrol to go look for him, the official said. 

The officials said they have no knowledge at this point whether he had any previous medical or mental health issues in his record. 

The patrol met him as he returned and took him into custody. He said nothing, and it was unclear whether they knew what had happened, the official said. 

“We don’t know what motivated this individual, and we’re not sure where this is going to take us,” Capt. John Kirby, an ISAF spokesman, told CNN. But he said ISAF’s commander, Gen. John Allen, “has made it clear this investigation is going to be thorough. It’s going to be done rapidly, in an expeditious way, and we’re going to hold the perpetrator of these attacks to account.”

Why? Only a vehicle with more than one man, one that could claim it had been tasked with some sort of “rendition” or “search and destroy” mission could have been allowed out by security.

Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here

The Independent
Robert Fiske

Look east and what does Bashar see? Iran standing with him and Iraq refusing to impose sanctions

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

From Bad to Abysmal

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.

In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.

Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

Tariq Ali: Obama’s Expansion of Af-Pak War "Has Blown Up in His Face"

Great read.

Axis of Logic

Amid ongoing U.S.-Pakistani tensions and fears of a military coup in Pakistan, we are joined by British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, filmmaker and novelist, Tariq Ali. Ali discusses Pakistan’s internal turmoil, as well as Pakistani attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy, the GOP presidential contest, and the prospect of a military strike against Iran. "[Pakistanis] are basically suffering because Obama, arrogantly, escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and thought he could get away with it. That has now blown up in his face," Ali says.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to Pakistan, where some say a military coup is imminent. The country’s government is facing uncertainty over its future, four years after a return to democratic rule. During that time, there has also been a near collapse in relations between Pakistan and the United States. The last year witnessed an increase in drone attacks, the killing of two Pakistanis by CIA contractor Raymond Davis, and the U.S. raid that led to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Now Pakistan has forced the U.S. to close a key drone base and threatened to shoot down any U.S. drones. This follows an attack on a senior al-Qaeda member last week, the first drone strike after an eight-week pause. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports the United States is paying six times as much to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan after Pakistan closed two key border crossings to NATO convoys. The closings came after a U.S. air strike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November.

Yesterday, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, said the relations with the United States were on hold.

HINA RABBANI KHAR: I would say they are conveniently on hold, until we start re-engaging. If an incident happened in a reaction to that, the government clearly said that we will be looking at, you know, re-evaluation of our terms of engagement with the United States. Now, that re-evaluation process is underway as we speak. So, ’til the time that that re-evaluation process is not complete, we cannot start the re-engagement.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the State Department announced the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, will visit New Delhi on his way to Kabul for talks with President Karzai and other top officials.
For more, we’re joined now by Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, filmmaker, novelist. He’s the author of over 20 books, including The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power, as well as The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!

TARIQ ALI: Great to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: First, is a coup imminent in Pakistan?

TARIQ ALI: I don’t think so. I think the military is not interested in pushing for a coup at the moment. They are relying on the Supreme Court to get rid of a corrupt president. And what has happened is that the Supreme Court has instructed the Prime Minister to charge the President with corruption and related crimes, and the Prime Minister has refused. So the Supreme Court is now charging the Prime Minister with contempt of court. That was the last news I got from Pakistan. And the military is going to let all this play out.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But now, the Prime Minister was at first saying that he believed the President had immunity. What is the legal situation in Pakistan of sitting presidents and leaders of the country, in terms of their immunity from prosecution?

TARIQ ALI: Well, there is no immunity, but a national reconciliation ordinance was passed by the assembly on the say-so of the military when the United States sent Benazir Bhutto back. And they said all the politicians’ crimes, financial crimes, the slate would be wiped clean. This was accepted. Now there’s an appeal in the Supreme Court saying that the NRO was illegal, and the Supreme Court has accepted that. So no one—no corrupt politician, in power or out of power, has immunity, if that decision is upheld.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this month, the Obama administration unveiled a new military strategy billed as a move toward a leaner, streamlined global U.S. force. The U.S. vows a stepped-up focus on the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the increased use of drone strikes that have targeted militants in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa. The plan also touts a reduction in military spending, but only when compared to previous increases. Unveiling the plan at the Pentagon, President Obama said military spending will exceed its levels at the end of the George W. Bush administration’s second term.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region. We’re going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time and again, most recently in Libya, that it’s a force multiplier. We will stay vigilant, especially in the Middle East. I think it’s important for all Americans to remember, over the past 10 years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: it will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, you wrote The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad. And included in answering this, talk about what happened with the 24 Pakistani soldiers, the significance of this, and how the U.S. is perceived in Pakistan.

TARIQ ALI: Well, Amy, the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers and the bombing of their checkpoint makes no rational sense at all. The United States did it. They knew it was a military checkpoint. They knew that it was Pakistani soldiers. They haven’t yet been able to come up with any reasonable explanation as to how that happened. So one has to assume that it was deliberate. And this happened roughly at the same period as Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, sent a message to the Pentagon saying, "Come and help us against our own army. We’ll do whatever you want," which has become a huge scandal in Pakistan. It’s like a Clancy novel. And the ambassador actually going and pleading. This ambassador has now been removed. Another one has been appointed. So all sorts of things are going on behind the scenes, of which we haven’t yet heard the whole—the whole story is yet to come out.

The Afghan Dust is Settling

Global Research
Eric Walburg

Yes, it really is another Vietnam, and just as in 1972, presidential elections will make no difference.

Scarcely a word is heard about foreign affairs amid US election talk, despite the many fires around the world that the US military is either stoking or trying to douse -- depending on your point of view. Other than Republican contender Ron Paul -- not a serious candidate for the mainstream -- no one questions the plans for war on Iran, Israel’s continued expansion in the Occupied Territories, or US plans to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The problem is that decisions about these vital American policies are not for mere presidents or presidential hopefuls to mull over. The one principled decision that US President Barack Obama made, his first upon coming to office, was to announce that he would close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. After all, he had voted against his predecessor’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq, and it was on this basis that he was able to energise an otherwise disillusioned Democratic base and surge past the more acceptable white alternatives Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Obama’s record on foreign policy has been shocking in retrospect. His call from Cairo for a new dispensation in the Middle East soon after his vow to close Guantanamo, along with this vow, are now in history’s dustbin. His enthusiastic embrace of the worst of Bush’s policies, from drones, assassinations and mercenaries to Orwellian police-state security are frightening proof of the helplessness of US politicians these days.

No better evidence that this paralysis will make the next four years the most perilous in US history is found in the bloody news dripping out of Afghanistan. NATO soldiers, Afghan soldiers and police, resistance fighters, and, of course, women and children continue to be killed at alarming rates, even as the Taliban open an office in Qatar (originally denied by all parties). Peace negotiations came to a standstill last year after the assassination of High Peace Council chief Burhanudin Rabbani (Afghan president 1992-96) by a visitor posing as a peace messenger from the Taliban.

A total of 560 NATO soldiers, most of them Americans, were killed in Afghanistan in 2011, the second highest number in the 10-year war, down from a high of 711 in 2010 after the start of Obama’s surge, still higher than the 521 in 2009.

But according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, “security-related events” were up by 21 per cent in 2011 compared to 2010. By this he meant attacks such as the car bombing of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) convoy in Kabul last October which killed 17, the shooting down of a helicopter in Wardak south of the capital last August in which 30 US troops perished, and the explosion that killed at least 80 people in a shrine in Kabul on the Shia holy day of Ashura in early December. Many ISAF deaths are at the hands of Afghan soldiers. The recent Abu Ghraib-type scandal of US soldiers defiling Afghan dead merely ups this perverse ante.

Unexpected Road Block to Afghanistan Peace: Gitmo

Wired

Negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban after 10 years of war in Afghanistan is hard enough. But the stalemated politics of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility risk effectively killing the negotiations before they even have the chance to end the war.

The Taliban leadership has evidently decided it wants to talk peace terms. Among the things it wants as a gesture of good faith from its U.S. adversaries: the release of five detainees from Guantanamo.

Provisions in the defense bill recently signed into law by President Obama make it difficult to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, the terrorism detention complex that turns 10 years old this week. But they’re a symptom of a greater obstacle to a peace deal: Congress’ broad, bipartisan allergy to releasing any detainees from Gitmo at all.

The calendar actually makes it worse than that. 2012 is an election year. Opening Guantanamo Bay’s doors as a gesture to the Taliban is a narrative practically begging for a political attack ad.

Pakistani soldiers who survived Nato attack say it was unprovoked attack

Refreshing News

Pakistani soldiers who survived a Nato air strike on two military border posts that killed 24 of their colleagues insisted on Sunday that they had not opened fire across the Afghan border and were the victims of an unprovoked attack by American aircraft.

Pakistani soldiers carry the coffins of their comrades who were killed in a NATO strike during a funeral ceremony in Peshawar

Nato has so far stopped short of apologising for Saturday's early morning raid but has expressed regret for what it termed "a tragic unintended incident", that has taken relations between Islamabad and Washington to the brink of collapse, and prompted furious protests in Pakistani cities.

It is understood that the attack, on two posts near the Afghan-Pakistani border, was carried out during a US and Afghan special forces operation to clear alleged Taliban training camps inside Afghanistan.

Afghan officials on Sunday claimed their forces had called in an air strike after coming under attack from the Pakistani side of the border.

Amirzeb Khan, 23, said the area around the checkpoints, about two miles from the border, had been cleared of militants and the night had been quiet.

The attack, he said, came at about 2am. They counted four helicopters.

"Initially, we thought that the attackers were Taliban and we took positions to retaliate but then saw that at least four helicopters were shelling from above," he said from his bed at the Combined Military Hospital in Peshawar, where he was being treated for shrapnel injuries to his abdomen.

Hameedullah Wazir described a scene of chaos as an apparently indiscriminate rain of rockets exploded around the checkpoint, waking sleeping troops. He said the survivors simply ran.

"We didn't find time to respond as everything took place so quickly that we were unable to fight back," he said.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato Secretary General, said the attack was "unacceptable and deplorable".

"I offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the Pakistani officers and soldiers who lost their lives or were injured, and to the government and people of Pakistan, following the regrettable incident along the Afghan-Pakistani border," he said.

American helicopters have conducted multiple attacks in Pakistan while in "hot pursuit" of Taliban and Haqqani network militants, who use the country's mountainous tribal areas as safe havens after launching cross-border raids.

Yesterday, a local Afghan official accused the Pakistani troops at the border outpost of helping the Taliban.